h that /S/a@nkara's explanation, according to which the 'eke'
would denote the very same Ka/n/vas to whom the preceding Sutra had
referred--so that the Ka/n/vas would be distinguished from themselves as
it were--is altogether impossible.

The result of this closer consideration of the first set of Sutras,
alleged by /S/a@nkara to concern the owner of the higher knowledge of
Brahman, entitles us to view with some distrust /S/a@nkara's assertion
that another set also--IV, 4, 1-7--has to be detached from the general
topic of the fourth adhyaya, and to be understood as depicting the
condition of those who have obtained final absolute release. And the
Sutras themselves do not tend to weaken this preliminary want of
confidence. In the first place their wording also gives no indication
whatever of their having to be separated from what precedes as well as
what follows. And, in the second place, the last Sutra of the set (7)
obliges /S/a@nkara to ascribe to his truly released souls qualities
which clearly cannot belong to them; so that he finally is obliged to
make the extraordinary statement that those qualities belong to them
'vyavaharapekshaya,' while yet the purport of the whole adhikara/n/a is
said to be the description of the truly released soul for which no
vyavahara exists! Very truly /S/a@nkara's commentator here remarks,
'atra ke/k/in muhyanti akha/n/da/k/inmatrajanan muktasyajnanabhavat kuta
aj/n/anika-dharmayoga/h/,' and the way in which thereupon he himself
attempts to get over the difficulty certainly does not improve matters.

In connexion with the two passages discussed, we meet in the fourth
adhyaya with another passage, which indeed has no direct bearing on the
distinction of apara and para vidya, but may yet be shortly referred to
in this place as another and altogether undoubted instance of
/S/a@nkara's interpretations not always agreeing with the text of the
Sutras. The Sutras 7-16 of the third pada state the opinions of three
different teachers on the question to which Brahman the soul of the
vidvan repairs on death, or--according to Ramanuja--the worshippers of
which Brahman repair to (the highest) Brahman. Ramanuja treats the views
of Badari and Jaimini as two purvapakshas, and the opinion of
Badaraya/n/a--which is stated last--as the siddhanta. /S/a@nkara, on the
other hand, detaching the Sutras in which Badaraya/n/a's view is set
forth from the preceding part of the adhikara/n/a (a proceeding which,
a