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

[SŪ. 2. 1. 13. 286 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5.] between the enjoyer (viz. the individual soul) and the controller (viz. Brahman) as well-known from the Veda,— (We reply:) In spite of there being a non-distinction, there is a distinction as well between the two, as between the sea and the wave, and between the sun and its ray. Vedānta-kaustubha Now, having apprehended an objection once more, the author is disposing of that here. If it be objected: If Brahman who is without an equal or a superior be the material cause of the world, then there must be no distinction between the enjoyer and the object enjoyed. Why? “On account of becoming the enjoyer” That is, all effects whatsoever being non- different from their causes, the enjoyer, i.e. the individual soul, will become the object enjoyed; and the object enjoyed, i.e. the body, the sense-organs and the sense-objects, will become the enjoyer; and hence, the distinction between the enjoyer and the object enjoyed, well-known in ordinary life and in the Veda, will not be possible on this doctrine of the causality of Brahman. Moreover, there will not be any distinction between the enjoyer and the controller, because the group of enjoyers being non-different from the controller, the enjoyer will become the controller, and the controller, the Supreme Soul, will become the enjoyer. In ordinary life, to begin with, the distinction between the enjoyer and the object enjoyed is well-known, thus ‘The individual soul is the enjoyer, the body and the rest are the objects enjoyed’, and in the Veda too, thus: “Eats the sweet berry” (Muṇḍ. 3.1.1; Śvet. 4.6). Similarly, the distinction between the enjoyer and the controller, too, is well-known in ordinary life, as is evident from the conduct of the good who always regard their pleasures and pains as dependent on the Lord, and in the Veda too; thus: “He alone makes one do good deeds” (Kauṣ. 3.8), “The soul which is without the Lord is bound, because of being an enjoyer” (Śvet. 1.8) and so on. Thus, “on account of becoming an enjoyer, there is non- distinction”; and hence the doctrine of the causality of Brahman cannot be accepted,— The author states the correct conclusion in the words “It may be, as in ordinary life”. That is, on our view, too, there may, indeed, be a distinction between the enjoyer and the object enjoyed, as well as between the enjoyer and the controller, “as in ordinary life”. In