the preceding ones whose task it is to lay down the fundamental propositions regarding Brahman’s nature.—­The remaining adhikara/n/as of the first pada follow the order of passages in the Chandogya Upanishad, and therefore call for no remark; with the exception of the last adhikara/n/a, which refers to a Kaushitaki passage, for whose being introduced in this place I am not able to account.—­The first adhikara/n/a of the second pada returns to the Chandogya Upanishad.  The second one treats of a passage in the Ka/th/a Upanishad where a being is referred to which eats everything.  The reason why that passage is introduced in this place seems to be correctly assigned in the Sri-bhashya, which remarks that, as in the preceding Sutra it had been argued that the highest Self is not an enjoyer, a doubt arises whether by that being which eats everything the highest Self can be meant[10]—­The third adhikara/n/a again, whose topic is the ‘two entered into the cave’ (Ka/th/a Up.  I, 3, 1), appears, as Ramanuja remarks, to come in at this place owing to the preceding adhikara/n/a; for if it could not be proved that one of the two is the highest Self, a doubt would attach to the explanation given above of the ‘eater’ since the ‘two entered into the cave,’ and the ‘eater’ stand under the same prakara/n/a, and must therefore be held to refer to the same matter.—­The fourth adhikara/n/a is again occupied with a Chandogya passage.—­The fifth adhikara/n/a, whose topic is the Ruler within (antaryamin), manifestly owes its place, as remarked by Ramanuja also, to the fact that the Vedic passage treated had been employed in the preceding adhikara/n/a (I, 2, 14) for the purpose of strengthening the argument [11].—­The sixth adhikara/n/a, again, which discusses ’that which is not seen’ (adre/s/ya; Mu/nd/.  Up.  I, 1, 6), is clearly introduced in this place because in the preceding adhikara/n/a it had been said that ad/ri/sh/t/a, &c. denote the highest Self;—­The reasons to which the last adhikara/n/a of the second pada and the first and third adhikara/n/as of the third pada owe their places are not apparent (the second adhikara/n/a of the third pada treats of a Chandogya passage).  The introduction, on the other hand, of the passage from the Pra/s/na Upanishad treating of the akshara.  O/m/kara is clearly due to the circumstance that an akshara, of a different nature, had been discussed in the preceding adhikara/n/a.—­The fifth and sixth adhikara/n/as investigate Chandogya passages.—­The two next Sutras (22, 23) are, as remarked above, considered by Sa@nkara to constitute a new adhikara/n/a treating of the ‘being after which everything shines’ (Mu/nd/.  Up.  II, 2, 10); while Ramanuja looks on them as continuing the sixth adhikara/n/a.  There is one circumstance which renders it at any rate probable that Ramanuja, and not Sa@nkara, here hits the intention of the author of the Sutras.  The general rule in the first three padas is that, wherever a new Vedic passage is meant to be introduced, the subject