existent things); for by the comprehension of the Self a stop is put to all false knowledge, which is the cause of transmigration, and thus a purpose is established which renders the passages relative to Brahman equal to those passages which give information about things instrumental to actions.  Moreover, there are found (even in that part of the Veda which treats of actions) such passages as ‘a Brahma/n/a is not to be killed,’ which teach abstinence from certain actions.  Now abstinence from action is neither action nor instrumental to action.  If, therefore, the tenet that all those passages which do not express action are devoid of purport were insisted on, it would follow that all such passages as the one quoted, which teach abstinence from action, are devoid of purport—­a consequence which is of course unacceptable.  Nor, again, can the connexion in which the word ‘not’ stands with the action expressed by the verb ’is to be killed’—­which action is naturally established[83]—­be used as a reason for assuming that ‘not’ denotes an action non-established elsewhere[84], different from the state of mere passivity implied in the abstinence from the act of killing.  For the peculiar function of the particle ‘not’ is to intimate the idea of the non-existence of that with which it is connected, and the conception of the non-existence (of something to be done) is the cause of the state of passivity. (Nor can it be objected that, as soon as that momentary idea has passed away, the state of passivity will again make room for activity; for) that idea itself passes away (only after having completely destroyed the natural impulse prompting to the murder of a Brahma/n/a, &c., just as a fire is extinguished only after having completely consumed its fuel).  Hence we are of opinion that the aim of prohibitory passages, such as ’a Brahma/n/a is not to be killed,’ is a merely passive state, consisting in the abstinence from some possible action; excepting some special cases, such as the so-called Prajapati-vow, &c.[85] Hence the charge of want of purpose is to be considered as referring (not to the Vedanta-passages, but only) to such statements about existent things as are of the nature of legends and the like, and do not serve any purpose of man.

The allegation that a mere statement about an actually existent thing not connected with an injunction of something to be done, is purposeless (as, for instance, the statement that the earth contains seven dvipas) has already been refuted on the ground that a purpose is seen to exist in some such statements, as, for instance, ’this is not a snake, but a rope.’—­But how about the objection raised above that the information about Brahman cannot be held to have a purpose in the same way as the statement about a rope has one, because a man even after having heard about Brahman continues to belong to this transmigratory world?—­We reply as follows:  It is impossible to show that a man who has once understood Brahman to be the Self,