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

{SŪ. 2. 1. 7}
ADH. 3.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 279
merely ”, in the previous aphorism, of the rule that there is a similarity
between the material cause and its effect in every respect
Vedānta-kaustubha
If it be objected : Having admitted an absolute similarity between
the material cause and its effect in the aphorism : ‘(There is) no
(having Brahman for its cause) on its part, on account of difference ’
(Br. Sū 2.1.4), it has been objected by the opponent that the world
being different from Brahman, He is not its material cause with a
view to disposing of that objection, it has been established in the
aphorism. ‘But (it) is seen’ (Br Sū. 2.1 6) that there can be a cause-
effect relation even between two different objects. With regard to
it, the question is whether prior to creation the universe was non-
different from its cause, or different. What is your opinion ? If you
say, Non-different,—then, just as the origin of a different world is
admitted, like the origin of hairs on the head and body hairs from a
person from whom they are different, so why there may not be the
origin of a similar world, like the origin of a gold-bracelet and the rest
from gold ?
If you say : Different,—then, the world must have a material
cause different from Brahman, and hence pradhāna must be the
cause of the world. If it be said that this cannot be admitted, as
pradhāna has been already refuted,—(we point out) in the texts.
‘Brahman ¹ is one only, without second’ (Chānd. 6.2.1), ‘There
was, verily, Nārāyana, the one’ (Mahā. Up. 1 2), ‘Then there was
Viṣṇu, Hari alone, without parts’,—there is the mention of a single
reality; and hence, it follows that there was the absence of anything
else prior to creation. Therefore, the world must be non-existent
prior to creation.
(Here ends the original prima facie view)
(Author’s conclusion.)
(We reply :) ‘No’. Why ? “On account of there being a
negation merely.” The aphorism ‘But (it) is seen’ (Br. Sū. 2.1.6)
negates merely,—by way of mentioning the difference between the
material cause and its effect,—the rule, admitted by the opponent, viz.
that there is similarity between a material cause and its effect in every

---

¹ The word ‘Brahman’ is not included in the original text.