viz. the aha@nkara termed Aniruddha. Such doctrines
cannot be settled without observed instances. And we do not meet with
any scriptural passage in their favour.

44. Or (if) in consequence of the existence of knowledge, &c. (Vasudeva,
&c. be taken as Lords), yet there is non-exclusion of that (i.e. the
objection raised in Sutra 42).

Let us then--the Bhagavatas may say--understand by Sa@nkarsha/n/a, and
so on, not the individual soul, the mind, &c., but rather Lords, i.e.
powerful beings distinguished by all the qualities characteristic of
rulers, such as pre-eminence of knowledge and ruling capacity, strength,
valour, glory. All these are Vasudevas free from faults, without a
substratum (not sprung from pradhana), without any imperfections. Hence
the objection urged in Sutra 42 does not apply.

Even on this interpretation of your doctrine, we reply, the
'non-exclusion of that,' i.e. the non-exclusion of the impossibility of
origination, can be established.--Do you, in the first place, mean to
say that the four individual Lords, Vasudeva, and so on, have the same
attributes, but do not constitute one and the same Self?--If so, you
commit the fault of uselessly assuming more than one Lord, while all the
work of the Lord can be done by one. Moreover, you offend thereby
against your own principle, according to which there is only one real
essence, viz. the holy Vasudeva.--Or do you perhaps mean to say that
from the one highest Being there spring those four forms possessing
equal attributes?--In that case the objection urged in Sutra 42 remains
valid. For Sa@nkarsha/n/a cannot be produced from Vasudeva, nor
Pradyumna from Sa@nkarsha/n/a, nor Aniruddha from Pradyumna, since (the
attributes of all of them being the same) there is no supereminence of
any one of them. Observation shows that the relation of cause and effect
requires some superiority on the part of the cause--as, for instance, in
the case of the clay and the jar (where the cause is more extensive than
the effect)--and that without such superiority the relation is simply
impossible. But the followers of the Pa/nk/aratra do not acknowledge any
difference founded on superiority of knowledge, power, &c. between
Vasudeva and the other Lords, but simply say that they all are forms of
Vasudeva, without any special distinctions. The forms of Vasudeva cannot
properly be limited to four, as the whole world, from Brahman down to a
blade of grass, is understood to be a m