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

[SŪ. 2. 2 38.
378 VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA ADH. 7.]
Lord," i.e. the view of Paśupati is not justifiable. Why? "On
account of inconsistency," i.e because of the inconsistency in their
view by reason of establishing two causes ¹ in direct contradiction to
the scriptural texts like "He thought: 'May I be many'" (Chānd.
6 2 3), 'He became existent and that' (Tait. 2.6), 'All this has
that for its soul' (Chānd 6.8.7, etc.). Moreover, since the practices
like meditation preceded by the pranava, besmearing one's self with
the ashes of a corpse and so on, are mutually contradictory, their
view is indeed inconsistent
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara and Bhāskara
This is sūtra 34 in Bhāskara's Commentary. They do not take
this adhikarana as a refutation of the Pāśupata doctrine only, but of
the Sāṃkhya-yoga as well, in fact of all the doctrines generally, which
maintain the Lord to be the efficient cause only and not the material
cause of the world.²
Śrīkaṇṭha
He takes this adhikarana to be concerned with the refutation of
the doctrine of the Ekadeśī Tāntrikas only or of those Śaivas according
to whom the Lord is the efficient cause only, while Māyā is the material
cause, śakti the instrument ³
SŪTRA 38
"AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF RELATION."
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
"And on account of the impossibility of relation" between
Paśupati, the instigator who is without a body, and pradhāna and the
rest, to be instigated, Paśupati is not the cause of the world.
¹ I.e. two causes of the world material and efficient, different from each
other.
² Ś.B. 2.2.37, p. 566; Bh. B. 2.2.34 (written as 2.2.37 in conformity with
Śaṃkara's number), p. 127.
³ ŚK. B 2 3.37.