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

[sū. 1. 4. 20. ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 253 SŪTRA 20 "(THE BEGINNING WITH THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL IS) A MARK OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INITIAL PROPOSITION, ĀŚMARATHYA (THINKS SO) " Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha To the question. Why, then, is there the beginning with the individual soul? we reply the fact that the Supreme Soul is designated by a word denoting the individual soul,—the latter being non-different from the former as His effect,—is a convincing proof "of the estab- lishment of the initial proposition", viz that through the knowledge of one, there is the knowledge of all. So "Āśmarathya" thinks. Vedānta-kaustubha If it be objected. The individual soul alone is apprehended as connected with the dearness of husband and the rest in the beginning, in the passage. ‘"O, not for the love of the husband, verily, is a husband dear, but for the love of the soul is a husband dear’" (Bṛh 2 4.5, 4.5.6) and so on; as well as connected with origin and destruction in the middle, in the passage: ‘"Having arisen from these beings, one vanishes into them alone. After death there is no consciousness’" (Bṛh. 2 4 12; 4.5.13),— (We reply:) True. Still, by the term "individual soul" the Supreme Soul is to be understood here. No such objection can be raised in view of the fact that He, being the cause of all, can be denoted by all words The author is showing this with the approval of another teacher In accordance with the text ‘From whom, verily, all these elements arise’ (Tait 3.1), the individual soul, too, entered into the elements, is reckoned among the effects, and Brahman is the cause. These two being the effect and the cause, there is, undoubtedly, a primary difference between them. Thus the texts designating duality are correct Since the effect is non-different from the cause, being born from it and so on, non-difference between the two, too, is equally a fact. Thus, the texts designating non-duality, too, are correct. In this way, both the kinds of texts being authoritative in their own senses, there is a natural relation of difference and non-difference between the individual soul and Brahman. Hence, it is possible for words denoting the effects to denote the causes as well, just as in the