Brahma Sutras (Nimbarka commentary)

by Roma Bose | 1940 | 290,526 words

English translation of the Brahma-sutra 2.1.11, including the commentary of Nimbarka and sub-commentary of Srinivasa known as Vedanta-parijata-saurabha and Vedanta-kaustubha resepctively. Also included are the comparative views of important philosophies, viz., from Shankara, Ramanuja, Shrikantha, Bhaskara and Baladeva.

Brahma-Sūtra 2.1.11

English of translation of Brahmasutra 2.1.11 by Roma Bose:

“If it be said that on account also of reasoning having no solid ground, it is to be inferred otherwise, (we reply:) in that way, too, there will be the consequence of non-release.”

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

On account also of the instability of reasoning, there is no inconsistency in the stated conclusion; since, if pradhāna and the rest he inferred to be the cause of the world by means of a strong reasoning, then a counter-argument is possible by means of another equally strong reasoning. As there will be the “consequence of non-release thus also”, owing to disagreement among the logicians, so, that alone which is mentioned in the Veda is acceptable—this is established.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

The word “api” means ‘and’. There is no inconsistency in the stated conclusion, which is based on Scripture. There is inconsistency in the Sāṃkhya conclusion itself which is based on reasoning, since the stated objections apply thereto, “on account also of reasoning having no solid ground”, i.e. on account of the instability of reasoning. The sense is that the thing inferred by one expert logician is set aside by another, proved to be otherwise by another,—on account of the instability of reasoning in this way. But the thing mentioned in the Vedānta in the beginning and the end cannot he refuted even by hundreds of reasonings.

If it be objected: Even though reasonings like ‘on account of difference’[1] he refutable, having no solid ground, yet in order that there may not be any infinite regress, it is perfectly proper to infer, in that way, a non-sentient material cause of the non-sentient effects, like the ether and the rest—

(We reply;) “in that way too”, the primacy of reasoning is upheld, and hence the conclusion stated in the Veda is regarded as but of a secondary importance. As a consequence, non-release will result owing to the mutual opposition among Kapila, Kaṇāda and the rest. It cannot he said that if victory be won by one of them at some time or other, there will he no non-release as a consequence,—it being impossible for one among many persons to be ever-victorious. If it be said that the Supreme Soul is such, you fall in with our view; so be happy by giving up reasoning which is opposed to the Veda.

Thus the Lord Vāsudeva, the sole topic of all the Vedas, being established to be the material cause of the world, no opposition, based on reasoning which is opposed to the Veda is of any avail—this is established. _

Here ends the section entitled “Difference” (3).

Comparative views of Śaṅkara:

He reads: “Vimokṣa-prasaṅga” instead of “Anirmokṣa-prasaṅga”.[2]

Comparative views of Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha:

They break it into two different sūtras—viz.: “Tarkāpratiṣṭhānād api” and “Anyathā....prasaṅgaḥ”.[3]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Vide Brahma-sūtra 2.1.4.

[2]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 2.1.11, p. 458.

[3]:

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

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: