AKA Vedanta Sutras or Shariraka Sutras
Author: Sage Badarayana
The Brahma Sutras are a foundational text of Hindu philosophy, specifically the Vedanta tradition. Written by the sage Badarayana (often associated with Vyasa) around 400–450 CE (with older origins), the text consists of 555 concise aphorisms (sutras) organized into four chapters.Their primary purpose is to systematize and harmonize the teachings of the Upanishads, which can often seem contradictory at first glance.
The Three Pillars of Vedanta
The Brahma Sutras make up the first of the Prasthanatrayi ("three starting points") which form the basis of all Vedanta philosophy. The other two pillars are:
The Upanishads (The foundational revelations)
The Bhagavad Gita (The practical application of philosophy)
Chapter 6: 2.2
2.2
Verse #1
Vaisesika Objection Refuted |
ॐ महद्दीर्घवद्धा ह्रस्वपरिमण्डलाभ्याम् ॐ २.२.११॥ ||
Vaisesika Objection Refuted | oṃ mahaddīrghavaddhā hrasvaparimaṇḍalābhyām oṃ 2.2.11.. ||
Vaisesika Objection Refuted | o mahaddirghavaddha hrasvaparimanalabhyam o 2.2.11.. ||
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).
Sw. Krishnananda
(The world may originate from Brahman) as the great and the long originate from the short and the atomic.
Sw. Krishnananda
(The world may originate from Brahman) as the great and the long originate from the short and the atomic.
Verse #2
ॐ अन्त्यावस्थितेश्चोभयनित्यत्वादविशेषत् ॐ |
२.२.३६॥ ||
oṃ antyāvasthiteścobhayanityatvādaviśeṣat oṃ ||
o antyavasthitescobhayanityatvadavisesat o ||
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).
Sw. Krishnananda
And on account of the permanency of the final (size of the soul on release) and the resulting permanency of the two (preceding sizes), there is no difference (of size of the soul, at any time).
Sw. Krishnananda
And on account of the permanency of the final (size of the soul on release) and the resulting permanency of the two (preceding sizes), there is no difference (of size of the soul, at any time).
Verse #3
Samkhya View Refuted (Impossibility of Design) |
ॐ रचनानुपपत्तेश्च नानुमानम् ॐ २.२.१॥ ||
Samkhya View Refuted (Impossibility of Design) | oṃ racanānupapatteśca nānumānam oṃ 2.2.1.. ||
Samkhya View Refuted (Impossibility of Design) | o racananupapattesca nanumanam o 2.2.1.. ||
1. The inferred one (Pradhana) is not (the cause) owing to the impossibility of explaining the design, as also for other reasons.
Sw. Krishnananda
That which is inferred, (by the Sankhyas, viz., the Pradhana) cannot be the cause (of the world) because (in that case it is) not possible (to account for the) design or orderly arrangement (found in the creation).
Sw. Krishnananda
That which is inferred, (by the Sankhyas, viz., the Pradhana) cannot be the cause (of the world) because (in that case it is) not possible (to account for the) design or orderly arrangement (found in the creation).
Verse #4
ॐ प्रवृत्तेश्च ॐ |
२.२.२॥ ||
oṃ pravṛtteśca oṃ ||
o pravttesca o ||
2. And the inferred (Pradhana) cannot be the cause, since the tendency to create (cannot logically arise in it).
Sw. Krishnananda
And on account of the (impossibility of) activity.
Sw. Krishnananda
And on account of the (impossibility of) activity.
Verse #5
ॐ पयोऽम्बुवच्चेत्तत्रापि ॐ |
२.२.३॥ ||
oṃ payo'mbuvaccettatrāpi oṃ ||
o payo'mbuvaccettatrapi o ||
3. If it be claimed (that Pradhana acts spontaneously) like milk and water, then even there (intelligence is the guide).
Sw. Krishnananda
If it be said (that the Pradhana moves or spontaneously modifies herself into the various products) like milk or water (without the guidance of any intelligence), (we reply that) there also (it is due to intelligence).
Sw. Krishnananda
If it be said (that the Pradhana moves or spontaneously modifies herself into the various products) like milk or water (without the guidance of any intelligence), (we reply that) there also (it is due to intelligence).
Verse #6
ॐ व्यतिरेकानवस्थितेश्चानपेक्षत्वात् ॐ |
२.२.४॥ ||
oṃ vyatirekānavasthiteścānapekṣatvāt oṃ ||
o vyatirekanavasthitescanapeksatvat o ||
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).
Sw. Krishnananda
And because (the Pradhana) is not dependent (on anything), there being no external agent besides it (it cannot be active).
Sw. Krishnananda
And because (the Pradhana) is not dependent (on anything), there being no external agent besides it (it cannot be active).
Verse #7
ॐ अन्यत्राभावाच्च न तृणादिवत् ॐ |
२.२.५॥ ||
oṃ anyatrābhāvācca na tṛṇādivat oṃ ||
o anyatrabhavacca na tnadivat o ||
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).
Sw. Krishnananda
And (it can) not (be said that the Pradhana modifies itself spontaneously) like grass, etc., (which turn into milk), because of its absence elsewhere (than in the female animals).
Sw. Krishnananda
And (it can) not (be said that the Pradhana modifies itself spontaneously) like grass, etc., (which turn into milk), because of its absence elsewhere (than in the female animals).
Verse #8
ॐ अभ्युपगमेऽप्यर्थाभावात् ॐ |
२.२.६॥ ||
oṃ abhyupagame'pyarthābhāvāt oṃ ||
o abhyupagame'pyarthabhavat o ||
6. Even if (spontaneous modification of Pradhana be) accepted, still (Pradhana will not be the cause) because of the absence of any purpose.
Sw. Krishnananda
Even if we admit (the Sankhya position with regard to the spontaneous modification of the Pradhana, it cannot be the cause of the universe) because of the absence of any purpose.
Sw. Krishnananda
Even if we admit (the Sankhya position with regard to the spontaneous modification of the Pradhana, it cannot be the cause of the universe) because of the absence of any purpose.
Verse #9
ॐ पुरुषाश्मवदितिचेत्तथापि ॐ |
२.२.७॥ ||
oṃ puruṣāśmavaditicettathāpi oṃ ||
o purusasmavaditicettathapi o ||
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).
Sw. Krishnananda
If it be said (that the Purusha or Soul can direct or move the Pradhana) as the (lame) man can direct a blind man, or as the magnet (moves the iron), even then (the difficulty cannot be overcome).
Sw. Krishnananda
If it be said (that the Purusha or Soul can direct or move the Pradhana) as the (lame) man can direct a blind man, or as the magnet (moves the iron), even then (the difficulty cannot be overcome).
Verse #10
ॐ अङ्गित्वानुपपत्तेः ॐ |
२.२.८॥ ||
oṃ aṅgitvānupapatteḥ oṃ ||
o angitvanupapatte o ||
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).
Sw. Krishnananda
And again (the Pradhana cannot be active) because the relation of principal (and subordinate matter) is impossible (between the three Gunas).
Sw. Krishnananda
And again (the Pradhana cannot be active) because the relation of principal (and subordinate matter) is impossible (between the three Gunas).
Verse #11
ॐ अन्यथानुमितौ च ज्ञशक्तिवियोगात् ॐ |
२.२.९॥ ||
oṃ anyathānumitau ca jñaśaktiviyogāt oṃ ||
o anyathanumitau ca jnasaktiviyogat o ||
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).
Sw. Krishnananda
Even if it be inferred otherwise on account of the Pradhana being devoid of the power of intelligence (the other objections to the Pradhana being the cause of the universe remain in force).
Sw. Krishnananda
Even if it be inferred otherwise on account of the Pradhana being devoid of the power of intelligence (the other objections to the Pradhana being the cause of the universe remain in force).
Verse #12
ॐ विप्रतिषेधाच्चासमञ्जसम् ॐ |
२.२.१०॥ ||
oṃ vipratiṣedhāccāsamañjasam oṃ ||
o vipratisedhaccasamanjasam o ||
10. And (the Samkhya doctrine is) incoherent because of the contradictions involved.
Sw. Krishnananda
And moreover (the Sankhya doctrine) is objectionable on account of its contradictions.
Sw. Krishnananda
And moreover (the Sankhya doctrine) is objectionable on account of its contradictions.
Verse #13
Atoms Not the Cause of Universe |
ॐ उभयथापि न कर्मातस्तदभावः ॐ २.२.१२॥ ||
Atoms Not the Cause of Universe | oṃ ubhayathāpi na karmātastadabhāvaḥ oṃ 2.2.12.. ||
Atoms Not the Cause of Universe | o ubhayathapi na karmatastadabhava o 2.2.12.. ||
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.
Sw. Krishnananda
In both cases also (in the cases of the Adrishta, the unseen principle inhering either in the atoms or the soul) the activity (of the atoms) is not possible; hence negation of that (viz., creation through the union of the atoms).
Sw. Krishnananda
In both cases also (in the cases of the Adrishta, the unseen principle inhering either in the atoms or the soul) the activity (of the atoms) is not possible; hence negation of that (viz., creation through the union of the atoms).
Verse #14
ॐ समवायाभ्युपगमाच्च साम्यादनवस्थितेः ॐ |
२.२.१३॥ ||
oṃ samavāyābhyupagamācca sāmyādanavasthiteḥ oṃ ||
o samavayabhyupagamacca samyadanavasthite o ||
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.
Sw. Krishnananda
And because in consequence of Samavaya being admitted, a regresssus ad infinitum results on similar reasoning (hence the Vaiseshika theory is untenable).
Sw. Krishnananda
And because in consequence of Samavaya being admitted, a regresssus ad infinitum results on similar reasoning (hence the Vaiseshika theory is untenable).
Verse #15
ॐ नित्यमेव च भावात् ॐ |
२.२.१४॥ ||
oṃ nityameva ca bhāvāt oṃ ||
o nityameva ca bhavat o ||
14. (The atomic theory is inadmissible) for the further reason of (activity etc.,) persisting eternally.
Sw. Krishnananda
And on account of the permanent existence (of activity or non-activity, the atomic theory is not admissible).
Sw. Krishnananda
And on account of the permanent existence (of activity or non-activity, the atomic theory is not admissible).
Verse #16
ॐ रूपादिमत्त्वाच्च विपर्ययो दर्शनात् ॐ |
२.२.१५॥ ||
oṃ rūpādimattvācca viparyayo darśanāt oṃ ||
o rupadimattvacca viparyayo darsanat o ||
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.
Sw. Krishnananda
And on account of the atoms possessing colour, etc., the opposite (of which the Vaiseshikas hold would take place), because it is seen or observed.
Sw. Krishnananda
And on account of the atoms possessing colour, etc., the opposite (of which the Vaiseshikas hold would take place), because it is seen or observed.
Verse #17
ॐ उभयथा च दोषात् ॐ |
२.२.१६॥ ||
oṃ ubhayathā ca doṣāt oṃ ||
o ubhayatha ca dosat o ||
16. And (the atomic theory is untenable) because it is defective from either point of view.
Sw. Krishnananda
And because of defects in both cases (the atomic theory cannot be accepted).
Sw. Krishnananda
And because of defects in both cases (the atomic theory cannot be accepted).
Verse #18
ॐ अपरिग्रहाच्चात्यन्तमनपेक्षा ॐ |
२.२.१७॥ ||
oṃ aparigrahāccātyantamanapekṣā oṃ ||
o aparigrahaccatyantamanapeksa o ||
17. This (theory of atom as the cause) is to be entirely ignored, since it is not accepted (by the worthy).
Sw. Krishnananda
And because (the atomic theory) is not accepted (by authoritative sages like Manu and others) it is to be totally rejected.
Sw. Krishnananda
And because (the atomic theory) is not accepted (by authoritative sages like Manu and others) it is to be totally rejected.
Verse #19
Refutation of Buddhist Realists |
ॐ समुदायोभयहेतुकेऽपि तदप्राप्तिः ॐ २.२.१८॥ ||
Refutation of Buddhist Realists | oṃ samudāyobhayahetuke'pi tadaprāptiḥ oṃ 2.2.18.. ||
Refutation of Buddhist Realists | o samudayobhayahetuke'pi tadaprapti o 2.2.18.. ||
18. Even if the integration be supposed to arise from either of the causes, that will not be achieved.
Sw. Krishnananda
Even if the (two kinds of) aggregates proceed from their two causes, there would take place non-establishment (of the two aggregates).
Sw. Krishnananda
Even if the (two kinds of) aggregates proceed from their two causes, there would take place non-establishment (of the two aggregates).
Verse #20
ॐ इतरेतरप्रत्ययत्वादिति चेन्नौत्पत्तिमात्रनिमित्तत्वात् ॐ |
२.२.१९॥ ||
oṃ itaretarapratyayatvāditi cennautpattimātranimittatvāt oṃ ||
o itaretarapratyayatvaditi cennautpattimatranimittatvat o ||
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.
Sw. Krishnananda
If it be said that (the formation of aggregates may be explained) through (nescience) standing in the relation of mutual causality, we say 'no'; they merely are the efficient cause of the origin (of the immediately subsequent links and not of the aggregation).
Sw. Krishnananda
If it be said that (the formation of aggregates may be explained) through (nescience) standing in the relation of mutual causality, we say 'no'; they merely are the efficient cause of the origin (of the immediately subsequent links and not of the aggregation).
Verse #21
ॐ उत्तरोत्पादे च पूर्वनिरोधात् ॐ |
२.२.२०॥ ||
oṃ uttarotpāde ca pūrvanirodhāt oṃ ||
o uttarotpade ca purvanirodhat o ||
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).
Sw. Krishnananda
(Nor can there be a causal relation between nescience, etc.) because on the origination of the subsequent thing the preceding one ceases to be.
Sw. Krishnananda
(Nor can there be a causal relation between nescience, etc.) because on the origination of the subsequent thing the preceding one ceases to be.
Verse #22
ॐ असति प्रतिज्ञोपरोधो यौगपद्यमन्यथा ॐ |
२.२.२१॥ ||
oṃ asati pratijñoparodho yaugapadyamanyathā oṃ ||
o asati pratijnoparodho yaugapadyamanyatha o ||
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.
Sw. Krishnananda
If non-existence (of cause) be assumed, (while yet the effect takes place), there results contradiction of the admitted principle or proposition. Otherwise there would result simultaneity (of cause and effect).
Sw. Krishnananda
If non-existence (of cause) be assumed, (while yet the effect takes place), there results contradiction of the admitted principle or proposition. Otherwise there would result simultaneity (of cause and effect).
Verse #23
ॐ प्रतिसङ्ख्याप्रतिसङ्ख्यानिरोधाप्राप्तिः अविच्छेदात् ॐ |
२.२.२२॥ ||
oṃ pratisaṅkhyāpratisaṅkhyānirodhāprāptiḥ avicchedāt oṃ ||
o pratisankhyapratisankhyanirodhaprapti avicchedat o ||
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).
Sw. Krishnananda
Conscious and unconscious destruction would be impossible on account of non-interruption.
Sw. Krishnananda
Conscious and unconscious destruction would be impossible on account of non-interruption.
Verse #24
ॐ उभयथा च दोषात् ॐ |
२.२.२३॥ ||
oṃ ubhayathā ca doṣāt oṃ ||
o ubhayatha ca dosat o ||
23. And (the Buddhist view is untenable) owing to defect arising from either point of view.
Sw. Krishnananda
And on account of the objections presenting themselves in either case.
Sw. Krishnananda
And on account of the objections presenting themselves in either case.
Verse #25
ॐ आकाशे चाविशेषात् ॐ |
२.२.२४॥ ||
oṃ ākāśe cāviśeṣāt oṃ ||
o akase cavisesat o ||
24. And (non-existence cannot be asserted) in the case of Akasa on account of the absence of (its) dissimilarity (with destruction).
Sw. Krishnananda
The cause of Akasa (ether) also not being different (from the two other kinds of destruction it also cannot be a non-entity.)
Sw. Krishnananda
The cause of Akasa (ether) also not being different (from the two other kinds of destruction it also cannot be a non-entity.)
Verse #26
ॐ अनुस्मृतेश्च ॐ |
२.२.२५॥ ||
oṃ anusmṛteśca oṃ ||
o anusmtesca o ||
25. And (a permanent soul has to be admitted) because of the fact of remembrance (ie., memory).
Sw. Krishnananda
And on account of memory the things are not momentary.
Sw. Krishnananda
And on account of memory the things are not momentary.
Verse #27
ॐ नासतोऽदृष्टत्वात् ॐ |
२.२.२६॥ ||
oṃ nāsato'dṛṣṭatvāt oṃ ||
o nasato'dstatvat o ||
26. Something does not come out of nothing, for this does not accord with experience.
Sw. Krishnananda
(Existence or entity does) not (spring) from non-existence or non-entity, because it is not seen.
Sw. Krishnananda
(Existence or entity does) not (spring) from non-existence or non-entity, because it is not seen.
Verse #28
ॐ उदासीनानामपि चैवं सिद्धिः ॐ |
२.२.२७॥ ||
oṃ udāsīnānāmapi caivaṃ siddhiḥ oṃ ||
o udasinanamapi caiva siddhi o ||
27. And (if something can come out of nothing, then) on the same ground, success should come even to the indifferent people.
Sw. Krishnananda
And thus (if existence should spring from non-existence, there would result) the attainment of the goal by the indifferent and non-active people also.
Sw. Krishnananda
And thus (if existence should spring from non-existence, there would result) the attainment of the goal by the indifferent and non-active people also.
Verse #29
Buddhist Idealism Refuted |
ॐ नाभाव उपलब्धेः ॐ २.२.२८॥ ||
Buddhist Idealism Refuted | oṃ nābhāva upalabdheḥ oṃ 2.2.28.. ||
Buddhist Idealism Refuted | o nabhava upalabdhe o 2.2.28.. ||
28. (External objects are) not non-existent, for they are perceived.
Sw. Krishnananda
The non-existence (of eternal things) cannot be maintained; on account of (our) consciousness (of them).
Sw. Krishnananda
The non-existence (of eternal things) cannot be maintained; on account of (our) consciousness (of them).
Verse #30
ॐ वैधर्म्याच्च न स्वप्नादिवत् ॐ |
२.२.२९॥ ||
oṃ vaidharmyācca na svapnādivat oṃ ||
o vaidharmyacca na svapnadivat o ||
29. And because of the difference of nature (the waking state is) not (false) like dream etc.
Sw. Krishnananda
And on account of the difference in nature (in consciousness between the waking and the dreaming state, the experience of the waking state) is not like dreams, etc., etc.
Sw. Krishnananda
And on account of the difference in nature (in consciousness between the waking and the dreaming state, the experience of the waking state) is not like dreams, etc., etc.
Verse #31
ॐ न भावोऽनुपलब्धेः ॐ |
२.२.३०॥ ||
oṃ na bhāvo'nupalabdheḥ oṃ ||
o na bhavo'nupalabdhe o ||
30. (Tendencies) can have no existence since (according to you) external things are not perceived.
Sw. Krishnananda
The existence (of Samskaras or mental impressions) is not possible (according to the Bauddhas), on account of the absence of perception (of external things).
Sw. Krishnananda
The existence (of Samskaras or mental impressions) is not possible (according to the Bauddhas), on account of the absence of perception (of external things).
Verse #32
ॐ क्षणिकत्वाच्च ॐ |
२.२.३१॥ ||
oṃ kṣaṇikatvācca oṃ ||
o ksanikatvacca o ||
31. And (the ego-consciousness cannot be the abode), for it is momentary.
Sw. Krishnananda
And on account of the momentariness (of the Alayavijnana or ego-consciousness it cannot be the abode of the Samskaras or mental impressions).
Sw. Krishnananda
And on account of the momentariness (of the Alayavijnana or ego-consciousness it cannot be the abode of the Samskaras or mental impressions).
Verse #33
ॐ सर्वथानुपपत्तेश्च ॐ |
२.२.३२॥ ||
oṃ sarvathānupapatteśca oṃ ||
o sarvathanupapattesca o ||
32. Besides (this view stands condemned), it being untenable from every point of view.
Sw. Krishnananda
And (as the Bauddha system is) illogical in every way (it cannot be accepted).
Sw. Krishnananda
And (as the Bauddha system is) illogical in every way (it cannot be accepted).
Verse #34
Jaina View Refuted |
ॐ नैकस्मिन्नसम्भवात् ॐ २.२.३३॥ ||
Jaina View Refuted | oṃ naikasminnasambhavāt oṃ 2.2.33.. ||
Jaina View Refuted | o naikasminnasambhavat o 2.2.33.. ||
33. (The Jaina view is) not right since the presence (of contradictory attributes) in one and the same thing is impossible.
Sw. Krishnananda
On account of the impossibility (of contradictory attributes) in one and the same thing at the same time (the Jaina doctrine is) not (to be accepted).
Sw. Krishnananda
On account of the impossibility (of contradictory attributes) in one and the same thing at the same time (the Jaina doctrine is) not (to be accepted).
Verse #35
ॐ एवं चात्माकार्त्स्न्यम् ॐ |
२.२.३४॥ ||
oṃ evaṃ cātmākārtsnyam oṃ ||
o eva catmakartsnyam o ||
34. Similarly also (arises the defect of) the soul having no all-pervasiveness (or having only a medium dimension).
Sw. Krishnananda
And in the same way (there results from the Jaina doctrine) the non-universality of the soul.
Sw. Krishnananda
And in the same way (there results from the Jaina doctrine) the non-universality of the soul.
Verse #36
ॐ न च पर्यायादप्यविरोधः विकारादिभ्यः ॐ |
२.२.३५॥ ||
oṃ na ca paryāyādapyavirodhaḥ vikārādibhyaḥ oṃ ||
o na ca paryayadapyavirodha vikaradibhya o ||
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.
Sw. Krishnananda
Nor is non-contradiction to be derived from the succession (of parts according to and departing from the soul to such different bodies) on account of the change, etc., (of the soul).
Sw. Krishnananda
Nor is non-contradiction to be derived from the succession (of parts according to and departing from the soul to such different bodies) on account of the change, etc., (of the soul).
Verse #37
God Is Not a Mere Superintendent |
ॐ पत्युरसामञ्जस्यात् ॐ २.२.३७॥ ||
God Is Not a Mere Superintendent | oṃ patyurasāmañjasyāt oṃ 2.2.37.. ||
God Is Not a Mere Superintendent | o patyurasamanjasyat o 2.2.37.. ||
37. For the Lord there can be no creatorship, for that leads to incongruity.
Sw. Krishnananda
The Lord (cannot be the efficient or the operative cause of the world) on account of the inconsistency (of that doctrine).
Sw. Krishnananda
The Lord (cannot be the efficient or the operative cause of the world) on account of the inconsistency (of that doctrine).
Verse #38
ॐ संबन्धानुपपत्तेश्च ॐ |
२.२.३८॥ ||
oṃ saṃbandhānupapatteśca oṃ ||
o sabandhanupapattesca o ||
38. And (the incongruity arises) because of the impossibility of a relationship.
Sw. Krishnananda
And because relation (between the Lord and the Pradhana or the souls) is not possible.
Sw. Krishnananda
And because relation (between the Lord and the Pradhana or the souls) is not possible.
Verse #39
ॐ अधिष्ठानानुपपत्तेश्च ॐ |
२.२.३९॥ ||
oṃ adhiṣṭhānānupapatteśca oṃ ||
o adhisthananupapattesca o ||
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.
Sw. Krishnananda
And on account of the impossibility of rulership (on the part of the Lord).
Sw. Krishnananda
And on account of the impossibility of rulership (on the part of the Lord).
Verse #40
ॐ करणवच्चेन्न भोगादिभ्यः ॐ |
२.२.४०॥ ||
oṃ karaṇavaccenna bhogādibhyaḥ oṃ ||
o karanavaccenna bhogadibhya o ||
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.
Sw. Krishnananda
If it be said (that the Lord rules the Pradhana etc.,) just as (the Jiva rules) the senses (which are also not perceived), (we say) no, because of the enjoyment, etc.
Sw. Krishnananda
If it be said (that the Lord rules the Pradhana etc.,) just as (the Jiva rules) the senses (which are also not perceived), (we say) no, because of the enjoyment, etc.
Verse #41
ॐ अन्तवत्त्वमसर्वज्ञता वा ॐ |
२.२.४१॥ ||
oṃ antavattvamasarvajñatā vā oṃ ||
o antavattvamasarvajnata va o ||
41. God will be subject to finitude or loss of omniscience.
Sw. Krishnananda
(There would follow from their doctrine the Lord's) being subject to destruction or His non-omniscience.
Sw. Krishnananda
(There would follow from their doctrine the Lord's) being subject to destruction or His non-omniscience.
Verse #42
Bhagavata View Refuted |
ॐ उत्पत्त्यसम्भवात् ॐ २.२.४२॥ ||
Bhagavata View Refuted | oṃ utpattyasambhavāt oṃ 2.2.42.. ||
Bhagavata View Refuted | o utpattyasambhavat o 2.2.42.. ||
42. (The Bhagavata view that Samkarsana and others originate successively from Vasudeva and others is wrong), since any origin (for the soul) is impossible.
Sw. Krishnananda
On account of the impossibility of the origination (of the individual soul from the Highest Lord), (the doctrine of the Bhagavatas or the Pancharatra doctrine cannot be accepted).
Sw. Krishnananda
On account of the impossibility of the origination (of the individual soul from the Highest Lord), (the doctrine of the Bhagavatas or the Pancharatra doctrine cannot be accepted).
Verse #43
ॐ न च कर्तुः करणम् ॐ |
२.२.४३॥ ||
oṃ na ca kartuḥ karaṇam oṃ ||
o na ca kartu karanam o ||
43. And (this view is wrong because) an implement cannot originate from its agent (who wields it).
Sw. Krishnananda
And (it is) not (observed that) the instrument (is produced) from the agent.
Sw. Krishnananda
And (it is) not (observed that) the instrument (is produced) from the agent.
Verse #44
ॐ विज्ञानादिभावे वा तदप्रतिषेधः ॐ |
२.२.४४॥ ||
oṃ vijñānādibhāve vā tadapratiṣedhaḥ oṃ ||
o vijnanadibhave va tadapratisedha o ||
44. Alternatively even if (it be assumed that Vasudeva and others are) possessed of knowledge, (majesty etc.,), still the defect cannot be remedied.
Sw. Krishnananda
Or if the (four Vyuhas are said to) possess infinite knowledge, etc., yet there is no denial of that (viz., the objection raised in Sutra 42).
Sw. Krishnananda
Or if the (four Vyuhas are said to) possess infinite knowledge, etc., yet there is no denial of that (viz., the objection raised in Sutra 42).
Verse #45
ॐ विप्रतिषेधाच्च ॐ |
२.२.४५॥ |
इति श्रीमत्कृष्णद्वैपायनकृत ब्रह्मसूत्रेषु द्वितीयाध्यायस्य द्वितीयः पादः समाप्तः ||
oṃ vipratiṣedhācca oṃ ||
o vipratisedhacca o ||
45. Besides, (in this scripture) many contradictions are met with and it runs counter to the Vedas.
Sw. Krishnananda
And because of contradictions (the Pancharatra doctrine is untenable).
Sw. Krishnananda
And because of contradictions (the Pancharatra doctrine is untenable).