The supporting of all things up to ether is the work of the highest Lord only.—­Why?—­On account of the command.—­For the sacred text speaks of a command (’By the command of that akshara, O Gargi, sun and moon stand apart!’ III, 8, 9), and command can be the work of the highest Lord only, not of the non-intelligent pradhana.  For non-intelligent causes such as clay and the like are not capable of command, with reference to their effects, such as jars and the like.

12.  And on account of (Scripture) separating (the akshara) from that whose nature is different (from Brahman).

Also on account of the reason stated in this Sutra Brahman only is to be considered as the Imperishable, and the supporting of all things up to ether is to be looked upon as the work of Brahman only, not of anything else.  The meaning of the Sutra is as follows.  Whatever things other than Brahman might possibly be thought to be denoted by the term ‘akshara,’ from the nature of all those things Scripture separates the akshara spoken of as the support of all things up to ether.  The scriptural passage alluded to is III, 8, 11, ’That akshara, O Gargi, is unseen but seeing, unheard but hearing, unperceived but perceiving, unknown but knowing.’  Here the designation of being unseen, &c. agrees indeed with the pradhana also, but not so the designation of seeing, &c., as the pradhana is non-intelligent.—­Nor can the word akshara denote the embodied soul with its limiting conditions, for the passage following on the one quoted declares that there is nothing different from the Self (’there is nothing that sees but it, nothing that hears but it, nothing that perceives but it, nothing that knows but it’); and, moreover, limiting conditions are expressly denied (of the akshara) in the passage, ’It is without eyes, without ears, without speech, without mind,’ &c. (III, 8, 8).  An embodied soul without limiting conditions does not exist[174].—­It is therefore certain beyond doubt that the Imperishable is nothing else but the highest Brahman.

13.  On account of his being designated as the object of sight (the highest Self is meant, and) the same (is meant in the passage speaking of the meditation on the highest person by means of the syllable Om).

(In Pra.  Up.  V, 2) the general topic of discussion is set forth in the words, ’O Satyakama, the syllable Om is the highest and also the other Brahman; therefore he who knows it arrives by the same means at one of the two.’  The text then goes on, ’Again, he who meditates with this syllable Om of three matras on the highest Person,’ &c.—­Here the doubt presents itself, whether the object of meditation referred to in the latter passage is the highest Brahman or the other Brahman; a doubt based on the former passage, according to which both are under discussion.