Brahma Sūtra 2.3.24
Śaṅkara
Advaita Vedānta
Sūtra
अवस्थितिवैशेष्यादिति चेन्नाभ्युपगमाद्धृदि हि
avasthitivaiśeṣyāditi cennābhyupagamāddhṛdi hi
Sūtra translation
If it be said (that the two cases are not parallel), on account of the specialisation of abode (present in the case of the sandal-ointment, absent in the C3se of the soul); we deny that, on account of the acknowledgment (by scripture, of a apecial place of the soul), viz. within the heart.
Here it may be objected that the argumentation relied upon in the last Sutra is not admissible, because the two cases compared are not
Rāmānuja
Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta
Numbered 2.3.25 in this text
Sūtra
अवस्थितिवैशेष्यादिति चेन्नाभ्युपगमाद्धृदि हि
avasthitivaiśeṣyāditi cennābhyupagamāddhṛdi hi
Sūtra translation
Should it be said (that this is not so) on account of specialisation of abode; we say no, on account of the acknowledgment (of a place of the Self), viz. in the heart.
There is a difference. The drop of ointment can produce its effect as at any rate it is in contact with a definite part
Madhva
Dvaita Vedānta
Numbered 2.3.25 in this text
Sūtra
अवस्थितिवैशेष्यादिति चेन्नाभ्युपगमाद्धृदिहि
avasthitivaiśeṣyāditi cennābhyupagamāddhṛdihi
Sūtra translation
If it he said that the extension all over the body is admissible in the case of the sandal ointment, as it is in actual contact with some part of the body, but not in the case of the soulwho8ereIationtothe body is not settled; we deny that, on ac- count of a special place for the soul, viz., unthin the heart, being acknowledged by Scripture beginning with, “ Within the heart.”
The extending (of the sensation) of (produced by) the sandal ointment is possible, since it is present in one spot as a whole and