evolve names and forms’ (Ch.  Up.  VI, 3, 2).  The intransitive expression ‘It developed itself’ (vyakriyata; it became developed) is to be viewed as having reference to the ease with which the real agent, viz. the Lord, brought about that evolution.  Analogously it is said, for instance, that ’the cornfield reaps itself’ (i.e. is reaped with the greatest ease), although there is the reaper sufficient (to account for the work being done).—­Or else we may look on the form vyakriyata as having reference to a necessarily implied agent; as is the case in such phrases as ’the village is being approached’ (where we necessarily have to supply ’by Devadatta or somebody else’).

16. (He whose work is this is Brahman), because (the ‘work’) denotes the world.

In the Kaushitaki-brahma/n/a, in the dialogue of Balaki and Ajata/s/atru, we read, ’O Balaki, he who is the maker of those persons, he of whom this is the work, he alone is to be known’ (Kau.  Up.  IV, 19).  The question here arises whether what is here inculcated as the object of knowledge is the individual soul or the chief vital air or the highest Self.

The purvapakshin maintains that the vital air is meant.  For, in the first place, he says, the clause ‘of whom this is the work’ points to the activity of motion, and that activity rests on the vital air.  In the second place, we meet with the word ‘pra/n/a’ in a complementary passage (’Then he becomes one with that pra/n/a alone’), and that word is well known to denote the vital air.  In the third place, pra/n/a is the maker of all the persons, the person in the sun, the person in the moon, &c., who in the preceding part of the dialogue had been enumerated by Balaki; for that the sun and the other divinities are mere differentiations of pra/n/a we know from another scriptural passage, viz.  ’Who is that one god (in whom all the other gods are contained)?  Pra/n/a and he is Brahman, and they call him That’ (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 9, 9).—­Or else, the purvapakshin continues, the passage under discussion represents the individual soul as the object of knowledge.  For of the soul also it can be said that ‘this is the work,’ if we understand by ‘this’ all meritorious and non-meritorious actions; and the soul also, in so far as it is the enjoyer, can be viewed as the maker of the persons enumerated in so far as they are instrumental to the soul’s fruition.  The complementary passage, moreover, contains an inferential mark of the individual soul.  For Ajata/s/atru, in order to instruct Balaki about the ‘maker of the persons’ who had been proposed as the object of knowledge, calls a sleeping man by various names and convinces Balaki, by the circumstance that the sleeper does not hear his shouts, that the pra/n/a and so on are not the enjoyers; he thereupon wakes the sleeping man by pushing him with his stick, and so makes Balaki comprehend that the being capable of fruition is the individual soul which is distinct