ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. XXXV11
knowledge relating'to Him." The aim of this aphorism is to shew that the Brahman, as defined in the previous aphorism, can be made out only by means of the Vedanla, and that there is no other means of knowing Him. The meaning of the aphorism is as usual explained and then the question it relates to is taken up for discussion. Against the above-mentioned view of the Vcddntin that the scrip- ture alone forms the source of all our knowledge relating to the Brahman, the Mlmamsakas, the Naiyydyikas, and the Vaiscshikas are the prominent orthodox objectors ; and the position of the Mlmdmsaka is given at first, after stating, however,'the general objection that the Brahman is capable of being made out by other means of proof than the scripture, and that the scripture has in consequence no special meaning or authority in this matter. The Mlmdm- saka agrees with the Vcddntin so far as the revelational authority of the scripture is concerned, but holds that the scripture is an inviolable authority in relation to ritualistic 'works' also. Therefore he naturally contends that the Brahman cannot be proved either by perception, or by in- ference. External perception, internal perception, zndyogic perception are all shown to be incapable of proving the Brahman; audit is next pointed out that neither deduction nor induction can establish the Brahman (pp. 265-267.). Here the Naiyydyika comes forward and says that the world is seen to be made up of component parts, and is thus a produced effect. Whatever is a produced effect necessarily implies a competent producing agent, and such an agent is the Brahman. Moreover, the world that is pro- duced out of non-intelligent matter cannot but be subject to the control of a single intelligent being, who has to be the Brahman in this case. Accordingly He is capable of being proved by logic (page 267.). At this point the Mimdmsaka
