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

[Sū. 3. 3. 2.
ADH. 1.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 579
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
Interpretation different, viz "If it be objected that on account
of the differences (of details) (there is) no (oneness of vidyā), (we
reply:) (there may be difference of details) even in (one vidyā)".
That is, the prima facie objector holds that the same vidyā is
mentioned with different particulars in different places, e.g. in con-
nection with the Pañcāgni-vidyā, five fires are spoken of in the Chān-
dogya, but six in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka. This proves that the two
Pañcāgni-vidyās are not identical. The answer is that such differences
of details are permissible even in the case of one and the same vidyā.
If two vidyās agree in all essential points, the difference in some details
by no means makes them two separate vidyās.¹
Baladeva
As before, he does not raise the problem of the identity of vidyās
at all, but only the problem whether Brahman is known from all the
Vedas or not. Hence the sūtra: "If it be objected that on account
of difference (i.e. the different accounts of Brahman), (Brahman is)
not (designated in all branches). (we reply:) even in the same (branch)
(other attributes of Brahman are mentioned)". That is, if it be
objected that Brahman is designated differently in different Upaniṣads,
--e.g. in one place He is depicted as knowledge and bliss (Bṛh. 3.9 28),
in another as omniscient and all-knowing (Muṇḍ 1.1.9),--and as such
the same Brahman is not set forth by all the Upaniṣads--the reply
is that in the same Upaniṣad where Brahman is designated as know-
ledge and bliss, He is designated as omniscient as well. Hence all
branches speak of the same Brahman.²
1 Ś.B. 3.3.2, pp. 757-758, Bh. B. 3.3.2, pp. 175-176.
2 G.B. 3.3.2.