| Part ofa series on |
| Hindu scriptures and texts |
|---|
 |
Rig vedic Sama vedic Yajur vedic Atharva vedic |
Other scriptures |
| Related Hindu texts |
|
Timeline |
TheBrahma Sūtras (Sanskrit:ब्रह्मसूत्राणि), also known as theVedanta Sūtra (Sanskrit: वेदान्त सूत्र),[1][note 1]Shariraka Sūtra,[note 2] andBhikshu-sūtra,[note 3] are aSanskrit text which criticizes the metaphysical dualism of the influentialSamkhya philosophy,[5] and instead synthesizes and harmonizes divergentUpanishadic ideas and practices about the essence of existence, postulating God-likeBrahman as the only origin and essence of everything. It is attributed to the sagesBādarāyaṇa, who is also calledVyāsa (arranger), but probably an accumulation of incremental additions and changes by various authors to an earlier work, completed in its surviving form in approx. 400–450 CE.[6][note 4] The oldest version may be composed between 500 BCE and 200 BCE,[7][8] with 200 BCE being the most likely date.[9]
TheBrahma Sūtras consist of 555 aphoristic verses (sutras) in four chapters,[10] dealing with attaining knowledge of Brahman.[1][11] Rejecting thesmriti as a base of knowledge, it declares that the VedicUpanishads are the only acceptable source of truth, unfallible revelations describing the same metaphysical Reality,Brahman, which cannot be different for different people. The text attempts to synthesize and harmonize diverse and sometimes apparently conflictingvidyas ("knowledges") of, andupasanas (meditation, worship) of the essence of existence, stating they are actually synonyms forBrahman. It does so from abhedabheda-perspective,[1] arguing, as John Koller states: "that Brahman and Atman are, in some respects, different, but, at the deepest level, non-different (advaita), being identical."[12]
The first chapter rejects Samkhya's view onpradhana, stating that an inert first principle cannot account for a universe which reflects purpose and intelligence. It harmonizes different views of Absolute Reality found in the Upanishads, subsuming them under the concept of Brahman. The second chapter reviews and addresses the objections raised by samkhya and other competing orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy,Nyaya,Yoga,Vaisheshika andMimamsa, as well as heterodox schools such asBuddhism andJainism.[13] The third chapter compares thevidyas andupasanas found in the Upanishads, deciding which are similar and can be combined, and which are different.[14] The last chapter states why such a knowledge is an important human need.[7]
TheBrahma Sūtras is one of three most important texts inVedanta along with thePrincipal Upanishads and theBhagavad Gita.[1][4][web 1] It has been influential to various schools of Indian philosophies, but interpreted differently by the non-dualisticAdvaita Vedanta sub-school, and the Vaishnav theisticVishishtadvaita andDvaita Vedanta sub-schools, as well as others.[web 1] Several commentaries on theBrahma Sūtras are lost to history or yet to be found; of the surviving ones, the most well studied commentaries on theBrahma Sūtras include thebhashya byAdi Shankara,[1] and the Vaishna-exegetesRamanuja,Madhvacharya,Bhaskara,Baladeva Vidyabhushan,Ramanandacharya.[15]
TheBrahma Sūtras orBrahmasutra are attributed toBadarayana.[16] In some texts, Badarayana is also calledVyasa, which literally means "one who arranges".[16]
Badarayana was theGuru (teacher) ofJaimini, the latter credited with authoring Mimamsa Sutras of the Mimamsa school of Hindu philosophy.[16] This is likely, given that both Badarayana and Jaimini quote each other as they analyze each other's theories, Badarayana emphasizing knowledge while Jaimini emphasizes rituals, sometimes agreeing with each other, sometimes disagreeing, often anti-thesis of the other.[17]
TheBrahma Sūtras text is dated to centuries that followedBuddha andMahavira, because it mentions and critiques the ideas of Buddhism and Jainism in Chapter 2.[18] The text's relative chronology is also based on the fact that Badarayana quotes all major known orthodox Hindu schools of philosophy exceptNyaya.[18][19] The exact century of its composition or completion in final form is unknown. 200 BCE seems to be the most likely date for its initial composition,[9] with scholars such as Lochtefeld suggesting that the text was composed sometime between 500 and 200 BCE,[7][8] whileSarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Dasgupta independently suggest the 2nd century BCE as more likely.[20][21]Paul Deussen places it between 200 BCE and 400 CE.[20]
Hermann Jacobi in early 20th century suggested that Madhyamaka Buddhist concepts such asSunyavada, acknowledged in theBrahma Sūtras, may be a late invention, and suggests that both Sunyavada andBrahma Sūtras may therefore have emerged between 200 and 450 CE.[20]Daniel Ingalls disagreed with Jacobi chronology in his 1954 paper, critiquing Jacobi's assumptions and interpretation of sutras 2.2.28-32 in dating the entire document, and stating that "theBrahma Sūtras could not have been composed later than the start of the common era".[22][23] According to Hajime Nakamura, theBrahma Sūtras were likely complete in the current form between 400 and 450 CE.[6] The existence of earlier versions of theBrahma Sūtras, and multiple authors predating Badarayana, is supported by textual evidence.[24]
Some scholars, such as Sengaku Mayeda, state that theBrahma Sūtras that have survived into the modern times may be the work of multiple authors but those who lived after Badarayana, and that these authors composed the currently survivingBrahma Sūtras starting about 300 BCE through about 400-450 CE.[25][note 5] Nakamura states that the original version ofBrahma Sūtras is likely very ancient and its inception coincides with the Kalpa Sutras period (1st-millennium BCE).[28]
Natalia Isaeva states, "on the whole, scholars are rather unanimous, considering the most probable date forBrahma Sūtras sometime between the 2nd-century BCE and the 2nd-century CE.[20]
Assigning a later date because of mention of concepts of Buddhism etc., is rejected byMadhvacharya in his work, Anuvyakhyana.[29] He explains the mention of different philosophies and their criticism in theBrahmaSūtras as refutations of general ideas, which are eternal, and not of specific schools of thought like Buddhism etc. So, there is no necessity to assign a later date.
TheBrahma Sūtras consist of 555 aphorisms or sūtras, in four chapters (adhyāya), with each chapter divided into four parts (pāda).[10] Each part is further subdivided into sections calledAdhikaraņas withsutras.[10] Some scholars, such as Francis Clooney, call theAdhikaraņas as "case studies" with a defined hermeneutic process.[30][31]
| Section | 1st Pada | 2nd Pada | 3rd Pada | 4th Pada | Total |
| Adhyaya 1 | 31 | 32 | 43 | 28 | 134 |
| Adhyaya 2 | 37 | 45 | 53 | 22 | 157 |
| Adhyaya 3 | 27 | 41 | 66 | 52 | 186 |
| Adhyaya 4 | 19 | 21 | 16 | 22 | 78 |
| Total Sutras: | 555 | ||||
EachAdhikaraņa ofBrahma Sūtras has varying numbers of sutras, and most sections of the text are structured to address the following:[10][33][note 6]
TheBrahma Sūtras text has 189Adhikaranas.[36][note 7] Each section (case study) in the text opens with theMukhya (chief, main) sutra that states the purpose of that section, and the various sections of theBrahma Sūtras includeVishaya-Vakyas (cite the text sources and evidence they use).[10]
Sutras were meant to assist the memory of the student who had gone through long discussions with his guru, as memory aids or clues and maximum thoughts were compressed in a few words which were unambiguous, giving the essence of the arguments on the topic.[37] The Sutras of the text, states Adi Shankara in his commentary, are structured like a string that ties together the Vedanta texts like a garland of flowers.[10]
The text is part of thePrasthanatrayi, or the three starting points for theVedanta school of Hindu philosophy.[4] The Principal Upanishads constitute theSruti prasthāna or "starting point of heard scriptures," while the Bhagavad Gita constitutes theSmriti prasthāna or the "starting point of remembered canonical base", and theBrahma Sūtras constitute theNyāya prasthāna (न्याय प्रस्थान) or "starting point of reasoning canonical base."[4]
Sengaku Mayeda states that theBrahma Sūtras distills and consolidates the extensive teachings found in a variety ofUpanishads of Hinduism, summarizing, arranging, unifying and systematizing the Upanishadic theories,[25] possibly "written from a Bhedābheda Vedāntic viewpoint."[38] The Vedic literature had grown into an enormous collection of ideas and practices, ranging from practical rituals (karma-kanda) to abstract philosophy (jnana-kanda),[25][39] with different and conflicting theories on metaphysical problems, diverse mutually contradicting unsystematized teachings on rituals and philosophies present in the Upanishads.[25][39] Traditions of textual interpretation developed. While Jaimini'sMimamsa-sutra focused on externalized rituals as the spiritual path, Badarayana'sBrahma Sūtras, the only surviving work of several of such compendia, focused on internalized philosophy as the spiritual path.[25][39]
The opening sutra
अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा
Then therefore the enquiry intoBrahman
The text reviews and critiques the major orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy as well as all heterodox Indian philosophies such as Buddhism; especiallySamkhya andYoga philosophies are noted, which seem to have been hold in high regard in his time. It recurrently refers to them in all its four chapters, adding in sutras 2.1.3 and 4.2.21 that Yoga and Samkhya are similar.[43] The text cites and quotes from the tenPrincipal Upanishads often, particularly theKaushitaki Upanishad and theShvetashvatara Upanishad in several sutras. Additionally, it also mentions Upanishads that are now unknown and lost.[43] The contents of the text also acknowledge and analyze the various Vedic schools, and mentions the existence of multiple, diverging versions of the same underlying text.[44]
The sutras of theBrahma Sūtras are aphorisms, which Paul Deussen states to be "threads stretched out in weaving to form the basis of the web", and intelligible "when thewoof is added" with a commentary.[45]
The central theme of the first chapter is consideredSamanvaya (Harmony), because it aims to distill, synchronize and bring into a harmonious whole the seemingly diverse and conflicting passages in variousSruti texts.[46][47] It consists of 134 sutras, with elevenAdhikaranas in the firstPada, sevenAdhikaranas in second, fourteenAdhikaranas in third, and eight in the fourthPada.[48] The different sub-schools of Vedanta have interpreted the sutras in the lastPada differently, and some count only sevenAdhikaranas in the fourthPada.[48]
Perception, Inference and Word
शब्द इतिचेन्नातः प्रभवात्प्रत्यक्षानुमानाभ्याम्
If it be said that a contradiction will result in regard to Word (Vedas), we say that it is not so because the origination of everything is from perception and inference.
Adi Shankara's commentary: "Perception meansSruti; for its validity it is not dependent on anything else; inference isSmriti".
ThisBrahma Sūtras chapter asserts that all the Upanishads primarily aim to and coherently describe the knowledge and meditation ofBrahman, the ultimate reality.[51] According to Mayeda, "theBrahmasutra made a special point of refuting the dualism of the then prevailing Samkhya school which positedPurusha (Spirit) andPrakriti (Matter) as the independent causes of the Universe. TheBrahmasutra maintained instead thatBrahman alone is the absolute ultimate cause of the Universe."[5] Brahman is the source from which the world came into existence, in whom it inheres and to which it returns. The only source for the knowledge of this Brahman is the Sruti or the Upanishads.[52]
The first word (atha - now, then) of the firstsutra has occasioned different interpretations. Ramanuja and Nimbarka argue that it refers to the position of knowledge of Brahman as coming "after the knowledge ofkarman and its fruits". Shankara takes it as referencing the "acquisition of the four requisite" qualities: "discrimination between eternal and non-eternal things, aversion to the enjoyment of the objects of sense here and in the next world, possession of self-restraint, tranquillity etc., and the desire to be absolutely free". Vallabha disagrees that one needs the four qualities before entering into an inquiry about Brahman, and interprets "atha" as merely initiating the beginning of a new topic.[53]
The sutras 1.1.5-11 address the Samkhya school's view thatpradhana (prakriti) is the primal matter and the cause of the world, and that the Principle of the world is unconscious. The text refutes this claim by using scriptural references to establish that the Principle of the world is conscious and the Brahman itself. The remaining sutras in Pada 1.1 and all sutras in Padas 1.2 and 1.3 assert that Brahman is the primary focus of the Upanishads, is various aspects of empirical reality, quoting various verses in support, fromTaittiriya Upanishad,Chandogya Upanishad,Kaushitaki Upanishad,Mundaka Upanishad,Katha Upanishad,Brihadaranyaka Upanishad andPrashna Upanishad.[54][55]
The first chapter in sutras 1.4.1-15 presents the Samkhya theories on Prakriti, and rejects its theories by demonstrating that they are inconsistent with and misinterpretations of the Katha, Brihadaranyaka, Shvetashvatara and Taittiriya Upanishad.[54] Sutras 1.4.23-27 argue, according to many schools, that Brahman is the efficient cause and the material cause of the world.[54] The last sutra of the first chapter extends the arguments that refutes Samkhya theories to the atomists' theories (theVaisheshika school of Hindu philosophy).[54]
Second chapter (Avirodha: non-conflict, non-contradiction): discusses and refutes the possible objections to Vedānta philosophy, and states that the central themes of Vedanta are consistent across the various Vedic texts.[10] The Brahma Sūtra states, examines and dismisses the refutations raised by other schools of thought, those now classified under Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism.[56] The second chapter consists of 157 sutras, with thirteenAdhikaranas in the firstPada, eight in second, seventeenAdhikaranas in third, and nine in the fourthPada.[57] Whereas the entire first chapter is focused on demonstrating that the Samkhya doctrine that the world created by the unconsciouspradhana is wrong, and that the Upanishads substantiate the conscious Brahman as the cause of the world, the second chapter is engaged in responding to objections against the doctrine of Brahman raised in other schools. The firstAdhikarana argues that when asmriti (texts of speculative reasoning) conflicts with thesruti (the Vedas), only that which is supported by the Vedas must be affirmed.[58]
The second chapter of theBrahma Sūtra has been variously interpreted by various monist, theistic and other sub-schools of Vedanta.[51][59] The Advaita school for example, states Francis Clooney, asserts that the "identity of Atman and Brahman" based Advaita system is the coherent system while other systems conflict with the Upanishads, or are internally inconsistent, or incoherent with observed reality and cosmos.[51] The theistic sub-schools interpret the text to be stating that Atman is different from Brahman, and thereafter each explains how other systems conflict with the Upanishads or are incoherent.[59]
The Pada 2.1 opens withAdhikarana on Samkhya and Vaisheshika schools argument that Smritis should be a basis for examining the concept of Brahman, and their objections to the Vedanta theory of reflection. TheBrahma Sūtras asserts in 2.1.13 through 2.1.20 that the subject and object are one in Brahman, which agrees with Samkhya that there is an identity in cause and effect, adding that the Brahman and the empirical world are therefore one.[60] The sutras 2.1.21 through 2.1.36 present theproblem of evil, offering its own doctrine to address it, asserting that Brahman is neither unjust nor cruel, and that inequality and evil exists in the world because of will, choices and circumstances created by actions of living beings over time.[61]
The sutras in Pada 2.1 are variously interpreted by Advaita, Dvaita, Vishishtadvaita and other sub-schools of Vedanta.[61][61][62][63] The monist Advaita school holds that ignorance orAvidya (wrong knowledge) is the root of "problem of evil"; in contrast, dualistic Vedanta schools hold karma and samsara to be the root.[64][note 8]
The atomistic physico-theological theories of Vaisheshika and Samkhya school are the focus of the first seventeen sutras of Pada 2.2.[65] The theories of Buddhism are refuted in sutras 2.2.18 through 2.2.32,[note 9] while the theories of Jainism are analyzed by the text in sutras 2.2.33 through 2.2.36.[13][67]
The theories of other orthodox traditions are discussed in 2.2.37 through 2.2.45.[68] Ramanuja and Shankara disagree in their formulation as well as critique of then extant orthodox traditions, in their respective commentaries, but both agree that the theory on emergence ofPradyumna (intellect) in the competing orthodox system is the primary flaw.[69]
The first eight case studies in the thirdPada of chapter 2 discuss whether the world has an origin or not, whether the universe is co-eternal with Brahman or is an effect of Brahman (interpreted as dualistic God in theistic sub-schools of Vedanta), and whether the universe returns into Brahman periodically.[70] The last nineAdhikaranas of the thirdPada discuss the nature of soul, whether it is eternal, is soul an agent, soul's relationship to Brahman, and states its proof that the soul exists and is immortal.[71][72]
The lastPada of the second chapter extracts and summarizes the theories of human body, sensory organs, action organs and their relationship toPrana (vital breath) in the various Vedic Brahmanas and Upanishads.[73][74] TheBrahma Sūtras states that the organs inside a living being are independent principles, in the seventh and eighthAdhikarana of the fourthPada.[74][75] The various sub-schools of Vedanta interpret the sutras in the fourthPada differently.[74]
Third chapter (Sādhana: the means): describes the process by which ultimate emancipation can be achieved. The topics discussed are diverse.[78] The third chapter is the longest and consists of 186 sutras, with sixAdhikaranas in its firstPada, eight in second, thirty six in third, and fourteenAdhikaranas in the fourthPada.[79]
The third chapter focuses on the yearning for knowledge of Brahman, and the means to attain it.[51] Dissatisfaction with mundane life and strengthening the wish for liberation is invoked, treating the theory of death and rebirth,[80] karma and importance of conduct and free will,[81] and the connection betweenAtman (Self, Soul) and the Brahman are discussed in sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the text.[51][82]
अपि संराधने प्रत्यक्षानुमानाभ्याम्
And (Brahman is apprehended) in perfect meditation also, according to perception (Sruti,Pratyakṣa) and inference (Smriti,Anumāṇa).
प्रकाशवच्चावैशेष्यं प्रकाशश्च कर्मण्यभ्यासात्
And as is the case of (physical) light and the like, there is the non-distinction (of two Selves), the light (Self) by its activity, on account of repeated declarations (in the Scripture).
अतोऽनन्तेन तथा हि लिङ्गम्
Therefore (the individual soul enters into unity) with the infinite (the highest Self), for thus (is the scriptural) indication.
Sections 3.3 and 3.4 describe the need for self-study, reflection of texts read, meditation, etc.,[85] as steps while one makes progress and the role ofsannyasa (monk, mendicant) in the pursuit of spiritual knowledge.[51]
The thirdpada, states George Thibaut, opens a new section and theme in chapter 3 of theBrahma Sūtras, describing how "the individual soul is enabled by meditation on Brahman to obtain final release," and harmonising the different Upanishadic views on this.[86][87] The Upanishads describe manyupasanas on Brahman, with considerable similarities, but also with differences, due to the variations in transmission in the different Vedic schools. The Brahma-sutra, inAdhikaranas of third and fourth pada, states Thibaut, assert that there is no contradiction in these teachings and that "the different Upanishads have to be viewed as teaching the same matter, and therefore the ideas must be combined in one meditation".[86]
सैव हि सत्यादयः
For the True are so on (in different texts), are one and the same knowledge.
The most referred to texts in these sections are theBrihadaranyaka Upanishad, theChandogya Upanishad, theKaushitaki Upanishad, theKatha Upanishad, and the non-Upanishadic parts ofShatapatha Brahmana andAitereya Aranyaka.[86] The topic of meditation, state the Brahma-sutras, is the spiritual knowledge of Brahman; the object of this knowledge, states Thibaut, is "Brahman viewed as the inner Self of all".[90]
Whileupasana may be regarded as a kind of meditation, it is more thandhyana or sitting in meditation;[note 10] it is a continuous practice of "constant remembrance" of Brahman or the Divine throughout the day, as the culmination of a life of spiritual development.[91]
The Brahma Sutras, in addition to recommending meditation, suggest that rituals and rites are unnecessary because it is knowledge that achieves the purpose.[92]
And for this very reason there is no need of the lighting ofthe fire and so on.
In sutras 3.4.26 and 3.4.27, the text adds that rituals, however, can spiritually prepare a mind, remove impurities within, empower calmness and distractions from sensory pursuits, and therefore assist in its ability to meditate and gain the ultimate knowledge.[94] The text also discusses, in sutras 3.4.28 to 3.4.31 whether there are restrictions on food (meat) one can ingest, during the spiritual journey. The sutras, translates Thibaut, derive from the Vedic texts that there is "a prohibition of doing harm to any living creature", however, the scriptures state, "only in danger of life, in cases of highest need, food of any kind is permitted to be eaten".[95][96]
The last three sutras of the chapter 3 assert that a person, pursuing means to spiritual knowledge, should seek a childlike state of innocence, a psychological state that is free of anger, self-centeredness, pride and arrogance.[97] The text declares that according to theVedic literature knowledge is possible in this life, that one is one's own obstruction in this journey, that liberation and freedom is the fruit of knowledge.[98][99]
Fourth chapter (Phala: the result): talks of the state that is achieved in final emancipation. This is the shortest chapter with 78 sutras and 38 adhikaranas.[78] The last chapter contains fourteenAdhikaranas in its firstPada, eleven in second, six in third, and sevenAdhikaranas in the fourth.[100] The last chapter of theBrahma Sūtras discusses the need and fruits of self-knowledge, the state of freedom and liberation.[51]
The opening sutras of chapter 4 continue the discussion of meditation as means to knowledge, with sutra 4.1.3 summarizing it to be the state where the person accepts, "I am Brahman, not another being" (Adi Shankara), as "Thou indeed I am, O holy divinity, and I indeed thou art, O holy divinity" (Jabalas), and "God is to be contemplated as the Self" and the individual is as the body of God (Ramanuja).[101][102][103]
On the Soul's having attained the Highest light, there is manifestation of its real nature, as we infer from the word own.
The Self whose true nature has manifested itself is released; according to the promise (made by scripture).
The light into which the soul enters is the Self, owing to the subject-matter of the chapter.
The released soul abides in non-division from the highest Self (Brahman), because that is seen.
The liberated soul, asserts theBrahma Sūtras, is of the nature of Brahman, with inner power and knowledge, free from evil, free from grief, free from suffering, one of bliss and "for such there is freedom in all worlds".[106][107]
Numerous commentaries have been written on theBrahma Sūtras text, but many such as that of Bodhayana,[note 11] Upavarsa,[note 12] and eighteen out of twenty one mentioned by Narayana inMadhvavijaya-bhava-prakashika are considered lost.[15] Of the surviving commentaries, the earliest extant one is byAdi Shankara.[15]
The diversity ofBrahma Sūtras commentaries by various sub-schools of Hinduism (see table) attests to the central importance of the Upanishads, that the text summarizes.[15]
| Scholar | Image | Date | Tradition | Sampradaya | Theme / Influence[15][111] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nimbārkāchārya[112] |  | 7th century[113] | Svābhāvika Bhedābheda (Vedanta-Parijata-Saurabha) | Kumara Sampradaya | Differential monism |
| Śrīnivāsācārya |  | 7th century[113] | Svābhāvika Bhedābheda (Vedānta Kaustubha) | Kumara Sampradaya | Differential monism |
| Ādi Śaṅkarācārya[114] |  | 9th century | Advaita (Brahmasūtrabhāṣya) | Dasanami Sampradaya | non-duality ("non-secondness") ofjivAtman andAtman-Brahman |
| Bhaskara,[115] | | 9th century | Bhedabheda | ||
| Yādavaprakāśa[116] | | 11th century | Bhedabheda | Vaishnavism | |
| Rāmāṉujācārya[117] | | 11th century | Vishishtadvaita | Sri (Lakshmi) Sampradaya | Qualified non-dualism Vaishnavism |
| Madhvācārya[118] | | 13th century | Dvaita (Madhva bhāṣya) | Bramha (Madhva)/ Sadh Sampradaya | Dualism |
| Śrīkaṇṭhācārya Śivācārya[119] | | 13th century | Shiva-Vishishtadvaita /Shiva Advaita (Srikantha-bhasya) | Shrouta Shaiva Siddhanta[120] | Qualified non-dualism |
| Śrīpati Paṇḍitācārya[121] | | 14th century | Visheshadvaita (Śrīkarabhāṣya) | Veerashaiva | Differential monism |
| Vallabhācārya[122] |  | 16th century | Shuddhadvaita (Aṇubhāṣya) | Rudra Sampradaya | Pure non-dualism |
| Śuka[123] | | 16th century | Bhedavada (Śukabhāṣya) | Revised dualism | |
| Vijñāna-bhikṣu[124] | | 17th century | Ātma Brahmaikya bhedavāda (Vijñānāmrta-bhāsyam) | Indistinguishable non-dualism(Avibhaga Advaita) Theistic-Sāṃkhya | |
| Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa[125] |  | 18th century | Acintyabhedābheda (Govinda-bhāṣya & Brahma-sūtra-kārikā-bhāṣya) | Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya Vaisnava Sampradaya | Inconceivable oneness and difference |
| Rambhadracharya |  | 20th century (1998) | Viśiṣṭādvaita | Tulsi PeethRamanandi Sampradaya | Qualified non-dualism |
| Bhadreshdas Swami |  | 21st century (2017) | Akshar Purushottam Darshan | Swaminarayan Sampradaya | Five eternal entities: Purushottam, Akshar, Maya, Ishvar, Jiva |
The sutras in the text can be, and have been read in different ways.[46] Some commentators read each line separately, while others sometimes read two as one treating some sutras as contextually connected.[46] Creative readers have read the last word of a sutra as the starting word for the next, some treat a given verse asPurva-paksha (opposing viewpoint) while others read the same verse asSiddhanta (proposed doctrine, or conclusion).[46] For example, states Gregory Darling, Adi Shankara in his commentary on sutra 4.3.14 considersSaguna Brahman mentioned therein asPurva-paksha, but acknowledges that some scholars interpret this sutra as aSiddhanta.[46] Another example is Shanakra's interpretation of a set of sutras (2.3.19-28) as reflective of thePurva-paksha and Ramanuja's taking the same set of sutras to be reflective of theSiddhanta. Shankara argues that the description of the individual self (jiva) as atomic in size in these sutras marks thePurva-paksha, whereas Ramanuja takes it to be theSiddhanta. A point of disagreement between commentators concerns where to divide the text intoAdhikaranas. Although there is a clear division ofAdhyayas andPadas in the text, no division ofAdhikaranas is universally affirmed, leading to disagreements about how the sutras in eachAdhikaranas should be divided.[126]
Another aspect of the sutra text that leads to variance in exegeses is that words in the sutras can mean different things. In sutra 2.3.15, the wordantarā is used, which would mean both "without" and "in the midst". Shankara, Ramanuja, and Nimbarka agree that the word means "in the midst", but Madhva argues that the word must mean "without". It is very likely that the interpretations given by Shankara, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, and Madhva did not originate out of nowhere, and their key elements most probably existed even before theBrahma Sūtras themselves were written. It is extremely difficult to determine which of the commentators' interpretations are actually faithful to the original, and there is a possibility that the author of theBrahma Sūtras did not have a philosophical system in mind that Shankara, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Madhva, and their successors have expressed.[127]
TheBrahma Sūtras has been translated into German by Paul Deussen, and in English by George Thibaut.[128] The Thibaut translation is, state De Bary and Embree, "probably the best complete translation in English".[128] Vinayak Sakaram Ghate ofBhandarkar Oriental Research Institute has done a comparative analysis of the Brahma Sutra commentaries ofNimbarka,Ramanuja,Vallabha,Adi Shankara andMadhvacharya in detail and has written the conclusion that Nimbarka's and Ramanuja's balanced commentaries give the closest meaning of the Brahma Sutras taking into account of both kinds of Sutras, those which speak of oneness and those which speak of difference.[129][page needed]
The impact ofBrahma Sūtras text on Vedanta, and in turn Hinduism, has been historic and central:[130][131]
Many commentaries on the fundamental scripture of Vedanta, theBrahma Sūtras, were written by the founders or leading scholars of the various sects of Hinduism, and they are transmitted to this day as documents indispensable in the respective sectarian traditions.[131]
| Philosophy |
|  | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Texts |
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Deities |
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Practices |
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Related | |||||||||||||||||||
