iscussion of all those Chandogya
passages of which it is doubtful whether they are concerned with Brahman
or not, passages from the other Upanishads being brought in wherever an
opportunity offers. Considering the prominent position assigned to the
Upanishad mentioned, I think it likely that the Sutrakara meant to begin
the series of doubtful texts with the first doubtful passage from the
Chandogya, and that hence the sixth adhikara/n/a which treats of the
anandamaya mentioned in the Taittiriya Upanishad has, in agreement with
Ramanuja's views, to be separated from the subsequent adhikara/n/as, and
to be combined with the preceding ones whose task it is to lay down the
fundamental propositions regarding Brahman's nature.--The remaining
adhikara/n/as of the first pada follow the order of passages in the
Chandogya Upanishad, and therefore call for no remark; with the
exception of the last adhikara/n/a, which refers to a Kaushitaki
passage, for whose being introduced in this place I am not able to
account.--The first adhikara/n/a of the second pada returns to the
Chandogya Upanishad. The second one treats of a passage in the Ka/th/a
Upanishad where a being is referred to which eats everything. The reason
why that passage is introduced in this place seems to be correctly
assigned in the /S/ri-bhashya, which remarks that, as in the preceding
Sutra it had been argued that the highest Self is not an enjoyer, a
doubt arises whether by that being which eats everything the highest
Self can be meant[10]--The third adhikara/n/a again, whose topic is the
'two entered into the cave' (Ka/th/a Up. I, 3, 1), appears, as Ramanuja
remarks, to come in at this place owing to the preceding adhikara/n/a;
for if it could not be proved that one of the two is the highest Self, a
doubt would attach to the explanation given above of the 'eater' since
the 'two entered into the cave,' and the 'eater' stand under the same
prakara/n/a, and must therefore be held to refer to the same
matter.--The fourth adhikara/n/a is again occupied with a Chandogya
passage.--The fifth adhikara/n/a, whose topic is the Ruler within
(antaryamin), manifestly owes its place, as remarked by Ramanuja also,
to the fact that the Vedic passage treated had been employed in the
preceding adhikara/n/a (I, 2, 14) for the purpose of strengthening the
argument [11].--The sixth adhikara/n/a, again, which discusses 'that
which is not seen' (adre/s/ya; Mu/nd/. Up. I, 1, 6), is clearly
i