अणुभाष्य (महाप्रभु वल्लभाचार्य - शुद्धाद्वैत वेदान्त ब्रह्मसूत्र महाभाष्य प्रकाश टीका सहित)

therefore, according to the theory of reflection, the existence of jīva is to be accepted. The premise that Jīva is the reflection of Brahman is not at all rational. If this pratibimbavāda is accepted, Brahman becomes possessor of perceivable nature; and if jīva is the reflection, bimba and prati-bimba do not appear at the same place; in that case, the theory goes against the śruti “samānaṃ vṛkṣam pariṣasvajāte”- here the existence of jīva and Brahman at one place is stated. Therefore, jīva is to be accepted as an aṃśa – part – of Brahman. For this, the validity is śruti itself and not any other means of knowledge as in the world. Hence, it is said by Āchārya – “alaukiko hi vedārtho na yuktyā pratipadyate । Tapasā Veda-yuktyā tu prasādāt paramātmanaḥ ॥ (Aṇu.Bha.Ka.1/1) Knowledge derived from the Vedas is not through sense- perception; therefore it cannot be grasped by reasonings. Then, how are we to grasp it? By the reasonings shown in the Veda itself, as in Ch.Upa. “nyagrodha-phalamāhara” etc. Here the Āchārya says – “by imagining the meanings of Veda by one's own intelligence, one cannot discuss or analyse them; in what manner Brahman has been explained in the Vedānta, has to be accepted as it is. Changing even an iota of its purport will incur fallibility.” Therefore, as per the logic of viṣphulinga, the insentient and the souls come out of Brahman – just like the sparks from the fire. When the insentient forms emanate, the knowledge and blissful aspects of Brahman remain covered; when the souls come out, the blissful nature of Brahman remains covered.. In this manner, sat – reality; and cit – knowledge aspects – both are non-different from Brahman and they are the forms of Brahman. Because of this, the śruti states that by the knowledge of one, the knowledge of all is derived. If this explanation is accepted, then the sufferings being experienced by the individual souls will be of Brahman also. xii