immediately following on Adhik. V, VI;
which, in its turn, implies that Sutras 22, 23 do not form an
independent adhikara/n/a.--The two next adhikara/n/as are digressions,
and do not refer to special Vedic passages.--Sutra 39 forms a new
adhikara/n/a, according to /S/a@nkara, but not according to Ramanuja,
whose opinion seems again to be countenanced by the fact that the Sutra
does not exhibit any word indicative of a new topic. The same difference
of opinion prevails with regard to Sutra 40, and it appears from the
translation of the Sutra given above, according to Ramanuja's view, that
'jyoti/h/' need not be taken as a nominative.--The last two
adhikara/n/as finally refer, according to Ramanuja, to one Chandogya
passage only, and here also we have to notice that Sutra 42 does not
comprise any word intimating that a new passage is about to be
discussed.

From all this we seem entitled to draw the following conclusions. The
Vedic passages discussed in the three first padas of the Vedanta-sutras
comprise all the doubtful--or at any rate all the more important
doubtful--passages from the Chandogya Upanishad. These passages are
arranged in the order in which the text of the Upanishad exhibits them.
Passages from other Upanishads are discussed as opportunities offer,
there being always a special reason why a certain Chandogya passage is
followed by a certain passage from some other Upanishad. Those reasons
can be assigned with sufficient certainty in a number of cases although
not in all, and from among those passages whose introduction cannot be
satisfactorily accounted for some are eliminated by our following the
subdivision of the Sutras into adhikara/n/as adopted by Ramanuja, a
subdivision countenanced by the external form of the Sutras.

The fourth pada of the first adhyaya has to be taken by itself. It is
directed specially and avowedly against Sa@nkhya-interpretations of
Scripture, not only in its earlier part which discusses isolated
passages, but also--as is brought out much more clearly in the
/S/ri-bhashya than by /S/a@nkara--in its latter part which takes a
general survey of the entire scriptural evidence for Brahman being the
material as well as the operative cause of the world.

Deussen (p. 221) thinks that the selection made by the Sutrakara of
Vedic passages setting forth the nature of Brahman is not in all cases
an altogether happy one. But this reproach rests on the assumption that
the passages referre