and the other means of proof (which give sufficient information about them; while it is the recognised object of the Veda to give information about what is not known from other sources).  And if it did give such information, it would not be connected with things to be desired or shunned, and thus be of no use to man.  For this very reason Vedic passages, such as ‘he howled, &c.,’ which at first sight appear purposeless, are shown to have a purpose in so far as they glorify certain actions (cp.  Pu.  Mi.  Su.  I, 2, 7, ’Because they stand in syntactical connection with the injunctions, therefore their purport is to glorify the injunctions’).  In the same way mantras are shown to stand in a certain relation to actions, in so far as they notify the actions themselves and the means by which they are accomplished.  So, for instance, the mantra, ‘For strength thee (I cut;’ which accompanies the cutting of a branch employed in the dar/s/apur/n/amasa-sacrifice).  In short, no Vedic passage is seen or can be proved to have a meaning but in so far as it is related to an action.  And injunctions which are defined as having actions for their objects cannot refer to accomplished existent things.  Hence we maintain that the Vedanta-texts are mere supplements to those passages which enjoin actions; notifying the agents, divinities, and results connected with those actions.  Or else, if this be not admitted, on the ground of its involving the introduction of a subject-matter foreign to the Vedanta-texts (viz. the subject-matter of the Karmaka/nd/a of the Veda), we must admit (the second of the two alternatives proposed above viz.) that the Vedanta-texts refer to devout meditation (upasana) and similar actions which are mentioned in those very (Vedanta) texts.  The result of all of which is that Scripture is not the source of Brahman.

To this argumentation the Sutrakara replies as follows: 

4.  But that (Brahman is to be known from Scripture), because it is connected (with the Vedanta-texts) as their purport.

The word ‘but’ is meant to rebut the purva-paksha (the prima facie view as urged above).  That all-knowing, all-powerful Brahman, which is the cause of the origin, subsistence, and dissolution of the world, is known from the Vedanta-part of Scripture.  How?  Because in all the Vedanta-texts the sentences construe in so far as they have for their purport, as they intimate that matter (viz.  Brahman).  Compare, for instance, ‘Being only this was in the beginning, one, without a second’ (Ch.  Up.  VI, 2, 1); ‘In the beginning all this was Self, one only’ (Ait.  Ar.  II, 4, 1, 1); ’This is the Brahman without cause and without effect, without anything inside or outside; this Self is Brahman perceiving everything’ (B/ri/.  Up.  II, 5, 19); ‘That immortal Brahman is before’ (Mu.  Up.  II, 2, 11); and similar passages.  If the words contained in these passages have once been determined to refer to Brahman, and their purport