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

{SŪ. 1. 4. 3. VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 219 ADH. 1.] Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. In that case, be happy by falling in with the Sāṁkhyas, since you admit the doctrine of the causality of pra- dhāna,—the author replies here In ordinary experience, a non-sentient object, having no connec- tion with a sentient principle, can have no meaning, incapable as it is of giving rise to an effect Never does a lump of clay assume the form of a pot by itself. Similarly, pradhāna, admitted by the Sāṁkhyas, having no connection with a sentient principle and itself non-sentient, is not able to give rise to effects; hence, it is simply meaningless. Pradhāna, taught in the Upanisads, on the other hand, "has a mean- ing". That has a meaning which serves the 'meaning', or the purpose, of giving rise to all effects, beginning with the mahat and ending with a tuft of grass. Why? "On account of (its) dependence on Him" ¹ That which is dependent on Him, i e. on Brahman or Lord Vāsudeva, sentient and the Supreme Cause, is 'tad-adhīna', viz. pradhāna, the state of being that (tad-adhīnatva), on account of that (tad-adhī- natvāt). But the dependence of pradhāna on Brahman is not like the dependence of atoms on Īśvara, as held by the logicians, but is due to the relation between a power and the possessor of the power,² as established by the scriptural text like: 'The own power of the Deity, hidden by his own qualities' (Śvet. 1 3) and so on. The scriptural texts, establishing pradhāna as taught in the Upaniṣads, have been quoted above.³ COMPARISON Bhāskara He gives two alternative explanations of the sūtra, the first of which tallies with the explanation given by Nimbārka. The second is as follows: 'But (the subtle causal body is designated as) subtle (in reference to the gross body), because of the fitness (of the word "unmanifest" to denote it)' (Sūtra 2) ('Bondage and release) have meaning as dependent on it (viz. the subtle body)' (Sūtra 3) ⁴. 1 The compound 'tad-adhīnatvāt' is to be explained as follows. 2 That is, not an external and accidental relation, but an internal and essential one. 3 Vide e.g. V.K. 1.1.1. ⁴ Bh B. 1.4.3, p 73.