वेदान्त पारिजात सौरभ (भगवद् निम्बार्काचार्य - द्वैताद्वैत वेदान्त ब्रह्मसूत्र भाष्य सटीक)
Vedanta Parijata Saurabha of Nimbarkacharya with Commentary
भगवद् निम्बार्काचार्य (टीकाकार: श्रीश्रीनिवासचार्य - वेदान्तकौस्तुभ सहित) द्वारा
पृष्ठ 504, कुल 906 में से
संदर्भ में पढ़ें[sū. 3. 1. 7. ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 483 SŪTRA 7 “OR (THAT DESIGNATION IS) METAPHORICAL, ON ACCOUNT OF BEING NOT ACQUAINTED WITH THE SOUL, FOR THIS (SCRIPTURE) SHOWS. Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha The mere workers “being not acquainted with the soul”, stand in a subordinate relation to the gods, and hence the designation of those who perform sacrifices and the rest as edible, viz. ‘That is the food of the gods. The gods eat that’ (Chānd 5 10 4 ¹) is “metaphorical”, in accordance with the scriptural text: ‘He is like a beast of the gods’ (Brh. 1.4.10 ²). Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. The going of the souls, which perform sacrifices and the rest, to the world of the moon for undergoing the fruits of works appears to be inconsistent, because in the text ‘That is the food of the gods. The gods eat that’ (Chānd. 5.10.4), Soma is mentioned as the food of the gods. Hence it cannot be said that the text: ‘Soma, the king, arises’ (Chānd. 5.4.2) refers to the souls which perform sacrifices and the rest, it being impossible for the souls to be food,—the author replies: The term “Or” is meant for disposing of the objection. Since those who perform sacrifices and the rest are only implements of enjoyment,—like sons, servants and so on,—to the gods, the statement that they are food is “metaphorical”, i.e figurative, but not literal, in conformity with the denial of chewing (i.e. actual eating) on the part of the gods in the passage: ‘The gods, verily, do not eat, do not drink, (but) are satisfied by seeing that very nectar’ (Brh 1.4.10). If it be objected It is unreasonable to hold that one who has become a god (viz. Soma) too is the implement of another’s enjoyment, like sons, servants and the rest,—(We reply.) no, “on account of being not acquainted with the soul”. Even then, it is indeed reason- able to hold that the mere workers “on account of not being acquainted with the soul”, are the implements of the enjoyment of those who are possessed of knowledge.
¹ Ś, R, Bh, Śk, B. ² Op. cit.