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

[sū. 2. 1. 17. ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 293 in the beginning” (Bṛh 1 4.10), the non-difference between the effect and the cause is definitely ascertained COMPARISON Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha This is sūtra 17 in both They read “aparasya” in place of “avarasya” and take it to mean ‘an effect’.¹ SŪTRA 17 “IF IT BE OBJECTED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THE DESIGNATION OF WHAT IS NON-EXISTENT, (THE EFFECT IS) NOT (EXISTENT PRIOR TO CREATION) (WE REPLY:) NO, (SUCH A DESIGNATION IS) ON ACCOUNT OF A DIFFERENT ATTRIBUTE, THIS IS KNOWN FROM THE COMPLEMENTARY TEXT, FROM REASONING AND FROM ANOTHER TEXT” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha “If it be objected that on account of the designation of what is non-existent” in the passage. “The non-existent, verily, was this in the beginning” (Chānd. 3.19.1 ²), the effect does not exist prior to creation,— (We reply:) “no”. There is such a designation because of the subtleness (of the world prior to creation). Whence is this known? “From the complementary passage,” viz. “That was existent” (Chānd. 3.19.1 ³), “from the reasoning”, viz. if a previously non- existent effect does indeed arise, why is there no origin of a barley- sprout from fire? “and from another text”, viz. ‘The existent alone, my dear, was this in the beginning’ (Chānd 6.2.1 ⁴). Vedānta-kaustubha If it be objected· The doctrine of pre-existent effect is not a more reasonable one. Why? On account of the designation of its ¹ Śrī. B. 2.1.17, p.47, Part 2; ŚK. B. 2.1.17, p. 28, Parts 7 and 8. ² Ś, R, Bh. Correct quotation: “Asad eva”. Vide Chānd. 3.19.1, p. 175. ³ Ś, Bh. ⁴ Ś, R, Bh, B.