ANYTHING CANNOT BE PRODUCED OUT OF NOTHING :
========= Refutation of Vainâsika view =========
The Chhandogya Upanishad states,
“ In the beginning, my dear, this was Existence only, one, without a second. Some say that, in the beginning, this was Non-existence, only one, without a second. From that Non-existence sprang Existence. “
~ (Chhandogya Up. 6.2.1)
“ But how could it be so, my dear ? said he. How could Being be born from Non-being ? in fact, this was Existence only, in the beginning, one, without a second. "
~ (Chhandogya Up. 6.2.2)
Bhagavad Gita :-
नासतो विद्यते भावो नाभावो विद्यते सतः ।
उभयोरपि दृष्टोऽन्तस्त्वनयोस्तत्वदर्शिभिः ॥
~ (Bhagavad Gita 2.16).
“ Of the unreal no Existence there is ; there is no Non-existence of the real. Of both these is the truth seen by the seers of the Essence.”
According to Maharshi Kapila,
" Na vastuno vastu siddhih "
(Sankhya Pravachana Sutra 1.78)
" There can not be production of something out of nothing "
" (Entity) does not spring from non-entity on account of that not being observed. "
~ Brahma Sutra 2.2.26 [ Sutra 197]
Sri Shankaracharya's Commentary :
The system of the Vainâsikas is objectionable for this reason also that those who deny the existence of permanent stable causes are driven to maintain that entity springs from non-entity.
This latter tenet is expressly enunciated by the Bauddhas where they say, 'On account of the manifestation (of effects) not without previous destruction (of the cause).'
For, they say, from the decomposed seed only the young plant springs, spoilt milk only turns into curds, and the lump of clay has ceased to be a lump when it becomes a jar. If effects did spring from the unchanged causes, all effects would originate from all causes at once, as then no specification would be required.
[Note : If the cause were able, without having undergone any change, to produce effects, it would at the same moment produce all the effects of which it is capable.]
Hence, as we see that young plants, etc. spring from seeds, etc. only after the latter have been merged in nonexistence, we hold that entity springs from non-entity.
To this Bauddha tenet we reply, '(Entity does) not (spring) from non-entity, on account of that not being observed.'
If entity did spring from non-entity, the assumption of special causes would be without any purpose, since non-entity is in all cases one and the same. For the non-existence of seeds and the like after they have been destroyed is of the same kind as the non-existence of horns of hares and the like, i.e. non-existence is in all cases nothing else but the absence of all character of reality, and hence there would be no sense (on the doctrine of origination from non-existence) in assuming that sprouts are produced from seeds only, curds from milk only, and so on.
And if non-distinguished non-existence were admitted to have causal efficiency, we should also have to assume that sprouts, etc. originate from the horns of hares, etc.--a thing certainly not actually observed.--If, again, it should be assumed that there are different kinds of non-existence having special distinctions--just as, for instance, blueness and the like are special qualities of lotuses and so on--we point out that in that case the fact of there being such special distinctions would turn the non-entities into entities no less real than lotuses and the like. In no case non-existence would possess causal efficiency, simply because, like the horn of a hare, it is non-existence merely.--Further, if existence sprang from non-existence, all effects would be affected with non-existence; while as a matter of fact they are observed to be merely positive entities distinguished by their various special characteristics. Nor does any one think that things of the nature of clay, such as pots and the like, are the effects of threads and the like; but everybody knows that things of the nature of clay are the effects of clay only.
[ Note : This is added to obviate the remark that it is not a general rule that effects are of the same nature as their causes, and that therefore, after all, existent things may spring from non-existence.]
The Bauddha's tenet that nothing can become a cause as long as it remains unchanged, but has to that end to undergo destruction, and that thus existence springs from non-existence only is false; for it is observed that only things of permanent nature which are always recognised as what they are, such as gold, etc., are the causes of effects such as golden ornaments, and so on.
In those cases where a destruction of the peculiar nature of the cause is observed to take place, as in the case of seeds, for instance, we have to acknowledge as the cause of the subsequent condition (i.e. the sprout) not the earlier condition in so far as it is destroyed, but rather those permanent particles of the seed which are not destroyed (when the seed as a whole undergoes decomposition).--Hence as we see on the one hand that no entities ever originate from nonentities such as the horns of a hare, and on the other hand that entities do originate from entities such as gold and the like the whole Bauddha doctrine of existence springing from non-existence has to be rejected.
" And thus (on that doctrine) there would be an accomplishment (of ends) in the case of non-active people also. "
~ Brahma Sutra 2.2.27 [ Sutra 198]
Sri Shankaracharya's Commentary :
If it were admitted that entity issues from non-entity, lazy inactive people also would obtain their purposes, since 'non-existence' is a thing to be had without much trouble. Rice would grow for the farmer even if he did not cultivate his field; vessels would shape themselves even if the potter did not fashion the clay; and the weaver too lazy to weave the threads into a whole, would nevertheless have in the end finished pieces of cloth just as if he had been weaving. And nobody would have to exert himself in the least either for going to the heavenly world or for obtaining final release. All which of course is absurd and not maintained by anybody.--Thus the doctrine of the origination of entity from non-entity again shows itself to be futile.
" Om Shanti Shanti Shanti "