the fact that the one is pure and the other impure.  But in reality the argumentation of the objector does not even remove the first-named difference; as is declared in the latter part of the Sutra, ’And its being such we learn from Scripture.’  For the assumption of the intellectuality of the entire world—­which is supported neither by perception nor by inference, &c.—­must be considered as resting on Scripture only in so far as the latter speaks of the world as having originated from an intelligent cause; but that scriptural statement itself is contradicted by other texts which declare the world to be ‘of such a nature,’ i.e. of a nature different from that of its material cause.  For the scriptural passage, ’It became that which is knowledge and that which is devoid of knowledge’ (Taitt.  Up.  II, 6), which teaches that a certain class of beings is of a non-intelligent nature intimates thereby that the non-intelligent world is different from the intelligent Brahman.—­But—­somebody might again object—­the sacred texts themselves sometimes speak of the elements and the bodily organs, which are generally considered to be devoid of intelligence, as intelligent beings.  The following passages, for instance, attribute intelligence to the elements.  ‘The earth spoke;’ ‘The waters spoke’ (Sat.  Br.  VI, 1, 3, 2; 4); and, again, ‘Fire thought;’ ‘Water thought’ (Ch.  Up.  VI, 2, 3; 4).  Other texts attribute intelligence to the bodily organs, ’These pra/n/as when quarrelling together as to who was the best went to Brahman’ (B/ri/.  Up.  VI, 1, 7); and, again, ’They said to Speech:  Do thou sing out for us’ (B/ri/.  Up.  I, 3, 2).—­To this objection the purvapakshin replies in the following Sutra.

5.  But (there takes place) denotation of the superintending (deities), on account of the difference and the connexion.

The word ‘but’ discards the doubt raised.  We are not entitled to base the assumption of the elements and the sense organs being of an intellectual nature on such passages as ‘the earth spoke,’ &c. because ‘there takes place denotation of that which presides.’  In the case of actions like speaking, disputing, and so on, which require intelligence, the scriptural passages denote not the mere material elements and organs, but rather the intelligent divinities which preside over earth, &c., on the one hand, and Speech, &c., on the other hand.  And why so?  ‘On account of the difference and the connexion.’  The difference is the one previously referred to between the enjoying souls, on the one hand, and the material elements and organs, on the other hand, which is founded on the distinction between intelligent and non-intelligent beings; that difference would not be possible if all beings were intelligent.  Moreover, the Kaushitakins in their account of the dispute of the pra/n/as make express use of the word ‘divinities’ in order to preclude the idea of the mere material organs being meant, and in order to include the superintending