________________
566
VEDÂNTA-SOTRAS.
the Satra is meant to point out that that doctrine, moreover, is in conflict with texts such as thinking himself to be different from the Mover' (Svet. Up. I, 0); 'there are two unborn ones, one a ruler, the other not a ruler '(I, 9); of those two one eats the sweet fruit' (V, 6); and others. For even if difference is due to upâdhis which are the figment of Nescience, there is no escaping the conclusion that the spheres of experience must be mixed up, since the theory admits that the thing itself with which all the limiting adjuncts connect themselves is one only.
But this cannot be urged against the theory of the individual soul being Brahman in so far as determined by real limiting adjuncts; for on that view we may explain the difference of spheres of experience as due to the beginningless adrishtas which are the cause of the difference of the limiting adjuncts !—To this the next Sutra replies.
50. On account of the non-determination of the adrishtas.
As the adrishtas also which are the causes of the series of upådhis have for their substrate Brahman itself, there is no reason for their definite allotment (to definite individual souls), and hence again there is no definite separation of the spheres of experience. For the limiting adjuncts as well as the adrishtas cannot by their connexion with Brahman split up Brahman itself which is essentially one.
51. And it is thus also in the case of purposes and so on.
For the same reason there can be no definite restriction in the case of purposes and so on which are the causes of the different adrishtas. (For they also cannot introduce plurality into Brahman that is fundamentally one.)
52. Should it be said (that that is possible) owing to the difference of place; we deny this, on account of (all upâdhis) being within (all places).
Although Brahman is one only and not to be split by the several limiting adjuncts with which it is connected,
Digitized by
Digitized by Google
