Brahma-Sūtra 2.2.19

English of translation of Brahmasutra 2.2.19 by Roma Bose:

“If it be objected that (on account of the mutual causality (of nescience and the best), (the aggregation) is possible, (we reply:) no, because of (their) not being the cause of aggregation.”

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

It cannot also be that no account of the mutual causality of nescience, past impressions, cognition, name and form, six supports¹ and the rest, the aggregation and the rest, are possible,—for they, too, are not the causes of aggregation.^[1]

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

If it be objected: In spite of the non-admission of a sentient and omniscient being as bringing about the aggregation, no harm is done, since our view admits the mutual causality of nescience and the rest. That which goes towards the effect as its cause is ‘pratyaya’, i,e. the cause; the state of that, no account of that,^[2] all aggregation and the rest become possible. Thus, nescience and the rest, functioning from all eternity, are admitted to be the causes of the continuous stream of cognitions. Among these, the word ‘nescience’ is denotative of error, such as, taking the non-permanent as permanent, taking what is not the way (to salvation) as the way and so on. Through it past impressions, consisting in attachment and so on to sense-objects like colour and the like, arises. It is through this that activity springs forth when occasion arises. Activity consists in good and bad deeds, in accordance with the declaration by the Buddha: ‘There is action, there is result’. Through this alone cognition arises. ' Thence the four (elements like) the earth and the rest, the cause of the aggregate, viz. the body, arise, and that very thing is said to he name because of being the substratum of name. From them arises the body; from it the six supports, viz. the five organs of knowledge and the mind; from them touch; from it feeling, viz. pleasure, pain and the rest; from it nescience and the rest once more. Thus, the objects revolving unceasingly like water-wheels, aggregation is possible therefrom. Hence, everything in our doctrine is indeed consistent,—

(We reply:) “no”. Why? “Because of (their) not being the cause of aggregation,” i.e. because nescience and the rest are not the causes of aggregation; for it can by no means be said that nescience, consisting in the error of taking a person at a distance to be a post, is the cause of the aggregation of the already existing person. Likewise, attachment and the rest too, caused by it (viz. nescience), are not the cause of aggregation.

Comparative views of Śaṃkara and Baladeva:

Reading different, viz. “Itaretara-pratyayatvād iti cen notpatti mātra-nimittatvāt”. Interpretation different accordingly: viz. “If it he said that because of the mutual causality (of nescience and the rest), (aggregation is possible), (we reply:) no, because of (their) being the causes' of the origin only (of the immediately subsequent effects, and not of aggregation)”.^[3]

Comparative views of Bhāskara:

Reading slightly different, viz.: “Itaretara-pratvava-manyatvāt....”.^[4]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Avidyā, saṃskāra, vijñāna, nāma-rūpa, ṣaḍāyatana, etc. For explanation, see below; [Vedānta-kaustubha].

[2]:

This explains the compound “pratyayatvāt”.

[3]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 2.2.19, p. 537; Govinda-bhāṣya 2,2.19, pp. 113-114, Chap. 2.

[4]:

Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 2.2.19, p. 117.