365bet娱乐

English of translation of Brahmasutra 2.1.28 by Roma Bose:

鈥淎nd because there is fault in his own view.鈥�

Nimb膩rka鈥檚 commentary (痴别诲腻苍迟补-p膩rij膩ta-saurabha):

Let our view stand. Since the faults mentioned by you rebound to your own view, it is proper for you to keep silent.

艢r墨niv膩sa鈥檚 commentary (痴别诲腻苍迟补-kaustubha)

The particle 鈥渁nd鈥� (鈥渃a鈥�) is meant for disposing of the doctrines which are opposed to the 痴别诲腻苍迟补. The 厂腻峁僰丑测补蝉 and the rest, who maintain doctrines opposed to the 痴别诲腻苍迟补, cannot find fault with our determination of the cause of the world. Why? 鈥淏ecause there is fault in their own views.鈥� Thus, the 厂腻峁僰丑测补蝉 admit that 辫谤补诲丑腻苍补, consisting of the three 驳耻峁嘺蝉, and without parts, is transformed into mahat and the rest. This being so, the consequence is that faults like entire 辫谤补诲丑腻苍补 being transformed and so on must pertain to their view as well. Since what is without parts cannot be transformed, 辫谤补诲丑腻苍补 cannot also he the cause, otherwise there will result transformation on the part of 辫耻谤耻峁�a as well.

If it be argued: There are parts of 辫谤补诲丑腻苍补, viz. sattva, rajas and tamas, and hence the above fault does not result,鈥�(we reply:) In that case, according to your view, 辫谤补诲丑腻苍补 must be an effect, like a piece of cloth, and sattva and the rest, which are its parts, must be its cause, like threads.

If it be argued again: We do not admit that 辫谤补诲丑腻苍补 has no form before, but is brought into existence by its parts, sattva and the rest, as a piece of cloth by the threads. What we hold is that 辫谤补诲丑腻苍补, already existent in its peculiar form, is the aggregate of sattva and the rest in a state of equilibrium,鈥�(we reply:) This does not stand to reason. If this be so, then too, it must be admitted, according to your view, that when in a state of equilibrium, sattva and the rest are 辫谤补诲丑腻苍补, and when in a state of non-equilibrium, they give rise to the world.

Moreover, if each of these be possessed of parts, there must follow infinite regress; but if they be without parts, there must result the violation of the respective difference between the cause and the effect, since there will he no distinction between the causal and the effected states of the aggregate of the sattva and the rest, which are devoid of parts.

Hereby, the doctrine of Atomism too should be known to be refuted.

Comparative views:

All others, except Baladeva, read 鈥淪apak峁�a-do峁Ｄ乧 ca鈥�.^[1] Interpretation same.

Comparative views of Baladeva:

This is s奴tra 29 in his commentary. Interpretation different, viz.: he does not take this s奴tra to be referring to the 厂腻峁僰丑测补 view, hut to the view that the individual soul, and not the Lord, is the creator of the world. Hence the s奴tra means, according to him, 鈥淎nd because there is fault in his own view鈥�. That is, the objection raised by the opponent to our view, viz. if Brahman he the creator, the question arises whether He creates with His entire energy or a portion of it only, applies equally to the view that the individual soul is the creator; and while we can answer this objection, the opponent cannot.^[2]

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Govinda-产丑腻峁�y补 2.1.29.

[2]:

Govinda-产丑腻峁�y补 2.1.28.