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

658 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3. 3. 36.
ADH. 16.]
There is "exchange", i.e. inter-change, of the attributes of
being the cause of the breathing of all breathing creatures and being
beyond hunger and so on. The object to be known by Uṣasta too
is the one Supreme Brahman, differentiated from the sentient by the
two distinguishing attributes. Similarly, the object to be known by
Kahola too is the same Brahman, "for", with a view to making it
known that the Highest Person, the soul of all and the object to
be worshipped, is different from the individual soul, endowed with
the attibutes of occupying a small place and so on,—the answers
given by Yājñavalkya "specify", i.e demonstrate, Brahman as differ-
ent from the individual soul by defining His attributes of being the
cause of the breathing of all breathing creatures and being beyond
hunger and so on. "As in another case." That is, just as in another
case, viz. in the case in the Sad-vidyā, by the repeated answers,
establishing diverse attributes, the same Brahman is specified as the
object to be known, but by reason of this difference of attributes,
He Himself does not become different, in those cases, as an object
to be worshipped,—so is the case here.
COMPARISON
Śaṃkara and Bhāskara
This is sūtra 37 in Śaṃkara's commentary.
They take this sūtra to be constituting an adhikarana by itself,
concerned with the question whether the Aitareya and Jābāla texts:
"I am he, he is I" (Ait. Ār. 2.2.4, 6), "You are I, I am you" mean
only that the individual soul is the Lord; or both that the individual
soul is the Lord and the Lord is the individual soul. The Prima
facie view is that here the transposition is to be understood in one
way only, viz. that the individual soul is the Lord,—since the lower
can become the higher,—but never that the Lord too is the individual
soul, since the Lord can never become the individual soul. The answer
is: "(The texts designate) exchange (i.e. mutual transposition of
the ideas of the individual soul and the Lord), for (they) specify
(this exchange expressly), as in other cases". That is, in the texts,
we must not only understand the individual soul to be the Lord,
but vice versa as well, seeing that the texts expressly say not only
"I am he", but also "He is I". If the transposition were meant
to be understood in one way alone, they would have stopped by