sense, i.e. the individual soul. It consequently became the task of the
Vedântin to guard the Upanishads against misinterpretations of the kind,
and this he did in the first adhyâya of the Vedânta-sûtras, selecting
those passages about whose interpretation doubts were, for some reason
or other, likely to arise. Some of the passages singled out are
certainly obscure, and hence liable to various interpretations; of
others it is less apparent why it was thought requisite to discuss them
at length. But this is hardly a matter in which we are entitled to find
fault with the Sûtrakára; for no modern scholar, either European or
Hindu, is--or can possibly be--sufficiently at home, on the one hand, in
the religious and philosophical views which prevailed at the time when
the Sûtras may have been composed, and, on the other hand, in the
intricacies of the Mîmâ/m/sâ, to judge with confidence which Vedic
passages may give rise to discussions and which not.

Notes:

[Footnote 1: The only 'sectarian' feature of the Srî-bhâshya is, that
identifies Brahman with Vish/n/u or Nârâya/n/a; but this in no way
affects the interpretations put on the Sûtras and Upanishads. Nârâya/n/a
is in fact nothing but another name of Brahman.]

[Footnote 2: The Roman numerals indicate the number of the adhikara/n/a;
the figures in parentheses state the Sûtras comprised in each
adhikara/n/a.]

[Footnote 3: Deussen's supposition (pp. 30, 150) that the passage
conveying the second interpretation is an interpolation is liable to two
objections. In the first place, the passage is accepted and explained by
all commentators; in the second place, /S/a@nkara in the passage