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

[SŪ 1. 4. 8.
ADH. 2.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 227
is prakṛti, having Brahman for its soul On the prima facie view,
viz The 'unborn one', etymologically derived as 'one who is not
born', self-supporting; independently bringing forth, by nature,
offspring of a like nature; consisting in the three guṇas; the cause of
the distinction between bondage and release; and admitted by the
Sāṃkhyas, should be understood to be mentioned by the sacred text
as well.
We reply: The 'unborn one', which has Brahman for its soul,
is mentioned by the sacred text. Why? "On account of non-
specification", i.e. because there is no special circumstance for under-
standing pradhāna which is derived from inference. Our (i e.
Upaniṣadic) (prakṛti), too, is unborn. Since a scriptural text is authori-
tative only in reference to its own explicit meaning, i.e. only in refer-
ence to what it actually states, a self-supporting one is not recognized
here, because the word 'self-supporting' is found nowhere, and also
because it is impossible for a non-sentient object to have an independent
existence. An example illustrating the absence of any specification,
such as. 'This is so', with regard to a common term, is given in the
words "As in the case of a cup". In the text: 'There is a cup with
its mouth below, and bottom above' (Bṛh. 2.2.3), the word 'cup'
(camasa) conveys only the idea of an implement used in eating, in
accordance with the etymology (A 'camasa' is that) whereby one
drinks (camyate anena), and so no accurate specific determination,
that a cup (camasa) is such, is possible, on account of non-specification,
—(the marks of) having the mouth below and the rest being possible
elsewhere too ¹ Similarly, in the sacred text under discussion also,
there can be no specifying out that this prakṛti, simply because it is
unborn, is the one established by the Sāṃkhya-smṛti.

---

¹ I.e in the above text about the 'ajā', there are no special marks which
justify us in selecting out the Sāṃkhya prakṛti here out of other possible meanings
of the term 'ajā', just as in the text about the 'camasa', there are no special
marks for fixing what exactly a camasa denotes here, until we are told specifically
in the complementary passage that it denotes the head.