ozpi bhakt/ri/tvam ivanubhavati na tattvata iti vaktum
adhyaropayati. Ananda Giri.]

[Footnote 144: Who, somebody might say, is to be understood here,
because immortality and similar qualities belong to him not somehow
only, but in their true sense.]

[Footnote 145: The /t/ikas say that the contents of this last sentence
are hinted at by the word 'and' in the Sutra.]

[Footnote 146: I.e. at the beginning of the instruction which the sacred
fires give to Upako/s/ala, Ch. Up. IV, 10 ff.]

[Footnote 147: Which words conclude the instruction given by the fires,
and introduce the instruction given by the teacher, of which the passage
'the person that is seen in the eye,' &c. forms a part.]

[Footnote 148: A/s/rayantarapratyayasya/s/rayantare kshepa/h/
pratika/h/, yatha brahma/s/abda/h/ paramatmavishayo namadishu kshipyate.
Bha.]

[Footnote 149: The following sentences give the reason why, although
there is only one Brahman, the word Brahman is repeated.]

[Footnote 150: According to Scripture, Nira@nku/s/a/m/
sarvaniyantritva/m/ /s/rauta/m/ na /k/a tadri/s/e sarvaniyantari bhedo
na /k/anumana/m/ /s/rutibhaditam uttish/th/ati. Ananda Giri. Or else, as
Go. An. remarks, we may explain: as the highest Self is not really
different from the individual soul. So also Bhamati: Na /h/anavastha, na
hi niyantrantara/m/ tena niyamyate ki/m/ tu yo jivo niyanta
lokasiddha/h/ sa paramatmevopadhyava/kkh/edakalpitabheda/h/.]

[Footnote 151: V/ri/ttik/ri/dvyakhyam dushayati, Go. An.; ekade/s/ina/m/
dushayati, Ananda Giri; tad etat paramatenakshepasamadhanabhya/m/
vyakhyaya svamatena vya/k/ash/t/e, puna/h/ /s/abdozpi purvasmad
vi/s/esha/m/ dyotayann asyesh/t/ata/m/ su/k/ayati, Bhamati.--The
statement of the two former commentators must be understood to mean--in
agreement with the Bhamati--that /S/a@nkara is now going to refute the
preceding explanation by the statement of his own view. Thus Go. An.
later on explains 'asmin pakshe' by 'svapakshe.']

[Footnote 152: The question is to what passage the 'rupopanyasat' of the
Sutra refers.--According to the opinion set forth first it refers to Mu.
Up. II, 1, 4 ff.--But, according to the second view, II, 1, 4 to II, 1,
9, cannot refer to the source of all beings, i.e. the highest Self,
because that entire passage describes the creation, the inner Self of
which is not the highest Self but Prajapati, i.e. the Hira/n/yagarbha or
Sutratman of the later Vedanta, who is himself an 'effect,' and wh