at) the word 'Self' in its primary meaning refers to what is
intelligent only and is then, by a figurative attribution of
intelligence, applied to the elements and the like also; whence such
phrases as 'the Self of the elements,' 'the Self of the senses.' And
even if we assume that the word 'Self' primarily signifies both classes
of beings, we are unable to settle in any special case which of the two
meanings the word has, unless we are aided either by the general heading
under which it stands, or some determinative attributive word. But in
the passage under discussion there is nothing to determine that the word
refers to something non-intelligent, while, on the other hand, the Sat
distinguished by thought forms the general heading, and /S/vetaketu,
i.e. a being endowed with intelligence, is mentioned in close proximity.
That a non-intelligent Self does not agree with /S/vetaketu, who
possesses intelligence, we have already shown. All these circumstances
determine the object of the word 'Self' here to be something
intelligent. The word 'jyotis' does moreover not furnish an appropriate
example; for according to common use it has the settled meaning of
'light' only, and is used in the sense of sacrifice only on account of
the arthavada assuming a similarity (of the sacrifice) to light.

A different explanation of the Sutra is also possible. The preceding
Sutra may be taken completely to refute all doubts as to the word 'Self'
having a figurative or double sense, and then the present Sutra is to be
explained as containing an independent reason, proving that the doctrine
of the pradhana being the general cause is untenable.

Hence the non-intelligent pradhana is not denoted by the word 'Self.'
This the teacher now proceeds to prove by an additional reason.

8. And (the pradhana cannot be denoted by the word 'Self') because there
is no statement of its having to be set aside.

If the pradhana which is the Not-Self were denoted by the term 'Being'
(Sat), and if the passage 'That is the Self, that art thou, O
/S/vetaketu,' referred to the pradhana; the teacher whose wish it is to
impart instruction about the true Brahman would subsequently declare
that the pradhana is to be set aside (and the true Brahman to be
considered); for otherwise his pupil, having received the instruction
about the pradhana, might take his stand on the latter, looking upon it
as the Non-Self. In ordinary life a man who wishes to point out to a
frien