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

[SŪ. 2. 2. 12. ADH. 2 ] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 341 as possessed of parts indeed. If they be so, then they themselves will become effects like the binary compounds because of possessing parts. And the parts of the atoms too,—conjoined (with one another) by means of their six sides which are their own parts, and establishing that the atoms have parts,—must have parts; that parts, again, further parts and so on, and thus there must be an infinite regress. If the atoms be admitted to be without parts, then if there be the conjunction of even a hundred atoms which fill no space, there will not be any extension different from that of a single atom, and hence there will never be (different kinds of extensions like) minuteness, shortness and the rest. Thus, the origin of the binary compounds is impossible, in their absence, the origin of the ternary compounds is impossible; and hence the origin of the world must be impossible. COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara Interpretation different. They take this sūtra as constituting an adhikarana by itself, concerned with refuting the Vaiśeṣika objec- tion, viz. that the qualities of the cause must inhere in the effect. Hence if the intelligent Brahman be the cause of the world, then the quality of intelligence must be found in the world. But since this is not the case, He is not its cause.¹ The answer is: Or just as (there is the origin of) big and long (ternary compounds) from minute and short (binary compounds) so there is the origin of the non-intelligent world from the intelligent Brahman.² SŪTRA 12 “EVEN IN BOTH WAYS THERE IS NO ACTION (ON THE PART OF THE ATOMS), HENCE THERE IS THE ABSENCE OF THAT (VIZ. CREATION).” Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha Because it is impossible for the unseen principle to inhere in the atoms, as well as because it is impossible for it, connected with the ¹ Note that an exactly similar objection has been put forward and refuted under Br. Sū. 2.1. 4–11. Hence there is no sense in repeating it here. As such Nimbārka’s way of interpreting seems preferable. ² Ś. B. 2.2.11, pp. 518-19; Bh. B. 2.2.11, pp. 113-14.