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

[SŪ 3. 2. 22. ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 543 The vital-breaths, verily, are real. It is their real" (Brh. 2.3.6). Its meaning is as follows: It is not to be said that the real nature of Brahman is not other 'than it', i.e. than what has been mentioned above. Brahman is higher than it, unlimited by so-muchness, without an equal or a superior. There is also a 'name' for Brahman, the highest of all. The same text states it thus: 'the real of the real'. Anticipating the enquiry: The real of which reals? the text says: 'The vital-breaths, verily, are real; it is their real'. 'The vital breaths' are the individual souls having the vital- breaths, and they do not, like the ether and the rest, undergo any change of nature at the time of creation, hence they are 'real'. Just as the Vedas, though eternal, arise from Brahman, in accordance with the maxim of a person who was asleep but has arisen now,¹ He being the cause of all,—so the individual souls, too, being under the influence of karmas, come to have births, etc., i. e. undergo changes in the form of contraction or expansion of their knowledge. But the Supreme Brahman is not subject to any such changes. For this reason, and also because He is the whole, He is the real of them too,— this is the sense. For this very reason, Scripture says: "The eternal among the eternal, the conscious among the conscious" (Katha. 5.13; Śvet. 6.13). COMPARISON Śaṁkara Interpretation diametrically opposed. The question is, what exactly is denied by the text "Not so, not so". Does it deny the two forms of Brahman merely, or also Brahman Himself possessing those forms? It may be suggested: As none among these is specially men- tioned as the object of negation here, so both these are negated. The term 'not so' is repeated twice, which also seems to imply that there are two objects of negation, the universe and Brahman. Or, Brahman alone is negatived here, since it being beyond the eyes and the mind, may very well be non-existent. The answer to this view is as follows: The two-fold negation of the forms of Brahman and Brahman Himself is not possible. Negation implies something positive and existent on the basis of which the thing is set at naught, e.g. the snake is denied to be in the rope and so ¹ Vide V K. 1.3.28.