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

[sū. 1. 4. 20.
ADH. 6.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 253
SŪTRA 20
"(THE BEGINNING WITH THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL IS) A MARK OF THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INITIAL PROPOSITION, ĀŚMARATHYA
(THINKS SO) "
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
To the question. Why, then, is there the beginning with the
individual soul? we reply the fact that the Supreme Soul is designated
by a word denoting the individual soul,—the latter being non-different
from the former as His effect,—is a convincing proof "of the estab-
lishment of the initial proposition", viz that through the knowledge
of one, there is the knowledge of all. So "Āśmarathya" thinks.
Vedānta-kaustubha
If it be objected. The individual soul alone is apprehended as
connected with the dearness of husband and the rest in the beginning,
in the passage. ‘"O, not for the love of the husband, verily, is a husband
dear, but for the love of the soul is a husband dear’" (Bṛh 2 4.5,
4.5.6) and so on; as well as connected with origin and destruction
in the middle, in the passage: ‘"Having arisen from these beings, one
vanishes into them alone. After death there is no consciousness’"
(Bṛh. 2 4 12; 4.5.13),—
(We reply:) True. Still, by the term "individual soul" the
Supreme Soul is to be understood here. No such objection can be raised
in view of the fact that He, being the cause of all, can be denoted by
all words The author is showing this with the approval of another
teacher
In accordance with the text ‘From whom, verily, all these
elements arise’ (Tait 3.1), the individual soul, too, entered into the
elements, is reckoned among the effects, and Brahman is the cause.
These two being the effect and the cause, there is, undoubtedly, a
primary difference between them. Thus the texts designating duality
are correct Since the effect is non-different from the cause, being
born from it and so on, non-difference between the two, too, is equally
a fact. Thus, the texts designating non-duality, too, are correct.
In this way, both the kinds of texts being authoritative in their own
senses, there is a natural relation of difference and non-difference
between the individual soul and Brahman. Hence, it is possible for
words denoting the effects to denote the causes as well, just as in the