________________
III - THE GĪTĀ AND THE BRAHMA-SŪTRAS 757
(paramātman), (Ve. Sū. 2. 3. 43). Therefore, Bādarāyanācārya has, in the second part of the second chapter, found fault with the Bhāgavata doctrine, by saying that the genesis of Samkarsana from Vāsudeva according to that religion is not possible (Ve. Sū. 2. 2. 42); and, by arguing that, since the Mind is an organ pertaining to the Personal Self, it is impossible for Pradyumna (Manas) to spring from Jiva (Ve. Sū. 2. 2. 43), because, we never see it happen in the world that the cause or the means spring from the doer, he has to that extent logically refuted the Bhagavata doctrine. To this, the followers of the Bhāgavata doctrine are likely to reply that they consider Vāsudeva (īśvara), Samkarsana (Jīva), Pradyumna (Manas), and Aniruddha (Ahamkāra) as four equal Jñanins, and look upon the genesis of the one from the other as merely symbolical or unimportant. But, from this point of view, instead of there being one Parameśvara, one gets four Parameśvaras; and the Brahma-Sūtras, therefore, say, that even this reply is not satisfactory; and Bādarāyana has ultimately expressed his opinion that the idea that Jiva has sprung from the Parameśvara is not acceptable to the Vedas, that is, to the Upanişads. (Ve. Sū. 2. 2. 44, 45). It is true that the Bhagavadgită has adopted the principle of of Action based on Devotion of the Bhāgavata religion. Nevertheless, the doctrine of the Gita is that the Jiva has not sprung from the Parameśvara, and is not a 'son' of the Parameśvara, but a part (ainsa) of the Paramātman (Gi. 15. 7). This doctrine about the Jiva does not form part of the original Bhāgavata doctrine; and it was, therefore, necessary to explain on what authority it had been based; because, if that had not been done, there was a likelihood of a misunderstanding arising that while accepting the Energistic Devotional principle of the Bhāgavata doctrine, the Bhagavadgitā was also accepting the arrangement of the 'four-folded genesis' (caturvyūha) in that doctrine. Therefore, when there was occasion to refer to the nature of the Individual Self (Jivātman) in the chapter on the Body and the Ātman, that is to say, in the very beginning of the 13th chapter, it became necessary for the Blessed Lord to explain that "My opinion about the Ātman (ksetrajña), that is, the Jiva, is not the same as in the Bhāgavata doctrine, but
