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

[sū. 1. 4. 11. 234 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 3.] effects; sixteen objects are effects (only), purusa is neither a cause nor an effect' (Sāṁ Kā. 3¹) With regard to it, we reply: "Not even on account of the collection of number"; The word "even" implies possibility ² In spite of the fact that the number twenty-five is found in this text, prakrti and the rest have not Scripture as their authority. Why? "On account of diversity", i.e. because the twenty-five principles, mentioned in Smṛti, cannot be arranged in five groups of five each, they being of various kinds. There can be numeration or grouping of objects only with reference to a class, a common quality and so on, e.g. when we say: 'A group of five cows', 'a group of five learned men'. But here we find no common cause for grouping five objects under each pentad. In such cases as: 'seven are causes as well as effects', 'sixteen are effects (only)' and so on, on the other hand, there do exist causes for such groupings ³ Or, else (an alternative explanation of the word 'nānābhāvāt'), 'on account of the absence of plurality'. That is, all the objects mentioned in the Vedānta having Brahman for their soul, there is no absolute plurality, in accordance with the statement 'All this has that for its soul' (Chānd 6.8 7, 6 9 4, 6.10.3–6 16.3), and also in accordance with the teaching contained here, viz. 'In whom the five five-people and the ether are based' (Bṛh 4.4.17) The sense is that if the twenty-five principles, admitted by the Sāṁkhyas, be accepted here, then, they not having Brahman for their soul, plurality will result, contradicting Scripture. Or, rather, the principles, admitted by our opponents and inde- pendent of Brahman, being distinct from those that are based on Brahman, in accordance with the text: 'In whom the five five-people' (Bṛh 4.4.17), "and on account of excess", there is not even the number twenty-five here. On the contrary, "on account of the excess", i.e. surplus, viz. the Supreme Soul, the support of all, indicated ¹ P. 4 ² I.e. even if it be possible to understand here the number intended by the Sāṁkhyas, still then the Sāṁkhya view cannot be said to be referred to here. It will be shown later that it is not really even possible to understand here the number twenty-five intended by the Samkhyas. ³ I.e. A group consists of a certain number of similar objects. But here it is impossible to divide the twenty-five Sāṁkhya principles into five groups, each containing five similar principles. Hence it cannot be said that 'five five-people' means 5×5 = 25 principles of the Sāṁkhyas.