Śaṅkaraon Brahma Sūtra 2.3.43

We have shown that the individual soul and the Lord stand to each other in the relation of what is being acted upon and what is acting upon. This relation is observed in ordinary life to exist only between things connected, such as a master and a servant, or a fire and its sparks. Now as the soul and the Lord also are acknowledged to stand in the relation of what is acted upon and w^hat is acting, a doubt arises whether their connexion is analogous to that of a master and a servant, or to that of a fire and its sparks. The pfirvapakshin maintains that either the matter is to be considered as undetermined, or that the connexion is like that of master and servant, because that connexion only is well known to be the relation of ruler (Lord) and subject ruled. To this the SCitra replies that the soul must be con- sidered a part of the Lord, just as a spark is a part of the fire. By ‘part' we mean ‘a part as it were,' since a being not composed of parts cannot have parts in the — — literal sense. Why, then, do we not view the Lord, who is not composed of parts, as identical with the soul ? ‘ On account of the declarations of difference.' For such scrip- tural passages as ‘That (self) it is which we must search out, that it is which we must try to understand ’ (AT//. Up. VIII, 7) ; ‘He who knows him becomes a muni* (Br/. Up. IV, 4, 22) ; ‘ He who dwelling within the Self pulls the Self within* (Bri, Up. Ill, 7, 23); which all of them refer to a difference (between the highest and the individual Self) would be inappropriate, if there were no difference. But, it may be said, these statements of difference would agree better with a relation similar to that of master and — servant. Hence the siitrak^ra adds, ‘and otherwise also.’ That the soul is a part (of the Lord) we learn not only from the passages declaring their difference, but there are other statements also which teach their non-difference. The members of a certain jakhd of the Atharva-veda record in a Brahma-sukta that ‘Brahman are the fisher- men, Brahman the slaves, Brahman these gamblers,* &c. Here low creatures such as fishermen, and slaves de- pending on their masters, and gamblers are called Brah- man ; whence it appears that all individual souls which have entered into aggregates of effects and instruments (i.e. bodies) depending on name and form are Brah- man. The same view is set forth in other passages such as ‘ Thou art woman, thou art man ; thou art youth, thou art maiden ; thou as an old man tottcrest along on thy staff, thou art born with thy face turned everywhere’ ( 5ve. Up. IV, 3), and ‘The wise one who, having produced all forms and made all names, sits calling (the things by their names)* (Taitt. Ar. Ill, 12, 7). Passages such as ‘ There is no other seer but he * and other similar ones establish the same — truth. Non-differenced intelligence belongs to the soul and the Lord alike, as heat belongs to the sparks as well as the — fire. From these two views of difference and non-diflfcrence there results the comprehensive view of the soul being a part of the Lord.—The following Siitra supplies a further reason.