तन्निष्ठस्य मोक्षोपदेशात् ।
tan-niṣṭhasya mokṣopadeśāt |
(Vedānta-sūtra: 1.1.7)
“[The Brahman that is described in the śāstra is beyond the guṇas of prakṛti] Because of specification of the mokṣa of one possessed of fixity upon that [i.e., upon Brahman].”
Commentary
taittīriyake—‘asad vā idam agra āsīt tato vai sad ajāyata tad ātmānaṁ svayam akuruta’ ity ārabhya ‘yadā hy evaiṣa etasminn adṛṣṭśye’nātmye’nirukte’nilayane’bhayaṁ pratiṣṭhāṁ vindate’tha so’bhayaṁ gato bhavati, yadā hy evaiṣa etasminn udaram antaraṁ kurute atha tasya bhayaṁ bhavati’ iti prapañcātīte veda-vācye viśva-kartari tasmin para-brahmaṇi pariniṣṭhitasya vimukti-kathanān na sa gauṇaḥ | tasya gauṇatve tad-bhaktasya muktiṁ na brūyāt |
(Excerpt from Govinda-bhāṣya)
“‘Before [the emanation], this [i.e., the visible universe] was non-existent [i.e., unmanifest and thus imperceptible, meaning, only nirguṇa Brahman was existent and the material universe was dissolved within it]. Then, indeed, existence emerged [i.e., the visible, material universe manifested from nirguṇa Brahman]. That made itself on its own [i.e., nirguṇa Brahman manifested from itself the saguṇa material universe].’ Starting from [this aforesaid statement] in Taittirīya Upaniṣad (2.7.1), [it is later said,] ‘When indeed this [i.e., the jīva] attains fearless establishment in this invisible, incorporeal, indescribable, non-grounded [i.e., independently self-existent] Entity [i.e., nirguṇa Brahman], then one attains fearlessness. When indeed this [i.e., the jīva, however,] enacts an interior separation from this [Entity, viz., nirguṇa Brahman, i.e., when the jīva’s awareness is directed away from Brahman], then it experiences fear.’ Because of [this aforesaid] description of the ultimate mukti [being effected] of one who is fully fixed in this [aforementioned] Parabrahman, that is, the Cause of the universe described in the Vedas who is beyond the material manifestation, this [i.e., that aforesaid nirguṇa Parabrahman] is not made of the guṇas [of prakṛti]. If his [i.e., Parabrahman’s] being made of the guṇas were the case, the mukti of bhaktas thereof [i.e., of Parabrahman] would not be spoken of [in the aforecited passage].”