गोविन्द भाष्य (श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषण - अचिन्त्यभेदाभेद वेदान्त ब्रह्मसूत्र भाष्य सटीक)

Sūtra 27 upadeśa-bhedān neti cen nobhayasminn apy avirodhāt upadeśa—of instruction; bhedāt—because of the difference; na—not; iti—thus; cet—if; na—not; ubhayasmin—in both places; api—also; avirodhāt—because of non- contradicition. The objection that because the two scriptural passages employ the word "dyu" in two different cases (locative and ablative), therefore they describe two different objects, which cannot both be Brahman, is not a valid objection. The use of the two different causes does not mean that the two passages must describe two different things. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not so that two contradictory descriptions of Brahman are found in the scriptures? In one place the scriptures state: tri-padasyāmṛtaṁ divi "The eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead resides in the spiritual world, which constitutes three-quarters of all existence." In another place the scriptures state: paro divaḥ "The Supreme Personality of Godhead resides on top of the spiritual world." In the first quotation the spiritual world was placed in the locative case. Since this is so, both passages contradict each other, They describe two different objects, one within the spiritual world, and the other above it. To this objection I reply: Why do you say this? Both passages refer to the same object. The uses of the locative and ablative cases in these quotations does not present a contradiction. for example, in the material world a parrot may be said to be "in" a tree or "on" it. There is no real difference in the two statements. In the