Brahma-Sūtra 2.1.23

English of translation of Brahmasutra 2.1.23 by Roma Bose:

“If it be objected that on account of the observation of collection, (Brahman is) not (the creator of the world), (we reply:) no, for (he transforms himself) like milk.”

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

If it be objected that “on account of the observation of the collection” of many implements by potters and others, Brahman, who is without any external implement, is not the cause of the world—(we reply:) “no”, since Brahman transforms Himself “like milk”, possessing, as He does, powers peculiar to Him alone.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

The objection, viz. if the universal Lord, possessing the sentient and the non-sentient as His powers, the soul of all, and without an equal or a superior, be the creator of the world, there arises the faults like not doing what is beneficial and the rest, has been refuted above on the ground that the individual soul, though non-different from Brahman as having Him as its soul, is yet subject to transmigratory existence as subject to beginningless karmas, and thus different from Him by nature. Now, the author is disposing of the following objection, viz. that Brahman is not the creator of the world on account of the absence of the collection of external implements.

The words “and the rest” are to be supplied from the last aphorism. The word “for” denotes the reason.

If it be objected: In ordinary life, it is always found that external implements like stick and so on are employed for the production of effects like pots, etc. Hence, Brahman who has no helpers, is not the creator of the world. To the question: Whence is this known? We reply: That Brahman is without any helpers is definitely ascertained from the following texts, designating the impossibility of the existence of any kind of agent in the beginning: ‘“The existent alone, my dear, was this in the beginning, one only, without a second”’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.2.1), ‘There was, verily, Nārāyaṇa, the one’ (Mahā-upaniṣad 1.2), “Then there was Viṣṇu, Hari alone, the absolute”,—

(We reply:) “no”. Why? “Because” Brahman is “like milk”. Just as in ordinary life milk, water and the rest are transformed into-the form of effects like sour milk, ice and so on,—there is no external implement here,—so Brahman, possessed of the sentient and the non-sentient as His powers, is capable of being the one identical material and efficient cause of the world through His very nature. He has not to depend on the collection of accessories for creating the world, as declared by the text: “Supreme is His power, declared to be manifold: natural is the operation of His knowledge and power” (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 6.8).

Whey, on the other hand, is sometimes mixed with milk, simply for giving a certain flavour to it, and not for making it turn sour,^[1] because we find that milk turns sour even when whey is absent from it, and that water and the rest do not turn into sour milk even when whey is present in them.

It is because the potters and others are mere efficient causes that they have to depend on clay, etc. for making pots, etc.; and it is because they lack the requisite power that they have to depend on the stick, the wheel and so on.

Although the facts mentioned in the Veda are ever-established,, yet objections are being raised against them again and again for removing the doubts of those who are entitled to the study of it, for silencing the opponent and for making one understand the meaning of the Veda without a vestige of doubt.

Comparative views of Baladeva:

This is sūtra 24 in Ms commentary. Interpretation different, viz. “If it be objected that on account of the observation of the completion (of a piece of work by the individual soul,) (it cannot be likened to inert stones and the rest, but is a free agent), (we reply) no, for (the.soul’s power of action is) like (the cow’s power of producing) milk”.^[2] That is, although the soul is an agent and can as such bring works to completion, yet it is not an independent agent, but has to depend on the Lord for its activities, just as the cow cannot by herself produce milk, but has to depend on the life-energy.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

This replies to the objection, viz. that the above example of milk is not to the point, since milk is not transformed into sour milk by itself, but has to-depend on whey.

[2]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 2.1.24, pp. 56-57, Chap. 1.