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

[SŪ. 3. 3. 21.
ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 613
Here the doubt is as to whether the stated names are each to be
meditated on singly in its own place (i e. where mentioned), or whether
each is to be meditated on in both the places as combined with the
other Just as in the Śāṇḍilya-vidyā there is a mutual combination
of attributes on account of their connection with an identical vidyā,
“so elsewhere too”, i e in the case of the orb of the sun and the eye,
the two names are to be mutually combined in both the places “on
account of their connection” with an identical vidyā,—this is the
meaning of the prima facie aphorism.
COMPARISON
Baladeva
This is sūtra 21 in his commentary He begins a new adhikaraṇa
here (five sūtras), concerned with the worship of the aveśāvatāras or
God-possessed souls like Nārada and so on. The question is whether
they too are to be meditated on as possessed of the attributes of the
Lord Himself. This is the prima facie view: “On account of (their
intimate) connection (with the Lord Himself), in others also (i.e. the
God-possessed souls), (are to be meditated on) thus, (i.e. as possessed
of the attributes of the Lord ”.¹
CORRECT CONCLUSION (Sūtras 21-22)
SŪTRA 21
“OR NOT, ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
But the correct conclusion is that “on account of the difference”
of place, (such) a combination is “not” appropriate.
Vedānta-kaustubha
(The author) refutes (the above view).
The names are “not” to be combined. Why? “On account
of difference,” i.e on account of the difference of place. Just as the
attribute, stated of a teacher when seated, does not belong to him
¹ G B. 3.3.21, p. 147, Chap. 3.