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

290 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 2 1. 14. ADH. 6.] they are all made of clay;—for such a group of evolutes 'has its beginning in speech', i.e. is designated by speech. Speech is of two kinds: 'effect', i e. meaning, and 'name', i.e word. The function of speech rests on these two, viz meaning and word, e.g. we say: 'Fetch water by the pot'. Hence, 'the truth' is that the evolute, characterized by having a broad bottom and resembling the shape of a belly, having the name 'pot', and conducive to the function of fetching water and so on, is 'just clay'. That is, the view that the effect is different from the cause, on account of the difference of individuality and conception, is incorrect, for it is not possible to attribute the individuality or the conception of a pot to the wind and the rest which are different from clay.¹ If the effect is to originate from the non-existent simply, then that would lead to the origin of everything everywhere, as well as to the futility of the activity of the agent. So desist from further arguments COMPARISON Śaṃkara Each commentator develops his peculiar theory in this connection. Śaṃkara understands the word "Ananyatva" as absolute identity, interprets the word 'vācārambhaṇa' to mean 'that which begins from speech only, but does not exist in reality', and thereby develops his theory of Vivarta at great length ² Rāmānuja He understands the word "ananyatva" as non-difference, like Nimbārka, but connects it with his peculiar doctrine of the soul-body relation between Brahman and the universe.³ He interprets the phrase: "vācārambhaṇa" as follows: 'vācā' means: on account of speech, i.e on account of activity preceded by speech; 'rambhaṇa' means: what is touched. Hence the text means. On account of speech, (i.e. for the sake of certain activities, like the fetching of ¹ If the effect were absolutely different from its cause, then any and every- thing, e.g. wind, might very well have been conceived to be a pot. But this is never the case, since clay alone, and nothing else, is conceived to be so. ² "Vācaiva kevalaṁ asti . . . . na tu vastu-vṛttena vikāraḥ kaścid asti", etc. Ś.B. 2.1 14, p. 464. ³ Śrī. B. 2.1.15, pp. 39, 42, Part 2.