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

[SŪ. 2. 2. 33. 372 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH 6.] non-permanent and conceivable as non-existent, non-existence, non- permanence and the rest are justifiable in reference to them. With regard to it we reply. This cannot be said Why ? Because the seven-fold reasoning, like partly existent, partly non-existent and the rest, is not possible "in one object". The simultaneous co-existence of darkness and light is never seen or heard. In the same manner, couples of contradictory attributes like existence and non-existence and so on are indeed impossible in the same place. If it be objected: Your own view, too, admits couples of contradictory attibutes in one and the same substratum, e.g. in the text "All this, verily, is Brahman" (Chānd. 3.14.1), Unity is established, while in the texts: "The Lord of matter and soul, the Controller of the gunas" (Śvet 6.16), "Two birds" (Muṇḍ 3.1.1; Śvet. 4.6), plurality is established,—(we reply.) No, because this view is not based on reasoning,¹ since the real view can be determined, as mutually non-contradictory, through Scripture alone. Thus, it being impossible for the entire universe, consisting of the sentient and the non-sentient, to be non-different from Brahman by nature, it is non- different from Him only as having its existence and activity under His control (and not by nature), as indicated by the phrase 'emanating from Him' and so on.² But there is indeed a difference of nature between the categories, viz. the sentient, the non-sentient and Brahman, because the texts designating duality, too, are no less authoritative,— just as leaves, flowers and the rest are different by nature from the tree and are non-different from it on account of having no separate existence; and just as in spite of the difference of the sense-organs from the vital-breath by nature, their non-difference from it, as being under its control, is not incompatible. In the same manner, the difference and non-difference between the Universe and Brahman are natural and established in Scripture and Smṛti. What contradiction is there? In the very same manner, the complementary passage confirms the relation of difference-non-difference between the Universe and Brahman. The phrase 'emanating from Him' (tajjātān) is denotative of the reason, (meaning) because it emanates from that ¹ So that it might be controverted by reason. ² The text is: "All this, verily, is Brahman, emanating from Him, dis- appearing into Him and breathing in Him" (Chānd. 3.14.1).