Brahma-Sūtra 2.1.30 (correct conclusion end)

English of translation of Brahmasutra 2.1.30 by Roma Bose:

“If it be objected that (brahman is not the cause of the world) because of the absence of sense-organs, (we reply:) that has been said.”

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

If it be objected that on account of the denial of His sense-organs in the text: ‘No action or sense-organ of Him exists’ (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 6.8^[1]), it is not possible for one who is endowed with all powers to be the creator of the world—(we reply:) the answer to this has already been given.^[2]

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

If it be objected: Let Brahman be endowed with all powers: still, like milk, without implements such as basin, pot and the rest; like the seed, without implements, such as earth, water, and so on; and like gods and others without implements befitting particular places and times, He cannot consistently be the creator of effects, though possessed of powers, “because of the absence of sense-organs” on His part, i.e. because He is known to be devoid of sense-organs from the text: ‘No action or sense-organ of Him exists’ (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 6.8)—(We reply:) The reply to this has been given in the aphorism: “Because of being based on Scripture” (Brahma-sūtra 21.1.26). The meaning of the above scriptural text is as follows: There exist ‘no action’,—i,e. that which is to be done for the purpose of obtaining bliss,—and ‘sense-organ’ for the production of desired for action, ‘of him’, i.e. of the Supreme Lord who is one mass of ever-present bliss, the Lord of all and the Creator of the world.^[3] There are scriptural texts to this effect, viz.; ‘The soul, which consists of bliss’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.5), ‘Filled with His own self alone’, ‘A flavour, verily, is He’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.7), ‘Having all desires, having all odours, having all tasks’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 3.14.2, 4), ‘Without hands and feet, he is swift and a seizer; without eyes, he sees; without ears he hears’ (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 3.19) and so on. The declaration by the Lord Himself, too, is as follows: ‘“I have no duties, whatsoever, O Pārtha, in the three world, nor anything unattained to be attained; yet I abide in action”’ (Gītā 3.22). Hence it is established that the above-mentioned faults pertain to the opponent’s view alone, but not to the conclusion established by the Vedānta.

Here ends the section entitled “The consequence of the entire” (9).

Comparative views of Baladeva:

This is sūtra 31 in his commentary. The interpretation of the phrase “tad uktam” different, viz.: “that has been answered (by Scripture itself)”. That is the very same Upaniṣad (viz, Śvetāśvatara) which has been quoted by the opponent in support of Ms allegation that the Lord, devoid of sense-organs (viz. Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 6.8), cannot act, answers to the objection by pointing out that though devoid of sense-organs, He can yet act (viz. Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 3.19^[4]).

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Quoted by Rāmānuja, Śrīkaṇṭha and Baladeva.

[2]:

Vide Brahma-sūtra 2.1.26.

[3]:

I.e. the Lord, who is ever blissful does not need to act for attaining any further bliss; and He has not to depend on the sense-organs for His action.

[4]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 2.1.31, p. 67, Chap. 2.