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

[sū. 1. 1. 8.
ADH. 5.] VEDĀNTA-PĀRIJĀTA-SAURABHA 47
Although the individual soul is different from Brahman, in nature,
it is also non-different from Him, having no existence and activity
apart from Him. On account of being enveloped by the beginningless
māyā, the individual soul has no knowledge of such a non-difference.
Hence it is said 'Thou art that', i.e. you are non-different from the
object denoted by the term 'that'. Even during the state of salvation,
one who has attained the nature of Brahman is of a different nature
(from Brahman), but should yet be known to be non-different from
Him, because of having no existence and activity separately from Him;
because from the text: 'He attains the highest identity' (Muṇḍ.
3 1 3) we learn that Brahman alone is one that is to be approached,
while the individual soul only one that approaches; and, finally, because
we find the words 'together with' in the text: 'He enjoys all objects
of desire together with Brahman, the all-knowing' (Tait. 2.1). Hence,
Brahman alone is denoted by the terms 'existent', 'self' and the rest
COMPARISON
Baladeva
Reading same, interpretation different—viz:—'(The creator of
the world is not the Saguna Brahman, but the Nirguṇa Brahman ¹),
for salvation is taught of him who relies on Him (viz. the Nirguna
Brahman)'.²
SŪTRA 8
“AND (PRADHĀNA CANNOT BE DENOTED BY THE TERMS
'EXISTENT', 'SELF' AND THE REST), BECAUSE THERE IS NO
(SCRIPTURAL) STATEMENT OF ITS HAVING TO BE ABANDONED.”
Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha
That the non-sentient substance, taught by the terms 'existent'
and the rest and to be abandoned in salvation, is to be abandoned, as
well as the purpose of the teaching ³ ought to have been pointed out
1 For the explanation of the terms Saguna and Nirguna, see G.B.
2 G B 1.1.7, pp. 49-50, Chap. 1.
3 That is, if pradhāna be denoted by the terms 'existent', 'self' and the
rest, then evidently, such a self, etc., cannot serve the purpose of salvation.
Hence there must be some other purpose for the teaching of pradhāna, since
Scripture does not teach anything which does not fulfil an end. But there is no
indication in Scripture what this other purpose is.