Chapter 1: Objections from Smriti and reason answered

स्मृत्यनवकाशदोषप्रसङ्ग इति चेन्नान्यस्मृत्यनवकाशदोषप्रसङ्गात्

smṛtyanavakāśadoṣaprasaṅga iti cennānyasmṛtyanavakāśadoṣaprasaṅgāt

If it is said that taking Brahman as the cause leaves no room for the Smriti of Kapila (Sankhya), no: rejecting Brahman as cause would leave no room for other Smritis, such as Manu's, which teach it. The adhyaya opens by meeting objections from Smriti.

इतरेषां चानुपलब्धेः

itareṣāṃ cānupalabdheḥ

And because the other categories of that Smriti, such as pradhana as an independent cause, are not found in the Veda or in experience. So the Sankhya Smriti is not authority where it departs from Shruti.

एतेन योगः प्रत्युक्तः

etena yogaḥ pratyuktaḥ

By this the Yoga Smriti is also answered. Its practice is accepted, but where it holds pradhana to be the independent cause of the world, it is set aside like Sankhya.

न विलक्षणत्वादस्य तथात्वं च शब्दात्

na vilakṣaṇatvādasya tathātvaṃ ca śabdāt

The opponent argues: Brahman cannot be the cause of this world, because the world is unlike it in nature, being insentient and impure; and Shruti itself shows the world as such. This is the objection from difference of nature.

अभिमानिव्यपदेशस्तु विशेषानुगतिभ्याम्

abhimānivyapadeśastu viśeṣānugatibhyām

Where Shruti says earth spoke or the waters thought, it refers to the presiding deities of those elements, as is clear from the special mention and from their entering. So the objector holds the world remains insentient.

दृश्यते तु

dṛśyate tu

But it is seen in the world that unlike things arise from one another, as hair and nails from a living man and insects from dung. So difference of nature does not stop Brahman from being the cause.

असदिति चेन्न प्रतिषेधमात्रत्वात्

asaditi cenna pratiṣedhamātratvāt

If it is said that then the effect did not exist before its origin, no: this is only a denial that it existed apart; the effect always exists as one with its cause.

अपीतौ तद्वत्प्रसङ्गादसमञ्जसम्

apītau tadvatprasaṅgādasamañjasam

The objector says: at dissolution, when the effect returns into the cause, the cause would be tainted by the effect's defects, so the doctrine is incoherent.

न तु दृष्टान्तभावात्

na tu dṛṣṭāntabhāvāt

Not so, for there are examples: clay pots, when broken back into clay, do not pass their shapes to the clay. The cause is not tainted by the effect merging into it.

स्वपक्षदोषाच्च

svapakṣadoṣācca

And because the same defects fall on the opponent's own view, since pradhana too would be tainted when its effects dissolve into it.

तर्काप्रतिष्ठानादप्यन्यथानुमेयमिति चेदेवमप्यविमोक्षप्रसङ्गः

tarkāpratiṣṭhānādapyanyathānumeyamiti cedevamapyavimokṣaprasaṅgaḥ

Reasoning has no firm footing, as one thinker refutes another. If it is said we should reason in another way, even so liberation could not be reached by it. So in matters beyond the senses Shruti is the final authority.

एतेन शिष्टापरिग्रहा अपि व्याख्याताः

etena śiṣṭāparigrahā api vyākhyātāḥ

By this, the other views not accepted by the wise, such as the atomic theory, are also explained as refuted.

भोक्त्रापत्तेरविभागश्चेत्स्याल्लोकवत्

bhoktrāpatteravibhāgaścetsyāllokavat

If it is said that, the enjoyer becoming one with the enjoyed, their distinction would vanish, the answer is that it can remain, as in the world: waves and foam stay distinct though all are the sea.

तदनन्यत्वमारम्भणशब्दादिभ्यः

tadananyatvamārambhaṇaśabdādibhyaḥ

The effect is non-different from the cause, as shown by the word 'arambhana' (a mere name arising from speech) in the clay example of the Chandogya, and by other texts. Acharyas read this non-difference in their own ways.

भावे चोपलब्धेः

bhāve copalabdheḥ

And because the effect is perceived only when the cause is present: where there is clay, the pot is seen.

सत्त्वाच्चावरस्य

sattvāccāvarasya

And because the later thing, the effect, exists as the cause before its appearance, as Shruti says: in the beginning this was Sat alone.

असद्व्यपदेशान्नेति चेन्न धर्मान्तरेण वाक्यशेषात्

asadvyapadeśānneti cenna dharmāntareṇa vākyaśeṣāt

If it is said that Shruti calls the world 'asat' before creation, no: that word means another state, unmanifest, as the rest of the passage shows.

युक्तेः शब्दान्तराच्च

yukteḥ śabdāntarācca

Also from reasoning, since only curd comes from milk, and from another Shruti text that speaks of Sat as the source. So the effect pre-exists in the cause.

पटवच्च

paṭavacca

And like a piece of cloth: rolled up it is not seen as cloth, spread out it is. So the effect is the cause made manifest.

यथा च प्राणादि

yathā ca prāṇādi

And as with prana and the rest: when the breaths are held, life alone remains; when released they work as five. So one cause appears as many effects.

इतरव्यपदेशाद्धिताकरणादिदोषप्रसक्तिः

itaravyapadeśāddhitākaraṇādidoṣaprasaktiḥ

The objector says: since the Self is declared to be Brahman, the creator would be at fault for not doing good to himself, creating sorrow for his own self.

अधिकं तु भेदनिर्देशात्

adhikaṃ tu bhedanirdeśāt

But Brahman is more than the individual soul, because Shruti states the difference between them. So the defects of the soul do not touch the creator.

अश्मादिवच्च तदनुपपत्तिः

aśmādivacca tadanupapattiḥ

And as with stones and the like, some precious and some common though all from earth, so the objection does not hold. Variety in effects does not prove variety in the one cause.

उपसंहारदर्शनान्नेति चेन्न क्षीरवद्धि

upasaṃhāradarśanānneti cenna kṣīravaddhi

If it is said that Brahman cannot create, since makers are seen to gather materials, no: it is like milk, which turns to curd by itself.

देवादिवदपि लोके

devādivadapi loke

And as the devas and rishis in the world create by their power of will alone, without outer means, so can Brahman.

कृत्स्नप्रसक्तिर्निरवयवत्वशब्दकोपो वा

kṛtsnaprasaktirniravayavatvaśabdakopo vā

Objection: if partless Brahman becomes the world, either the whole of it is transformed, or the Shruti that calls it partless is contradicted.

श्रुतेस्तु शब्दमूलत्वात्

śrutestu śabdamūlatvāt

But it is not so, on the strength of Shruti, which says both that Brahman becomes the world and that it remains beyond it; since Brahman is known only from the Word, this must be accepted.

आत्मनि चैवं विचित्राश्च हि

ātmani caivaṃ vicitrāśca hi

And so it is in the Self too, as in dream: wondrous creations arise in it while it remains undivided.

स्वपक्षदोषाच्च

svapakṣadoṣācca

And because the same fault falls on the opponent's own view, since partless pradhana too would have to change wholly or not at all.

सर्वोपेता च तद्दर्शनात्

sarvopetā ca taddarśanāt

And Brahman, the supreme Deity, is endowed with all powers, as Shruti shows. So it can create all this.

विकरणत्वान्नेति चेत्तदुक्तम्

vikaraṇatvānneti cettaduktam

If it is said Brahman has no organs and so cannot act, that has been answered already: Shruti alone is the authority for its nature.

न प्रयोजनवत्त्वात्

na prayojanavattvāt

The objector: Brahman cannot be the creator, since every action is for some purpose, and Brahman, being complete, has none.

लोकवत्तु लीलाकैवल्यम्

lokavattu līlākaivalyam

But creation is mere lila, sport, as in the world a king at ease plays without any need. Brahman creates out of the fullness of its own nature.

वैषम्यनैर्घृण्ये न सापेक्षत्वात्तथा हि दर्शयति

vaiṣamyanairghṛṇye na sāpekṣatvāttathā hi darśayati

Partiality and cruelty cannot be charged to the Lord, because creation depends on the merit and demerit of beings; Shruti shows this.

न कर्माविभागादिति चेन्नानादित्वात्

na karmāvibhāgāditi cennānāditvāt

If it is said that before creation there was no distinction of karma, no: samsara is without beginning, so karma and beings have always been.

उपपद्यते चाप्युपलभ्यते च

upapadyate cāpyupalabhyate ca

And this beginninglessness is reasonable and is also found stated in Shruti and Smriti.

सर्वधर्मोपपत्तेश्च

sarvadharmopapatteśca

And because all the attributes needed for a cause are found in Brahman. So Brahman alone is the cause of the world.