on difference of condition[247].  Of these three opinions we conclude that the one held by Ka/s/ak/ri/tsna accords with Scripture, because it agrees with what all the Vedanta-texts (so, for instance, the passage, ‘That art thou’) aim at inculcating.  Only on the opinion of Ka/s/ak/ri/tsna immortality can be viewed as the result of the knowledge of the soul; while it would be impossible to hold the same view if the soul were a modification (product) of the Self and as such liable to lose its existence by being merged in its causal substance.  For the same reason, name and form cannot abide in the soul (as was above attempted to prove by means of the simile of the rivers), but abide in the limiting adjunct and are ascribed to the soul itself in a figurative sense only.  For the same reason the origin of the souls from the highest Self, of which Scripture speaks in some places as analogous to the issuing of sparks from the fire, must be viewed as based only on the limiting adjuncts of the soul.

The last three Sutras have further to be interpreted so as to furnish replies to the second of the purvapakshin’s arguments, viz. that the B/ri/hadara/n/yaka passage represents as the object of sight the individual soul, because it declares that the great Being which is to be seen arises from out of these elements.  ’There is an indication of the fulfilment of the promise; so A/s/marathya thinks.’  The promise is made in the two passages, ‘When the Self is known, all this is known,’ and ‘All this is that Self.’  That the Self is everything, is proved by the declaration that the whole world of names, forms, and works springs from one being, and is merged in one being[248]; and by its being demonstrated, with the help of the similes of the drum, and so on, that effect and cause are non-different.  The fulfilment of the promise is, then, finally indicated by the text declaring that that great Being rises, in the form of the individual soul, from out of these elements; thus the teacher A/s/marathya thinks.  For if the soul and the highest Self are non-different, the promise that through the knowledge of one everything becomes known is capable of fulfilment.—­’Because the soul when it will depart is such; thus Au/d/ulomi thinks.’  The statement as to the non-difference of the soul and the Self (implied in the declaration that the great Being rises, &c.) is possible, because the soul when—­after having purified itself by knowledge, and so on—­it will depart from the body, is capable of becoming one with the highest Self.  This is Au/d/ulomi’s opinion.—­’Because it exists in the condition of the soul; thus Ka/s/ak/ri/tsna opines.’  Because the highest Self itself is that which appears as the individual soul, the statement as to the non-difference of the two is well-founded.  This is the view of the teacher Ka/s/ak/ri/tsna.