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

[SŪ. 2. 3. 41. ADH. 11.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 435 The term “but” is meant for disposing of the above objection. The Supreme Soul, who has “regard” for, i.e. takes into account, the efforts made by the individual soul, i e for its good and bad deeds, makes it do good deeds and the rest in another birth too, and gives it pleasure and the like accordingly. Hence, He cannot be charged with partiality, etc. If it be asked: Why should the Supreme Being take into account the efforts made by the individual soul?—the author replies: “On account of the futility of what is enjoined and what is prohibited”. If the Highest Person takes into account the efforts made by the soul, then alone, injunctions and prohibitions, such as, ‘One who desires for heaven should perform the Jyotistoma sacrifice’ (Āp. Ś S. 10.2 1 ¹), “A Brāhmaṇa must not be killed” and so on, do not become futile. The meaning of the phrase, “and so on” is that faults like: suffering arising from good deeds, and happiness arising from bad deeds, and so on, result. Since the Supreme Soul takes into account the works done by souls, He cannot, by any means, be charged with inequality, etc., though He is the instigator of what is enjoined and what is pro- hibited, and is, thereby, the bestower of favour and disfavour Under the aphorism: “(There are) no inequality and cruelty (on the part of the Lord), because of (His) having regard (for the works of souls)” (Br. Sū. 2.1.33), it has been said that no inequality and the rest pertain to the Highest in His creation of the variegated world—this is the distinction.² Hence, the Highest Person, omnipotent and the Lord of all, is the instigator of good deeds and the rest in accordance with the good and bad deeds performed before, and is the giver of fruits accord- ingly to them. Thus, it is established that the individual soul is an agent as controlled by the Highest. Here ends the section entitled “The Highest” (11). ¹ P. 209, vol. 2. ² I.e. there is no repetition here, since under Br. Sū. 2.1.33 it has been shown that the Lord is not partial as a creator, whereas it is being shown here that He is not partial as an instigator to action.