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

{SŪ. 1. 3. 19.
ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 171
The meaning of the scriptural text (Chānd. 8 3.4) is as follows.
Just as the eye,—enveloped in deep darkness and hence unable to
perform its own special function of making known objects like clothes,
ornaments and the rest,—having attained the ever-unenveloped sun,
is completed in its own form and able to perform its own special
function of manifesting its own objects,—so the individual soul,
‘having attained’, i.e having completely attained, near itself, the
‘highest’, i.e. the Being different from the sentient individual soul
and the non-sentient, ‘light’, i e. the real nature of the Whole the
revealer of all, is ‘completed’ in its real nature as knowledge, different
from the body, the sense-organs and the rest and endowed with its
own bliss,—as such it is said to have its real nature manifest (āvir-
bhūta-svarūpa) The word ‘āvirbhūta-svarūpa’ is to be explained
as ‘one whose real nature has become manifest’. Moreover, as ‘being
a bridge’, ‘being the limitary support of all worlds’, and ‘being the
controller of the sentient and the non-sentient’ are not possible even
on the part of the individual soul which has its real nature manifest,
so the small ether can never be supposed to be the individual soul.
In the doctrine of the ‘small’ (Chānd 8.1 5), the attributes of freedom
from sins and the rest, which are special to one who has this real
nature ever manifest, are mentioned; while in the doctrine taught by
Prajāpati (Chānd. 8 7.1), only those that are special to that which
has its nature manifest (and not ever manifest) Hence, the reason
‘because of impossibility’ (mentioned in Br. Sū. 1 3 18) remains in
force.
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara
Interpretation different, viz.: ‘If it be said . . . , (then
we reply) No, but (the passage in question refers to the soul only so
far) as its real nature has become manifest (i.e. so far it has become
Brahman) ¹ Thus, according to Śaṃkara, the statement of Prajāpati
(Chānd. 8 7.1) does not really refer to the individual soul, but to
Brahman. According to Nimbārka, however, as we have seen, it
refers to the freed soul, which too is different from Brahman
¹ Ś.B. 1 3.19, pp. 333 et seq.