The prince hearing these words, deeply pondering on the outline of these principles, and reaching back to the influences produced by our former lives, again asked with further words:  “I have heard your very excellent system of wisdom, the principles very subtle and deep-reaching, from which I learn that because of not ‘letting go’ (by knowledge as a cause), we do not reach the end of the religious life; but by understanding nature in its involutions, then, you say, we obtain deliverance; I perceive this law of birth has also concealed in it another law as a germ; you say that the ‘I’ (i.e. the soul of Kapila) being rendered pure, forthwith there is true deliverance; but if we encounter a union of cause and effect, then there is a return to the trammels of birth; just as the germ in the seed, when earth, fire, water, and wind seem to have destroyed in it the principle of life, meeting with favorable concomitant circumstances will yet revive, without any evident cause, but because of desire; so those who have gained this supposed release, likewise keeping the idea of ‘I’ and living things, have in fact gained no final deliverance; in every condition, letting go the three classes and again reaching the three excellent qualities, because of the eternal existence of soul, by the subtle influences of that (influences resulting from the past), the heart lets go the idea of expedients, and obtains an almost endless duration of years.  This, you say, is true release; you say ’letting go the ground on which the idea of soul rests,’ that this frees us from ‘limited existence,’ and that the mass of people have not yet removed the idea of soul, and are therefore still in bondage.  But what is this letting go gunas (cords fettering the soul); if one is fettered by these gunas, how can there be release?  For guni (the object) and guna (the quality) in idea are different, but in substance one; if you say that you can remove the properties of a thing and leave the thing by arguing it to the end, this is not so.  If you remove heat from fire, then there is no such thing as fire, or if you remove surface from body, what body can remain?  Thus guna is as it were surface, remove this and there can be no guni.  So that this deliverance, spoken of before, must leave a body yet in bonds.  Again, you say that by clear knowledge you get rid of body; there is then such a thing as knowledge or the contrary; if you affirm the existence of clear knowledge, then there should be someone who possesses it (i.e. possesses this knowledge); if there be a possesor, how can there be deliverance from this personal ‘I’?  If you say there is no ‘knower,’ then who is it that is spoken of as ‘knowing’?  If there is knowledge and no person, then the subject of knowledge may be a stone or a log; moreover, to have clear knowledge of these minute causes of contamination and reject them thoroughly, these being so rejected, there must be an end, then, of the ‘doer.’  What Arada has declared cannot satisfy my heart.  This clear knowledge is not universal wisdom, I must go on and seek a better explanation.”