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

[sū. 2 1 22. ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 301 modifications of the tree, such as the leaf and so on, are to be understood. That is, just as the leaf, though non-different from the tree, is yet not the tree, so is the case here. Or else, by the term "and the rest", the ray of the diamond and the rest is understood, for the ray, though non-different from the diamond, etc., is yet found to be different. Hence, just as the ray, though non-different from its substratum, is yet different from it, so it is appropriate to hold that the embodied soul is by nature different from Brahman, though it is at the same time non-different from Him as having Him for its soul. Hence, the respective difference between what is subject to transmigratory existence (viz the individual soul) and what is not, (viz. Brahman) being thus established, there is no inconsistency here. Hence "there is impossibility of that", i.e. there is no possibility of faults like not doing what is beneficial and the rest, as alleged by the opponent. Thus, it is established that there no contradiction is involved in our view. Hence ends the section entitled "The designation of another" (7). COMPARISON Rāmānuja This is sūtra 23 in Rāmānuja's commentary. Interpretation different, viz. "Just (as it is impossible for non-sentient objects) like stones and the rest (to be identical with Brahman, so) there is the impossibility of that (viz. of an identity between the individual soul and Brahman)".¹ Śrīkaṇṭha This is sūtra 23 in Śrīkaṇṭha's commentary too. "(Since the individual soul, possessed of little knowledge, is declared to be belonging to an absolutely different category from Brahman, the omniscient), just as (non-sentient objects) like stones and the rest, there is the impossibility of that (viz. of an absolute identity between the individual soul and Brahman)."² ¹ Śrī. B. 2.1.23, p. 53, Part 2 ² ŚK. B. 2.1.23, p. 32, Parts 7 and 8.