Brahma-Sūtra 2.2.23

English of translation of Brahmasutra 2.2.23 by Roma Bose:

“And on account of fault in both ways.”

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

Because the series has no existence beyond the single members of the series, and because single members themselves are momentary, their view, viz. that salvation is the cessation of nescience, too, is inconsistent.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

For this reason also, the Buddhistic view is inconsistent. Why? Because there is “fault” in their view of salvation even “in both ways”. Thus, salvation is held by them to be the cessation of nescience and the rest. Is this (a cessation) of the series or of the single members of the series? Not the first, because as the series has no existence beyond the single members, it (viz. the cessation of the series) is incapable of (bringing about) salvation. Not the second, because the single members are momentary.

Moreover, is salvation, consisting in the cessation of nescience and the rest, due to a cause or not? If the first, i.e. on the view: Salvation arises from the repeated practice of four-fold truths, viz. the truth that there is a cause, the truth that there is cessation, the truth that there is suffering and the truth that there is a path. ^[1] The truth that there is a cause means the knowledge, i.e. ascertainment, that everything has an origin. The truth that there is cessation means that everything is momentary. The truth that there is suffering means that everything is full of suffering. The truth that there is a path means that everything is void, everything is soulless,—on this view, the cessation of attachment and the rest being admitted to arise from these, the initial proposition, viz. that there is a causeless destruction, is set aside. If the second, the teaching of the means will become futile. And thus there is fault in both the ways.

Comparative views of Rāmānuja:

This is sūtra 22 in his commentary. Interpretation different, viz.: “Because there is fault in both ways”, i.e. the Buddhistic views of origination from nothing and passing away into nothing are both open to objections. ^[2]

Comparative views of Bhāskara:

This sūtra is not found in the commentary of Bhāskara.

Comparative views of Śrīkaṇṭha:

This is sūtra 22 in his commentary too. His interpretation is also very similar to that of Rāmānuja, viz. on the Buddhist view, the originated effect is unreal, (since it passes away as soon as it arises); also the effect arises from non-existent cause (since the cause which is momentary is no more, when the effect comes to be). Hence the Buddhist view is untenable.^[3]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Samudāya, nirodha, duḥkha, mārgā.

[2]:

Śrī-bhāṣya (Madras edition) 2.2.22, p. 93.

[3]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śrīkaṇṭha’s commentary) 2.2.22, p. 86, Parts 7 and 8.