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

{sū. 3. 2. 28. ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 555 Vedānta-kaustubha To the objection, viz. There may be a relation of difference and non-difference between the non-sentient and Brahman, but there is no such relation between Him and the individual soul, since in accordance with the aphorism: “Hence with the infinite, for thus .(is) the indication” (Br. Sū 3 2.26), the individual soul attains equality with the Infinite, and as such it appears that there is an absolute non-difference between the two,—the author replies. The phrase: ‘on account of the designation of both’ is to be supplied The word “or” is meant for disposing of the objection. There is no absolute non-difference between the two, on account of the designation of a natural difference between the two. On account of the designation of a natural difference in the passages “When the seer sees the golden-coloured creator, the Lord, the Person, the source of Brahmā” (Muṇḍ. 3 1 3; Maitrī 6.18), “But then he meditating perceives him who is without parts” (Muṇḍ. 3.1.8), “The knower of Brahman attains the Highest” (Tait. 2.1), “He obtains the Person, higher than the high, celestial” (Muṇḍ. 3.2.8), “Non-knowing, a beast (as it were), and not the Lord”, “He who is omniscient, all- knowing” (Muṇḍ. 1.1.9; 2.2 7), “Those who abiding the midst of ignorance” (Katha 2 5; Muṇḍ. 1.2.8), “This soul is free from sins, having true desires, having true resolves” (Chānd 8 1.5; 8.7 1, 3; Maitrī 7 7), “He who abiding in the soul” (Śat. Br. 14.6.7.30 ¹) and so on; and on account of the scriptural statement of a natural non-difference in the passages: “That thou art” (Chānd 6.8 6, etc.), “I am Brahman” (Bṛh. 1.4 10), “This soul is Brahman” (Bṛh. 2.5.19) and so on, there is a relation of natural difference-non-difference between the soul and Brahman. The author states a parallel instance. “Like light and (its) sub- stratum”. “Light” is the ray of the sun and the like. There is a natural relation of difference and non-difference between light and its substratum, since the formor has no separate existence apart from the latter. In answer to the objection: Why is there such an insistence on the non-difference between those two absolutely different objects? the author states here another reason: “On account of being light”. There is non-difference between light and its substratum also because both are equally light, and like that, there is a natural relation of ¹ P. 1074, lıne 18. 6