अभिमानिव्यपदेशस्तु विशेषानुगतिभ्याम् ॥ ५ ॥
abhimānivyapadeśastu viśeṣānugatibhyām || 5 ||
abhimānivyapadeśaḥ—The reference (is) to the presiding deities; tu—but; viśeṣa-anugatibhyām—because of the special characterization and the fact of being so presided.
5. But the reference is to the presiding deities (of the organs) on account of the special characterization (as ‘deities’) and also from the fact of a deity so presiding (over the functions of an organ being approved by the Sruti in other texts).
The opponent, who says that the world and Brahman being different in nature—sensient and material respectively—cannot be related to each other as cause and effect, anticipates a plausible objection and answers it in this Sutra. There is a text, “These organs quarrelling over their respective greatness,” etc. (Brih. 6. 1. 7), which shows that even the organs are not material but sentient. The opponent says that from this we are not to infer the sentiency of the world, since the reference is to the presiding deities of these organs. For the same topic occurs in the Kausnitaki Upanishad, where they are expressly mentioned. “These deities (speech etc.) quarrelling over their respective greatness” (Kau. 2. 14). Also because other texts show the existence of such presiding deities. “Fire becoming speech entered the mouth” (Ait. Ar. 2. 4. 2. 4). The same argument applies to texts of the Chhandogya, Ch. VI, where fire etc. are said to have thought and produced the next element in the series. The thought here spoken of is of the highest Deity, Brahman, which is connected with Its effects as a superintending principle. From all such texts we cannot infer the sentiency of the world, which is material and so different in nature from Brahman. Therefore Brahman cannot be the cause of the material world.