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, yet the separation of the spheres
of enjoyment is not impossible since the places of Brahman which are
connected with the upâdhis are distinct.--This the Sûtra negatives on
the ground that, as the upâdhis move here and there and hence all places
enter into connexion with all upâdhis, the mixing up of spheres of
enjoyment cannot be avoided. And even if the upâdhis were connected with
different places, the pain connected with some particular place would
affect the whole of Brahman which is one only.--The two Sûtras II, 3, 32
and 37 have stated an objection against those who, without taking their
stand on the Veda, held the view of an all-pervading soul. The Sûtras II,
3, 50 and ff., on the other hand, combat the view of those who, while
basing their doctrine on the Veda, teach the absolute unity of the Self.--
Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the part.'