[Footnote 244:  Bhamati:  The individual soul is absolutely different from the highest Self; it is inquinated by the contact with its different limiting adjuncts.  But it is spoken of, in the Upanishad, as non-different from the highest Self because after having purified itself by means of knowledge and meditation it may pass out of the body and become one with the highest Self.  The text of the Upanishad thus transfers a future state of non-difference to that time when difference actually exists.  Compare the saying of the Pa/nk/aratrikas:  ’Up to the moment of emancipation being reached the soul and the highest Self are different.  But the emancipated soul is no longer different from the highest Self, since there is no further cause of difference.’—­The technical name of the doctrine advocated by Au/d/ulomi is satyabhedavada.]

[Footnote 245:  Compare the note to the same mantra as quoted above under I, 1, 11.]

[Footnote 246:  And not the relation of absolute identity.]

[Footnote 247:  I.e. upon the state of emancipation and its absence.]

[Footnote 248:  Upapadita/m/ keti, sarvasyatmamatratvam iti sesha/h/.  Upapadanaprakara/m/ su/k/ayati eketi.  Sa yathardrendhanagner ityadinaikaprasavatvam, yatha sarvasam apam ityadina kaikapralayatva/m/ sarvasyoktam.  An.  Gi.]

[Footnote 249:  So according to Go.  An. and An.  Gi., although their interpretations seem not to account sufficiently for the ekam of the text.—­Ka/mk/id evaikam iti jivasthanad anyam ity artha/h/.  Go.  An.—­Jivabhavena pratibimbadharatiriktam ity artha/h/.  An.  Gi.]

[Footnote 250:  While release, as often remarked, is eternal, it being in fact not different from the eternally unchanging Brahman.]

[Footnote 251:  I.e. that the operative cause and the substantial cause are separate things.]

[Footnote 252:  Viz. the Sa@nkhya-sm/ri/ti.]

SECOND ADHYAYA.

FIRST PADA.

REVERENCE TO THE HIGHEST SELF!

1.  If it be objected that (from the doctrine expounded hitherto) there would result the fault of there being no room for (certain) Sm/ri/tis; we do not admit that objection, because (from the rejection of our doctrine) there would result the fault of want of room for other Sm/ri/tis.

It has been shown in the first adhyaya that the omniscient Lord of all is the cause of the origin of this world in the same way as clay is the material cause of jars and gold of golden ornaments; that by his rulership he is the cause of the subsistence of this world once originated, just as the magician is the cause of the subsistence of the magical illusion; and that he, lastly, is the cause of this emitted world being finally reabsorbed into his essence, just as the four classes of creatures are reabsorbed into the earth.  It has further been proved, by a demonstration of the