and according to such Vedic texts, From which are these. The evidence adducible for this is described (in the third aphorism): Because it has its source from the system. That the absolute should be reached by way of inference is rejected by such texts as, He that knows not the Veda cogitates not that mighty one; Him described in the Upanishads. Inference, moreover, is not by itself authoritative, as is said in the Kaurma-puráṇa-- "Inference, unaccompanied by revelation, in no case "Can definitely prove a matter, nor can any other form of evidence; "Whatsoever other form of evidence, companioned by revelation and tradition, "Acquires the rank of probation, about this there can be no hesitation." What a Śástra (or system of sacred institutes) is, has been stated in the Skanda-puráṇa:-- "The Rig-veda, the Yajur-veda, the Sáma-veda, the Atharva-veda, the Mahábhárata, the Pañcha-rátra, and the original Rámáyaṇa, are called Śástras. "That also which is conformable to these is called Śástra. "Any aggregate of composition other than this is a heterodoxy." According, then, to the rule that the sense of the sacred institutes is not to be taken from other sources than these, the Monist view, viz., that the purport of the texts of the Veda relates not to the duality learnt from those but to non-duality, is rejected: for as there is no proof of a God from inference, so there is no proof of the duality between God and other things from inference. Therefore there can be in these texts no mere explanation of such duality, and the texts must be understood to indicate the duality. Hence it is that it has said:-- "I ever laud Náráyaṇa, the one being to be known from genuine revelation, who transcends the perishable and the imperishable, without imperfections, and of inexhaustible excellences." It has thus been evinced that the sacred institutes are the evidence of (the existence of) this (ultimate reality, _Brahman_). (The fourth aphorism is): But that is from the construction. In regard to this, the commencement and other elements are stated to be the marks of the construction, in the Bṛihat-saṃhitá:-- "Commencement, conclusion, reiteration, novelty, profit, eulogy, and demonstration, are the marks by which the purport is ascertained." It is thus stated that in accordance with the purport of the Upanishads the absolute is to be apprehended only from the sacred institutes. We have here given merely a general indication. What remains may be sought from the Ánandatírtha-bháshya-vyákhyána (or exposition of the Commentary of Ánanda-tírtha). We desist for fear of giving an undue prolixity to our treatise. This mystery was promulgated by Púrṇa-prajña Madhya-mandira, who esteemed himself the third incarnation of Váyu:-- "The first was Hanumat, the second Bhíma, "The third Púrṇa-prajña, the worker of the work of the Lord."