[Footnote 179:  So that the interpretation of the purvapakshin cannot be objected to on the ground of its involving the comparison of a thing to itself.]

[Footnote 180:  So that no objection can be raised on the ground that heaven and earth cannot be contained in the small ether of the heart.]

[Footnote 181:  Viz. of that which is within it.  Ananda Giri proposes two explanations:  na keti, paravi/s/esha/n/atvenety atra paro daharaka/s/a upadanat tasminn iti saptamyanta-ta/kkh/abdasyeti sesha/h/.  Yadva para/s/abdo s nta/h/sthavastuvishayas tadvi/s/esha/n/alvena tasminn iti daharaka/s/asyokter ity artha/h/.  Ta/kkh/abdasya samnik/ri/sh/t/anvayayoge viprak/ri/sh/t/anvayasya jaghanyatvad aka/s/antargata/m/ dhyeyam iti bhava/h/.]

[Footnote 182:  A vakyabheda—­split of the sentence—­takes place according to the Mimam/s/a when one and the same sentence contains two new statements which are different.]

[Footnote 183:  While the explanation of Brahman by jiva would compel us to assume that the word Brahman secondarily denotes the individual soul.]

[Footnote 184:  Upalabdher adhish/th/anam brahma/n/a deha ishyate.  Tenasadhara/n/atvena deho brahmapuram bhavet.  Bhamati.]

[Footnote 185:  I.e.  Brahma, the lower Brahman.]

[Footnote 186:  The masculine ‘avirbhutasvarupa/h/’ qualifies the substantive jiva/h/ which has to be supplied.  Properly speaking the jiva whose true nature has become manifest, i.e. which has become Brahman, is no longer jiva; hence the explanatory statement that the term jiva is used with reference to what the jiva was before it became Brahman.]

[Footnote 187:  To state another reason showing that the first and second chapters of Prajapati’s instruction refer to the same subject.]

[Footnote 188:  I.e. of whom cognition is not a mere attribute.]

[Footnote 189:  Although in reality there is no such thing as an individual soul.]

[Footnote 190:  Nanu jivabrahma/n/or aikyam na kvapi sutrakaro mukhato vadati kim tu sarvatra bhedam eva, ato naikyam ish/t/am tatraha pratipadyam tv iti.]

[Footnote 191:  This last sentence is directed against the possible objection that ‘sabda,’ which the Sutra brings forward as an argument in favour of the highest Lord being meant, has the sense of ‘sentence’ (vakya), and is therefore of less force than li@nga, i.e. indicatory or inferential mark which is represented in our passage by the a@ngush/th/amatrata of the purusha, and favours the jiva interpretation. Sabda, the text remarks, here means sruti, i.e. direct enunciation, and sruti ranks, as a means of proof, higher than li@nga.]

[Footnote 192:  I.e. men belonging to the three upper castes.]