The comparative study of the different commentaries on Brahma Sutras leaves no doubt as to Sankara’s system being the only true representative of the Sutrakara’s views. In the purely argumentative part of the Darshana, i. e. 2nd Adhyaya, Pada 2, the last Adhikarana, sutras 42-45, he refutes the views of Bhagwatas. The Vaishnava commentaries with Sankara admit that the Sutras 42-43 raise objections against the system. The sutra 45, the last sutra of the Adhikarana, runs thus:—
This is analogous to the previously given last sutra which concludes the Sankhya refutation.
II.,2, 10. Consequently the Sutra 45, like its predecessor Sutra 10, of the same Pada cannot refer to anything else but the contradictions in the Pancharatra system. Besides the whole Pada all along being purely argumentative and not at a single place throughout Scriptural authority being appealed to, the Vaishnava commentators have no right to interpret the last Sutra so as to imply no contradiction with the Shruti. Thus the last Sutra conclusively rejects the Bhagavata‘s system. We turn now to Sutra 44. It runs —

.The two preceding Sutras are
.II 42 and
43 which present powerful argumentative objections against the system and objecting criticism or attacking objection being the purport, principle or
.method which dominates every one of the Sutras from No. 1 to No. 43 throughout the Pada, Sankara naturally takes the?
b.    of Sutra 44 to refer to the objection raised in the preceding Sutra 43 or 42, an interpretation amply supported by Sutra 45. Shri
Ramanuja and others on the other hand make the
simply the Bhagawata system, and take the Sutra to be the Siddhanta which refutes the Purva Paksha given in the two preceding Sutras. Here
any careful observer will at once see that
and not
has been the particle employed by the Sutrakara whenever he meant to reject a Purva Paksha. Again the objections being given in three Sutras, the
Siddhanta could not have only one Sutra to it and that not the last. Again full 44 Sutras being devoted to objections and refutations, the Sutrakara could not balance his controversing energy by a single Siddhanta Sutra, i. e., No. 44. There was no need of it either, the Siddhanta having thoroughly and at length been settled in the first Adhyaya.
Further, the forced interpretation by which Shri Ramanuja attempts to defend his Sutra 44 commits himself to Advaita Vedanta against his will. The Madhava system interprets Sutras in the light of the Pauranic authority all through and everybody knows that sutras were not intended to systematize the Pauranas but the Vedic Upanishads. The Anu Bhashya follows Ramanuja. For any impartial and capable judge, the Sutras give no quarters to any system but that of Sankara whose Bhashya then is the oldest and the best.
According to Rama’s individual opinion, it were no loss to Advaitn, if the Sutrakara actually taught something else, but it is a great credit to him that he thoroughly grasped it and preached nothing else. The authentic Upanishads even according to such observers as Deussen, Gough, Thibaut, etc.,
bear out Sankara’s system. Sankara talks of the Bhagwatas with great respect and regard. And the beauty of his system is that not only does he reconcile all the Vedic texts so beautifully as surely none else can, but without giving up his own Advaita position, he can accommodate all other systems assigning each a place. He recommends pure action Nishkama Karma for the seekers of peace. He encourages Bhakti and has a significant place for the Lord Ishwara, giving the only irrefutable conception of the same.
The non-monistic on the other hand cannot assimilate his non-dualism.
Rama reads the Sanhita hymns. Oh! How elevating and sweet a study! The names of Devas, Yajna, Soma, and other technical words, Rama takes in a sense of his own, though derivable from the primitive roots of the words. Thus to him the Sanhitas are nothing but Vedantic hymns. Rama used to read Haaz, Amir Khusro and other Persian poets giving to Mai, Zulf, Saki, a peculiar religious significance and the whole Diwan was full of spiritual enjoyment. Of course more direct and penetrating are the Vedic hymns.
The Christian Bible has had about as many interpretations as the generations through which it has passed and purely Vedantic interpretations are not being wanting. And so has every other living religious work been interpreted to suit the spiritual wants of the people who used it.
Rama sometimes feels as if the Vedas were handed down especially for himself. But let no one try, for other people, to displace the traditional or conventional or original significations of the Vedic words and Mantras by his private interpretations however much the latter may be commendable to himself.
Unless a religious Scripture meets the spiritual wants of the people, it cannot live, and as the people grow in the course of Evolution, the interpretation of the religious Scriptures of theirs must advance with them.
(From Rama’s Scrap Book).
People appear to be acting very unreasonably; behaving in a sort of vague dim fashion, not knowing their own good and are quite inconsistent, and why? Because the world is no more than a dream. What could you expect of the dream objects but vagueness, dim, hazy, undefined, stumbling outlines?
Jivan mukta is one who lacks the ordinary springs of motive and consequently cannot be influenced in any way.
One whom profit and loss, counsel of friends, gain and disadvantage, talk of pupils, crooked suggestions of adversaries, unexpected news of any kind can influence and draw from him “what?” etc., he is unworthy to lead, incapable of guiding. His stage of realization is low (Sthiti) and is in a dangerous position.
La ilaha illillaha
So long as magnanimity (Udarata) has not become natural with us, we cannot realize God. No realization for a close mind. No peace for the close-minded (Kripana), and yet the outward relations force on us thoughts by which we are contracted into narrow limits. Magnanimity must be the rule and yet the world generates the very opposite in us. How to reconcile? The rule of conduct must be magnanimity and this can be observed and kept up only when in the heart of hearts we believe in the Reality of God alone, acting through our neighbours, their seeming forms being non-entity.
Come, I will show you God!
Look at that face which seems shaped out of innocence. That is beauty. Innocence, renunciation (tyaga), wonder, indifference, and denial of the sense-possession constitute beauty. Attractiveness, spiritual or material, is always in direct proportion to innocence. The charm of colours emanating from the white light is wholly due to renunciation and self-abnegation. That very colour which we ascribe to an object is just the one which has been renounced by it. The white and bright object is one which renounces all the colours.
Loveliness is just in proportion to claimlessness as in the baby and the child.
Now see in the same direction, look straight and gaze through till the line of Beauty and the line of objectivity meet converging as they do, to the same point (God). Woe unto you, if you fall down on the way.
When we concentrate on what is foolishly called the “beautiful object”, the beauty materially suffers thereby, just as much as the beauty spiritual, provided the person believe in our compliments.
Abnegating the sense of possession, transparency results. By attributing possession to a face you tend to make it ugly. Thus you dig a pit and fall into it. Damn not yourself and also the so-called charming thing; see beyond, see God, tear the veil of appearance, look through and see Rama.
The system building advice and organising conscious exertions of the worldly wise are just as impractical and futile as the strained and unnatural labour-advice to students given in Todd’s Students Manual. The child, if alive, the organization of body develops and grows of itself, similarly you need only to live, i.e., be one with God, and see the organizations forming around you spontaneously.
If you are induced to sympathise with the worldly and take on their condition, why should you not sympathise with God and take on his Being? He is poor enough, there being nothing besides him and an orphan (having no parents).