उपपद्यते चाभ्युपलभ्यते च ।
upapadyate cābhyupalabhyate ca |
(Vedānta-sūtra: 2.1.36)
“That [i.e., partiality on the part of Brahman in the form of favoring bhaktas] is also established, and is also observable.”
Commentary
vaiṣamyādikaṁ brahmaṇi parihṛtam | bhakta-pakṣapāta-rūpaṁ tad idānīṁ tasminn aṅgīkaroti | bhakta-saṁrakṣaṇaṁ tad-vāsanā-nivāraṇaṁ ca parasmin vaiṣamyaṁ na veti viṣaye tad-rakṣaṇāder api karma-sāpekṣatvāt na syād iti prāpte—
upapadyate cābhyupalabhyate ca |
bhakta-vatsalasyāsya prabhos tat-pakṣapāto vaiṣamyam eva tad upapadyate sidhyati | tad-rakṣaṇādeḥ svarūpa-śakti-vṛtti-bhūta-bhakti-sāpekṣatvāt | na ca nirdoṣatā-vādi-vākya-vyākopaḥ | tad-rūpasya vaiṣamyasya guṇatvena stūyamānatvāt | ‘guṇa-vṛnda-maṇḍanam’ idam ity api śrutir āha | yad vinā sarve guṇā janebhyo’rocamānāḥ pravartakā na syuḥ | upalabhyate caitat śrutiṣu smṛtiṣu ca | yam evaiṣa vṛṇute tena labhyas tasyaiva ātmā vivṛṇute tanuṁ svām ity ādyāḥ śrutayaḥ | ‘priyo hi jñānino’tyartham ahaṁ sa ca mama priyaḥ,’ ‘samo’haṁ sarva-bhūteṣu na me dveṣyo’sti na priyaḥ, ye bhajanti tu māṁ bhaktyā mayi te teṣu cāpy aham,’ ‘api cet sudurācāro bhajate mām ananya-bhāk, sādhur eva sa mantavyaḥ samyag vyavasito hi saḥ,’ ‘kṣipraṁ bhavati dharmātmā śaśvac-chāntiṁ nigacchati, kaunteya pratijānīhi na me bhaktaḥ praṇaśyati’ ity ādyāḥ smṛtayaś ca |
(Govinda-bhāṣya on Vedānta-sūtra: 2.1.36)
“Partiality and so forth [i.e., cruelty] in Brahman are [thus] refuted [by the previous sūtra]. Now, the author accepts in him [i.e., Brahman] that [i.e., partiality] in the form of favoring of bhaktas. [A doubt is raised:] ‘Is protecting bhaktas and removing their inclination (vāsanā) [towards worldly existence, i.e., the ignorance (avidyā) because of which they remain bound within saṁsāra] not partiality in the Supreme?’
[A prima facie view is posed:] ‘In this regard, because of even [the Supreme’s—Brahman’s] protection and so forth of them [i.e., bhaktas] being dependent on [their] karma, that [protection and so forth of bhaktas] shall not be [fit to be considered] partiality.’
When this [prima facie view] is encountered, [the author writes sūtra 2.1.36]:
“‘That [i.e., partiality on the part of Brahman in the form of favoring bhaktas] is also established (upapadyate), and is also observable (abhyupalabhyate).’
“The favoring of them [i.e., bhaktas] by him, the Lord, who is affectionate to bhaktas, is certainly [a form of] partiality. That is established (upapadyate) [i.e., proven reasonable and acceptable] because of [his] protection and so forth of them being dependent on [the] bhakti [present in those bhaktas], which is manifested by a function (vṛtti) of [his] svarūpa-śakti. And [as a result of this partiality in the form of his favoring of bhaktas] there is no contradiction to the statements of the proponents of faultlessness [in Brahman] because of partiality of this nature being praised as a quality [rather than being decried as a fault]. The Śruti states even that this [quality of favoring bhaktas] is the ornament upon his host of [other] qualities without which all his [other] qualities, being non-pleasing to the people, shall not be prompters [of the people, i.e., shall not inspire sāmmukhya towards, that is, intentness upon, Brahman in them]. This, furthermore, is observed (upalabhyate) in the Śrutis and the Smṛtis. There are Śrutis such as [Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.2.3), ‘The Ātmā is attainable by one whom he chooses. To him [who is so chosen] the Ātmā reveals his own form.’ And there are Smṛtis such as the following [in BG 7.17 and 9.29–31, where Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa says]: ‘‘I am indeed greatly dear to the jñānī, and he is also dear to me.’ ‘I am equal to all beings. There is no one detestable or dear to me, but those who worship me with bhakti are in me, and I too am in them. If even a person of extreme misconduct serves me exclusively, he should be regarded as a sādhu because he is rightly resolved. He soon becomes virtuous and attains lasting peace. O son of Kuntī, avow that my bhakta is never vanquished!’”