to Brahman those who do not take their stand on what is pratika, i.e. those who worship the highest Brahman, and those who meditate on the individual Self as dissociated from prak/ri/ti, and having Brahman for its Self, but not those who worship Brahman under pratikas.  For both views—­that of Jaimini as well as that of Badari—­are faulty.’  The karya view contradicts such passages as ’asma/k/ charirat samutthaya para/m/ jyotir upasampadya,’ &c.; the para view, such passages as that in the pa/nk/agni-vidya, which declares that ya ittha/m/ vidu/h/, i.e. those who know the pa/nk/agni-vidya, are also led up to Brahman.

PADA IV.

Adhik.  I (1-3) returns, according to Sa@nkara, to the owner of the para vidya, and teaches that, when on his death his soul obtains final release, it does not acquire any new characteristics, but merely manifests itself in its true nature.—­The explanation given by Ramanuja is essentially the same, but of course refers to that vidvan whose going to Brahman had been described in the preceding pada.

Adhik.  II (4) determines that the relation in which the released soul stands to Brahman is that of avibhaga, non-separation.  This, on Sa@nkara’s view, means absolute non-separation, identity.—­According to Ramanuja the question to be considered is whether the released soul views itself as separate (p/ri/thagbhuta) from Brahman, or as non-separate because being a mode of Brahman.  The former view is favoured by those Sruti and Sm/ri/ti passages which speak of the soul as being with, or equal to, Brahman; the latter by, such passages as tat tvam asi and the like.[22]

Adhik.  III (5-7) discusses the characteristics of the released soul (i.e. of the truly released soul, according to Sa@nkara).  According to Jaimini the released soul, when manifesting itself in its true nature, possesses all those qualities which in Ch.  Up.  VIII, 7, 1 and other places are ascribed to Brahman, such as apahatapapmatva, satyasa/m/kalpatva, &c., ai/s/varya.—­According to Au/d/ulomi the only characteristic of the released soul is kaitanya.—­According to Badarayana the two views can be combined (Sa@nkara remarking that satyasa/m/kalpatva, &c. are ascribed to the released soul vyavaharapekshaya).

Adhik.  IV (8-9) returns, according to Sa@nkara, to the apara vidya, and discusses the question whether the soul of the pious effects its desires by its mere determination, or uses some other means.  The former alternative is accepted—­According to Ramanuja the adhikara/n/a simply continues the consideration of the state of the released, begun in the preceding adhikara/n/a.  Of the released soul it is said in Ch.  Up.  VIII, 12, 3 that after it has manifested itself in its true nature it moves about playing and rejoicing with women, carriages, and so on.  The question then arises whether it effects all this by its mere sa/m/kalpa (it having been shown in the preceding adhikara/n/a that the released soul is, like the Lord, satyasa/m/kalpa), or not.  The answer is in favour of the former alternative, on account of the explicit declaration made in Ch.  Up.  VIII, 2, ’By his mere will the fathers come to receive him.’