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

[Sū. 3. 3. 22.
ADH. 7.] VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA 615
Vedānta-kaustubha
In another place, a scriptural text concerned with transference
“shows” the absence of a combination of the attributes of that which
is situated in the sun and that which is situated in the eye. Thus,
the scriptural text concerned with transference, viz. “The form of this
one is the very same as the form of that one” (Chānd 1.7.5) transfers
the form of the Person abiding in the sun to the Person abiding in the
eye. And this (text) clearly indicates the absence of a combination
of attributes in such a case. If there were any combination of attri-
butes, then the transference would have been meaningless ¹ Hence
it is established that there is no combination of the names
Here ends the section entitled “The connection” (7).
COMPARISON
Śrīkaṇṭha
He takes this sūtra as constituting a new adhikaraṇa by itself,
concerned with the Maṇḍala-vidyā, or the meditation on the Person
within the orb of the sun, in the Chāndogya (Chānd. 1 6.6) and the
Mahā-nārāyaṇa (Mahā. 12.2) Upaniṣads, and concludes that the two
vidyās are identical, since Scripture “shows” their identity ²
Baladeva
This is sūtra 23 in his commentary. He gives here a second
reason why the God-possessed souls are not to be meditated on as
possessed of the attributes of the Lord Himself: “And (Scripture,
viz. Chānd. 7.1.1) shows”. That is, the above text shows that
¹ I.e. a special transference, identifying two things, is necessary only when
the two things are naturally different. E.g. a king is not, as a rule, expressly
mentioned to be rich, for it is understood that all kings are naturally rich. Hence
we simply say: ‘He is a king’. But we say, ‘He is a servant and rich’, for the
quality of being rich does not, as a rule, belong to servants and any exception
has to be expressly mentioned Similarly, since here the form of the person
within the sun and the form of the person within the eye are expressly mentioned
to be identical, it is clear that there is no natural identity between them, so
that no combinations of their attributes, names and so on are possible.
² ŚK. B. 3.3.22, pp. 319-320, Part 9.