2. Adhyāya 2 — Avirodha
Pāda 1
2.1.1
॥ अथ द्वितीयोऽध्यायः॥ ॐ स्मृत्यनवकाशदोषप्रसङ्ग इति चेन्नान्यस्मृत्यनवकाशदोषप्रसङ्गात् ॐ ॥ २.१.१॥
॥ atha dvitīyo'dhyāyaḥ॥ oṃ smṛtyanavakāśadoṣaprasaṅga iti cennānyasmṛtyanavakāśadoṣaprasaṅgāt oṃ ॥ 2.1.1॥
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.
smṛti-anavakāśa-doṣaprasaṅgaḥ—There would result the defect of leaving no scope for certain Smritis; iti cet—if it be said; na—no; anyasmṛti-anavakāśa-doṣaprasaṅgāt—because there would result the defect of leaving no scope to some other Smritis.
2.1.2
ॐ इतरेषां चानुपलब्धेः ॐ ॥ २.१.२॥
oṃ itareṣāṃ cānupalabdheḥ oṃ ॥ 2.1.2॥
And (Pradhana is not the cause) since the others are not met with (in the Vedas and common experience).
itareṣāṃ—Of the others; ca—and; anupalabdheḥ—there being no mention.
2.1.3
ॐ एतेन योगः प्रत्युक्तः ॐ ॥ २.१.३॥
oṃ etena yogaḥ pratyuktaḥ oṃ ॥ 2.1.3॥
Hereby is refuted Yoga.
etena—By this; yogaḥ—the Yoga philosophy; pratyuktaḥ—is (also) refuted.
2.1.4
ॐ न विलक्षणत्वादस्य तथात्वं च शब्दात् ॐ ॥ २.१.४॥
oṃ na vilakṣaṇatvādasya tathātvaṃ ca śabdāt oṃ ॥ 2.1.4॥
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.
na—Not; vilakṣaṇatvāt—because of the contrary nature; asya—of this; tathātvaṃ—its being so; ca—and; śabdāt—from Sruti.
2.1.5
ॐ दृश्यते तु ॐ ॥ २.१.५॥
oṃ dṛśyate tu oṃ ॥ 2.1.5॥
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).
abhimānivyapadeśaḥ—The reference (is) to the presiding deities; tu—but; viśeṣa-anugatibhyām—because of the special characterization and the fact of being so presided.
2.1.6
ॐ अभिमानिव्यपदेशस्तु विशेषानुगतिभ्याम् ॐ ॥ २.१.६॥
oṃ abhimānivyapadeśastu viśeṣānugatibhyām oṃ ॥ 2.1.6॥
2.1.7
ॐ दृश्यते च ॐ ॥ २.१.७॥
oṃ dṛśyate ca oṃ ॥ 2.1.7॥
But it is seen.
dṛśyate—Is seen; tu—but.
2.1.8
पाठभेद दृश्यते तु ॐ असदिति चेन्न प्रतिषेधमात्रत्वात् ॐ ॥ २.१.८॥
pāṭhabheda dṛśyate tu oṃ asaditi cenna pratiṣedhamātratvāt oṃ ॥ 2.1.8॥
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).
asat—Non-existent; iti cet—if it be said; na—no; pratiṣedhamātratvāt—for it is merely a negation.
2.1.9
ॐ अपीतौ तद्वत्प्रसङ्गादसमञ्जसम् ॐ ॥ २.१.९॥
oṃ apītau tadvatprasaṅgādasamañjasam oṃ ॥ 2.1.9॥
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.
apītau—At the time of dissolution; tadvat—like that; prasaṅgāt—on account of the fact; asamañjasam—is absurd.
2.1.10
ॐ न तु दृष्टान्तभावात् ॐ ॥ २.१.१०॥
oṃ na tu dṛṣṭāntabhāvāt oṃ ॥ 2.1.10॥
But that cannot be so on account of the existence of supporting illustration.
na—Not; tu—but; dṛṣṭānta-bhāvāt—on account of the existence of illustrations.
2.1.11
ॐ स्वपक्षदोषाच्च ॐ ॥ २.१.११॥
oṃ svapakṣadoṣācca oṃ ॥ 2.1.11॥
And because the defects cling to your own point of view.
svapakṣa-doṣāt—Because of the objections to his own view; ca—and.
2.1.12
ॐ तर्काप्रतिष्ठानादपि अन्यथानुमेयमिति चेदेवमप्यनिर्मोक्षप्रसङ्गः ॐ ॥ २.१.१२॥
oṃ tarkāpratiṣṭhānādapi anyathānumeyamiti cedevamapyanirmokṣaprasaṅgaḥ oṃ ॥ 2.1.12॥
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.
tarka-pratiṣṭhānāt—Because reasoning has no sure basis; api—also; anyathā—otherwise; anumeyam—should be inferred or reasoned; iti cet—if it be said; evam—so; api—even; anirmokṣa-prasaṅgaḥ—there will result the contingency of non-release.
2.1.13
ॐ एतेन शिष्टापरिग्रहाऽपि व्याख्याताः ॐ ॥ २.१.१३॥
oṃ etena śiṣṭāparigrahā'pi vyākhyātāḥ oṃ ॥ 2.1.13॥
Hereby are explained all the (other) theories that are not accepted by the wise.
etena—By this; śiṣṭāparigrahāḥ—not accepted by the wise; api—also; vyākhyātāḥ—are explained.
2.1.14
ॐ भोक्त्रापत्तेरविभागश्चेत्स्याल्लोकवत् ॐ ॥ २.१.१४॥
oṃ bhoktrāpatteravibhāgaścetsyāllokavat oṃ ॥ 2.1.14॥
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.
bhoktrāpatteḥ—On account of turning into the enjoyer; avibhāgaḥ—non-distinction; cet—if it be said; syāt—may exist; lokavat—as is experienced in the world.
2.1.15
ॐ तदनन्यत्वमारम्भणशब्दादिभ्यः ॐ ॥ २.१.१५॥
oṃ tadananyatvamārambhaṇaśabdādibhyaḥ oṃ ॥ 2.1.15॥
There is non-difference of those cause and effect on account of the texts about origin etc.
tadananyatvam—Its non-difference; ārambhaṇa-śabdādibhyaḥ—from words like ‘origin’ etc.
2.1.16
ॐ भावे चोपलब्धेः ॐ ॥ २.१.१६॥
oṃ bhāve copalabdheḥ oṃ ॥ 2.1.16॥
(Cause and effect are non-different) since the effect is perceived when the cause is there.
bhāve—On the existence; ca—and; upalabdheḥ—is experienced.
2.1.17
ॐ सत्त्वाच्चावरस्य ॐ ॥ २.१.१७॥
oṃ sattvāccāvarasya oṃ ॥ 2.1.17॥
And (cause and effect are non-different) because the posterior one has (earlier) existence (in the cause).
sattvāt—On account of (its) existing; ca—and; aparasya—of the posterior.
2.1.18
ॐ असद्व्यपदेशान्नेति चेन्न धर्मान्तरेण वाक्यशेषात् ॐ ॥ २.१.१८॥
oṃ asadvyapadeśānneti cenna dharmāntareṇa vākyaśeṣāt oṃ ॥ 2.1.18॥
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.
asat-vyapadeśāt—On account of its being described as non-existent; na—not; iti cet—if it be said; na—no; dharmāntareṇa—by another characteristic; vākyaśeṣāt—from the latter part of the text.
2.1.19
ॐ युक्तेः शब्दान्तराच्च ॐ ॥ २.१.१९॥
oṃ yukteḥ śabdāntarācca oṃ ॥ 2.1.19॥
(The pre-existence and non-difference of the effect are established) from reasoning and another Upanishadic text.
yukteḥ—From reasoning; śabdāntarāt—from another Sruti text; ca—and.
2.1.20
ॐ पटवच्च ॐ ॥ २.१.२०॥
oṃ paṭavacca oṃ ॥ 2.1.20॥
And the effect is non-different from the cause on the analogy of a piece of cloth.
paṭavat—Like cloth; ca—and.
2.1.21
ॐ यथा प्राणादिः ॐ ॥ २.१.२१॥
oṃ yathā prāṇādiḥ oṃ ॥ 2.1.21॥
And this is so just as in the case of the outgoing breath etc.
yathā—As; ca—and; prāṇādiḥ—in the case of Pranas.
2.1.22
ॐ इतरव्यपदेशाद्धिताकरणादिदोषप्रसक्तिः ॐ ॥ २.१.२२॥
oṃ itaravyapadeśāddhitākaraṇādidoṣaprasaktiḥ oṃ ॥ 2.1.22॥
Since the other (individual soul) is mentioned (as identical with Brahman), faults like not doing what is beneficial and so on will arise.
itara-vyapadeśāt—On account of the other being stated (as non different from Brahman); dhita-akaraṇādi-doṣa-prasaktiḥ—defects of not doing what is beneficial and the like would arise.
2.1.23
ॐ अधिकं तु भेदनिर्देशात् ॐ ॥ २.१.२३॥
oṃ adhikaṃ tu bhedanirdeśāt oṃ ॥ 2.1.23॥
But (Brahman is) greater (than the embodied being) on account of the declaration of the difference (between the two).
adhikaṃ—Something more; tu—but; bheda-nirdeśāt—on account of the statement of difference.
2.1.24
ॐ अश्मादिवच्च तदनुपपत्तिः ॐ ॥ २.१.२४॥
oṃ aśmādivacca tadanupapattiḥ oṃ ॥ 2.1.24॥
On the analogy of stone etc., as also for other reasons, that (opponent’s view) is
aśmādivat—Like stones etc.; ca—and; tadanupapattiḥ—its untenability.
2.1.25
ॐ उपसंहारदर्शनान्नेति चेन्न क्षीरवद्धि ॐ ॥ २.१.२५॥
oṃ upasaṃhāradarśanānneti cenna kṣīravaddhi oṃ ॥ 2.1.25॥
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.
upasaṃhāra-darśanāt—Because collection of accessories is seen; na—not; iti cet—if it be said; na—not; kṣīravat—like milk; hi—since.
2.1.26
ॐ देवादिवदपि लोके ॐ ॥ २.१.२६॥
oṃ devādivadapi loke oṃ ॥ 2.1.26॥
Also (Brahman can create without extraneous help) like gods and others (as is seen) in this world.
devādivat—Like gods and others; api—even; loke—in the world.
2.1.27
ॐ कृत्स्नप्रसक्तिर्निरवयवत्वशब्दकोपो वा ॐ ॥ २.१.२७॥
oṃ kṛtsnaprasaktirniravayavatvaśabdakopo vā oṃ ॥ 2.1.27॥
(If Brahman changes into the world, then) there will arise the contingency of either wholesale transformation or the violation of the texts about partlessness.
kṛtsna-prasaktiḥ—Possibility of the entire (Brahman being modified); niravayavatvaśabda-kopaḥ—violation of the scriptural statement that Brahman is withouit parts; vā—or.
2.1.28
ॐ श्रुतेस्तु शब्दमूलत्वात् ॐ ॥ २.१.२८॥
oṃ śrutestu śabdamūlatvāt oṃ ॥ 2.1.28॥
But (this has to be accepted) on the authority of the Upanishad, for Brahman is known from the Upanishads alone.
śruteḥ—On account of scriptural texts; tu—but; śabdamūlatvāt—on account of being based on the scripture.
2.1.29
ॐ आत्मनि चैवं विचित्राश्च हि ॐ ॥ २.१.२९॥
oṃ ātmani caivaṃ vicitrāśca hi oṃ ॥ 2.1.29॥
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.
ātmani—In the individual soul; ca—and; evaṃ—thus; vicitrāḥ—diverse; ca—also; hi—because.
2.1.30
ॐ स्वपक्षदोषाच्च ॐ ॥ २.१.३०॥
oṃ svapakṣadoṣācca oṃ ॥ 2.1.30॥
And because the opponent’s own point of view is equally vitiated.
svapakṣa-doṣāt—On account of the opponent’s view being subject to these very objections; ca—and.
2.1.31
ॐ सर्वोपेता च तद्दर्शनात् ॐ ॥ २.१.३१॥
oṃ sarvopetā ca taddarśanāt oṃ ॥ 2.1.31॥
Moreover (the Deity is) possessed of all (powers), it having been revealed thus (in the Upanishads).
sarvopetā—Endowed with all; ca—and; tat-darśanāt—because it is seen.
2.1.32
ॐ विकरणत्वान्नेतिचेत्तदुक्तम् ॐ ॥ २.१.३२॥
oṃ vikaraṇatvānneticettaduktam oṃ ॥ 2.1.32॥
If it be argued that (Brahman cannot act) on account of absence of organs, that was answered earlier.
vikaraṇatvāt—Because devoid of organs; na—not; iti cet—if it be said; tat—that; uktam—has been explained.
2.1.33
ॐ न प्रयोजनत्त्वात् ॐ ॥ २.१.३३॥
oṃ na prayojanattvāt oṃ ॥ 2.1.33॥
(Brahman is) not the cause, owing to the need of some motive (for creation).
na—Not; prayojanavattvāt—on account of having motive.
2.1.34
ॐ लोकवत्तु लीलाकैवल्यम् ॐ ॥ २.१.३४॥
oṃ lokavattu līlākaivalyam oṃ ॥ 2.1.34॥
But (creation for Brahman is) a mere pastime like what is seen in the world.
lokavat—As is seen in the world; tu—but; līlākaivalyam—mere pastime.
2.1.35
ॐ वैष्यम्यनैर्घृण्ये न सापेक्षत्वात्तथा हि दर्शयति ॐ ॥ २.१.३५॥
oṃ vaiṣyamyanairghṛṇye na sāpekṣatvāttathā hi darśayati oṃ ॥ 2.1.35॥
No partiality and cruelty (can be charged against God) because of (His) taking other factors into consideration. For so the Vedas show.
aiṣamyanairghṛṇye—Partiality and cruelty; na—not; sāpekṣatvāt—on account of Its taking into consideration (other reasons); tathā—so; hi—because; darśayati—declares.
2.1.36
ॐ कर्माविभागादिति चेन्नानादित्वात् ॐ ॥ २.१.३६॥
oṃ karmāvibhāgāditi cennānāditvāt oṃ ॥ 2.1.36॥
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.
na—not; karmāvibhāgāt—for want of distinction in work; iti cet—if it be said; na—no; anāditvāt—because of (the world) being without a beginning.
2.1.37
ॐ उपपद्यते चाप्युपलभ्यते च ॐ ॥ २.१.३७॥
oṃ upapadyate cāpyupalabhyate ca oṃ ॥ 2.1.37॥
Moreover, this is logical and (so) it is met with (in the scriptures).
upapadyate—Is reasonable; ca—and; api—and; upalabhyate—is seen; ca—also.
2.1.38
ॐ सर्वधर्मोपपत्तेश्च ॐ ॥ २.१.३८॥ इति श्रीमत्कृष्णद्वैपायनकृतब्रह्मसूत्रेषु द्वितीयाध्यायस्य प्रथमः पादः समाप्तः
oṃ sarvadharmopapatteśca oṃ ॥ 2.1.38॥ iti śrīmatkṛṣṇadvaipāyanakṛtabrahmasūtreṣu dvitīyādhyāyasya prathamaḥ pādaḥ samāptaḥ
And Brahman is the cause on account of the propriety of all the Characteristics (of a cause in It).
sarva-dharma-upapatteḥ—From the possibility of all attributes; ca—and.
Pāda 2
2.2.1
ॐ रचनानुपपत्तेश्च नानुमानम् ॐ ॥ २.२.१॥
oṃ racanānupapatteśca nānumānam oṃ ॥ 2.2.1॥
The inferred one (Pradhana) is not (the cause) owing to the impossibility of explaining the design, as also for other reasons.
racanānupapatteḥ—Because of the impossibility of design; ca—and; na—not; anumānam—that which is inferred.
2.2.2
ॐ प्रवृत्तेश्च ॐ ॥ २.२.२॥
oṃ pravṛtteśca oṃ ॥ 2.2.2॥
And the inferred (Pradhana) cannot be the cause, since the tendency to create (cannot logically arise in it).
pravṛtteḥ—Of a tendency; ca—and.
2.2.3
ॐ पयोऽम्बुवच्चेत्तत्रापि ॐ ॥ २.२.३॥
oṃ payo'mbuvaccettatrāpi oṃ ॥ 2.2.3॥
If it be claimed (that Pradhana acts spontaneously) like milk and water, then even there (intelligence is the guide).
payo'mbuvat—Like milk and water; cet—if it be said; tatra—there; api—even.
2.2.4
ॐ व्यतिरेकानवस्थितेश्चानपेक्षत्वात् ॐ ॥ २.२.४॥
oṃ vyatirekānavasthiteścānapekṣatvāt oṃ ॥ 2.2.4॥
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).
vyatirekānavasthiteḥ—There being no extraneous agency besides it; ca—and; anapekṣatvāt—because it is not dependent.
2.2.5
ॐ अन्यत्राभावाच्च न तृणादिवत् ॐ ॥ २.२.५॥
oṃ anyatrābhāvācca na tṛṇādivat oṃ ॥ 2.2.5॥
. 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).
anyatra—Elsewhere; abhāvāt—because of its absence; ca—and; na—not; tṛṇādivat—even as grass etc.
2.2.6
ॐ अभ्युपगमेऽप्यर्थाभावात् ॐ ॥ २.२.६॥
oṃ abhyupagame'pyarthābhāvāt oṃ ॥ 2.2.6॥
Even if (spontaneous modification of Pradhana be) accepted, still (Pradhana will not be the cause) because of the absence of any purpose.
abhyupagame—Accepting; api—even; arthābhāvāt—because of the absence of any purpose.
2.2.7
ॐ पुरुषाश्मवदितिचेत्तथापि ॐ ॥ २.२.७॥
oṃ puruṣāśmavaditicettathāpi oṃ ॥ 2.2.7॥
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).
puruṣa-aśma-vat—Even as a person or a magnet; iti cet—if it be said; tathāpi—even then.
2.2.8
ॐ अङ्गित्वानुपपत्तेः ॐ ॥ २.२.८॥
oṃ aṅgitvānupapatteḥ oṃ ॥ 2.2.8॥
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).
aṅgitva-anupapatteḥ—Owing to the impossibility of the relation of principal (and subordinate); ca—and.
2.2.9
ॐ अन्यथानुमितौ च ज्ञशक्तिवियोगात् ॐ ॥ २.२.९॥
oṃ anyathānumitau ca jñaśaktiviyogāt oṃ ॥ 2.2.9॥
And even if the inference be pursued otherwise (still the defect will persist) owing to the absence of the power of intelligence (in Pradhana).
anyathā—Otherwise; anumitau—if it be inferred; ca—even; jñaśakti-viyogāt—owing to the absence of the power of intelligence.
2.2.10
ॐ विप्रतिषेधाच्चासमञ्जसम् ॐ ॥ २.२.१०॥
oṃ vipratiṣedhāccāsamañjasam oṃ ॥ 2.2.10॥
And (the Samkhya doctrine is) incoherent because of the contradictions involved.
vipratiṣedhāt—Because of contradictions; ca—also; asamañjasam—inconsistent.
2.2.11
ॐ महद्दीर्घवद्धा ह्रस्वपरिमण्डलाभ्याम् ॐ ॥ २.२.११॥
oṃ mahaddīrghavaddhā hrasvaparimaṇḍalābhyām oṃ ॥ 2.2.11॥
Rather (the universe may originate from Brahman) even as the great and long (triads etc.,) originate from the short (dyad) or the inextensive (atom).
mahat-dīrgha-vat—Even as the great and logn; va—or; hrasvaparimaṇḍalābhyām—from the short and the infinitesimal.
2.2.12
ॐ उभयथापि न कर्मातस्तदभावः ॐ ॥ २.२.१२॥
oṃ ubhayathāpi na karmātastadabhāvaḥ oṃ ॥ 2.2.12॥
(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.
ubhayathāpi—In either case; na—is not; karma—activity; ataḥ—therefore; tat-abhāvaḥ—negation of that.
2.2.13
ॐ समवायाभ्युपगमाच्च साम्यादनवस्थितेः ॐ ॥ २.२.१३॥
oṃ samavāyābhyupagamācca sāmyādanavasthiteḥ oṃ ॥ 2.2.13॥
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.
samavāya-abhyupagamat—Samavaya being admitted; ca—also; sāmyāt—equality of reasoning; anavasthiteḥ—‘regressus in infinitum’ would result.
2.2.14
ॐ नित्यमेव च भावात् ॐ ॥ २.२.१४॥
oṃ nityameva ca bhāvāt oṃ ॥ 2.2.14॥
(The atomic theory is inadmissible) for the further reason of (activity etc.,) persisting eternally.
nityam-eva—Permanently; ca—and; bhāvāt—because existing.
2.2.15
ॐ रूपादिमत्त्वाच्च विपर्ययो दर्शनात् ॐ ॥ २.२.१५॥
oṃ rūpādimattvācca viparyayo darśanāt oṃ ॥ 2.2.15॥
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.
rūpādimattvāt—On account of possessing colour etc. ca—and; viparyayaḥ—the opposite; darśanāt—because it is seen.
2.2.16
ॐ उभयथा च दोषात् ॐ ॥ २.२.१६॥
oṃ ubhayathā ca doṣāt oṃ ॥ 2.2.16॥
And (the atomic theory is untenable) because it is defective from either point of view.
ubhayathā—In either case; ca—and; doṣāt—because of.
2.2.17
ॐ अपरिग्रहाच्चात्यन्तमनपेक्षा ॐ ॥ २.२.१७॥
oṃ aparigrahāccātyantamanapekṣā oṃ ॥ 2.2.17॥
This (theory of atom as the cause) is to be entirely ignored, since it is not accepted (by the worthy).
aparigrahāt—Because it is not accepted; ca—and; atyantam—completely; anapekṣā—to be rejected.
2.2.18
ॐ समुदायोभयहेतुकेऽपि तदप्राप्तिः ॐ ॥ २.२.१८॥
oṃ samudāyobhayahetuke'pi tadaprāptiḥ oṃ ॥ 2.2.18॥
- Even if the integration be supposed to arise from either of the causes, that will not be achieved.
samudāye—The aggregate; ubhaya-hetuke—having for its cause the two; api—even; tat-aprāptiḥ—it will not take place.
2.2.19
ॐ इतरेतरप्रत्ययत्वादिति चेन्नौत्पत्तिमात्रनिमित्तत्वात् ॐ ॥ २.२.१९॥
oṃ itaretarapratyayatvāditi cennautpattimātranimittatvāt oṃ ॥ 2.2.19॥
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.
itaretara-pratyayatvāt—Because of successive causality; iti cet—if it be said; na—no; utpatta-mātra-nimittatvāt—because they are merely the efficient cause of the origin.
2.2.20
ॐ उत्तरोत्पादे च पूर्वनिरोधात् ॐ ॥ २.२.२०॥
oṃ uttarotpāde ca pūrvanirodhāt oṃ ॥ 2.2.20॥
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).
uttarotpāde—At the time of the production of the subsequent thing; ca—and; purva-nirodhāt—because the antecedent one has ceased to exist.
2.2.21
ॐ असति प्रतिज्ञोपरोधो यौगपद्यमन्यथा ॐ ॥ २.२.२१॥
oṃ asati pratijñoparodho yaugapadyamanyathā oṃ ॥ 2.2.21॥
(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.
asati—If non-existence (of cause) be assumed; pratijña-uparodhaḥ—contradiction of the proposition; yaugapadyam—simultaneity; anyathā—otherwise.
2.2.22
ॐ प्रतिसङ्ख्याप्रतिसङ्ख्यानिरोधाप्राप्तिः अविच्छेदात् ॐ ॥ २.२.२२॥
oṃ pratisaṅkhyāpratisaṅkhyānirodhāprāptiḥ avicchedāt oṃ ॥ 2.2.22॥
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).
pratisaṃkhyā (nirodha)-apratisaṃkhyānirodha-aprāptiḥ—Conscious destruction and unconscious destruction would be impossible; avicchedāt—owing to non-interruption.
2.2.23
ॐ उभयथा च दोषात् ॐ ॥ २.२.२३॥
oṃ ubhayathā ca doṣāt oṃ ॥ 2.2.23॥
And (the Buddhist view is untenable) owing to defect arising from either point of view.
ubhayathā—In either case; ca—and; doṣāt—because of objections.
2.2.24
ॐ आकाशे चाविशेषात् ॐ ॥ २.२.२४॥
oṃ ākāśe cāviśeṣāt oṃ ॥ 2.2.24॥
And (non-existence cannot be asserted) in the case of Akasa on account of the absence of (its) dissimilarity (with destruction).
ākāśe—In the case of Akasa (space); ca—also; aviśeṣāt—there being no difference.
2.2.25
ॐ अनुस्मृतेश्च ॐ ॥ २.२.२५॥
oṃ anusmṛteśca oṃ ॥ 2.2.25॥
And (a permanent soul has to be admitted) because of the fact of remembrance (ie., memory).
anusmṛteḥ—On account of memory; ca—and.
2.2.26
ॐ नासतोऽदृष्टत्वात् ॐ ॥ २.२.२६॥
oṃ nāsato'dṛṣṭatvāt oṃ ॥ 2.2.26॥
Something does not come out of nothing, for this does not accord with experience.
na-Not; asataḥ—from non-existence; dṛṣṭatvāt—because this is not seen.
2.2.27
ॐ उदासीनानामपि चैवं सिद्धिः ॐ ॥ २.२.२७॥
oṃ udāsīnānāmapi caivaṃ siddhiḥ oṃ ॥ 2.2.27॥
And (if something can come out of nothing, then) on the same ground, success should come even to the indifferent people.
udāsīnānām—Of the effortless; api—even; ca—and; evam—thus; siddhiḥ—attainment of the goal.
2.2.28
ॐ नाभाव उपलब्धेः ॐ ॥ २.२.२८॥
oṃ nābhāva upalabdheḥ oṃ ॥ 2.2.28॥
(External objects are) not non-existent, for they are perceived.
na—not; abhāvaḥ—non-existence; upalabdheḥ—on account of their being experienced.
2.2.29
ॐ वैधर्म्याच्च न स्वप्नादिवत् ॐ ॥ २.२.२९॥
oṃ vaidharmyācca na svapnādivat oṃ ॥ 2.2.29॥
And because of the difference of nature (the waking state is) not (false) like dream etc.
vaidharmyāt—Owing to the difference of nature; ca—and; na—is not; svapnādivat—like dreams etc.
2.2.30
ॐ न भावोऽनुपलब्धेः ॐ ॥ २.२.३०॥
oṃ na bhāvo'nupalabdheḥ oṃ ॥ 2.2.30॥
(Tendencies) can have no existence since (according to you) external things are not perceived.
na—Is not; bhāvaḥ—existence; anupalabdheḥ—because (external things) are not experienced.
2.2.31
ॐ क्षणिकत्वाच्च ॐ ॥ २.२.३१॥
oṃ kṣaṇikatvācca oṃ ॥ 2.2.31॥
And (the ego-consciousness cannot be the abode), for it is momentary.
Kṣaṇikatvāt—On account of the momentariness; ca—and.
2.2.32
ॐ सर्वथानुपपत्तेश्च ॐ ॥ २.२.३२॥
oṃ sarvathānupapatteśca oṃ ॥ 2.2.32॥
Besides (this view stands condemned), it being untenable from every point of view.
sarvathā—In every way; nupapatteḥ—being illogical; ca—and.
2.2.33
ॐ नैकस्मिन्नसम्भवात् ॐ ॥ २.२.३३॥
oṃ naikasminnasambhavāt oṃ ॥ 2.2.33॥
(The Jaina view is) not right since the presence (of contradictory attributes) in one and the same thing is impossible.
na—not; ekasmin—in one; asaṃbhavāt—on account of the impossibility.
2.2.34
ॐ एवं चात्माकार्त्स्न्यम् ॐ ॥ २.२.३४॥
oṃ evaṃ cātmākārtsnyam oṃ ॥ 2.2.34॥
Similarly also (arises the defect of) the soul having no all-pervasiveness (or having only a medium dimension).
evam—In the same way; ca—and; atmā-akārtsnyam—non-universality of the soul.
2.2.35
ॐ न च पर्यायादप्यविरोधः विकारादिभ्यः ॐ ॥ २.२.३५॥
oṃ na ca paryāyādapyavirodhaḥ vikārādibhyaḥ oṃ ॥ 2.2.35॥
And the contradiction cannot be avoided even by an assumption of sequence (in the increase and decrease of parts), for still there will be the defects of mutability etc.
na ca—Nor; paryāyāt—in turn; api—even; avirodhaḥ—consistency; vikārādibhyaḥ—on account of change etc.
2.2.36
ॐ अन्त्यावस्थितेश्चोभयनित्यत्वादविशेषत् ॐ ॥ २.२.३६॥
oṃ antyāvasthiteścobhayanityatvādaviśeṣat oṃ ॥ 2.2.36॥
The ultimate size attainable (by the soul) being permanent, the other two sizes also must be so; and hence there will be no distinction (among the sizes).
antya-avasthiteḥ—Because of the permanency (of the size) at the end; ca—and; ubhaya-nityatvāt—there follows the permanency of the two; aviśeṣaḥ—there is no difference.
2.2.37
ॐ पत्युरसामञ्जस्यात् ॐ ॥ २.२.३७॥
oṃ patyurasāmañjasyāt oṃ ॥ 2.2.37॥
For the Lord there can be no creatorship, for that leads to incongruity
patyuḥ—The Lord’s; asāmañjasyāt—on account of inconsistency.
2.2.38
ॐ संबन्धानुपपत्तेश्च ॐ ॥ २.२.३८॥
oṃ saṃbandhānupapatteśca oṃ ॥ 2.2.38॥
And (the incongruity arises) because of the impossibility of a relationship.
saṃbandha-anupapatteḥ—Because relation is not possible; ca—and.
2.2.39
ॐ अधिष्ठानानुपपत्तेश्च ॐ ॥ २.२.३९॥
oṃ adhiṣṭhānānupapatteśca oṃ ॥ 2.2.39॥
And (the position is untenable) because of the impossibility of (Nature) coming under (His) direction. (Or) And (God cannot be proved), since no physical support (adhisthana) is possible for Him.
adhiṣṭhāna-anupapatteḥ—Rulership being impossible; ca—and.
2.2.40
ॐ करणवच्चेन्न भोगादिभ्यः ॐ ॥ २.२.४०॥
oṃ karaṇavaccenna bhogādibhyaḥ oṃ ॥ 2.2.40॥
Should it be argued that God will direct Nature like (a man directing) the organs, then it cannot be so, for that will result in God’s having experiences (of happiness, sorrow etc.). (Or) If a body, equipped with sense-organs, be assumed for God, (we say that) this is not possible; because of (consequent) experiences etc.
karaṇavat—As the senses; cet—if it be said; na—no; bhogādibhyaḥ—because of enjoyment etc.
2.2.41
ॐ अन्तवत्त्वमसर्वज्ञता वा ॐ ॥ २.२.४१॥
oṃ antavattvamasarvajñatā vā oṃ ॥ 2.2.41॥
God will be subject to finitude or loss of omniscience.
antavattvam-Subject to destruction; asarvajñatā—non-omnis; vā—or.
2.2.42
ॐ उत्पत्त्यसम्भवात् ॐ ॥ २.२.४२॥
oṃ utpattyasambhavāt oṃ ॥ 2.2.42॥
(The Bhagavata view that Samkarsana and others originate successively from Vasudeva and others is wrong), since any origin (for the soul) is impossible.
utpatti-asaṃbhavāt—Owing to the impossibility of origination.
2.2.43
ॐ न च कर्तुः करणम् ॐ ॥ २.२.४३॥
oṃ na ca kartuḥ karaṇam oṃ ॥ 2.2.43॥
And (this view is wrong because) an implement cannot originate from its agent (who wields it).
na ca—Nor; kartuḥ— from the agent; karaṇam—the instrument.
2.2.44
ॐ विज्ञानादिभावे वा तदप्रतिषेधः ॐ ॥ २.२.४४॥
oṃ vijñānādibhāve vā tadapratiṣedhaḥ oṃ ॥ 2.2.44॥
Alternatively even if (it be assumed that Vasudeva and others are) possessed of knowledge, (majesty etc.,), still the defect cannot be remedied.
vijñānādibhāve—If intelligence etc. exist; vā—or; tat-apratiṣedhaḥ—no warding off of that.
2.2.45
ॐ विप्रतिषेधाच्च ॐ ॥ २.२.४५॥ इति श्रीमत्कृष्णद्वैपायनकृतब्रह्मसूत्रेषु द्वितीयाध्यायस्य द्वितीयः पादः समाप्तः
oṃ vipratiṣedhācca oṃ ॥ 2.2.45॥ iti śrīmatkṛṣṇadvaipāyanakṛtabrahmasūtreṣu dvitīyādhyāyasya dvitīyaḥ pādaḥ samāptaḥ
Besides, (in this scripture) many contradictions are met with and it runs counter to the Vedas.
vipratiṣedhāt—Because of contradictions; ca—and;
Pāda 3
2.3.1
ॐ न वियदश्रुतेः ॐ ॥ २.३.१॥
oṃ na viyadaśruteḥ oṃ ॥ 2.3.1॥
Space is not (a created thing), since this is not heard of in (some of) the Upanishads.
na—Not; viyat—Akasa; aśruteḥ—(as it is) not so stated by the Sruti.
2.3.2
ॐ अस्ति तु ॐ ॥ २.३.२॥
oṃ asti tu oṃ ॥ 2.3.2॥
But there is (a mention of the origin of space).
asti—There is; tu—but.
2.3.3
ॐ गौण्यसम्भवात् ॐ ॥ २.३.३॥
oṃ gauṇyasambhavāt oṃ ॥ 2.3.3॥
(The Upanishadic passage about creation of space has) a secondary sense, for real creation is impossible.
gauṇī—Used in a secondary sense; asaṃbhavāt—on account of the impossibility.
2.3.4
ॐ शब्दाच्च ॐ ॥ २.३.४॥
oṃ śabdācca oṃ ॥ 2.3.4॥
And (this is borne out) by Vedic texts.
śabdāt—From the Sruti texts; ca—also.
2.3.5
ॐ स्याच्चैकस्य ब्रह्मशब्दवत् ॐ ॥ २.३.५॥
oṃ syāccaikasya brahmaśabdavat oṃ ॥ 2.3.5॥
And it is possible for the same word (“originated”) to have (primary and secondary senses) like the word Brahman.
syāt—Is possible; ca—and; ekasya—of the same (word ‘sprang’); brahmaśabdavat—like the word ‘Brahman’.
2.3.6
ॐ प्रतिज्ञाहानिरव्यतिरेकाच्छब्देभ्यः ॐ ॥ २.३.६॥
oṃ pratijñāhāniravyatirekācchabdebhyaḥ oṃ ॥ 2.3.6॥
The (Vedic) assertion (that “all things become known when the one is known”) can remain unaffected only if all the effects are non-different from Brahman; and this is confirmed by Vedic texts.
pratijñā-ahāniḥ—Non-abandonment of proposition; avyatirekāt—from non-distinction; śabdebhyaḥ—from the Srutis.
2.3.7
ॐ यावद्विकारं तु विभागो लोकवत् ॐ ॥ २.३.७॥
oṃ yāvadvikāraṃ tu vibhāgo lokavat oṃ ॥ 2.3.7॥
But (space is a product); for separateness persists wherever there is an effect, as it is seen in the world.
yāvat-vikāraṃ—Extending to all effects whatsoever; tu—but; vibhāgaḥ—separateness; lokavat—as in the world.
2.3.8
ॐ एतेन मातरिश्वा व्याख्यातः ॐ ॥ २.३.८॥
oṃ etena mātariśvā vyākhyātaḥ oṃ ॥ 2.3.8॥
Hereby is explained air.
etena—By this; mātariśvā—air; vyākhyātaḥ—is explained.
2.3.9
ॐ असम्भवस्तु सतोऽनुपपत्तेः ॐ ॥ २.३.९॥
oṃ asambhavastu sato'nupapatteḥ oṃ ॥ 2.3.9॥
But (origin) for Existence (Brahman) is impossible on account of illogicality.
asaṃbhavaḥ—There can be no origin; tu—but; sataḥ—of the Sat (That which is); anupapatteḥ—as it does not stand to reason.
2.3.10
ॐ तेजोऽतस्तथा ह्याह ॐ ॥ २.३.१०॥
oṃ tejo'tastathā hyāha oṃ ॥ 2.3.10॥
Fire originates from this one (ie., air); for the Upanishad says so.
tejaḥ—Fire; ataḥ—from this; tathā—so hi—verily; āha—says.
2.3.11
ॐ आपः ॐ ॥ २.३.११॥
oṃ āpaḥ oṃ ॥ 2.3.11॥
Water (was born from this fire).
tejaḥ—Fire; ataḥ—from this; tathā—so hi—verily; āha—says.
2.3.12
ॐ पृथिव्यधिकाररूपशब्दान्तरादिभ्यः ॐ ॥ २.३.१२॥
oṃ pṛthivyadhikārarūpaśabdāntarādibhyaḥ oṃ ॥ 2.3.12॥
(The word “food” means) earth on the strength of the topic, colour and other Vedic texts.
pṛthivī—Earth; adhikāra-rūpa-śabdāntarebhyaḥ—because of the subject-matter, colour, and other Sruti texts.
2.3.13
ॐ तदभिध्यानादेव तु तल्लिङ्गात् सः ॐ ॥ २.३.१३॥
oṃ tadabhidhyānādeva tu talliṅgāt saḥ oṃ ॥ 2.3.13॥
It is He only, who through profound meditation on each thing (created it), as is known from His indicatory marks.
tadat-abhidhyānāt—Because of His reflecting; eva—only; tu—but; talliṅgāt—from His indicatory marks; saḥ—He.
2.3.14
ॐ विपर्ययेण तु क्रमोऽत उपपद्यते च ॐ ॥ २.३.१४॥
oṃ viparyayeṇa tu kramo'ta upapadyate ca oṃ ॥ 2.3.14॥
But as compared with this order of creation, the order of dissolution proceeds in a reverse way. This is logical too.
viparyayeṇa—In the reverse order; tu—indeed; kramaḥ—order; ataḥ—from that (the order of creation); upapadyate—is reasonable; ca—and.
2.3.15
ॐ अन्तरा विज्ञानमनसी क्रमेण तल्लिङ्गादिति चेन्नाविशेषात् ॐ ॥ २.३.१५॥
oṃ antarā vijñānamanasī krameṇa talliṅgāditi cennāviśeṣāt oṃ ॥ 2.3.15॥
If it be contended that the intellect and mind must find accommodation in some order in some intermediate stage, because indicatory marks of their existence are in evidence, then not so, because their presence creates no difference (ie., does not disturb the order of creation or dissolution).
antarā—In between; vijñānamanasī—intellect and mind; krameṇa—in the order; talliṅgāt—owing to indication of that; iti cet—if it be said; na—not so; aviśeṣāt—on account of non-difference.
2.3.16
ॐ चराचरव्यपाश्रयस्तु स्यात् तद्व्यपदेशो भाक्तः तद्भावभावित्वात् ॐ ॥ २.३.१६॥
oṃ carācaravyapāśrayastu syāt tadvyapadeśo bhāktaḥ tadbhāvabhāvitvāt oṃ ॥ 2.3.16॥
The mention of birth and death must be in the primary sense in relation to the moving and the motionless; in relation to the soul it must be in a secondary sense, the application (of such words) being possible when a body is present.
carācaravyapāśrayaḥ—Depending on (the bodies) of moving and stationary beings; tu—but; syāt—may be; tadvyapadeśaḥ—mention of that; bhāktaḥ—secondary; tadbhāva-bhāvitvāt—on account of (those terms) depending on the existence of that;
2.3.17
ॐ नात्मा अश्रुतेर्नित्यत्वाच्च ताभ्यः ॐ ॥ २.३.१७॥
oṃ nātmā aśruternityatvācca tābhyaḥ oṃ ॥ 2.3.17॥
The individual soul has no origin; because the Upanishads do not mention this, because its eternality is known from them and (because of other reasons).
na—Is not (produced); ātmā—the individual self; āśruteḥ—not being (so) mentioned by the scriptures; nityatvāt—being eternal; ca—also; tābhyaḥ—from them (Srutis);
2.3.18
ॐ ज्ञोऽत एव ॐ ॥ २.३.१८॥
oṃ jño'ta eva oṃ ॥ 2.3.18॥
The soul is eternally a cognizer for this very reason (of being free from origin and dissolution).
jñaḥ—Intelligence; ata eva—for this very reason.
2.3.19
ॐ युक्तेश्च ॐ ॥ २.३.१९॥
oṃ yukteśca oṃ ॥ 2.3.19॥
(The individual soul must be atomic in dimension owing to the mention in the Vedas) of its departure from the body, going (to the next world by following a course) and coming back (from there).
2.3.20
ॐ उत्क्रान्तिगत्यागतीनाम् ॐ ॥ २.३.२०॥
oṃ utkrāntigatyāgatīnām oṃ ॥ 2.3.20॥
(The soul’s atomicity stands confirmed) owing to the relation of one’s own soul with the latter two facts (viz., following of a course and coming back).
utkrānti-gati-āgatīnām—Passing out, going, and returning.
2.3.21
ॐ स्वात्मना चोत्तरयोः ॐ ॥ २.३.२१॥
oṃ svātmanā cottarayoḥ oṃ ॥ 2.3.21॥
If it be objected that the soul is not atomic because its size is heard of as not being so, we reply, no, since that context relates to the other (ie., the supreme Self).
svātmanā—(Being connected) directly with their agent; ca—and; uttarayoḥ—the latter two;
2.3.22
ॐ नाणुरतत् श्रुतेरिति चेन्न इतराधिकारात् ॐ ॥ २.३.२२॥
oṃ nāṇuratat śruteriti cenna itarādhikārāt oṃ ॥ 2.3.22॥
And the individual soul is atomic because of the direct Upanishadic use of the word as well as mention of infinitesimality.
na aṇuḥ—Not atomic; atat-śruteḥ—as the scriptures state it to be otherwise; iti cet—if it be said; na—not so; itarā-dhikārāt—owing to a principle other than the individual soul being the subject-matter (in these texts).
2.3.23
ॐ स्वशब्दोन्मानाभ्यां च ॐ ॥ २.३.२३॥
oṃ svaśabdonmānābhyāṃ ca oṃ ॥ 2.3.23॥
(The soul’s atomicity and its feeling over the whole body involve) no contradiction, just as in the case (of a drop) of sandal paste.
svaśabda-unmānābhyām—From direct statements (of the Sruti texts) and infinitesimal measure; ca—and.
2.3.24
ॐ अविरोधश्चन्दनवत् ॐ ॥ २.३.२४॥
oṃ avirodhaścandanavat oṃ ॥ 2.3.24॥
If it be objected that (the argument holds good in the case of sandal paste) owing to its peculiarity of position, (but that is not evident in the case of the soul), then we say, no, (a peculiar location) for the soul is admitted in the Upanishads, for it exists in the heart.
avirodhaḥ—No contradiction; candanavat—like sandal-paste.
2.3.25
ॐ अवस्थितिवैशेष्यादिति चेन्नाभ्युपगमाद्धृद्धि हि ॐ ॥ २.३.२५॥
oṃ avasthitivaiśeṣyāditi cennābhyupagamāddhṛddhi hi oṃ ॥ 2.3.25॥
Or on the analogy of what is seen in the world, (the soul may pervade the whole body) through its attribute (of sentience).
avirodhaḥ—No contradiction; candanavat—like sandal-paste.
2.3.26
ॐ गुणाद्वाऽऽलोकवत् ॐ ॥ २.३.२६॥
oṃ guṇādvā''lokavat oṃ ॥ 2.3.26॥
(The quality of sentience can have) separate existence like smell.
guṇāt—Owing to (its) quality; vā—or; lokavat—as in the world;
2.3.27
ॐ व्यतिरेको गन्धवत् तथा च दर्शयति ॐ ॥ २.३.२७॥
oṃ vyatireko gandhavat tathā ca darśayati oṃ ॥ 2.3.27॥
And the Upanishad also show this.
vyatirekaḥ—The extension beyond (the object i.e. the soul); gandhavat—like odour. tathā—Thus; ca—also; darśayati—(the Sruti) shows or declares.
"
2.3.28
ॐ पृथगुपदेशात् ॐ ॥ २.३.२८॥
oṃ pṛthagupadeśāt oṃ ॥ 2.3.28॥
(The soul and its intelligence are separate), since they are taught separately (in the Upanishads).
pṛthak—Separate; upadeśāt—on account of the teaching.
2.3.29
ॐ तद्गुणसारत्वात्तु तद्व्यपदेशः प्राज्ञवत् ॐ ॥ २.३.२९॥
oṃ tadguṇasāratvāttu tadvyapadeśaḥ prājñavat oṃ ॥ 2.3.29॥
But the soul comes to have such appellations because of the dominance of the modes of that intellect; this is just as in the case of the supreme Self.
tadguṇasāratvāt—On account of its having for its essence the qualities of that (viz. the Buddhi); tu—but; tadvyapadeśaḥ—that declaration (as to its atomic size); prājñavat—even as the Intelligent Lord (is declared to be atomic).
2.3.30
ॐ यावदात्मभावित्वाच्च न दोषस्तद्दर्शनात् ॐ ॥ २.३.३०॥
oṃ yāvadātmabhāvitvācca na doṣastaddarśanāt oṃ ॥ 2.3.30॥
And because the contact between the soul and the intellect persists so long as the worldly state of the soul continues, there can be no defect, for this is what is met with in the scriptures.
yāvat-ātmabhāvitvāt—So long as the sould (in its relative aspect) exists; ca—and; na doṣaḥ—there is no defect; taddarśanāt—because it is so ssen (in the scriptures).
2.3.31
ॐ पुंस्त्वादिवत्त्वस्य सतोऽभिव्यक्तियोगात् ॐ ॥ २.३.३१॥
oṃ puṃstvādivattvasya sato'bhivyaktiyogāt oṃ ॥ 2.3.31॥
Rather because that contact (with the intellect etc.,) which remains latent (in sleep and dissolution) can become manifest (during waking and creation) like manhood etc., (from boyhood etc.,).
puṃstvādivat—Like virility etc.; tu—verility; asya—its (i.e. of the connection with the intellect); sataḥ—existing; abhivyaktiyogāt—on account of the manifestation being possible.
2.3.32
ॐ नित्योपलब्ध्यनुपलब्धिप्रसङ्गोऽन्यतरनियमो वाऽन्यथा ॐ ॥ २.३.३२॥
oṃ nityopalabdhyanupalabdhiprasaṅgo'nyataraniyamo vā'nyathā oṃ ॥ 2.3.32॥
Else (if the existence of the internal organ be not admitted) there will be the possibility of either constant perception or non-perception or it will have to be admitted that either of the powers (of the soul or of the organs) becomes (suddenly) debarred (or delimited or lost).
nityopalabdhi-anupalabdhi-prasaṅgaḥ—There would result perpetual perceptiuon or non-perception; anyataraniyamaḥ—limitation of the power of either of the two; vā—or else; vānyathā—otherwise;
2.3.33
ॐ कर्ता शास्त्रार्थवत्त्वात् ॐ ॥ २.३.३३॥
oṃ kartā śāstrārthavattvāt oṃ ॥ 2.3.33॥
The individual soul must be an agent, for thus alone the scriptures become purposeful.
kartā—Agent; śāstrārthavattvāt—in order that the scriptures may have a meaning.
2.3.34
ॐ विहारोपदेशात् ॐ ॥ २.३.३४॥
oṃ vihāropadeśāt oṃ ॥ 2.3.34॥
The soul is an agent) because there are teachings about its roaming.
vihāra-upadeśāt—On account of the Sruti teaching wandering about.
2.3.35
ॐ उपादानात् ॐ ॥ २.३.३५॥
oṃ upādānāt oṃ ॥ 2.3.35॥
. (The soul is an agent) because of its taking up (the organs).
2.3.36
ॐ व्यपदेशाच्च क्रियायां न चेन्निर्देशविपर्ययः ॐ ॥ २.३.३६॥
oṃ vyapadeśācca kriyāyāṃ na cennirdeśaviparyayaḥ oṃ ॥ 2.3.36॥
And the soul is an agent because of the mention (as such) in respect of action; were it not so, there would have been a contrary indication.
vyapadeśāt—On account of mention; ca—also; kriyāyām—in respect of action; na cet—if it were not so; nirdeśa-viparyayaḥ—the reference (would have been) of a different kind.
2.3.37
ॐ उपलब्धिवदनियमः ॐ ॥ २.३.३७॥
oṃ upalabdhivadaniyamaḥ oṃ ॥ 2.3.37॥
As in the case of perception (there is no uniformity), so also there is no uniformity (in the case of action).
upalabdhivat—As in the case of perception; aniyamaḥ—(there is) no rule (here also).
2.3.38
ॐ शक्तिविपर्ययात् ॐ ॥ २.३.३८॥
oṃ śaktiviparyayāt oṃ ॥ 2.3.38॥
(The soul must be an agent), for (if the intellect be so), it will lead to a reversal of power.
2.3.39
ॐ समाध्यभावाछ ॐ ॥ २.३.३९॥
oṃ samādhyabhāvācha oṃ ॥ 2.3.39॥
And (the soul must be an agent) because (a contrary supposition will) lead to a negation of deep meditation (on God).
samādhi-abhāvāt—On account of the impossibility of Samadhi; ca—and.
2.3.40
ॐ यथा च तक्षोभयथा ॐ ॥ २.३.४०॥
oṃ yathā ca takṣobhayathā oṃ ॥ 2.3.40॥
And (rather) this is like the carpenter existing under both conditions.
yathā—Even as; ca—and; takṣa— carpenter; ubhayathā—is both;
2.3.41
ॐ परात्तु तच्छ्रुतेः ॐ ॥ २.३.४१॥
oṃ parāttu tacchruteḥ oṃ ॥ 2.3.41॥
But the agentship (of the individual soul) is derived from God, for that is what is stated in the Vedic texts.
parāt—From the Supreme lord; tu—but; tat—that (agency); śruteḥ—so declares the Sruti.
2.3.42
ॐ कृतप्रयत्नोपेक्षस्तु विहितप्रतिषिद्धावैयर्थ्यादिभ्यः ॐ ॥ २.३.४२॥
oṃ kṛtaprayatnopekṣastu vihitapratiṣiddhāvaiyarthyādibhyaḥ oṃ ॥ 2.3.42॥
(God is), however, dependent on the efforts made, so that injunctions and prohibitions may not become meaningless and other defects may not arise.
kṛtaprayatna-apekṣaḥ—Depends on works done; tu—but; vihita-pratiṣiddha-avaiyarthyādibhyaḥ—on account of the relevancy of injunctions and prohibitions etc.
2.3.43
ॐ अंशो नानाव्यपदेशादन्यथा चापि दाशकितवादित्वमधीयत एके ॐ ॥ २.३.४३॥
oṃ aṃśo nānāvyapadeśādanyathā cāpi dāśakitavāditvamadhīyata eke oṃ ॥ 2.3.43॥
(The individual souls are) parts of God because of the mention that they are different, also because some read otherwise of (Brahman’s) identity with fishermen, slaves, gamblers and others.
aṃśaḥ—Part; nānāvyapadeśāt—on account of difference being declared; anyathā—otherwise; ca—and; api—also; dāśakitavāditvam—being fishermen, knaves, etc.; adhīyate—read; eke—some (Sakhas of the Vedas).
2.3.44
ॐ मन्त्रवर्णात् ॐ ॥ २.३.४४॥
oṃ mantravarṇāt oṃ ॥ 2.3.44॥
This follows from the words of the mantras also.
mantravarṇāt—From the words of the Mantra; ca—also.
2.3.45
ॐ अपि स्मर्यते ॐ ॥ २.३.४५॥
oṃ api smaryate oṃ ॥ 2.3.45॥
and this is also stated in the Smriti (Gita).
api—Also; ca—and; smaryate—it is (so) stated in the Smriti.
2.3.46
पाठभेद अपि च स्मर्यते ॐ प्रकाशादिवन्नैवं परः ॐ ॥ २.३.४६॥
pāṭhabheda api ca smaryate oṃ prakāśādivannaivaṃ paraḥ oṃ ॥ 2.3.46॥
. The Supreme Self is not so (touched by the suffering of the individual soul), even as light etc., are not (affected by the things that condition them).
prakāśādivat—Like light etc. na—is not; evaṃ—like this; paraḥ—the Supreme Lord.
2.3.47
ॐ स्मरन्ति च ॐ ॥ २.३.४७॥
oṃ smaranti ca oṃ ॥ 2.3.47॥
They say so in the Smritis and (the Upanishads declare thus).
smaranti—The smritis state; ca—and.
2.3.48
ॐ अनुज्ञापरिहारौ देहसम्बन्धाज्ज्योतिरादिवत् ॐ ॥ २.३.४८॥
oṃ anujñāparihārau dehasambandhājjyotirādivat oṃ ॥ 2.3.48॥
. Injunction and prohibition become effective owing to physical association, just as it is in the case of light etc.
anujñāparihārau—Injunctions and prohibitions; dehasambandhāt—on account of the connection with the body; jyotirādi-vat—like light etc.
2.3.49
ॐ असन्ततेश्चाव्यतिकरः ॐ ॥ २.३.४९॥
oṃ asantateścāvyatikaraḥ oṃ ॥ 2.3.49॥
And there is no intermixture (of actions and results), since the soul has no connection with all (the bodies).
asantateḥ—Non-extension (beyond its own body); ca—and; avyatikaraḥ—there is no confusion (of results of actions).
2.3.50
ॐ आभास एव च ॐ ॥ २.३.५०॥
oṃ ābhāsa eva ca oṃ ॥ 2.3.50॥
. And (the individual soul) is only a reflection (of the supreme Self) to be sure.
ābhāsaḥ—A reflection; eva—only; ca—and.
2.3.51
ॐ अदृष्टानियमात् ॐ ॥ २.३.५१॥
oṃ adṛṣṭāniyamāt oṃ ॥ 2.3.51॥
(Even the unseen potential results of works cannot regulate individual allocation), since the unseen potential results (themselves) cannot be allocated thus.
adṛṣṭa-aniyamāt—There being no fixity about the unseen principle.
2.3.52
ॐ अभिसन्ध्यादिष्वपि चैवम् ॐ ॥ २.३.५२॥
oṃ abhisandhyādiṣvapi caivam oṃ ॥ 2.3.52॥
And the same (defect springs up) even in the case of resolves etc.,
abhisandhyādiṣu—In resolve; api—even; ca—and; evam—like this.
2.3.53
ॐ प्रदेशादिति चेन्नान्तर्भावात् ॐ ॥ २.३.५३॥ इति श्रीमत्कृष्णद्वैपायनकृतब्रह्मसूत्रेषु द्वितीयाध्यायस्य तृतीयः पादः समाप्तः
oṃ pradeśāditi cennāntarbhāvāt oṃ ॥ 2.3.53॥ iti śrīmatkṛṣṇadvaipāyanakṛtabrahmasūtreṣu dvitīyādhyāyasya tṛtīyaḥ pādaḥ samāptaḥ
If it be said that this (individual allocation of pleasure and pain) can be possible in accordance with the separate part (of each soul in each body), then it cannot be so, because of all (the omnipresent souls) getting included in all (the bodies).
pradeśāt—From (difference of) place; iti cet—if it be said; na—not so; antarbhāvāt—on account of the self being in all bodies.
Pāda 4
2.4.1
ॐ तथा प्राणाः ॐ ॥ २.४.१॥
oṃ tathā prāṇāḥ oṃ ॥ 2.4.1॥
Similarly the organs (are produced from the supreme Self).
tathā—Likewise; prāṇāḥ—the organs.
2.4.2
ॐ गौण्यसम्भवात् ॐ ॥ २.४.२॥
oṃ gauṇyasambhavāt oṃ ॥ 2.4.2॥
(Origin of the organs has to be accepted) because of the impossibility of (the text about origin having) the secondary sense.
gauṇi—Secondary senses; asaṃbhavāt—being impossible.
2.4.3
ॐ प्रतिज्ञानुपरोधाच्च ॐ ॥ २.४.३॥
oṃ pratijñānuparodhācca oṃ ॥ 2.4.3॥
Also because that term, (“is born”), is used earlier (in the primary sense) in the Upanishad (in connection with Prana).
2.4.4
पाठभेद sUtra absent ॐ तत्प्राक्श्रुतेश्च ॐ ॥ २.४.४॥
pāṭhabheda sUtra absent oṃ tatprākśruteśca oṃ ॥ 2.4.4॥
(Pranas must have originated from Brahman) since speech is preceded by them.
tat—That; prāk—first; śruteḥ—being mentioned; ca—and.
2.4.5
ॐ तत्पूर्वकत्वाद्वाचः ॐ ॥ २.४.५॥
oṃ tatpūrvakatvādvācaḥ oṃ ॥ 2.4.5॥
The pranas are seven in number because of being so known and because of such a specification.
vācaḥ—Of the organ of speech (etc.); tatpūrvakatvāt—being preceded by them (the lements).
2.4.6
ॐ सप्त गतेर्विशेषितत्वाच्च ॐ ॥ २.४.६॥
oṃ sapta gaterviśeṣitatvācca oṃ ॥ 2.4.6॥
But the hands etc., are there; since (an excess is) established thus, therefore it is not so
sapta—Seven; gateḥ—being so known (from the scriptures); viśeṣitatvāc—on account of the specification; ca—and.
2.4.7
ॐ हस्तादयस्तु स्थितेऽतो नैवम् ॐ ॥ २.४.७॥
oṃ hastādayastu sthite'to naivam oṃ ॥ 2.4.7॥
And the organs are atomic (ie., subtle and limited in size).
hastādayaḥ—Hands etc.; tu—but; sthite—being a fact; ataḥ—therefore; na—not; evam—like this;
2.4.8
ॐ अणवश्च ॐ ॥ २.४.८॥
oṃ aṇavaśca oṃ ॥ 2.4.8॥
So also the foremost (Prana is a product of Brahman).
aṇavaḥ—Minute; ca—and.
2.4.9
ॐ श्रेष्ठश्च ॐ ॥ २.४.९॥
oṃ śreṣṭhaśca oṃ ॥ 2.4.9॥
Prana is neither air nor a function, because it is taught separately.
śreṣṭhaḥ—The chief Prana (vital force); ca—and.
2.4.10
ॐ न वायुक्रिये पृथगुपदेशात् ॐ ॥ २.४.१०॥
oṃ na vāyukriye pṛthagupadeśāt oṃ ॥ 2.4.10॥
But Prana is not independent just like the organs of vision etc., because instruction is impared along with them and because of other reasons.
na vāyukriye—Not air nor function; pṛthak—separately; upadeśāt—on account of its being mentioned.
2.4.11
ॐ चक्षुरादिवत्तु तत्सहशिष्ट्यादिभ्यः ॐ ॥ २.४.११॥
oṃ cakṣurādivattu tatsahaśiṣṭyādibhyaḥ oṃ ॥ 2.4.11॥
. No fault accrues, because Prana is not a sense-organ. For thus it is shown in the Upanishads.
cakṣurādivat—Like eyes etc.; tu—but; tat-saha-śiṣṭyādibhyaḥ—on account of (its) being taught with them and other reasons.
2.4.12
ॐ अकरणत्वाच्च न दोषस्तथा हि दर्शयति ॐ ॥ २.४.१२॥
oṃ akaraṇatvācca na doṣastathā hi darśayati oṃ ॥ 2.4.12॥
It is taught that Prana has five states like the mind.
akaraṇatvāt—On account of (its) not being an instrument; ca—and; na—not; doṣaḥ—objection; tathā hi—because thus; darśayati—(Sruti) teaches.
2.4.13
ॐ पञ्चवृत्तिर्मनोवद्व्यपदिश्यते ॐ ॥ २.४.१३॥
oṃ pañcavṛttirmanovadvyapadiśyate oṃ ॥ 2.4.13॥
And the chief Prana is atomic (ie., subtle and limited in size).
pañcavṛttiḥ—Having fivefold function; manovat—like the mind; vyapadiśyate—it is taught.
2.4.14
ॐ अणुश्च ॐ ॥ २.४.१४॥
oṃ aṇuśca oṃ ॥ 2.4.14॥
But there is the (fact of) presiding over by (the deities) Fire and others, for so it is taught in the scriptures.
aṇuḥ—Minute; ca—and.
2.4.15
ॐ ज्योतिराद्यधिष्ठानं तु तदामननात् ॐ ॥ २.४.१५॥
oṃ jyotirādyadhiṣṭhānaṃ tu tadāmananāt oṃ ॥ 2.4.15॥
(The organs are) connected with the possessor of the organs, as is known from the Vedic texts.
jyotirādi-adhiṣṭhānaṃ—Presiding over by Fire and others; tu—but; tat-āmananāt—on account of the scriptures teaching that.
2.4.16
ॐ प्राणवता शब्दात् ॐ ॥ २.४.१६॥
oṃ prāṇavatā śabdāt oṃ ॥ 2.4.16॥
And on account of that soul’s constant relation (with the body).
prāṇavatā—With the one possessing the Pranas (organs); śabdāt—from the scriptures.
2.4.17
ॐ तस्य च नितयत्वात् ॐ ॥ २.४.१७॥
oṃ tasya ca nitayatvāt oṃ ॥ 2.4.17॥
As distinguished from the chief Prana, the other pranas (eleven in number) are the organs, for they are so designated.
tasya—Its; ca—and; nityatvāt—on account of permanence.
2.4.18
ॐ त इन्द्रियाणि तद्व्यपदेशादन्यत्र श्रेष्ठात् ॐ ॥ २.४.१८॥
oṃ ta indriyāṇi tadvyapadeśādanyatra śreṣṭhāt oṃ ॥ 2.4.18॥
Because of the (mention of) difference in the Upanishads.
te—They; indriyāṇi—organs; tadvyapadeśāt—being so designated; śreṣṭhāt anyatra—except the chief.
2.4.19
ॐ भेदश्रुतेः ॐ ॥ २.४.१९॥
oṃ bhedaśruteḥ oṃ ॥ 2.4.19॥
And (the organs are different from Prana) because of the dissimilarity in characteristics.
2.4.20
ॐ वैलक्षण्याच्च ॐ ॥ २.४.२०॥
oṃ vailakṣaṇyācca oṃ ॥ 2.4.20॥
The arrangement of designation and shape, however, is by Him who made the elements tripartite, for it is taught (in the Upanishad).
2.4.21
ॐ संज्ञामूर्तिक्लृप्तिस्तु त्रिवृत्कुर्वत उपदेशात् ॐ ॥ २.४.२१॥
oṃ saṃjñāmūrtiklṛptistu trivṛtkurvata upadeśāt oṃ ॥ 2.4.21॥
Flesh etc., are produced from earth as it is shown in the Upanishads. From the other two as well (evolve other things).
2.4.22
ॐ मांसादि भौमं यथाशब्दमितरयोश्च ॐ ॥ २.४.२२॥
oṃ māṃsādi bhaumaṃ yathāśabdamitarayośca oṃ ॥ 2.4.22॥
But owing to the preponderance (of any one) occurs the corresponding designation, occurs the corresponding designation.
2.4.23
ॐ वैशेष्यात्तु तद्वादस्तद्वादः ॐ ॥ २.४.२३॥ इति श्रीमत्कृष्णद्वैपायनकृतब्रह्मसूत्रेषु द्वितीयाध्यायस्य चतुर्थः पादः समाप्तः ॥ इति द्वितीयोऽध्यायः॥
oṃ vaiśeṣyāttu tadvādastadvādaḥ oṃ ॥ 2.4.23॥ iti śrīmatkṛṣṇadvaipāyanakṛtabrahmasūtreṣu dvitīyādhyāyasya caturthaḥ pādaḥ samāptaḥ ॥ iti dvitīyo'dhyāyaḥ॥
NIL
vaiśeṣyāt—On account of the preponderance; tu—but; tadvādaḥ(-tadvādaḥ)—that special name.