Brahma-Sūtra 1.4.23

English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.4.23 by Roma Bose:

“(Brahman is) the material cause, and (the efficient cause), on account of the absence of conflict with regard to the initial proposition and the illustration.”

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

“The material cause,” as well as the efficient cause,—indicated by the particle “and” (in the sūtra),—is none but the Supreme Soul, because then alone the initial proposition: ‘“Did you ask for that instruction whereby the unheard becomes heard, the unthought becomes thought, the unknown becomes known ?”’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.1.3 ^[1]), as well as the illustration: ‘“Just as, my dear, through a lump of clay, all objects made of clay may be known”’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.1.4 ^[2]) are explicable.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

Having thus refuted the atheistic school of the Sāṃkhyas, now the author, by refuting the theistic school of the Sāṃkhyas, is confirming the view, mentioned above, that the Lord is the non-different material and efficient cause of the world.

It may be objected that, properly, this section ought to have been inserted immediately after the aphorism: ‘From whom (arise) the origin and the rest of this’ (Brahma-sūtra 1.1.2), demonstrating the characteristic marks of Brahman, establishing the nature of the cause of the world. (To this we reply): No. One sees its appropriateness here indeed. Thus, on the enquiry: viz. Of what mark is Brahman? with regard to the injunction, viz. ‘An enquiry into Brahman should be undertaken’,—the mark of Brahman was stated in the aphorism ‘From whom (arise) the origin and the rest of this’ (Brahma-sūtra 1.1.2). There it was certainly established, on the ground of scriptural and Smṛti texts, that Brahman is both the material and the efficient cause. After that, there being no enquiry as to whether He is only the material cause, or only the efficient cause, the topic was not further amplified. But there those who take everything to be the transformation of prakṛti (and take Brahman to be the efficient cause only) are being refuted separately.

Thus, some theistic Sāṃkhyas hold: In the world of ordinary experience, sentient beings like potters and the rest are found to be the efficient cause alone, and not the material cause. In the passages: ‘He thought’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 1.2.5; Aitareya-upaniṣad 1.1), ‘He thought’ (Praśna 6.3), creation is said to be preceded by thinking. Hence let the Supreme Lord, the thinker, be, somehow or other, only the efficient cause of the world; but the material cause of mahat and the rest is nothing but pradhāna, superintended by Him, just as clay is the material cause of pots and the like, in accordance with the text: ‘He thinks of her who is the mother of all changes, non-knowing, having eight forms, and eternal. Ruled by him she manifests herself; again incited and superintended by him alone^[3] she gives birth to the world for the benefit of the soul. She is a cow, without beginning and end, the progenitress, the source of all beings’ (Cūlikā-upaniṣad 3b-5a^[4]).

With regard to it, we reply: Brahman alone is ‘prakṛti’, i.e. the material cause of the world, as well as its efficient cause, indicated by the particle “and” (in the sūtra). Why? “On account of the absence of conflict with regard to the initial proposition and illustration,” i.e. on account of the non-contradiction or consistency of the initial proposition and the illustration. The initial proposition, to begin with, is as follows: ‘“Did you ask for that instruction whereby the unheard becomes heard, the unthought thought, the unknown known?”’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.1.3). The meaning of this text is as follows:

O son Śvetaketu! Did you ask for that ‘instruction’, I.e. that instructor, viz. the Supreme Soul, ‘whereby’, i.e. through hearing of whom from the preceptor, even what is unheard becomes heard, what is unthought becomes thought, what is unknown becomes known? It is known from this initial proposition that the Supreme Soul is the material cause, since the hearing and the rest of the effects is justifiable only through the hearing and the rest of the material cause. The illustration given is as follows: ‘“Just as, my dear, through a lump of clay, all objects made of clay may be known”’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.1.4) and so on. It is known from this illustration that the Supreme Soul is the material cause of the object illustrated as well (viz. clay). A potter has not been cited in the illustration; and through a potter being known, a pot cannot be known. But a lump of clay being known, all objects made of clay, like pots and the rest, may, indeed, be known.

To the contention, viz. that in the world of ordinary experience sentient beings like potters and the rest are found to be efficient causes merely,—we reply: We do not arrive at the cause of the world by means of inference and the rest, and so, for us, there is no need for the illustration of a potter. But discarding all evidences contrary to the Veda, we follow what is mentioned by Scripture and the preceptor^[5]. Moreover, in the world of ordinary experience, too, we see that a sentient person is the material cause of the effects like hairs, body-hairs and the rest; that a spider is the material cause of the web, and so on. We read in Scripture, too: ‘Just as hairs and body-hairs (arise) from a person, just as a spider creates and takes’ (Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 1.1.7^[6]). If it be objected that in the above cases, the material causes containing elements, suitable for giving rise to the effects,—(we reply:) in the subject of our discussion, too, there is God’s self-power, called prakṛti.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja Bhāskara, Śrīkaṇṭha and Baladeva.

[2]:

Op. cit.

[3]:

Incorrect, ought to be ‘adhyāsitā’, which is translated here.

[4]:

Reading different, Viz.:

‘Vikāra-jananīm māyām aṣṭa-rūpāṃ dhruvām
Dhyāyate adhyāsitā tena tanyate preritā punaḥ.
Stūyate puruṣārthañ ca tenaivādhiṣṭhitā purā
Gauranādavatī sā tu janitrī bhūta-bhāvinī’.

Vide Cūlikā-upaniṣad 3-5, p. 230.

[5]:

Vide Vedānta-kaustubha 1.1.3.

[6]:

Correct quotation:

‘Yathā ūrṇa-nābhiḥ sṛjate gṛhṇate ca
Yathā pṛthivyām oṣadhayaḥ saṃbhavanti.
Yathā sotaḥ puruṣāt keśa-lomāni’,
     etc.

Vide Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 1.1.7, p. 9.