The so-called Bhagavatas are of opinion that the one holy (bhagavat) Vasudeva, whose nature is pure knowledge, is what really exists, and that he, dividing himself fourfold, appears in four forms (vyuha), as Vasudeva, Sa@nkarsha/n/a, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha.  Vasudeva denotes the highest Self, Sa@nkarsha/n/a the individual soul, Pradyumna the mind (manas), Aniruddha the principle of egoity (aha@nkara).  Of these four Vasudeva constitutes the ultimate causal essence, of which the three others are the effects.—­The believer after having worshipped Vasudeva for a hundred years by means of approach to the temple (abhigamana), procuring of things to be offered (upadana), oblation (ijya), recitation of prayers, &c. (svadhyaya), and devout meditation (yoga), passes beyond all affliction and reaches the highest Being.

Concerning this system we remark that we do not intend to controvert the doctrine that Naraya/n/a, who is higher than the Undeveloped, who is the highest Self, and the Self of all, reveals himself by dividing himself in multiple ways; for various scriptural passages, such as ’He is onefold, he is threefold’ (Ch.  Up.  VII, 26, 2), teach us that the highest Self appears in manifold forms.  Nor do we mean to object to the inculcation of unceasing concentration of mind on the highest Being which appears in the Bhagavata doctrine under the forms of reverential approach, &c.; for that we are to meditate on the Lord we know full well from Sm/ri/ti and Scripture.  We, however, must take exception to the doctrine that Sa@nkarsha/n/a springs from Vasudeva, Pradyumna from Sa@nkarsha/n/a, Aniruddha from Pradyumna.  It is not possible that from Vasudeva, i.e. the highest Self, there should originate Sa@nkarsha/n/a, i.e. the individual soul; for if such were the case, there would attach to the soul non-permanency, and all the other imperfections which belong to things originated.  And thence release, which consists in reaching the highest Being, could not take place; for the effect is absorbed only by entering into its cause.—­That the soul is not an originated thing, the teacher will prove later on (II, 3, 17).  For this reason the Bhagavata hypothesis is unacceptable.

43.  And (it is) not (observed that) the instrument is produced from the agent.

The Bhagavata hypothesis is to be rejected for that reason also, that observation never shows us an instrument, such as a hatchet and the like, to spring from an agent such as Devadatta, or any other workman.  But the Bhagavatas teach that from an agent, viz. the individual soul termed Sa@nkarsha/n/a, there springs its instrument, viz. the internal organ termed Pradyumna, and again from this offspring of the agent another instrument, viz. the aha@nkara termed Aniruddha.  Such doctrines cannot be settled without observed instances.  And we do not meet with any scriptural passage in their favour.

44.  Or (if) in consequence of the existence of knowledge, &c. (Vasudeva, &c. be taken as Lords), yet there is non-exclusion of that (i.e. the objection raised in Sutra 42).