Brahma-Sūtra 2.2.41

English of translation of Brahmasutra 2.2.41 by Roma Bose:

“But (the lord makes the soul act) having regard to the efforts made, on account of the futility of what is enjoined and what is prohibited and so on.”

English of translation of Brahmasutra 2.2.41 by Roma Bose:

“(there will result on this view) finitude or non-omniscience.”

Nimbārka’s commentary (Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha):

If there be a connection between Him and the unseen principle,^[1] consisting in merit and the rest, then there must be “finitude” and “non-omniscience” (on His part).

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

It cannot be said also: What objection can there he if enjoyment and the rest result on the part of the Lord? What can a snow-flake do when fallen on the sun?—for it is unreasonable. On account of performing good and had deeds, due to nescience and the cause of transmigratory existence, and of undergoing their consequences, there must of course result “finitude”, i.e. liability to being created, as well as “non-omniscience” on the part of the Lord; otherwise the individual soul, too, must cease to be subject to transmigratory existence,—so much in brief. Hence, it is established that the stated conclusion is not contradicted by the doctrine of the Māheśvaras.

Here ends the section entitled “Paśupati” (7),

Comparative views of Śaṅkara and Bhāskara:

According to them, the particle “vā” means ‘or’ and not ‘and’ as held by Nimbārka. Interpretation different, viz. “(There must be) either fmitude or non-omniscience”. That is, the Lord must either define the measure of the individual souls, pradhāna and Himself, or not define them. If He does, then they become finite; if he does not, then the Lord becomes non-omniscient.^[2]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Adṛṣṭa.

[2]:

Brahma-sūtras (Śaṅkara’s commentary) 2.2.41, pp. 571 ff.; Brahma-sūtras (Bhāskara’s Commentary) 2.2.37 (written as 2.2.40), p. 128.