Brahma Sūtras | Śrī Bhāshya

Śrī Bhāshya is the commentary by Śrī Rāmānuja on the Brahma Sutras of Bādarāyaṇa alias Vyāsa; and these Sutras form one of the earliest summary on the later portion of the Veda, known as the Upanishads or the Jñāna Kāṇda – the portion of Vedas dealing with Wisdom, as opposite to the Karma Kāṇda or the earlier portion of Veda

Contents: Brahma Sutras: Chapter 1 Pāda 1 Topic 1 - The Inquiry into Brahman and its Pre-requisites 1.2 The Small Pūrvapaksha. 1.3 The Small Siddhānta. 1.4 The Great Pūrvapaksha. 1.5 The Great Siddhānta. | 1 1.6 The Great Siddhānta. | 2 1.7 The Great Siddhānta. | 3 1.8 The Great Siddhānta. | 4 1.9 The Great Siddhānta. | 5 1.10

Vedānta Sūtras with Rāmānuja’s Śrī Bhāṣya First Adhyāya. First Pāda. MAY my mind be filled with devotion towards the highest Brahman, the abode of Lakshmi who is luminously revealed in the Upanishads; who in sport produces, sustains, and reabsorbs the entire Universe; whose only aim is to foster the manifold classes of beings that humbly worship him. The nectar of

The Small Pūrvapaksha. But--a further objection is urged--as that which has to precede the systematic enquiry into Brahman we should assign something which that enquiry necessarily presupposes. The enquiry into the nature of duty, however, does not form such a prerequisite, since a consideration of the Vedanta-texts may be undertaken by anyone who has read those texts, even if he

The Small Siddhānta. To this argumentation we make the following reply. We admit that release consists only in the cessation of Nescience, and that this cessation results entirely from the knowledge of Brahman. But a distinction has here to be made regarding the nature of this knowledge which the Vedānta-texts aim at enjoining for the purpose of putting an end

The Great Pūrvapaksha. The Only Reality Is Brahman. Brahman, which is pure intelligence and opposed to all difference, constitutes the only reality; and everything else, i.e. the plurality of manifold knowing subjects, objects of knowledge, and acts of knowledge depending on those two, is only imagined on (or 'in') that Brahman, and is essentially false. 'In the beginning, my dear,

THE GREAT SIDDHĀNTA. | 1 This entire theory rests on a fictitious foundation of altogether hollow and vicious arguments, incapable of being stated in definite logical alternatives, and devised by men who are destitute of those particular qualities which cause individuals to be chosen by the Supreme Person revealed in the Upanishads; whose intellects are darkened by the impression of

Plurality is not unreal. Next as to the assertion that all difference presented in our cognition-as of jars, pieces of cloth and the like--is unreal because such difference does not persist. This view, we maintain, is altogether erroneous, springs in fact from the neglect of distinguishing between persistence and non-persistence on the one hand, and the relation between what assimilates

Consciousness is not eternal. It was further maintained by the Pūrvapakshin that as consciousness is self-established it has no antecedent non-existence and so on, and that this disproves its having an origin. But this is an attempt to prove something not proved by something else that is equally unproved; comparable to a man blind from birth undertaking to guide another

Consciousness is the attribute of a permanent Conscious self. Let it then be said that consciousness is proof (siddhiḥ) itself. Proof of what, we ask in reply, and to whom? If no definite answer can be given to these two questions, consciousness cannot be defined as 'proof'; for 'proof' is a relative notion, like 'son.' You will perhaps reply 'Proof