Adhik. I (1-7) proves that that within which the heaven, the earth, &c.
are woven (Mu/nd/. Up. II, 2, 5) is Brahman.--Adhik. II (8, 9) shows
that the bhûman referred to in Ch. Up. VII, 23 is Brahman.--Adhik. III
(10-12) teaches that the Imperishable in which, according to B/ri/. 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 Pra/s/na Up. V, 5, is not the lower but the higher
Brahman.--According to Râmânuja the two alternatives are Brahman and
Brahmâ (jîvasamash/t/irûpoz/nd/âdhipatis /k/aturmukha/h/).--Adhik. V and
VI (comprising, according to /S/a@nkara, Sûtras l4-2l) discuss the
question whether the small ether within the lotus of the heart mentioned
in Ch. Up. VIII, 1 is the elemental ether or the individual soul or
Brahman; the last alternative being finally adopted. In favour of the
second alternative the pûrvapakshin pleads the two passages Ch. Up.
VIII, 3, 4 and VIII, 12, 3, about the serene being (samprasâda); for by
the latter the individual soul only can be understood, and in the
chapter, of which the latter passage forms part, there are ascribed to
it the same qualities (viz. freeness from sin, old age, death, &c.) that
were predicated in VIII, 1, of the small ether within the heart.--But
the reply to this is, that the second passage refers not to the
(ordinary) individual soul but to the soul in that state where its true
nature has become manifest, i.e. in which it is Brahman; so that the
subject of the passage is in reality not the so-called individual soul
but Brahman. And in the former of the two passages the soul is mentioned
not on its own account, but merely for the purpose of intimating that
the highest Self is the cause through which the individual soul
manifests itself in its true nature.--What Râmânuja understands by the
âvirbhâva of the soul will appear from the remarks on IV, 4.
The two next Sûtras (22, 23) constitute, according to /S/a@nkara, a new
adhikara/n/a (VII), proving that he 'after whom everything shines, by
whose light all this is lighted' (Ka/th/a Up. II, 5, 15) is not some
material luminous body, but Brahman itself.--According to Râmânuja the
two Sûtras do not start a new topic, but merely furnish some further
arguments strengthening the conclusion arrived at in the preceding
Sûtras.[9]
Adhik. VIII (24, 25) decides that the person of the size of a thumb
mentioned in Ka/th/a Up. II, 4, 12 is not the individual soul but
Brahman.
The two next adhikara/n/as are of the nature of a digression. The
passage about the a@ngush/th/amâtra was explained on the ground that the
human heart is of the size of a span; the question may then be asked
whether also such individuals as belong to other classes than mankind,
more particularly the Gods, are capable of the knowledge of Brahman: a
question finally answered in the affirmative.--This discussion leads in
its turn to several other digressions, among which the most important
one refers to the problem in what relation the different species of
beings stand to the words denoting them (Sûtra 28). In connexion
herewith /S/a@nkara treats of the nature of words (/s/abda), opposing
the opinion of the Mîmâ/m/saka Upavarsha, according to whom the word is
nothing but the aggregate of its constitutive letters, to the view of
the grammarians who teach that over and above the aggregate of the
letters there exists a super-sensuous entity called 'spho/t/a,' which is
the direct cause of the apprehension of the sense of a word (Adhik. IX;
Sûtras 26-33).
Adhik. X (34-38) explains that /S/ûdras are altogether disqualified for
Brahmavidyâ.
Sûtra 39 constitutes, according to /S/a@nkara, a new adhikara/n/a (XI),
proving that the prâ/n/a in which everything trembles, according to
/K/a/th/a Up. II, 6, 2, is Brahman.--According to Râmânuja the Sûtra
does not introduce a new topic but merely furnishes an additional reason
for the decision arrived at under Sûtras 24, 25, viz. that the
a@ngus/th/amâtra is Brahman. On this supposition, Sûtras 24-39 form one
adhikara/n/a in which 26-38 constitute a mere digression led up to by
the mention made of the heart in 25.--The a@ngus/th/mâtra is referred to
twice in the Ka/th/a Upanishad, once in the passage discussed (II, 4,
12), and once in II, 6, 17 ('the Person not larger than a thumb'). To
determine what is meant by the a@ngus/th/mâtra, Râmânuja says, we are
enabled by the passage II, 6, 2, 3, which is intermediate between the
two passages concerning the a@ngus/th/mâtra, and which clearly refers to
the highest Brahman, of which alone everything can be said to stand in
awe.
The next Sûtra (40) gives rise to a similar difference of opinion.
According to /S/a@nkara it constitutes by itself a new adhikara/n/a
(XII), proving that the 'light' (jyotis) mentioned in Ch. Up. VIII, 12,
3 is the highest Brahman.--According to Râmânuja the Sûtra continues the
preceding adhikara/n/a, and strengthens the conclusion arrived at by a
further argument, referring to Ka/th/a Up. II, 5, 15--a passage
intermediate between the two passages about the a@ngush/th/amâtra--which
speaks of a primary light that cannot mean anything but Brahman. The
Sûtra has in that case to be translated as follows: '(The
a@ngush/th/amâtra is Brahman) because (in a passage intervening between
the two) a light is seen to be mentioned (which can be Brahman only).'
The three last Sûtras of the pâda are, according to /S/a@nkara, to be
divided into two adhikara/n/as (XIII and XIV), Sûtra 41 deciding that
the ether which reveals names and forms (Ch. Up. VIII, 14) is not the
elemental ether but Brahman; and 42, 43 teaching that the vij/ñ/ânamaya,
'he who consists of knowledge,' of B/ri/. Up. IV, 3, 7 is not the
individual soul but Brahman.--According to Râmânuja the three Sûtras
make up one single adhikara/n/a discussing whether the Chandogya
Upanishad passage about the ether refers to Brahman or to the individual
soul in the state of release; the latter of these two alternatives being
suggested by the circumstance that the released soul is the subject of
the passage immediately preceding ('Shaking off all evil as a horse
shakes off his hair,' &c.). Sûtra 41 decides that 'the ether (is
Brahman) because the passage designates the nature of something else,'
&c. (i.e. of something other than the individual soul; other because to
the soul the revealing of names and forms cannot be ascribed, &c.)--But,
an objection is raised, does not more than one scriptural passage show
that the released soul and Brahman are identical, and is not therefore
the ether which reveals names and forms the soul as well as
Brahman?--(The two, Sûtra 42 replies, are different) 'because in the
states of deep sleep and departing (the highest Self) is designated as
different' (from the soul)--which point is proved by the same scriptural
passages which /S/a@nkara adduces;--and 'because such terms as Lord and
the like' cannot be applied to the individual soul (43). Reference is
made to IV, 4, 14, where all jagadvyâpâra is said to belong to the Lord
only, not to the soul even when in the state of release.