According to Ramanuja the Sutras 11-17 constitute a single adhikara/n/a whose subject is the same as that of Sa@nkara’s sixth adhikar/n/a.  Sutras 11-13 are, on the whole, explained as by Sa@nkara; Sutra 12, however, is said to mean, ’Such attributes as having joy for its head, &c. are not to be viewed as qualities of Brahman, and therefore not to be included in every meditation; for if they were admitted as qualities, difference would be introduced into Brahman’s nature, and that would involve a more or less on Brahman’s part.’  Sutras 14-17 continue the discussion of the passage about the priya/s/irastva.—­If priya/s/irastva, &c. are not to be viewed as real qualities of Brahman, for what purpose does the text mention them?—­’Because,’ Sutra 14 replies, ’there is no other purpose, Scripture mentions them for the purpose of pious meditation.’—­But how is it known that the Self of delight is the highest Self? (owing to which you maintain that having limbs, head, &c. cannot belong to it as attributes.)—­’Because,’ Sutra 15 replies, ’the term “Self” (atma anandamaya) is applied to it.’—­But in the previous parts of the chapter the term Self (in atma pra/n/amaya, &c.) is applied to non-Selfs also; how then do you know that in atma anandamaya it denotes the real Self?—­’The term Self,’ Sutra 16 replies, ’is employed here to denote the highest Self as in many other passages (atmaa va idam eka, &c.), as we conclude from the subsequent passage, viz. he wished, May I be many.’—­But, an objection is raised, does not the context show that the term ‘Self,’ which in all the preceding clauses about the pra/n/amaya, &c. denoted something other than the Self, does the same in anandamaya atman, and is not the context of greater weight than a subsequent passage?—­To this question asked in the former half of 17 (anvayad iti ket) the latter half replies, ’Still it denotes the Self, owing to the affirmatory statement,’ i.e. the fact of the highest Self having been affirmed in a previous passage also, viz.  II, 1, ‘From that Self sprang ether.’

Adhik.  IX (18) discusses a minor point connected with the pra/n/asa/m/vada.—­The subject of Adhik.  X (19) has been indicated already above under Adhik.  I.—­Adhik.  XI (20-22) treats of a case of a contrary nature; in B/ri/.  Up.  V, 5, Brahman is represented first as abiding in the sphere of the sun, and then as abiding within the eye; we therefore, in spite of certain counter-indications, have to do with two separate vidyas.—­Adhik.  XII (23) refers to a similar case; certain attributes of Brahman mentioned in the Ra/n/ayaniya-khila have not to be introduced into the corresponding Chandogya vidya, because the stated difference of Brahman’s abode involves difference of vidya.—­Adhik.  XIII (24) treats of another instance of two vidyas having to be held apart.

Adhik.  XIV (25) decides that certain detached mantras and brahma/n/a passages met with in the beginning of some Upanishads—­as, for instance, a brahma/n/a about the mahavrata ceremony at the beginning of the Aitareya-ara/n/yaka—­do, notwithstanding their position which seems to connect them with the brahmavidya, not belong to the latter, since they show unmistakable signs of being connected with sacrificial acts.