4. (Nor) also the individual soul (pra/n/abh/ri/t).

Although to the cognitional (individual) Self the qualities of Selfhood and intelligence do belong, still omniscience and similar qualities do not belong to it as its knowledge is limited by its adjuncts; thus the individual soul also cannot be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c., for the same reason, i.e. on account of the terms not denoting it.—­Moreover, the attribute of forming the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, cannot properly be given to the individual soul because the latter is limited by certain adjuncts and therefore non-pervading (not omnipresent)[168].—­The special enunciation (of the individual soul) is caused by what follows[169].—­The individual soul is not to be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c. for the following reason also.

5.  On account of the declaration of difference.

The passage ‘Know him alone as the Self’ moreover implies a declaration of difference, viz. of the difference of the object of knowledge and the knower.  Here the individual soul as being that which is desirous of release is the knower, and consequently Brahman, which is denoted by the word ‘self’ and represented as the object of knowledge, is understood to be the abode of heaven, earth, and so on.—­For the following reason also the individual soul cannot be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c.

6.  On account of the subject-matter.

The highest Self constitutes the subject-matter (of the entire chapter), as we see from the passage, ’Sir, what is that through which, when it is known, everything else becomes known?’ (Mu.  Up.  I, 1, 3) in which the knowledge of everything is declared to be dependent on the knowledge of one thing.  For all this (i.e. the entire world) becomes known if Brahman the Self of all is known, not if only the individual soul is known.—­Another reason against the individual soul follows.

7.  And on account of the two conditions of standing and eating (of which the former is characteristic of the highest Lord, the latter of the individual soul).

With reference to that which is the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, the text says, ‘Two birds, inseparable friends,’ &c. (Mu.  Up.  III, 1, 1).  This passage describes the two states of mere standing, i.e. mere presence, and of eating, the clause, ‘One of them eats the sweet fruit,’ referring to the eating, i.e. the fruition of the results of works, and the clause, ‘The other one looks on without eating,’ describing the condition of mere inactive presence.  The two states described, viz. of mere presence on the one hand and of enjoyment on the other hand, show that the Lord and the individual soul are referred to.  Now there is room for this statement which represents the Lord as separate from the individual soul, only if the passage about the abode of heaven and earth likewise refers to the Lord; for in that