That the Maya doctrine was not present to the mind of the Sutrakara, further appears from the latter part of the fourth pada of the first adhyaya, where it is shown that Brahman is not only the operative but also the material cause of the world.  If anywhere, there would have been the place to indicate, had such been the author’s view, that Brahman is the material cause of the world through Maya only, and that the world is unreal; but the Sutras do not contain a single word to that effect.  Sutra 26, on the other hand, exhibits the significant term ‘pari/n/amat;’ Brahman produces the world by means of a modification of itself.  It is well known that later on, when the terminology of the Vedanta became definitely settled, the term ‘pari/n/avada’ was used to denote that very theory to which the followers of Sa@nkara are most violently opposed, viz. the doctrine according to which the world is not a mere vivarta, i.e. an illusory manifestation of Brahman, but the effect of Brahman undergoing a real change, may that change be conceived to take place in the way taught by Ramanuja or in some other manner.—­With regard to the last-quoted Sutra, as well as to those touched upon above, the commentators indeed maintain that whatever terms and modes of expression are apparently opposed to the vivartavada are in reality reconcilable with it; to Sutra 26, for instance, Govindananda remarks that the term ‘pari/n/ama’ only denotes an effect in general (karyamatra), without implying that the effect is real.  But in cases of this nature we are fully entitled to use our own judgment, even if we were not compelled to do so by the fact that other commentators, such as Ramanuja, are satisfied to take ‘pari/n/ama’ and similar terms in their generally received sense.

A further section treating of the nature of Brahman is met with in III, 2, 11 ff.  It is, according to Sa@nkara’s view, of special importance, as it is alleged to set forth that Brahman is in itself destitute of all qualities, and is affected with qualities only through its limiting adjuncts (upadhis), the offspring of Maya.  I have above (in the conspectus of contents) given a somewhat detailed abstract of the whole section as interpreted by Sa@nkara on the one hand, and Ramanuja on the other hand, from which it appears that the latter’s opinion as to the purport of the group of Sutras widely diverges from that of Sa@nkara.  The wording of the Sutras is so eminently concise and vague that I find it impossible to decide which of the two commentators—­if indeed either—­is to be accepted as a trustworthy guide; regarding the sense of some Sutras Sa@nkara’s explanation seems to deserve preference, in the case of others Ramanuja seems to keep closer to the text.  I decidedly prefer, for instance, Ramanuja’s interpretation of Sutra 22, as far as the sense of the entire Sutra is concerned, and more especially with regard to the term ‘prak/ri/taitavattvam,’