^242:2 In this passage, which is very obscure, Sankara fails us, either because, as Anandagnana says, he thought the text was too easy to require any explanation, or because the writers of the MSS. left out the passage. Anandagnana explains: 'He looked through all creatures, he identified himself with them, and thought he was a man, blind, happy, &c.; or, as it is elsewhere expressed, he developed forms and names. And how did this mistake arise? Because he did not see the other, the true Self;' or literally, 'Did he see the other Self?' which is only a figure of speech to convey the meaning that he did not see it. The particle iti is then to be taken in a causal sense, (i. e. he did so, because what else could he have wished to proclaim?) But he allows another explanation, viz. 'He considered all beings, whether they existed by themselves or not, and after having considered, he arrived at the conclusion, What shall I call different from the true Self?' The real difficulties, however, are not removed by these explanations. First of all, we expect vavadisham before iti, and secondly, unless anyam refers to atmanam, we expect anyad. My own translation is literal, but I am not certain that it conveys the true meaning. One might understand it as implying that the Self looked about through all things, in order to find out, 'What does wish to proclaim here another Self?' And when he saw there was nothing which did not come from himself, then he recognised that the Purusha, the person he had sent forth, or, as we should say, the person he had created, was the developed Brahman, was the Atman, was himself. Sayana explains vavadishat by vadishyami, but before iti the third person cannot well refer to the subject of vyaikshat.