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

[Sū. 3. 3. 2. ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 579 COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara Interpretation different, viz "If it be objected that on account of the differences (of details) (there is) no (oneness of vidyā), (we reply:) (there may be difference of details) even in (one vidyā)". That is, the prima facie objector holds that the same vidyā is mentioned with different particulars in different places, e.g. in con- nection with the Pañcāgni-vidyā, five fires are spoken of in the Chān- dogya, but six in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka. This proves that the two Pañcāgni-vidyās are not identical. The answer is that such differences of details are permissible even in the case of one and the same vidyā. If two vidyās agree in all essential points, the difference in some details by no means makes them two separate vidyās.¹ Baladeva As before, he does not raise the problem of the identity of vidyās at all, but only the problem whether Brahman is known from all the Vedas or not. Hence the sūtra: "If it be objected that on account of difference (i.e. the different accounts of Brahman), (Brahman is) not (designated in all branches). (we reply:) even in the same (branch) (other attributes of Brahman are mentioned)". That is, if it be objected that Brahman is designated differently in different Upaniṣads, --e.g. in one place He is depicted as knowledge and bliss (Bṛh. 3.9 28), in another as omniscient and all-knowing (Muṇḍ 1.1.9),--and as such the same Brahman is not set forth by all the Upaniṣads--the reply is that in the same Upaniṣad where Brahman is designated as know- ledge and bliss, He is designated as omniscient as well. Hence all branches speak of the same Brahman.² 1 Ś.B. 3.3.2, pp. 757-758, Bh. B. 3.3.2, pp. 175-176. 2 G.B. 3.3.2.