e existence of a highest Lord,
but postulate in addition an independent pradhana on which the Lord acts
as an operative cause merely.

Adhik. VIII (28) remarks that the refutation of the Sa@nkhya views is
applicable to other theories also, such as the doctrine of the world
having originated from atoms.

After this rapid survey of the contents of the first adhyaya and the
succinct indication of the most important points in which the views of
/S/a@nkara and Ramanuja diverge, we turn to a short consideration of two
questions which here naturally present themselves, viz., firstly, which
is the principle on which the Vedic passages referred to in the Sutras
have been selected and arranged; and, secondly, if, where /S/a@nkara and
Ramanuja disagree as to the subdivision of the Sutras into
Adhikara/n/as, and the determination of the Vedic passages discussed in
the Sutras, there are to be met with any indications enabling us to
determine which of the two commentators is right. (The more general
question as to how far the Sutras favour either /S/a@nkara's or
Ramanuja's general views cannot be considered at present.)

The Hindu commentators here and there attempt to point out the reason
why the discussion of a certain Vedic passage is immediately followed by
the consideration of a certain other one. Their explanations--which have
occasionally been referred to in the notes to the translation--rest on
the assumption that the Sutrakara in arranging the texts to be commented
upon was guided by technicalities of the Mima/m/sa-system, especially by
a regard for the various so-called means of proof which the Mima/m/saka
employs for the purpose of determining the proper meaning and position
of scriptural passages. But that this was the guiding principle, is
rendered altogether improbable by a simple tabular statement of the
Vedic passages referred to in the first adhyaya, such as given by
Deussen on page 130; for from the latter it appears that the order in
which the Sutras exhibit the scriptural passages follows the order in
which those passages themselves occur in the Upanishads, and it would
certainly be a most strange coincidence if that order enabled us at the
same time to exemplify the various prama/n/as of the Mima/m/sa in their
due systematic succession.

As Deussen's statement shows, most of the passages discussed are taken
from the Chandogya Upanishad, so many indeed that the whole first
adhyaya may be said to consist of a d