ct in general
(karyamatra), without implying that the effect is real. But in cases of
this nature we are fully entitled to use our own judgment, even if we
were not compelled to do so by the fact that other commentators, such as
Ramanuja, are satisfied to take 'pari/n/ama' and similar terms in their
generally received sense.

A further section treating of the nature of Brahman is met with in III,
2, 11 ff. It is, according to /S/a@nkara's view, of special importance,
as it is alleged to set forth that Brahman is in itself destitute of all
qualities, and is affected with qualities only through its limiting
adjuncts (upadhis), the offspring of Maya. I have above (in the
conspectus of contents) given a somewhat detailed abstract of the whole
section as interpreted by /S/a@nkara on the one hand, and Ramanuja on
the other hand, from which it appears that the latter's opinion as to
the purport of the group of Sutras widely diverges from that of
/S/a@nkara. The wording of the Sutras is so eminently concise and vague
that I find it impossible to decide which of the two commentators--if
indeed either--is to be accepted as a trustworthy guide; regarding the
sense of some Sutras /S/a@nkara's explanation seems to deserve
preference, in the case of others Ramanuja seems to keep closer to the
text. I decidedly prefer, for instance, Ramanuja's interpretation of
Sutra 22, as far as the sense of the entire Sutra is concerned, and more
especially with regard to the term 'prak/ri/taitavattvam,' whose proper
force is brought out by Ramanuja's explanation only. So much is certain
that none of the Sutras decidedly favours the interpretation proposed by
/S/a@nkara. Whichever commentator we follow, we greatly miss coherence
and strictness of reasoning, and it is thus by no means improbable that
the section is one of those--perhaps not few in number--in which both
interpreters had less regard to the literal sense of the words and to
tradition than to their desire of forcing Badaraya/n/a's Sutras to bear
testimony to the truth of their own philosophic theories.

With special reference to the Maya doctrine one important Sutra has yet
to be considered, the only one in which the term 'maya' itself occurs,
viz. III, 2, 3. According to /S/a@nkara the Sutra signifies that the
environments of the dreaming soul are not real but mere Maya, i.e.
unsubstantial illusion, because they do not fully manifest the character
of real objects. Ramanuja (as we have