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

[sū. 2 1 22.
ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 301
modifications of the tree, such as the leaf and so on, are to be
understood. That is, just as the leaf, though non-different from the
tree, is yet not the tree, so is the case here. Or else, by the term "and
the rest", the ray of the diamond and the rest is understood, for the
ray, though non-different from the diamond, etc., is yet found to
be different. Hence, just as the ray, though non-different from its
substratum, is yet different from it, so it is appropriate to hold that the
embodied soul is by nature different from Brahman, though it is at the
same time non-different from Him as having Him for its soul. Hence,
the respective difference between what is subject to transmigratory
existence (viz the individual soul) and what is not, (viz. Brahman)
being thus established, there is no inconsistency here. Hence "there
is impossibility of that", i.e. there is no possibility of faults like
not doing what is beneficial and the rest, as alleged by the opponent.
Thus, it is established that there no contradiction is involved in our
view.
Hence ends the section entitled "The designation of another" (7).
COMPARISON
Rāmānuja
This is sūtra 23 in Rāmānuja's commentary. Interpretation
different, viz. "Just (as it is impossible for non-sentient objects) like
stones and the rest (to be identical with Brahman, so) there is the
impossibility of that (viz. of an identity between the individual soul
and Brahman)".¹
Śrīkaṇṭha
This is sūtra 23 in Śrīkaṇṭha's commentary too. "(Since the
individual soul, possessed of little knowledge, is declared to be belonging
to an absolutely different category from Brahman, the omniscient),
just as (non-sentient objects) like stones and the rest, there is the
impossibility of that (viz. of an absolute identity between the individual
soul and Brahman)."²
¹ Śrī. B. 2.1.23, p. 53, Part 2
² ŚK. B. 2.1.23, p. 32, Parts 7 and 8.