।। द्वितीयोऽध्यायः ।।
।। द्वितीयः पादः ।।
रचनानुपपत्तेश्च नानुमानम् ।। 2.2.1 ।।
There are several inferences made that an inert entity is the foundation or Pradhāna of this world but that does not hold water because there is only the One. This universe is a reflection of the Absolute and is in reality, the Absolute.
And hence, there are several objections to the theory that an inert entity is the foundation or Pradhāna of this universe owing to its improbability to create.
If one were to say that the foundation or cause for this universe spontaneously undergoes modification like the flow of milk and water, then it can be stated that it is because of another entity that exists as the essence of it. However, it has been categorically stated that the Supreme Brahman is eternal and modifications are a mere illusion referable only to the reflection of Consciousness.
And because the Pradhāna that is the Primordial Cause is not dependent on anything and there is no external agent or material, its activity and non-activity are indecipherable.
अन्यत्राभावाच्च च तृणादिवत्।।2.2.5।।
The Primordial Cause is the Unmanifest, the Absolute, the Unknown and the ONE. It is therefore, difficult to comprehend the act of creation, creation itself and the entities created just like how it is ungraspable that grass eaten by female mammals turns to milk.
Even if one were to accept the theory of spontaneity and spontaneous modification of the foundation or Pradhāna of the universe, this theory is quickly refuted because of the absence of any purpose.
Even if it is said that there is another hand or essence or Purushā that guides the foundation or Pradhāna, then it brings into theory that there is the Pradhāna and an another entity that is superior to the Pradhāna which again has been refuted categorically in the scriptures. It must be known that all diversity if at all it exists, does only in the illusion, the reflection of Consciousness. The Primordial Cause is pure, eternal, Immutable, the Absolute, the Unmanifest and the Unknown.
And because the theory of independence among the various factors, attributes, qualities and beings in this creation is impossible, it can be stated that the Supreme Self is the only self-sustaining entity and this universe is a reflection of IT.
अन्यथाऽनुमितौ च ज्ञशक्तिवियोगात्।।2.2.9।।
Even if it is inferred that the various factors, attributes, qualities and beings in this creation may not be completely independent and are guided by another essence, even then it can be easily proved that the foundation or Pradhāna is not a separate entity and that there is nothing apart or different from the Supreme Being.
And because of such contradictions, the Sānkhyan theory has become inconsistent owing to misinterpretations and improper understanding of the scriptures and the original teachings of Kapila Maharshi.
The universe created as a reflection of Consciousness by the Supreme Brahman is in reality unabated Bliss. One may say that it has originated from the Supreme Brahman like how the triad has manifested from the dyad and the dyad from the indivisible atom.
उभयथाऽपि न कर्मातस्तदभावः।।2.2.12।।
The theory that the Supreme Brahman is an indivisible atom and that the process of creation is a combination of atoms leading to creation which is a matrix of atoms is only a theory and not the reality. The Supreme Brahman is the Absolute, the Unmanifest and the Unknown and therefore, to say that the Supreme Brahman is an infinitesimal atom is only a deliberation. For one to see, know, realize, perceive and experience this so-called atomic model, there needs to be a seer, a scene seen and the act of seeing besides the Supreme Brahman which is against the scriptural authorities that categorically state that there is nothing apart or different from the Supreme Brahman.
The Vaiseshika theory is also untenable as it endorses regressus ad infinitum as per the principle of Samavāya.
नित्यमेव च भावात्।।2.2.14।।
The atomic model theory of the universe would suggest that creation is permanent and hence, this theory is inadmissible. It is well known that in reality, there is nothing created nor destroyed and that the universe itself is a mere illusion, a reflection of Consciousness.
रूपादिमत्त्वाच्च विपर्ययो दर्शनात्।।2.2.15।।
And because this atomic model theory of creation also suggests that these atoms possess colours, qualities, attributes and others, it would mean that this is a phenomenon that is seen which is the opposite of what the Vaiseshika theory says.
उभयथा च दोषात्।।2.2.16।।
And hence, because of many contradictions, the atomic model theory of the universe is untenable.
And because the atomic model theory is not accepted by the scriptural authorities, it is to be completely rejected.
समुदाय उभयहेतुकेऽपि तदप्राप्तिः।।2.2.18।।
If one were to say that the external world of atoms and the internal world of mental faculties have manifested from two causes, then that would result in the non-formation of both of them. If one were to say that an entity has guided both of them, then the question that arises is whether this entity is permanent or transitory.
Hence, this Buddhist theory of Realism is untenable as it cannot account for what they term as intelligent and non-intelligent principles of internal and external respectively. Contradictions arise about the permanency in their doctrine of momentariness.
If one were to say that the external and internal comprising of aggregation of atoms and mental faculties respectively have manifested because of successive causality, then that theory can be refuted as these are merely a subsequent phenomenon in the natural order and not because of aggregation. For aggregation of either external and internal, a bond or binding entity is required that is cohesive and if one were to maintain the theory that both the external and internal have progressed from two separate causes, then the model of cohesion comes under severe scrutiny.
उत्तरोत्पादे च पूर्वनिरोधात्।।2.2.20।।
And because at the time of the production of the subsequent phenomenon even in the series of successive causality, the antecedent has already ceased to exist, it therefore, cannot be the cause of the subsequent phenomenon. Thus, this theory of the Buddhists is categorically rejected.
असति प्रतिज्ञोपरोधो यौगपद्यमन्यथा।।2.2.21।।
If as the Buddhists say that non-existence is the cause and effects are produced in spite of it, then a contradiction arises as that would result in simultaneity of cause and effect with the cause lasting for longer than a moment which goes against their proposition of momentariness.
The Buddhists claim that universal destruction is of two kinds namely conscious and unconscious and they are ever in motion. However, this theory is refuted as conscious and unconscious destruction is impossible based on their theory of momentariness. If either destruction would take place, remnants of that would either be the cause for the next or effect and therefore, this goes against their theory of momentariness. Either types of destruction do not occur because of continuity and non-interruption.
उभयथा च दोषात्।।2.2.23।।
Anyways, in either case a lot of objections arise due to the contradictory nature of this premise and therefore, this position of the Buddhists is untenable.
And the theory that the expansive Ākāśa is the third entity and is not different from the two-fold destruction as per the Buddhists also holds no water as it cannot be a non-entity.
And on account of memory, the permanency of the one who experiences has to be recognized which is again a contradiction of the Buddhist theory of momentariness.
Existence does not result from non-existence as it is not seen. Existence IS and so, all that one needs to do is BE.
उदीसीनानामपि चैवं सिद्धिः।।2.2.27।।
If one were to claim that existence indeed springs forth from non-existence, then there would arise the attainment of the goal even by those who are not striving.
According to the Buddhist Idealism theory, only ideas exist and nothing else. This would mean that things external do not exist and this theory can be easily refuted as external things are experienced and hence, to claim the non-existence of things external is not true.
वैधर्म्याच्च न स्वप्नादिवत्।।2.2.29।।
And owing to the difference of nature in Consciousness between the waking and dream state, the experience of the waking state is not like dreams. This refutes the Buddhist theory that external things are not true.
However, one must remember that Consciousness is ever-existent and the three states of waking, dream and sleep are yet again an illusion in the reflection of Consciousness.
The existence of Samskāras is not possible according to the Buddhist theory of Idealism because external things are not experienced. As this is a violation of the scriptural authorities, this theory is categorically rejected.
According to the Buddhist theory of momentariness that denies permanency to everything, ego consciousness and thereby Samskāras do not have an abode. However, as per their own logic of external and internal, mental impressions must have an abode without which they cannot exist which contradicts their theory of momentariness.
And as the Buddhist theory of Idealism contradicts itself in every doctrine, it cannot be accepted.
On account of the impossibility of contrary attributes in one and the same thing, the Jain theory also does not hold water. The Jain theory speaks of seven categories which are divided into two groups of soul and the non-soul. As per their theory, there are seven different views with regard to the reality of everything namely real, unreal, both real and unreal, different from real and unreal, indescribable and so on. This means that every entity in this creation essentially comprises of these seven views which is quite absurd and the reason being is WHO EXISTS to ascertain WHAT is real, unreal, different from real and unreal, indescribable and so on.
And in the same way, this theory also questions the all-pervasive nature of the soul.
न च पर्यायादप्यविरोधो विकारादिभ्यः।।2.2.35।।
Even if one were to state that the soul takes on and discards parts to suit different bodies, consistency with regard to its universality cannot be maintained.
And because of the permanency of the size of the soul at the time of liberation, there indicates permanency at the beginning and the middle which means that there is no difference in the size of the soul at any time.
As the Lord is considered to be only an efficient cause of the world as per this theory and not the Supreme Cause, this theory does not hold good on account of its inconsistency.
As per this theory, a relation between the Lord and the cause of the souls is not possible as both the Lord and the Pradhāna and the souls are devoid of parts. Hence, as per this premise, there cannot be any cohesion or conjunction between the Lord and them and this will mean that they function independently or under another separate cause. This idea or deliberation is a violation of the scriptural authorities.
This theory also suggests that the Lord does not govern over the Pradhāna and the souls.
If one were to claim that the Lord rules over the Pradhāna, the souls and others even as the jeeva governs the senses that are not perceived, then that statement cannot be accepted because of the perception and experience of enjoyment.
According to their theories, the Lord is subject to destruction and is not all-pervading.
As per the Pāncharātra doctrine, the creation of the jeeva from the Lord is impossible. They believe in the material and efficient causality of the Lord but they reject the creation of a jeeva as it will be subject to destruction and hence, Liberation cannot be its goal or essence. This theory is also untenable owing to several contradictions.
न च कर्तुः करणम्।।2.2.43।।
Nor is the instrument produced from the agent seen.
विज्ञानादिभावे वा तदप्रतिषेधः।।2.2.44।।
The Pāncharātra doctrine claims that all forms are Vāsudeva and are equal in terms of knowledge, lordship, strength and others, blemishless and free from imperfections. However, this suggests that there is more than one Ishwara which goes against their theory. Their theory also suggests that one is cause for another and the effect must possess something lacking in the cause which is again a contradiction as they claim all are equal in all respects.
And because of these contradictions, the Pāncharātra or Bhāgavata theory is untenable.
[Brahma Sutras – Chapter 2, Section 2 – Slokas 1 – Slokas 45]