whether we can, with Sa@nkara, look upon Sutra 29 as embodying a refutation of the purvapaksha and thus implicitly acknowledging the doctrine that the individual soul is all-pervading.  Now I think there can be no doubt that Sa@nkara’s interpretation of the Sutra is exceedingly forced.  Literally translated (and leaving out the non-essential word ‘praj/n/avat’) the Sutra runs as follows:  ’But on account of that quality (or “those qualities;” or else “on account of the quality—­or qualities—­of that”) being the essence, (there is) that designation (or “the designation of that").’  This Sa@nkara maintains to mean, ’Because the qualities of the buddhi are the essence of the soul in the sa/m/sara state, therefore the soul itself is sometimes spoken of as a/n/u.’  Now, in the first place, nothing in the context warrants the explanation of the first ‘tat’ by buddhi.  And—­which is more important—­in the second place, it is more than doubtful whether on Sa@nkara’s own system the qualities of the buddhi—­such as pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, &c.—­can with any propriety be said to constitute the essence of the soul even in the sa/m/sara state.  The essence of the soul in whatever state, according to Sa@nkara’s system, is knowledge or intelligence; whatever is due to its association with the buddhi is non-essential or, more strictly, unreal, false.

There are no similar difficulties in the way of Ramanuja’s interpretation of the adhikara/n/a.  He agrees with Sa@nkara in the explanation of Sutras 19-35, with this difference that he views them as setting forth, not the purvapaksha, but the siddhanta.  Sutras 26-28 also are interpreted in a manner not very different from Sa@nkara’s, special stress being laid on the distinction made by Scripture between knowledge as a mere quality and the soul as a knowing agent, the substratum of knowledge.  This discussion naturally gives rise to the question how it is that Scripture in some places makes use of the term vij/n/ana when meaning the individual soul.  The answer is given in Sutra 29, ’The soul is designated as knowledge because it has that quality for its essence,’ i.e. because knowledge is the essential characteristic quality of the soul, therefore the term ‘knowledge’ is employed here and there to denote the soul itself.  This latter interpretation gives rise to no doubt whatever.  It closely follows the wording of the text and does not necessitate any forced supplementation.  The ‘tu’ of the Sutra which, according to Sa@nkara, is meant to discard the purvapaksha, serves on Ramanuja’s view to set aside a previously-raised objection; an altogether legitimate assumption.