Brahma-Sūtra 2.1.34 (correct conclusion continued)

English of translation of Brahmasutra 2.1.34 by Roma Bose:

“If it be objected that this is not (possible), on account of the non-distinction of works, (we reply:) no, on account of beginninglessness, and (this) fits in, and is observed also.”

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

If it be objected that since the text: ‘“The existent alone, my dear, was this in the beginning’” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.2.1^[1]) declares the ‘non-distinction’ of works prior to creation, the Supreme Being’s dependence on the works does not fit in,—(we reply:) “no”, as works exist even then, the works done by the individual souls in previous births being eternal. And a prior creation “fits in”, as a sudden subsequent creation is unreasonable.^[2] And this is “observed also” in the text: ‘The creator fashioned the sun and the moon as he did before’ (Ṛgveda-saṃhitā 10.190.3^[3]) and so on.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

If it be objected: The reason, viz. ‘on account of dependence’, does not fit in. Why? “On account of the non-distinction of works.” That is, the non-distinction of the entire world prior to creation being ascertained from the text: ‘“The existent alone, my dear, was this in the beginning, one only, without a second”’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.2.1), the non-distinction of the works of the individual souls, too, is ascertained. Hence, prior to creation, there are no works as the cause of the diversities of the objects to be created, on which Brahman might depend,—

(We reply:) “no”. Why? “On account of the beginningless” of all. That is, the works, good and bad, done by the individual souls in a previous creation, become the cause of the diversities in a subsequent creation. “And” the continuity of creation “fits in” in accordance with the maxim of ‘the seed and the shoot’,^[4] and in accordance with the above-mentioned difference between the manifest and unmanifest effect,^[5] as well as because a sudden subsequent creation without a prior creation is inexplicable, this last reason being indicated by the particle “and” (in the sūtra). This is “observed also” in Scripture. That is, since the text: ‘The creator fashioned the sun and the moon as he did before’ (Ṛgveda-saṃhitā 10.190.3), teaches the existence of a prior creation, the eternity of the flow of creation is established. And in the scriptural and Smṛti texts like: ‘With roots above, branches below is this eternal fig-tree’ (Kaṭha 6.1), ‘With roots above, branches below, the fig-tree is indestructible, they say’ (Gītā 15.1), the reality as well of mundane existence, as having the Existent as its root, and as having the form of a continuous stream, is established. Previously, the effect has indeed been determined to be real.^[6] In the texts: ‘Without beginning and without end’ (Cūlikā-upaniṣad 5^[7]), ‘A wise man is not born, nor dies’ (Kaṭha 2.18^[8]), ‘Know prakṛti (matter) and puruṣa (soul) to be both beginningless’ (Gītā 13.19), the eternity, too, of the sentient and the non-sentient substances, which are the powers of the Supreme Cause, is established.

Comparative views of Śaṅkara:

He breaks this sūtra into two different sūtras—thus: “Na.... anāditvāt”, and “upapadyate.... ca”.^[9]

Comparative views of Bhāskara:

He also breaks it into two different sūtras. Further he reads the first portion differently, thus: “Asmād vibhāgād iti cen nānāditvāt”, (sūtra 35), “upapadyate.... ca” (sūtra 36).^[10]

Comparative views of Baladeva:

He also breaks it into two different sūtras exactly after Śaṅkara. But he takes the first portion only, viz. “Na... anāditvāt” as indicated within the previous adhikaraṇa beginning a new adhikaraṇa with the second portion: “upapadyate.... ca”, concerned with showing that the grace of the Lord is not partial. Hence it means, according to him: And (the special grace shown by the Lord to his devotees) fits in (since it is not arbitrary, hut depends on the devotion of the souls themselves), and it is observed also (in Scripture).^[11]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Śrīkaṇṭha and Baladeva.

[2]:

I.e. since a subsequent creation cannot arise all on a sudden we have to admit that it arises from a prior creation.

[3]:

Pp. 413-14.

[4]:

I.e. just as it is impossible to say whether the seed is earlier or the shoot, so it is impossible to say whether karmas are the earlier or the saṃsāra. Hence they are taken to be beginningless.

[5]:

Vide Vedānta-kaustubha 2.1.17-18.

[6]:

Vide Vedānta-kaustubha 2.1.14 ff.

[7]:

Correct quotation: “Anādavatī”. Vide p. 230.

[8]:

Cf. a very similar passage in Gītā 2.20.

[9]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary), pp, 498-499.

[10]:

Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary), p. 107.

[11]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 2.1.36, pp. 76-77, Chap. 2.