________________
CHAPTER III
77
of diversity. This necessarily leads to the ultimate elevation of unity to the status of the primal principle and to the corresponding degradation of diversity to the level of a secondary or derivative element, in reality'. The ingenuous devices like the concepts of upadhi and avasthās have not, therefore, prevented the satkāryavāda systems of Bhāskara and Yādava from assigning to bheda, the principle of difference', an intrinsically subordinate role to which it (bheda) is assigned in all forms of satkāryavāda.
B. (iii) Nimbārka's System of Svābhāvika Bhedābheda
Among the bhedābheda schools, derived from brahmapariņāmavāda', Nimbārka's svābhāvika' bhedābhedavāda goes farthest in recognising both identity and difference as
1.
Cf. Bhāskarācārya, op. cit., p. 141 where abheda is characterised as svābhāvika or natural' and bheda as aupādhika or 'adventitious'. Distinguishing the viewpoints of sankara, Bhāskara and Yadava L. Srinivasachar rightly observes : .... śrišankarasiddhānte bhedabhedavişaye bhedaḥ avidyakaḥ abhedaḥ paramarthika iti / śribhāskarasiddhante bheda aupadhikaḥ abhedah svābhāvika iti / śrīyādavasiddhānte bhedaḥ vyaktilaksanaḥ abhedaḥ śaktilaksaņa iti etan matatraye bheda aupādhikaḥ abhedo mukhya iti pratibhāti / Darśanodaya, Mysore, 1933, p. 194. Cf. VPSN, Pt. III, p. 194, the last two paragraphs. Cf. VPSN, Pt. I, pp. 292-297. See Nimbārka's Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha (called a Comm. on Brahmasūtras), ed. V. P. Dvivedin, Benares, 1910, III. 2. 27 and 28; and Anantarama Deva's Tattvasiddhānta-bindu, Benares 1913, ślokas 12 and 24; and the same writer's Vedāntaratnamālā, Brindavan, 1916, śloka 45. These three works will be referred to hereafter as Saurabha, Bindu and Ratnamālā respectively.
