one, because the sun is apprehended in the water erroneously only while the antaryamin really abides within all things, and therefore must be viewed as sharing their defects (19); we reply that what the simile means to negative is merely that Brahman should, owing to its inherence in many places, participate in the increase, decrease, and so on, of its abodes.  On this view both similes are appropriate (20).—­Analogous similes we observe to be employed in ordinary life, as when we compare a man to a lion (21).

Sutras 22-30 constitute, according to Sa@nkara, a new adhikara/n/a (VI), whose object it is to show that the clause ‘not so, not so’ (neti neti; B/ri/hadar) negatives, not Brahman itself, but only the two forms of Brahman described in the preceding part of the chapter.  Sutras 23-26 further dwell on Brahman being in reality devoid of all distinctive attributes which are altogether due to the upadhis.  The last four Sutras return to the question how, Brahman being one only, the souls are in so many places spoken of as different from it, and, two explanatory hypotheses having been rejected, the conclusion is arrived at that all difference is unreal, due to fictitious limiting adjuncts.

According to Ramanuja, Sutras 22 ff. continue the discussion started in Sutra 11.  How, the question is asked, can the ubhayali@ngatva of Brahman be maintained considering that the ‘not so, not so’ of the B/ri/hadara/n/yaka denies of Brahman all the previously mentioned modes (prakara), so that it can only be called that which is (sanmatra)?—­The reply given in Sutra 22 is that ‘not so, not so’ does not deny of Brahman the distinctive qualities or modes declared previously (for it would be senseless at first to teach them, and finally to deny them again[16]), but merely denies the prak/ri/taitavattva, the previously stated limited nature of Brahman, i.e. it denies that Brahman possesses only the previously mentioned qualifications.  With this agrees, that subsequently to ‘neti neti’ Scripture itself enunciates further qualifications of Brahman.  That Brahman as stated above is not the object of any other means of proof but Scripture is confirmed in Sutra 23, ’Scripture declares Brahman to be the non-manifest.’—­And the intuition (sakshatkkara) of Brahman ensues only upon its sa/m/radhana, i.e. upon its being perfectly pleased by the worshipper’s devotion, as Scripture and Sm/ri/ti declare (24).—­That this interpretation of ‘neti’ is the right one, is likewise shown by the fact that in the same way as praka/s/a, luminousness, j/n/ana, intelligence, &c., so also the quality of being differentiated by the world (prapa/nk/avsish/t/ata) is intuited as non-different, i.e. as likewise qualifying Brahman; and that praka/s/a, and so on, characterise Brahman, is known through repeated practice (on the part of rishis like Vamadeva) in the work of sa/m/radhana mentioned before (25).—­For all these reasons Brahman is connected with the infinite,