A Sureshwara vartika on Trimurti abheda cited by Anandagiri in the BSB gloss – the true nature of Brahman

In the Samanvayadhikaranam (tat tu samanvayaat) sutra bhashya, Shankara cites  the famous mantra of the Shvetashvataropanishad: 

तथा ‘एको देवः सर्वभूतेषु गूढः सर्वव्यापी सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा । कर्माध्यक्षः सर्वभूताधिवासः साक्षी चेता केवलो निर्गुणश्च’ (श्वे. उ. ६ । ११) इति, ‘स पर्यगाच्छुक्रमकायमव्रणमस्नाविरं शुद्धमपापविद्धम्’ (ई. उ. ८) इति, च —   

Anandagiri, in the gloss Nyayanirnaya, explains the mantra in his own words:

निर्गुणत्वान्निर्दोषत्वाच्च ब्रह्मात्मनि द्विधापि संस्कारो नेत्युक्तम् । इदानीं तस्मिन्गुणदोषयोरभावे मानमाह — 

तथाचेति ।

मूर्तित्रयात्मना भेदं प्रत्याह — 

एक इति ।

यथाहुः – ‘हरिर्ब्रह्मा पिनाकीति बहुधैकोऽपि गीयते ‘ इति अखण्डजाड्यं व्यावर्तयति — 

देव इति ।What is very interesting is that Anandagiri, while explaining the word ‘EkaH’ in the mantra, raises an objection: Is not Brahman endowed with threefold  difference on the basis of the Trimurti-s? The word ‘Ekah’ is in refutation of such a difference. Anandagiri cites a line: ‘One alone is spoken of as many as Hari, Brahmaa and Pinaaki.’
We recognize this line to be from the Vartika of Sureshwaracharya on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Bhashya. 

यः पृथिव्यामितीशोऽसावन्तर्यामी जगद्गुरुः ।

हरिर्ब्रह्मा पिनाकीति बहुधैकोऽपि गीयते ॥

[The Br.Up. ‘he who, stationed in the pṛthvī devatā impels the mind-body-organs of that devatā….’ who is the antaryāmī, jagadguru, even though one, is variously spoken of as Hari, Brahmā and Pinākī (Śiva).]

Anandagiri: कथं श्रुत्यवष्टम्भेन ईश्वरस्य कारणत्वं, मूर्तित्रयस्य इतिहासादौ सर्गस्थितिलयेषु यथायोगं कर्तृत्वश्रुतेः, अत आह । यः पृथिव्यामिति । प्रकृतो हि ईश्वरः स्वरूपेण एकोऽपि मूर्तित्रयात्मना बहुधा उच्यते पृथिव्यादौ तस्यैव अन्तर्यामित्वेन स्थितिश्रुतेः, न च तद्विरोधे पुराणादिप्रामाण्यं सापेक्षत्वेन दौर्बल्यादिति भावः । स पूर्वेषां गुरुरितिन्यायेन अन्तर्यामी इत्यस्य व्याख्या जगद्गुरुरिति ।

 Anandagiri says: How is it that while Isvara  is the jagatkāraṇam according to the Shruti,  the itihāsa, etc. say that there is the causehood as appropriately assigned to the trimūrti-s in creation, sustenance and dissolution? [the idea is: while the shruti says Brahman, Ishvara, is the jagatkāraṇam, we find the itihāsa, purāna, etc. distributing that to three different entities functionally?] The above verse of Sureshvara is answering this question: Even though Ishwara is one only, he is spoken of as many, Hari, Brahmā, Pinākī. Why is it that Ishwara is admitted to be one only? Since it is one Ishwara alone (not many) that is taught in the shruti as the antaryāmin. If the purāṇa-s, etc. say something different (three different individuals performing distinct functions), then since these texts are dependent on the Shruti for their prāmāṇya, they do not enjoy the status of the shruti; they are durbala, weak, only when they say something contradictory to the Shruti. Since He, Ishwara, is the Guru of everyone (including devatā-s) this antaryāmin, Ishwara, alone gets the epithet of ‘Jagadguru’.

See this article here on the verse:  https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2017/11/03/division-of-pura%e1%b9%87a-s-as-sattvika-etc-is-unvedic/

आदित्यादिवैषम्यमाह — 

सर्वेति । 

तर्हि किमिति सर्वेषां न भाति, तत्राह — 

गूढ इति । 

तर्हि तत्तद्भूतावच्छिन्नत्वेन परिच्छिन्नत्वं, नेत्याह — 

सर्वव्यापीति ।

नभोवत्ताटस्थ्यं वारयति — 

सर्वभूतेति । 

सर्वेषु भूतेष्वन्तःस्थितस्य तत्तत्क्रियाकर्तृत्वं शङ्कित्वोक्तम् — 

कर्मेति । 

सर्वभूतेष्वित्यादिना भूतानां पृथगुक्तेः सद्वितीयत्वं, तत्राह — 

सर्वेति । 

सर्वेषां भूतानामधिवासोऽधिष्ठानम् । न च कल्पितमधिष्ठानादर्थान्तरमित्यर्थः । 

न परं कर्मणामेवाध्यक्षोऽपि तु तद्वतामपीत्याह — 

साक्षीति ।

तत्र चैतन्यस्वाभाव्यं हेतुमाह — 

चेतेति । 

केवलो दृश्यवर्जितोऽद्वितीयः । निर्गुणो ज्ञानादिगुणरहितः । चकारो दोषाभावसमुच्चयार्थः ।
The above citation by Anandagiri in the Nyayanirnaya gloss for the Brahma Sutra Bhashya also confirms that he is aware of the Vartika and that he is the commentator thereof.This also confirms that the idea of the Vedantic Brahman as admitted by Shankara is not a finite entity that is distinct from the other two entities of the Trimurti-s.  For, such an entity will be defiled by the defect of ‘vastu paricchedatvam’ and would automatically disqualify Brahman to be the JagatkaaraNam. 
Om Tat Sat