The Sri Bhashya is a commentary on the Brahma Sutras by the famous Sri Vaishnava Acharya Ramanujacharya. And the Shruta Prakashika is a subcommentary on Ramanujacharya’s Sri Bhashya by the Sri Vaishnava Acharya Sudarshana Suri. In this excerpt from the Shruta Prakashika, Sudarshana Suri discusses the importance of using the commentaries of Rishis to understand the works of other Rishis. In particular, using the Vritti or commentary of the Rishi Baudhayana to understand the Brahma Sutras of the Rishi Vyasa:
The works composed by the supreme sages are fit to be commented upon; and if great sages have written commentaries on them, these, indeed, have to be esteemed and followed.... That other commentators have disdained the commentaries by sages is clearly brought out in such contexts as “because the worship of the Brahman has a threefold nature”, “In all this, because that is prominently taught”, “What is denoted by the word Brahman, because he is taught to be greater than the Samprasada”, “The little ether because the reasons found in the subsequent statements in the context refer to him”. But here (in the Sri Bhashya) it has been declared that it will follow the Vritti.
I’m interested in the part in bold. Sudarshana Suri says “other commentators”, but I think he’s referring to the Advaita philosopher Adi Shankaracharya here. He’s pointing out various examples of passages in Adi Shankaracharya’s Brahmasutra Bhashya where Adi Shankaracharya disagrees with Baudhayana’s Vritti.
My question is, what are each of the passages that Sudarshana Suri is referring to?