Bhashya
तथा वीणायै वाद्यमानायै- वीणाया वाद्यमानायाः ।अ-नेकदृष्टान्तोपादानम् इह सामान्यबहुत्वख्यापनार्थम्- अनेकेहि विलक्षणाः चेतनाचेतनरूपाः सामान्यविशेषाः- तेषांपारम्पर्यगत्या यथा एकस्मिन् महासामान्ये अन्तर्भावः प्रज्ञा-नघने, कथं नाम दर्शयितव्य इति ; दुन्दुभिशङ्खवीणाश-ब्दसामान्यविशेषाणां यथा शब्दत्वेऽन्तर्भावः, एवं स्थिति-काले तावत् सामान्यविशेषाव्यतिरेकात् ब्रह्मैकत्वं शक्य-मवगन्तुम् ॥
In plain words
In the same way, 'a vīṇā being played' simply means 'of a vīṇā being played' — the old dative here does the work of a genitive. Why three examples and not one? To show just how many distinct universals there are. Sentient and insentient things fall into many different kinds of universal and particular, each unlike the rest. Following them step by step, how do we show that they all finally gather into one supreme universal — the single, solid mass of consciousness? Here is how: just as the particular sounds of a drum, a conch, and a vīṇā all merge into the one category 'sound,' so too, at least for as long as the world lasts, since universal and particular are never truly separate, we can understand that Brahman is one.
Close to the Sanskrit
Likewise, '[of] a vīṇā being played' [in the dative] means '[of] a vīṇā being played' [in the genitive]. The taking up of many illustrations here is for the purpose of demonstrating the multiplicity of universals; for there are many, mutually distinct, universals and particulars having the form of sentient and insentient things. By their successive gradation, how is their inclusion in a single great universal, [namely] the solid mass of consciousness, to be shown at all? — [this is the question]. Just as there is inclusion of the universals and particulars of drum-sound, conch-sound, and vīṇā-sound in [the single category] 'sound-ness,' so, at least during the time of continuance, because of the non-difference of universal and particular, it is possible to understand the oneness of Brahman.