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

[sū. 1. 1. 4.
ADH. 4.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 33
rest, since they are (directly) concerned with Him; and there is an
indirect concordance among the texts concerning the Śāṇḍilya-vidyā,¹
the Pañcāgni-vidyā,² the Madhu-vidyā ³ and so on, as well as among
those which are symbolic in nature.⁴ Or rather, there is a direct
concordance alone among all the texts whatsoever, though leading to
different procedures,⁵ since the topics of all these different texts being
equally Brahman in essence, they are all to be understood in their
primary and literal sense.⁶ It is not to be feared that in that case,
the texts which are concerned with the denial of the object (viz.
Brahman) will be precluded,⁷ since they too, as being concerned with
denying any limit with regard to Brahman's nature, attributes and the
rest, refer to the very same topic (viz Brahman).⁸
Moreover, we ask your Worship: Do you or do you not mean that
Brahman is the object of the statement: 'Brahman is not an object
of knowledge'? If the first, then Brahman is proved to be describable
and hence the proposition that He is not describable is set aside. If
the second, then Brahman is describable all the more. Hence, the
object of enquiry is Lord Vāsudeva alone, omniscient, possessed of all
inconceivable powers, the cause of the origin and the rest of the
universe, known through the evidence of the Veda alone, different
and non-different from all and the soul of all. All Scriptures are in
concordance with regard to Him alone—this is the settled conclusion of
the followers of the Upaniṣads (viz. the Vedāntins).
1 Vide Bṛh. 5.6.1, Chānd 3.14.1–4.
2 Vide Chānd. 5.5.4–10. Also V.K. 3.1 1.
3 Vide Bṛh. 2.5.1–19 (whole section), Chānd. 3.1–11.
4 Vide e g Brh. 5 7–9, etc.; Chānd 3 18–21, 7.1–12, etc.
5 The sense is that the various kinds of texts may impel a man to different
procedures. Some may lead a man to meditate on Brahman directly as the self,
others to meditate on Him as the sun and so on.
6 That is, even the texts concerning the various meditations and symbols,
are to be understood as directly referring to Brahman, i.e. to be interpreted
literally, and not as referring to Brahman indirectly, i.e. to be interpreted
figuratively, as suggested before. This modifies the statement made immediately
before that some texts are direct and primary, some indirect and secondary, and
takes all to be equally direct and primary.
7 Viz. 'Neti, neti' (Bṛh. 2.3.6) and so on.
8 That is, the view that all texts are concerned with Brahman directly in
no way precludes the negative texts, since these negative texts also are concerned
with Brahman equally.