of the Sutra, according to which the latter has nothing whatever to do with the eventual non-distinction of enjoying souls and objects to be enjoyed.  Translated according to Ramanuja’s view, the Sutra runs as follows:  ’If non-distinction (of the Lord and the individual souls) is said to result from the circumstance of (the Lord himself) becoming an enjoyer (a soul), we refute this objection by instances from every-day experience.’  That is to say:  If it be maintained that from our doctrine previously expounded, according to which this world springs from the Lord and constitutes his body, it follows that the Lord, as an embodied being, is not essentially different from other souls, and subject to fruition as they are; we reply that the Lord’s having a body does not involve his being subject to fruition, not any more than in ordinary life a king, although himself an embodied being, is affected by the experiences of pleasure and pain which his servants have to undergo.—­The construction which Ramanuja puts on the Sutra is not repugnant either to the words of the Sutra or to the context in which the latter stands, and that it rests on earlier authority appears from a quotation made by Ramanuja from the Drami/d/abhashyakara[13].

Adhik.  VI (14-20) treats of the non-difference of the effect from the cause; a Vedanta doctrine which is defended by its adherents against the Vai/s/eshikas according to whom the effect is something different from the cause.—­The divergent views of Sa@nkara and Ramanuja on this important point have been sufficiently illustrated in the general sketch of the two systems.

Adhik.  VII (21-23) refutes the objection that, from the Vedic passages insisting on the identity of the Lord and the individual soul, it follows that the Lord must be like the individual soul the cause of evil, and that hence the entire doctrine of an all-powerful and all-wise Lord being the cause of the world has to be rejected.  For, the Sutrakira remarks, the creative principle of the world is additional to, i.e. other than, the individual soul, the difference of the two being distinctly declared by Scripture.—­The way in which the three Sutras constituting this adhikara/n/a are treated by Sa@nkara on the one hand and Ramanuja on the other is characteristic.  Ramanuja throughout simply follows the words of the Sutras, of which Sutra 21 formulates the objection based on such texts as ‘Thou art that,’ while Sutra 22 replies that Brahman is different from the soul, since that is expressly declared by Scripture. Sa@nkara, on the other hand, sees himself obliged to add that the difference of the two, plainly maintained in Sutra 22, is not real, but due to the soul’s fictitious limiting adjuncts.

Adhik.  VIII (24, 25) shows that Brahman, although destitute of material and instruments of action, may yet produce the world, just as gods by their mere power create palaces, animals, and the like, and as milk by itself turns into curds.