Brahma-Sūtra 2.4.2

English of translation of Brahmasutra 2.4.2 by Roma Bose:

“On account of the impossibility of a secondary (origin).”

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

It cannot be said also that in the section concerned with creation, e.g. in the passage: “From the self the ether has originated” (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.1), there being no mention of the origin of the organs, the text regarding the origin of the organs is secondary,—“on account of the impossibility of a secondary” (origin). That is, the sense-organs must have origin, as the majority of scriptural texts designate such an origin, and as, otherwise, the initial proposition that there is the knowledge of all through the knowledge of one will come to be contradicted.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

Having rejected the doubt,—viz. by reason of its opposition to the scriptural text: ‘“The non-existent, verily, was this in the beginning’” (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.7), the scriptural text about the origin of the sense-organs is secondary,—the author states the reason for the view that the sense-organs, too, originate.

The compound “gauṇyāsambhava” is to be explained as ‘impossibility of a secondary (origin)’, i,e. the scriptural text about the origin of the sense-organs cannot be secondary. Hence the sense-organs do originate. If it be asked: Why impossible?—(we reply:) Because the scriptural text about origin can be understood literally, because there are numerous scriptural texts regarding such an origin, and because otherwise the initial proposition will come to be contradicted, i.e. because there are numerous scriptural texts designating origination, such as: ‘From him arise the vital-breath, the mind and ail the sense-organs’ (Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 2.1.3),‘Just as small sparks come forth from fire, so exactly do all the sense-organs from this soul’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.1.20), ‘Seven sense-organs arise’ (Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 2.1.7). Having made the initial assertion, viz. that there is the knowledge of one through the knowledge of all thus: ‘“What being known, sir, all this comes to be known?’” (Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 2.1.3), the text goes on to declare, in order to prove it, that ‘From him arise the vital-breath, the mind and all the sense-organs’ (Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 2.1.3) and so on. This initial proposition is proved only if all the effects, like the sense-organs and the rest, are admitted to have Him as their material cause. The scriptural text: ‘The non-existent alone was this in the beginning’ (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 6.1.1, 1), on the other hand, is to he explained as referring to the cause. Hence there is no contradiction.

Comparative views of Rāmānuja:

He takes this and the next sūtra as one sūtra. Interpretation different, viz. “(The plural number in the text^[1]) is secondary, because of impossibility”, i.e. because prior to creation Brahman alone exists.^[2]

Comparative views of Śrīkaṇṭha:

He regards this sūtra as answering the prima facie objection. He too like Rāmānuja takes this and the next sūtra as forming a single sūtra, and interprets it just like Rāmānuja.

Comparative views of Baladeva:

Interpretation just like Rāmānuja’s.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Viz. Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 6.1.1, 1. See Śrīnivāsa above. It has been, stated under the previous sūtra that the words ‘sense-organs’ and ‘sages’ in that passage denote Brahman. But how then to account for the plural number?—to this question the present sūtra replies.

[2]:

Śrī-bhāṣya (Madras edition) 2.4.2, p. 170, Part 2.