Problem of the ‘tad uktam’ Sutras in the Brahmasutras
By P. M. Modi
Summary
The problem of the *tad uktam* (referring to something stated) sutras in the *Brahma Sutra Bhatta* (Bra. 5.1.3.21, 1.3.1, 3.8, 3.26, 3.33, 3.43, 3.50, 1.4.21, 1.4.42) arises from conflicting interpretations by Sankara, Ramanuja, and Vallabha across 13 sutras. Sankara links *tad uktam* to the *Jaimini Sutras* in most cases, while Ramanuja aligns with him in five sutras but references the *Chandogya Upanisad* and *Gautama Dharma Sutra* in others (e.g., Bra. 3.8, 1.4.42). Vallabha partially agrees with Sankara but attributes three sutras (1.3.33, 1.3.50, 1.4.42) to the *Bhagavata Purana*, diverging from Sankara’s *Jaimini Sutras* references. Discrepancies persist in Bra. 1.3.26 and 3.43, where Sankara and Ramanuja cite *Jaimini Sutras*, while Vallabha refers to *Brahma Sutra* passages and the *Mundaka Upanisad*. Modern scholars like Tubaut, Deussen, and Ghate have overlooked these ambiguities. The paper focuses on Bra. 1.4.42, interpreting *tad
Summary reviewed by a volunteer editor.
Conclusion
This analysis of the ‘tad uktam’ Sutras in the Brahmasiitras reveals a significant interpretative divergence among prominent Acaryas, highlighting the ambiguity inherent in the expression’s application. The study demonstrates that Sankaracarya, Rimanujacarya, and Vallabhacarya inconsistently attribute references to different Smritis and Upanisads, often conflicting within their own commentaries. This inconsistency underscores a previously overlooked scholarly oversight, as modern commentators like Tlubaut, Deussen, and Ghate failed to address the expression’s fluidity. The research further contextualizes the debate within the ethical framework of Sutra 11.4.42, arguing that the negation of professional duties for a seeker of absolution hinges on the dissociation implied by Smrti texts. By resolving the ambiguity through a literal interpretation of ‘tad yuktat,’ the study clarifies the Sutra’s intent and contributes to a nuanced understanding of Vedantic jurisprudence on renunciation and societal obligations.