man as unqualified only declare that He is free from the qualities appertaining to material nature. There are also many passages which speak of the Brahman as qualified* and these declare that He is intrinsically possessed of all the auspicious and divine qualities. And His possessing the divine qualities is not contradicted by the non-possession of the qualities that appertain to material nature (pp. 1 1 2- ii 6.). The Ananda-valll of the Taittirlya-Upanishad teaches the Brahman to be possessed of qualities, and in doing so agrees with passages in the dihdndogya- Upanishad', and the Kena- Upanishad (II. 3.) does not declare that the Brahman forms no object of knowledge, in as much as this Upanishad has to agree in meaning with the Taittirlya- Upanishad and the Mnndaka- Upanishad wherein it is declared that the Brahman has to be known and is cap- able of being known (pp. 116-119.). The passage in the Brihadaranyaka-Upanishad " Thou shalt not see the seer of the sight, nor think the thinker of the thought "- is next shown not to negative the seer and the knower as distinct from sight and knowledge ; and then the state- ment that the Brahman is bliss is interpreted to mean that the Brahman is indeed the Blissful Being (pp. 119- I2i.). Finally it is pointed out that the Upanishadic passages which negative distinctions do not contradict those other passages which postulate distinctions, in as much as the world which is full of distinctions has the Brahman for its Self and has in consequence an organic oneness of nature ; and it is shewn that the author of the Vcdanta-Sulras is also of this same opinion (pp. 121- 124.).
The question, whether the Smritis and the Puranas teach the attributeless Brahman to be pure intelligence and the only reality, is next examined in detail ; and at
