Learniverse

Let’s roll on to Sutra 7, and buckle up — because now we’re diving into a classic Vedantic roast 🔥

This time, the Brahma Sutras and Shankara go head-to-head with rival schools — especially those that think they’ve got Brahman all figured out through logic, speculation, or clever philosophy.

Shankara is like:

“Cute theories, but let’s see if they hold up when we shine the big light of Vedanta on them.”

Sutra 7: Tannaśruteḥ purvavāt

“(Brahman cannot be known from reasoning like in other philosophical systems), because it is not taught in those systems — just as in other cases (like Dharma).”

🧠 Translation in Modern Words:

“You can’t know Brahman from non-Vedantic philosophies, because they don’t talk about it — just like you can't learn Vedic duties (Dharma) from physics or poetry. Different lanes, different goals.”

This one continues the theme of the last Sutra but turns up the heat. Now it’s not just about logic failing — it’s about other schools of thought being fundamentally off-track when it comes to Brahman.

🎯 What’s the Core Point?

Other philosophical systems in India (and there were lots of them) — like Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika, Sāṃkhya, Buddhism, and Jainism — all have different ideas about reality, the soul, the world, and liberation.

They say things like:

“The Self is the body” (Materialists)
“It’s just a bundle of impressions” (Some Buddhists)
“Many selves exist” (Sāṃkhya)
“Atoms are eternal and create the world” (Vaiśeṣika)
“Liberation is separation of Purusha and Prakriti” (Sāṃkhya again)

Shankara goes, “Nope. None of them teach Brahman as revealed in the Upanishads. So you can’t use them to infer Brahman.”

🧱 Real World Analogy: Don’t Expect French Recipes in an Italian Cookbook

Let’s say you’re trying to learn how to make a perfect croissant.

You pick up an Italian cookbook — and while it’s filled with delicious pasta and pizza, there’s no croissant in sight.

Now imagine someone says:

“But I can figure out croissants from the pasta recipes.”

You’d be like: “Uhh… no. Wrong book.”

That’s what Shankara is saying here.
These other systems may talk about the world, the mind, or ethics, but they don’t even talk about Brahman — the limitless, non-dual Self that is the source and essence of everything.

So using those philosophies to find Brahman is like looking for your lost keys under a streetlight just because there’s more light there — even though you dropped them somewhere else.

📚 The Dharma Analogy: Learning Fire Rituals from a Physics Class?

Shankara uses a powerful precedent here: the way we understand Dharma (righteous action).

He says:

“Dharma — like the specific rituals and duties described in the Vedas — cannot be known through logic. You can only learn it from scripture.”

Why?

Because Dharma is not a product of reasoning. It’s subtle. It’s revealed. You can’t figure out what kind of wood to use in a yajna or when to chant the right mantra just by philosophizing.

Similarly, Brahman is also revealed, not invented.

So:

Just as Dharma is unknowable through reasoning, so is Brahman.

And if the only texts that actually talk about Brahman are the Upanishads, then those are the only texts that can lead you to it.

🤯 Why This Was (and Still Is) a Big Deal

This Sutra is low-key radical — it’s drawing the boundary lines of what counts as a valid spiritual path to Brahman.

It’s saying:

Don’t confuse good arguments with true revelation
Don’t conflate intellectual brilliance with direct knowledge of the Self
And don’t assume all paths lead to the same place — if they don’t talk about Brahman the way Vedanta does, they’re going somewhere else

Even if those philosophies are elegant or logical, if they lack the vision of non-dual Brahman, they can’t lead you to liberation.

🚨 Shankara's Bold Reminder

He doesn’t mince words. He basically says:

“Let’s be real — you won’t get to infinite bliss by analyzing atoms, or by splitting hairs about the nature of perception, or by meditating on voidness. If you want moksha, you need to know Brahman — and only Vedanta shows you Brahman.”

This isn’t narrow-minded — it’s focused. Brahman isn’t one of the goals in Vedanta. It’s the only goal. Other systems don’t even have it on the map.

📌 TL;DR: (Truth, Love, Dharma, and Reality 😄)

You can’t infer Brahman from non-Vedantic systems because they don’t teach Brahman in the first place
This is like trying to find French pastry recipes in an Italian cookbook — you’re just in the wrong place
Dharma (righteous action) can’t be figured out through logic — only revealed through the Vedas. Same with Brahman
Therefore, only the Upanishads are qualified to teach about the Self that is Brahman
Vedanta doesn’t reject reason — but it says reason must serve revelation, not replace it

Up next is Sutra 8, where the text gets even sharper in explaining why inference fails — not just because it’s “not enough,” but because it leads to completely wrong conclusions when used by itself.

Want to keep exploring this intellectual treasure map?

Chapter 1

Content

Versions: