ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. li
is not to be interpreted figuratively, in as much as that Sat is spoken of as the Atman. The teaching in the Qihandogya-Upanishad (VI. 8. 7.) has in view the world which is made up of intelligent and non-intelligent things, and points out that the Sat is the Atman or the Self thereof ; and surely the non-intelligent Pradhdna cannot be the intelligent Atman. The omniscient Brahman alone can be the world's Atman, and can also see and think (pp. 334-336.). The third aphorism of the A dh ikarana gives another reason ~hy the Sat that is mentioned to be the cause of the world cannot be the material Pradhdna, and that reason is that it is taught in the context that he who is firmly devoted to that Sal obtains final release as a result of his devotion. What one worships here on earth determines what one attains finally ; and to attain the Pradhdna is not to obtain moksha, but it is to get into the bondage of samsdra. Indeed the Vcddnta is not so unkind as to impel us to get into this bondage (pp. 336- 337.). The fourth aphorism here assigns another reason why the causal Sat cannot be the Pradhdna ; and that reason is that Svetaketu, who was desirous of attain- ing moksha, is taught in the context that he is the same as the Sat, which certainly cannot mean that he was mere matter ; for, if he were the same as the Pradhdna, he could obtain no moksha, and the idea of his being the same as the Sat would deserve to be discarded. But it is not taught that it is to be so discarded (page 337.). The next aphorism gives the fifth reason why the causal Sat is not the Pradhdna; and in it it is pointed out that, if the Sat were the Pradhdna, there would then be the contradiction of the proposition enunciated in the context to the effect that, by knowing a certain single thing, all things become known. This arises out of the fact that
