Brahma-Sūtra 2.2.18

English of translation of Brahmasutra 2.2.18 by Roma Bose:

“Even if the aggregate having two causes (be admitted), (there is) the non-establishment of that (viz. of the aggregates).”

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

The author is refuting the view of Sugata.^[1] Even if the aggregates of the element and the elemental, the mind and the mental be admitted, still then, on account of the non-sentience of the objects aggregated, as well as on account of nonadmission of another cause of the aggregation, the aggregates are not possible.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

Kapila, the maintainer of the doctrine of pre-existing effects, holds that pradhāna, not having Brahman for its soul, is the cause of the world. He has been refuted by reason of maintaining what is opposed to the doctrine of the causality of Brahman and the Vedic doctrine. Kaṇāda, inferior even to him in intelligence and the maintainer of the doctrine of non-existing effects, holds the cause of the world to be of various kinds^[2]; and hence he has been refuted by reason of maintaining what is opposed to the ‘great’.^[3] How, the doctrine of the Buddhists, inferior to that even, is being refuted, on account of its similarity to that.^[4]

The doctrine taught by the Buddha being interpreted differently, four views were propounded by his four classes of disciples. These followers are called, (1) Vaibhāṣika, (2) Sautrāntika, (3) Yogācāra, and (4) Mādhyamika. Among these, the first two maintain the reality of external objects. Among them, again, the first maintains that external objects are directly perceivable. According to him, external objects, like pots and the rest, are knowable by the evidence of direct perception. The other maintains that external objects are inferrible through cognitions. According to him, external objects like pots and rest, which are not directly perceived, are inferred through cognitions, produced in the forms of pots and so on and directly perceived. The third maintains the reality of cognitions alone without any substratum. He holds that external objects are like dreams. All of them maintain that the objects admitted by them are momentary. The view of the fourth is that everything is void. He holds that the continuous stream of cognitions, freed from object and subject-forms, persists from moment to moment of the basis of past impressions, like a lamp in a place sheltered from wind. But when past impressions are destroyed, it attains a complete extinction like the lamp itself; this attainment of non-existence is salvation. The others, on the other hand, hold that there is no interruption in the continuous stream of cognitions. Among them, the views of the Yogācāra and the Mādhyamika will be refuted later. But in this section, the views of the realists, viz. the Vaibhāṣikas and the Sautrāntikas, are being refuted together.

Thus, they speak of five groups,^[5] viz. colour, cognition, feeling, name and impression.^[6] Among these, the colour-group consists in the four elements, like the earth and the rest, and the elemental in the form of the body, sense-organs, and sense-objects. Among these, the earth-atoms, possessed of colour, taste, smell and touch, and hard by nature, are aggregated into the form of the earth; the water-atoms, possessed of colour, taste and smell, and viscid by nature, are aggregated into the form of water; the fire-atoms, possessed of colour and touch, and hot by nature, are aggregated into the form of fire; likewise the air-atoms, possessed of touch and mobile by nature, are aggregated into the form of air; and the four elements, like the earth and the rest, are aggregated into the form of body, sense-organs and sense-objects. In this way, these four kinds of momentary atoms are held to be the cause of the aggregation of the elements and the elemental. The colour-group, consisting of the elements and the elemental and due to the atoms, is the external aggregate. The cognition-group consists in a stream of cognitions like the cognition of a pot, cognition of a piece of cloth, and so on, based on the internal cognition of the ‘I’, and subsisting uninterruptedly. This alone is the agent, the enjoyer and the soul, and from it alone all ordinary practical transactions proceed. The feeling-group consists in pleasurable or painful experiences. The name-group consists in the cognition of secondary marks, e.g. (in the cognition:) ‘a cow possessed of auspiciousness the cow is distinguished by the secondary mark of auspiciousness. The impression-group consists in the mental qualities of attachment, aversion, delusion, pride, malice, fear, grief, depression and so on. These last four kinds of groups are said to be the mind and the mental. Among these, the cognition-group is said to be the mind or the soul, others mental; and thus they are internally aggregated in such a way as to be the substratum of ordinary practical transactions. This is the internal aggregate, due to the four groups, beginning with the cognition-group. The soul and the ether, other than the two aggregates, are non-existent by nature. These two aggregates make the course of mundane existence possible, and practical life being thus made possible, there is no need, it is thought, of an eternal soul.

(Correct conclusion.) With regard to it we reply: Even if there be the admission, in the above way, of aggregates, i.e. of groups having two causes, still then “there is the non-establishment of that”,—i.e. establishment “of that”, viz. of that which has two causes, too, is indeed impossible. The sense is: because the spontaneous aggregation of non-sentient objects, mutually independent, is not possible, and also because of their momentariness, the aggregate of the elements and the elemental, as well as the aggregate of the mind and the mental, are not possible. Further, because of the non-admission of a permanent enjoyer, of a sentient controller—one who brings about the aggregation, of an omniscient and universal Lord; as well as because of the consequence of the world becoming super-sensible by reason of the super-sensibleness of the atoms themselves, the course of mundane existence must disappear. The sense is that this view is faulty, since it rejects Brahman, taught by the beginningless Veda; since it admits the aggregates of atoms, unseen and unheard; and since a cause for the aggregation is impossible.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

I.e. of the Buddhists.

[2]:

Viz. the four kinds of atoms.

[3]:

Vide Brahma-sūtra 2.2.17.

[4]:

The Buddhists too admit the aggregation of atoms like the Vaiśeṣikas.

[5]:

Skandha.

[6]:

Rūpa, vijñāna, vedanā, saṃjñā and saṃskāra.