Брахма Сутралар: Үнді философиясының Веданта мектебінің негізгі мәтіні

Foundational text of the Vedānta school of Hindu philosophy

The Brahma Sūtras , also known as the Vedanta Sūtra (Sanskrit: वेदान्त सूत्र), Shariraka Sūtra, and Bhikshu sūtra, are a Sanskrit text which synthesizes and harmonizes Upanishadic ideas and practices. It is attributed to the sages Bādarāyaṇa and Vyāsa, 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. The oldest version may be composed between 500 BCE and 200 BCE, with 200 BCE being the most likely date. The Brahma Sūtras consist of 555 aphoristic verses (sutras) in four chapters, dealing with attaining knowledge of Brahman. Assuming that the Upanishads are 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 conflicting vidyas ("knowledges") of, and upasanas (meditation, worship) on Brahman. It does so from a bhedabheda perspective, arguing, as John Koller states: "that Brahman and Atman are, in some respects, different, but, at the deepest level, non different (advaita), being identical." The first chapter unifies the different views of Brahman or Absolute Reality found in the Upanishads. The second chapter reviews and addresses the objections raised by the ideas of competing orthodox schools of Hindu philosophies such as Nyaya, Yoga, Vaisheshika and Mimamsa as well as heterodox schools such as Buddhism and Jainism. The third chapter compares the vidyas and upasanas found in the Upanishads, deciding which are similar and can be combined, and which are different. The last chapter states why such a knowledge is an important human need. The Brahma Sūtras is one of three most important texts in Vedanta along with the Principal Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita. The Brahma Sūtras text is dated to centuries that followed Buddha and Mahavira, because it mentions and critiques the ideas of Buddhism and Jainism in Chapter 2. The text's relative chronology is also based on the fact that Badarayana quotes all major known orthodox Hindu schools of philosophy except Nyaya. 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, with scholars such as Lochtefeld suggesting that the text was composed sometime between 500 and 200 BCE, while Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Dasgupta independently suggest the 2nd century BCE as more likely. Hermann Jacobi in early 20th century suggested that Madhyamaka Buddhist concepts such as Sunyavada, acknowledged in the Brahma Sūtras, may be a late invention, and suggests that both Sunyavada and Brahma Sūtras may therefore have emerged between 200 and 450 CE. According to Hajime Nakamura, the Brahma Sūtraswere likely complete in the current form between 400 and 450 CE. The existence of earlier versions of the Brahma Sūtras, and multiple authors predating Badarayana, is supported by textual evidence. Some scholars, such as Sengaku Mayeda, state Brahma Sūtra 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 surviving Brahma Sūtras starting about 300 BCE through about 400 450 CE. Nakamura states that the original version of Brahma Sūtras is likely very ancient and its inception coincides with the Kalpa Sutras period (1st millennium BCE). Natalia Isaeva states, "on the whole, scholars are rather unanimous, considering the most probable date for Brahma Sūtras sometime between the 2nd century BCE and the 2nd century CE. He explains the mention of different philosophies and their criticism in the Brahma Sutra as refutations of general ideas, which are eternal. And not specific schools of thought like Buddhism etc. So, there is no necessity to assign a later date.

The third chapter focuses on the yearning for knowledge of Brahman, and the means to attain it. karma and importance of conduct and free will, and the connection between Atman (Self, Soul) and the Brahman are discussed in sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the text. Sections 3.3 and 3.4 describe the need for self study, reflection of texts read, meditation, etc., as steps while one makes progress and the role of sannyasa (monk, mendicant) in the pursuit of spiritual knowledge. The Upanishads describe many upasanas on Brahman, with considerable similarities, but also with differences, due to the variations in transmission in the different Vedic schools. The Brahma sutra, in Adhikaranas 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". The most referred to texts in these sections are the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, the Chandogya Upanishad, the Kaushitaki Upanishad, the Katha Upanishad, and the non Upanishadic parts of Shatapatha Brahmana and Aitereya Aranyaka. While upasana may be regarded as a kind of meditation, it is more than dhyana or sitting in meditation; 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. 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. 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". 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. The text declares that according to the Vedic 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.

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. The last chapter of the Brahma Sūtras discusses the need and fruits of self knowledge, the state of freedom and liberation. The liberated soul, asserts the Brahma 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".

The sutras in the text can be, and have been read in different ways. Another example is Shanakra's interpretation of a set of sutras (2.3.19 28) as reflective of the Purva paksha and Ramanuja's taking the same set of sutras to be reflective of the Siddhanta. Shankara argues that the description of the individual self (jiva) as atomic in size in these sutras marks the Purva paksha, whereas Ramanuja takes it to be the Siddhanta. A point of disagreement between commentators concerns where to divide the text into Adhikaranas. Although there is a clear division of Adhyayas and Padas in the text, no division of Adhikaranas is universally affirmed, leading to disagreements about how the sutras in each Adhikaranas should be divided. 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 word antarā 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 the Brahma 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 the Brahma Sūtras did not have a philosophical system in mind that Shankara, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Madhva, and their successors have expressed.