________________
XXVI] Important topics of the Brahma-sūtras 135 and also on the analogy of creation given there as of a spider (and not of the rope-snake, as would be the case with vivarta), that it should be admitted that the qualified Vişnu is referred to here? The seventh topic is said to relate to Chāndogya, v. 11, and the doubt arises whether the word Vaišvānara used there refers to fire or to Vişnu; Madhva, upon a comparison of contextual passages, decides in favour of the latter (Sankara prefers Isvara)?
The first topic of the third chapter of the first book is said to allude to Mundaka, II. 11. 5, and it is held by Madhva that the "abode of Heaven and earth" (dyu-bhv-ādy-ayatana) refers to Vişņu and not to Rudra. Sankara holds that it signifies Isvara and not prakrti, vāyu or jīvao. The second topic is said to relate to certain passages in the Chāndogya (such as VII. 23, 24, VII. 15, I, etc.), where prāna is described as great, and the conclusions of Madhva and Sankara respectively are that prāna here means Vi and Isvara. The third topic is said to relate to Brhad-āranyaka, III. 8, 7, 8, where the word aksara is said to mean Vişņu according to Madhva and Brahman according to Sankara, not “alphabetic sign," which also is ordinarily meant by that word. The fourth topic alludes, according to Madhva, to Chāndogya, vi. 2. I, and it is held that the word sat, there used, denotes Vişņu and not prakyti, as the word aikșata (“perceived”) occurs in the same context. With Sankara the topic alludes to Praśna, v. 2, 5. This is opposed by Vyāsa-tīrtha in his Tātparya-candrikā on textual grounds 4. The fifth topic is said to allude to Chāndogya, VIII. 1. 1, and the word ākāša there used is said to refer to Vişnu5. The sixth topic is said to relate to the Mundaka, and the light there alluded to is said to be the light of brahman and not some other light or soul. The seventh topic is
1 Jaya-tirtha discusses on this topic, in accordance with the discussions of the Anuvyākhyāna, the reality of negative qualifications, and argues that negation, as otherness from, has a full substantive force. Thus such qualifications of Brahman as adyśya, etc., are real qualities of Him.
2 With reference to rule 26 of this topic (1. 2. 26) Sankara notes a different reading (puruşavidham api cainam adhiyate) for that which he accepts (puruşam api cainam adhiyate). The former, however, is the reading accepted by Madhva.
3 In the concluding portions of the first rule of this topic Sankara refers to the views of some other interpreter as apara āha. It is hard to identify him; no clue is given by any of the commentators on Sankara.
4 Tātparya-candrikā, pp. 610-12. In the first rule of this topic Sankara quotes the view of some other interpreter, which he tries to refute.
5 In sūtra 19 of this topic a different interpretation of Chăndogya, VIII. II, by some other interpreter is referred to by Sankara. He also refers in this sütra to more than one interpretation of the Brahma-sutra.
