dwell on Brahman being in reality devoid of all distinctive
attributes which are altogether due to the upadhis. The last four Sutras
return to the question how, Brahman being one only, the souls are in so
many places spoken of as different from it, and, two explanatory
hypotheses having been rejected, the conclusion is arrived at that all
difference is unreal, due to fictitious limiting adjuncts.

According to Ramanuja, Sutras 22 ff. continue the discussion started in
Sutra 11. How, the question is asked, can the ubhayali@ngatva of Brahman
be maintained considering that the 'not so, not so' of the
B/ri/hadara/n/yaka denies of Brahman all the previously mentioned modes
(prakara), so that it can only be called that which is (sanmatra)?--The
reply given in Sutra 22 is that 'not so, not so' does not deny of
Brahman the distinctive qualities or modes declared previously (for it
would be senseless at first to teach them, and finally to deny them
again[16]), but merely denies the prak/ri/taitavattva, the previously
stated limited nature of Brahman, i.e. it denies that Brahman possesses
only the previously mentioned qualifications. With this agrees, that
subsequently to 'neti neti' Scripture itself enunciates further
qualifications of Brahman. That Brahman as stated above is not the
object of any other means of proof but Scripture is confirmed in Sutra
23, 'Scripture declares Brahman to be the non-manifest.'--And the
intuition (sakshatkkara) of Brahman ensues only upon its sa/m/radhana,
i.e. upon its being perfectly pleased by the worshipper's devotion, as
Scripture and Sm/ri/ti declare (24).--That this interpretation of 'neti'
is the right one, is likewise shown by the fact that in the same way as
praka/s/a, luminousness, j/n/ana, intelligence, &c., so also the quality
of being differentiated by the world (prapa/nk/avsish/t/ata) is intuited
as non-different, i.e. as likewise qualifying Brahman; and that
praka/s/a, and so on, characterise Brahman, is known through repeated
practice (on the part of /ri/shis like Vamadeva) in the work of
sa/m/radhana mentioned before (25).--For all these reasons Brahman is
connected with the infinite, i.e. the infinite number of auspicious
qualities; for thus the twofold indications (li@nga) met with in
Scripture are fully justified (26).--In what relation, then, does the
a/k/id vastu, i.e. the non-sentient matter, which, according to the
b/ri/hadara/n/yaka, is one of the forms of Brahman, stand