Brahma-Sūtra 2.2.12

English of translation of Brahmasutra 2.2.12 by Roma Bose:

“Even in both ways there is no action (on the part of the atoms), hence there is the absence of that (viz. creation).”

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

Because it is impossible for the unseen principle to inhere in the atoms, as well as because it is impossible for it, connected with the soul, to be the instigator of the motion of the atoms,—thus “even in both ways” the first motion of the atoms is not possible. “Hence there is the absence” of the creation of the world through the successive order of binary compounds and the rest, due to conjunction, which again is due to the motion of the atoms.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

The author is elucidating the statement (made in the last aphorism), viz. Like the (origin of) the great and the long, everything else, too, maintained by them, is inconsistent.

“Even in both ways”, no motion is possible in the atoms at the time of creation. “Hence”, i.e. for this reason, viz. on account of the impossibility of motion, “there is the absence of that”, i.e. of the origin and the rest of the world through the successive order of binary compounds, ternary compounds and so on, due to the conjunction of atoms. The phrase: “in both ways” means: Does the first motion (of the atoms) arise by itself, or through the atoms ? The first alternative is not tenable, being impossible. Never does motion, arising by itself, proceed to bring water in a pitcher. It cannot be said also that it arises through a cause, because at that time (i.e. at the time of creation) there exist no human effort, vibration, impact and the rest (which might have been such a cause). The second alternative, too, is not tenable, because then the atoms must become sentient, it being impossible for non-sentient atoms to be the instigator of motion. In the building of a palace and the like, the stones and the rest do not themselves act in conjunction with other works (connected with the building).

Or^[1], (if it be said that) the motion which arises in the atoms at that time is caused by the unseen principle, (we reply): There is negation of motion “in either way”. Thus, does the unseen principle which causes the motion of the atoms inhere in the atoms, or in the individual soul? The first alternative is not tenable, because the unseen principle, being originated by the good and evil deeds of the individual souls, cannot reside in something non-sentient; because being non-sentient, it is not possible for the unforeseen principle to be the cause of motion; because the performance of good and evil deeds being impossible on the part of atoms, the unseen principle must be necessarily admitted to be natural (to them), and in that case there will result the origin of motion at all times. The second alternative, too, is not tenable, because it is all the more impossible for the unseen principle, inhering in the individual soul, to urge the motion of the non-sentient (atoms). Thus, there is no motion “even in both ways”.

“Or^[2] else no motion is possible, whether it be due to the individual soul, or due to the Lord. Thus, does the individual soul give rise to the first motion through its own destiny (adṛṣṭa), or through its proximity, or through its attribute of consciousness? Not the first, because of the above-mentioned fault. Not through its proximity also, because the proximity of the individual soul to the atoms being eternal, the consequence will be that it will ever give rise to the world. Nor even through consciousness, because of the absence of consciousness then. And motion does not proceed from the Lord as well. Is the Lord, according to your view, designated in the Veda or established by inference and the rest? If it be said: Designated in the Veda, then have faith in the procedure mentioned by Scripture thus: ‘Everything has that for its soul’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.8.7, etc.), ‘He became existence and that’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.6), and being overwhelmed with the sentiment of love for Him, be free from affliction,—what is the use of your doctrine of atoms? If it be said: Established through inference and the rest,—(we reply:) that it (viz. inference) is not even established has been proved above.^[3]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

An alternative explanation of the word “Ubhayathā”.

[2]:

A third alternative explanation of the word “Ubhayathā”.

[3]:

Vide Vedānta-kaustubha 1.1.3.