/a/s/in-cup, which, according to different passages, is either to
be offered or not to be offered at the atiratra-sacrifice.

We have proved herewith that Scripture offers no basis for the doctrine
of the pradhana. That this doctrine cannot be proved either by Sm/ri/ti
or by ratiocination will be shown later on.

14. (Although there is a conflict of the Vedanta-passages with regard to
the things created, such as) ether and so on; (there is no such conflict
with regard to the Lord) on account of his being represented (in one
passage) as described (in other passages), viz. as the cause (of the
world).

In the preceding part of the work the right definition of Brahman has
been established; it has been shown that all the Vedanta-texts have
Brahman for their common topic; and it has been proved that there is no
scriptural authority for the doctrine of the pradhana.--But now a new
objection presents itself.

It is not possible--our opponent says--to prove either that Brahman is
the cause of the origin, &c. of the world, or that all Vedanta-texts
refer to Brahman; because we observe that the Vedanta-texts contradict
one another. All the Vedanta-passages which treat of the creation
enumerate its successive steps in different order, and so in reality
speak of different creations. In one place it is said that from the Self
there sprang the ether (Taitt. Up. II, 1); in another place that the
creation began with fire (Ch. Up. VI, 2, 3); in another place, again,
that the Person created breath and from breath faith (Pr. Up. VI, 4); in
another place, again, that the Self created these worlds, the water
(above the heaven), light, the mortal (earth), and the water (below the
earth) (Ait. Ar. II, 4, 1, 2; 3). There no order is stated at all.
Somewhere else it is said that the creation originated from the
Non-existent. 'In the beginning this was non-existent; from it was born
what exists' (Taitt. Up. II, 7); and, 'In the beginning this was
non-existent; it became existent; it grew' (Ch. Up. III, 19, 1). In
another place, again, the doctrine of the Non-existent being the
antecedent of the creation is impugned, and the Existent mentioned in
its stead. 'Others say, in the beginning there was that only which is
not; but how could it be thus, my dear? How could that which is be born
of that which is not?' (Ch. Up. VI, 2, 1; 2.) And in another place,
again, the development of the world is spoken of as having taken place
spontaneously, 'Now