further, and thereupon proceeds to explain that
the acknowledged distinction of a higher Brahman devoid of all qualities
and a lower Brahman characterised by qualities necessitates an
investigation whether certain Vedic texts of prima facie doubtful import
set forth the lower Brahman as the object of devout meditation, or the
higher Brahman as the object of true knowledge. But that such an
investigation is actually carried on in the remaining portion of the
first adhyaya, appears neither from the wording of the Sutras nor even
from /S/a@nkara's own treatment of the Vedic texts referred to in the
Sutras. In I, 1, 20, for instance, the question is raised whether the
golden man within the sphere of the sun, with golden hair and beard and
lotus-coloured eyes--of whom the Chandogya Upanishad speaks in 1, 6,
6--is an individual soul abiding within the sun or the highest Lord.
/S/a@nkara's answer is that the passage refers to the Lord, who, for the
gratification of his worshippers, manifests himself in a bodily shape
made of Maya. So that according to /S/a@nkara himself the alternative
lies between the sagu/n/a Brahman and some particular individual soul,
not between the sagu/n/a Brahman and the nirgu/n/a Brahman.

Adhik. VI (12-19) raises the question whether the anandamaya, mentioned
in Taittiriya Upanishad II, 5, is merely a transmigrating individual
soul or the highest Self. /S/a@nkara begins by explaining the Sutras on
the latter supposition--and the text of the Sutras is certainly in
favour of that interpretation--gives, however, finally the preference to
a different and exceedingly forced explanation according to which the
Sutras teach that the anandamaya is not Brahman, since the Upanishad
expressly says that Brahman is the tail or support of the
anandamaya[3].--Ramanuja's interpretation of Adhikara/n/a VI, although
not agreeing in all particulars with the former explanation of
/S/a@nkara, yet is at one with it in the chief point, viz. that the
anandamaya is Brahman. It further deserves notice that, while /S/a@nkara
looks on Adhik. VI as the first of a series of interpretatory
discussions, all of which treat the question whether certain Vedic
passages refer to Brahman or not, Ramanuja separates the adhikara/n/a
from the subsequent part of the pada and connects it with what had
preceded. In Adhik. V it had been shown that Brahman cannot be
identified with the pradhana; Adhik. VI shows that it is different from
the indi