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

[SŪ. 2. 2. 33.
372 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH 6.]
non-permanent and conceivable as non-existent, non-existence, non-
permanence and the rest are justifiable in reference to them.
With regard to it we reply. This cannot be said Why ?
Because the seven-fold reasoning, like partly existent, partly
non-existent and the rest, is not possible "in one object". The
simultaneous co-existence of darkness and light is never seen or
heard. In the same manner, couples of contradictory attributes like
existence and non-existence and so on are indeed impossible in
the same place.
If it be objected: Your own view, too, admits couples of
contradictory attibutes in one and the same substratum, e.g. in the
text "All this, verily, is Brahman" (Chānd. 3.14.1), Unity is
established, while in the texts: "The Lord of matter and soul, the
Controller of the gunas" (Śvet 6.16), "Two birds" (Muṇḍ 3.1.1;
Śvet. 4.6), plurality is established,—(we reply.) No, because this view
is not based on reasoning,¹ since the real view can be determined, as
mutually non-contradictory, through Scripture alone. Thus, it being
impossible for the entire universe, consisting of the sentient and the
non-sentient, to be non-different from Brahman by nature, it is non-
different from Him only as having its existence and activity under
His control (and not by nature), as indicated by the phrase 'emanating
from Him' and so on.² But there is indeed a difference of nature
between the categories, viz. the sentient, the non-sentient and Brahman,
because the texts designating duality, too, are no less authoritative,—
just as leaves, flowers and the rest are different by nature from the
tree and are non-different from it on account of having no separate
existence; and just as in spite of the difference of the sense-organs
from the vital-breath by nature, their non-difference from it, as being
under its control, is not incompatible. In the same manner, the
difference and non-difference between the Universe and Brahman are
natural and established in Scripture and Smṛti. What contradiction
is there? In the very same manner, the complementary passage
confirms the relation of difference-non-difference between the Universe
and Brahman. The phrase 'emanating from Him' (tajjātān) is
denotative of the reason, (meaning) because it emanates from that
¹ So that it might be controverted by reason.
² The text is: "All this, verily, is Brahman, emanating from Him, dis-
appearing into Him and breathing in Him" (Chānd. 3.14.1).