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

[Sū. 2. 1. 26.
ADH. 9.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 309
Sāṁkhyas hold that the material cause of the world is a substance
which is different from the puruṣa (or the soul) just as a lump of clay
is different from a potter, which does not possess it (viz · puruṣa) as
its soul, and which is possessed of independent existence and activity.
But Brahman, as admitted by the Vedāntins, is One alone. He
transforms Himself into the form of non-sentient objects like the
ether and the rest by projecting His power of the enjoyed (i.e. the
acit-śakti); having projected the sentient power of the enjoyer (i.e.
the cit-śakti) in the form of gods and the rest, and having entered
within as their inner controller, makes them undergo the fruits of their
respective works; and contracts them during the time of dissolution,
as a tortoise does its limbs, and the sun its rays.
To the objection, viz. even if there be the collection of external
helpers by Brahman, no contradiction arises in the case in hand,
and hence pradhāna, established by the Tantra may be the external
implement, suitable for the production of the world, just as clay is
for the production of a pot What is the use of a transformation
consisting in the projection of powers?—the author replies. On this
view, there will be contradiction of scriptural texts. This he says
in the words: “Because of being based on Scripture”. Transformation
consisting in the projection of powers is accepted, based as it is on
Scripture. If implements like pradhāna and the rest be admitted,
that view will have no basis to stand upon; and the consequence will be
that Brahman will have to depend on another for His creation.
Further, the following texts will come to be contradicted, viz. ‘All
this has that for its soul’ (Chānd 6.8.7 ch.), ‘All this, verily, is
Brahman’ (Chānd. 3.14 1), ‘Which being known, all comes to be
known’ and so on,—this is the sense
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara
This is sūtra 27 in his commentary. Interpretation same, but
he adds his usual explanation in conclusion that from the transcen-
dental point of view, no question of creation arises at all and hence
no question as to how, Brahman, who is partless is yet not transformed
in His entirety.¹
1 Ś B. 2 1.27, p. 491.