the authors of the Sm/ri/tis, they have no trust in our explanations.  The knowledge of men like Kapila Sm/ri/ti declares to have been rishi-like and unobstructed, and moreover there is the following Sruti-passage, ’It is he who, in the beginning, bears in his thoughts the son, the rishi, kapila[257], whom he wishes to look on while he is born’ (Sve.  Up.  V, 2).  Hence their opinion cannot be assumed to be erroneous, and as they moreover strengthen their position by argumentation, the objection remains valid, and we must therefore attempt to explain the Vedanta-texts in conformity with the Sm/ri/tis.

This objection we dispose of by the remark, ’It is not so because therefrom would result the fault of want of room for other Sm/ri/tis.’—­If you object to the doctrine of the Lord being the cause of the world on the ground that it would render certain Sm/ri/tis purposeless, you thereby render purposeless other Sm/ri/tis which declare themselves in favour of the said doctrine.  These latter Sm/ri/ti-texts we will quote in what follows.  In one passage the highest Brahman is introduced as the subject of discussion, ’That which is subtle and not to be known;’ the text then goes on, ’That is the internal Self of the creatures, their soul,’ and after that remarks ’From that sprang the Unevolved, consisting of the three gu/n/as, O best of Brahma/n/as.’  And in another place it is said that ’the Unevolved is dissolved in the Person devoid of qualities, O Brahma/n/a.’—­Thus we read also in the Pura/n/a, ’Hear thence this short statement:  The ancient Naraya/n/a is all this; he produces the creation at the due time, and at the time of reabsorption he consumes it again.’  And so in the Bhagavadgita also (VII, 6), ’I am the origin and the place of reabsorption of the whole world.’  And Apastamba too says with reference to the highest Self, ’From him spring all bodies; he is the primary cause, he is eternal, he is unchangeable’ (Dharma Sutra I, 8, 23, 2).  In this way Sm/ri/ti, in many places, declares the Lord to be the efficient as well as the material cause of the world.  As the purvapakshin opposes us on the ground of Sm/ri/ti, we reply to him on the ground of Sm/ri/ti only; hence the line of defence taken up in the Sutra.  Now it has been shown already that the Sruti-texts aim at conveying the doctrine that the Lord is the universal cause, and as wherever different Sm/ri/tis conflict those maintaining one view must be accepted, while those which maintain the opposite view must be set aside, those Sm/ri/tis which follow Sruti are to be considered as authoritative, while all others are to be disregarded; according to the Sutra met with in the chapter treating of the means of proof (Mim.  Sutra I, 3, 3), ’Where there is contradiction (between Sruti and Sm/ri/ti) (Sm/ri/ti) is to be disregarded; in case of there being no (contradiction) (Sm/ri/ti is to be recognised) as there is inference (of Sm/ri/ti being founded on