Taittiriya Upanishad

May Mitra, the deity who identifies himself with and is the self of the function of exhaling and of day; become sam, blissful; nah, to us. Similarly, too, Varuna is the deity who identifies himself with and is the self of the function of inhaling and of night. Aryaman identifies himself with the eye and the sun, Indra with strength, and Brhaspati with speech and intellect. Visnu is urukramah, possessed of great strides, and identifies himself with the feet. These are the deities in the context of the body. The expression, sam nah bhavatu, may he be blissful to us, is to be connected with all. Since the comprehension, retention, and communication of the knowledge of Brahman can proceed without hindrance when the gods are benevolent, their benignity is being prayed for by saying sam nah bhavatu etc. Salutation and euloty are offered to Vayu (Air) by one craving for the knowledge of Brahman, so that the hindrances to the knowledge of Brahman may be averted. Since the fruits of all actions are in his keeping, Vayu is Brahman; brahmane, to that Brahman; namah, (humble) salutation; the expression, 'I offer', has to be added to complete the sentence; Namah, salutation; te, to you; vayo, O Vayu; i.e. I salute you. Thus Yayu (Air, Life) himself is referred to both mediately and immediately. Besides, (O Air), since tvam eva asi, you yourself are; pratyaksam brahma, the direct and immediate Brahman-being proximate and without any intervention, as contrasted with outer organs like the eye etc.; therefore, vadisyami, I shall call, tvam eva, you alone; as pratyaksam brahma, the direct and immediate Brahman. [Brahman is referred to indirectly by such words as, 'That' and directly by the word Vayu; for Vayu, in the form of the vital force (prana) is directly perceived, though as sutra (Hiranyagarbha linking up all) he is known indirectly. The life force is more directly cognized than the sense-organs like the eye etc., which have to be inferred from the fact of their perceiving colour etc. The vital force is directly cognized by the witness (Self); and as compared with the sense-organs, it is nearer to the Self. Besides, the word Brahman, derivatively means that which nourishes. The vital force nourishes the body; therefore, with regard to the body it is Brahman.] Rtam, righteousness, is an idea fully ascertained by the intellect in accordance with the scriptures and in conformity with practice; that, too, being subject to you, vadisyami, I shall speak of you alone as that (rta). Satyam, truth, is that which is reduced to practice through speech and bodily action; since that truth, too, is practised under you, vadisyami, I shall call you that truth. May tat, that, the all-pervasive Brahman, called Vayu, being thus prayed, to by me who hanker after knowledge; avatu mam, protect me-by endowing me with knowledge. May tat, that very Brahman; avatu, protect; vaktaram, the teacher- by endowing him with the power of exposition. The repetition of the expressions, avatu mam avatu vaktaram, is for showing eagerness (for knowledge). The three repetitions in Om santih, santih, santih, (Om, peace, peace, peace) are for destroying the three kinds of obstacles to the acquistion of knowledge, viz the physical, the natural, and the supernatural.

The chapter 'On the Science of Pronunciation' is begun so that there may not be any slackness in the effort involved in the recital of the text; for the comprehension of meaning plays a porminent part in the Upanisad. [Comprehension of meaning is dependent on porper pronunciation; and slackness in effort refers to errors in pronunciation.] Siksa, (derivatively) signifying that through which something is learnt, is the science of pronunciation of letters etc. Or, from the (derivative) implication of those things that are learnt, siksa, means the letters etc. Siksa is the same as siksa, the lengthening (of i) being a Vedic licence. That siksam, science of pronunciation. vyakhyasyamah, we shall explain- (derivatively meaning) we shall speak (khyasyamah) clearly (vi) and fully (a). This form of the verb, signifying as it does the revelation of the activity (of the) organ of speech), is derived from the root caksin which optionally changes into khya, and is preceded by vi and a. Now, the varnah, alphabet, consists of a etc. The svarah, accent, is udatta (elevated) etc. (svaritah, pitched; and anudatta, unaccented). The matrah, measures (the times required to pronounce), are short etc. Balam, emphasis, is the kind of effort (in pronunciation). Samah is uniformity-the medium mode of pronunication of letters. Santanah is the same as samhita, i.e. juxtaposition (conjoining of the letters etc.). This is, indeed , what is to be taught. This siksadhyayah, chapter in which siksa, occurs; uktah, has been spoken; iti, thus. The conclusion with the word uktah, is for the sake of making the way clear for what follows.

Now is being stated the (esoteric) meditation on the samhita (conjoining of letters). There, again, may the yasah, fame-which is prayed for as a reward for the full knowledge of the (esoteric) meditation on the samhita etc.; come saha, simultaneously; nau, to us both-to the teacher and the taught. And the brahmavarcasam, spiritual preeminence, splendour, that results from it; may that, too, occur saha, simultaneously; nau, to us both. This is an expression of a prayer on the part of the pupil. For, in the case of a pupil a prayer is appropriate, since his aspiration still remains unrealized. But this is not a prayer of the teacher, as he has gained the goal. For a teacher is called so when his aspiration has been fulfilled. Since the intellect that is too much occupied with (verbal) texts cannot easily be led to the domain of comprehension of meaning, atah, therefore; atha, after this, after the codification of the science of study; vyakhyasyamah, we shall state; upanisadam samhitayah, the Upanisad, i.e. meditation, with regard to the samhita (conjoining of letters)-a subject that is closely related to the (verbal) text itself; pancasu adhikaranesu, under five headings-through five means, i.e. subjects of knowledge. Which are they? They are being enumerated; adhilokam, the meditation that refers to the words; similarly, adhijyautisam, meditation concerning lights; adhividyam, meditation concerning knowledge; adhiprajam, meditation concerning progeny; adhyatmam, meditation concerning the body. The people versed in the Vedas, acaksate, speak of; tah, these-these meditations concerning five subjects-; as mahasamhitah, the great juxtapositions-they being great, since they relate to great things like the world, and being samhitas (juxtapositions) as well. Atha, now then; from among all these, as they are presented seriatim, adhilokam, the meditation with reference to the worlds, is being stated. The word atha is used everywhere to show the order (of meditation). Prthivi, the earth; is purvarupam, the earlier form, the earlier letter; this amounts to saying that one should think of the first letter, occuring in a juxtaposition, as the earth. Similarly, the uttararupam, the last letter; is dyauh, heaven. Akasah, sky (or space); is sandhih, the middle one, between th first and the last letters, since in it the first and last forms get united.

Vayuh, air, is; sandhanam, the link (a catalytic agent)-derived in the sense of that by which things are conjoined. ['To illustrate:- In the text ise tva, the e that follows the s is the sysmbol of the earth; the t that follows is identical with heaven; the intermediate space between these two letters is akasa (the tryst); the other t that emerges by duplication in that space as a result of the process of conjoining the two parts-the actual pronunciation being iset-tva-is identified with Vayau (the joining agent). This is how one should meditate.'-S.] Iti, thus far-is stated; adhilokam, the meditation with reference to the worlds. Atha adhijyautisam etc. are to be similarly explained. The two words, iti and imah, thus and these, allude to what was mentioned earlier. Yah, anyone who; evam, thus; veda, meditates; on etah mahasamhitah, these great juxtapositions; vyakhyatah, as explained-. The meaning of the word veda should be upasana, meditation or adoration, becuase the topic is of perfect knowledge, and because there is the text:- 'Thus, O Pracinayogya, you worship' (I.vi.2). And meditation consists in a current of uniform concepts, not interspersed with dissimilar ones, which proceeds according to the scripures and relates to an object enjoined in the scriptures. Besides, the word upasana is well known in the world in such sentences as, 'He upasate, waits on (i.e. adores), the Guru', 'He upasate, waits on (i.e. adores), the king'; for man who constantly serves the Guru and others is said to be rendering upasana (adoration to them); and he acquires the fruit of his adoration. Similarly, in the present context, too, he who meditates thus, sandhiyate, is conjoined with the things beginning from progeny and ending with heaven; that is, he acquires the fruits such as progeny and others.

Asani, may I become; yasah, i.e. yasasvi, famous; jane, among a multitude of people. Vasyasah is the same as vasiyasah, and means, from teh supremely affluent or from him that excels all the wealthy; sreyan, more praiseworthy; asani, may I become; this is the construction. Moreover, tam tva, into you, such as you are-as teh sheath of Brahman; bhaga, O Venerable One; pravisani, may I enter, and after entering, may I become identified, your very Self; this is the idea. Sah, you, too, such as you are; bhaga, O adorable One; pravisa, enter; ma, into me; let there be nothing but identity between us. Tasmin, in you, such as you are; sahasrasakhe, who are greatly diversified; aham, I; nimrje, purity my sinful acts. In the world, yatha, as; apah, water; yanti, goes (flows); pravata, down a sloping place; and yatha, as; masah, months; (roll into) aharjaram, the year-the year is aharjara since it, by undergoing change day be day, wears out people, or since the days get worn out, i.e. included in it; as the months go to it, evam, similarly; dhatah, O Ordainer of everything; let brahmacarinah, the Brahmacarins; mam ayantu, come to me; sarvatah, from all quarters. Prativesah means are resting-place, a house at hand. Thus, to those who are devoted to you, prativesah asi, you are like a rest-house, a place where all sorrows resulting from sin can be removed. Therefore, towards ma, me; prabhahi, you reveal youself; and prapadyasva, reach me through and through-make me full of you, i.e. indetified with you, like gold soaked in mercury. The prayer for prosperity dealt with in this context of knowledge is for the sake of wealth. Wealth is needed for rites; and rites are meant to diminish accumulated sins-on the exhaustion of these, indeed, knowledge becomes revealed. Supporting this view there is this Smrti:- 'Just as one sees oneself on the clean surface of a mirror, so knowledge arises for man on the exhaustion of sin' (Mbh. Sa. 204.8; Gar.I.237.6).

The meditation with regard to conjoining has been stated. After that have been dealt with, in an orderly way, the mantras for one who desires intelligence and prosperity. They, too,are indirectly helpful to knowledge. Then is being commenced the internal meditation on Brahman as identified with the Vyahrtis, [Bhuh, bhuvah, suvah, etc., which stand for the respective worlds, are technically called the Vyahrtis. 'These Vyahrtis had been accepted with faith (by the student). If Brahman is now taught by ignoring them, will not be comprehended by the student's intellect. Hence Brahman embodied in the Vyahrtis as Hiranyagarbha, is being presented for his inward meditation.'-A.G.] which has for its result the attainment of sovereignty (I.vi.2). The text bhuh bhuvah suvah iti is for drawing attention to what was stated (earlier). The statement etah tisrah, these three, is for calling up to memory the ones that have been enumerated; and vai (indeed) is used for refreshing the memory with regard to the things called up. Thus we are reminded of these three well-known Vyahrtis. Tasam, of these; this is the fourth Vyahrti called Moha. Mohacamasyah, the son of Mahacamasa, pravedayate, knows-i.e. knew, or visualized, becuase (the particles) u, ha, and sma, refer to what is past-; tam etam caturthim, this fourth one. The mention of Mahacamasya is by way of alluding to the seer (Rsi). And from the fact of his mention in the instruction here, it is to be understood that the remembrance of the seer, too, froms a apart of the meditation. The Vyahrti that was seen (discovered) by Mahacamasya, mahah iti, as Moha; tat, that; is brahma, Brahman; for Brahman is great (mahat), and the Vyahrti, too, is Maha. What is that again? It is the Self-the word atma (Self) being derived from the root ap in th sense of encompassing; for the other Vyahrtis, comprising the worlds, gods, the Vedas, and the vital forces, are encompassed by the Self in the form of the Vyaharti, Maha, which is identical with the sun, the moon, Brahman and food. Therefore anyah devatah, the other gods; are the angani, limbs. The mention of the gods is suggestive of the worlds and other factors as well. Since all the others, viz the gods, the worlds, etc., are the limbs of the Self in the form of the worlds etc., are the limbs of the Self in the form of the Vyahrti called Meha, therefore, the text says that the worlds etc., are made great by the sun etc., just as the limbs are made great through the Self (i.e. the trunk of the body). To become great (mahanam) is to grow, to develop; so mahiyante, means (they) grow. Ayam lokah (this world), agnih (fire), rgvedah (the Rg-Veda), pranah (exhalation)-these are the first Vyahrti, Bhuh. Similarly, each of the succeeding ones becomes fourfold. [The Vyahrti called Maha is the trunk or self of the body of Brahman is Its aspect of Hiranyagarbha, for the trunk in the main thing on which are fixed and by which are sustained the subsidiary limbs. The first Vyahrti (bhuh) forms the legs; the second (bhuvah) constitutes the hands; the third (suvah) is the head of the Cosmic Person. The main injunction here is about the meditation on Brahman as embodied in the Vyahrtis. Then follow four other subsidiary meditations on the individual Vyahrtis, each of which is to be looked upon as identical with four things.]

Maha is Brahman. Brahman means Om, for this being a context of words, any other meaning is inadmissible. The remaining portion stands already explained. Tah vai etah, these above-mentioned ones-Bhuh, bhuvah, Suvah, Mahah; these catasrah, foureach individually; are caturdha, of four kinds, the suffix dha implying mode. The meaning is that they, forming groups of four (things), become fourfold (individually). The instruction, over again, regarding those very things that were thought of before, is for the sake of making a strick rule about the sequence of their meditation. Yah veda, anyone who knows; tah, those-the Vyahrtis as mentioned; sah veda, he knows. Knows what? Brahma, Brahman. Objection:- Is it not a fact that when Brahman has been already known in (the text), 'It is Brahman, it is the Self', there should not be the statement again, 'he knows Brahman', as though It is still unknown? Answer:- No, there is no fault, since the intention is to state some specially about Brahman. It is true that Brahman has been known as identified with the fourth vyahrti (Mohah), but the special fact of Its being realizable within the heart has not been known; nor are the attributes beginning with 'who is realizabe through knowledge' etc., and ending with enriched with peace' (I.vi.1-2) which are being presented through a relationship of substance and qualities. Therefore, with a view to speaking of these, the scripture assumes as though Brahman is unknown, and says, 'he knows Brahman'. Thus there is no defect. The idea is this:- He, indeed, knows Brahman who knows It as qualified by the attributes to be mentioned hereafter. Hence the present chapter is connnected with the succeeding one through a single idea; for in both the chapters there is but a single meditation. And this is borne out by an indication (linga), too. For (the results spoken in) the statement, 'He resides in fire in the form of the Vyahrti Bhuh' etc., (occuring in the sixth chapter) points to the unity of the meditation. Moreover, this (unity) follows from the absence of any (independent) verb of injunction, for (in the sixth chapter) there is no such imperative word as veda (should meditate), upasitavyah (is to be meditated on). ['We do not find two independent verbs of injunction, from which to get the idea of two independent meditations. Besides, the division of the two chapters can be justified by holding one as dealing with a primary injunction and the other with a subsidiary injunction. Accordingly, there is no justification for splitting up the meditation'-A.G.] And again, since in the chapter dealing with the Vyahrtis the statement tah yah veda (he who knows these) (I.v.3) implies something that has still to be stated, there is nothing to lead to a splitting up of the meditation (into two). And by asserting that there is an intention of stating some specially, it has already been shown (by us) how this chapter has an ideological connection with what follows. Asmai, to this one-who has known thus:- sarve devah, all the deities-who form the limbs; avahanti, carry, bring; balim, offering-i.e. when 'he attains sovereignty' (I.vi.2).

It has been said that the other deities, viz those of Bhuh, Bhuvah and Suvah, are the limbs of Brahman as identified with the Vyahrti called Mahah. Just as a Salagrama (a stone symbol of Visnu) is in the case of Visnu, so the cavity of the heart is being presented as the place for the direct realization of and the meditation on Brahman of which those Vyahrtis are the limbs. For when Brahman is meditated on there, It is directly realized as possessed of such attributes as being 'realizable through knowledge' etc., like a myrobalan fruit in the hand. Moreover, the way to the realization of Self-identification with all has to be stated. Hence begins this chapter:- 1.6.1-2 The word sah (he) is to be construed with ayampurusah (this person), skipping over the intermediate worlds. Yah esah, this (space); that is antah hrdaye, inside the heart-. The heart is a lump of flesh in the shape of a lotus, which is the seat of the vital force, which opens out through many nerves, which has its stalk upwards and face downwards, and which is seen as a familiar thing when an aninmal is dissected. Within that is the akasah, space-quite familiar like the space within a water-pot; tasmin, within that; exists ayam purusah, this person-who was mentioned earlier. Purusa is (derivatively) so called because of sleeping (sayana) within puri, the city (of the heart); or He by whom the worlds, such as the earth, are filled up (purna) is the Purusa. (He is) manomayah:- manah means knowledge, being derived from the root man implying, to know; manomaya means 'consisting of that knowledge', because of being realized through it. [Since Brahman pervades the mind. It is realized in the mind which becomes transformed as knowledge (of Brahman).] Or manah may mean the internal organ (mind), being derived from the root man in the sense of that through which one thinks; and one who presides over the mind, is identified with it, or is indicated by it, is manomayah. (He is) amrtah, deathless; hiranmayah, effulgent. A path is being indicated which leads to the realization of that Indra (i.e.) Brahman) in his aforesaid nature who has these attributes, and who is realized within the cavity of the heart, and who is the Self of the man of knowledge. The nerve, called susumna, goes upward from the heart and is well known in the scriptures on Yoga. And that nerve runs, antarena, in the well-known middle part; talutke (should be talukayoh), of the two palates; and also through yah esah, that one-the pience of flesh which; stanah iva avalambate, hangs down like a teatbetween the palates. This is the idea. And yatra, where; kesantah, the ends or roots, of the hairs; vivartate, divide-i.e. the crown of the head; reaching that place, (the path) emerges out of it, vyapohya, splitting; sirsakapale, the skull-bones on the head; sa, that which (thus) issues forth; is indrayonih, the path of Indra, Brahman-i.e. the path for the realization of His true nature. The man of knowledge, who thus realizes the Self as identified with the mind, passes through the head, and pratitisthati, gets established; agnau, in Fire-(the deity) who presides over this world, who is identified with the Vyahrti Bhuh, and who is a limb of the great Brahman (as identified with Mahah). The idea is that the enlightened man pervades this world through his identity with Fire. Similarly, vayau, in Air; identified with the second Vyahrti, bhuvah iti, which is Bhuvah; 'he gets established'-this is understood. He becomes established, aditye, in the Sun; indetified with the third Vyahrti, suvah iti, which is Suvah. He becomes establised brahmani, in Brahman; identified with the fourth Vyahrti, maha iti, which is Maha, and of which the others are parts. Remaining in identification with them and becoming Brahman, apnoti, he attains; svarajyam, the state of a sovereign-he himself becomes a king, a ruler over all others, just as Brahman is over the gods who form Its limbs. And the deities that become his limbs carry offerings to him just as they do to Brahman. Apnoti manasaspatim, he attains the lord of the mind; since Brahman is all-pervasive, It is the lord of all the minds; indeed, It thinks through all the minds. A man who meditates thus attains It. Moreover, bhavati, he becomes; vakpatih, the ruler of all the organs of speech. Similarly, also caksupatih, the ruler of the eyes; srotrapatih, the ruler of the ears; and vijnanapatih, the ruler of intellects. [See s] The idea is that he, being the Self of all, becomes possessed of the (respective) organs through identification with the organs of all beings. Besides, tatah, over and above even all that; etat bhavati, he becomes this. What is that? The answer is being given; (He becomes) akasasariram-that which has akasa (space) as its body or whose body is as subtle as akasa. Who is that? Brahma, the Brahman, that is being discussed. It is satyatma:- that which has satya, the gross and the subtle as also truth as Its atma, real characteristic, is this satyatma. (That Brahman is) pranaramam:- that which has its aramana, disport, in the pranas, vital forces, is pranarama; or that in which the vital forces find their arama, delight, is pranarama. (It is) mana-anandam:- that whose mind (manah) has become bliss (ananda), a producer of happiness is manaananda. (It is) santi-samrddham:- santih is peace; the very entity which is peace, being also prosperous (samrddha), it is santi-samrddha; or that which is experienced to be enriched (samrddha) with peace is santi-samrddha. (It is) amrtam, immortal by nature. These additional attributes are to be understood as belonging to the earlier context beginning with manomayah, etc. Thus Pracina-yogya, O Pracinayogya; upassva, meditate on the aforesaid Brahman as possessed of the qualities of being realizable through knoweldge etc. This is a presentation of the teacher's utterance by way of demonstrating his love (for meditation). The meaning of the word upasana (meditation) has already been explained.

Of that very Brahman which has been presented for meditation as (Hiranyagarbha) identified with the Vyahrtis, another meditation, identifying It with the groups of five things beginning with the earth, is being stated. Because of the similarity of the number five, they are equated with the metre called Pankti. [Sampat is a kind of meditation in which a lower thing is thought of as some other higher thing because of some point of similarlity. Here the point of similarity is the number five. The different five factors, constituting the lower human personality, are here identified with the factors making up the higher cosmic Virat.] There by everything becomes identified with Pankti. And a sacrifice, too, is identified with Pankti, because the (metre) Pankti has five feet (with five letters is each), and a Vedic text says:- 'The sacrifice is equated with Pankti' [Since a sacrifice is performed with five factors-the sacrificer and his wife, the son, divine wealth, and human wealth. Thus everything can be eqauted not only with the metre Pankti, but also with sacrifice.] (Br I.vi.17). As a result, all things beginning from the worlds and ending with the atma (Virat) that are thought of as reduced to Pankti, are thereby virtually imagined to be a sacrifice. Through the sacrifice thus imagined, one becomes Prajapati (Virat) who is identified with all that is equated with Pankti. As to that, it is being shown how all this Universe consists of Pankti (five factors):- 1.7.1 The earth, sky, heaven, the (primary) quarters, and the inermediate quarters-these constitute the groups of five in the context of the worlds. Fire, Air, Sun, Moon, Starsthese constitute the group of five deities (lit. shining ones). Water, herbs, trees, space, and atma, constitute the collection of five natural things. The word atma implies the cosmic gross body (Virat) because this is a context of natural factors. Iti adhibhutam, this is with regard to natural things-this expression is used to imply the two groups of five worlds and the five deities as well, because the groups of the worlds and the five deities as well, because the groups of the five worlds and the five deities, too, have been mentioned earlier. Atha, after that; adhyatmam, with regard to the personal, the three groups of five each, are being stated:- Those beginning with prana (function of exhaling) constitute the group of five vital forces. Those starting with caksu (eye) make up the group of five sense organs. Those commencing with carma (skin) form the group of five constituents of the body. This much, indeed, is all that pertains to the personal. And the external also is fivefold. Therefore, etat adhividhaya, having imagined these thus; rsih, the Vedas, or some seer endowed with this vision; avocat, said. What? That is being said:- Panktam vai idam sarvam, all this is verily constituted by five factors; panktena eva, through the fivefold ones-the ones relating to the personal; sprnoti, one strengthens, fills up; panktam, the external fivefold ones, because of the similarity of number; that is to say, they are realizes as identical. The meaning is that, he who realizes all this (existence) as fivefold becomes identified with Prajapati Himself (who is constituted by the five gross elements).

The meditation on Brahman as identified with the Vyahrtis was stated (I. v, vi). Then followed a meditation on the same Brahman, conceived of as a fivefold entity (I.vii). Now is being sought to be enjoined a meditation on Om which is involved as a factor in all meditations. For though Om is a mere word, it becomes a means for the attainment of the supreme Brahman or of Hiranyagarbha in accordance as it is meditated on with the idea of the supreme Brahman or of Hiranyagarbha. Just as an image is a symbol of Visnu, so is Om verily a symbol of Brahman and Hiranyagarbha, in accordance with the Vedic text:- '(the illumined soul) attains either of the two through this one means alone (viz Om)' (pr. V. 2). 1.8.1 Om iti:- the word iti (this) is used for distinguishing the word Om as such (and not its meaning). One should contemplate in one's mind, i.e. meditate, that Om, as a word, is Brahman. For Om iti idam sarvam, all this, that consists of sound, is Om-since everything is permeated by Om, in accordance with another Vedic text :- 'For instance, (as all leaves are held together) by (their) midribs, (in this way all the words are joined together by Om)' (Ch. II. xxiii. 3). Since all that is nameable is dependent on names, it is said that all this is Om. The remaining passage is for the praise of Om, for it is to be meditated on. Om iti etat, this word that is Om; is anukrtih, a word of concurrence (lit. imitation). When somebody says, 'I do', or 'I shall go', another approves the act or speech by uttering the word Om. Therefore Om is imitation (approval). Ha, sma, and vai indicate something well known, for Om is well known as a word of imitation (concurrence). Api, moreover; asravayanti, (they) make them recite; with the words of direction, 'O sravaya iti, Om, make (the gods) hear' [The priests offering oblations get the direction from their leader thus:- 'Om, make the gods hear the formulas for oblations', and then they chant the mantras.]. Similarly, the singers of Samas, gayanti, sing, (start singing); Om iti, uttering the word Om. The reciters of the sastras, too, samsanti, intonate; sastrani, the sastras; [The Rg-mantras set to tune are the Samas; those that are not so set are the sastras.] om som iti, by uttering the words 'Om som'. [Sam meaning bliss, changes to som, in om som, uttered as an acceptance of the directions of the leading priest.] Similarly, the priest, Adhvaryu, pratigrnati, utters; pratigaram, the encouraging words; om iti, with the word Om. [Adhvaryu is the priest in charge of the Yajur-mantras. The priest in charge of the Rg-mantras seeks his permission withe the words 'Om, may we pray?' And he replies, 'Om, this will be pleasing to us.' Sankarananda, however, gives an alternative meaning thus:- 'Pratigara is a rite; prati pratigaram, with regard to this rite; grnati, he utters (Om).'] By uttering Om, Brahma, the priest called Brahma (who is versed in all the Vedas and supervises the rites); prasauti, approves- makes them recite under direction. When told, 'I shall pour oblation', Om iti agnihotram anujanati, he gives permission for the Agnihotra sacrifice by uttering the word Om. Brahmanah, a Brahmana; pravaksyan, when about to recite the Vedas, when intent on studying; aha, utters; om iti, the word Om; that is, he takes refuge in Om for the sake of study; under the idea, upapnavani iti, may I get-I shall acquire; brahma, teh Vedas; upapnoti eva brahma, he verily masters the Vedas, Or, brahma means the supreme Self. (In this case the meaning is this) :- Pravaksyam, wishing to make the Self attained; under the idea upapnavani iti, 'May I attain, the supreme Self'; Om iti aha, he utters the word Om; and he verily attains Brahman by means of that Om. The purport of the passage is that, since the activities which are undertaken with the utterance of Om become fruitful, Om should be meditated on as Brahman.

From the statement that knowledge alone leads to the attainment of sovereignty (I. vi), it may follow that the duties enjoined by Vedas and Smrtis are useless. In order to avoid such a contingency, the duties are being presented here, so that they may be shown as contributory to the attainment of human goals. 1.9.1 The word rtam has been explained. Svadhyayah is study (of the scriptures). Pravacanam is teaching (of the scriptures), or self-recital of the Vedas (called brahmayajna). These, viz rta etc., are to be practised-this much is understood at the end of the sentence. And satyam means truthfulness in speech, or what has been explained earlier; tapah is austerity etc.; damah is the control of the outer organs; samah is the control of the inner organs. Agnayah, the fires-are to be kept up. And agnihotram, the Agnihotra sacrifice-is to be performed. And atithayah, the guests-are to be adored. Manusam means social good conduct; that too should be practised as the occasion demands. And praja, progeny-is to be begotten. Prajanah ca, and procreation in due time. Prajatih is the raising of a grandson; in other words, the son is to be married. Learning and teaching are mentioned in all the contexts in order to imply that these two are to be carefully practised even by one who is engaged in all these duties; for the comprehension of meaning is dependent on study, and the supreme goal (emanicipation) is dependent on the understanding of the meaning. And teaching is for the preservation of that memory and for the increase of virtue. Therefore one has to entertain a love for learning and teaching. Satyam, truth alone-is to be practised; iti, this is what; satyavacah, one whose speech consists of truth, or one whose name is Satyavaca; rathitarah, the teacher Rathitara, born in the line of Rathitara, thinks. Tapah, austerities alone-are to be undertaken; iti; this is what; taponityah, one who is ever (nitya) steeped in austerity (tapah), or whose name is Taponitya; the teacher paurusistih, who is the son of Purusisti, thinks. Svadhyaya-pravacane eva, learning and teaching alone-are to be practised; iti, this is what; the teacher nakah, Naka by name; and Maudgalyah, the son of Mudgala, thinks. Hi, since; tat, that-learning and teaching; verily constitute tapah, austerity; therefore they alone are to be followed-this is the idea. Although truth, austerity, learning, and teaching were mentioned earlier, they are dealt with over again in order to show solicitude for them.

The mantra commencing with aham urksasya reriva is introduced for the sake of selfrecital (japa), and from the context it follows that the self-recital is for the sake of development of knowledge; for the present topic is concerned with knowledge, and no other purpose appears to be implied; moreover, it is considered that knowledge arises in one whose mind is purified by self-recital. 1.10.1 Aham, I-as the Self that rules from within-am; reriva, the invigorator; vrksasya, of the tree-the tree of samsara (the world) which is subject to uprooting. My kirtih, fame-is high; iva, like; prstham, the ridge; gireh, of a mountain. Urdhapavitrah, I, the all-pervaisve Self, whose urdhvam (cause) is the pure supreme Brahman that is pavitram (purifying, revealable through knowledge), am urdhavapavitrah. Vajini iva is the same as vajavati iva; vajam is food, and (vajini means) in one that is possessed of food-that is to say, in the sun. Just as it is a fact, well known from hundreds of Vedic and Smrti texts, that the amrtam, nectar, the reality of the Self, which is lodged in the sun, is pure; similarly, asmi, and I; the svamrtam, beautiful, holy, reality of the Self. Savarcasam means effulgent; and dravinam is wealth; (and) 'I am that (wealth) which is the reality of the self'-the expression 'I am' is to be supplied. Or, Savarcasam means the knowledge of Brahman which is effulgent, inasmuch as it reveals the reality of the Self; and it is called wealth, being comparable to wealth because of its producing the bliss emancipation. On this interpretation, '(this wealth) has been attained by me', (and not 'I am') has to be supplied at the end. I, whose wisdom (medhas) is beautiful (su), charaterized by omniscience, that I am sumedhah; this fine wisdom being due to (my) being endued with the skill of preserving, creating and, destroying the world. Therefore, I am amrtah, possessed of the attribute of immortality; (and) aksitah, inexhaustible, undecaying. Or, the (latter) word may be uksitah, soaked in, i.e. soaked in amrta, nectar; for there is a Brahmana text, too; 'I am soaked in nectar.' Iti, thus; was the vedanuvacanam-the statement (vacanam) after (anu) the attainment of the realization (vedah, i.e. vedanam) of the unity of the Self-; trisankoh, of Trisanku-a seer who had known Brahman and become Brahman. This statement (of his) was for the sake of expressing the fact that he had reached fulfilment, just like Vamadeva (Ai. II. 5). The idea is that the traditional text in the form of the mantra, as visualized by Trisanku with the eyes of a seer, reveals the knowledge of the Self. And it is understood that the self-repetition of this mantra is calculated to lead to knowledge. From the introduction of duty in the chapter commencing with, 'Righteousness and ....' (I. ix), and the conclusion later on with the text, 'Thus was the statement after the attainment of realization', it becomes evident that the visions of the seers, with regad to the Self etc., become revealed to one who engages thus in the obligatory duties enjoined in the Vedas and Smrtis, who is devoid of selfish motives, and who hankers after the realization of the supreme Brahman.

The instruction about duties in the text commencing with 'Having taught the Vedas', is meant to indicate that before the realization of Brahman the duties inculcated in the Vedas and Smrtis are to be performed regularly; because the Vedic reference to postinstruction (i.e. instruction after the study of the Vedas, implied in anusasti) is meant for creating proper tendencies is a man; for in accordance with the Smrti, 'He eradicates sin through austerities, and attains immortality through knowledge' (M.XII. 104), the knowledge of the Self dawns easily on one who has the proper mental disposition and whose mind is purified. And this Upanisad will say, 'Crave to know Brahman well through concentration' (III.ii). Therefore, duties are to be undertaken so that knowledge may emerge. From the mention of injunction implied in the expression, 'imparts this postinstruction', it follows that guilt will be the consequence of transgression of the command. Moreover, there is the fact of the earlier treatment of the rites etc. Rites etc. have been dealt with before the introduction of the absolute knowledge of Brahman. And this Upanisad will show the absence of rites etc., after the rise of knowledge, in such passages as, '(whenever the aspirant) gets fearlessly establised (in Brahman)' (II. vii), '(The enlightened man) is not afraid of anything' (II. ix). '(Him, indeed, this remorse does not afflict):- Why did I not perform good deeds?' (II.ix). Hence it is known that duties are calculated to lead to the dawn of knowledge through the eradication of sins accumulated in the past. And this is borne out by the Vedic text:- 'Crossing over death through rites etc., one attains immortality through meditation' (I's. 11). The earlier inculation of rta (righteousness) etc., (I.ix) was for the sake of avoiding the idea of their uselessness. And the present instruction is for making an abligatory rule about their performance, they being ordained for leading to the rise of knowledge. 1.11.1 Anucya, having instructed; vedam, the Vedas; acaryah, the teacher; anusasti, imparts a post-instruction; i.e. after (anu) the mastery of the verbal text, makes (sasti) the antevasinam, disciple, understand its meaning. Hence it is implied that a student who has studied the Vedas should not leave his preceptor's house without inquiring into the scriptural duties. And this is suported by the Smrti:- 'One should begin the duties after understanding them' (Ap. II. xxi. 5). How does he instruct? The answer is:- Satyam vada, speak the truth; satyam, is that which accords with what is grasped through valid means of knowledge and is fit to be uttered; that thing vada, (you) speak. Similarly, dharmam cara, practise righteousness. Inasmuch as truth etc. are specifically mentioned, the word dharma (righteousness) is a generic term for all that is to be practised. Svadhyayat, from study; ma pramadah, make no deviation. Acaryaya, for the preceptor; ahrtya, having brought, having, offered; priyam dhanam, the desirable wealth, in exchange for the knowledge; and having taken a worthy wife with his permission, ma vyavacchetsih, do not break; prajatantum, the line of progeny; the family line should not be broken. The idea is that even though a son is not begotten, effort should be made for his birth through such rites as the Purtresti, which conclusion follows from the mention of the son, procreating, and getting a grandson (in I. ix); for, otherwise, the single word procreation would have been mentioned (there). Satyat na pramaditavyam, there should be no negligence about truth. Inadvertence about truth is tantamount to falsehood. From the force of the word pramada, inadvertence, it follows that a falsehood should not be uttered even through forgetfulness; this is the idea. Else there would have been a mere prohibition of untruthfulness. Dharmat na pramaditavyam:- Since the word dharma relates to practices to be undertaken, the pramada, inadvertence, consists in not undertaking the practices, that should not be done. That is to say, righteous actions must be undertaken. Similarly, kusalat, about an action meant for one's own protection; na pramaditavyam. Bhutih means vibhutih, welfare; bhutyai about that welfare, an activity meant for welfare, about propitous work; na pramaditavyam. Svadhyaya-pravacanabhyam na pramaditvyam:- Svadhyaya is learning, and pravacana is teaching; there should be no carelessness about them. The idea is that they should be regularly practised.

So also devapitr-karyabhyam, from duties towords the gods and manes; na pramaditavyam, there should be no deviation; the duties towards the gods and manes must be performed. Matra-devah is one to whom the mother is a deity; as such, you bhava, do become; matr-devah. Similarly, you become pitrdevah, acaryadevah, atithidevah:- the idea is that these (father, teacher and guest) are to be worshipped as gods. Moreover, yani karmani, those activities; which are anavadyani, not blameworthy, which constitute the conduct of the good people; tani sevitavyani, they are to be resorted to-by you; no itarani, not the others-the others that are censurable are to be shunned, though they may be followed by the good people. Yani, those that are; asmakam, our-of us teachers; sucaritani, good conduct-not opposed to the scriptures; tani, those-alone; upasyani tvaya, are to be performed by you, for the sake of unseen results; that is to say, they are to be undertaken regularly; no itarani, not the others, which are opposed (to these), though they are done by the teachers; Ye ke ca asmat-sreyamsah, those who are superior to, or more praiseworthy than, us-whoever they may be-by virtue of their distinction in teachership etc.; and are brahmanah, Brahmanas-not Ksatriyas and others; tesam, of them; prasvasitavyam tvaya, the fatigue must be removed by you; asanena, by the offering of a seat etc.; prasvasanam is the same as prasvasah, the removal of fatigue. The idea is that (their) fatigue should be removed by you. Besides (the sentence may be construed thus):- Tesam asane, in their assemblage, when they are assembled for a meeting; na prasvasitvyam tvaya, (so much as) deep breathing should not be done by you-you should only try to grasp the essence of what they say. Moreover, whatever is to be given, deyam, should be given; sraddhaya, with reverence; it adeyam, should not be given; asraddhaya, disrespectfully. It deyam, should be offered; sriya, according to (one's) prosperity. And deyam, it should be given; hriya, with modesty; also deyam, it should be given; bhiya, with fear; and samvida, with samvid, which means friendly action, etc. Atha, then-while you are conducting yourself thus; yadi, if-at any time; syat, should there be; te, in you; karma-vicikitsa va vrtta-vicikitsa va-vicikitsa, a doubt, with regard to the karmas, rites and duties, inculcated by the Vedas or Smritis, or with regard to vrtta, conduct, consisting in customary behaviour-; then vartethah, you should behave; tatha, in that manner; yatha, as, the manner in which; tatra, with regard to that work or conduct; te, they-those Brahmanas; varteran, may behave; ye brahmanah, the Brahmanas, who; syuh, may happen to be; tatra, at that time or place; (-this is to be connected with remote word-) yuktah, adept; tatra, in those works etc.; (the Brahmanas who are) sammarsinah, able deliberators; yuktah, adepts in duties or customs; ayuktah, not directed by others; aluksah, i.e. aruksah, not cruel (or not crooked) in disposition; dharmakamah, desirous of merit, i.e. not moved by passion. Atha, then; abhyakhyatesuabhyakhyatah are those who are charged by somebody with some doubtful guilt; with regard to them also-; you should apply all the text, ye tatra etc;, in the way as shown before. Esah, this is; upadesah, instruction-to sons and others by fathers and others; esa, this is; veda-upanisat, the secret of the Vedas, i.e. the meaning of the Vedas. Etat, this is, verily; anusasnam, the behest of God-for the word adesa has already been explained as (scriptural) injunction. Or, anusasanam means the direction of all those who are accepted as authoritative. Since this is so, therefore, (all this) upasitavyam, is to be done; evam, thus; this is not to be neglected. The repetition is to show regard. KARMA, KNOWLEDGE, AND LIBERATION Here, for the sake of distinguishing between knowledge and karma (i.e. scriptural rites and duties) we eter into a consideration of the question as to whether the superme goal (emancipation) results from karmas alone, or from karmas aided by knowledge, or from karmas aided by knowledge, or from karmas and knowledge in combination, or from knowledge aided by karmas, or from knowledge alone. First opponent:- As to that, the supreme goal must be the result of karmas alone, since a man who is versed in the full import of the Vedas is competent for karmas, in accordance with the Smrti, 'The Vedas, togehter with their secret, are to be mastered by the twiceborn.' And the mastery must be along with the purport of the Upanisads, which consists in the knowledge of the Self etc. Besides, in such terms as, 'The man of knowledge performs a sacrifice,' 'The knowing man gets the sacrifice performed', it is shown everwhere that a man of knowledge alone has competence for karma. And there is the further text, 'After knowing, follows the practice.' [Seems to be an echo of G. XVI.24). Some people verily consider that the Vedas, as a whole, are meant for karma. Now, if the supreme goal be unattainable through karma, the Vedas will become useless. Answer:- No, for freedom is a permanent entitiy. That freedom is eternal is surely an admitted fact. It is a matter of common experience that anything that is produced by action is impermanent. Should liberation be a result of action, it will be transitory; and this is undesirable, since it contradicts the logically justifiable Vedic text, 'As in this world the result acquired through action gets exhausted, in the very same way the result acquired through virtue gets exhausted in the other world' (Ch. VIII. i.6). Objection:- Since the obligatory karmas are undertaken, [Thereby warding off all potential suffering] and since the works that are promoted by motives and those that are prohibited are not resorted to, and since the works that have begun to bear fruit (in this life) get consumed through enjoyment and suffering, emancipation follows independently of knowledge. Answer:- That, too, is inadmissible. For this was refuted by us by saying that, since there is the possibility of residual results of work, there lies the contingency of the production of a fresh body by them, and by saying that since the residual results of work are not opposed to the performance of obligatory duties, their elimination (by the letter) is illogical (see Introduction). As for the assertion that a man, possessed of the full import of the Vedas, is competent for karma (and that, therefore, the supreme goal must be the result of karma), that, too, is wrong; for there is such a thing as meditation which is different from what is acquired by merely hearing the Vedas (at the house of the teacher). Indeed, one becomes competent to undertake karmas from a mere knowledge got through hearing, and he need not have to wait for meditation; whereas meditation is enjoined apart from such Vedic study (at the teacher's house). [There is the general injunction about the study of the Vedas, to be sure. But the study may be merely of the verbal text or of its meaning as well. Besieds, one need not know the meaning of all the texts to be qualified for rites and duties, since he can proceed to them after understanding those texts only that bear on them; the portion dealing with meditation may well be left over, since that portion is not necessary for these rites and duties.] And this meditation has emancipation as its result and is well known as different (from mere study). Moreover, after having said, '(The Self) is to be heard (of)', other efforts are enjoined by saying, 'It is to be taught of and meditated on' (Br. II. iv. 5); and deliberation and meditation are well known (in life) to be different from the knowledge acquired through hearing. [Sravana (lit. hearing) means intelligent understanding of the import; manana (lit. thinking) means bringing conviction to oneself by deliberating on it and counteracting opposite ideas; and nididhyasana (lit. concetrated meditation) means making it part of one's being by constant meditation.] Second opponent:- In that case, emancipation can result from karma aided by knowledge. Karma, as assoicated with knowledge, should have the power of producing a different result. Just as position, curd, etc., which by themselves are calculated to effect death, fever, etc., can produce different results when mixed with sacred formulae, sugar, etc., similarly, emancipation is generated by karma when associated with knoweldge. Answer:- No, for the defect was pointed out (by us) by stating that whatever is produced is impermanent. Objection:- On the authority of scriptural text-[e.g. 'He does not return again' (CH. VIII.xv.1)]-emancipation is eternal, though it is produced. Answer:- No, for a scriptural text is only informative. A scriptural passage supplies information of a thing existing as such; it cannot creat a thing that does not exist. Anything that is eternal cannot have a beginning, nor can anything be indestructible if it has a beginning-despite a hundred texts (to the contrary). The third opponent answers:- Hereby is refuted the view that knowledge and karma is their combination can produce emancipation. Objection:- Knowledge and karma remove the causes that hinder emancipation. ['The hindrances are ignorance, vice, etc. Knowledge and karma remove them; but they do not produce emancipation itself. Thus the continuance in one's natural state (of freedom) can be eternal, since non-existence in the form of destruction (here- destruction of vice etc.) is known to be everlasting.'-A.G. (See p.7.footnote 1.)] Answer:- No, because karma is known to have a different effect; for karma is seen to result in creation, improvement (purification), transformation, or acquisition. And liberation is opposed to such results as creation etc. Objection:- Liberation is achievable in accordance with Vedic texts that speaks of courses (that are followed by departing souls). That liberation can be acquired is proved by such texts as:- "They proceed by the path of the sun' (MU. I. ii. 11), 'Going up through that (nerve)' (Ka. II. iii., 16). Answer:- No, because if (i.e. liberation, being identical with Brahman) is all-pervasive and non-different from the goers. Brahman is omnipresent, because It is the (material) cause of akasa (space etc., and all conscious souls are non-different from Brahman. And hence liberation is not (an) achievable (result). A traveller has to reach a place which is different from himself. Not that the very place that is non-different from oneself can be reached by oneself. And this follows from the well-known fact of identify (of the individual and Brahman) gathered from hundreds of Vedic and Smrti texts such as:- 'That (Brahman), having creaed that (the world), entered into it' (II.vi), 'Know the individual soul also to be Myself' (G. XIII. 2). Objection:- This (conclusion) runs counter to the Vedic texts about courses (that the departing souls follow), and the glory (that they attain), etc., Moreover, if emancipation be unobtainable, not only will the texts mentioning courses be contradicted, it will also contradict such Vedic texts as:- 'He becomes one, (three-fold, etc.), (Ch. VIII. xxvi. 2); 'Should he become desirous of the manes as objects of enjoyment, (the forefathers appear by his very wish)' (Ch. VIII. ii. 1); '(he moves about......) with women, or vehicles....(Ch. VIII. xii. 3). Answer:- No, for they (i.e. those texts) relate to the conditioned Brahman. Women or others can exist only in the conditioned Brahman, but not in the unconditioned, according to such Vedic texts as:- 'One only, without a second' (Ch. VI. ii. 1); 'Where one does not see anything else' (Ch. VII. xxiv. 1); 'What will one see there and with what?' (Br. II. iv. 14; IV. v. 15). Besides, the combination of knowledge and karma is not possible, because of their mutual contradiction. For knowledge-which relates to an entity in which all distinction of accessories, such as the agent, get merged-is antithetical to karma that has to be accomplished with accessories which are opposed to it (knowledge). Indeed, the same thing cannot be visualized as being in reality both possessed of such distinctions as agentship etc., and as devoid of them. Either of the two must of necessity be false. And when one or the other has to be false, it is reasonable that falsehood should pertain to duality which is the object of natural ignorance, n accordance with hundreds of Vedic texts such as:- 'Because when there is duality, as it were, (then one smells something, one sees something, etc.)' (Br. II. iv. 14); 'He who sees as though there is difference here (in Brahman), goes from death to death (Ka. II. i. 10; Br. IV. iv. 19); 'Hence, the finite is that where one sees something else' (Ch. VII. xxiv. 1); 'While he who worships another god (thinking), He is one and I am another (does not know)' (Br. I . iv. 10); 'For whenever this one (i.e. the aspirant) creates the slightest difference in It, (he is smitten with fear)' (II. vii). And truth belongs to unity, according to such Vedic texts as:- 'It should be realized in one form only' (Br. IV. iv. 20), 'One only, without a second' (Ch. VI. ii. 1), 'All this is but Brahman' (See Mu. II. ii. 11); 'All this is but the Self' (Ch. VII. xxv. 2). Nor is karma possible without perceiving the difference implied by such (grammatical) cases as the Dative etc. Besides, the denunciation of the perception of difference in the sphere of knowledge is to be met with at a thousand places in the Vedas. Hence there is an opposition between knoweldge and karma, and hence also is their combination impossible. This being so, the statement that liberation is brought about by a combination of knowledge and karma is not justifiable. Objection:- (One such an assumption) there is a contradiction of the Vedas, for karmas are enjoined (by them). If like the knowledge of the rope etc., meant for eradicating the false the knowledge of the snake etc., the knowledge of the unity of the Self is inculcated for eradicating the distinction of such accessories as the agent etc., then a contradiction becomes inevitable, since the Vedic injunctions about karma are left without any scope. But as a matter of fact, karmas are enjoined, and that contradiction is inadmissible, since Vedic texts are all means of valid knowledge. Answer:- No, for the aim of the Vedas is to impart instruction is respect of human goals. That being so, the Vedic texts which are devoted to the communication of knowledge engage themselves in the revelation of knowledge under the belief that since a man has to be liberated from the world, ignorance, which is the cause of the world, must be eradicated through knowledge. Hence there is no contradiction. Objection:- Even so, the scriptures establishing the existence of the accessories, viz agent etc., are certainly contradicted. Answer:- No; the scriptures, assuming the hypothetical existence of the accessories, enjoin rites and duties for the wearing away of the accumulated sins of those who aspire for liberation, and also as a means for the achievement of fruits by those who hanker after results. (But) they do not concern themselves with establishing the reality of those accessories. For, the rise of knowledge cannot be imagined with regard to one who has the hindrance of accumulated sins. On the wearing away of those sins, knowledge will emerge; from that will follow the cessation of ignorance, and from that the absolute cessation of the world. Moreover, only a man who perceives something as non-Self has craving for that non-Self. And a man, impelled by desire, engages himself in works. From that follows the worldly state, consisting in embodiment etc., for the sake of enjoying the fruits of that desire. Contrariwise, for a man who sees the unity of the Self, there can arise no desire, since objects (of desire) do not exist. Besides, since desire cannot rise with regard to oneself, owing to non-difference, there ensues liberation consisting in being established in one's own Self. From this also follows that knowledge and karma are contradictory. And just because of this opposition knowledge does not depend on karma so far as emancipation is concerned. But in the matter of attainment of one's Self, the obligatory karma becomes the cause for the dawn of knowledge by way of removing the hindrance of accumulated sins. We have pointed out that this is the reason why karmas have been introduced in the present context. Thus the Vedic texts enjoining karmas are not at variance (with the Upanisads). Hence it is established that the highest goal is achievable through knowledge alone. Objection:- In that case there is no possibility of any other stage of life (asrama). Inasmuch as the rise of knowledge is contingent on karma, and karma is enjoined in connection with the life of the householders, there can be only one stage of life. And from this point of view, the Vedic texts such as, 'One should perform the Agnihotra sacrifice throughout one's life', become more apposite. Answer:- No, for karmas are multifarious. Not that Agnihotra etc. are the only karmas. There exist also such practices as celibacy, austerity, truthfulness, control of the external and internal organs, and non-injury, which are familarly assoicated with the other stages of life, besides such practices as concentration, meditation, etc.-all of which are best calculated to serve as means for the origination of knowledge, since they are unadulterated (with sinful acts). This Upanisad also will declare, 'Crave to know Brahman well through concentration' (III. ii.). And since, even before entering the householders life, knowledge can emerge from the karmas undertakne in earlier lives, and since one embrances the householder's life for the performance of karmas, its acceptance becomes certainly meaningless when one has already acquired the knowledge that is (held to be) the result of karmas (to be perfomed in doemstic life). Moreover, since sons etc. are meant for the (attainment of) worlds, how can there be any lingering inclination for karma in one who has (already) desisted from all desires for these worlds-to wit, this world, the world of the manes, and the world of the gods, which are attainable through such means as sons (and karma and meditation) (Br. I. v. 16)-who has attained the world of the Self that exists eternally, and who finds no need for karma? Even for one who has accepted the life of a householder, there will surely be a cessation from karma after the rise of knowledge and after the renunciation of everything on the maturity of knowledgewhen one feels no need for any karma, in accordance with the indication in such Vedic texts as, 'My dear (Maitreyi), I am going to renounce this life for monasticism' (Br. IV. v. 2). Objection:- This is unsound, since the Vedas are at so much pains to prescribe karma. The Vedas display much solicitude for such karmas as Agnihotra; and karmas involve great effort, since Agnihotra etc., have to be performed wiht a veriety of accessories. And since the practices pertaining to the other stages of life, such as austerity, celibacy, etc., are equally present in the householder's life, and since the other practces involve little trouble, it follows that a householder should not be placed on an equal (and) alternative footing with those in other stages of life. Answer:- No, for (the dispassionate man) there is the favourableness ensured by practices in his previous lives. As for the statement that 'the Vedas are much at pains to enjoin karma' etc., that is nothing damaging; for the karmas such as Agnihotra, as also the practices of celibacy etc., undertaken in the past lives, become helpful to the rise of knowledge, becasue of which fact, some are seen to be non-attached to the world from their very birth, while others are seen to be engaged in karma, attached to the world, and averse to enlightenment. Accordingly, in the case of those who have becme detached, owing to the tendencies created in the past lives, it is desirable only to resort to the other stage of life. Since there is a profuseness of the results of karma-(i.e.) since there is a plethora of the results of karma, comprising progeny, heaven, glory of holiness, etc.-, and since people have an abundance of desire for those results, the great solicitude for karma evinced by the Sruti for achieving those results is reasonable:- for it is a matter of experience that peoples' desires expressed in such forms as 'Let this be mine' 'May that one be mine' are multifarious. Moreover, since karmas are a means-(i.e.) since we have said that karmas are helpful to the rise of enlightenment-, one should pay more attention to the means rather than to the end. Objection:- Since enlightenment is caused by karma, there is no need for any other effort. If it is a fact that enlightenment emerges on the wearing away of obstacle of past acculmulated sins through karmas alone, then apart from the karmas, it is needless to make any effort for the hearing (i.e. understanding) etc. of the Upanisads. Answer:- No, for there is no restrictive rule about that. There is surely no such rule that knowledge arises from the mere elimination of the obstructions alone, and not from the grace of God or the practice of austerity, meditation, etc., for (as a matter of fact) noninjury, celibacy, etc. are aids to enlightenment; and hearing, thinking, and meditating are the direct causes of it. Hereby is established the need of other stages of life, and it is also proved that people in all the stages of life can aspire for knowledge, and that the supreme goal is attainable through knowledge alone.

An invocation is being read for warding off the obstructions to the knowledge already dealt with:- 1.12.1 This has been explained before [The verbs in the second half are, however, put in the past sense. The translation of this half is:- 'I spoke of you as the immediate Brahman. I spoke of you as rta. I spoke of you as satya. He protected me. He protected the teacher. He protected me, protected the teacher.'].

The invocation beginning with sam no mitrah was recited (at the end of the last Part) in order to avert the impediments to the acquisition of the knowledge set forth earlier. Now is being recited the invocation, sam no mitrah etc., as also saha navavatu etc., for averting the obstacles to the acquisition of the knowledge of Brahman that is going to be stated:- (For "Sam no" etc. see I. i.). May He protect us both together. May He nourish us both together. May we both acquire strength together. Let our study be brilliant. May we not cavil at each other. Om! Peace! Peace! Peace! Sam no etc., Just as beore, is easy to understand. Saha navavatu:- Avatu, may He protect, nau, us both-the teacher and the taught; saha, together. Bhunaktu, may He nourish; nau saha. Karavavahai, may we both accomplish; viryam, streangth-arrising from knowledge etc.; saha. Let the adhitam, study; nau, of us both-who are both bright; tejasvi astu, be brilliant;-let what we read be well read, i.e. let it be conducive to the comprehension of the meaning. There is occasion for ill-feeling on the part of the student in the matter of learning, as also on the part of the teacher, consequent on unwitting lapses; hence this prayer, 'May we not cavil' etc. is made in order to forestall this. Ma vidvisavahai, may we never entertain ill-feeling against each other. The three repetitions, santih, santih, santih-peace, peace, peace-, have been explained already (as meant for averting bodily, natural, and super natural hindrances). Moreover, this invocation is for warding off the impediments of the knowledge that is going to be imparted. An unobstructed acquisition of the knowledge of the Self is being prayed for, since the supreme goal is dependent on that. The meditations relating to conjoining etc. that are not opposed to rites and duties have been stated (I. iii). After that, with the help of the Vyahrtis, has been described the meditation on the conditioned Self within the heart (I. v-vi), which (meditation) culminates in the attainment of one's sovereignty (I. vi. 2). But thereby one does not achieve the total eradication of the seed of worldly existence. Hence is begun the text, brahmavidapnoti param, etc., for the sake of realizing the Self as freed from the distinctions created by various limiting adjuncts, so that (as a result of the realization), ignorance which is the seed of all miseries, may cease. And the utility of this knowledge of Brahman is the cessation of ignorance; from that results the total eradication of worldly existence. And the Upanisad will declare, 'The enlightened man is not afraid of' (II. ix), and that it is inconceivable to be established is a state of fearlessness so long as the causes of worldly existence persist (II. vii), and that things done and not done, virtue and vice, do not fill him with remorse (II. ix). Therefore it is understood that the absolute cessation of the worldly existence follows from this knowledge which has for its content Brahman that is the Self of all. And in order to apprise us of its own relation and utility at the very beginning, the Upanisad itself declares its utility in the sentence, brahmavid apnoti param-the knower of Brahman reaches the highest. For one engages in hearing, mastering, cherishing, and practising a science only when its utility and relation are well known. The result of knowledge certainly succeeds hearing etc., in accordance with such other Vedic text as, 'It is to be heard of, reflected on and meditated upon' (Br. II. iv. 5, IV. v. 6).

From that Brahman indeed, which is this Self, was produced space. From space emerged air. From air was born fire. From fire was created water. From water sprang up earth. From earth were born the herbs. From the herbs was produced food. From food was born man. That man, such as he is, is surely a product of the essence of food. Of him this indeed, in the head; thsi is the southern (right) side [Paksah is interpreted as 'wing' by A. G. and S.]; this is the northern (left) side; this is the self; this is the stabilizing tail. He also is a verse pertaining to that very fact:- Brahmavit, the knower of Brahman:- Brahman is that whose characteristics will be stated and who is called Brahman because of (the etymological sense of) brahattamattva, being the greatest. He who vetti, knows, that Brahman is brahmavit. He apnoti, attains; param, the absolutely highest. That very Brahman (that occurs as the object of the verb, vid, to know) must be the highest (goal as well), since the attainment of something does not logically follow from the knowledge of something else and since another Vedic text, viz 'Anyone who knows that supreme Brahman becomes Brahman indeed' etc., (Mu. III. ii. 9), clearly shows the attainment of Brahman Itself by the knower of Brahman. Objection:- The Upanisad will say that Brahman permeates everything and is the Self of all; hence It is not attainable. Moreover, one thing is seen to be attained by another-one limited thing by another limited thing. And Brahman is unlimited and indentical with all; hence Its attainment-as of something that is limited and is different from one's Self-is incongruous. Answer:- This is no fault. Objection:- How? Answer:- Because the attainment or non-attainment of Brahman is contingent on Its realization or nonrealization. The individual soul, though intrinsically none other than Brahman, still identifies itself with, and becomes attached to, the sheaths made of food etc., which are external, limited, and composed of the subtle elements; and as (in the story) a man, whose mind is engrossed in the counting of others, misses counting himself, though that personality is the nearnest to him and supplies the missing number, [Ten men, after crossing a river, were faced with the question, 'Have we lost one of us in the stream?' So they went on counting themselves. But each one missed taking himself into account and concluded that they were only nine, one having actually been drowned. They then began wailing, when a passerby found out their foolishness, counted them one by one, and then turning to the last counter said, 'You are the tenth.' That reassured them.] just so, the individual soul, under a spell of ignorance characterized by the nonperception of one's own true nature as Brahman, accepts the external non-Selves, such as the body composed of food, as the Self, and as a consequence, begins to think, 'I am none other than those non-Selves composed of food etc.' In this way, even though Brahman is one's Self, It can remain unattained through ignorance. Just as through ignorance, there is a non-discovery (in the story) of the individual himself who makes up the requisite number, and just as there is the discovery of the selfsame person through knowledge when he is reminded of that personage by someone, similarly in the case of one, to whom Brahman in Its own nature remains thus unattained owing to his ignorance, there can quite reasonably be a discovery of that very Brahman by realizing that omnipresent Brahman to be none other than one's own Self-a realization that comes through enlightenment consequent on the instruction of the scriptures. The sentence, 'The knower of Brahman attains the highest', is a statement in brief of the purport of the whole part (II). The idea involved in quoting a Rg-mantra with the words, 'Tad esa abhyukta-here is a verse uttering that very fact', are (as follows) :- (First) It is sought to determine the true nature of Brahman through the presentation of a definition that is capable of indicating the totally free intrinsic nature of that very Brahman which was briefly referred to as a knowable entity in the sentence, 'The knower of Brahman attains the highest', but of which any distinct feature remained undetermined; (secondly) the knowledge of that Brahman having been spoken of (earlier) in an indefinite way, it is now sought to make that very Brahman, whose definition is going to be stated, realizable specifically as non-different from one's own indewelling Self; (and lastly) the idea is to demonstrate that the attainment of supreme Brahman by a knower of Brahman- which (attainment) is spoken of as the result of the realization of Brahman-is really nothing but identity with the Self of all, which is Brahman Itself transcending all worldly attributes. Tat, with regard to what has been said by the brahmana portion (of the Upanisad); esa, this Rk (mantra); is abhyukta, uttered-. The sentence satyam jnanam anantam brahma - Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite - is meant as a definition of Brahman. For the three words beginning with satya are meant to distinguish Brahman which is the substantive. And from the fact that Brahman is intended to be spoken of as the thing to be known, it follows that Brahman is the substantive. Since Brhaman is sought to be presented as the chief object of knowledge, the knowable must be the substantive. And just because (Brahman and satya etc.) are related as the substantive and its attributes, the words beginning with satya have the same case-ending, and they stand in apposition. Brahman, being qualified by the three adjectives, satya, etc., is marked out from other nouns. Thus, indeed, does a thing become known when it is differentiated from others; as for instance, in common parlance, a particular lotus is known when it is described as blue, big, and sweet-smelling. Objection:- A noun can be distinguished only when there is the possibility of its ruling out some other adjective (that does not belong to it), as for instance a blue or red lotus. An adjective is meaningful when there are many nouns which belong to the same class and which are capable of having many adjectives; but it can have no meaning with regard to a single noun, wher there is no possibility of any alternative adjective. There is single Brahman, just as there is a single sun; there do not exist other Brahmans from which It can be distinguished, unlike a blue lotus that can be (marked out from a red one). Answer:- No, there is nothing wrong, since the adjectives are used by way of definition (also). Objection:- How? Answer:- Since the adjectives (here) bear only a predominatingly defining sense and not a predominatingly qualifying sense. Objection:- What again is the difference betweeen the two relations-(1) that existing between the definition and the thing defined; and (2) that between the quality and the thing qualified? The answer is:- An adjective distinguishes a noun from things of its own class, whereas a definition marks it out from everything else, as for instance, (the definition-) akasa is that which provides space. And we said that the sentence (under discussion) stands for a definition. The words satya etc. are unrelated among themselves, since they subserve something else; they are meant to be applied to the substantive only. Accordingly, each of the attributive words is related with the word 'Brahman', independently of the others thus:- satyam brahma, jnanam brahma, anantam brahma. As for satya a thing is said to be satya, true, when it does not change the nature that is ascertained to be its own; and a thing is said to be unreal when it changes the nature that is ascertained to be its own. Hence a mutable thing is unreal, for in the text, 'All transformation has speech as its basis, and it is name only. Earth as such is the reality' (Ch. VI.i.4), it has been emphasised that, that alone is true that exists (Ch.VI.ii.1). So the phrase satyam brahma (Brahman is truth) distinguishers Brahman from mutable things. From this it may follow that (the unchanging) Brahman is the (material) cause (off all subsequent chages); and since a material cause is a substance; it can be an accessory as well, thereby becoming insentient like earth. Hence it is said that Brahman is jnanam. Jnana means knowledge, consciousness. The word jnana conveys the abstract notion of the verb (jna, to know); and being an attribute of Brahman along with truth and infinitude, it does not indicate the agent of knowing. If Brahman be the agent of knowing, truth and infinitude cannot justly be attributed to It. For as the agent of knowing, It becomes changeful; and, as such, how can It be true and infinite? That, indeed, is infinite which is not seperated from anything. If it be the agent of knowing, It becomes delimited by the knowable and the knowledge, and hence there cannot be infinitude, in accordance with another Vedic text:- 'The Infinite is that where one does not understand anything else. Hence, the finite is that where one understands something else' (Ch. VII.xxiv.1). Objection:- From the denial of particulars in the (above) statement, 'One does not understand anything else', it follows that one knows the Self. Answer:- No, for the sentence is intended to enunciate a definition of the Infinite. The sentence, 'in which one does not see anything else' etc., is devoted wholly to the presentation of the distinguishing char. acteristics of Brahman. Recognizing the wellknown principle that one sees something that is different form oneself, the nature of the Infinite is expressed in that text by declaring that the Infinite is that in which that kind of action does not exist. Thus, since the expression, 'anything else', is used (in the above sentence) for obviating the recongnized fact of duality, the sentence is not intended to prove the existence of action (the act of knowing) in one's self. And since there is no split in one's Self, cognition is impossible (in It). Moreover, if the Self be a knowable, there will remain no one else (as a knower) to know It, since the Self is already postulated as the knowable. Objection:- The same self can exist both as the knower and the known. Answer:- No, this cannot be simultaneously, since the Self is without parts. A featureless (indivisible) thing cannot simultaneously be both the knower and the known. Moreover, if the Self can be cognized in the sense that a pot is, (scriptural) instruction about Its knowledge becomes useless. For if an object is already familiar, just as a pot for instance is, the (Vedic) instruction about knowing it can have no meaning. Hence if the Self be a knower, It cannot reasonably be infinite. Besides, if It has such distinctive attributes as becoming the agent of knowing, It cannot logically be pure existence. And pure existence is truth, according to another Vedic text, 'That is Truth' (Ch. VI.viii.7). Therefore the word jnana (knowledge), having been used adjectivally along with truth and infinitude, is derived in the cognate sense of the verb, and it is used to form the phrase, jnanam brahma (Brahman is knowledge), in order to rule out (from Brahman) any relationship [A noun may be related wiht a verb by way of becoming the agent, object, instrument, receiver, possessor, or locus.] between noun and verb as that of an agent etc., as also for denying non-consciousness like that of earth etc. From the phrase, jnanam brahma, it may follow that Brahman is limited, for human knowledge is seen to be finite. Hence, in order to obviate this, the text says, anantam, infinite. Objection:- Since the words, satya, (truth) etc., are meant only for negating such qualities as untruth, and since the substantive Brahman is not a well-known entity like a lotus, the sentence beginning with satya has nothing but a non-entity as its content, just as it is the case with the sentence, 'Having bathed in the water of the mirage, and having put a crown of sky flowers on his head, there goes the son of a barren woman, armed wiht a bow made of a hare's horn.' Answer:- No, for the sentence is meant as a definition. And we said that even though satya etc. are attributive words, their chief aim is to define. Since a setence, stating the differentia of a non-existing substantive, is useless, and since the present sentence is meant to define, it does not, in our opinion, relate to a nonentity. Should even satya etc. have an adjectival sense, they certainly do not give up their own meanings. ['Etymologically, the word satya indicates an existing entity that is not sublated; the word jnana means the self-revealing cognition of things; and the word ananta is used with regard to something pervasive, as (in the expression) "the sky is infinite", etc. Hence they negate opposite ideas by the very fact of their imparting their own meanigs to the substantives. Therefore they cannot be reduced to mere negation.'-A.G.] If the words satya etc. mean a non-entity, they cannot logically distinguish their substantive. But if they are meaningful, as having the senses of truth etc., they can justifiably differentiate their substantive Brahman from other substantives that are possessed of opposite qualities. And the word Brahman, too, has its own individual meaning. [Derived from the root brh, having the sense of growth, vastness, Brahman is that which is not limited by time, space or causation. Thus the word has its own positive import and cannot refer to a void.] Among these words, the word ananta becomes an adjective by way of negating finitude; whereas the words satya and jnana become adjectives even while imparting their own (positive) senses (to the substantive). Since in the text, 'From that Brahman indeed which is this Self, (was produced this space)' (II. i. 1), the word Self (atma) is used with regard to Brahman Itself, it follows that Brahman is the Self of the cognizing individual;and this is supported by the text, 'He attains this Self made of bliss' (II. viii. 5), where Brahman is shown to be the Self. Moreover, it is Brahman which has entered (into men); the text, 'having created that, (He) entered into that very thing' (II. vi), shows the entry of that very Brahman into the body as the individual soul. Hence the cognizer, in his essential nature, is Brahman. Objection:- If thus Brahman be the Self, It becomes the agent of cognition, since it is a well-known fact that the Self is a knower. And from the text, 'He desired' (II. vi), it stands established that the one who desires is also an agent of cognition. Thus, Brahman being the cognizer, it is improper to hold that Brahman is consciousness. Besides, that (later conclusion) leads to Its impermanence. For even if it be conceded that jnana (cognition) is nothing but consciousness, and thus Brahman has (only) the cognate sense (- knowledge-) of the verb (to know, and not the verbal sense of knowing), It (Brahman) will still be open to the charge of impermanence and dependence. For the meanings of verbs are dependent on the (grammatical) cases (of the nouns). And knowledge is a sense conveyed by a root (dependent on a noun). Accordingly, Brahman becomes impermanents as well as dependent. Answer:- No, since without implying that knowledge is separable from Brahman, it is referred to as an activity by way of courtesy. To explain:- Knowledge, which is the true natue of the Self, is inseparable from the Self, and so it is everlasting. Still, the intellect, which is the limiting adjunct (of the Self) becomes transformed into the shape of the objects while issuing out through the eyes etc. (for cognizing things). These configurations of the intellect in the shape of sound etc., remain objectively illumined by the Consciousness that is the Self, even when they are in an incipient state; and when they emerge as cognitions, they are still enlightened by that Consciousness. [In the incipient stage, they have the fitness to be illumined; and after emergence, they remain soaked in consciousness.] Hence these semblances of Consciousness- a Consciousness that is really the Self are imagined by the non-discriminating poeple to be referable by the word knowledge bearing the root meaning (of the verb to know); to be attributes of the Soul Itself; and to be subject to mutation. But the Consciousness of Brahman is inherent in Brahman and is inalienable from It, just as the light of the sun is from the sun or the heat of fire is form fire. Consciousness is not dependent on any other cause (for its revelation), for it is by nature eternal (light). And since all that exists is inalienable from Brahman in time or space, Brahman being the cause of time, space, etc., and since Brahman is surpassingly subtle, there is nothing else whether subtle or screened or remote or past, present or future which can be unknowable to It. Therefore Brahman is omniscient. Besides, this follows from the text of the mantra:- 'Though He is without hands and feet, still He runs and grasps; though He is without eyes, still He sees; though He is without ears, still He hears. He knows the knowable, and of Him there is no knower. Him they called the first, great Person' (Sv. III. 19). There are also such Vedic texts as:- 'For the knower's function of knowing can never be lost, because It is immortal; but (It does not know, as) there is not that second thing, (separated from It which It can know)' (Br. IV. iii. 30). Just because Brahman's nature of being the knower is inseparable and because there is no dependence on other accessories like the sense-organs, Brahman, though intrinsically identical with knowledge, is well known to be eternal. Thus, since this knowledge is not a form of action, it does not also bear the root meaning of the verb. Hence, too, Brahman is not the agent of congnition. And because of this, again, It cannot even be denoted by the word jnana (knowledge). Still Brahman is indicated, but not denoted, by the word knowledge which really stands for a verisimilitude of consciousness as referring to an attribute of the intellect; for Brahman is free from such things as class etc., which make the use of the word (knowledge) possible. Similarly, Brahman is not denoted even by the word satya (truth), since Brahman is by nature devoid of all distinctions. In this way, the word satya, which means external reality in general, can indirectly refer to Brahman (in such expressions) as 'Brahman is truth', but it cannot denote It. Thus the words truth etc., occurring in mutual proximity, and restricting and being restricted in truns by each other, distinguish Brahman from other objects denoted by the words, truth etc., and thus become fit for defining It as well. So, in accordance wiht the Vedic texts, 'Failing to reach which (Brahman), words, along with the mind turn back' (II. iv. 1), and '(Whenever an aspirant gets fearlessly established in this changeless, bodiless,) inexpressible, and unsupporting Brahman' (II. vii), it is proved that Brahman is indescribable, and that unlike the construction of the expression, 'a blue lotus', Brahman is not to be construed as the import of any sentence. [Brahman cannot be comprehended through the common relationship of words and things denoted by them. Nor can It be denoted through the relationship of substance and quality.] Yah veda, anyone who knows-that Brahman, described before; as nihitam, (hidden) existing; parame vyoman (i.e. vyomni), in the supreme space (which permeates its own effect, the intellect)-in the space which is called the Unmanifested (i.e. Maya), that, indeed, being the supreme space in accordance with the Vedic text, 'By this Immutable (Brahman), O Gargi, is the (Unmanifested) space (akasa, i.e. Maya) pervaded' (Br. III. viii. 11), where akasa occurs in the proximity of aksara (Immutable) ['The Unmanifested called vyoma (space, akasa) is inherent in the intellect (guha), which is the effect of former. In that Unamanifested is placed Brahman. The element called akasa is not accepted here as the meaning of vyoma, since the element akasa cannot be called parama (supreme), it being an effect of Unmanifested akasa. Besides, in the Brhadaranyaka, the Unmanifested akasa and not the element akasa, occurs in the proximity of Immutable Brahman (aksara)'. -A.G.]; guhayam, in the intellect. Guha, being derived from the root guha in the sense of hiding, means the intellect, because in that intellect are hidden the categories, viz knowledge, knowable and knower; or because in this intellect are hidden the two human objectives, enjoyment and liberation. Or, from the apposition (of guha and vyoma) in the expression, guhayam vyomni, the Unmanifested space (Maya) itself is the guha (cavity); for in that, too are hidden all things during the three periods (of creation, existence, and dissolution), it being their cause as well as more subtle. In that (Maya) is hidden Brahman. It is, however, reasonable to accept the space circumscribed by the cavity of the heart as the supreme space, for the text wants to present space here as a part of knowledge. [Brahman is placed, i.e. manifest as the witness, in the cavity of the intellect that is loged in the space circumscribed by the heart, and It is directly perceived there as such. If, however, Brahman is placed in the Cosmic Unmanifested, i.e. in the principle called Maya, It will become an object of indirect perception. And an indirect realization cannot negate the direct superimposition that a man suffers from.] The space within the heart is well known as the supreme space from the other Vedic texts:- 'The space that it outside the individual (Ch. III. xii. 7) ... is the same as the space within the individual (Ch. III. xii. 8) (and that again) is the same as the space within the heart' (Ch. III. xii. 9). (Thus the meaning of the sentence is:-) Within the cavity that is the intellect, which is within the space defined by the heart, is nihitam, lodged, placed , Brahman; in other words, Brahman is perceived clearly through the function of that intellect; for apart from this perception, Brahman can have no connection, (in the sense of being lodged in), with any particular time or space, Brahman being all-pervasive and beyond all distinctions. Sah, he, one who has known Brahman thus-what does he do? The answer is-asnute, he enjoys; sarvan, all without any exception; kaman, desires, i.e. all enjoyable things. Does he enjoy the sons, heavens, etc. in sequence as we do? The text says:- No; he enjoys all the desirable things, which get focussed into a single moment, saha, simultaneouslythrough a single perception which is eternal like the light of the sun, which is nondifferent from Brahman Itself, and which we called 'truth, knowledge, infinite'. That very fact is described here as brhamana saha, in identification with Brahman. The man of knowledge, having become Brahman, enjoys as Brahman, all the desirable things simultaneously; and he does not enjoy in sequence the desirable things that are dependent on such causes as merit etc. and such sense-organs as the eyes etc., as does an ordinary man identified with the wordly self which is conditioned by limiting adjuncts, and which is a reflection (of the supreme Self) like that of the sun on water. How then does he enjoy? As identified with the eternal Brahman which is omniscient, all-pervasive, and the Self on all, he enjoys simultaneously, in the manner described above, all the desirable things that are not dependent on all such causes as merit etc., and that are independent of the organs like the eyes etc. This is the idea. Vipascita means 'with the intelligent One, (i.e.) with the Omniscient; for, that indeed is true intelligence which is omniscience. The idea is that, he injoys in his identity with that all-knowing Brahman. The word iti is used to indicate the end of the mantra. The entire purport of the chapter is summed up in the sentence, 'The knower of Brahman attains the highest', occurring in the brahmana portion. And that pithy statement (aphorism) is briefly explained by the mantra (the Rk verse). Since the meaning of that very statement has to be elaborately ascertained again, the succeeding text, tasmad va etasmat etc., is introduced as a sort of a gloss to it. As to that , it has been said at the beginning of the mantra that Brahman is truth, knowledge, and infinite. As to that, there are three kinds of infinitude-from the standpoint of space, time, and objects. To illustrate:- The sky is unlimited from the point of view of space, for it is not limited in space. But the sky is not infinite as regards time or as regards (other) objects. Why? Since it is a product. Brahman is not thus limited in time like the sky, since It is not a product. For, a created thing is circumscribed by time, but Brahman is not created. Hence It is Infinite from the point of view of time as well. Similarly, too, from the point of view of objects. How, again, is established Its infinitude from the point of view of objects? Since It is non-different from the point of view of objects? Since It is non-different from everything. A thing that is different acts as a limitation to another. Indeed, when the intellect gets occupied with something, it becomes detached from something else. That (idea), because of which another idea becomes circumscribed, acts as limit to the (latter) idea. To illustrate:- The idea of cowhood is repelled by the idea of horsehood; hence horsehood debars cowhood, and the idea (of cowhood) becomes delimited indeed. That limitation is seen in the case of distinct objects. Brahman is not differentiated in this way. Hence It has infinitude even from the standpoint of substances. How, again is Brahman non-different from everything? The answer is:- Because It is the cause of everything. Brahman is verily the cause of all things-time, space, etc. Objection:- From the standpoint of objects, Brahman is limited by Its own effects. Answer:- No, since the objects that are effects are unreal. For apart from the cause, there is really no such thing as an effect by which the idea of the cause can become delimited. This is fact is borne out by another Vedic text which says that 'All transformation has speech as its basis, and it is name only. Earth (inhering in its modifications), as such, is the reality' (Ch. VI. 1. 4); similarly, existence (i.e. Brahman that permeaters everything) alone is true (Ch. VI. ii. 1). Brahman, then is spatially infinite, being the cause of space etc. For space is known to be spatially infinte; and Brahman is the cause of that space. Hence it is proved that the Self is spatially infinte. Indeed, no all-pervading thing is seen in this world to originate from anything that is not so. Hence the spatial infinitude of Brahman is absolute. Similarly, temporally, too, Brahman's infinitude is absolute, since Brahman is not a product. And because there is nothing different from Brahman, It is infinte substantially as well. Hence Its reality is absolute. By the word tasmat, from that, is called to mind the Brahman that was aphoristically stated in the first sentence; and by the word etasmat, from this, is called to memory the Brahman just as It was defined immediately afterwards in the mantra. Atmanah, from the Self-from Brahman that was enunciated in the beginning in the words of the brahmana portion, and that was defined immediately afterwards as truth, knowledge, infinite (in the mantra); (i.e.) from that Brahman which is called the Self, for It is the Self of all, according to another Vedic text, 'It is truth, It is the Self' (Ch. VI. vii-xvi). Hence Brahman is the Self. From that Brahman which is identical with the Self, akasah, space; sambhutah, was created. Akasa means that which is possessed of the attribute of sound and provides space for all things that have forms. Akasat, from that space; vayuh, air-which has two attributes, being possessed of its own quality, touch, and the quality, sound, of its cause (akasa). The verb, 'was created', is understood. Vayah, from that air; was created agnih, fire-which has three attributes, being possessed of its own quality, colour, and the two earlier ones (of its cause, air). Agneh, from fire; was produced, apah, water-with four attributes, being endowed with its own quality, taste, and the three earlier ones (of fire). Adbhyah, from water; was produced prthivi, earth-with five attributes, consisting of its own quality, smell, and the four earlier qualities (of its casue, water). Prthivyah, from the earth; osadhayah, the herbs. Osadhibhyah, from the herbs; annam, food. Annat, from food, transformed into human seed; (was created), purusah, the human being, possessed of the limbs-head, hands etc. Sah vai esah purusah, that human being, such as he is; annarasamayah, consists of the essence of food, is a transformation of the essence of food. Since the semen, the seed, emerging as it does as the energy from all the limbs, is assumed to be of the human shape, therefore the one that is born from it should also have the human shape; for in all classes of beings, the offsprings are seen to be formed after the fathers. Objection:- Since all beings without exception are modifications of the essence of food and since all are equally descendants of Brahma, why is man alone specified? Answer:- Because of his pre-eminence. Objection:- In what, again, does the pre-eminence consist? Answer:- In his competence for karma and knowledge. For man alone, who is desirous (of results) and possessed of learning and capacity, is qualified for rites and duties as also for knowledge, by virtue of his ability, craving (for results), and non-indifference (to results). (This is proved) by the evidence of another Vedic text:- 'In man alone is the Self most manifest, for he is the best endowed with intelligence. He speaks what he knows, he sees what he knows; he knows what will happen tomorrow; he knows the higher and lower worlds; he aspires ot achieve immortality through mortal things. He is thus endowed (with discrimination), while other beings have consciousness of hunger adn thirst only' (Ai. A. II. iii. 2.5) etc. The intention here is to make that very human being enter into the inmost Brahman through knowledge. But his intellect, that thinks of the outer particular forms, which are not selves, as selves, cannot without the support of some distinct object, be suddenly made contentless and engaged in the thoughts of the inmost indwelling Self. Therefore, on the analogy of the moon on the bough, [Though the moon is far away, it is at times spoken of as 'the moon on the bough', because she appears to be near it. The point is that, the idea of something which escapes ordinary comprehesion is sought to be communicated with the help of something more tangible, though, in reality, the two are entirely disparate.] the text takes the help of a fiction that has an affinity with the identification of the Self and the perceived body; and leading thereby the intellect inward, the text says, tasya idam eva sirah:- tasya, of that human being who is such and who is an modification of the essence of food, idam eva sirah, this is verily the head-that is well known. The text, 'This is verily the head', is stated lest somebody should think that the head is to be imagined here just as it is in the case of the vital body etc., where things that are not heads are imagined to be so. Similar is the construction in the case of the side etc. Ayam, this, the right hand of a man facing east. is the daksinah paksah, the southern side. Ayam, this-the left hand; is the uttarah paksah, the northern side. Ayam, this-the middle portion (trunk) of the body; is the atma, self, soul of the limbs, in accordance with the Vedic text, 'The middle of these limbs is verily their soul'. Idam, this-the portion of the body below the navel; is the puccham pratistha, the tail that stablizes. Pratistha derivatively means that by which one remains in position. The puccha (here) is that which is comparable to a tail, on the anology of hanging down, as does the tail of a cow. On this pattern is established the symbolism in the case of the succeeding vital body etc., just as an image takes its shape from molten copper poured into a crucible. Tat api, as to that also, illustrative of that very idea contained in the brahmana portion; esah bhavati slokah, here occurs a verse- which presents the self made of food.

As compared wiht this self made of the essence of food, as said before, there is another inner self which is made of air. By that is this one filled. That (self) which is this, is also verily of the human form. It s human form takes after the human form of that (earlier one). Of this, prana is indeed the head, vyana is the right side, apana is the left side, space is the self, the earth is the tail that stabilizes. Pertaining to that also is this (following) verse:- Annat, from food-transformed into the state of chyle etc.; prajah, the living beingsmoving or stationary; prajayante, take birth; (the living beings) yah kah ca, whichever (they be)-without distinction; who, prthivim sritah, rest on, have taken as their resort, the earth-all of them are verily born from food. The word vai is used for calling up to memory (something mentioned earlier). Atho, moreover, when born; annenaeva, by food, indeed; they jivanti, live- preserve their lives, i.e. grow. Atha, besides; antatah, at the end, at the conclusion of the growth that is indicative of life; apiyanti, (they) move towardsthe prefix api being used in the sense of towards; enat, it, i.e. food; the idea is that they get absorbed advancing in the direction of food, (and culminating in food). Why? Hi, since; annam, food; is jyestham, the first born; bhutanam, of all beings. Since food is the source of all the other creatures beginning with those made of food, therefore all living beings originate from food, live on food, and merge into food. Since this is so, tasmat, therefore; food is vcyate, called; sarvausadham, a medicine for all, a curative that alleviates the bodily discomfort of all creatures. The goal achieved by the knower of food as Brahman is being stated:- Te, they; apnuvanti, acquire; sarvam vai annam, all the food. Who? Ye, those who; upasate, meditate on; annam brahma, food as Brahman- as shown earlier. How? Thus:- 'I am born of food, am identical with food, and merge in food. Therefore food is Brahman.' How, again, does the meditation on food, as identical with oneself, result in the acquisition of all the food? The answer is:- Hi annam jyestham bhutanam, since food is the first born of all beings-since it is the eldest, being born before all the creatures; tasmat sarvausadham ucyate (see ante). Therefore it is logical that one who worships all food as identical with oneself should acquire all food. The repetition of 'annat bhutani jayante, from food orginate all creatures; jatani annena vardhante, when born they grow through food' is for the sake of summing up. The etymology of the word anna is now being shown. Since food is adyate, eaten, by creatures; and itself atti, eats; bhutani, the creatures; tasmat, therefore-by virtue of being eaten by creatures and of eating the creatures; tat annam ucyate, it is called food. The word iti is to indicate the end of the first sheath. The scripture starts with the text tasmat va etasmat annarasamayat etc., with a veiw to revealing, through knowledge, Brahman-which is the inmost of all the selves beginning from the physical sheath and ending with the blissful one-as the indwelling Self, by following a process of eliminating the five sheaths just as rice is extracted from the grain called kodrava that has many husks. Tasmat vai etasmat, as compared with this body made of the essence of food, as described above; there is anyah, another, separate atma, self; antarah, which is inside, (which is) imagined through ignorance to be a self, just as the physical body is; (which latter self is) pranamayah:- prana is air (vital force), and pranamaya means constitued by air, possessed predominantly of air. Tena, by that airy (vital) self; purnah, is filled; esah, this one-the self constituted by the essence of food, just as a bellow is filled with air. Sah vai esah, that (self) which is this-the vital self. is purusavidhah eva, also of a human form- possessing a head,sides, etc. Is it so naturally? The text says, no. Now then, the self constituted by the essence of food is well known to have a human shape; anu, in accordance with; purusavidhatam tasya, the human shape to that self, constituted by the essence of food; ayam, this, (the self) constituted by air; is purusavidhah, humanly shaped-like an image cast in a crucible, but not naturally. Similarly, the succeeding selves become human in shape in accordance with the human shapes of the preceding ones; and the earlier ones are filled up by the succeeding ones. How, again, is constituted its human form? The answer is tasya, of him, of the self constituted by the vital force, which is a transformation of air; pranah eva, the special function of exhaling through the mouth nd nostrils; is imagined, on the authority of the text, as sirah, head. The imagination of the sides etc., at every turn, is only on scriptural authority. Vyanah, the function called vyana (pervading the whole body); is daksinah paksah, the right side. apanah, apana (the function of inhaling); is uttarah paksah, the left side. Akasah, space, i.e. the function (of air) existing in space as samana; is atma, the self-being comparable of the Self. (Akasa means samana), for it is the context of the functions of the vital force, and it is the self, being in the middle as compared with the other functions that are in the periphery. The one that exists in the middle is recognized as the self in the Vedas, in accordance with the text, 'The middle (i.e. the trunk) of these limbs is verily their soul'. Prthivi puccham pratistha:- prthivi means the deity of the earth; and this deity supports the physical vital force, since this deity is the cause of its stability according to another Vedic text, 'That deity favours by attracting the apana in a man' (Pr. III. viii). Else the body would ascend upwards because of the action of the vital function called udana, or there would be falling down because of its weight. Therefore the deity of the earth is the stabilizing tail of the vital self. Tat, pertaining to that very idea-with regard to the vital self; here is esah slokah, this verse:-

Devah, the gods-Fire etc.; prananti, perform the act of breathing-become active through the functioning of the vital force; anu pranam, after the self that is constituted by air; that is to say, the gods perform the vital functions by becoming identified with that which possesses the power of sustaning life. Or, because this is the context of the physical body, devah means the sense-organs; (they) pranam anu prananti, become active by following the function of breathing that subsists in the mouth. Similarly, ye manusyah pasavah ca, those that are human beings and animals, they become active through the function of breathing. Hence, also, it is not simply by possessing the limited self in the form of the body built up by food that creatures become dowered with selves. What then? Human beings and others are endowed with their selves by virtue of possessing a vital body within each physical body, which former is common to, and pervades, each physical body as a whole. Similarly, all creatures are possessed of their selves by virtue of being provided wih the bodies beginning with the mental and ending with the blissful, which successively pervade the preceding ones and which are made up of the elements counting from akasa that are the creations of ignorance. So also are they blessed with their selves by the Self that is common to all, self-existent, the source of space etc., everlasting, unchanging, all-pervading, defined as 'truth, knowledge, and infinite', and beyond the five sheaths. And by implication it is also said that this is the Self of all in the real sense. It has been said that the senses act by following the activity of the vital force. How is that so? This is being answered:- Hi, since, according to another Vedic text, 'Life lasts so long as the vital force resides in the body' (Kau. III. 2); pranah, the vital force; is ayuh, the life; bhutanam, of creatures; therefore, it (the vital force) is ucyata, called; sarvayusam. Sarvayuh, means the life of all; sarvayuh is the same as sarvayusam, the life of all. Since death is a known consequence of the departure of the vital force, the latter is universally recognized as the life of all. Hence those who, after detaching themselves from this external, personal, physical self, meditate on the inner, common vital self as Brahman with the idea, 'I am the vital force that is the self of all beings and their life-being the source of life', get verily the full span of life in this world, i.e. they do not meet with any accidental death before the ordained span of life. The word sarvayuh, (full span of life), should, however, properly mean one hundred years, in accordance with the well-recognized fact in the Vedic text, 'He gets a full span of life' (Ch. II. xi-xx, IV. xi-xiii). What is the reason (of attaining the full life)? Pranah hi bhutanam ayuh tasmat sarvayusam ucyate (see ante). The repetition of the expression pranah, hi etc., is to indicate the ligic of the attainment of the fruit of meditation, to wit:- Anyone who worships Brahman as possessed of certain qualities, himself shares in them. Tasya purvasya, of the physical body described above; esah eva, this verily is; the sarirah atma, the self existing in the body made of food. Which is it? Yah esah that which is this one-constituted by the vital force. The rest beginning with tasmat vai etasmat is to be construed as before. Anyah antarah atma, there is another inner self; manomayah, constituted by mind. Manah means the internal organ comprising volition etc. That which is constituted by mind is manomaya, just as in the case of annamaya. This that is such is the inner self of the vital body. Tasya, of that (mental body); yajuh eva sirah, the Yajurmantras are the head. Yajuh means a kind of mantra in which the number of letters and feet, and length (of lines) are not restricted; the word yajuh denotes (prose) sentences of that class. It is the head because of its preeminence, and the pre-eminence is owing to its subserving a sacrifice directly, for an oblation is offered with a Yajur-mantra uttered along with a svaha etc. Or the imagination of the head etc., everywhere, is only on the authority of the text. (Yajuh is a constituent of the mental sheath) since yajuh is that state of the mind which is related to organs (of utterance), effort (involved in utterance), sound (produced thereby), intonation, letters, words, and sentences; which consists of a volition with regard to these factors; which is pre-occupied wiht their thoughts; which has the organs of hearing etc. for its communication; and which has the characteristics of the Yajur-mantras. Thus are (to be understood) the Rg-mantras, and thus also the Samamantras. In this way, when the mantras are considered as mental states, their mental repetition (japa) becomes possible, since that implies that those states alone are continued in the mind. Else, mental repetition of a mantra would not be possible, since the mantra would then be outside the mind just as much as pot etc;, are. [The words in the mantra would be outside the mind, and as the mind would have no independence with regard to them, there would be no mental repetition of them.] But, as a matter of fact, the repetition of mantras has to be undertaken (since it) is enjoined variously in connection with rites. Objection:- The (mental) repetition of a mantra can be accomplished by the repetition of the memory of letters (constituting it). Answer:- No, since (on that assumption) there is no possibility of repetition in the primary sense. The repetition of Rg-mantra is enjoined in the text, 'The first Rg-mantra is to be repeated thrice and the last Rg-mantra is to be repeated thrice.' That being so, if the Rg-mantras themselves be not made the objects of repetition, and if the repetition of their memory be undertaken, the repetition of the Rg-mantra, in the primary sense, which is enjoined in 'the first Rg-mantra is to be repeated thrice', will be discarded. Hence the (Yajur)mantras are (in the last analysis) nothing but the knowledge of the Self, which is identical with the beginningless and eldless Consciousness that is the Self lodged in and conditioned by the mental functions referred to as Yajus that act as Its limiting adjuncts. Thus is the eternality of the Vedas justifiable. Else, If they are objects like colour etc., they will be impermanent. This is not correct. And the Vedic text, 'where all the Veda get united is the Self in the mind, [Where the Self exists as the witness of all mental functions] (Cit. XI.1, Tai.A. III.ii.1), which declares the identity of the Rgmantras etc., with the eternal Self, can be reconciled only if the mantras are eternal. And there is also the mantra text, 'The Rg-mantras exist in that undecaying and supreme space (Brahman) where all the gods reside' (Sv. IV. 8). Adesah here (means the brahmana portion of the Vedas, since (in consonance with the etymological meaning of adesa, command) the brahmana, portion inculcates all that has to be enjoined. Atharvangirasah, the mantra and the brahmana portions seen by Atharvangirasah; the mantra and the brahmana portions seen by Atharvangiras; are puccham pratistha, the stabililizing tail, since they are chiefly concerned with rites performed for acquiring peace, prosperity, etc., which bring about stability. Pertaining to this is a verse, just as before, which reveals the self that is constituted by the mind.

Yatah vacah nivartante etc., (For commentary see II. ix). Tasya purvasya, of that preceding one-of the one constituted by the vital force; esah eva atma, this one is verily the self; sarirah, existing in the body-the vital body. Which? yah esah manomayah, that which is constituted by mind. 'Tasmad vai etasmat, as compared with this one' etc.-is to be explained as before-; anyah antarah atma, there is another self that is internal; the intelligence-self exists within the mental-self. It has been mentioned that the mental self consists of the Vedas. The wisdom about the contents of the Vedas, amounting to certitude, is vijnana; and that (vijnana), again, in the form of certitude is a characteristic of the internal organ. Vijnanamayah is the self consisting of such vijnana, and it is constituted by well-ascertained knowledge that is authoritative by nature. For sacrifice etc. are undertaken where there exists knowledge arising from a valid source. And the (next) verse will declare that it is the source of sacrifices. In one who is possessed of well-ascertained knowledge, there arises first sraddha, faith, with regard to the things to be performed. Since that faith precedes all duties, it is the sirah, head, i.e. comparable to a head. Rta and satya, righteousness and truth, are as they have been explained before (I. ix). Yogah is conjunction, concentration. It is the atma, self (the middle part), as it were. Faith etc., like the limbs of a body, become fit for the acquisition of valid knowledge in a man who is possessed of a self by virtue of his concentration. Therefore, yogah, concentration, is the self (i.e. the trunk) of the body constituted by knowledge. Mahah puccham pratistha:- Mahah means the principle called Mahat-the first born, in accordance with another Vedic text, '(He who knows) this Mahat (great), adorable, first-born being (as the Satya-Brahman) [The Cosmic person comprising all gross and subtle things.] (Br. V. iv. 1). It is puccham pratistha, the supporting tail, since it is the cause (of the intelligence-self). For the cause is the support of the effects, as for instance, the earth is of trees and creepers. The principle called Mahat is the cause of all intellectual cognitions. Thereby it becomes the support of the cognitive self (consisting of intelligence). Pertaining to that there occurs this verse, just as before. Just as there are verses expressive of the physical self etc., that are mentioned in the brahmana portion, so also is there a verse with regard to the cognitive one.

Vijnanam yajnam tanute, knowledge actualizes a sacrifice; for a man of knowledge executes it with faith etc. Hence knowledge is presented as the doer in (the expression) 'Knowledge actualizes the sacrifice'. Ca, and; karmani tanute, it executes the duties (as well). Since everything is a accomplished by knowledge, it is reasonable to say that the cognitive self is Brahman. Moreover, sarve devah, all the gods, Indra and other; upasate, meditate on; vijnanam brahma, Brahman as conditioned by cognition; (which is) jyestham, the first born-since it was born before all or because all actions presuppose it. That is to say, they meditate on that knowledge Brahman, by identifying themselves with it. Hence, through the worship of the Mahat-Brahman (Hiranyagarbha), they become possessed of knowledge and glory. Cet, if; veda, one knows; that vijnanam brahma, Brahman as conditioned by cognition; and not only does one know, but also, cet, if; na pramadyati tasmat, one does not err about that Brahman-does not deviate from that Brahman-. Since one is prone to thinking the external non-Selves as the Self, there arises the possibility of swerving from the thought of the knowledge-Brahman as identified with one's Self; in order to bar out that possibility, the text says, 'If one does not err about that Brahman', that is to say, if one has eschewed all ideas of identity of the physical selves etc. with his own Self and goes on thinking of the knowledge-Brahman only as his Self-. What will happen thereby? The answer is:- sarire papmanah hitva, abandoning all sins in the body-. All sins are verily caused by the identification of oneself with the body. And on the analogy of the removal of the shade, on the removal of the umbrella, their eradication is possible when their cause is removed as a result of the indentification of oneself with the knowledge-Brahman. Therefore, having abandoned in the body itself, all the sins which arise from the body, which are caused by the indentification of oneself with the body, and becoming identified with the knoweldge-Brahman (i.e. Hiranyagarbha), one samasnute, fully attains, i.e. fully enjoys, through the cognitive self itself; sarvan kaman, all the desirable things that there are in the knowledge Brahman. Tasya purvasya, of that preceding one, of the mental self; esah eva atma, this is verily the self, that is lodged in the mental sarira, body, and is hence the sarirah, embodied. Which? Yah esah, that which is this; vijnanamayah, the cognitive one. Tasmat vai etasmat etc. is as already explained. From the context and form the use of the suffix, mayat (made of), it is to be understood that a conditioned self is implied by the word anandamayah (made of bliss). Indeed, the conditioned selves-made of food etc.- which are material, are dealt with here. And this self made of bliss also is included in that context. Besides, the suffix mayat is used here in the sense of transmutation (and not abundance) as in the case of annamaya. Hence the anandamaya is to be understood as a conditioned self. This also follows from the fact of samkramana (attaining). The text will say, 'He attains the self made of bliss' (II. viii. 5). And the conditioned selves that are not the Self are seen to be attained. Moreover, the self made of bliss is mentioned in the text as the object of the act of attaining, just as it is in the text, annamayam atmanam upasamkramati, he attains the self made of food (II. viii. 5). Besides, the (unconditioned) Self Itself is not attainable, since such an attainment is repugnant to the trend of the passage and it is impossible. For the (unconditioned) Self cannot be attained by the Self Itself, inasmuch as there is no division within the Self, and Brahman (the goal) is the Self of the attainer. Moreover, (on the supposition that the unconditioned Self is spoken of), the fancying of head etc., becomes illogical. For such imagination of limbs, head, etc., is not possible in that (Self) which has the characteristics mentioned earlier, which is the cause of space etc., and which is not included in the category of effects. And this is borne out by such Vedic texts, denying distinctive attributes in the Self, as the following:- '(Whenever an aspirant gets fearlessly established) in this unperceivable, bodiless, inexpressible, and unsupporting (Brahman)' (II. vii), 'it is neither gross nor minute' (Br. III. viii. 8), 'The Self is that which has been descried as "not this", "not this"' (Br. III. ix. 26). This also follows from the illogicality (otherwise) of quoting the (succeeding) mantra; surely, the quotation of the mantra, 'If anyone knows Brahman as non-existing, he himself becomes non-existent' (II. vi. 1), cannot be justified, since the doubt that 'Brahman does not exist)' cannot arise with regard to Brahman which is directly perceived as the self made of bliss and possessed of such limbs as joy for its head and so on. Besides, it is unjustifiable to refer separately to Brahman as the stabilizing tail in, 'Brahman is the stabilizing tail'. So the anandamaya (made of bliss, or blissful) (atma, self) belongs to the category of effects; it is not the supreme Self. Ananda (bliss) is an effect of meditation and rites, and anandamaya is constituted by that bliss. And this self is more internal than the cognitive self, since it has been shown by the Upanisad to be indwelling the cognitive self which is the cause of sacrifices etc. Inasmuch as the fruit of meditation and rites is meant for the enjoyer, it must be the inmost of all; and the blissful self is the inmost as compared with the earlier ones. Further, this follows from the fact that meditation and rites are meant for the acquisition of joy etc.; indeed, meditation and rites are promted by (the desire for) joy etc. Thus since joy etc., which are the fruits ( of rites and meditation), are nearer to the Self, it is logical that they should be within the cognitive self; for the blissful self, revived by [I.e. associated with.] the impression of joy etc., is perceived in dream to be dependent on the cognitive self. ['The self possessed of joy etc. is not the primary self, since it is perceived by the witness-Self in dream'-A.G.] Tasya, of him, of the self made of bliss; the priyam, joy-arising from seeing such beloved objects as a son; is the sirah, head-comparable to a head, because of its preeminence. Modah, enjoyment, means the happiness that follows the acquisition of an object of desire. When that enjoyment reaches it acme it is pramodah, exhilaration. Anandah, Bliss-pleasure in general, is the soul (trunk) of the different limbs, (i.e. expressions) of happiness in the form of joy etc., for this ananda, (i.e. common Bliss) permeates them all. Ananda (Bliss) is supreme Brahman; for it is Brahman which manifests Itself in the various mental modifications, when such limiting adjuncts as the particular objects like a son, a friend, etc. are presented by the (past) good deeds and the mind, freed from tamas (gloom, darkness, etc.), becomes placid. And this is well known in the world as objective happiness. This happiness is momentary, since the result of past deeds that brings about those particular modifications of the mind is unstable. That being so, in proportion as that mind becomes purified through meditation, continence, and faith, so much do particular joys attain excellence and gain in volume in that calm and free mind. And this Upanisad will say, 'That is verily the source of joy; for one becomes happy by coming in contact with that source of joy. This one, indeed, enlivens people' (II. vii). There is also this other Vedic text to the point, 'On a particle of this very Bliss other beings live' (Br. IV. iii. 32). Thus, too, it will be said that bliss increases a hundredfold in every successive stage, in proportion to the perfection of detachment from desires (II. viii). [If the increase of bliss were dependent on things alone, the Upanisad would not have spoken of bliss with reference to a man of detachment as it does in fact in II. viii. In reality, bliss becomes higher in proportion as the heart becomes purer, calm, and more freed from objects, whereby it becomes abler to reflect the Bliss that is Brahman.] Thus, speaking from the standpoint of the knowledge of the Supreme Brahman, Brahman is certainly the highest as compared with the blissful self that attains excellence gradually. The Brahman under discussion-which is difined as 'Truth, knowledge, infinite' (II. i), for whose realization have been introduced the five sheaths, commencing with the one made of food, which is the inmost of them all, and by which they become endowed with their selves (being)-that brahma, Brahman; is puccham pratistha, the tail that stabilizes. Again, that very nondual Brahman, which is the farthest limit of all negation of duality superimposed by ignorance, is the support (of the blissful self), for the blissful self culminates in unity. (It follows, therefore, that) there does exist that one, non-dual Brahman, as the farthest limit of the negation of duality called up by ignorance, and this Brahman supports (the duality) like a tail. Illustrative of this fact, too, here is a verse:-

Sah he; bhavati, becomes; asan eva, non-existing indeed-like something non-existent; just as a nonentity has no relation wiht any human objective, similarly, he remains dissociated from the human objective (viz liberation). Who is that? He who, cet, perchance; veda, knows; brahma, Brahman; asat iti, as non-existing. As opposed to that, cet veda, if he known; That-that Brahman, which is the basis of all diversification and the seed of all activity, though in Itself It is devoid of all distinctions; asti iti, does exist, (then the knowers of Brahman consider him as existing). Why, again, should there be any apprehension of Its non-existence? We say that (this is so, because) Brahman is beyond all empirical relationships. The intellect that is prone to think of existence with regard to only the empirical objects having speech alone as their substance, may assume nonexistence with regard to anything that is opposed to this and is transcendental. For instance, it is well-known that a pot, comprehended as a thing that man can deal with, is true, while anything of an oppsite natural is false. Thus, by a parity of reasoning, there may arise here also an apprehension of the non-existence of Brahman. Therefore it is said, 'If anyone knows that Brahman does exist'. What again, will happen to one who knows Brahman as existing? That is being answered:- Tatah, because of that realization of exisence; the knowers of Brahman viduh, know; enam, this one-who has this realization; as santam, existing- identified with the Self that is absolutely real,-, by virtue of his having become one with the Brahman that exists. The idea is that he becomes worthy to be known by others, just as Brahman is. Or (the alternative meaning is):- If a man thinks, 'Brahman is nonexistence', then that man, because of his faithlessness the entire righteous path consisting of the scheme of castes, stages of life, etc., becomes non-existent inasmch as that path is not calculated to lead him to Brahman. Hence this atheist is called asat, unrighteous-in this world. As opposed to such a man, if anyone knows that 'Brahman does exist', then, he, because of his faith, accepts properly the righteous path comprising the scheme of castes, stages of life, etc. and leading to the realization of Brahman. Since this is so, tatah, therefore; the good people know this one as santam, treading the righteous path. The purport of the sentence is:- Because of this fact, Brahman is to be accepted as surely existing. Tasya purvasya, of the preceding one-of the cognitive one; esah eva, this one, indeed; is sarirah atma, the self existing in the body made of knowledge. Which is that? Yah esah, that which is this one-the self made of bliss. As to this self there is no apprehension of non-existence. But Brahman's non-existence may be suspected, since It is devoid of all distinctions, and since it is common to all. [Since Brahman pervades eveything, Its utility should be perceptible at every turn. But actually this is not so. Hence Its existence can be questioned. But the anandamaya's (the blisful self's) existence is not doubted in this sense. Hence anandamaya is not the subject-matter of the verse quoted above.] Since this is so, atah, therefore; atha, afterwards; there are these anuprasnah:- prasnah means questions, by the disciple who is the hearer, and anu means after; the questions after what the teacher has spoken are the anuprasnah. Brahman, being the cause of space etc., is equally common to the man of knoweldge and the ignorant. Therefore, it may be suspected that the ignorant. Therefore, it may be suspected that the ignorant man, too, reaches Brahman. Uta has the meaning of api (used in introducing a question). Cana is used in the sense of api (implying even). Pretya, departing, from here; does kah cana avidvan, evev one who is ignorant; gacchati, reach; amum lokam, that world-the supreme Self? The question, 'Or does he not go?' is implied because of the use of the plural number in 'anuprasnah, questions put after the teacher's instruction.' The remaining two questions are with regard to the inlightened man. It the ignorant man fails to reach Brahman, though It is the common source of all, then the attainment of Brahman by an enlightened man may as well be doubted. Hence with regard to him is the question:- Aho vidvan etc. Does kah cit, someone; who is a vidvan, an enlightened man, a knower of Brahman; pretya, departing, from here; amum lokam samasnute, reach the other world? In the expression samasnute u, the e (in te) is replaced by ay, of which the y having been dropped out, the a becomes lengthened, and the expression becomes samasnuta u. And the letter u, occuring later, should be transferred from the bottom and the letter ta should be detached from uta, occuring earlier, (to form a new word uta). Placing this (new) uta before the word aho, the question is being put:- 'Uta aho vidvan.... Or does the enlightened man attain the other world?' The other question is:- 'Or does the enlightened man not attain it, just as the ignorant man does not?' Alternatively, there are only two questions relating to the enlightened and the unenlightened men. But the plural occurs with reference to other questions that may crop up by implication. From hearing, 'If one knows Brahman, as nonexisting', and 'If one knows that Brahman does exist', the doubt arises as to whether It exists or does not exist. From that, by implication, crops up this first question after the teacher's instruction:- 'Does Brahman exist or does It not?' The second one is:- 'Since Brahman is impartial, does the unenlightened man reach It or does he not?' Even if Brahman is equal to all, Its non-attainment in the case of the enlightened man can be suspected as much as much as in the case of the unelightened one; and hence the third question following on the teacher's instruction, is, 'Does the man of knowledge attain or does he not?' The succeeding text is introduced for answering these questions. Apropos of this, existence is being first spoken of. It remains to be explained as to what kind of truth is meant in the assertion that was made thus:- 'Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite'. Hence it is being said:- Brahman's truth is affirmed by speaking of Its existence; for it has been asserted that the existing is the true (an echo of Ch. VI. ii. 1). Therefore, the very affirmation of existence amounts to an avowal of reality. How is it known that this text bears such as import? From the trend of the words of this text. For the succeeding sentences such as, 'They call that (Brahman) Truth' (II. vi), '(Who indeed will inhale and who exhale) if this Bliss (Brahman) be not there in the supreme space (within the heart)?', are connected with this very purport. Objection:- While on this topic, the suspicion arises that Brahman is surely non-existent. Why? Because whatever exists is perceived as possessed of distinctive attributes, as for instance a pot etc. Whatever is nonexistent is not perceived, as for instance the horn of a hare etc. Similarly, Brahman is not perceived. So It does not exist, since It is not perceived as possessed of distinguishing attributes. Answer:- This is not tenable, since Brahman is the cause of space etc. It is not a fact that Brahman does not exist. Why? Since all the products issuing from Brahman, such as space etc., are perceived. It is a matter of common experience in this world that any thing from which something is produced does exist, as for instance, earth, seed, etc., which are the causes of a pot, a sprout, etc. So Brahman does exist, since It is the cause of space etc. And, no effect is perceived in this world as having been produced from a nonentity. If such effects as name and form had originated from a nonentity, they should not have been perceived since they have no reality. But they are perceived. Hence Brahman exists. Should any effect originate from a nonentity, it should remain soaked in unreality even while being perceived. But facts point otherwise. Therefore Brahman exists. Pertaining to this another Vedic text - 'How can a thing that exists come out of a thing that does not?' (Ch. VI. ii. 2)-points out logically the impossiblity of the creation of something out of nothing. Therefore, it stands to reason that Brahman is verily a reality. Objection:- Should that Brahman be a cause like earth, seed, etc., It will be insentient. Answer:- No, since It is capable of desiring. Certainly it is not a matter of experience that one who can desire can be insentient. We have said that Brahman is indeed omniscient; and so it is but reasonable that It should be capable of desiring. Objection:- Since Brahman has desires, It has unfulfilled desires like ourselves. Answer:- Not so, for It is independent. Such defects as desire cannot impel Brahman (to action) just as they do others by subjecting them to their influence. What then are these (desires of Brahman)? They are by nature truth and knowledge, and they are pure by virtue of their identity with Brahman. [Brahman, as reflected on Maya, is the material cause of the world, and It is possessed of desires that are the modifications of Maya. But these modifications are not distinguishable from truth and knowledge, since they are permeated by Consciousness that is not subject to ignorance etc.; and they are pure, since they are untouched by unrigtheousness etc. by virtue of their non-distinction from Brahman.'-A.G.] Brahman is not impelled to action by them. But Brahman ordains them in accordance with the results of actions of the creatures. Therefore, Brahman has dependence with regard to desires. So Brahman has no want. And this follows also from the fact of Brahman's non-dependence on any other means. Further, Brahman has no dependence on accessories etc., as others have whose desires are not identified with themselves but are dependent on such causes as righteousness, and require the extraneous body and senses as their instruments. How do they exist then (in Brahman)? They are non-different from Itself. ['Since Maya, as possessed of the impressions of desires, has identity with Brahman (through superimposition), the desires, too, that are the modifications of this Maya, have identity with Brahman. Therefore, there is no need for a physical body etc. (for making possible the existence of desires in Brahman, as it is in our case)'-A.G.] That fact is stated in sah akamayata:- sah, the Self from which space originated; akamayata, desired. How? Bahu syam:- syam, I shall become; bahu, many. Objection:- How can the One become many, unless It enters into something else? The answer is, 'prajayeya, I shall be born'. The multiplication here does not refer to becoming something extraneous as one does by begetting a son. How then? Through the manifestation of name and form that are latent in Itself. When name and form existing latently in the Self get manifested, they evolve-by retaining their intrinsic nature as the Self under all conditions-in time and space which are inseparable from Brahman. Then that evolution of name and form is (what is called) the appearence of Brahman as the many. In no other way is it possible for the partless Brahman to become either multiple or finite; as for instance, the finitude and plurality of space are surely the creations of extraneous factors. Hence the Self becomes multiple through these alone. For no such subtle, disconnected and remote thing exists as a non-Self, in the past, present, or future, which is different from the Self and separated from It by time or space. Therefore, it is only because of Brahman that name and form have their being under all circumstances, but Brahman does not consist of them. They are said to be essentially Brahman, since they cease to exist when Brahman is eliminated. And, conditioned by these two limiting adjuncts, Brahman becomes a factor in all emperical dealings involving such words as knower, knowable and knowledge, as also their implications etc. Having such a desire, sah, He-that Self; tapah, atapyata:- by tapah is meant knowledge since another Vedic text says, 'He whose tapah consists of knowledge' (Mu.I.i.9), and since the other kind of tapah (austerity) is out of place in one in whom all desires remain fulfilled. That kind of tapah, knowledge; he atapyata, practised. The idea is that the Self reflected on the plan etc. of the world being created. Sah tapah taptva, He, having reflected thus; asrjata, created, in consonance with such contributory factors as the results of actions of creatures; idam sarvam, all this; yat idam kim ca, whatever there is, without any exception-this universe, together with space, time, name, and form as He perceived it, and as it is perceived by all beings under various circumstences. Brahman, srstva, having created; tat, that, this world; -what did He do? the answer is-tat eva, into that very world, which had been created; anupravisat, He entered. With regard to this, it is a matter for consideration as to how He entered. Did the Creator enter in that very form of His or in some other form? Which is the reasonable position? Pseudo-Vedantin:- From the use of the suffix ktva(-ing), it follows that the Creator Himself entered. [Grammar indicates that the finite verb and the verb ending with ktva (- ing), in the same sentence, refer to the same nominative.] Objection:- Is that not illogical, since on the supposition that Brahman is a (material) cause in the same sense as clay is (of pot etc.), the effects are non-different from Brahman? For it is the cause that becomes transformed into the effect. Hence it is illogical that, after the production of the effect, the cause should enter over again into the effect as a separate entity, as though it had not done so already. [The action denoted by the verb having the suffix ktva precedes the action of the finite verb. This is not possible here, since the production of the effect and the entry of the cause into it are simultaneous.] Apart from being shaped into a pot, the clay has no other entry into the pot, to be sure. Pseudo-Vedantin:- Just as earth, in the form of dust, enters into a pot (made of earth), similarly, the Self can enter into name and form under some other guise. And this also follows from another Vedic text, 'By entering in the form of the soul of each individual being....' (Ch. VI. iii. 2). Objection:- This is not proper, since Brahman is one. In the case of earth, however, it is possible to enter into a pot in the form of dust, since lumps of earth are many and have parts, and since powder of earth has places still unoccupied by it. In the case of the Self, however, there cannot possibly be any entry, since It is one at the same time that It has no dimension and has nowhere to enter into. Pseudo-Vedantin:- What kind of entry will it be then? And, the fact of entry has to be upheld in view of the Upanisadic statement:- 'He entered into that very thing.' That being so, Brahman may as well have dimensions, and having dimensions, it is but proper that Brahman's entry in the form of an individual soul into name and form should be like that of a hand into the mouth. Objection:- No, since there is no empty space. For Brahman, which has become transformed into effects, has no other space-apart from that occupied by the effects, consisting of name and form-which is devoid of It and into which It can enter as an individual soul. Should It (i.e. Brahman as the individual soul) enter into the cause (viz Brahman as name and form), [Brahman is the common cause of eveything including the individual souls. Now, the individual soul may enter into Brahman which, though transformed as name and form, is still its cause.], It will cease to be an individual soul, just as a pot ceases to be a pot on entering into (i.e. on being reduced to) earth. Hence the text, 'He entered into that very thing', cannot justifiably imply into the cause. Pseudo-Vedantin:- Let (the entry be into) another effect. The text, 'He entered into that very thing', means that one effect, viz the individual soul, entered into another effect made of name and form. Objection:- No, since this involves a contradiction; for a pot does not become merged into another pot. Besides, this runs counter to the Vedic texts that speak of their distinction; so, the Vedic texts that reaffirm the difference of the individual soul from the effect, name and form, will be contradicted. Furthermore, if the soul merges into name and form, liberation will be impossible. It does not stand to reason that one merges into what one tries to get freed from. A chained thief does not enter into fetters. [The freedom of a thief, when captured, does not lie in his entering into the fetters.] Pseudo-Vedantin:- Suppose Brahman is transformed into two parts, external and internal. To explain, that very Brahman which is the cause, has become diversified as the receptacle in the shape of body etc., and as the thing contained in the shape of the embodied soul. Objection:- No, for entry is possible only for what is outside. Not that a thing which is (naturally) contained within another is said to have entered there. The entry should be of something that is outside, for the word entry (pravesa) is seen to carry that sense, as for instance in the sentence, 'He entered into the house after erecting it.' Pseudo-Vedantin:- The entry may be like that of the reflections of the sun etc. in water. Objection:- No, since Brahman is not limited, and since It has no configuration. A distinct thing that is limited and has features can be a production of reflection on something else which is by nature transparent, as for istance, the sun etc. can be reflected on water; but of the Self there can be no reflection, since It has no form. Moreover, the entry of the Self in the form of a reflection is not possible, since the Self is all-pervasive, being the cause of space etc., and since there is no other substance which can hold the Self's reflection by being placed somewhere unconnected with the Self. This being so, there is no entry whatsoever. Nor do we find any other interpretation possible for the text, 'He entered into that very thing.' And a Vedic text is meant to enligthen us about supersensuous realities. But from this sentence, not even diligent people can derive any enlightenment. Well, then, this sentence, 'Having created it, He entered into that very thing,' has to be discarded, since it conveys no meaning. Vedantin's answer:- No, (it need not be discarded). As the sentence bears a different meaning, why should there be this discussion that is out of context? You should remember the other meaning which is implied in this sentence and which is the subject under discussion here, as stated in the text:- 'The knower of Brahman attains the highest......Brahman is truth, knowledge and infinite....He who knows (that Brahman) as existing in the intellect (lodged in the supreme space in the heart)' (II. i). The knowledge of that Brahman is sought to be imparted, and that is also the topic under discussion. And the effects, beginning with space and ending with the body made of food, have been introdued with a view to acquiring the knowledge of the nature of that Brahman, and the topic started with is also the knowledge of Brahman. Of these, the self made of the vital force indwells and is different from the self made of food; within that is the self made of mind and the self made of intellect. Thus (by stages) the Self has been made to enter into the cavity of the intellect. And there, again, has been presented a distinct self that is made of bliss. After this, through the comprehension of the blissful self which acts as a pointer (to the Bliss-Brahman), one has to realize, within this very cavity (of the heart), that Self as the culmination of the growth of bliss, which is Brahman (conceived of) as the stabilizing tail (of the blissful self), which is the support of all modifications and which is devoid of all modifications. it is with this idea that the entry of the Self is imagined. Inasmuch as Brahman has no distinctive attribute, It cannot be realized anywhere else. It is a matter of experience that knowledge of a thing is dependent on its particular associations. Just as the knowledge of Rahu arises from its associations with the distinct entities, the sun, and the moon, [Rahu is a mythological being that has no limb except a head. During eclipses it swallows the sun or the moon, and then alone we are conscious of its existence] similarly, the association of the Self with the cavity of the internal organ causes the knowledge of Brahman, for the internal organ has proximity (to the Self) and the nature of illumination. Just as pot etc. are perceived when in contact with light, so also the Self is perceived when in contact with the light of intellectual conviction. [A thing becomes illumined with the light of knowledge, only when the internal organ is in contact with it, but not otherwise. A reflecting medium must be transparent enough to catch an image properly. The intellect alone can reflect the Self best. Again, light removes darkness, though both are insentient, similarly, intellectual conviction removes ignorance, though both are insentient. The intellect cannot reveal Brahman objectively.] Hence, it suits the context to say that the Self is lodged in the cavity of the intellect which is the cause of Its experience. In the present passage, however, which is a sort of elaboration of that theme, the same idea is repeated in the form, 'Having created it, He entered into that very thing.' Tat, that very Brahman Itself-which is the cause of space; and which, srstva, after creating the effect, has entered into the creation, as it were, is perceived within the cavity of intellect, as possessed of such distinctions as being a seer, a hearer, a thinker, a knower, etc. That, indeed, is Its entry. Hence Brahman, as the cause of this (phenomenon), must exist. Accordingly, just because It exists, It should surely be apprehended as such. What did It do after entering the creation? It abhavat, became; sat ca, the formed (gross); tyat ca, and the formless (subtle). The formed and the formless, existing in the Self in their state of unmanifested name and form, are manifested by the indwelling Self; and even when manifested and known as the formed and the formless, they still continue to be inseparable from the Self in time and space. Having this fact in view, it is said that the Self became these two. Moreover, the (Self became) niruktam and aniruktam ca, the definable and the undefinable. Nirukta is that which is definable as 'this is that', by distinguishing it from things of its own class as also from things of other classes, and by associating it with a certain time and space. Anirukta is its opposite. Nirukta and anirukta, too, are but attributes of the formed and the formless. Just as the formed and the formless are the visible and invisible, so also are the nilayanam ca anilayanam ca, the sustaining and the non-sustaining. Nilayana means a nest, that which supports; and this is an attribute of the formed. Anilayana, a non-supporting thing-is opposed to that (nilayana) and is an attribute of the formless. Though 'invisible', 'undefinable', and 'nonsupporting' are the attributes of the formless, they relate only to the manifested state, for they are referred to in the Vedas as occuring after creation. By tyat, the formless, are meant the vital force etc. which are inexpressible, and it is non-sustaining as well. So, all these adjectives belonging to the formless, relate to the manifested (created). Vijnanam is sentient, and avijnanam is devoid of that (sentience), insentient stone etc. It follows from the context that satyam is truth falling within the range of the empirical, and not absolute truth. For the absolute truth is only one, which is Brahman. But here the relative truth, as found in the empirical world, is referred to; as for instance, water is said to be true in comparison with the water in a mirage which is false. Anrtam, untruth, is the opposite of that. Again, what is it that abhavat,became, all this? That which is satyam, the absolute truth. What is that, again? It is Brahman; for it is Brahman that has been introuced as the topic of discussion by the sentence, 'Brahman is truth, knowledg, infinite.' The knowers of Brahman acaksate, call It; satyam, truth; because it is the one Brahman, called satya, truth, that abhavat, became; yat kim ca idam, all this that there is-all modifications, without any exception, starting with the visible and the invisible, all of which are the features of the formed and the formless-, there being no existence for any of these modifications of name and form apart form that Brahman. The question that was mooted after the teacher's instruction concerned existence and nonexistence. As an answer to this, it has been said that the Self desired, I shall become many.' After creating, in accordance with His wish, such products as space etc. which are characterized as the visible and invisible etc., and then entering into them, He became many through His acts of seeing, hearing thinking, and knowing. Hence it is implied thereby that this Self must be accepted as existing, since It is the cause of space etc., exists in this creation, is lodged in the supreme space within the cavity of the heart, and is perceived through Its diverse reflections on the mental concepts. [The mental concepts are 'I am a doer', 'I am an enjoyer', etc.; and these, again, being the different appearances of the light of the Self, reveal the Self in Its conditioned form, and not in Its unconditioned essence.] Tat, pertaining to this-concerning this idea expressed in the brahmana portion; esah slokah bhavati, occurs this verse. Just as in the preceding five chapters occured verses expressive of the selves, counting from the one constituted by food, so, too, is there this verse which indicates through Its effects the existence of the Self as the inmost of all.

Asat vai idam agre asit, in the beginning all this was but the unmanifested (Brahman). By the word "asat" is meant the unmanifested state of Brahman as contrasted with the state in which distinctions of name and form become manifested. Not that absolute non-existence (the root meaning of the word, asat) is meant, for the existent cannot come out of the non-existent. Idam, this standing for the manifested world possessed of the distinctions of name and form; agre, in the beginning-before creation; asit asat, was but Brahman that could be called asat. Tatah, from that-from that Unmanifested; vai, indeed; sat, that which is distinguished by manifested name and form; ajayata, was born. Is the effect entirely separate from that (cause), just as a son is from the father? The answer is being given negatively:- Tat, that which is called the Unmanifested (Brahman); svayam, Itself; akuruta, created; atmanam, Itself. Since this is so, tasmat, therefore; tat, that Brahman Itself; ucyate, is called. the sukrtam, self-creator. [Sukrtam (standing for svakrta) should mean 'self-created'. But Sankara takes it as a Vedic licence for 'self-creator'.-A.G.] By virtue of being the cause of everything, Brahman is well recognized in this world as the self-creator. Or, since Brahman Itself created everything by virtue of Its being everything, therefore that very Brahman, which is the cause from the standpoint of virtue as well, is called sukrta (merit). [Sukra (lit. well-done) means merit, which is one of the causes of creation.] At all events, whether the meaning of sukrta be 'merit' or it be the other one (self-creator), that cause which brings (one) into association etc. with a result is familiarly known in the world as sukrta. That well known fact is possibly only if there is an eternal consciousness acting as the cause. Hence, from the well known fact of sukrta, it follows that Brahman exists. It exists because of this further reason. Of which reason? Since It is the source of joy. How is Brahman well known as the source of joy? The answer is:- Yat vai tat sukrtam, that which is known as the self-creator; rasah vai sah, is verily the rasah, (a source of joy). Rasah stands for anything that is a means for satisfaction, i.e. a source of joy, such as sweet and sour things which are well known to be so in the world. Rasam labdhva, getting a thing of joy; ayam bhavati, one becomes; anandi, happy. A nonentity is not seen in this world to be a cause of happiness. Inasmuch as those Brahmanas who have realized Brahman are seen to be as happy as one is from obtaining an external source of joy-though, in fact, they do not take help of any external means of happiness, make no effort, and cherish no desire-, it follows, as a matter of course, that Brahman is, indeed, the source of their joy. Hence there does exist that Brahman which is full of joy [Taking the expression, rasavat, to mean 'like a juice, i.e. like a sweet thing' (instead of 'full of joy'), the concluding portion may be translated thus:- '....Brahman which is the spring of their happiness just as a sweet thing is.'] and is the spring of their happiness. Brahman exists because of this additional reason. Of which? Since such actions as exhaling are seen. This body, too, of a living being, exhales through that function of the vital force called prana and inhales through that other called apana. Thus are the body and senses, in their association, seen to perform their vital and organic functions. This coming into association for serving a common purpose is not possible unless there is a sentient being which is not a part of this conglomeration. For such is not the case anywhere else. [Building materials themselves, for instance, do not erect a structure. A house stands here because somebody built it and yet did not form a part of it] That fact is being stated:- yat, if; esah anandah this Bliss; na syat, should not be there; akase, in the (supreme) space that is lodged in the cavity of the heart; then in this world, kah hi eva, who indeed; anyat, would inhale, i.e. perform the function of apana; or kah pranyat, who would exhale, i.e. perform the function of prana? Therefore that Brahman, for whose purpose there are such activities of the body and senses, as exhaling etc., does exist; and the happiness of people is caused by That itself. How? Esah hi eva, this one, this supreme Self, indeed; anandayati (i.e. anandayati), enlivens-people, in accordance with their merit. The idea is this:- That very Self, which is Bliss by nature, is thought of as limited and diversified by poeple because of their ignorance. The Brahman exists as the cause of fear and fearlessness of the men of ignorance and knowledge (respectively). For fearlessness comes as a result of taking refuge in something that exists, whereas fear cannot cease by resorting to some thing that does not exist. How does Brahman become the cause of fearlessness? The answer is:- Hi, since; yada eva, at the very time; that esah, this one-an aspirant; etasmin, in this one-in Brahman-. (In Brahman) of what kind? Adrsye:- drsya is anything that is meant to be seen, that is to say, any modification; for a modification is meant to be perceived; what is not a drsya is adrsya, i.e. changeless. In this adrsye, changeless, that which is not an object of cognition. Anatmye, in the unembodied. Since It is imperceptible, It is incorporeal. Since It is incorporeal, It is aniruktam, inexpressible. Anything possessed of attributes can alone be expressed in words,and anything possessed of attributes is mutable, whereas Brahman is changeless, It being the source of all modifications. Hence, It is inexpressible. That being so, It is anilayanam:- nilayana is a nest, refuge; anilayana is the opposite of that; It is without support. The meaning of the sentence is:- (When) in that entity which is this changeless, unembodied, inexpressible, unsustaining Brahman, which is distinct from all the attributes of a product, (the aspirant) vindate, gets; pratistham, stability, Self-absorption; abhayam, in a fearless way-. The word abhayam (fearlessly) is used adverbially (to modify the verb vindate, gets); or it has to be changed in gender to abhayam (fearless) to qualify the noun (pratistham, stability). (When the aspirant gets this fearless stability in Brahman) atha, then; since he does not see diversity which is the creation of ignorance and the cause of fear, therefore, sah, he; abhayam gatah bhavati, becomes established in fearlessness. When he becomes established in his true nature, then he does not see anything else, does not hear anything else, does not know anything else. Someone gets afraid of someone else, but it is not logical that the Self should be afraid of the Self. Hence the Self is the source of fearlessness for the Self. In spite of the existence of the cause of fear, there are Brahmanas to be found who are indeed free of fear from all quarters. This would be unjustifiable if Brahman, the protector from fear were not there. Therefore, from the fact of noticing their fearlessness, it follows that Brahman exists as the source of that intrepidity. When does that aspirant reach fearlessness? When he does not perceive anything else and does not create any antaram, difference, in the Self, then he attains fearlessness. This is the idea. On the contrary, hi, since; yada, when, in the state of ignorance; esah, this one, the ignorant man; sees in the Self something presented by nescience, like the vision of a second moon seen by a man suffering from the eye-disease called timira; and etasmin, in this, in Brahman; kurute, he perceives; ut aram, even a slight; antaram, hole, difference-since the perception of difference is the cause of fear, [Another reading is bhedadarsanam eva hi antarakaranam-'the seeing of difference itself is the creator of difference'.] it means that even if he sees the slightest difference-; atha, then, because of that seeing of difference; bhayam bhavati, fear crops up for this soul that perceives difference. So the Self alone is the cause of fear to the self in the case of an ignorant man. The Upanisad states that very fact here:- Tu nevertheless; tat eva, that very Brahman; is bhayam, a terror; vidusah, to the man of (apparent) learning, who perceives difference; that very Brahman, when perceived through (a sense of) duality and called God, becomes a terror for the (apparently) learned man who knows thus, 'God is different from me, and I am a wordly creature different from God', and who creates the slightest difference. (It becomes a terror) amanvanasya, for him who does not view from the stand point of unity. Accordingly, the man who does not realize the reality that is the Self, which is one and undifferentiated, is surely unenlightened, though he may be learned. Anyone who considers oneself destructible becomes struck with fear at the very sight of a destructive agency. A destroyer (in the ultimate analysis) can be so, only if it is itself indestructible. [The ultimate cause of fear must itself be indestructible, since a contrary supposition will lead to an infinte regress. And such an eternal agent is Brahman.] Now, if there be no cause of destruction, there should be no such fear in the destructible as issues from a perception of a destroyer. The whole world, however, is seen to be sticken with fear. Therefore, from the perceived fact of fear in the world, it follows that there does exist a terrifying thing which is by nature an indestructible agent of destruction, because of which the world shudders. Expressive of this idea, too, there is this verse:-

Bhisa, through fear; asmat, of Him; vatah pavate, (the god of) Wind blows. Bhisa, through fear; udeti, rises; suryah, the Sun. Bhisa asmat, through fear of Him; dhavati, runs; agnih ca indrah ca, Fire as also Indra; (and) mrtyuh pancamah, Death, the fifth. Since Wind etc., greatly adorable and lordly though they themselves are, engage regularly in such highly strenuous works as blowing, it is reasonable to conclude that this is possible on the supposition of a ruler different from them, because of whom they have their disciplined activity. Since they engage (in their duties) out of fear of this Brahman, just as servants do out of fear of a king, therefore, Brahman does exist as their ruler as a terrifying entity. And that Brahman, the source of fear, is Bliss. Esa bhavati, this is; mimamsa, an evaluation; anandasya, of Bliss, of the aforesaid Brahman. What is there to be assessed about Bliss? The answer is:- Bliss can be studied thus from this point of view-whether It arises from the contact of subject and object, as is the case with worldly happiness, or whether It is natural. As to that, the worldly bliss attains excellence owing to a concurrence of external and internal means. The bliss, thus attained, is being instanced here as an approach to the Bliss that is Brahman; for through this familiar bliss can be approached the Bliss that is comprehensible by an intellect free from objective thought. Even worldly bliss is particle of the Bliss that is Brahman, which becomes transmuted into impermanent worldly bliss, consequent on knowledge becoming covered up by ignorance, and ignorance becoming successively thicker accordingly as the individuals, starting with Hiranyagarbha, think diversely of this Bliss under the impulsion of the result of their past actions and in conformity with their past contemplations, and under the influence of contact with accessories like objects etc. That very Bliss which is visualized by one who is learned, versed in the Vedas and free from passion, appears diversely as increasing more and more-a hundredfold each time in the planes starting with that of man-Gandharvas till the bliss of Hiranyagarbha, Brahma, is reached-, in accordance with the attenuation of ignorance, desire and action. But when the division of subject and object, created by ignorance is eliminated by elightenment, there is only the intrinsic all pervading Bliss that is one without a second. In order to impart this idea, the text says:- yuva syat, etc. Yuva, a youth-one in the prime of life. Sadhu-yuva is an adjective of the youth, and means one who is both young and good. Even a youth may be bad, and even a good man may bot be young. Hence the specification, 'Suppose there is a young man who is a good youth.' Adhyayakah is one who has studied the Vedas. Asisthah, the best ruler (or, 'the quickest in action'). [See S.] Drdhisthah, most hardy (i.e. having all the senses intact). Balisthah, strongest. (suppose the youth is) blessed with such physical accessories. (And let there be) tasya, for him; iyam sarva prthivi, this whole earth; purna, filled; vittasya, (should rather be vittena), with wealth meant for enjoyment, and with the means of karmas leading to seen and unseen results. The idea is that he is a king ruling over the earth. Sah, the joy that he has; is ekah manusah anandah, a single human bliss, one unit of the highest human bliss. Te Ye satam manusah anandah, that human bliss multiplied a hendredfold; is sah ekah manusya-gandharvanam anandah, one unit of the bliss of the man-Gandharvas. The happiness of man-Gandharvas becomes a hundred times better than that of man. Man-Gandharvas are those human beings who become Gandharvas through some special karmas and meditations. As they are possessed of the power of disappearance etc., being endowed with sublte bodies and senses, so obstacles in their way are few, and they are endowed with the power and means of resisting dualities (such as heat and cold, etc.). Therefore, a man-Gandharva will have mental tranquillity inasmuch as he remains unopposed and can withstand duality. From that excellence of tranquillity follows an abundant expression of Bliss. Thus it stands to reason that in proportion to the abundance of tranquillity on the succeeding planes as compared with that on the preceding ones, the excellence of bliss also progresses a hundredfold. However, the man free from desire has not been taken into consideration at the initial stage wiht a view to showing that the bliss of one, who observes Vedic duties and is untouched by desire and enjoyment of human objects, is a hundred times higher than the human bliss and is comparable to that of a man-Gandharva. Devotion to Vedic duties and sinlessness (Br. IV. iii. 33) are implied by the two terms 'learned' and 'young and good'. These two qualities are, indeed, common to all (the planes). But desirelessness has been treated distinctively in order to point out that increase of bliss is independent of the superiority or inferiority of objects. Thus since happiness is seen to improve a hundredfold, proportionately with the advance of desirelessness, it is treated here with a view to enjoining dispassionateness as a means for the attainment of supreme Bliss. The rest has been already explained. Deva-Gandharvah, the divine-Gandharvas, are so from their very birth. The term ciralokalokanam, of those whose world lasts for ever, is an adjective of pitrnam, of the manes, the manes being so qualified since their world lasts (relatively) for ever. Ajana is the world of the gods; those who are born there-born in the regions of gods as a result of special rites prescribed by the Smrtis-are the Ajanaja gods. The karmadevah are those who reach the gods by mere Vedic Karma, such as Agnihotra etc. The devah, gods, are those who are thirtythree in number [Eight Vasus, eleven Rudras, twelve Adityas, Indra, and Prajapati.] and recieve oblations. Indra is their lord. His preceptor is Brhaspati. Prajapati is Virat who has the three worlds (earth, heaven, and intermediate space) as his body. [See Commentary on Br. III. iii. 2.] Brahma pervades the whole universe in the form of the cosmic and indvidual persons. This Brahma is Hiranyagarbha in whom all these varieties of bliss become unified, and in whom resides virtue which is the cause of that bliss, consciousness of that bliss, and dispassionateness of the highest order. This bliss of His is directly experienced everwhere by one who is versed in the Vedas, free from sin and unsullied by desire. Hence it is understood that these three qualities are the means (for the attainment of Bliss). Of these, Vedic learning and sinlessness are invariable (in all the planes), whereas desirelessness increases; and hence the last is known to be the best means. The bliss of Brahma, experienced on the perfection of desirelessness and also open to the direct vision of one who follows the Vedas, is a particle or bit of the supreme Bliss, in accordance with the Vedic text, 'On a particle of this very Bliss other beings live' (Br. IV. iii. 32). This bliss (of Brahma and others) is a particle of that Supreme Bliss that is natural, from which it has separated like spray from the sea and into which it merges again. In It (the supreme Bliss) there is no bifurcation of the joy and the enjoyer, since It is non-dual. The result of this evaluation is being concluded here:-

He who, after projecting all the creation-beginning with space and ending with the body made of (the essence of) food entered into it and is lodged in the supreme space within the cavity of the heart, is here indicated by the words sah yah, He who. Who is He? Ayam puruse yah ca asau aditye, He who is in the human person, and He who resides in the sun. The supreme Bliss, that has been indicated as directly perceptible to the follower of the Vedas, and on a particle of which subsist all the beings worthy of joy-counting from Brahma-, that supreme Bliss is being described as 'He who resides in the sun'. He is one in the same sense that the space in a pot, standing separately, is one with space (as such). Objection:- In the matter of describing that Bliss, the corporeal soul should not be referred to in general terms by saying, 'He that is in the human person'; rather it is proper to indicate that soul by saying, 'And He that is in the right eye' (Br.II.iii.5,IV.ii.2,V.v.2), that being better known. Answer:- No, for the discussion is here about the supreme Self. [The other text quoted above refers to a meditation based on the indentity of the individual soul and Hiranyagarbha, and not to the identity, as such, of the individual Self and the supreme Self.] The supreme Self certainly forms the subject matter here in the texts, 'In the unperceivable, bodiless' (II.vii), 'Out of His fear the Wind blows' (II. viii. 1), 'This, then, is an evaluation of that Bliss'. It is not reasonable to refer suddenly to something out of context. And the subject sought to be taught is the knoweledge of the supreme Self. ['The same unsurpassing Bliss of the conscious Reality that is reflected on a superior medium, viz the sun, is also reflected on an inferior medium, viz a human being possessing head, hands, etc. Thus, from the standpoint of supreme Bliss, the two distinct entities are on a par, and intrinsically they are the same. This is what is taught.'-A.G.] Therefore, it is verily the supreme Self that is referred to in the expression, sah, ekah, He is one. Objection:- Is not the topic started with an estimation of Bliss? The result of that estimation, too, has to be concluded by saying:- 'The Bliss that is non-different and intrinsic, and not a product of the contact between the subject and the object, is the supreme Self.' Counter-objection:- Is not this indication (of the Self) by eliminating the distinctions pertaining to the different loci,-which we come across here in the sentence, 'He that is here in the human person, and He that is there is the sun, are one'-, quite in line with that? Objection:- Even so, is it not useless to single out the sun? Answer:- No, it is not useless, because it is meant for obviating (notions of) superiority and inferiority. In the sun is found the highest perfection of duality, consisting of the formed and the formless. If, from the standpoint of the supreme Bliss, that perfection can be placed on the same footing with the human personality, after eliminating the peculiarities of the latter, there will remain no superiority or inferiority for one who attains that goal; and hence it becomes reasonable to say that 'he reaches a state of fearlessness' (II. vii). The question as to whether Brahman exists or not, raised after the teacher's instruction, has been dealt with. One of these post-questions has been dismissed by saying that from the reasonings which justify the phenomena of creation, acquisition of joy, functioning of life, reaching a state of fearlessness, and experience of fear, it follows that Brahman does exist as the cause of those space etc. There are two other post-questions relating to the attainment or non-attainment of Brahman by the enlightened man and the unenlightened man. Of these, the last post-question is, 'Does the enlightened man attain or does he not?' In order to settle this, it is being said (as below). The middle post question is settled by the answer to the last one; and hence no (separate) effort is made for solving it. Sah yah, anyone who; is evamvit, a knower of this kind; who, havig discarded all ideas of superiority and inferiority, knows Brahman, described earlier, evam, in this manner, 'I am the non-dual truth, knowledge, infinity';-for the word, 'evam, thus', is used for alluding to some topic already mooted-; what does he become?-he, pretya, (lit. after departing), desisting, without expecting anything; asmat lokat, from this world-the totality of things seen and unseen is verily indicated by the term 'this world'; without expecting anything from that world-; upasamkramati, attains; etam annamayam atmanam, this body built up by food, as explained already. The idea is that he does not perceive the totality of objects as different from the self, i.e. the body, built up by food; he sees all the gross elements as identical with the self built up by food. [He attains identity with Virat, the gross Consmic Person, whose body is constituted by the three worlds-earth, heaven, and intermediate space.] Then he attains etam pranamayam atmanam, this body constituted by the vital force, which is itself individed and is inside the (cosmic) body built up by all the food. Then he attains this body made of mind, the body made of intelligence, [Hiranyagarbha, conceived of as possessing the powers of action, will, and knowledge, has a subtle body constituted by the totality of vital, mental, and intellectual energy.] the body made of bliss. Then he reaches the state of fearlessness in the unperceivable, bodiless, inexpressible, and unsupporting (Self) (II.vii). With regard to that, this has got to be considered:- What is he who knows thus, and how does he attain? Is the attainer different from or the same as the supreme. Self? What follows from that? Should the attainer be different, the conclusion will run counter to such Vedic text as 'Having created that, He entered into that very thing' (II.vi), '(One who worships another god thinking), "He is one, I am another", he does not know' (Br. I. iv.10), 'One only, without a second' (Ch. VI.ii.1), and 'Thou art that' (Ch. VI.viii-xvi). On the contary, if the Self Itself attains the blissful self, we shall be faced with the unsoundness of the same entity being both subject and object; moreover, the supreme Self will either be reduced to a transmigratory soul or a nonentity. Objection:- This discussion is useless if the fault that arises on either assumption be unavoidable. On the other hand, if either of the assumptions is free from defect, or if a third flawless assumption is so, then that alone is the meaning of the scripture, and hence that the discussion is uncalled for. Answer:- No, for the discussion is meant for its ascertainment. True it is that the accruing defect cannot be avoided by accepting either of the two positions, and that the discussion becomes useless if a third flawless position is ascertained; but that third alternative has not been determined. Hence this consideration is fruitful as it is calculated to lead to that ascertainment. Objection:- True it is that an investigation is fruitful so far as it culminates in the fixing of the meaning of a scripture. But in your case, you will simply cogitate wihout ever hitting upon any meaning. Answer:- It it your view that there can occur any Vedic sentence whose meaning need not be determined? Objection:- No. Counter-objection:- How then (is the discussion useless)? Objection:- Because there are many opponents. You are a monist, since you follow the Vedic ideas, while the dualists are many who are outside the Vedic pale and who are opposed to you. Therefore I apprehend that you will not be able to determine. Answer:- This itself is a bliessing for me that you brand me as sworn to monism and faced by many who are wedded to plurality. Therefore I shall conquer all; and so I begin the discussion. The attainer must be the supreme Self alone, inasmuch as merger into that state is the idea implied. what is sought to be imparted here in the text, 'The knower of Brahman attains the highest' (II.i), is becoming the supreme Self through Its knowledge. Surely, it is not possible that one thing can become something else. Objection:- Is it not also unsound to say that the individual soul becomes the supreme Self? Answer:- No, for the idea conveyed is that of removal of the indentity (with the body etc.) created by ignorance. The attainment of one's onw Self through the knowledge of Brahman, that is taught, is meant for the elimination of the distinct selves-such as the foodself, the products of nescience-which are really non-Selves, superimposed as Selves. Objection:- How is such a meaning understood? Answer:- Because knowledge alone is prescribed. The effect of knowledge is seen to be the eradication of ignorance; and here that knowledge alone is prescribed as the means for the attainment of the Self. Objection:- May not that be like the communicating of information about a path? So the mere prescription of knowledge as a means does not amount to showing that the supreme Self is the Self of the attainer. Counter-objection:- Why? Oppnonent:- For it seen that, in the matter of reaching a different place, the information about the way is communicated. Not that the village itself can be the goer. [The traveller is not the village, though the knowledge of the path to the village is valuable to him. Similarly, the individual is not Brahman, though the instruction about knoweldge of Brahman is valuable; for by practising it he can reach Brahman.] Answer:- Not so, for the analogy is inept. [One does not say, 'You are the village', when talking about the path leading to it, whereas the identity of the two is taught here explicitly.] In the illustration cited, the information imparted is not of the village, but the knowledge imparted there is only of the path, leading to one's arrival there. But in this case, no information about any other means apart from the knowledge of Brahman is imparted. Objection:- The knowledge of Brahman, as depending on such means as rites etc. enjoined earlier, is taught as a means for the attainment of the highest. Answer:- No, for this was refuted earlier by saying, 'Since liberation is eternal,' etc. And the text, 'Having created that, He entered into that very thing' (II. vi), shows that the Self, immanent in creation, is identical with That (Supreme Brahman). And this follows also from the logic of attaining the state of fearlessness. For if the man of enlightenment sees nothing as different from his own Self, then the statement, 'He gets established in that state of fearlessness', becomes appropriate, since (for him) nothing exists as a separate entity which can cause fear. Moreover, if duality is a creation of nescience, then only is the realization of its insubstantiality through knowledge reasonable; for (the proof of) the non-existence of a second moon consists in its not being seen by one whose eyes are not affected by the disease called timira. Objection:- But non-perception of duality is not thus a matter of experience. Answer:- No, for duality is not perceived by a person who is deeply asleep or absorbed in the Self. Objection:- The non-perception of duality in deep sleep is comparable to the nonperception by one who is preoccupied with something else. Answer:- Not so, for then (i.e. in sleep and samadhi) there is non-perception of everything (so that there can be no preoccupation with anything). Objection:- Duality has existence because of its perception in the dream and waking states. Answer:- No, for the dream and waking states are creations of ignorance. The perception of duality that occurs in the dream and waking states is the result of ignorance, because it ceases on the cessation of ignorance. Objection:- The non-perception (of duality) in sleep is also a result of ignorance. Answer:- No, for it is intrinsic. The reality of a substance consists in its not being mutable, for it does not depend on anything else. Mutability is not a reality, since that depends on other factors. The reality of a substance surely cannot be dependent on external agencies. Any peculiarity that arises in an existing substance is a result of external agencies, and a peculiarity implies change. The perceptions occuring in the dream and waking states are but modal expressions, for the reality of a thing is that which exists in its own right, and the unreality is that which depends on others, inasmuch as it ceases with the cessation of others. Hence, unlike what happens in the dream and waking states, no modality occurs in deep sleep, for the nonperception in the latter state is natural. For those, however, for whom God is different from the self, and creation, too, is distinct, there is no elimination of fear, since fear is caused by something different. And, something different that is true, cannot have its reality annihilated, nor can a non-existent emerge into being. Objection:- Something external becomes the source of fear when it is supplemented by others. [God, in association with merits and demerits of creatures, causes fear. But the liberated man has no fear of God since he is independent of merit etc.] Answer:- No, for that, too, stands on an equal footing. Because, that permanent or impermanent agency [Adrsta, unseen future result, whose help God takes], in the form of demerit etc., depending on which that something else (i.e. God) becomes the cause of fear for others, cannot have self-effacement by the very fact of what that agency (adrsta) is assumed to be; [This above view cannot be advanced either by the samkhyas or the Naiyayikas; for the former do not believe that an existing demerit can be wholly annihilated; and the latter do not say that so long as demerit persists, its effect will be totally absent. Adrsta also creates the same difficulty.] or should that have self extinction, the rea and the unreal will become mutually convertible, so that nobody will have any faith in anything. From the standpoint of nonduality, however, that objection has no bearing, since the world along with its cause is a superimposition through ignorance. For second moon, seen by a man afflicted by the eye-disease called timira, does not attain any reality, nor is it annihilated. Objection:- Knowledge and ignorance are qualities of the Self. Answer:- No so, for they are perceived. Discrimination (i.e. knowledge) and nondiscrimination (i.e. ignorance) are directly perceived, like colour etc., as existing in the mind. Not that colour, perceived as an object, can be an attribute of the perceiver. And ignorance is ascertained by such forms of its perception as, 'I am ignorant', 'My knowledge is indistinct'. Similarly, the distinction of knoweldge (from the Self) is perceived, and the enlightened people communicate the knowledge of the Self to others; and so, too, do others grasp it. Accordingly, knowledge and ignorance are to be ranked with name and form; and name and form are not attributes of the Self, ['The beginningless and inscrutable nescience, dependent on pure Consciousness for its existence, gets transformed as the internal organ. That organ, again, gets modified in the form of real knowledge and error in accordance with the preponderance of its sattvika or tamasika qualities. The substance called Consciousness, when reflected on such as organ, is either called enlightened or deluded. In reality Consciousness is neither enlightened nor unelightened.' -A.G.] in accordance with another Vedic text, '(That which is indeed called Space) is the manifester of name and form. That in which they two exist is Brahman' (Ch. VIII.xiv.1). And those name and form are imagined to exist in Brahman like night and day in the sun, though in reality they are not there. Objection:- If (the Self and Brahman are) non-different, then there arises the absurdity of the same entity becoming the subject and object, as mentioned in the text, 'He attains this self made of Bliss' (II. viii 5). Answer:- Not so, for the attainment consists in mere enlightenment. The reaching taught here is no like that by a leech. How then? The text treating of attainment means merely realization. ['The blissful self is not the supreme Self, nor is there any samkramana in the sense of entry. But what is meant here is the transcendence or negation of the blissful self, accepted falsely as the Self, through the realization of Brahman-not as an object, but as identical with the Self.'-A.G.] Objection:- Attainment in the literal sense is meant here by the expression upasamkramati. Answer:- Not so, for this is not seen in the case of the body made of food; for in the case one reaching the (cosmic) food-body (i.e. Virat), one is not see to reach out from this external world like a leech or in any other manner. Objection:- (Attainment is possible in the sense that) the mental body or the intellectual body, when it has gone out (in dream etc.), can return to acquire its own natural state again. Answer:- No for there can be no action on one's own Self. (Moreover), the topic rasied (by you) was that somebody, different from the food-body reaches the food-body; to say now that either the mental body or the intellectual body reaches its own state involves a contradiction. Similarly, the reaching its own state by the blissful-self is not possible. [The opponent might say that the samkramana, in the case of the blissful self, means the attainment of its natural composure after a sorrowful experience. But this also is open to the objection that this runs counter to the opponent's line of argument, and the existence in one's own nature is not an attainment in the real sense.] Therefore, samkramana does not mean acquisition, nor does it mean 'reaching' by anyone of them beginning with the food-body. As a last resort, samkramana can reasonably consist only in the realization by some entity, other than the selves beginning with the foodself and ending with the blissful-self. If samkramana means realization alone, then through that samkramana, i.e. through the rise of knowledge about the difference of the Self (from the non-Self), is removed from that all-pervasive Self-which verily resides within the blissful-self and has entered into creation after projecting all things counting from space to food-the error of thinking of the non-Selves such as the foodbody as Itself, which (error) arises from Its association with the cavity of the heart. The word samkramana is used figuratively with regard to this eradication of error created by ignorance, for in no other way can the attainment of the all-pervading Self be justified. Moreover, there is no other thing (that can reach the Self). Besides, the attainment cannot be of oneself; for a leech does not reach itself. Hence, it is with a view to realizing the Self, which has been defined above in the text, 'Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinity' (II.i), that becoming many, entering into creation, acquisition of bliss, fearlessness, attainment, etc. have been attributed to Brahman conceived of as the basis of all empirical dealings; but with regard to the really transcendental Brahman, beyond all conditions, there can be no such ascription. Tat api, with regard to this also-with regard to the fact that by reaching, i.e. realizing, the unconditioned Self by stages in this way, one ceases to have any fear from anywhere, and one gets established in the state that is fearlessness-; esah slokah bhavati, there occurs this verse. This verse stands for expressing briefly the meaning of the whole topic, the gist of this Part called the Anandavalli, the Part On Bliss.

Yatah, that from which-from the Self, which is unconditioned, has the aforesaid definition, and is non-dual and Bliss; vacah, words that stand for conditioned objects, (turn back). Though words are applied by their users even with regard to the uncontioned and non-dual Brahman, expecting to express It by taking for granted Its parity with other substances, still those words aprapya, without reaching, without expressing (that Brahman); nivartante, turn back, become despoiled of their power. The word manah stands for a notion, a cognition. And as a word proceeds to anything, supersensuous though it be, conceptual knowledge also strives to encompass that thing for expressing it as well; and words, too, become active where there is knowledge. Hence words and ideas, speech and mind, move together everywhere. Therefore, that Brahman which is beyond all concepts and all words, and which has such attributes as invisibility, from which words, though used by their utterers in all possible ways for expressing Brahman, return manasa saha, together with the mind-with conceptual knowledge that is able to express everything (else); the vidvan, one who has known, through the aforesaid process; the brahmanah anandam, Bliss of that Brahman-the supreme Bliss of Brahman that is the Self of the follower of the Vedas, who is sinless, unaffected by desire, and wholly free from all craving-, the Bliss that is free from the relation of subject and object, is natural, eternal, and indivisible; (the man of knowledge) having known that Bliss, na bibheti kutascana, is not afraid of anything, for there remains no cause of fear. There certainly does not exist anything, distinct from that man of knowledge, of which he can be afraid; for it has been said that, when anyone creates the slightest difference (in this Brahman) through ignorance, then one is subject to fear (II.vii). But since for the enlightened man the cause of fear, which is the effect of ignorance, has been removed like the second moon seen by a man with diseased eyes, it is proper that he has no fear of anything. This verse was quated in the context of the mental self as well, because the mind is an aid to the knowledge of Brahman. But there the idea of Brahman was superimposed on the mental self, and then by saying by way of eulogy of that imaginary Brahman that 'one is not subject to fear at any time' (II.iv), fear alone was denied; but by saying, 'he is not afraid of anything', in the (present) context of the nondual (Brahman), the cause itself of fear is negated, Objection:- But causes of fear, viz omission of good deeds and commission of bad deeds, do persist (even in his case). Answer:- Not so. Objection:- How? The answer is:- (Such omission and commission) na tapati, do not worry or afflict; etam, such a man, who is a knower as aforesaid. Ha and vava are particles implying emphasis. Objection:- How, again, omission of virtue and commission of sin do not afflict (him)? The answer is:- When death approaches, remorse comes in the form-'Kim, why; na akaravam, did I not perform; sadhu, good deeds?' Similarly, repentance in the form-'Kim, why; akaravam, I did; papam, prohibited things?-comes to him from fear of affliction in the form of falling into hell etc. These two-omission of the good and commission of the bad-do not torment this one, as they do the ignorant man. Objection:- Why, again, do they not afflict the enlightened man? The answer is:- Sah yah evam vidvan, he who knows (Brahman) thus; sprnute, delights or strengthens; ete atmanam, these two-virtue and vice, the causes of grief-which are (really) the Self. The idea is that he considers both as identified with the supreme Self, Hi, since, he who, having divested both virtue and vice of their individual distinctions; has known ete atmanam eva, these two as verily the Self. he atmanam sprnute, strengthens the Self. Who? Yah evam veda, he that knows Brahman thus-as non-dual and Bliss as described earlier. Virtue and vice, seen by him as identified with the Self, become powerless and harmless, and they do not bring about rebirth. Iti upanisat, this is the secret instruction-this is the knowledge of Brahman, called upanisad, which has been stated thus thus in this Part. The idea is that the most secret of all knowledge has been revealed; for in it is ingrained the highest consummation.

Since Brahman, that is truth, knowledge, and infinity, brought about this creation - starting with space and ending with the body made of food-, then It entered into it, and seems to be possessed of distinctions because of this fact of entry, therefore one should realize thus:- 'I am that very Brahman which is the Bliss that is distinct from all creation and is possessed of such characteristics as invisibility.' For the (subject of) entry (of Brahman) is meant to imply this. In the case of one who knows thus, good and bad deeds do not bring about rebirth. This was the idea intended to be conveyed in the Part On Bliss (Ananda-valli). The knoweldge of Brahman, too, has been concluded. After this is to be taught concentration which is hlepful to the knowledge of Brahman, as also such meditations with regard to food etc. which have not been dealt with so far. Therefore this Part begins. The story is meant to eulogize knowledge by showing that it was imparted [As a valuable heritage out of affection.] to a dear son by a father. 3.1.1 The particle vai, alluding to a recognised fact, calls up to memory one who is well known by the name Bhrgu. Varunih is the son of Varuna. Varuna's son, becoming anxious to know Brahman, upasasara, approached; his pitaram varunam, father Varuna; with, iti, this sacred formula (mantra):- 'Adhihi bhagavah brahma, teach (me) Brahman, O revered sir.' Adhihi means teach, tell. And tasmai, to him, who had approached in due form; the father, too, provaca, spoke; etat, this-this sentence:- 'Annam,' etc. He spoke of annam, food, i.e. the body; of pranam, the vital force, which is within that body and which is the eater. and of the aids to cognition, viz caksuh, srotram, manah, vacam, eye, ear, mind, speech; he spoke of these as the doors to the realization of Brahman. ['These are doors in the sense that they are helpful in distinguishing the object aimed at. For it is from the fact of the impossiblity of the activities of the body etc. continuing in any other way (than) through the consciousness of the Self) that consciousness becomes distinguished from them as a separate entity.' A.G.] And having spoken of food etc. as doors, he uvaca, told; the definition of Brahman, tam, to him, Bhrgu. What is that (definition)? Yatah vai, that from which, indeed; imani bhutani, all these beings-starting with Brahma and ending with a clump of grass; jayante, take birth; jatani, being born; yena jivanti, that by which they live, grow; yat, that Brahman towards which; prayanti,they proceed; into which they abhisamvisanti, enter, become fully identified, at the time of their dissolution-that with which the beings do not lose their identity during the times of creation, existence, and dissolution. This, then, is the definition of Brahman. Vijijnasasva, crave to know well; tat, that; brahma, Brahman. Realize, through the help of food etc., that Brahman which is defined thus-this is the idea. Another Vedic text, too, shows that these are doors to the realization of Brahman:- 'Those who have known the Vital Force of the vital force, the Eye of the eye, the Ear of the ear, the Food of the food, and the Mind of the mind, have realized the ancient, primordial Brahman' (Br. IV. iv. 18). Having heard from his father the doors to the realization of Brahman, as also the definition of Brahman, sah he, Bhrgu; atapyata, practised; tapah, (lit. austerity), concentration-as a means to the realization of Brahman. Objection:- How could Bhrgu, again, accept tapah (concentration) as a means, since it was not taught to be so? Answer:- (He accepted this) because of the incompleteness of the instruction. Varuna said that food etc. are the doors to the realization of Brahman, and that Its definition is, 'That from which all these beings take birth,' etc. That, indeed, is incomplete; for Brahman was not directly pointed out there. Otherwise, Brahman, in Its true nature, should have been indicated by saying, 'This Brahman is of this kind', to the son who was desirous of knowing. Not that he indicated thus. How did he do then? He said in an incomplete manner. So it is to be understood that for the knowledge of Brahman the father certainly had some other discipline in view. As for singling out tapah (concentration), this is because it is the best discipline, for it is well kown in the world that of all the means that are causally related with definite ends, concentration is the best. [Form the father's description of Brahman, Bhrgu could not arrive at any non-composite, unitary conception of Brahman which ruled out all duality and which could not be analysed back into its component parts; for the description itself was soaked in plurality. Bhrgu aimed at an irresolvable concept, and hence he went on revolving in his mind what he had heard. That was his tapah.] so Bhrgu accepted tapah as a means to the knowledge edge of Brahman though it was not taught by his father. This tapah consists in the concentration of the outer and inner organs, for that forms the door to the knowledge of Brahman in accordance with the Smrti, 'The concentration of the mind and the senses is the highest tapah. Since it is higher than all the virtues, it is called the highest virtue' (Mbh. Sa. 250.4). And sah, he; tapah taptva, having practised concentraton.

Vyajanat, he knew; annam brahma iti, food as Brahman; for food is endowed with the aforesaid characteristics. How? Hi, for; annat, from food; khalu eva, indeed; imani bhutani jayante, these beings are born; jatani jivanti, having been born; they live annena, by food; and prayanti abhisamvisanti, they move towards and enter into; annam, food. Hence it is reasonable that food is Brahman. This is the idea. He having practised concentration in this way, and tat vijnaya, having known that food as Brahman, from its characteristics as well as reasoning; varunam pitaram upasasara, approached his father Varuna; punah eva, over again, being under doubt; with, iti, this (formal request); 'Adhihi bhagavah brahma, O revered sir, teach me Brahman? Objection:- What was, again, the occasion for his doubt? The answer is:- Because food is see to have an origin. Concentration is repeatedly inculcated in order to emphasise the fact of its being the best discipline. The idea is this:- 'Concentration alone is your discipline till the description of Brahman can be pushed no further and till your desire to know becomes quietened. Through concentration alone, you crave to know Brahman.' The rest is easy.

Thus becoming pure in mind through concentration and failing to find the definition of Brahman, in its fullness, in the selves composed of the vital force etc., Bhrgu penetrated inside by degrees, and with the help of concentration alone realized the innermost Bliss that is Brahman. Therefore, the idea conveyed by this topic is that anyone who is desirous of knowing Brahman should undertake concentration of the internal and external organs as the most excellent practice of tapah (austerity). Now, standing aside from the story, the Upanisad states the purport of the story in its own words:- sa esa, this, then, is ; the vidya, knowledge; (which was) bhargavi, realized by Bhrgu; (and) varuni, imparted by Varuna; (which) commencing from the self constituted by food, pratisthita, culminates; in the supreme, non-dual Bliss that is lodged parame vyoman, in the cavity that is the supreme space within the heart. Anybody else. too, who realizes the Bliss that is Brahman by entering through this very process and through concentration alone as his aid-that man, too, in consequence of his knoweldge culminating thus, gets established in the Bliss that is the supreme Brahman; that is to say, he becomes Brahman Itself. Moreover, a visible result is being vouchsafed for him:- Annavan has to be taken in the sense of one who is possessed of plently of food, since knowledge would get no credit if the term meant simply possession of food as such, for that is a patent fact in the case of everybody. Similarly, annadah, (derived in the sense of an eater of food), means that he is blest with good digestion. Mahan bhavati, he becomes great. In what does the greatness consist? The answer is:- prajaya, in sons etc.; pasubhih, in cows, horses, etc.; brahmavarcasena, in the lustre resulting from the control of external and internal organs, knowledge, etc. He becomes mahan, great; kirtya, through fame due to a virtuous life.

Moreover, since Brahman is realized through the portal of food, na nindyat, one should not deprecate; annam, food, just as one would not cavil at his teacher. (This is) tad-vratam, a vow that is enjoined for him who knows Brahman thus. The inculcation of the vow is meant for the praise of food; and food is worthy of praise, since it is an aid to the realization of Brahman. Pranah vai annam, the vital force is verily food, for the vital force is encased in the body. Anything that is encompassed by another becomes food of the latter; and sarire pranah pratisthitah, the vital force is lodged in the body; therefore the vital force is food, and sariram annadam, the body is the eater. Similarly,the body, too, is food and the vital force is an eater. Why? Since prane sariram pratisthitam, the body is fixed on the vital force, the continuation of the body being dependent on the later. Therefore both of these two-the body and the vital force-are (mutually) food and the eater. In the aspect of their being lodged in each other, they are food; and in the aspect of being the support of each other they are eaters. Hence both the vital force and the body are food and the eater. Sah Yah, he who; veda, knows; etat annam anne pratisthitam, this food as established on food; pratitisthati, becomes firmly established- in the very form of food and the eater. Moreover, he bhavati, becomes; annavan, a possessor of (plenty of) food; annadah, an eater (i.e. a digester) of food. All these are to be explained as before.

Annam na paricaksita, he should not discard food. This is a vow for him, which is meant as a praise (of food) just as before. Thus the food, that is not ignored through ideas of good or bad, becomes eulogised and heightened in esteem. The idea, as explained before, should be similarly understood to be implied in the subsequent texts:- apah vai annam, water indeed is food, etc.

The vow to make food plentiful is meant for one who worships fire and water as possessed of the attributes of food and the eater of food in the way that was mentioned by the text, 'fire resides in water,' etc. (in the preceding chapter).

So also there is a vow for one who meditates on earth and space (as mutually the food and the eater) :- na pratyacaksita, he should not refuse; kam cana, anybody, whomsoever; vasatau, in the matter of dwelling. The meaning is that he should not turn back anybody who may come for shelter. Since, if shelter is given, food, too, must be supplied, therefore yaya kaya ca vidhaya, by any means whatsoever; prapnuyat bahu annam, he should get, i.e. collect, plenty of food. Since the enlightened people (i.e. meditators) possessed of food, acaksate, say; 'Annam aradhi asmai, food has been cooked for this man', and they do not refuse him by saying, 'There is no food', therefore, also, one should acquire plenty of food. This is how this portion should be construed with the earlier. Moreover, the greatness of the gift of food is being stated :- Food greets one back in that very manner and at that very period (of life) in which it is offered. How? that is being explained :- Etat vai, the fact that; annam, food; raddham, cooked; mukhatah, in early age, or with the best attitude, with veneration-; 'he offers to the guest seeking food', this much is to be added to complete the sentence. What result will he get? The answer is :- Asmi for this one-for the giver of food; annam radhyate, food is cooked; mukhatah, in the early age, or in the best manner. The idea is that food falls to his share just as it was offered. Similarly, madhyatah means during the middle part of life, and with middling courtesy. Thus, too, antatah means in the old age, and with scant courtesy, i.e. with discourtesy. In that very manner annam radhyate asmai, food is cooked for him, food accrues to him. Yah evam veda, he who knows-thus-knows the greatness of food and the result of that gift as stated-, to him befalls the aforesaid result (of that gift). Now is being stated a process of meditation on Brahman :- Ksemah means the preservation of what has been acquired; Brahman is to be meditated on as existing vaci, in speech, in the form of preservation. Yogah means the acquisition of what is not is possession. Though these acquisition and preservation occur so long as exhaling and inhaling function, still they are not braught about by the mere fact of living. What are they, then, due to? They are caused by Brahman. Therefore Brahman is to be meditated on an existing pranapanayoh, in exhalation and inhalation, in the form of acquisition and preservation. Similarly, with regard to the other succeeding cases Brahman is to be meditated on as identified with those (respective) things. Since work is done by Brahman, Brahman is to be meditated on as existing hastayoh, in the hands; karma iti, in the form of work; gatih iti, as movement; padayoh, in the feet :- vimuktih iti, as discharge; payau, in the anus; Iti, these are :- samajnah, cognitions, perceptions, i.e. meditations; which are manusih (should be rather manusyah), pertaining to men, belonging to the physical body. Atha, after this; daivih, (should be rather daivyah), the divine, the meditations pertaining to the gods-are being related. Trptih iti vrstau, as satisfaction in rain. Since rain causes contentment by producing food etc., Brahman is to be meditated on as existing in rain in the form of contentment. Similarly, in the case of other things, Brahman is to be meditated on an existing in those forms. So also It is to be meditated on as energy is lightning.

(Brahman is to be worshipped) as yasah, fame; pasusu, among animals; [I.e. as existing in cattle-wealth, since wealth makes a man famous.] as jyotih, light, naksatresu, in the stars. Prajatih, procreation; amrtam, immortality, getting of immortality-this being brought about by the son's repaying the debts; anandah, happiness-all these originate from the organ of generation, and Brahman is to be meditated on as existing in those froms in the generative organ. Since sarvam, everything; is placed akase, in space (or the Unmanifested), therefore one should meditate thus:- 'All that is in space is Brahman.' And that space, too, is Brahman. Therefore that (space-Brahman) is to be meditated on as the support of all. By meditating on the attribute of 'being the sustainer', one becomes well established. So also with regard to the previous cases, it is to be understood that any effect that is produced by any of the factors, [E.g. preservation, produced by speech, is Brahman] is but Brahman only; and by meditating on that (effect as Brahman) one becomes possessed of it. This also follows from another Vedic text, 'As he worships Him, so he becomes' (Mud. III.3). Upasita, one should worship; tat, that (Brahman), mahah iti, as possessed of greatness; (thereby) bhavati mahan, one becomes great. (Brahman should be meditated on as) manah, thinking; (thereby) bhavati manavan, he becomes able to think. Tat namah, etc.:- namah means bowing down, (possessed of suppleness); Brahman is to be worshipped as possessed of suppleness; (thereby) kamah, desires, things that are desired, i.e. enjoyable things; namyante, bow down; asmai, to such a meditator. One should meditate on tat, that Brahman; brahman iti, as the most exalted; (thereby) one bhavati, brahmavan, becomes possessed of that quality of being the most exalted. [Like Virat, possessed of all gross means of enjoyment.] Tat brahmanah etc.:- parimarah is derived in the sense of that in which die, from all sides, the five gods, viz Lightning, Rain, Moon, Sun, and Fire. Therefore air is their parimarah, destruction-in accordance with another Vedic text, ('Air [Virat] is, indeed, the place of merger'), (Ch. IV. iii. 1). Again, this very air is non different from space; hence space is brahmanah parimarah, Brahman's medium of destruction. Upasita, one should meditate on; tat, that space, which is non different from air, [Since air comes out of space] as Brahman's medium of destruction. (As a result) sapatnah, adversaries; who are dvisatah, envious; enam, towards this man; pari mriyante, part with their lives. There may be adversaries who are not envious; hence the singling out in this form, 'the envious adversaries'. Those adversaries that are envious towards this man (die). Moreover, ye bhratrvyah, those adversaries of this man; who are apriyah, disliked (by him), though they may not be spiteful-they, too, die. Beginning with the text, 'the vital, force is, indeed, food, and the body is the eater of food', and ending with space, creation has been shown as food and the eater of food. Objection:- It might have been said so; what of that? Answer:- Thereby is proved this:- Wordly existence, comprising enjoyment and enjoyership, pertain only to created things, but not to the Self; yet it is superimposed on the Self through ignorance. Objection:- The Self, too, is a product of the supreme Self, and hence the Self's worldly existence is quite in order. Answer:- No, for the Upanisad refers to the entry of the Transcendental (Brahman). In the text, 'Having created that, He entered into that very thing' (II.vi.1), the entry into creation is predicated verily of the transcendental supreme Self which is, indeed, the cause of space etc. Hence the Self which has entered into creation as the individual soul is none other than the supermundane, supreme Self. Moreover, this follows from the propriety of the same entity being the subject of the two verbs in the expression, 'having created, he entered'. If the two verbs implying creation and entry have the same subject, then only is the suffix ktva (-ing) justifiable. Objection:- But the one which enters undergoes a change. Answer:- No, since entry has been explained away by-giving it a different meaning (II.vi.). Objection:- May not the entry be through a change of attributes, since there is such a categorical text, 'entering in the form of this individual soul....(Ch. VI.iii.2)? Answer:- No, since reinstatement into the earlier mode is spoken of in 'Thou art That' (Ch. VI. viii-xvi). Objection:- It is a meditation, involving the superimposition of the greater on the less, which is calculated to remove a chage that has come over one (of the two). Answer:- No, for the two are placed on the same pedestal in the text, 'That is truth, That is the Self; and thou art That'. Objection:- The worldly state of the individual soul is a perceived reality. Answer:- No, for the perceiver cannot be perceived (Br. II.iv.14). Objection:- The (individual) Self, as endowed with worldly attributes, is perceived. Answer:- Not so; (for if they are real attributes of the Self, then), since the attributes of a thing are nonseparable from the substratum, they cannot reasonably become objects of perception, just as heat and light (of fire) cannot be subjected to burning or illumination (by fire). Objection:- The soul is inferred to be possessed of sorrow etc., since fear etc. are seen (in it). Answer:- No, for fear etc. and sorrow cannot be the qualities of the perceiver (soul), since they are perceived (by it). Objection:- This runs counter to the (Samkhya) scripture promulgated by Kapila, and to the science of logic built up by Kanada and others. Answer:- No so; for if they have no (logical) basis or if they are opposed to the Vedas, it is reasonable to call them erroneous. And from the Vedas as well as from reasoning, the Self is proved to be transcendental. Besides, this follows from the unity of the Self. Objection:- How is that unity? Answer:- That is being stated (in sah yah ca ayam etc.). The whole of the text, sah yah ca ayam etc., is to be construed as already explained (II.viii.5).

Starting from the self constituted by food, and by degrees anandamayam atmanam upasamkramya, reaching the self, constituted by joy; [II.viii.5 refers to liberation after death, whereas this portion of the present text refers to liberation even while living (jivanmukti).] aste, he sits (continues); gayan, singing on; etat sama, this sama (song). The meaning of the Rg-mantra-'Satyam jnanam etc.-Brahman is truth, knowledge,' etc. (II.i)-has been explained elaborately in the Part On Bliss, which is an exposition of it. But the meaning of the statement of its result contained in the text, 'He enjoys, as idetified with the all-knowing Brahman, all desirable things simultaneously' (II.i.), has not been elaborated. Now the following text begins, since it remains to be shown what these results are, what the objects of all those desires are, and how he enjoys them simultaneously in his identity with Brahman. As to that, in the story of the father and the son (in Part III), which is supplementary to the knowledge imparted earlier (in Part II), concentration has been spoken of as a means for the knowledge of Brahman. Besides, it has been shown how creation, counting from the vital force and ending with space, can be divided into the eater and the eaten; and the meditations on Brahman have been referred to. Furthermore, all the enjoyments that there are and pertain to diverse products like space etc., have been shown to be the results of multifarious means that are systematically related to their results. On the attainment of unity, however, there cannot logically remain any desire or desirer, since all diversity becomes merged in the Self. So how can such a knower enjoy all desires simultaneously in the state of identity with Brahman? In answer to this question it is being said that this is possible because of his becoming the Self of all. To the question, 'How is there an attainment of identity with the Self of all?'-the answer is:- As a result of the knowledge of the identity of the Self existing in the individual and the sun, having discarded excellence and non-excellence, having attained in succession the selves-starting with the one made of food and ending with the one constituted by bliss- which are fancied through ignorance, and having realized, as a result, Brahman which is truth, knowledge, and infinity, which is unperceivable etc. by nature, which is natural Bliss, and which is birthless, immortal, fearless, and non-dual; and then (that man of knowledge) anusamcaran, wandering; on iman lokan, these worlds-the earth etc.; this is how the expression iman lokan is to be construed with the remote word anusamcaran. Wandering how? (Becoming) kamanni- one who gets anna, food, according to kama, wish, is kamanni, (having command over food at will); similarly, (becoming kamarupi) one who gets rupas, forms according to his wish is kamarupi; wandering on all these worlds, in his identity with all; i.e. perceiving all these worlds as the Self. 'What does he do? Etat sama gayan aste:- aste, he continues; gayan, singing, uttering; etat sama, this sama (song). Brahman Itself is the sama, because It is sama, equal, non-different from everything. (So the idea is):- He continues declaring the unity of the Self as also announcing, for the good of others, the result of that knowledge consisting in absolute contentment. How does he sing? (He sings):- Ha-a-a-vu, ha-a-a-vu, ha-a-a-vu; the expression is used in the sense of 'oho' to indicate supreme surprise. What, again, is that surprise? The answer is:- Although I am really the untainted, nondual Self, still I am annam, food; as also annadah, the eater of food. Moreover, aham, I myself; am the slokakrt:- sloka means union-union of food and the eater of food; the conscious being encompassing that union is the slokakrt. Or the expression may mean this:- I bring about the assemblage of food itself, which is naturally meant for somebody other than itself, viz the eater, and which becomes diversified owing to this very fact. The three repetitions are meant for expressing astonishment. Aham asmi, I am; prathamajah (i.e. prathamajah), the first born (Hiranyagarbha); rtasya, of this world, consisting of the formed and the formless; and (I am Virat which is) purvam, earlier; devebhyah, than the gods. (I am) nabhih (nabhayi) the navel, centre; amrtasya, of immortality, i.e. the immortality of living beings is in my keeping. Yah, anyone who; dadati ma, offers me as food, to those who beg food-talks of me as the food; sah, he; iti, in this way; avah, i.e. avati, protects (me); evam, intact and just as I am. On the contrary, aham, I; who am but annam, the food, for the present; admi, eat up; adantam annam, that eater of food-any other man, who eats food without offering me in the form of food-at the proper time-to those who ask. At this point someone may say:- 'If this be so, I am afraid of liberation that consists in becoming the Self of all. Let my worldly existence itself continue; for even though liberated, I shall still be food to be eaten by somebody.' (The answer is:-) Do not entertain such a fear, for the enjoyment of all the desirable things falls within the range of relative existence. But this man of knowledge has become Brahman by transcending, through illumination, all that is described as the eater and the eaten which fall within the domain of empirical experience and which are the creations of ignorance. For him there exists no separate thing of which he can be afraid. Hence there is nothing to be afraid of in liberation. Objection:- If this be so, then what is meant by saying, 'i am the eaten and the eater'? Answer:- This phenomenal existence, constituted by the eater and the eaten, which endures as a product , is nothing but a phenomenon; it is not a real substance. But though it is so, still, having in view the fact that it exists because of Brahman and that it is reduced to a nonentity apart from Brahman, this phenomenon is referred to in the text, 'I am food,' etc., for the sake of recommending the state of identity with Brahman which follows from the knowledge of Brahman. Therefore, when ignorance is eradicated, there cannot exist for the man indentified with Brahman any remnant of such taints as fear which are the creations of ignorance. Accordingly, aham, I; abhyabhavam, overwhelm, engulf in my supreme nature as God; visvam, the whole; bhuvanam, universe-derivatively meaning that which is enjoyed by all beings counting from Brahma, or that on which all creatures are born. Suvah na joytih:- Suvah is the sun; na expresses similitude. The meaning is:- Our jyotih, effulgence; is ever-shining suvah na like the sun. Iti upanisad, this is the knowledge of the supreme Self, inculcated in the two Parts (II and III). To him come the aforesaid fruits who, like Bhrgu, masters the above mentioned Upanisad through pratice of great concentration after the acquisition of control over the inner and outer organs, dispassionateness, imperturbability, and concentration.