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

metaphor of the chariot the senses and other adjuncts of the body are described as horses or other adjuncts of the chariot. The indriyebhyaḥ verses continue this discussion. Of the things mentioned in the previous verses only the body itself is not listed in the indriyebhyaḥ verses, and therefore the single ambiguous item (avyakta) must refer to the śarīra (body) by default. The pradhāna interpretation of this word is also disproved because the content of the indriyebhyaḥ verses disagrees with the tenants of saṅkhya philosophy. Now the following objection may be raised. The body is clearly manifest. How is it that it is here described as unmanifest? To answer this doubt the author says: Sūtra 2 sūkṣmaṁ tu tad-arhatvāt sūkṣmaṁ -subtle; tu -certainly; tad-arhatvāt-because of appropriateness. The word "śarīra" (body) here certainly means the sutble body (sūkṣma-śarīra) because that is appropriate in this context. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The word tu (certainly) is used here to dispel doubt. The word śarīra here means sūkṣma-śarīra (the subtle body). Why? Because that meaning is appropriate. Because it is appropriate to describe the sūkṣma-śarīra as avyakta (unmanifest). The quote from Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (1.4.7) "tad dhedaṁ tarhy avyākṛtam āsīt (Then there was the unmanifested)" shows that before the gross material universe was manifested the living force was present. This shows that the word "unmanifested" is appropriate to describe the subtle body. The objection may be raised: If the original cause is subtle, then why should that subtle cause not be described as the pradhāna (unmanifested material nature) of the saṅkhya theory. To answer this doubt he says: Sūtra 3 tad-adhīnatvād arthavat tad-on Him; adhīnatvād -because of dependence; arthavat-possessing the meaning.