of the Veda, nor by the road of Yoga-practice.  For Scripture itself declares that there is no other means of obtaining the highest beatitude but the knowledge of the unity of the Self which is conveyed by the Veda, ’Over death passes only the man who knows him; there is no other path to go’ (Sve.  Up.  III, 8).  And the Sa@nkhya and Yoga-systems maintain duality, do not discern the unity of the Self.  In the passage quoted (’That cause which is to be apprehended by Sa@nkhya and Yoga’) the terms ‘Sa@nkhya’ and ‘Yoga’ denote Vedic knowledge and meditation, as we infer from proximity[263].  We willingly allow room for those portions of the two systems which do not contradict the Veda.  In their description of the soul, for instance, as free from all qualities the Sa@nkhyas are in harmony with the Veda which teaches that the person (purusha) is essentially pure; cp.  B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 3, 16.  ’For that person is not attached to anything.’  The Yoga again in giving rules for the condition of the wandering religious mendicant admits that state of retirement from the concerns of life which is known from scriptural passages such as the following one, ’Then the parivrajaka with discoloured (yellow) dress, shaven, without any possessions,’ &c.  (Jabala Upan.  IV).

The above remarks will serve as a reply to the claims of all argumentative Sm/ri/tis.  If it be said that those Sm/ri/tis also assist, by argumentation and proof, the cognition of truth, we do not object to so much, but we maintain all the same that the truth can be known from the Vedanta-texts only; as is stated by scriptural passages such as ‘None who does not know the Veda perceives that great one’ (Taitt.  Br.  III, 12, 9, 7); ‘I now ask thee that person taught in the Upanishads’ (B/ri/.  Up, III, 9, 26); and others.

4. (Brahman can) not (be the cause of the world) on account of the difference of character of that, (viz. the world); and its being such, (i.e. different from Brahman) (we learn) from Scripture.

The objections, founded on Sm/ri/ti, against the doctrine of Brahman being the efficient and the material cause of this world have been refuted; we now proceed to refute those founded on Reasoning.—­But (to raise an objection at the outset) how is there room for objections founded on Reasoning after the sense of the sacred texts has once been settled?  The sacred texts are certainly to be considered absolutely authoritative with regard to Brahman as well as with regard to religious duty (dharma).—­(To this the purvapakshin replies), The analogy between Brahman and dharma would hold good if the matter in hand were to be known through the holy texts only, and could not be approached by the other means of right knowledge also.  In the case of religious duties, i.e. things to be done, we indeed entirely depend on Scripture.  But now we are concerned with Brahman which is an accomplished existing thing, and in the case of accomplished things there is room