Brahma-Sūtra 1.4.20

English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.4.20 by Roma Bose:

“(The beginning with the individual soul is) a mark of the establishment of the initial proposition, Āśmarathya (thinks so).”

Nimbārka’s commentary (Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha):

To the question: Why, then, is there the beginning with the individual soul? we reply: the fact that the Supreme Soul is designated by a word denoting the individual soul,—the latter being non-different from the former as His effect,—is a convincing proof “of the establishment of the initial proposition”, viz. that through the knowledge of one, there is the knowledge of all. So “Āśmarathya” thinks.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

If it be objected: The individual soul alone is apprehended as connected with the dearness of husband and the rest in the beginning, in the passage: ‘“O, not for the love of the husband, verily, is a husband dear, but for the love of the soul is a husband dear”’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.4.5; 4.5.6) and so on; as well as connected with origin and destruction in the middle, in the passage: ‘“Having arisen from these beings, one vanishes into them alone. After death there is no consciousness”’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.4.12; 4.5.13),—

(We reply:) True. Still, by the term “individual soul” the Supreme Soul is to be understood here, No such objection can be raised in view of the fact that He, being the cause of all, can be denoted by all words. The author is showing this with the approval of another teacher.

In accordance with the text: ‘From whom, verily, all these elements arise’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 3.1), the individual soul, too, entered into the elements, is reckoned among the effects, and Brahman is the cause. These two being the effect and the cause, there is, undoubtedly, a primary difference between them. Thus the texts designating duality are correct. Since the effect is non-different from the cause, being born from it and so on, non-difference between the two, too, is equally a fact. Thus, the texts designating non-duality, too, are correct. In this way, both the kinds of texts being authoritative in their own senses, there is a natural relation of difference and non-difference between the individual soul and Brahman. Hence, it is possible for words denoting the effects to denote the causes as well, just as in the case of the pot and the clay, standing in the relation of effect and cause, the word ‘pot’ refers to the clay as well. This being so, the initial proposition too, viz. that through the knowledge of one, there is the knowledge of all, is established,—such is the view of Āśmarathya. The meaning of the words of the aphorism is as follows: This, really, is “a mark” or a convincing-proof “of the establishment of the initial proposition”, viz. that through the knowledge of one, there is the knowledge of all. What mark? Listen! The individual soul being non-different from the Supreme Soul as His effect, by the word “individual soul” the Supreme Soul is designated,—so the teacher Āśmarathya thinks.