Brahma Sūtra 1.2.26
Śaṅkara
Advaita Vedānta
Sūtra
शब्दादिभ्योऽन्तःप्रतिष्ठानाच्च नेति चेन्न तथा दृष्ट्युपदेशादसंभवात्पुरुषमपि चैनमधीयते
śabdādibhyo'ntaḥpratiṣṭhānācca neti cenna tathā dṛṣṭyupadeśādasaṃbhavātpuruṣamapi cainamadhīyate
Sūtra translation
If it be maintained that (Vaisvânara is) not (the highest Lord) on account of the term (viz. Vaisvânara, having a settled different meaning), &c., and on account of his abiding within (which is a characteristic of the gastric fire); (we say) no, on account of the perception (of the highest Lord), being taught thus (viz. in the gastric fire), and on account of the impossibility (of the heavenly world, &c. being the head, &c. of the gastric fire), and because they (the Vâjasaneyins) read of him (viz. the Vaisvânara) as man (which term cannot apply to the gastric fire).
Here the following objection is raised.—Vaisvânara cannot be the highest Lord, on account of the term, &c., and on account of the abiding within.
Rāmānuja
Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta
Numbered 1.2.27 in this text
Sūtra
शब्दादिभ्योऽन्तःप्रतिष्ठानाच्च नेति चेन्न तथा दृष्ट्युपदेशादसंभवात्पुरुषमपि चैनमधीयते
śabdādibhyo'ntaḥpratiṣṭhānācca neti cenna tathā dṛṣṭyupadeśādasaṃbhavātpuruṣamapi cainamadhīyate
Sūtra translation
Should it be said that it is not so, on account of the word, &c., and on account of the abiding within; we say, no; on account of meditation being taught thus, on account of impossibility; and because they read of him as person.
An objection is raised. Vaisvânara cannot be ascertained to be the highest Self, because, on the account of the text and of the abiding
Madhva
Dvaita Vedānta
Sūtra
शब्दादिभ्योंतःप्रतिष्ठानान्नेति चेन्न तथा दृष्ट्युपदेशादसम्भवात्पुरुषविधमपि चैनमधीयते
śabdādibhyoṃtaḥpratiṣṭhānānneti cenna tathā dṛṣṭyupadeśādasambhavātpuruṣavidhamapi cainamadhīyate
Sūtra translation
If it be objected that (Vaiswanara) is not Brahman) on account of the Word (scriptural passages dedicated to Agni, etc. and other (characteristics of Agni), and from the fundton of the one abiding within; (we reply the objection) is not valid bn account of the teaching that Brahman i* to be contem- plated as such, and on account of the impossibility (of finding in Agni the attributes declared in the beginning of the script- ural€ passages); and also for the reason that some sahhins read of him (Vaiswanara) as (man of description given in the Purusha Sukta).
The Word is as follows, “ This Agni is Vaiswanara ” (Br. vii. 9-1). ‘‘The gods have produced Agni, who is Vaiswanara and has