the soul are within one body, the soul only is imperfect, not the Lord
(dva supar/n/a sayuja sakhaya) (13).--Should it be said that, according
to the Chandogya, Brahman entered together with the souls into the
elements previously to the evolution of names and forms, and hence
participates in the latter, thus becoming implicated in the sa/m/sara;
we reply that Brahman, although connected with such and such forms, is
in itself devoid of form, since it is the principal element (agent;
pradhana) in the bringing about of names and forms (according to
'aka/s/o ha vai namarupayor nirvahita') (14).--But does not the passage
'satya/m/ j/n/anam anantam brahma' teach that Brahman is nothing but
light (intelligence) without any difference, and does not the passage
'neti neti' deny of it all qualities?--As in order, we reply, not to
deprive passages as the one quoted from the Taittiriya of their purport,
we admit that Brahman's nature is light, so we must also admit that
Brahman is satyasa/m/kalpa, and so on; for if not, the passages in which
those qualities are asserted would become purportless (15).--Moreover
the Taittiriya passage only asserts so much, viz. the praka/s/arupata of
Brahman, and does not deny other qualities (l6).--And the passage 'neti
neti' will be discussed later on.--The ubhayali@ngatva of Brahman in the
sense assigned above is asserted in many places /S/ruti and Sm/ri/ti
(17).--Because Brahman although abiding in many places is not touched by
their imperfections, the similes of the reflected sun, of the ether
limited by jars, &c., are applicable to it (18).--Should it be said that
the illustration is not an appropriate one, because the sun is
apprehended in the water erroneously only while the antaryamin really
abides within all things, and therefore must be viewed as sharing their
defects (19); we reply that what the simile means to negative is merely
that Brahman should, owing to its inherence in many places, participate
in the increase, decrease, and so on, of its abodes. On this view both
similes are appropriate (20).--Analogous similes we observe to be
employed in ordinary life, as when we compare a man to a lion (21).

Sutras 22-30 constitute, according to /S/a@nkara, a new adhikara/n/a
(VI), whose object it is to show that the clause 'not so, not so' (neti
neti; B/ri/hadar) negatives, not Brahman itself, but only the two forms
of Brahman described in the preceding part of the chapter. Sutras 23-26
further