In Vedanta Sara, Sri Ramanujacharya comments :
Purvapaksha : Oneness is apprehended in the scriptural text,
“Existence(Sat) alone, My dear, was in the beginning; One only ” ( ChAnd Up 6.2.1).
At that time, the individual selves were not extant(Note: Dictionary meaning: still in existence; surviving). Hence, the karma do not attach themselves to the individual selves.
Siddhantam/ Samadanam : It is not so; as the individual selves have not a beginning, the stream of their deeds also have not a beginning. This is reasonable. The individual selves have not a beginning; yet the scriptural text that states the non-difference, only establishes the non-distinction due to the absence of name and form. The text is this ‘Verily at that time, this world was undifferentiated. It became differentiated just by name and form” ( Bruh Up 1.4.7). The view said above is in harmony with the text.
In Vedanta Deepa, for this Vedanta sutra 2.1.35, again Bhagavad Ramanuja raises the purvapaksham ( ie. No karma is available during the beginning of a creation) and gives the answer ” Jeeva and karma are both anadi. If the above theory of the result of karma is not accepted, it leads to the absurdity that jeeva enjoys or suffers at the very beginning of creation for no reason. It may also be that jeeva is deprived of the result (good or bad) of his karma “.
Nimbarkacharya comments on sutra 2.1.34 in his Vedanta parijata saurabha:
If it be objected that since the text “The existant alone,my dear was this in the beginning”(Chand 6.2.1) declares the non distinction of works prior to creation,the Supreme Being’s dependence on the works does not fit in,(We reply) No, as work exists even then,the works done by the individual souls in previous birth being eternal. And a prior creation “fits in”, as a sudden subsequesnt creation is unreasonable. And this is “observed also” in the text:’The creator fashioned the sun and moon as he did before.'(RgV 10.190.3) and so on.”
Shankara’s Commentary Brahma sutra 2.1.34:
Opponent: God cannot reasonably be the cause of the world.
Why?For that would lead to the possibility of partiality and cruelty. For it can be reasonably concluded that God has passion and hatred like some ignoble persons, for He creates an unjust world by making some experience happiness e.g. gods and others, some experience extreme misery e.g. animals etc., and some experience moderate happiness and
sorrow e.g. humans etc. Hence there will be a nullification of God’s nature of extreme purity, (unchangeability), etc., that are declared in the Vedas and Smritis. And owing to infliction of misery and destruction on all creatures, God will be open to the charge of pitilessness and extreme cruelty, abhorred even by a villain. Thus on account of the possibility of partiality and cruelty, God is not an agent (i.e. the cause of the world).
Vedantin: To this we say, “No partiality or cruelty can be charged
against God.” How can this be so?
“Because of His taking other factors into consideration.” Had God created this erratic world by Himself, irrespective of other factors, He would be open to these charges of partiality and cruelty. But in His isolation (from these) He has no creatorship, for God makes this unequal creation by taking the help of other factors. What factors does he take into consideration?
We say that these are merit and demerit. No fault attaches to God, since this unequal creation is brought about in conformity with the virtues and vices of the creatures that are about to be born…Thus God
is not open to the defects of partiality and cruelty, since He takes other factors into consideration…
Shankara’s Commentary Brahma sutra 2.1.35:
Opponent: There could have been no Karma before creation, in accordance with which a diverse universe could have emerged; for nondifferentiation is emphasized in the text, “O amiable one, in the beginning all this was but Existence, one without a second. (Ch. U. 4.2.1). it is only after creation that results of work, depending on the diversification into bodies etc. could be possible, and the differentiation into bodies could be possible by depending on the results of work. This will lead to the fallacy of mutual dependence (logical seesaw). Thus, well may God become active by depending on the
fruits of work after the creation of multiplicity. But before this emergence of diversity it would perforce be without any variety, since the fruits of work bringing about differentiation would be absent.
Vedantin: That is no defect, since the transmigratory state has no beginning. This defect would have arisen if transmigration had a beginning. But if that state has no beginning, there is nothing contradictory for the fruits of work and the variety in creation to act as cause and effect of each other on the analogy of the seed and
sprout. How again is it known that this transmigratory state has no beginning?
To this the answer is: 2.1.36: “Moreover, this is logical, and (so) it is met with (in the
scriptures).”
Shankara’s Commentary for 2.1.36:
And it is logical for the transmigratory existence to have no beginning; for had it emerged capriciously all of a sudden, then there would have been the predicament of freed souls also being reborn here, as also the contigency of results accruing from non-existing causes, for the differences in happiness and misery would have no logical
explanation.
Baladeva Vidyabhusana in his commentary of Gita Bhusana on Gita 13.21 states:
“Though the jiva is knowledge and bliss, he is situated in prakrti due to his impressions of beginningless karma. . . . In all of this, the jiva alone is the agent.
“The cause of the association (between prakrti and jiva) is explained. The cause is beginningless desire for objects made of the gunas (guna sanah). The meaning is this: the beginningless jiva is contaminated with beginningless imprints(samskaras) in the form of karma(from previous births). The jiva desiring enjoyable objects because of his being and enjoyer, will take shelter of prakrti equipped with the desirables that she offers to him until those imprints of karma are destroyed by devotee association."
Taken from the blog
raganugaprembhakti.wordpress.com/origin-of-jiva/ .