Brahman is the source, i.e. the cause of the great body of Scripture, consisting of the Rig-veda and other branches, which is supported by various disciplines (such as grammar, nyaya, pura/n/a, &c.); which lamp-like illuminates all things; which is itself all-knowing as it were.  For the origin of a body of Scripture possessing the quality of omniscience cannot be sought elsewhere but in omniscience itself.  It is generally understood that the man from whom some special body of doctrine referring to one province of knowledge only originates, as, for instance, grammar from Pa/n/ini possesses a more extensive knowledge than his work, comprehensive though it be; what idea, then, shall we have to form of the supreme omniscience and omnipotence of that great Being, which in sport as it were, easily as a man sends forth his breath, has produced the vast mass of holy texts known as the Rig-veda, &c., the mine of all knowledge, consisting of manifold branches, the cause of the distinction of all the different classes and conditions of gods, animals, and men!  See what Scripture says about him, ‘The Rig-veda, &c., have been breathed forth from that great Being’ (B/ri/.  Up.  II, 4, 10).

Or else we may interpret the Sutra to mean that Scripture consisting of the Rig-veda, &c., as described above, is the source or cause, i.e. the means of right knowledge through which we understand the nature of Brahman.  So that the sense would be:  through Scripture only as a means of knowledge Brahman is known to be the cause of the origin, &c., of the world.  The special scriptural passage meant has been quoted under the preceding Sutra ‘from which these beings are born,’ &c.—­But as the preceding Sutra already has pointed out a text showing that Scripture is the source of Brahman, of what use then is the present Sutra?—­The words of the preceding Sutra, we reply, did not clearly indicate the scriptural passage, and room was thus left for the suspicion that the origin, &c., of the world were adduced merely as determining an inference (independent of Scripture).  To obviate this suspicion the Sutra under discussion has been propounded.

But, again, how can it be said that Scripture is the means of knowing Brahman?  Since it has been declared that Scripture aims at action (according to the Purva Mima/m/sa Sutra I, 2, 1, ’As the purport of Scripture is action, those scriptural passages whose purport is not action are purportless’), the Vedanta-passages whose purport is not action are purportless.  Or else if they are to have some sense, they must either, by manifesting the agent, the divinity or the fruit of the action, form supplements to the passages enjoining actions, or serve the purpose of themselves enjoining a new class of actions, such as devout meditation and the like.  For the Veda cannot possibly aim at conveying information regarding the nature of accomplished substances, since the latter are the objects of perception