ing
the things by their names' (Taitt. Ar. III, 12, 7)[245]. And where
Scripture relates the creation of fire and the other elements, it does
not at the same time relate a separate creation of the individual soul;
we have therefore no right to look on the soul as a product of the
highest Self, different from the latter.--In the opinion of the teacher
Ka/s/ak/ri/tsna the non-modified highest Lord himself is the individual
soul, not anything else. A/s/marathya, although meaning to say that the
soul is not (absolutely) different from the highest Self, yet intimates
by the expression, 'On account of the fulfilment of the promise'--which
declares a certain mutual dependence--that there does exist a certain
relation of cause and effect between the highest Self and the individual
soul[246]. The opinion of Au/d/ulomi again clearly implies that the
difference and non-difference of the two depend on difference of
condition[247]. Of these three opinions we conclude that the one held by
Ka/s/ak/ri/tsna accords with Scripture, because it agrees with what all
the Vedanta-texts (so, for instance, the passage, 'That art thou') aim
at inculcating. Only on the opinion of Ka/s/ak/ri/tsna immortality can
be viewed as the result of the knowledge of the soul; while it would be
impossible to hold the same view if the soul were a modification
(product) of the Self and as such liable to lose its existence by being
merged in its causal substance. For the same reason, name and form
cannot abide in the soul (as was above attempted to prove by means of
the simile of the rivers), but abide in the limiting adjunct and are
ascribed to the soul itself in a figurative sense only. For the same
reason the origin of the souls from the highest Self, of which Scripture
speaks in some places as analogous to the issuing of sparks from the
fire, must be viewed as based only on the limiting adjuncts of the soul.

The last three Sutras have further to be interpreted so as to furnish
replies to the second of the purvapakshin's arguments, viz. that the
B/ri/hadara/n/yaka passage represents as the object of sight the
individual soul, because it declares that the great Being which is to be
seen arises from out of these elements. 'There is an indication of the
fulfilment of the promise; so A/s/marathya thinks.' The promise is made
in the two passages, 'When the Self is known, all this is known,' and
'All this is that Self.' That the Self is everything, is proved by the