Good so far, a Sa@nkhya opponent resumes.  The attributes, however, of not being seen, &c., belong also to the pradhana assumed by the Sa@nkhya-sm/ri/ti, which is acknowledged to be devoid of form and other sensible qualities.  For their Sm/ri/ti says, ’Undiscoverable, unknowable, as if wholly in sleep’ (Manu I, 5).  To this pradhana also the attribute of rulership belongs, as it is the cause of all effects.  Therefore the internal ruler may be understood to denote the pradhana.  The pradhana has, indeed, been set aside already by the Sutra I, 1, 5, but we bring it forward again, because we find that attributes belonging to it, such as not being seen and the like, are mentioned in Scripture.

To this argumentation the Sutrakara replies that the word ’internal ruler’ cannot denote the pradhana, because qualities not belonging to the latter are stated.  For, although the pradhana may be spoken of as not being seen, &c, it cannot be spoken of as seeing, since the Sa@nkhyas admit it to be non-intelligent.  But the scriptural passage which forms the complement to the passage about the internal ruler (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 7, 23) says expressly, ’Unseen but seeing, unheard but hearing, unperceived but perceiving, unknown but knowing.’—­And Selfhood also cannot belong to the pradhana.

Well, then, if the term ‘internal ruler’ cannot be admitted to denote the pradhana, because the latter is neither a Self nor seeing; let us suppose it to denote the embodied (individual) soul, which is intelligent, and therefore hears, sees, perceives, knows; which is internal (pratya/nk/), and therefore of the nature of Self; and which is immortal, because it is able to enjoy the fruits of its good and evil actions.  It is, moreover, a settled matter that the attributes of not being seen, &c., belong to the embodied soul, because the agent of an action, such as seeing, cannot at the same time be the object of the action.  This is declared in scriptural passages also, as, for instance (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 4, 2), ‘Thou couldst not see the seer of sight.’  The individual soul is, moreover, capable of inwardly ruling the complex of the organs of action, as it is the enjoyer.  Therefore the internal ruler is the embodied soul.—­To this reasoning the following Sutra replies.

20.  And the embodied soul (also cannot be understood by the internal ruler), for both also (i.e. both recensions of the B/ri/had Ara/n/yaka) speak of it as different (from the internal ruler).

The word ‘not’ (in the Sutra) has to be supplied from the preceding Sutra.  Although the attributes of seeing, &c., belong to the individual soul, still as the soul is limited by its adjuncts, as the ether is by a jar, it is not capable of dwelling completely within the earth and the other beings mentioned, and to rule them.  Moreover, the followers of both sakhas, i.e. the Ka/n/vas as well as the Madhyandinas, speak in their texts of the individual soul as different from the internal ruler, viz.