Brahma Sutra, Part --3

madan_gautam's picture



Average: 2.7 (7 votes)

E-Text Source: www.celextel.org
CHAPTER - II
AVIRODHA – NON-CONTRADICTION

SECTION - I
Topic-1: Conflict with Smriti
1. If it be argued (that from the acceptance of Brahman as the cause of the universe) arises the defect of the (Samkhya) Smritis being left without any scope, then not so, for otherwise will arise the defect of other Smritis losing their scope.
2. And (Pradhana is not the cause) since the others are not met with (in the Vedas and common experience).
Topic-2: Refutation of Yoga
3. Hereby is refuted Yoga.
Topic-3: Difference in Nature
4. Brahman is not the cause of the universe owing to the dissimilarity in the nature of this universe; and the fact of being so is known from the Vedas.
5. But this is only a reference to the presiding deities, because of the mention of distinction (between the sentient deities and the insentient organs and elements) and the inherence (of these deities in them).
6. But it is seen.
7. If it be said that the effect (in that case) is non-existent (before creation), then not so; for it is merely a negation (without any object to deny).
8. Since in dissolution there is the predicament of the cause becoming just like that effect, therefore this (theory that Brahman is the material cause) becomes incongruous.
9. But that cannot be so on account of the existence of supporting illustration.
10. And because the defects cling to your own point of view.
11. If it be argued that although reasoning is inconclusive, still it has to be done in a different way, (so as to avoid this defect), then even so there will be no getting away from the defect.
Topic-4: Non-acceptance by the Wise
12. Hereby are explained all the (other) theories that are not accepted by the wise.
Topic-5: Brahman Becoming an Experiencer
13. If it be argued that the distinction between the experiencer (of happiness and sorrow) and the things experienced will cease when the (experienced) objects turn into the experiencer, then we say that such a distinction can well exist as observed in common experience.
Topic-6: Origin
14. There is non-difference of those cause and effect on account of the texts about origin etc.
15. (Cause and effect are non-different) since the effect is perceived when the cause is there.
16. And (cause and effect are non-different) because the posterior one has (earlier) existence (in the cause).
17. If it be argued that the effect did not exist before creation, since it is declared (in the Upanishad) as “non-existent”, then we say, no, because from the complementary portion it is known that the word is used from the standpoint of a difference of characteristics.
18. (The pre-existence and non-difference of the effect are established) from reasoning and another Upanishadic text.
19. And the effect is non-different from the cause on the analogy of a piece of cloth.
20. And this is so just as in the case of the outgoing breath etc.
Topic-7: Non-performance of Good
21. Since the other (individual soul) is mentioned (as identical with Brahman), faults like not doing what is beneficial and so on will arise.
22. But (Brahman is) greater (than the embodied being) on account of the declaration of the difference (between the two).
23. On the analogy of stone etc., as also for other reasons, that (opponent’s view) is untenable.
Topic-8: Creation without Materials
24. If it be said that (Brahman) cannot be the cause, since one is noticed to procure materials (for the production of an object), then we say, no, for it is possible on the analogy of milk.
25. Also (Brahman can create without extraneous help) like gods and others (as is seen) in this world.
Topic-9: Wholesale Transformation
26. (If Brahman changes into the world, then) there will arise the contingency of either wholesale transformation or the violation of the texts about partlessness.
27. But (this has to be accepted) on the authority of the Upanishad, for Brahman is known from the Upanishads alone.
28. Because it occurs thus in the case of the individual soul as well and creation of diverse kinds occur in the cases of gods and others.
29. And because the opponent’s own point of view is equally vitiated.
Topic-10: Possession of All Powers
30. Moreover (the Deity is) possessed of all (powers), it having been revealed thus (in the Upanishads).
31. If it be argued that (Brahman cannot act) on account of absence of organs, that was answered earlier.
Topic-11: Need of Motive
32. (Brahman is) not the cause, owing to the need of some motive (for creation).
33. But (creation for Brahman is) a mere pastime like what is seen in the world.
Topic-12: Partiality and Cruelty
34. No partiality and cruelty (can be charged against God) because of (His) taking other factors into consideration. For so the Vedas show.
35. If it be argued that it is not possible (to take Karma – merit and demerit – into consideration in the beginning), since the fruits of work remain still undifferentiated, then we say, no, since the transmigratory state has no beginning.
36. Moreover, this is logical and (so) it is met with (in the scriptures).
Topic-13: Propriety of All the Characteristics
37. And Brahman is the cause on account of the propriety of all the Characteristics (of a cause in It).

SECTION - II
Topic-1: Samkhya View Refuted (Impossibility of Design)
1. The inferred one (Pradhana) is not (the cause) owing to the impossibility of explaining the design, as also for other reasons.
2. And the inferred (Pradhana) cannot be the cause, since the tendency to create (cannot logically arise in it).
3. If it be claimed (that Pradhana acts spontaneously) like milk and water, then even there (intelligence is the guide).
4. And (Pradhana is not the cause) since (nothing extraneous to it exists, so that) it has nothing to rely on (for impulsion to or stoppage from action).
5. And Pradhana cannot change (automatically) like grass etc., (into milk in a cow) for such a change does not occur elsewhere (e.g. in a bull).
6. Even if (spontaneous modification of Pradhana be) accepted, still (Pradhana will not be the cause) because of the absence of any purpose.
7. If it be argued that like a (lame) man (riding on a blind man) or a lodestone (moving iron), (the soul can stimulate Pradhana), even then (the defect will persist).
8. Besides, Pradhana cannot act on account of the impossibility of (the existence of) any relationship of the principal and its subordinates (among the gunas constituting Pradhana).
9. And even if the inference be pursued otherwise (still the defect will persist) owing to the absence of the power of intelligence (in Pradhana).
10. And (the Samkhya doctrine is) incoherent because of the contradictions involved.
Topic-2: Vaisesika Objection Refuted
11. Rather (the universe may originate from Brahman) even as the great and long (triads etc.,) originate from the short (dyad) or the inextensive (atom).
Topic-3: Atoms Not the Cause of Universe
12. (Whether adrista leads the atoms or conjunction helps them), in either case no action is possible and hence there can be no creation or dissolution.
13. And (there can be no creation or dissolution) by reason of assuming inherence, for this leads to an infinite regress on a parity of reasoning.
14. (The atomic theory is inadmissible) for the further reason of (activity etc.,) persisting eternally.
15. And on account of the possession of colour etc., there will be a reversal (of the nature of the atoms), for this accords with experience.
16. And (the atomic theory is untenable) because it is defective from either point of view.
17. This (theory of atom as the cause) is to be entirely ignored, since it is not accepted (by the worthy).
Topic-4: Refutation of Buddhist Realists
18. Even if the integration be supposed to arise from either of the causes, that will not be achieved.
19. If it be argued that a combination becomes possible since (nescience and the rest) can be the causes of one another (in a successive series), then we say, no, (for nescience etc.,) can each merely be the cause of origin of another just succeeding.
20. And because the earlier is negated when the later emerges, (therefore nescience and the rest cannot each be the cause of the next in the series).
21. (If it be contended that the effect arises) even when there is no cause, then your assertion (of causation) will be stultified; else (if you contend that the entity of the earlier moment continues till the entity of the later moment emerges), the cause and effect will exist simultaneously.
22. Neither pratisamkhya-nirodha (artificial annihilation) nor an apratisamkhya-nirodha (natural annihilation) is possible, for there can be no cessation (either of the current or of the individuals forming the current).
23. And (the Buddhist view is untenable) owing to defect arising from either point of view.
24. And (non-existence cannot be asserted) in the case of Akasa on account of the absence of (its) dissimilarity (with destruction).
25. And (a permanent soul has to be admitted) because of the fact of remembrance (ie., memory).
26. Something does not come out of nothing, for this does not accord with experience.
27. And (if something can come out of nothing, then) on the same ground, success should come even to the indifferent people.
Topic-5: Buddhist Idealism Refuted
28. (External objects are) not non-existent, for they are perceived.
29. And because of the difference of nature (the waking state is) not (false) like dream etc.
30. (Tendencies) can have no existence since (according to you) external things are not perceived.
31. And (the ego-consciousness cannot be the abode), for it is momentary.
32. Besides (this view stands condemned), it being

E-Text Source: www.celextel.org