The individual soul which is inquinated by the contact with its different limiting adjuncts, viz. body, senses, and mind (mano-buddhi), attains through the instrumentality of knowledge, meditation, and so on, a state of complete serenity, and thus enables itself, when passing at some future time out of the body, to become one with the highest Self; hence the initial statement in which it is represented as non-different from the highest Self.  This is the opinion of the teacher Au/d/ulomi.—­Thus Scripture says, ’That serene being arising from this body appears in its own form as soon as it has approached the highest light’ (Ch.  Up.  VIII, 12, 3).—­In another place Scripture intimates, by means of the simile of the rivers, that name and form abide in the individual soul, ’As the flowing rivers disappear in the sea, having lost their name and their form, thus a wise man freed from name and form goes to the divine Person who is greater than the great’ (Mu.  Up.  III, 2, 8).  I.e. as the rivers losing the names and forms abiding in them disappear in the sea, so the individual soul also losing the name and form abiding in it becomes united with the highest person.  That the latter half of the passage has the meaning here assigned to it, follows from the parallelism which we must assume to exist between the two members of the comparison[244].

22. (The initial statement is made) because (the highest Self) exists in the condition (of the individual soul); so Ka/s/ak/ri/tsna thinks.

Because the highest Self exists also in the condition of the individual soul, therefore, the teacher Ka/s/ak/ri/tsna thinks, the initial statement which aims at intimating the non-difference of the two is possible.  That the highest Self only is that which appears as the individual soul, is evident from the Brahma/n/a-passage, ’Let me enter into them with this living Self and evolve names and forms,’ and similar passages.  We have also mantras to the same effect, for instance, ’The wise one who, having produced all forms and made all names, sits calling the things by their names’ (Taitt.  Ar.  III, 12, 7)[245].  And where Scripture relates the creation of fire and the other elements, it does not at the same time relate a separate creation of the individual soul; we have therefore no right to look on the soul as a product of the highest Self, different from the latter.—­In the opinion of the teacher Ka/s/ak/ri/tsna the non-modified highest Lord himself is the individual soul, not anything else.  A/s/marathya, although meaning to say that the soul is not (absolutely) different from the highest Self, yet intimates by the expression, ’On account of the fulfilment of the promise’—­which declares a certain mutual dependence—­that there does exist a certain relation of cause and effect between the highest Self and the individual soul[246].  The opinion of Au/d/ulomi again clearly implies that the difference and non-difference of the two depend