वेदान्त पारिजात सौरभ (भगवद् निम्बार्काचार्य - द्वैताद्वैत वेदान्त ब्रह्मसूत्र भाष्य सटीक)

{SŪ. 1. 3. 19. ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 171 The meaning of the scriptural text (Chānd. 8 3.4) is as follows. Just as the eye,—enveloped in deep darkness and hence unable to perform its own special function of making known objects like clothes, ornaments and the rest,—having attained the ever-unenveloped sun, is completed in its own form and able to perform its own special function of manifesting its own objects,—so the individual soul, ‘having attained’, i.e having completely attained, near itself, the ‘highest’, i.e. the Being different from the sentient individual soul and the non-sentient, ‘light’, i e. the real nature of the Whole the revealer of all, is ‘completed’ in its real nature as knowledge, different from the body, the sense-organs and the rest and endowed with its own bliss,—as such it is said to have its real nature manifest (āvir- bhūta-svarūpa) The word ‘āvirbhūta-svarūpa’ is to be explained as ‘one whose real nature has become manifest’. Moreover, as ‘being a bridge’, ‘being the limitary support of all worlds’, and ‘being the controller of the sentient and the non-sentient’ are not possible even on the part of the individual soul which has its real nature manifest, so the small ether can never be supposed to be the individual soul. In the doctrine of the ‘small’ (Chānd 8.1 5), the attributes of freedom from sins and the rest, which are special to one who has this real nature ever manifest, are mentioned; while in the doctrine taught by Prajāpati (Chānd. 8 7.1), only those that are special to that which has its nature manifest (and not ever manifest) Hence, the reason ‘because of impossibility’ (mentioned in Br. Sū. 1 3 18) remains in force. COMPARISON Śaṃkara Interpretation different, viz.: ‘If it be said . . . , (then we reply) No, but (the passage in question refers to the soul only so far) as its real nature has become manifest (i.e. so far it has become Brahman) ¹ Thus, according to Śaṃkara, the statement of Prajāpati (Chānd. 8 7.1) does not really refer to the individual soul, but to Brahman. According to Nimbārka, however, as we have seen, it refers to the freed soul, which too is different from Brahman ¹ Ś.B. 1 3.19, pp. 333 et seq.