Brahman characterised by qualities necessitates an investigation whether certain Vedic texts of prima facie doubtful import set forth the lower Brahman as the object of devout meditation, or the higher Brahman as the object of true knowledge.  But that such an investigation is actually carried on in the remaining portion of the first adhyaya, appears neither from the wording of the Sutras nor even from Sa@nkara’s own treatment of the Vedic texts referred to in the Sutras.  In I, 1, 20, for instance, the question is raised whether the golden man within the sphere of the sun, with golden hair and beard and lotus-coloured eyes—­of whom the Chandogya Upanishad speaks in 1, 6, 6—­is an individual soul abiding within the sun or the highest Lord. Sa@nkara’s answer is that the passage refers to the Lord, who, for the gratification of his worshippers, manifests himself in a bodily shape made of Maya.  So that according to Sa@nkara himself the alternative lies between the sagu/n/a Brahman and some particular individual soul, not between the sagu/n/a Brahman and the nirgu/n/a Brahman.

Adhik.  VI (12-19) raises the question whether the anandamaya, mentioned in Taittiriya Upanishad II, 5, is merely a transmigrating individual soul or the highest Self. Sa@nkara begins by explaining the Sutras on the latter supposition—­and the text of the Sutras is certainly in favour of that interpretation—­gives, however, finally the preference to a different and exceedingly forced explanation according to which the Sutras teach that the anandamaya is not Brahman, since the Upanishad expressly says that Brahman is the tail or support of the anandamaya[3].—­Ramanuja’s interpretation of Adhikara/n/a VI, although not agreeing in all particulars with the former explanation of Sa@nkara, yet is at one with it in the chief point, viz. that the anandamaya is Brahman.  It further deserves notice that, while Sa@nkara looks on Adhik.  VI as the first of a series of interpretatory discussions, all of which treat the question whether certain Vedic passages refer to Brahman or not, Ramanuja separates the adhikara/n/a from the subsequent part of the pada and connects it with what had preceded.  In Adhik.  V it had been shown that Brahman cannot be identified with the pradhana; Adhik.  VI shows that it is different from the individual soul, and the proof of the fundamental position of the system is thereby completed[4].—­Adhik.  VII (20, 21) demonstrates that the golden person seen within the sun and the person seen within the eye, mentioned in Ch.  Up.  I, 6, are not some individual soul of high eminence, but the supreme Brahman.—­Adhik.  VIII (22) teaches that by the ether from which, according to Ch.  Up.  I, 9, all beings originate, not the elemental ether has to be understood but the highest Brahman.—­Adhik.  IX (23).  The pra/n/a also mentioned in Ch.  Up.  I, ii, 5 denotes the highest Brahman[5]—­Adhik.  X (24-27) teaches that the light spoken of in Ch.  Up.  III, 13, 7 is not the ordinary physical light but the highest Brahman[6].—­Adhik.  XI (28-31) decides that the pra/n/a mentioned in Kau.  Up.  III, 2 is Brahman.