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

[SŪ. 2. 2. 12.
ADH. 2 ] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 341
as possessed of parts indeed. If they be so, then they themselves
will become effects like the binary compounds because of possessing
parts. And the parts of the atoms too,—conjoined (with one another)
by means of their six sides which are their own parts, and establishing
that the atoms have parts,—must have parts; that parts, again,
further parts and so on, and thus there must be an infinite regress.
If the atoms be admitted to be without parts, then if there be the
conjunction of even a hundred atoms which fill no space, there will
not be any extension different from that of a single atom, and hence
there will never be (different kinds of extensions like) minuteness,
shortness and the rest. Thus, the origin of the binary compounds
is impossible, in their absence, the origin of the ternary compounds
is impossible; and hence the origin of the world must be impossible.
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
Interpretation different. They take this sūtra as constituting
an adhikarana by itself, concerned with refuting the Vaiśeṣika objec-
tion, viz. that the qualities of the cause must inhere in the effect.
Hence if the intelligent Brahman be the cause of the world, then
the quality of intelligence must be found in the world. But since this
is not the case, He is not its cause.¹ The answer is: Or just as (there
is the origin of) big and long (ternary compounds) from minute and
short (binary compounds) so there is the origin of the non-intelligent
world from the intelligent Brahman.²
SŪTRA 12
“EVEN IN BOTH WAYS THERE IS NO ACTION (ON THE PART OF THE
ATOMS), HENCE THERE IS THE ABSENCE OF THAT (VIZ. CREATION).”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
Because it is impossible for the unseen principle to inhere in the
atoms, as well as because it is impossible for it, connected with the
¹ Note that an exactly similar objection has been put forward and refuted
under Br. Sū. 2.1. 4–11. Hence there is no sense in repeating it here. As such
Nimbārka’s way of interpreting seems preferable.
² Ś. B. 2.2.11, pp. 518-19; Bh. B. 2.2.11, pp. 113-14.