śrutatvāc ca - The Lord has no material qualities
Brahman is transcendental is stated everywhere in the sastras, not only in the smṛti, but also in the sruti. This is offered as a final argument by Vyāsadeva against the idea of saguna Brahman.
« Vedānta-sūtra: The Govinda-bhāṣya of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Sutra 1.1.11 - śrutatvāc ca
śrutatvāc ca
śrutatvāt: because it is stated in the sruti; ca: and.
He has no material qualities, this is directly stated throughout the Vedic literature.
Commentary: "Śrutatvāc ca" means that the conclusion of the previous sutra (Brahman is transcendental) is stated everywhere in the sastras, not only in the smṛti, but also in the sruti. This is offered as a final argument by Vyāsadeva against the idea of saguna and nirguna Brahman.
As previously mentioned, the Vedic literature is divided into two categories: śruti and smṛti. The main books in the Vedas, such as the original Vedas and the Upanisads, are called śruti, and other books that are considered corollaries, literature that was revealed later in support of the Vedas, such as the Bhagavad-gītā and the Puranas, are called smṛti. In the Brahma Sutras, the word "śruti" is often mentioned to indicate a passage from the Upanisads, and "smṛti" to indicate a passage from the Bhagavad-gītā or one of the Puranas. This is more like a technical division, and not indicative of importance.
As established in the previous sutra, conclusions should be established by examining and harmonizing all statements of the scriptures. When we do that, we find that numerous passages in the scriptures state that the Lord has no material qualities. The idea that there are two Brahmans, one with material qualities and the other transcendental, finds no support whatsoever in the scriptures. Only one Brahman is described in the scriptures, and He has no material qualities. There is no such thing as a saguna Brahman.
To sustain this point, Srila Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa quotes a verse from the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (6.11):
eko devaḥ sarva-bhūteṣu gūḍhaḥ, sarva-vyāpī sarva-bhūtāntarātmā
karmādhyakṣaḥ sarva-bhūtādhivāsaḥ, sākṣī cetā kevalo nirguṇaś ca
"The Supreme Personality of Godhead manifests Himself as the all-pervading Supersoul, the witness present in the hearts of all living entities. He is all-knower, the overseer of all actions, the One without a second, the supreme living force. He is transcendental to the material modes, beyond all material qualities."
The scriptures also do not say that it is impossible to describe Brahman. Some say that Brahman may be understood not from the direct statements of the Vedic literature, but merely indirectly, or from hints found in the Vedic texts, but Sri Baladeva argues that this is not the correct understanding.
If the Vedas had no power to directly describe Brahman, then naturally the Vedas would also not have the power to indirectly describe Him or hint about His nature. Different passages of the scriptures state that Brahman has no contact with material qualities or with the three material modes, that He cannot be seen by material eyes, and so on, but nowhere is it said that the words of the Vedas have no power to describe Him.
To this, one could argue that it sounds like a contradiction to say that Brahman has qualities, while the scriptures describe Brahman as nirguna, without qualities. Such statements appear to contradict the direct statements of the scriptures.
This doubt appears due to a lack of understanding of the proper meaning of the word "nirguna". When the scriptures say that the Lord is nirguna, it means He has no nih (contact) with guna (the three modes of material nature), and not that He doesn't have qualities at all. The Lord has no association with the material modes, and thus no material qualities, but He has unlimited transcendental qualities, and these qualities are described in the Vedic literature.
While in many passages of the sastras, negative words like "nirguna" are mentioned in relation to Brahman, positive words such as "omniscient" are also used. When both are taken in context, the logical conclusion is that words such as "nirguna" describe that Brahman has no material qualities, while words like "omniscient" describe his spiritual qualities. No mundane person can be everywhere at the same time, since our material bodies are limited by time and space, but being endowed with a perfect spiritual form, the Lord can be everywhere simultaneously in his feature of Paramātmā and see everything. This is confirmed by many statements from the smrti-sastra, including these two statements from the Viṣnu Purāṇa:
sattvādayo na santi śe, yatra cāprakṛtā guṇāḥ
"The Supreme Personality of Godhead is completely pure, eternally free from the touch of the material modes. All his innumerable qualities are fully transcendental."
samasta-kalyāṇa-guṇātmako'sau
"The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the embodiment of all auspicious qualities."
The words "samasta-kalyāṇa-guṇāḥ" (all-auspicious qualities) include qualities such as jñāna (knowledge), bala (strength), aiśvarya (lordship), vīrya (energy), śakti (power), tejas (splendor), karuṇā (compassion), maṅgala (auspiciousness), etc. Different living entities possess these qualities in minute quantities, but the Lord possesses them in full. However, the words "guṇa-atmakaḥ" alert that the English word "possess" does not do proper justice. These qualities are not merely external possessions or attributes that are owned by the Lord, but are His very essence. The Lord thus does not simply have auspicious qualities, but He is the very embodiment and source of these qualities, and this is supported by both direct statements of the scriptures and logic.
At this point, one could insist on the literal interpretation of the word "nirguna", stubbornly refusing any explanation. To this unreasonable opponent, Sri Baladeva offers a last argument: "Does this description that Brahman has no qualities help to positively understand Brahman?"
If one answers "yes", then he has to accept that the Vedas do have the power to describe Brahman, since the description of Brahman as "nirguna" is helping him to reach some understanding. He should thus accept our conclusion that the Supreme Brahman is described in the Vedas. If he answers "no", then he has to admit that his studies of the Vedic literature have been a great waste of time, and that he is still completely ignorant of Brahman's real nature and is thus unqualified to discuss this topic. In this case, he should also accept our conclusion as superior to what he currently has.
Exercise
Now it's your turn. Can you answer the following arguments using the ideas from this section?
Opponent: The Taittriya Upanisad (2.4.1) clearly states that it's not possible to describe the supreme Brahman, yato vāco nivartante aprāpya manasā saha. "Words cannot describe him, and the mind cannot understand him."
Brahman is described in the scriptures as self-manifest. Brahman can't be expressed by words. Brahman is above words and logic, therefore, it can't be understood by these instruments. If Brahman were expressible by words, its self-revealing nature would be lost. Your insistence that Brahman can be described in words defies all logic and directly contradicts the scriptures.
See for example what says the Kena Upanisad (1.5): yad vacanābhyuditaṁ yena vāg abhyudyate, tad eva brahma tvaṁ viddhi nedaṁ yad idaṁ upāsate. "No one has the power to describe Brahman with words, even though everyone's speech occurs by the power granted by Brahman. Know that this Brahman is not material. Worship this Brahman."
Any attempt to describe Brahman in words results in saguna Brahman, a false, temporary manifestation of Brahman expressed through the modes of material nature, and not the perfect, complete, eternal, pure original Brahman, which remains indescribable by words.
Brahman should be found by contemplation and meditation, not by just some verbal description. Even the Srimad Bhagavatam you like to quote directly contradicts this view: yato ’prāpya nyavartanta, vācaś ca manasā saha, ahaṁ cānya ime devās, tasmai bhagavate namaḥ. "I offer respects to that Supreme Brahman, whom words, along with the mind and the devatās such as Bṛhaspati, Rudra, and others gave up the endeavor of understanding and describing."
How can you answer this challenge?
« Vedānta-sūtra: The Govinda-bhāṣya of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa