as by Sa@nkara; but owing to the former’s statement of the subject-matter of the whole adhikara/n/a they connect themselves more intimately with the preceding Sutras than is possible on Sa@nkara’s interpretation.  In Sutra 6 (su/k/aka/s/ ka hi) Ramanuja sees a deduction from the siddhanta of the adhikara/n/a, ’Because the images of a dream are produced by the highest Lord himself, therefore they have prophetic significance.’

Adhik.  II teaches that in the state of deep dreamless sleep the soul abides within Brahman in the heart.

Adhik.  III (9) expounds the reasons entitling us to assume that the soul awakening from sleep is the same that went to sleep.—­Adhik.  IV (9) explains the nature of a swoon.

Adhik.  V (11-21) is, according to Sa@nkara, taken up with the question as to the nature of the highest Brahman in which the individual soul is merged in the state of deep sleep.  Sutra 11 declares that twofold characteristics (viz. absence and presence of distinctive attributes, nirvi/s/eshatva and savi/s/eshatva) cannot belong to the highest Brahman even through its stations, i.e. its limiting adjuncts; since all passages which aim at setting forth Brahman’s nature declare it to be destitute of all distinctive attributes.—­The fact, Sutra 12 continues, that in many passages Brahman is spoken of as possessing distinctive attributes is of no relevancy, since wherever there are mentioned limiting adjuncts, on which all distinction depends, it is specially stated that Brahman in itself is free from all diversity; and—­Sutra 13 adds—­in some places the assumption of diversity is specially objected to.—­That Brahman is devoid of all form (Sutra 14), is the pre-eminent meaning of all Vedanta-texts setting forth Brahman’s nature.—­That Brahman is represented as having different forms, as it were, is due to its connexion with its (unreal) limiting adjuncts; just as the light of the sun appears straight or crooked, as it were, according to the nature of the things he illuminates (15).—­The B/ri/hadara/n/yaka expressly declares that Brahman is one uniform mass of intelligence (16); and the same is taught in other scriptural passages and in Sm/ri/ti (l7).—­At the unreality of the apparent manifoldness of the Self, caused by the limiting adjuncts, aim those scriptural passages in which the Self is compared to the sun, which remains one although his reflections on the surface of the water are many (18).—­Nor must the objection be raised that that comparison is unsuitable, because the Self is not material like the sun, and there are no real upadhis separate from it as the water is from the sun; for the comparison merely means to indicate that, as the reflected image of the sun participates in the changes, increase, decrease, &c., which the water undergoes while the sun himself remains unaffected thereby, so the true Self is not affected by the attributes of the upadhis, while, in so far as it is limited by the latter, it is affected by them as it were (19, 20).—­That the Self is within the upadhis, Scripture declares (21).