Darshan of Swami Krishnananda in 1998

by Swami Krishnananda

17. Contradiction in the Brahma Sutras

(Darshan given in April 1998)

An ashramite: These Brahma Sutras, Swamiji, Swamiji finally says that even the authors are not very clear what is God, what is the relationship, and all these things.

Swamiji: There is a contradiction.

Ashramite: But what is the purpose of writing the scriptures, Swamiji, because these contradictions and other things are to give a clear idea about the Upanishads.

Swamiji: All the learned people who read the Sutras say it is perfectly in agreement with Ramanuja's system, and Ramanuja has no difficulty in interpreting every sutra as it is said there. Only Sankaracharya comes in conflict.

For instance, there is the sutra insisting that after liberation, the soul has not got the power of God. “What is the good of liberation?” is Sankaracharya's point. There is no God and individual and difference at that time. Liberation is the abolition of individuality in the comprehensiveness of God's existence. Then why should you say that you have no power? If you have no power, you are not liberated also. But Ramanuja has no problem. He accepts that you cannot become God. You have got all the joys of God, you are a servant of God, you are a dasa of God, no problem. Sankaracharya cannot stomach it, so he finally says, “All this description of the Brahma Sutras refers to saguna Brahman. It has nothing to do with the Absolute,” which is a very strange way of writing.

Ashramite: That is the point I am coming to, Swamiji. When they said 'Brahma Sutras', this Brahma refers to the creator Brahma and not the Absolute.

Swamiji: No, no. It is not the creator. It is the Absolute only. But only the interpretation...

Ashramite: But they are interpreting everything in terms of that.

Swamiji: In the beginning itself it contradicts. What is Brahman? It says He who creates, preserves and destroys. It is called tatastha lakshana, a tentative definition. If God does not create, then what is He? Has He no existence? That is svarupa lakshana. Now, why does the Brahma Sutras omit to mention the real nature of God, and mentions only the characteristic of creation? Are you going to reach a tentative God? This is what Sankaracharya is unable to answer. He cannot go against the sutra's intention because it is heresy to say anything against it, so he struggles to put it this way, that way.

Ashramite: No, but when it is necessary...

Swamiji: Anandamaya is Brahman. The anandamaya kosha is Brahman. This is very clearly said in the sutra. After accepting it, Sankaracharya cannot contradict that. What the sutra says, he must accept; otherwise, he is a heretic. Anandamaya is Brahman. “But here I have to say something,” he adds a note. “Anandamaya cannot be Brahman because anandamaya is one of the sheaths of the body. It is a state into which one enters in sleep. Every day people enter into that anandamaya state. If anandamaya is Brahman, nobody will get up from sleep. They will immediately merge in Brahman. The fact that merging in Brahman does not take place in the state of anandamaya kosha shows that it is not Brahman.” He just turned the whole thing against the intention of the sutra which for Ramanuja was perfectly all right.

And he had a great difficulty in describing 'Nobody returns back': anavrittih sabdad. It is mentioned in the last sutra that nobody will come back after reaching it. But he had a difficulty. He says nobody will come back as long as the universe lasts and is ruled by Brahma, the creator, and the moksha that he attains is tentative. Bhog matra samya: He has all the powers of enjoyment, as God has, just as a person living in the president's house, in the White House, may be having all the securities and all the food; the same food he may be eating, every facility he has got, as good as the President's, yet he is not the President. That distinction he makes. But it is unpalatable, and Sankaracharya struggles.

And then George Thibault, who translated Sankaracharya's Bhasya, in a long introduction that he writes in a most impartial way, says, “Nobody can think as Sankaracharya thinks. It is the highest reach of human thought. But his commentary is not faithful to the original Sutra, which is exactly Ramanuja's system.”

Ashramite: But it is said when Sankaracharya was writing the commentary, Vyasa appeared and said, “Your commentary is the correct one.”

Swamiji: When Madhava wrote, Vyasa also appeared. Madhava went to Badrinath and took the blessing of Vyasa, and he said, “Write, write.”

Ashramite: No, the blessing of Vyasa is different. It is said that Sankaracharya, when he was writing one page, Vyasa said, “This is my intention, what you are writing.”

Swamiji: He told that to Ramanuja and Madhava also, same thing.

Ashramite: Then what is the idea of telling aham brahmasmi, Swamiji? If the individual does not merge in God, we adumbrate tat tvam asi, aham brahmasmi...

Swamiji: They say aham brahmasmi is a statement made by God Himself: I am the Absolute.

Another ashramite: No, Swamiji, in the Chhandogya Upanishad it is said tat tvam asi. That is the instruction.

Swamiji: They don't agree with that interpretation.

Ashramite: How can they not agree, Swamiji? Sruti is most important. Once we say tat tvam asi, the Brahman and the individual are identical. If they are one and identical, how can he say they will remain like this?

Swamiji: No, Madhava did not agree with the meaning that you are giving to it. Actually, the Brahma Sutra is supposed to be confirming the view of the Upanishads.

Ashramite: It is supposed to be confirming, but if it is contradicting, he is supposed to be rejecting it.

Swamiji: But no commentator can reject the Sutra.

Ashramite: Why not?

Swamiji: Otherwise, he will be called a heretic.

Ashramite: Let them say anything.

Swamiji: Now, modern days, you can say that, but those days are not like that. You must.

Ashramite: But Swamiji, if there is a conflict between the Upanishad and the Brahma Sutra...

Swamiji: You are not supposed to see any conflict; that is the only thing.