Brahma-Sūtra 2.2.11

English of translation of Brahmasutra 2.2.11 by Roma Bose:

“For, just as the (origin) of the great and the long from the short and the spherical (is untenable) (so everything is untenable in the Vaiśeṣika theory).”

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

Since if they be possessed of parts, then there will result an infinite regress; and if without parts, then it will be impossible for them to be the producer of other evolutes^[1],—there is inconsistency in the origin of the binary compounds from the atoms; and there is all the more inconsistency in the origin of ternary compounds from these (binary compounds). Like this, everything admitted by the maintainers of the atomic view is inconsistent.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

Apprehending the objection, viz.: Let pradhāna, not superintended by an intelligent principle, be not the cause of the world; but let the groups of atoms, under the control of the wish of the Supreme Lord, be the cause of the world,—the author is now pointing out the inconsistencies in the atomic doctrine as well.

The procedure of the atomists is the following: A substance produces another substance, a quality another quality; and the production of the effect proceeds from three causes, viz. the inherent, the non-inherent and efficient^[2]; just as an effect, viz. a piece of cloth, is produced by the threads which are the inherent cause, by their mutual conjunction which is the non-inherent cause, and by the shuttle, the loom, the weaver and the rest, which are the efficient cause. Likewise, there are four kinds of atoms, distinguished as earth-atoms, water-atoms, fire-atoms and air-atoms; and they are eternal, without parts, possessed of colour and the rest, and spherical in extension, and remain without producing effects at the time of dissolution. At the time of creation, the atoms become the inherent cause for the production of the effect (viz. the world), their conjunction, the non-inherent cause, and the unseen principle^[3] the efficient cause. Thus, through the wish of the Lord, first motion arises in the air-atoms, then a conjunction (between them) and thereby an effect, viz. a binary compound, arises from two atoms; a ternary compound arises from three binary compounds; a quaternary compound arises from four ternary compounds, and so on; and through this process, finally, the great air arises and remains trembling in space. In the very same manner, fire arises from the fire-atoms and remains shining in the form of earthly fire and so on. In the very same manner, the great ocean arises from the water-atoms and remains flowing. In the very same manner, the great earth arises from the earth-atoms and remains immobile in the form of clay, stones and the rest. Again, the qualities of the effects arise from the qualities of the cause. Just as the qualities of a piece of cloth arise from the qualities of the thread,—-a red cloth being found to arise from red threads,—so the qualities of whiteness and the like, inhering in the binary compounds and the rest, arise from the qualities of whiteness, etc. inhering in the atoms. But the combination of two simple atoms, producing a binary compound, produces different measures, viz. minuteness and shortness, in the binary compound, but do not produce sphericity, the measure of the simple atoms themselves,—because, then, there will result aṇ intense fineness (on the part of the binary compound which it has not). Similarly, at the time of dissolution, too, through the wish of the Lord, there is motion in the atoms, thereby the dissolution of their conjunction, thereby the dissolution of the binary compounds and so on, and in this manner, finally, there is the dissolution of the earth and the rest.

This view is being refuted here. The particle “or” in the aphorism is meant for implying the aggregate (of defects in the atomic doctrine) left unsaid. The word ‘inconsistent’ is to be supplied from above. The phrase: “from the short and the spherical” is to be applied by dividing it in a compatible manner. This being so, like' the doctrine of the origin of a short binary compound from two simple spherical atoms, and like the doctrine of the origin of the great and long ternary compounds from the short (binary compounds), everything else too, maintained by them (viz. the atomists), is inconsistent—this is the construction of bhe words of the aphorism.

The sense is this: The origin of binary compounds from atoms is impossible. That being impossible, the origin of the ternary compounds from the binary compounds is all the more impossible. In exactly the same manner, whatever is maintained by the atomists is simply inconsistent. Thus, it is observed that the parts, viz. the threads and the rest, produce a whole, viz. a piece of cloth, only by being conjoined (with one another) by means of their six sides which are their own parts. An atom, too, is established to have six parts through its connection with the six quarters. As has been said: ‘An atom has six parts because of its simultaneous connection with the six (quarters)’. Hence, even the atoms must be productive of effects as possessed of parts indeed. If they be so, then they themselves will become effects like the binary compounds because of possessing parts. And the parts of the atoms too,—conjoined (with one another) by means of their six sides which are their own parts, and establishing that the atoms have parts,—must have parts; that parts, again, further parts and so on, and thus there must be an infinite regress. If the atoms be admitted to be without parts, then if there be the conjunction of even a hundred atoms which fill no space, there will not be any extension different from that of a single atom, and hence there will never be (different kinds of extensions like) minuteness, shortness and the rest. Thus, the origin of the binary compounds is impossible; in their absence, the origin of the ternary compounds is impossible; and hence the origin of the world must be impossible.

Comparative views of Śaṅkara and Bhāskara:

Interpretation different. They take this sūtra as constituting an adhikaraṇa by itself, concerned with refuting the Vaiśeṣika objection, viz. that the qualities of the cause must inhere in the effect. Hence if the intelligent Brahman be the cause of the world, then the quality of intelligence must be found in the world. But since this is not the case, He is not its cause.^[4] The answer is: Or just as (there is the origin of) big and long (ternary compounds) from minute and short (binary compounds) so there is the origin of the non-intelligent world from the intelligent Brahman.^[5]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

[Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series] ed. reads “parimāṇa” instead of “pariṇāma”, p. 33.

[2]:

Samavāyin, asamavāyin, nimitta.

[3]:

I.e. the merit or demerit attaching to a man’s conduct in one state of existence and the corresponding reward or punishment with which he is visited in another.

[4]:

Note that an exactly similar objection has been put forward and refuted under Brahma-sūtra 2.1.4-11. Hence there is no sense in repeating it here. As such Nimbārka’s way of interpreting seems preferable.

[5]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 2.2.11, pp. 518-19; Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 2.2.11, pp. 113-14.