set forth the same doctrine.
Whatever the true philosophy of the Upanishads may be, there remains the
undeniable fact that there exist and have existed since very ancient
times not one but several essentially differing systems, all of which
lay claim to the distinction of being the true representatives of the
teaching of the Upanishads as well as of the Sutras. Let us suppose, for
argument's sake, that, for instance, the doctrine of Maya is distinctly
enunciated in the Upanishads; nevertheless Ramanuja and, for all we know
to the contrary, the whole series of more ancient commentators on whom
he looked as authorities in the interpretation of the Sutras, denied
that the Upanishads teach Maya, and it is hence by no means impossible
that Badaraya/n/a should have done the same. The a priori style of
reasoning as to the teaching of the Sutras is therefore without much
force.

But apart from any intention of arriving thereby at the meaning of the
Sutras there, of course, remains for us the all-important question as to
the true teaching of the Upanishads, a question which a translator of
the Sutras and /S/a@nkara cannot afford to pass over in silence,
especially after reason has been shown for the conclusion that the
Sutras and the /S/a@nkara-bhashya do not agree concerning most important
points of Vedantic doctrine. The Sutras as well as the later
commentaries claim, in the first place, to be nothing more than
systematisations of the Upanishads, and for us a considerable part at
least of their value and interest lies in this their nature. Hence the
further question presents itself by whom the teaching of the Upanishads
has been most adequately systematised, whether by Badaraya/n/a, or
/S/a@nkara, or Ramanuja, or some other commentator. This question
requires to be kept altogether separate from the enquiry as to which
commentator most faithfully renders the contents of the Sutras, and it
is by no means impossible that /S/a@nkara, for instance, should in the
end have to be declared a more trustworthy guide with regard to the
teaching of the Upanishads than concerning the meaning of the Sutras.

We must remark here at once that, whatever commentator may be found to
deserve preference on the whole, it appears fairly certain already at
the outset that none of the systems which Indian ingenuity has succeeded
in erecting on the basis of the Upanishads can be accepted in its
entirety. The reason for this lies in the nature of the Up