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

[SŪ. 2. 3. 42. ADH. 12.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 437 We reply: The individual soul is neither absolutely different from the Highest Person, nor absolutely non-different from Him, but is a part of the Highest Self, in accordance with the scriptural text: “For he is a part of the Highest”. A ‘part’ means a ‘power’, in accordance with the scriptural text: “This individual soul, a power of the Highest, is small in power and not independent”. A ‘part’ should not be understood here as a portion, actually severed like a portion of wealth and the rest; for if the individual soul be a portion cut off from Brahman, then texts like ‘Without part’ (Śvet. 6.19) and the like, will be contradicted; and because if it be like a portion of wealth, there will result an absolute difference (between Brahman and the soul) and hence the texts like: ‘Thou art that’ (Chānd. 6.8.6, etc.) will be set aside. (The true view is:) The individual soul is, by nature, different from the Supreme Person, predicated to be the whole, and the ocean of a mass of attributes like omniscience and the rest,—since it is predicated to be a part, and is subject to bondage and release. But it is yet non-different from Him, as its existence and activity are under the control of the whole. Why ? “On account of the designation of variety”, i. e. on account of the designation of difference; “and otherwise”, i. e. and on account of the designation of non-difference. The sense is that the two kinds of texts being of equal force, there is a natural difference—non-difference between the individual soul and the Supreme Soul. The following are designations of difference: ‘Who rules the soul within’ (Śat. Br. 14 6.7, 30 ¹), ‘Entered within, the ruler of men’ (Tait. Ār. 3.11.1, 2 ²), ‘The soul, verily, is supreme, self-dependent, possessed of superior qualities’, ‘The individual soul is possessed of little power, not self-dependent, lowly’, ‘The two unborn ones, the knower and the non-knower, the lord and the non-lord’ (Śvet. 1.9) and so on. The following are designations of non-difference: ‘Thou art that’ (Chānd. 6.8.6, etc.), ‘This soul is Brahman’ (Bṛh. 2.5.19; 4.4.5), ‘I am Brahman’ (Bṛh. 1.4.10) and so on. And “also” the followers of one branch, viz. the Ātharvaṇikas, “read” that Brahman is of the “nature of fishermen, gamblers and the like” thus: “Brahman are these fishermen, Brahman are the slaves, Brahman are these gamblers”. ¹ P. 1074, line 18. ² P. 181.