The Brahma Sutra · Book 1: Convergence

The first sutra of the whole text, and its doorway as well. In three words Badarayana is saying: now, after this, one should inquire into Brahman.

The word atha hides a prior condition. Shankaracharya makes it clear in his commentary that this atha takes four disciplines for granted: discrimination between the eternal and the impermanent, dispassion toward the pleasures of this world and the next, the sixfold wealth (sama, dama, uparati, titiksha, shraddha, samadhana), and the longing for liberation. Without these four, the eligibility to inquire into Brahman does not even arise.

This is why the sutra speaks first of eligibility. Until a sense of how fleeting pleasures are, and a deep dispassion, rise up inside you, this question never truly takes birth.

Context: this sutra connects to the तरति शोकम् आत्मवित् of Chandogya 7.1.3, one who knows the atman crosses beyond sorrow. Sorrow itself sows the seed of inquiry.

That from which the birth, sustenance, and dissolution of this world take place is Brahman. In four words Badarayana states the mark of Brahman.

This is a tatastha-lakshana, an accidental mark, one that tells you how to recognize it. There is also a svarupa-lakshana, a mark of its essential nature (सत्यं ज्ञानम् अनन्तं ब्रह्म), yet it is easier to begin with the accidental mark. Whatever appears has a cause behind it, and the one cause behind everything is Brahman.

Context: this is taken straight from Taittiriya Upanishad 3.1.1, यतो वा इमानि भूतानि जायन्ते. Badarayana compresses this Upanishadic line into the sutra.

Because shastra is the very source of the knowledge of Brahman. In two words Badarayana is saying that Brahman cannot be known by thought and reasoning alone, that it takes the authority of shastra.

This is a firm claim about valid means of knowledge. Reasoning, inference, and direct perception each have their uses, yet the root proof of Brahman can only be shruti. Shankaracharya puts great weight on this.

Context: Mundaka Upanishad 1.1.5 names two kinds of knowledge, para and apara. Apara-vidya covers the four Vedas and the six Vedangas, and Brahman is known through para-vidya alone. Badarayana stands on exactly this distinction.

The key sutra of the whole book. तत्तु, meaning “that indeed,” the convergence of all Upanishadic statements falls on Brahman alone.

This very sutra gives the book its name, Samanvaya. Right at the outset Badarayana declares that however many the Upanishads may be, however different their images and stories, they all aim at one thing, the knowledge of Brahman. Every group of sutras that follows is a proof of this.

To anyone who says that each statement carries its own separate purport, Badarayana answers with this single sutra: the final purport of every statement is one and the same, only the style of description differs.

Context: Chandogya 6.2.1 (एकमेव अद्वितीयम्), Brihadaranyaka 4.4.19 (नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन), and Katha 2.1.11 (मनसैवेदम्) all show this one center, everything is one and the same Brahman.

This is the first large adhikarana, seven sutras long. Here the Samkhya school is refuted.

The Samkhya thinkers say the cause of the world is pradhana (unconscious primal nature), not Brahman. Badarayana’s answer is ईक्षतेर्नाशब्दम्: Chandogya 6.2.3 says स ऐक्षत बहु स्यां प्रजायेय, it saw and, thinking, resolved to become many. Seeing and thinking are beyond an unconscious pradhana; only a conscious Brahman can do them. This establishes Brahman as the cause of the world, not pradhana.

In the sutras that follow, Badarayana firms up the same point from many directions. In 1.1.6, if someone says the word ऐक्षत is figurative (a mere figure of speech), he refuses it, because in the same passage तत् is pointed to by the word atman. In 1.1.7, the तत् त्वम् असि of Chandogya 6.8.7 is plain, and the teaching of moksha is given directly. In 1.1.8, had it been pradhana it would have been called something to be discarded, yet no such thing is said. In 1.1.9, in deep sleep the individual self dissolves into its own true nature, which means Brahman is the root. In 1.1.10, other Upanishadic statements point the same way. In 1.1.11, Mundaka 1.1.6 says it outright, तद् एतत् सत्यं, that is the truth.

Context: the sixth chapter of the Chandogya Upanishad (the Uddalaka and Shvetaketu dialogue) is the ground of this whole adhikarana. Every sutra is drawn from there.

Taittiriya Upanishad 2.1 through 2.9 describes five sheaths: annamaya (food), pranamaya (breath), manomaya (mind), vijnanamaya (understanding), and anandamaya (bliss). The question is which of these five is Brahman.

The purvapaksha, the opposing view, says that anandamaya too is a sheath, and a sheath belongs to the individual self, not to Brahman. Badarayana’s answer is अभ्यासात्: the Upanishad calls bliss itself Brahman again and again. रसो वै सः in 2.7.1, एष ह्येवानन्दयाति in 2.7.2, the principle of bliss is repeated over and over.

In 1.1.13, if someone says the suffix -maya means a modification, Badarayana refuses it. Here -maya means abundance, that is, bliss in its fullness. In 1.1.14, the Taittiriya itself says that bliss is the cause of everything. In 1.1.15, the mantra रसो वै सः sings the praise of the anandamaya alone. In 1.1.16, no other principle tied to the individual self can be Brahman. In 1.1.17, the Taittiriya marks out a distinction between the individual self and Brahman. In 1.1.18, सोऽकामयत, Brahman desired, and this is not mere inference. In 1.1.19, the Taittiriya teaches union with Brahman in the anandamaya.

Bliss is recognized in three forms. One is the pleasure of the senses, another is the satisfaction of some accomplishment, and a third rises up from within with no outer cause at all, glimpsed now and then in deep meditation. The Upanishad says that the third is the bliss of Brahman, and the other two are only its shadow.

Context: Taittiriya Upanishad 2.7 through 2.9, above all रसो वै सः, रसं ह्येवायं लब्ध्वानन्दी भवति. This adhikarana is a commentary on that very mantra.

Chandogya Upanishad 1.6.6 says अथ य एषो अन्तर् आदित्ये हिरण्मयः पुरुषो दृश्यते. Within the sun a golden person is seen. The question is who that person is.

The opponent says this is the sun-deity, or some individual self. Badarayana’s answer is तद्-धर्म-उपदेशात्: the very qualities named in it are Brahman’s, free of sin, unaging, undying, whose desires come true, whose will comes true. So it is Brahman.

In 1.1.21 Badarayana adds that there is a clear statement of distinction between the sun-deity and this golden person, meaning the two are called separate. So this is no external deity.

Context: this passage from Chandogya 1.6 and 1.7 is an example of the Vedic style of suggestion, the sun as the outer symbol, the golden person within as its inner meaning, Brahman.

Chandogya Upanishad 1.9.1 says आकाशो ह वै नाम-रूपयोर्निर्वहिता. Akasha is the carrier of name and form. Now what is this akasha?

The opponent says this is physical space (bhuta-akasha). Badarayana’s answer is तत्-लिङ्गात्: the quality described with it, being the carrier of name and form, fits Brahman alone. Physical space cannot be the carrier of name and form.

Context: the word akasha appears in many places in the Chandogya, sometimes in the sense of elemental space, sometimes in the sense of Brahman. Badarayana is teaching the way to read each place by its context.

Chandogya 1.11.5 calls prana the highest of all. The question is whether this is physical breath or Brahman.

Badarayana’s answer is direct: the reasoning of the previous adhikarana (akasha) fits here too. The qualities described alongside it, all-knowing and all-powerful, fit Brahman alone.

Context: Kaushitaki Brahmana Upanishad 4.20 makes the same claim, calling prana Brahman. This is the Vedic manner, taking the nearest experience, breath or space, and pointing through it toward that deeper reality.

Chandogya 3.13.7 says अथ यदतः परो दिवो ज्योतिर्दीप्यते. The light that shines beyond heaven, what is it?

The opponent says this is physical light, the sun or the stars. Badarayana answers that the same passage refers to charana, a quarter. That passage is bound to the word pada of the Purusha Sukta (Rig Veda 10.90.3), पादोऽस्य विश्वा भूतानि, all beings are only a quarter of it. Physical light cannot carry such a description. So this is Brahman.

In 1.1.25, if someone says this is praise of the Gayatri meter, Badarayana refuses it. Here there is cheto-arpana-nigada, a statement setting up an object for meditation, and it fits that same person. In 1.1.26, the description of four quarters fits Brahman, not a meter. In 1.1.27, even if someone says there is a difference in the teaching, both Brahman and the Gayatri meter are ways of seeing, and there is no contradiction between them.

Context: Chandogya 3.12 and 3.13 (the Gayatri contemplation) and the Purusha Sukta (Rig Veda 10.90). The relation between the two is settled here.

In Kaushitaki Brahmana Upanishad 3.2, Indra praises himself by calling himself prana-Brahman. The opponent says this is only the self-praise of Indra as an individual being, so how can it be Brahman?

Badarayana’s answer runs as follows. In 1.1.28, the qualities named in that same passage fit prana-Brahman alone. In 1.1.29, if someone says this is the speaker’s own words about himself, that is, Indra’s, the detailed account of the inner spiritual relation given there belongs to Brahman. In 1.1.30, this teaching takes the same form as Vamadeva’s, where the rishi Vamadeva too had said अहम् मनुर्भवं सूर्यश्च, I was Manu, I was the sun. Vamadeva’s words too were the realization of अहं ब्रह्मास्मि, and Indra’s words are the same. In 1.1.31, if someone says this describes the individual self or the chief breath, Badarayana refuses it, because here there is a hint of the threefold contemplation of union with Brahman.

Context: Kaushitaki Brahmana Upanishad 3.1 and 3.2, and Vamadeva’s words in Rig Veda 4.26.1.

Chandogya 3.14.1 says सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म. All this is Brahman. In this group of sutras Badarayana answers the objections that arise against that statement.

The opponent says the word sarva, all, can fit the individual self too, so that the self itself is all. Badarayana’s answer is sarvatra-prasiddha: this statement concerns the whole, it fits everything, not the individual self alone.

In the sutras that follow: 1.2.2, the qualities named, manomaya, prana-bodied, made of light, whose will comes true, fit Brahman. 1.2.3, these qualities cannot fit the embodied individual self. 1.2.4, in तं क्रतुं कुर्वीत the mention of an agent and an act points toward Brahman. 1.2.5, the particular words fit Brahman alone. 1.2.6, smriti (Gita 18.61) says the same thing. 1.2.7, if someone asks how Brahman can be in a small place, the heart, Badarayana answers व्योम-वत्, like space, its smallness of place does not limit it. 1.2.8, if someone says that if Brahman is in the heart then the individual self’s suffering would touch Brahman too, Badarayana refuses it, वैशेष्यात्, the nature of Brahman is distinct from the individual self.

Context: Chandogya 3.14.1 through 3.14.4, and Gita 18.61, ईश्वरः सर्वभूतानां हृद्देशेऽर्जुन तिष्ठति.

Katha Upanishad 1.2.25 holds a fearsome image, यस्य ब्रह्म च क्षत्रं च उभे भवत ओदनः, मृत्युर्यस्योपसेचनम् क इत्था वेद यत्र सः. The one whose food is both the Brahmana and the Kshatriya, and whose relish is death. Who is this eater?

Badarayana’s answer is that only Brahman can be this, since to make the whole moving and unmoving creation into a morsel is beyond any power but Brahman’s. And the context of this passage too concerns Brahman, the very dialogue of Nachiketa and Yama, which turns on the atman as Brahman.

Context: Katha Upanishad 1.2.25. The image is intensely powerful, Brahman that swallows even death.

Katha Upanishad 1.3.1 holds a famous image, ऋतं पिबन्तौ सुकृतस्य लोके गुहां प्रविष्टौ परमे परार्धे. Two are seated in the cave of the heart, drinking in the truth. Who are these two?

Badarayana’s answer is that these are both the individual self and Brahman. In 1.2.12 Badarayana adds that the same passage goes on to describe the two in particular, one eats, the other only watches. This is the root image of the distinction between the individual self and Brahman.

Context: Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.1 holds the same image, द्वा सुपर्णा सयुजा सखाया, two birds on one tree. We have already seen it in the Upanishad collection.

Chandogya Upanishad 4.15.1 says य एषोऽक्षिणि पुरुषो दृश्यते एष आत्मा. The person seen in the eye is the atman. What is this, a reflection falling in the pupil of the eye?

This is Brahman. The passage that follows calls this same person immortal, fearless, and Brahman. 1.2.14, the mention of place and the rest fits Brahman alone. 1.2.15, it is described as marked by bliss, which does not fit a reflection in the eye. 1.2.16, from this shruti teaches the path of archi and the rest (the path of light), the final course of the knower. 1.2.17, the reflection in the pupil is unsteady, but Brahman is eternally established.

Context: Chandogya 4.15, and Ishavasya Upanishad 1.1 too points toward this inner person.

In Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3.7, Yajnavalkya is speaking with Uddalaka and describes a principle, the antaryami, the inner controller. The one who is within all, who governs all, yet whom all do not know.

Badarayana says this antaryami is Brahman itself. In the Upanishad the same one is described on all three levels, adhidaiva, adhibhuta, and adhyatma. 1.2.19, if someone says this is the Samkhya pradhana, Badarayana refuses it, since its qualities (staying unseen, being able to sustain all) do not fit the Samkhya pradhana. 1.2.20, the body cannot be the antaryami either, since the Upanishad itself describes it as separate, apart.

Context: Brihadaranyaka 3.7 (the Antaryami Brahmana). It is the most extended philosophical passage among the Upanishadic statements.

Mundaka Upanishad 1.1.6 describes a principle, यत् तदद्रेश्यमग्राह्यमगोत्रमवर्णमचक्षुश्रोत्रम् तदपाणिपादम्. The one that is invisible, ungraspable, without lineage or color, without eyes and ears, without hands and feet.

Badarayana says this is Brahman. The mention of these negative qualities alone makes it clear. 1.2.22, it carries certain adjectives and certain statements of distinction, which make clear that it is neither the individual self nor prakriti. 1.2.23, along with this its essential form too is described, hiranmaya, golden, which sets it apart from the individual self.

Context: Mundaka 1.1.5 through 1.1.6. This statement is the ground of the later neti-neti style (Brihadaranyaka 3.9).

Chandogya 5.11 through 5.18 holds a vidya, the Vaishvanara-vidya. King Ashvapati Kaikeya teaches this vidya to his five guests, all knowers of Brahman.

The opponent says Vaishvanara is a name for the digestive fire, or for the belly. Badarayana says the word Vaishvanara is used here in a special sense, and it fits Brahman. 1.2.25, smriti (Gita 15.14, अहं वैश्वानरो भूत्वा) confirms the same. 1.2.26, if someone says it is called dwelling in the heart and is therefore limited, Badarayana says this is only a teaching for contemplation, a pointer for meditation, and there is also a full description of it as a person.

1.2.27, from this it is neither merely a deity nor merely an element. 1.2.28 through 1.2.31, the views of four teachers, Jaimini (Brahman directly), Ashmarathya (manifestation), Badari (recollection), and Jaimini again (attainment). 1.2.32, आमनन्ति च एनम् अस्मिन्, the Vedas acknowledge it right here, in the heart.

Context: Chandogya 5.11 through 5.24. It is the most extended vidya in the Upanishad, the Panchagni-vidya and the Vaishvanara-vidya together.

Mundaka Upanishad 2.2.5 says यस्मिन् द्यौः पृथिवी चान्तरिक्षम् ओतम्. The abode in which heaven, earth, and the mid-region are woven through.

Badarayana says this abode is Brahman. In the same passage it is called by its own names (atman, Brahman). 1.3.2, it goes on to say that the liberated reach here, and the destination of liberation can only be Brahman. 1.3.3, should the inference-minded say this is pradhana, Badarayana refuses it, अ-तत्-शब्दात्, there is no word for pradhana there. 1.3.4, it is also called प्राणभृत् (the bearer of life), which fits Brahman alone. 1.3.5, there is a statement of distinction between the individual self and Brahman as well. 1.3.6, the context concerns Brahman. 1.3.7, sustaining and consuming, these qualities of holding up everything fit Brahman alone.

Context: Mundaka 2.2.5.

The climax of the dialogue between Narada and Sanatkumara in Chandogya 7.23 and 7.24. Sanatkumara says यो वै भूमा तत् सुखम्, नाल्पे सुखम् अस्ति. Where the bhuma, the infinite, is, there is happiness. In the small there is no happiness.

Badarayana says this bhuma is Brahman. The word samprasada stands for a state of the individual self, and when the teaching points above samprasada, it is Brahman. 1.3.9, the qualities named alongside, fearlessness and standing above all, fit Brahman alone.

Life mostly passes in small pleasures, now a gain, now some new thing. The Upanishad says that small happiness keeps slipping through the fingers. True happiness lies in the bhuma, where there is no limit, no bond.

Context: Chandogya 7.23 and 7.24. This bhuma-vidya is intensely central in the shastra of Vedanta.

In Brihadaranyaka 3.8 comes Gargi’s famous question, in what is all this woven? Yajnavalkya answers अक्षरे, हे गार्गी. In the akshara, O Gargi. In the imperishable.

Badarayana says this akshara is Brahman. To hold up even ambara, space, only Brahman can do. 1.3.11, this akshara also rules, meaning all move by its command. 1.3.12, the other possibilities, the individual self and pradhana, are all set aside.

Context: Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3.8, the famous dialogue of Gargi and Yajnavalkya.

Prashna Upanishad 5.5 says स ओमकारेणैवायतनेन परमं पुरुषमभिगच्छति. Through the support of Omkara he reaches that supreme person.

Badarayana says this supreme person is Brahman. In the same passage the one to be seen is stated as an object, and that is Brahman. The goal of Omkara contemplation is Brahman alone.

Context: Prashna Upanishad 5.

The famous statement of Chandogya 8.1. In the heart there is a dahara, a small, space, तत्र यदन्तस्तदन्वेष्टव्यम्. What is within it, that is what should be sought.

Badarayana says this dahara-akasha is Brahman. 1.3.14, the reasoning of the passages that follow points this way. 1.3.15, motion and word yield the marks. 1.3.16, to hold up this greatness fits Brahman alone. 1.3.17, Brahman is what is known in this form. 1.3.18, taking it as the other (the individual self) is not possible here. 1.3.19, the manifest form spoken of further on is Brahman itself. 1.3.20, even if the individual self is taken up, it is for another purpose. 1.3.21, if someone says shruti calls it small, Badarayana refuses it, that is only a pointer to place, not to essential form.

People place a hand on the chest and say that he dwells in the heart. This image runs very deep. The space in the heart, tradition calls exactly that the dahara-akasha, the dwelling of Brahman.

Context: Chandogya 8.1. This vidya is called the dahara-vidya.

Mundaka 2.2.10 says तमेव भान्तमनुभाति सर्वं, तस्य भासा सर्वमिदं विभाति. It alone shines, and all shine following it, by its light everything is lit.

Badarayana says the one that all follow is Brahman. 1.3.23, smriti (Gita 15.6, न तद् भासयते सूर्यो न शशाङ्को न पावकः) says the same.

Context: Mundaka 2.2.10 and Gita 15.6.

Katha Upanishad 2.1.12 and 2.1.13 and Shvetashvatara 3.13 say अङ्गुष्ठ-मात्रः पुरुषः. The person the measure of a thumb.

Badarayana says this thumb-sized person is Brahman, since the word itself establishes its relation to Brahman. 1.3.25, this description of a thumb’s measure is from the standpoint of the heart, because of human eligibility, meaning it is a form-pointer for meditation.

Context: Katha 2.1.12 and 2.1.13 and Shvetashvatara 3.13.

A question arises: are only humans eligible for the knowledge of Brahman, or the deities too? Here there is a clear disagreement between Badarayana and Jaimini.

Jaimini holds that the deities are bound to fixed rites, and have no place in the madhu-vidya, so they have no eligibility. Badarayana holds that the deities too are eligible, तदुपरि अपि सम्भवात्, it is possible. 1.3.27, many kinds of conception are possible in them. 1.3.28, the existence of the deities is established by verbal testimony. 1.3.29, and from this their permanence as well. 1.3.30, since they share name and form, there is no contradiction even in recurrence. 1.3.31, Jaimini’s rejoinder, the deities have no place in the madhu-vidya. 1.3.32, proof from their presence in the science of jyotisha. 1.3.33, Badarayana’s final view, भावं तु बादरायणः अस्ति हि, the deities certainly have eligibility.

Context: this is a highly distinctive philosophical question between Mimamsa and Vedanta.

This adhikarana is historically contested, and its context is worth understanding. Chandogya 4.1 and 4.2 tell the story of Janashruti. The question is whether the Shudra varna is eligible for the knowledge of Brahman.

Badarayana’s position (1.3.34), not for the Shudra. In the Upanishadic statement the word शुक्, sorrow, suggests that Janashruti’s sorrow belongs to a Kshatriya lineage, not the Shudra varna. 1.3.35, the proofs of Janashruti’s Kshatriya standing come further on from the Chaitraratha connection. 1.3.36, from the mention of the sacraments and the statement of their absence, the Shudra is marked off. 1.3.37, the whole thrust of the passage is toward settling that absence. 1.3.38, from the prohibition of hearing, study, and the yajna, and from the proof of smriti.

This adhikarana sits uneasily with today’s reader, and it should. The discourse on varna in Badarayana’s time was very different from today’s. All three traditions of Vedanta (Advaita, Vishishtadvaita, Dvaita) reformed over the centuries that followed, and traditions like the Sri Ramakrishna Mission and Sri Vidya give eligibility to all varnas plainly. We read this statement honestly, and it is not the view of today’s living tradition.

Context: Chandogya 4.1 and 4.2 (Janashruti and Raikva), and 4.4 (Satyakama Jabala). The second story (Satyakama) shows a boy of unknown lineage found worthy of the knowledge of Brahman for the sake of his truthful speech, and this tension too has always been in discussion.

Katha 2.3.2 says महद्भयं वज्रमुद्यतम्, य एतद्विदुरमृतास्ते भवन्ति. A very great fear, a raised thunderbolt, and whoever knows this becomes immortal. Here the trembling, that is, the pulsing of the whole of creation, comes from Brahman alone.

Badarayana says the cause of the trembling is Brahman, and this is clear from the Upanishadic statement itself.

Context: Katha 2.3.

Chandogya 8.12.3 says एवमेवैष सम्प्रसादोऽस्माच्छरीरात् समुत्थाय परं ज्योतिः उपसम्पद्य स्वेन रूपेणाभिनिष्पद्यते. The liberated self, on reaching the supreme light, comes to rest in its own true nature.

Badarayana says this supreme light is Brahman. The vision of the light is the vision of Brahman.

Context: Chandogya 8.12.

Chandogya 8.14.1 mentions akasha again, and here the word carries a different meaning.

Badarayana says the pointer to this different meaning is itself the sign that it is Brahman.

Context: Chandogya 8.14.

In Brihadaranyaka 4.3 and 4.4, Yajnavalkya describes sushupti (deep sleep) and utkranti (the hour of death). In both these states the self meets Brahman.

Badarayana says these two states make clear the relation between the self and Brahman. 1.3.43, words like पति (lord) and अपहत-पाप्मा (free of evil) point specifically to Brahman.

Context: Brihadaranyaka 4.3 and 4.4. This is the ground of the dialogue between Yajnavalkya and Maitreyi.

The Samkhya thinkers say that the avyakta (Katha 1.3.11), that is, pradhana or prakriti, is the cause of the world. This refutes exactly that.

1.4.1, that avyakta sits within the context of the body-metaphor. 1.4.2, the avyakta is called subtle because it is the subtle cause, not the Samkhya pradhana. 1.4.3, the avyakta is under Brahman. 1.4.4, the word “knowable” is not applied to the avyakta. 1.4.5, if someone says the avyakta speaks, Badarayana refuses it, this is the work of the wise Brahman. 1.4.6, the context concerns Brahman. 1.4.7, the listing of three (intellect, senses, objects) and the style of the question is not a Samkhya context.

Context: Katha 1.3.10 through 1.3.15. This Katha passage looks similar to the Samkhya school, though its real context is Brahman.

Shvetashvatara 4.5 holds a cryptic shloka, अजामेकाम् लोहित-शुक्ल-कृष्णाम् बह्वीः प्रजाः सृजमानाम् सरूपाः. One aja, unborn, of red, white, and dark colors, giving birth to many creatures. The opponent says this is pradhana.

Badarayana says no. 1.4.8, like the mahat, this too is a form of Brahman. 1.4.9, take the illustration of the chamasa, which is a special Vedic context, its particular meaning is known only from context. Here too aja means Brahman, not the Samkhya pradhana. 1.4.10, the reading that begins with its light is how some branches recite it.

Context: Shvetashvatara Upanishad 4.5.

In Brihadaranyaka 4.4.17 the word panchajana appears. The opponent asks what these five are, the five principles of Samkhya?

Badarayana says no. 1.4.11, from the teaching of conception, free of contradiction like the madhu-vidya. 1.4.12, mere number does not make a connection with Samkhya. 1.4.13, from the rest of the sentence, panchajana means the five beginning with prana (prana, eye, ear, mind, food).

Context: Brihadaranyaka 4.4.17.

In some branches the Brihadaranyaka passage reads food in place of light. Badarayana says this textual variant makes no significant difference. 1.4.15, from the standpoint of causality, in akasha and the rest too Brahman is the final cause.

Context: the textual variants of the Brihadaranyaka.

Kaushitaki Brahmana Upanishad 3.1 holds the dialogue of Balaki and Ajatashatru. Balaki says he teaches Brahman, and speaks about the sun, the moon, and the rest. Ajatashatru says no, the real Brahman is something else.

Badarayana says that Indra here means Brahman. 1.4.16, by drawing the thread together, the same current of Brahman runs through every description. 1.4.17, since the word denotes the world, the root of the world is Brahman. 1.4.18, if someone says this is the individual self or the chief breath, Badarayana refuses it, following the earlier explanation.

Context: Kaushitaki Brahmana Upanishad 3.

The famous dialogue of Brihadaranyaka 2.4. Before leaving for the forest, Yajnavalkya explains the knowledge of Brahman to his wife Maitreyi. This whole passage begins with आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः.

Badarayana says that atman here means Brahman. 1.4.19, according to Jaimini this serves another purpose, yet Badarayana establishes the sense of Brahman from this very question and its explanation. 1.4.20, the whole passage is bound to the context of Brahman. 1.4.21, Ashmarathya says this is the mark of the fulfillment of the pledge. 1.4.22, Audulomi’s view, at the time of liberation the individual self, rising up, attains the state of Brahman.

Context: Brihadaranyaka 2.4 and 4.5 (the Maitreyi dialogue, which appears twice).

The most doctrine-heavy adhikarana of the whole book. Badarayana declares that Brahman is a cause of two kinds, the efficient cause, like the potter of a pot, and the material cause, like the clay of a pot.

1.4.23, according to Kashakritsna, from its abiding presence, the individual self rests within Brahman in the form of the inner controller. 1.4.24, Brahman is prakriti too, that is, the material cause, and this is proved by the Upanishad’s pledges and illustrations. 1.4.25, सोऽकामयत, बहु स्यां प्रजायेय, it desired that I become many, this teaching of desire confirms Brahman as the cause. 1.4.26, directly and by dual mention, both forms are stated plainly in the Upanishad. 1.4.27, from self-making, that is, fashioning itself, transformation is established.

Context: Chandogya 6.2.1 through 6.2.3 (एकमेव अद्वितीयम् and सोऽकामयत बहु स्याम्). This doctrine of Brahman as both causes is the foundation of all Advaita Vedanta.

In Mundaka 1.1.6 the word yoni is applied to Brahman, bhuta-yoni. That is, Brahman is the source of all.

Context: Mundaka 1.1.

The last sutra of Book 1. एतेन सर्वे, meaning by this same method all, whatever other statements there are, व्याख्याताः व्याख्याताः, all of them have been explained, have been explained. This is Badarayana’s closing line.

This doubling of the sutra (व्याख्याताः व्याख्याताः) marks the end of a book, by the rule of tradition. Book 1 is complete here.

Next, Book 2 will begin, where Badarayana firms up this same establishing of Brahman against the objections of the other schools (Samkhya, Vaisheshika, Buddhist, Jain).

Context: this closing joins in sequence with the स्मृत्यनवकाशदोषप्रसङ्ग इति चेन्नान्यस्मृत्यनवकाशदोषप्रसङ्गात् of Book 2.1.