the discrimination of what is eternal and what is non-eternal; the renunciation of all desire to enjoy the fruit (of one’s actions) both here and hereafter; the acquirement of tranquillity, self-restraint, and the other means[55], and the desire of final release.  If these conditions exist, a man may, either before entering on an enquiry into active religious duty or after that, engage in the enquiry into Brahman and come to know it; but not otherwise.  The word ‘then’ therefore intimates that the enquiry into Brahman is subsequent to the acquisition of the above-mentioned (spiritual) means.

The word ‘therefore’ intimates a reason.  Because the Veda, while declaring that the fruit of the agnihotra and similar performances which are means of happiness is non-eternal (as, for instance.  Ch.  Up.  VIII, 1, 6, ’As here on earth whatever has been acquired by action perishes so perishes in the next world whatever is acquired by acts of religious duty’), teaches at the same time that the highest aim of man is realised by the knowledge of Brahman (as, for instance, Taitt.  Up.  II, 1, ’He who knows Brahman attains the highest’); therefore the enquiry into Brahman is to be undertaken subsequently to the acquirement of the mentioned means.

By Brahman is to be understood that the definition of which will be given in the next Sutra (I, 1, 2); it is therefore not to be supposed that the word Brahman may here denote something else, as, for instance, the brahminical caste.  In the Sutra the genitive case (’of Brahman;’ the literal translation of the Sutra being ’then therefore the desire of knowledge of Brahman’) denotes the object, not something generally supplementary (sesha[56]); for the desire of knowledge demands an object of desire and no other such object is stated.—­But why should not the genitive case be taken as expressing the general complementary relation (to express which is its proper office)?  Even in that case it might constitute the object of the desire of knowledge, since the general relation may base itself on the more particular one.—­This assumption, we reply, would mean that we refuse to take Brahman as the direct object, and then again indirectly introduce it as the object; an altogether needless procedure.—­Not needless; for if we explain the words of the Sutra to mean ’the desire of knowledge connected with Brahman’ we thereby virtually promise that also all the heads of discussion which bear on Brahman will be treated.—­This reason also, we reply, is not strong enough to uphold your interpretation.  For the statement of some principal matter already implies all the secondary matters connected therewith.  Hence if Brahman, the most eminent of all objects of knowledge, is mentioned, this implies already all those objects of enquiry which the enquiry into Brahman presupposes, and those objects need therefore not be mentioned, especially in the Sutra.  Analogously the sentence ‘there the king is going’ implicitly means that the