________________
XXV1] Important topics of the Brahma-sūtras 137 prakrtil; according to Madhva it is more an extension of the previous topic for the purpose of emphasizing the fact that, like many other words (camasa, etc.), avyakta here means Vişnu and not prakrti.
With Madhva, however, the second topic begins with sūtra 1. 4. 9, and not with 1. 4. 8 as with Sankara. With Madhva the second topic is restricted to 1. 4. 9 and 1. 4. 10, and it alludes to a passage beginning vasante vasante jyotişā yaja, which is regarded by others as alluding to the Jyotistoma sacrifice; Madhva holds that the word jyotis here used does not refer to the Jyotiştoma sacrifice, but to Vişnu. The third topic with both Madhva and Sankara consists of sūtras 12, 13 and 14, and they both allude here to the same passage, viz., Brhad-äranyaka, iv. 4. 17; Sankara thinks that it refers to the five vāyus, not to the twenty-five categories of the Sāmkhya, but Madhva holds that it refers to Visnu. He has been called "five" (pañca-janāḥ), possibly on account of the existence of five important qualities, such as of seeing (cakṣustva), of life (prāņatva), etc. The fourth topic according to Sankara conveys the view that, though there are many apparently contradictory statements in the Upanişads, there is no dispute or contradiction regarding the nature of the creator. Madhva, however, holds that the topic purports to establish that all the names, such as ākāša, vāyu, etc., of things from which creation is said to have been made, refer to Vişnu. Madhva contends that the purport of the Samanvaya-sūtra (1. 1. 4) is that all words in the Upanişads refer to Vişnu and Vişnu alone, and it is in accordance with such a contention that these words (ākāśa, etc.), which seem to have a different meaning, should prove to refer to Vişņu and Vişnu alone. These proofs are, of course, almost always of a textual character. Thus, in support of this contention Madhva here quotes Brhad-aranyaka, III. 7. 12, etc. The fifth topic, consisting of 1. 4. 16 (1. 4. 15 according to Sankara), 23 (1. 4. 24 according to Sankara) according to Madhva, is to the effect that there is no difficulty in the fact that words which in the Upanişads are intended to mean Vişņu are seen to have in ordinary linguistic usage quite different meanings. Sankara, however, counts the topic from 1. 4. 15-18 and holds that it alludes to Kaušītaki Brāhmana, iv. 19, and that the being who is there sought to be known is not Jīva, but Iśvara; this is opposed by Vyāsa Yati in his
1 ajam ekam lohita-sukla-krsnam, etc. Svetāśvatara, iv. 5.
