Brahma-Sūtra 2.3.8

English of translation of Brahmasutra 2.3.8 by Roma Bose:

“But there is non-origination of the existent being, on account of impossibility.”

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

There is indeed “non-origination”, i.e. non-production, “of the existent being”, i.e. of Brahman, because the origin of the cause of the world is impossible.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

Now the author is removing the suspicion, viz. If even the ether and the air, designated by Scripture as immortal, be originated, then there may be the origin of Brahman too.

There is indeed “non-origin”, i.e. no birth, of Brahman, the Highest Person. Why? “On account of impossibility,” i.e. because the origin of the cause of all is impossible,—otherwise, there must be a cause of that too, a cause of that too and so on, and there must be an infinite regress;—because (He) is declared to be the cause of all by the text: ‘He is the cause, the cause of the lord of causes’^[1] (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 6.9); and because any other cause is excluded by the passage: ‘Of him there is no producer and lord’ (Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 6.9). For this very reason, it is established that there is no origin of the Supreme Person, who is ever-present and unborn indeed, though declared by Scripture to be manifold for the sake of producing effects, thus: ‘Being unborn, he appears manifold’ (Vājasaneya-saṃhitā 31.196^[2]; Taittirīya-āraṇyaka 3.13.1b^[3]).

Here ends the section entitled “Non-origination” (3).

Comparative views of Bhāskara:

This is sūtra 9 in his commentary. Interpretation absolutely different, viz.: But (if it be objected that qualities like touch, sound, etc., as well as space, time, number, size, etc., are not declared by Scripture to have an origin, and hence they must all be eternal,—then we reply: The eternity of what is existent (viz. qualities, etc.) is impossible, because of the non-fitting in (i.e. non-utility) (of the scriptural texts to declare their origin). That is, it is not at all necessary for Scripture to designate separately the origin of these qualities, etc. since it is quite sufficient to designate the origin of the objects alone, that implying the origin of the qualities simultaneously. Similarly, time is nothing but the motion of the sun and hence its origin, though not mentioned separately, is implied by the mention of the origin of the sun. Likewise the other things are to be explained. In conclusion Bhāskara criticizes Śaṅkara’s interpretation of the sūtra,—which is identical with Nimbārka’s.^[4]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Correct quotation: “Karṇādhipādhipa”, meaning ‘The Lord of the lord of sense-organs, (viz, the individual soul)’. Vide Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad 6.9, p. 70.

[2]:

P. 857, line 17. Beading “vijāyate”.

[3]:

P. 201. Reading op. cit.

[4]:

Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 2.2.9, pp. 131-32.