Brahma-Sūtra 2.1.10 (correct conclusion end)

English of translation of Brahmasutra 2.1.10 by Roma Bose:

“And on account of objection to his own view.”

Nimbārka’s commentary (Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha):

The Sāṃkhya, maintaining a doctrine opposed to the Veda, cannot raise any objection, since the stated objections apply to his own view as well.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

The author points out that the Sāṃkhya cannot even object that there is any inconsistency in our view which is based on the Veda.

There is no inconsistency in our view based as it is on Scripture. It has been alleged by the Sāṃkhya, unacquainted as he is with the settled conclusion of the Vedānta, firstly, that a cause-effect relation between Brahman and the world is inappropriate, as there is a difference between the cause and the effect in this case; secondly, that, in our view, the effect becomes non-existent prior to creation, and thirdly, that Brahman becomes like the word during the time of dissolution. All these objections are of equal force against the Sāṃkhya doctrine as well. The sense is: The origin of the effect,—which possesses colour and the rest and possesses parts,—from pradhāna, which is colourless and devoid of parts, is admitted. Hence, a cause-effect relation between pradhāna and its effects is inappropriate, there being here a difference between the cause and the effect. There being nothing gross prior to creation, the effect itself becomes non-existent; and during dissolution, prakṛti, like the world, becomes gross.

Comparative views:

All others, except Baladeva, read: “sapakṣa-doṣāc ca”.^[1]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 2.1.10, p. 8.5.7; Śrī-bhāṣya (Madras edition) 2.1.10, p. 13, Part 2; Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 2.1.10, p. 91; Brahma-sūtras (Śrīkaṇṭha’s commentary) 2.1.10, p. 14, Parts 7 and 8.