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

वेदान्त पारिजात सौरभ (भगवद् निम्बार्काचार्य - द्वैताद्वैत वेदान्त ब्रह्मसूत्र भाष्य सटीक)
Vedanta Parijata Saurabha of Nimbarkacharya with Commentary
भगवद् निम्बार्काचार्य (टीकाकार: श्रीश्रीनिवासचार्य - वेदान्तकौस्तुभ सहित) द्वारा
DevanagariHindipublished906 पृष्ठ
पृष्ठ 37, कुल 906 में से
संदर्भ में पढ़ेंपृष्ठ 37
[SŪ. 1. 1. 1. ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 17 lotus, on Brahman, supreme and adorable, free by nature from all faults, and one mass of infinite auspicious qualities, and having the vyūhas ¹ as His limbs' (D Ś 4). The mutual differences among these (three) substances, viz the sentient, the non-sentient and Brahman are taught by the texts contained respectively in the different chapters (treating of these three) and indicating the respective peculiarities of their qualities and nature. The non-difference of the sentient and the non-sentient is taught in the following texts — '"Existent alone, my dear, was this in the beginning, one only, without a second"' (Chānd. 6.2.1), 'The self, verily, was this in the beginning, one only' (Ait. 1.1.1), 'Thou art that' (Chānd. 6.8.7; 6.9.8; 6.10.3; 6.11.3, 6.12.31; 6.13.3; 6.14.3; 6.15.3, 6.16.3), 'This soul is Brahman' (Bṛh. 4.4.5), 'All this, verily, is Brahman' (Chānd. 3.14.1), 'I am you, verily, O reverend Deity', 'Then he knows the self alone "I am Brahman"'. In this way, the two kinds of texts being both authoritative in their primary and literal import, the sentient and the non-sentient, though of different natures (from Brahman), yet are non-different from Brahman, because they have their existence and activity under His control,—just as the sense-organs, though of different natures (from the vital-breath) are yet non-different from the vital-breath, because they are under its control, as is well-known from the dialogue between the vital-breath and the sense-organs in the Chāndogya: 'Verily, they are not called speech, eyes, or mind, but called the vital- breath alone' (Chānd. 5.1.15). Hence the view of the author of the aphorisms is that Brahman, the object to be enquired into, is both different and non-different from the sentient and the non-sentient. For that very reason, there is no necessity for enquiring into the two realities (viz. the sentient and the non-sentient), and the doctrine that through the knowledge of one, there is the knowledge of all ² fits in well. As has been said: 'Hence, all knowledge concerning all objects is true, since they, as declared by Scripture and Smṛti, have Brahman
¹ The vyūhas are Vāsudeva, Saṁkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha. Vide V.R.M., pp. 47–49, for details. ² Vide Chānd 6.1 ff The sense is that the sūtras recommend an enquiry into Brahman alone, and not into the sentient and the non-sentient, not because these two are unreal, but simply because by enquiring into Brahman, the Cause. we come to know of the sentient and the non-sentient too, the effects, and hence no separate enquiry is necessary. 2