The Sarvatra-prasiddha topic opens Pada 2 by examining the “Manomaya” passage of the Chhandogya Upanishad. The question is whether the being described as consisting of mind, having Prana as body, and luminous in form refers to the individual soul or Brahman. The sutras establish that it is Brahman alone.
The decisive reason lies in the opening declaration: “All this indeed is Brahman.” Since the section begins with Brahman as the universal cause, it would be inconsistent for the later “He who consists of the mind” passage to suddenly shift to the individual soul. Scriptural continuity demands that the same Brahman remains the subject throughout.
The qualities described also fit only Brahman. Omnipresence like ether, truth of will, luminosity, and being the object of serene meditation are all characteristics of the Supreme, not the limited embodied self. The individual soul, subject to ignorance and limitation, cannot bear these marks.
This is strengthened by the distinction between the meditator and the object attained. The Upanishad says, “When I depart from here, I shall attain Him.” The one attained must necessarily be different from the empirical self that seeks. Thus the Manomaya being cannot be the individual soul.
Even passages describing the self as smaller than a grain of rice within the heart do not weaken the conclusion. Such limitation is admitted only for the sake of contemplation. Just as the all-pervading ether may be imagined as confined in the eye of a needle, Brahman may be symbolically visualised as minute within the heart without ceasing to be infinite.
Finally, the sutras address the concern that if Brahman pervades all hearts, It must also share the pleasures and pains of embodied beings. Vedanta rejects this by distinguishing the pure non-agent nature of Brahman from the empirical individuality produced by ignorance. Pleasure and pain belong only to the imagined agent, never to Brahman itself.
Original Text