[Footnote 264:  The cognition of Brahman terminates in an act of anubhava; hence as it has been shown that reasoning is more closely connected with anubhava than Sruti is, we have the right to apply reasoning to Sruti.—­Ananda Giri comments on the passage from anubhavavasanam as follows:  brahmasakshatkarasya mokshopayataya pradhanyat tatra sabdad api parokshago/k/arad aparoksharthasadharmyago/k/aras tarkosxntara@ngam iti tasyaiva balavatvam ity artha/h/.  Aitihyamatre/n/a pravadaparamparyamatre/n/a parokshatayeti yavat.  Anubhavasya pradhanye tarkasyoktanyayena tasminn antara@ngatvad agamasya ka bahira@ngatvad antara@ngabahira@ngayor antara@nga/m/ balavad ity nyayad ukta/m/ tarkasya balavattvam.  Anubhavapradhanya/m/ tu nadyapi siddham ity a/s/a@nkyahanubhaveti.  Nanu Brahmaj/n/adna/m/ vaidikatvad dharmavad ad/ri/sh/t/aphalam esh/t/avya/m/ tat kutosxsyanubhavavasanavidyanivartakatva/m/ tatraha moksheti.  Adhish/th/anasakshatkarasya suktyadj/n/ane tadavidyatatkaryanivartakatvad/ri/sh/t/e/h/, brahmaj/n/anasyapi tarkava/s/ad asambhavanadinirasadvara sakshatkaravasayinas tadavidyadinivartakatvenaiva muktihetuteti nad/ri/sh/t/aphalatety artha/h/.]

[Footnote 265:  Nirati/s/aya/h/, upajanapayadharma/s/unyatva/m/ nirati/s/ayatvam.  An.  Gi.]

[Footnote 266:  A sentence replying to the possible objection that the world, as being the effect of the intelligent Brahman, might itself be intelligent.]

[Footnote 267:  In the case of things commonly considered non-intelligent, intelligence is not influenced by an internal organ, and on that account remains unperceived; samaste jagati satoszpi kaitanyasya tatra tatranta/h/kara/n/apari/n/amanuparagad anupalabdhir aviruddha.  An.  Gi.]

[Footnote 268:  On i/s/vara in the above meaning, compare Deussen, p. 69, note 41.]

[Footnote 269:  The line ‘prak/ri/tibhya/h/ param,’ &c. is wanting in all MSS.  I have consulted.]

[Footnote 270:  Ananda Giri on the above passage:  srutyaka@nkshita/m/ tarkam eva mananavidhivishayam udaharati svapnanteti.  Svapnajagaritayor mithovyabhi/k/arad atmana/h/ svabhavatas tadvattvabhavad avastha dvayena tasya svatosxsa/m/p/ri/ktatvam ato jivasyavasthavatvena nabrahmatvam ity artha/h/.  Tathapi dehaditadatmyenatmano bhavan na ni/h/prapa/nk/abrahmatety a/s/a@nkyaha sa/m/prasade keti.  Sata somya tada sa/m/panno bhavatiti srute/h/ sushupte ni/h/prapa/nk/asadatmatvavagamad atmanas tathavidhabrahmatvasiddhir ity artha/h/.  Dvaitagrahipratyakshadivirodhat katham atmanosxdvitiyabrahmatvam ity a/s/a@nkya tajjatvadihetuna brahmatiriktavastvabhavasiddher adhyakshadinam atatvavedakaprama/n/yad avirodhad yuktam atmano xsvitiyabrahmatvam ity aha prapa/nk/asyeti.]

[Footnote 271:  Let us finally assume, merely for argument’s sake, that a vailaksha/n/ya of cause and effect is not admissible, and enquire whether that assumption can be reconciled more easily with an intelligent or a non-intelligent cause of the world.]