________________
INTRODUCTION.
XXXV
from the individual soul rests thereon that the former as free from all evil is not subject to the effects of works in the same way as the soul is 1.-Adhik. II (9, 10) decides that he to whom the Brahmans and Kshattriyas are but food (Katha Up. I, 2, 25) is the highest Self.--Adhik. III (11, 12) shows that the two entered into the cave (Katha Up. I, 3, I) are Brahman and the individual soul?.-Adhik. IV (13-17) shows that the person within the eye mentioned in Kh. Up. IV, 15, 1 is Brahman.-Adhik. V (18-20) shows that the ruler within (antaryamin) described in Bri. Up. III, 7, 3 is Brahman. Sûtra 20 clearly enounces the difference of the individual soul and the Lord; hence Sankara is obliged to remark that that difference is not real.-Adhik. VI (21-23) proves that that which cannot be seen, &c., mentioned in Mundaka Up. I, 1, 3 is Brahman.-Adhik. VII (24-32) shows that the atman vaisvanara of Kh. Up. V, 11, 6 is Brahman.
PÂDA III.
Adhik. I (1-7) proves that that within which the heaven, the earth, &c. are woven (Mund. Up. II, 2, 5) is Brahman.Adhik. II (8, 9) shows that the bhuman referred to in Kh. Up. VII, 23 is Brahman.-Adhik. III (10-12) teaches that the Imperishable in which, according to Bri. Up. III, 8, 8, the ether is woven is Brahman.-Adhik. IV (13) decides that the highest person who is to be meditated upon with the syllable Om, according to Prasna Up. V, 5, is not the
Givasya iva parasyâpi brahmanah sarîrântarvartitvam abhyupagatam ket tadvad eva sarirasambandhaprayuktasukbadukhopabhogaprâptir iti ken na, hetuvaisesbyât, na hi sarfrântarvartitvam eva sukhadukhopabhogahetuh api tu panyapa parûpakarmaparavasatvam tak kåpahatapâpmanah paramâtmano na sambhavati.
* The second interpretation given on pp. 184-5 of the Sanskrit text (beginning with apara aha) Deussen considers to be an interpolation, caused by the reference to the Paingi-upanishad in Sankara's comment on I, 3, 7 (p. 232). But there is no reason whatever for such an assumption. The passage on p. 332 shows that Sankara considered the explanation of the mantra given in the Paingi-upanishad worth quoting, and is in fact fully intelligible only in case of its having been quoted before by Sankara bimself. That the 'apara' quotes the Brihadaraxyaka not according to the Kanva text—to quote from which is Sankara's habit-but from the Madhyandina text, is duc just to the circumstance of his being an apara,' i.e. not Sankara.
C 2
Digitized by
Digitized by Google
