Sa"nkara quotes the passage from the Bhagavad Gita (xviii. 61),
"The Lord of all beings abides in the region of the heart,--causing
all beings to revolve by his illusion as though mounted on a
machine."]; thus their difference is proved to be essential. If it
were not so, how could the Commentator have used such an expression
as "the worshipper" and "the worshipped" [Footnote: He uses this
very expression __upasyopasakabhava__ in his Comment. on i. 2. 4.]?

61. I am sometimes happy, sometimes miserable; He, the supreme Soul,
is always essentially happy. Such is the difference,--then how can
there be identity between these two different substances?

62. He is eternally self-luminous and unobscured,-- intensely pure,
the one witness of the world; not so is the individual soul,--thus
a thunderbolt falls on the tree of the theory of Identity.

63. For those who maintain the identity of the individual and supreme
soul, the hypothesis of a __dvandva compound__ [Footnote: __I.e.__ in
the word __jivatmanau__] is precluded; or they bring forward such
words as __d.rishadupala__ as parallel cases [Footnote: I suppose that
this means that the __dvandva__ compound __d.rishadupala__ has some
analogy to one like __jivatmanau__, which involves identity, as the
upper and lower millstone form one instrument; but there (in
accordance with Pa.n. 2. 2. 34, __vartt.__) the less important word
meaning the upper and smaller stone (__upala__) is placed last
(cf. 2. 2. 31)]; the __dvandva__ is only consistent with "difference,"
but in no way with "identity."

64. Where identity is the meaning, there arises the __karmadharaya__
compound,--for [such a __karmadharaya__ as] __nilotpala__ "the