is that doubt—­; this is the third of my boons.’—­If we therefore supposed that the passage, ’That which thou seest as neither this nor that,’ &c., raises a new question, we should thereby assume a question in excess of the number of boons granted, and thus destroy the connexion of the entire Upanishad.—­But—­the Sa@nkhya will perhaps interpose—­it must needs be admitted that the passage last quoted does raise a new question, because the subject enquired about is a new one.  For the former question refers to the individual soul, as we conclude from the doubt expressed in the words, ’There is that doubt when a man is dead—­some saying, he is; others, he is not.’  Now this individual soul, as having definite attributes, &c., cannot constitute the object of a question expressed in such terms as, ’This which thou seest as neither this nor that,’ &c.; the highest Self, on the other hand, may be enquired about in such terms, since it is above all attributes.  The appearance of the two questions is, moreover, seen to differ; for the former question refers to existence and non-existence, while the latter is concerned with an entity raised above all definite attributes, &c.  Hence we conclude that the latter question, in which the former one cannot be recognised, is a separate question, and does not merely resume the subject of the former one.—­All this argumentation is not valid, we reply, since we maintain the unity of the highest Self and the individual Self.  If the individual Self were different from the highest Self, we should have to declare that the two questions are separate independent questions, but the two are not really different, as we know from other scriptural passages, such as ‘Thou art that.’  And in the Upanishad under discussion also the answer to the question, ’That which thou seest as neither this nor that,’ viz. the passage, ’The knowing Self is not born, it dies not’—­which answer is given in the form of a denial of the birth and death of the Self-clearly shows that the embodied Self and the highest Self are non-different.  For there is room for a denial of something only when that something is possible, and the possibility of birth and death exists in the embodied Self only, since it is connected with the body, but not in the highest Self.—­There is, moreover, another passage conveying the same meaning, viz.  II, 4, 4, ’The wise when he knows that that by which he perceives all objects in sleep or in waking, is the great omnipresent Self, grieves no more.’  This passage makes the cessation of all grief dependent on the knowledge of the individual Self, in so far as it possesses the qualities of greatness and omnipresence, and thereby declares that the individual Self is not different from the highest Self.  For that the cessation of all sorrow is consequent on the knowledge of the highest Self, is a recognised Vedanta tenet.—­There is another passage also warning men not to look on the individual Self and the highest Self as different