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

[SŪ. 2. 1. 1. 268 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.] texts, regarding the origin of the great elements like the ether and the rest, are all free from contradictions; and, further, the order of creation and destruction, and the nature of the individual soul, are determined. In the fourth quarter, again, the contradictions among the texts, demonstrating the organs of the individual soul, are removed. Now, first, it is being demonstrated that our view is consistent with the Smṛtis as well. It has been stated in the section treating of proof ¹ that Brahman, the cause of the world, has the Veda as His sole proof, since He cannot be known through any other source. And in the section, treating of concordance ², it has been established that there is concordance of all the Vedas with regard to Brahman alone. And, likewise, the meaning of the Veda being very difficult to be grasped without the help of Smṛtis, composed by those who are versed in the Veda, there is a need for Smṛtis as well. It has been declared by Smṛti itself that one, who is without the Smṛti, to be a one-eyed man, thus: 'Scripture and Smṛti are celebrated to be the two eyes of the wise. Deprived of one, one is said to be "one-eyed"; deprived of both, "blind"'. Hence, on the doubt, viz whether the Sāṁkhya-Smṛti and the rest are to be accepted as true for the sake of making the Veda clear, or the Manu- Smṛti and the like,—if it be argued: The Sāṁkhya-Smṛti is to be accepted for the sake of making the Veda clear, the aim of the Veda being to impart self-knowledge to all. If unable to give rise to self- knowledge, the collected Vedic texts must all be simply fruitless like a cow yielding no milk. So why should a Smṛti, which is concerned with teaching self-knowledge, be disregarded by any seeker after knowledge? The Manu-Smṛti and the rest, on the other hand, aim simply at demonstrating the works which lead to results, here or hereafter. The Śvetāśvataras record the omniscience of Kapila in the passage: 'Who, in the beginning, bears in his thoughts the sage Kapila, the born, and sees him while being born' (Śvet 5.2). Hence the Smṛti which is composed by an omniscient person must be accepted for knowing the principle of the soul. That part of Veda which teaches the principle of the soul should be understood in accordance with the Sāṁkhya-Smṛti alone. Thus, as the Sāṁkhya-Smṛti teaches a non-sentient cause, the doctrine of a sentient cause cannot be accepted. Otherwise, "there will result the fault of leaving no room for the Smṛti", ¹ Vide Br. Sū. 1.1 3. ² Vide Br. Sū. 1.1 4.