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

{SŪ. 2. 1. 7} ADH. 3.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 279 merely ”, in the previous aphorism, of the rule that there is a similarity between the material cause and its effect in every respect Vedānta-kaustubha If it be objected : Having admitted an absolute similarity between the material cause and its effect in the aphorism : ‘(There is) no (having Brahman for its cause) on its part, on account of difference ’ (Br. Sū 2.1.4), it has been objected by the opponent that the world being different from Brahman, He is not its material cause with a view to disposing of that objection, it has been established in the aphorism. ‘But (it) is seen’ (Br Sū. 2.1 6) that there can be a cause- effect relation even between two different objects. With regard to it, the question is whether prior to creation the universe was non- different from its cause, or different. What is your opinion ? If you say, Non-different,—then, just as the origin of a different world is admitted, like the origin of hairs on the head and body hairs from a person from whom they are different, so why there may not be the origin of a similar world, like the origin of a gold-bracelet and the rest from gold ? If you say : Different,—then, the world must have a material cause different from Brahman, and hence pradhāna must be the cause of the world. If it be said that this cannot be admitted, as pradhāna has been already refuted,—(we point out) in the texts. ‘Brahman ¹ is one only, without second’ (Chānd. 6.2.1), ‘There was, verily, Nārāyana, the one’ (Mahā. Up. 1 2), ‘Then there was Viṣṇu, Hari alone, without parts’,—there is the mention of a single reality; and hence, it follows that there was the absence of anything else prior to creation. Therefore, the world must be non-existent prior to creation. (Here ends the original prima facie view) (Author’s conclusion.) (We reply :) ‘No’. Why ? “On account of there being a negation merely.” The aphorism ‘But (it) is seen’ (Br. Sū. 2.1.6) negates merely,—by way of mentioning the difference between the material cause and its effect,—the rule, admitted by the opponent, viz. that there is similarity between a material cause and its effect in every

---

¹ The word ‘Brahman’ is not included in the original text.