35. 'If, however, you say, the sacrifice is performed by yourself, still you cannot disavow that He is the author of it. He who is self-acting out of the fulness of His power, is the author of a deed, no other. 36, 37. 'Again, if the Lord is the performer of all sins, however many there are committed, what virtue of His have you in view that you should foster devotion to Him? On the other hand, if it is not He who commits them, since He abhors wickedness, it is not right to say that everything is created by the Lord. 38, 39. 'Further, the sovereignty of the Lord must rest either on the lawful order of things (Dharma) or on something else. If on the former, then the Lord cannot have existed before the Dharma. If effected by some external cause, it should rather be called "bondage;" for if a state of dependency should not bear that name, what state may not be called "sovereignty?" 'Nevertheless, if in spite of this reasoning, attached to the doctrine of Devotion[169] and without having well reflected on its probability or improbability, [169] The belief in a Supreme Being, Lord (Î_s_vara), is in itself of course also a belief in the strong effectiveness of devotion (bhakti). 40. 'You persist in holding the Supreme Being and Lord for the sole cause of the whole universe, does it, then, become you to impute to me the murder of that chief of monkeys, which has been decided by the Supreme Being?' So reasoning with a well-connected series of conclusive arguments, the High-minded One struck dumb, so to speak, the minister who was an adherent of the Lord (Î_s_vara)-supreme cause. And turning to that minister who was a partisan of the doctrine of former actions, he addressed him in a very skilful manner, saying: 'No more does it become you, too, to censure me. According to your opinion, everything is the consequence of former actions. For this reason, I tell you, 41. 'If everything ought to be imputed exclusively to the power of former actions, then this monkey has been rightly killed by me. He has been burnt by the wild fire of his former actions. What fault of mine is to be found here that you should blame me? 42. 'On the other hand, suppose I did a bad action in killing the ape, I must be the cause of his death, not his former actions. Further, if you state, that karma (always) produces (fresh) karma, nobody will reach final emancipation[170] in your system. [170] Final emancipation necessarily implies cessation of actions, for it is the same thing as total extinction. 43. 'Verily, if something like this should be seen: happiness enjoyed by him who lives in circumstances productive of suffering, or sufferings visiting such a one whose circumstances are instruments of happiness, then we should have the right to infer, it is beyond question, that good and evil fortune depend exclusively on former actions.