of which the individual mind
is the working and manifestation.

THE RELATION OF BRAHMAN TO ELEMENTS AND THE
SOUL

Are the elementary substances (ether, air, etc) co-eternal, with
Brahman, or do they issue from him? It can be shown, and is shown, that
one elementary substance proceeds from another (_e.g._, air from ether),
and that in the last resort all such substances have come forth from
Brahman, who has not only produced them, but also guided and effected
their evolution.

The individual soul is, according to the scriptures [Vedas and
Upanishads], eternal and permanent, and has not been produced by
Brahman; who is, however, as noted, the producer of the elementary
substances. Like Brahman himself, the individual soul is uncreated and
eternal. What is in time and belongs to time is the connection of the
soul with the conditions of space and time. This is the interpretation
given by Sankara. Ramanuga, however, holds that the soul is a creature
of Brahman, though an eternal one, it having existed ever as a mode of
the great All [compare the doctrine of the eternal procession of the
Son].

WHAT IS SOUL?

What is soul? It is _gna_, or knowledge. [The etymology of both these
latter words is identical--compare Greek _gnosco_, etc.] This means,
according to Sankara, that knowledge is of the very essence of soul, and
not a mere attribute of it. The soul is not merely a knower (_gnatri_),
but it is knowledge. Ramanuga, on the other hand, explains that the
knowledge spoken of in this Sutra means "the knower"; that the soul is
not knowledge, but that which can and does know.

Is the soul limited in size, and capable, therefore, of occupying but a
restricted space? Or is it, on the contrary, omnipresent?

Sankara maintains that the Sutra in question teaches the latter; the
soul is everywhere. Ramanuga makes the same Sutra teach the very
contrary. As a matter of fact, the Sutra in question seems to teach both
these contradictory doctrines, perhaps because it registers different
traditions. Sankara, however, explains further on that as long as the
soul is passing through the changes involved in Samsara [=
transmigration] it is limited and local, but on reaching Brahmanhood it
becomes omnipresent. In this way the great commentator seeks to
reconcile teaching apparently contradictory in this Sutra.

Is this soul an agent? Some of the Sutras say it is, others say it is
not. How are the conflicting statements t