अंशो नानाव्यपदेशात्, अन्यथा चापि
दाशकितवादित्वमधीयत एके ॥ ४३ ॥
aṃśo nānāvyapadeśāt, anyathā cāpi
dāśakitavāditvamadhīyata eke || 43 ||
aṃśaḥ—Part; nānāvyapadeśāt—on account of difference being declared; anyathā—otherwise; ca—and; api—also; dāśakitavāditvam—being fishermen, knaves, etc.; adhīyate—read; eke—some (Sakhas of the Vedas).
48. (The soul is) part (of the Lord) on account of difference (between the two) being declared and otherwise also (i.e. as non-different from Brahman); for in some (Sakhas or recensions of the Vedic texts) (Brahman) is spoken of as being fishermen, knaves, etc.
In the last topic, it has been shown that the Lord rules the soul. This brings us to the question of the relationship between the two. Is it that of master and servant, or as between fire and its sparks? The Sutra says that the relation is as between fire and its sparks, that is, of whole and part. But then, the soul is not actually a part, but a part, as it were— an imagined part, for Brahman cannot have any parts. Why then should it be taken as a part and not identical with the Lord? Because the scriptures declare a difference between them in texts like, “Knowing It alone one becomes a sage” (Brih. 4, 4. 22), “The Atman is to be seen” (Brih. 2. 4. 5). This difference, however, is spoken of from the empirical standpoint; from the absolute standpoint they are identical. The text, “Brahman is the fishermen, Brahman the slaves, Brahman these knaves,” etc. shows that even such humble perrons as these are in reality Brahman.