Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Ushan, desiring for the fruits of the sacrifice. Ha and vai are two particles which have the force of recalling to mind what had passed. Vâjasravasah:- vâja means food, srava means fame; the compound, therefore, means one who had attained fame by the giving of food; or, the compound may be a proper name. The son of Vâjasrava is Vâjasravasah. Vâjasravasah, it is said, performed the Visvajit sacrifice (in which all is given away) desirous of its fruits. During the sacrifice he gave away all his wealth. The performer of the sacrifice had a son named Nachikêtas.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Him, i.e., Nachikôtas, though in the prime of life, i.e., young and not possessed of the power of procreating zeal, i.e., faith in the existence of a future state, entered, induced by the desire of good to his father. At what time is explained; when cows were brought to be distributed among the Ritviks and the sadasyas for their rewards; possessed of zeal, Nachikêtas thus thought.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—How he thought is explained; the epithet Pîtôdakâh and those which follow describe the cows to be given as rewards. Pítôdakâh, by which all water has been drunk; jagdhatrinâh, by which all grass has been eaten. Dugdhadôhâh, from which all milk has been milched. Nirindriâh (?), not capable of breeding. The meaning is—cows old and useless; giving such cows to the Ritviks for their rewards, the person performing the sacrifice attains those worlds which are joyless, i.e., devoid of happiness.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Thinking that, as being the duty of a good son, he should ward off the undesirable consequences, which might befall his father on account of the imperfection in the sacrifice, by even giving himself away and thus perfect the sacrifice, he approached his father and said to him, ‘father, to whom, i.e., to which of the Ritviks will you give me as Dakshinâ, i.e., reward? though unheeded by his father thus addressed, he repeated the question a second time and a third time ‘to whom will you give me,’ ‘to whom will you give me?’ The father incensed at the thought that that was not like a boy said to the son ‘to Death do I give thee.’

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Thus addressed, the son alone in himself, anxiously reflected; how will be explained; among many, i.e., of disciples or sons, I go the first, i.e., in the matter of doing service as a disciple; of many a middling disciple, I behave like a middling disciple and never as the worst; still, my father has said that he will give me unto Death, though his son is of such good qualities. What is there to be done for Death which can now be done by me thus given? It is plain that my father has spoken under the influence of anger without any end in view; still my father’s words should not be falsified. Thus thinking, and after anxious reflection, he told his father who was full of grief ‘what have I said.’

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Remember and reflect how your deceased ancestor's father, grandfather and the rest conducted themselves; seeing them, it behoves you to travel in their path; see also how others, good men, now behave. There never was or is any falsehood in them; falsifying one’s word is the manner of bad men and none who has broken his word can ever become undecaying and immortal. What is there gained by breaking one’s word, seeing that man decays and dies like corn and is again born like corn in this, transitory world of the Jîvas? The meaning is ‘protect your truth and send me to Death.’

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Thus addressed, the father sent him to Death to keep his word and he having gone to the mansion of Death fasted for three nights, Death being away; when Death had gone and returned, his ministers or wife said to inform him, ‘a Brâhman guest, verily like fire itself, enters houses burning them; and good men to allay his burning heat as that of fire, propitiate him by giving water to clean his feet, seat to sit upon, etc. Therefore, Oh Vaivasvata! fetch water to be given to Nachikètas; also because evil consequences are declared in default.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Hope, i.e., wish for something not definitely known but attainable. Expectation, looking out for something definitely known and attainable. Company with good men, i.e., the fruit resulting from association with good men. Sweet discourse, i.e., the fruit of true and pleasant speech. Ishtam, i.e., the fruit of a sacrifice. Púrtam, i.e., the fruit resulting from charities such as the laying out of a garden, etc. Putrapasûn, i.e., children and cattle. All this is destroyed of the men with little intelligence in whose house, a Brahman, fasting stays. The meaning is that a guest is, therefore, under no circumstances to be neglected.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Thus addressed, Death having approached Nachikêtas worshipfully, said ‘as you have been living in my house fasting for three nights, a Brâhman guest worthy of reverence, therefore be my prostration to you. Oh Brâhman, therefore be good unto me and let me be freed from the sin of your having lived here fasting; although all good may befall me by your mere grace, still in order that I may propitiate you better, ask of me any three objects you wish for, one for every night you fasted.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—But Nachikêtas replies ‘if willing to grant boons, that my father be freed from anxiety, i.e., about me as to what his son would be doing after reaching Death, be calm in mind and not wrath against me; and again my father remember and believe me as the very son sent by him to you and sent home back by you and welcome me recognizing, Oh Death—is the first of the three boons I ask, the end of which is to gladden my father.’

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Death replied ‘just as your father’s heart was affectionate towards you before, so your father Auddâlaki, the son of Aruna (or the Dvyamushyâyana, son of both Uddâlaka and Aruna), will be affectionate towards you and confide in you with my permission; he will sleep the rest of the nights in peace of mind and will lose his wrath when he sees you released from the jaws of Death.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com. —Nachikêtas said ‘In heaven there is no fear at all caused by disease, etc. Nor do you rule there of might.' Therefore, none there, fears you, as men in this world do in old age; again, having subdued both hunger and thirst, one in heaven being free from all afflictions of the mind rejoices.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—The fire, which helps one to attain the heaven possessed of such attributes, thou, Oh Death! knowest; and as thou knowest, teach me who am zealous by which fire sacrificing, men attain heaven and immortality or become Devas. This knowledge of the fire, I crave by my second boon.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—This is Death’s declaration. I will tell thee what has been solicited by thee; attend to what I say with concentrated mind. I know the fire, Oh Nachikêtas, which helps one to heaven; ‘I will tell thee and attend’ are expressions used to concentrate the disciple's intellect; now he praises the fire, know this fire as leading to heaven and as the stay of the universe in its form of virât and as located in the intelligence of knowing men.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—This, the Sruti itself says. Death explained o Nachikêtas, the fire, which was the source of the worlds, being the first embodied existence, the same that was asked for by Nachikêtas; again he told him of what form the sacrificial bricks were to be, how many in number and in what manner the sacrificial fire was to be lit and all this; Nachikêtas also faithfully repeated what was told him by Death. Then delighted by his repetition, Death said to him again inclined to grant him a boon other than the three promised.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—How? He said to Nachikêtas, being delighted with, i.e., experiencing great delight at the sight of true discipleship, and being liberal-minded ‘I give you now here this other boon, the fourth, being pleased with you; the fire that I have explained shall become celebrated by your name alone. Moreover, accept this sounding garland set with precious stones and wonderful’; or, the word ‘srinkâm’ may mean ‘the no mean goal that can be attained by karma the whole passage signifying ' accept also the knowledge of Karma because it is the source of many fruits.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Again he praises Karma; the three-fold Nachikêtas, i.e., he by whom the Nachikêta fire has been kindled thrice; or, he who knows, studies and performs in, the Nachikêta fire. United with the three, i.e., who united with his mother, father and preceptor, i.e., having duly received instruction from them; for, that such instruction is a source of authority, is inferred from other Srpitis, such as ‘he who has a mother’ and ‘he who has a father,’ etc. or, the three may refer to ‘direct perception,’ ‘inference’ and ‘ágamas or to ‘the vêdas,’ ‘the Smritis’ and ‘good men’; for, knowledge of virtue from these sources is an obvious fact. Doing the threefold karma, i.e., performing sacrifices, reciting the vêdas, and making gifts. Whoso does these, crosses or travels beyond birth and death; again Brahmajagnam:- Brahmaja means born of Brahma, i.e., Hiranyagarbha; he who is born of Brahma and is omniscient is Brahmajagnah. Dêvam, so called because shining, i.e., having the qualities of knowledge, etç. Idyam, worthy of praise. Knowing such fire, from the Sâstras and having realised him as his own âtman, one attains this absolute renunciation which is realized in his intellect. The meaning is that one attains the place of the virât, by the continued practice of Upâsana and Karma.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—He now concludes the fruits, of the knowledge and the performance of sacrifice and with them, the present topic. The three-fold Nachikêtas who properly understands what was said about the bricks, their numbers and mode and who realizing the fire as the âtman completes the sacrifice called Nachikêta, shakes off even before death, the meshes of Death consisting in vice, ignorance, desire and hatred, etc., and devoid of all grief rejoices in heaven, i.e., by realizing his Self as the virât.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Oh Nachikêtas, this is the fire leading to heaven that you craved for, by the second boon; and the expression ‘the boon has been granted’ should be supplied by way of concluding what has been said again, people will call this fire by thy name; this is the fourth boon which I granted being delighted with thee; Oh Nachikêtas, demand the third boon. The meaning is that Death considered himself a debtor if that were not granted.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Thus much, which has been indicated by the two boons, is alone to be understood from the preceding Mantras and Brâhmanas, which are mandatory or prohibitory in their import but not the knowledge of the true nature of the entity of the âtman. Therefore, for the dispelling of natural ignorance (Avidya), which deals with matters the subject of positive and prohibitory injunctions, which consists in superposing on the âtman, activity, agency and enjoyment, and which is the seed of samsâra, it is necessary to explain the knowledge of the identity of the Brahman and the âtman, which is contrary to that previously explained which is free from the fault of superposition of activity; agency, and enjoyment on the âtman, and whose result is the attainment of absolute emancipation; with this end, the subsequent portion of this work is commenced. The anecdote explains how without this well-known knowledge of the âtman, the subject of the third boon, all that is desirable is not achieved even by the obtaining of the second boon. Because, it is only those, who are disgusted with the result previously named in the nature of means and ends, transitory, and produced by karma, that are entitled to acquire the knowledge of the âtman; therefore, to denounce Karma, it is sought to tempt Nachiketas away from his object, by promise of sons and the rest. Nachikêtas being asked by Death to name his third boon, said:- ‘This doubt regarding man when dead,—some say that there is an âtman distinct from body, senses, mind and intellect and entering into another body; some say that there is no such âtman; and this doubt cannot be resolved by us, either by direct perception or logical inference; and because the attainment of the highest consummation depends upon a clear knowledge of this. I would acquire this knowledge, being instructed by thee. This, the third, i.e., the last of the boons.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Death in order to test whether he was or was not absolutely fit to acquire the knowledge of the âtman leading to emancipation, said this:- ‘Even by the gods in older times, doubt was entertained on this point. It is not easy to be known, though heard explained, by ordinary men. Because this subject of the âtman is subtle. Therefore, Oh, Nachikêtas, ask for another boon, whose fruit is certain; press me not as a creditor presses a debtor. Give up this boon for me.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Thus addressed, Nachikêtas said, ‘I have heard from yourself that even the gods had doubt on this point and you say, Oh Death, that the true nature of the âtman is not easy to know. As this cannot be known even by the learned, another, learned like you 2 to explain this, cannot be found, though sought.’ This boon also is a means to the attainment of emancipation and there is no other boon which can at all weigh with this. The meaning is that other boons bear only transitory fruits.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Though thus addressed, still Death said, to tempt him again. ‘Satâyushah, those who live a hundred years, i.e., centenarians; ask for centenarian sons and grandsons, besides, many cattle such as cows, etc., elephants, gold and horses. Ask for sovereignty over a large circuit of earth.’ And as all this would be useless, if he were himself short-lived, Death added ‘and yourself live as many years as you like with a body, where all the organs are vigorou.’

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—If you think of any other boon equal to that already explained, ask for that also; besides, ask for large quantities of gold and precious stones and longevity to boot. In short, rule as king in the, wide earth; moreover, I shall make thee enjoy all thy desires pertaining to men and gods; for, I am a Dêva whose will never fails.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Ask, as you like, for all desired objects, which are covetable, but not easily attainable in the land of mortals. Again, here are these celestial nymphs (the term Râmâs meaning those who delight males) with their chariots and with their musical instruments; and women like these cannot be obtained by mortals without the grace of beings like us; with these female attendants given by me, have thy services performed, such as cleaning the feet with water, etc.; Oh Nachikêtas, it does not become you to put me the question connected with death, i.e., whether, when man is dead, there is or is not anything surviving—a question (as unprofitable as that) of examining the number of crow’s teeth.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Though thus tempted, Nachikêtas unagitated like a large lake, said:- svôbhâvah, enjoyments whose existence the next day is a matter of doubt; the enjoyments enumerated by you are ephemeral; again. Oh Death, they tend to the decline of the vigour of all the organs of man. These nymphs and other enjoyments only tend to harm, because they destroy virtue, strength, intellect, vigour, fame and the rest. As for the longevity that you will give me, hear me on that point. All life, even that of Brahma is, indeed, short. What need be said of our longevity. Therefore, keep the chariots, etc., for thyself alone, as also the dance and music.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Moreover, man is not to be satisfied with much wealth; for, attainment of wealth has not been found to ensure delight to anybody. If ever we have thirst for wealth, we shall get it, if we have seen thee; so also, long life; we shall live, as long as you rule in your place; for, how could a mortal, after approaching thee, become poor or short-lived. Therefore, the boon fit to be craved for by me is that alone, i.e., the knowledge of the âtman.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Again, having approached those whose age knows no decay and who are immortal and knowing of some other surpassing benefit to be had from them, how çould a mortal, himself living on earth below (below, relatively the Antariksha, i.e., region of the sky), pray for such transitory things, as sons, wealth, gold, etc., covetable only by the ignorant? Another reading has ‘Kvatadasthah’ for ‘Kvadhasthah’; the meaning according to this reading is this:- Tadasthah, one who ardently covets them, i.e., sons and the rest; when will one, who seeks higher objects than these though difficult to attain, thirst for these? The meaning is that no one who knows them as valueless, will wish for them. Everybody in the world wishes to become something higher and higher than he is; therefore, I am not to be tempted by the prospect of sons, wealth, etc.; and what sensible man will delight in longevity who knows the transitory nature:- of nymphs and of the delights of music and sports?

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Therefore, giving up the idea of tempting me by promise of ephemeral objects, tell us, Oh Death, that which was solicited by me, i.e., the well-ascertained knowledge of the âtman, about which they doubt whether it is or no, when men die, which relates to the world to come and which serves to be of great benefit. Why say much? Than the present boon about the âtman which goes into an inexplicable secret, no other boon which is to be craved for only by the ignorant and whose subject is something transitory, Nachikêtas does crave for, even in thought. The Sruti itself says this.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Having thus tested the disciple and found him worthy of the knowledge, Death said ‘good is one thing and pleasant is another.’ Both these, the good and the pleasant, serving different ends, bind man competent for both, subject to the varying conditions of caste, orders of life, etc., i.e., all men are propelled in their mind by these two actions; for, according as one wishes for prosperity or immortality, he attempts at what is good and what is pleasant. Therefore as men have to perform acts to obtain what is good and what is pleasant, all men are said to be bound by these. These two, though connected with the realisation of one or other of the covetables of man, are opposed to each other, one being in the nature of knowledge and the other of ignorance. Thus, as both these are impossible to be pursued by the same individual without abandoning either, happiness falls to him who, of these two, rejects what is merely pleasant, being in the nature of ignorance, and pursues only the good. But he, who is not far-sighted, who is ignorant and who pursues only the pleasant, is separated from, i.e., misses the true and eternal end of man.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—If both the sweet and the good can be pursued at will, why do the mankind, in general, pursue the sweet? This is explained; it is true that they can both be pursued; still, as they are not easily distinguishable by persons of poor intelligence, either in respect of the means to their attainment, or in respect of their fruits, both the sweet and the good become as it were mingled, and approach man. Therefore the intelligent man examines both the sweet and the good as a flamingo separates milk and water and having considered in his mind their relative weight, divides them both and follows the good alone, as preferable to the sweet; but the man of poor intelligence, incapable of such discernment, pursues the sweet, such as cattle, sons and the rest, for the purpose of fattening and preserving his body, etc.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—You, though repeatedly tempted by me, have renounced objects of desires, such as sons, etc., and also objects of sweet shape, such as nymphs, judging well of them and ascertaining their faults, i.e., their ephemeral and sapless nature. Oh Nachikêtas, how intelligent you are! You have not taken up this contemptible path of wealth, trodden by the ignorant men, in which many fools come to grief.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—It has been stated that he who, of these pursues the good, attains the good and he that pursues the pleasant forfeits consummation; why is that so? Because, these two travel at a great distance from each-other, being mutually exclusive as they are of the nature of knowledge and ignorance, like light and darkness going different ways, i.e., leading to different results, being the cause of bondage and emancipation. What are these two is explained. Ignorance which, deals with ‘the pleasant’ and knowledge which deals with ‘the good,’ both well understood by the intelligent; here, I regard you Nachikêtas, as longings after knowledge, because objects of desire the nymphs and the rest—which tempt the intellect of the ignorant, have not, though numerous, shaken thee, i.e., diverted thee from the path of ‘the good, by creating in you a desire for worldly enjoyment. Therefore, I regards you as longing after knowledge and worthy of attaining ‘the good.’ This is the drift.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—But those men living in Samsâra in the midst of ignorance as in thick darkness, entangled in a hundred meshes formed by attachment for sons, cattle and the rest, regarding themselves as intelligent and well-versed in the Sâstras, go round and round, get into many crooked ways afflicted with miseries such as old age, death, disease, etc., devoid of discernment, just as the blind led by the blind in uneven paths come to great grief.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Therefore alone, i.e., being ignorant, the way to the other world shines not for him. Sâmparâyah, the other world. Sâmparâyah, some means pointed out by the Sâstras and leading to the attainment of the other world; that means does not shine for the benefit of the ignorant man who is led astray, his mind being engrossed by such benefits, as son, cattle, etc., and who is enveloped by the darkness Of ignorance caused by wealth. Constantly thinking that this world alone which is perceived and which consists of women, food, drink, etc., exists, and that there is no other invisible world, he is born again and again and becomes subject to me, i.e., Death. The meaning is that he becomes subject to be tossed in grief, such as birth, death, etc., such is the world in general.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Of thousands who seek good, it is some one like you who becomes the knower of the âtman; for, even for hearing, the âtman is not attainable by many; many others, though they hear of him, do not know the âtman, not being entitled, because their minds are not purified; again, the expounder of the îtman is, like a wonder, some one among many, Similarly, even among many who have so heard, some one alone of many, that is able, attains the âtman; the knower of the âtman is a wonder—some me who is instructed by an able preceptor.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Why so? Because, taught by a man of worldly understanding, the âtman which you ask me about, is not easily knowable, because he is variously discussed by disputants, whether he exists or not, whether he is a doer or not, whether he is pure or not and so forth. How then can he be well-known is explained. If the âtman is taught by a preceptor who is free from the notion of duality and who has become one with the Brahman, none of the various doubts exists, such as whether he is or not, etc., because the nature of the âtman absorbs all such doubtful alternatives; or, the text may be thus construed:- when the âtman, which is none other than his own Self, is taught, there is no knowing any other thing; for, there is no other knowable; for, the knowledge of the oneness of the âtman is the highest state of knowledge. Therefore, there being nothing else to be known, knowledge stops there; or, Gatiratra nâsti, may mean there is no travelling into Samsâra when the âtman, not distinct from the Self has been taught; because, emancipation, the fruit of such knowledge, is its necessary concomitant. Or, it may mean that when the âtman is explained by a preceptor who is become one with the Brahman to be taught, there is no failing to understand it. The meaning is that as in the case of the preceptor, the hearer’s knowledge of the Brahman will take the form, ‘I am not other than that.’ Thus the âtman can easily be known when explained by the preceptor versed in the âgamâs, to be no other than one’s self; otherwise, the âtman will be subtler than even the subtle and cannot be known by dint of one’s mere intelligent reasoning When the âtman is established by argument to be something subtle by one man, another argues it to be subtler than that and another infers it to be something yet subtler; for, there is no finality reached by mere argumentation.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—This idea of the âtman knowable by the âgamâs and taught by a preceptor who is one with the âtman is not to be attained by dint of one’s intelligent reasoning; or, it may mean, cannot be dispelled by mere intelligent reasoning; for, a logician not versed in the âgamâs will postulate something created by his own intelligence. Therefore alone, this idea arising from the âgamâs helps one, Oh dearest, to sound knowledge, only when taught by a preceptor who is not a logician and who is conversant with the âgamâs. What is that idea which can not be attained by reasoning is explained. That idea which you have now attained by my granting of the boon. Oh thou art fixed in truth. Death says this of Nachikêtas with sympathetic favour, for the purpose of enlogising the knowledge which he was going to inculcate. May we find, Oh Nachikêtas, a questioner like thee, a son or a disciple.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Delighted, Death says again:- I know that the treasure, i.e., the reward of Karma, because it is sought after like a treasure, is not eternal; for, that which is constant, i.e., the treasure named Paramâtman cannot be reached by things not constant. That treasure alone, which is in the nature of uncertain happiness, can be obtained by uncertain things. Therefore, by me, though I know that the eternal cannot be attained by ephemeral aids, has been propitiated, the fire Nachikêtas leading to the attainment of heavenly joys with ephemeral things. By virtue of that, I have attained the position of authority, this office of Death known as Svarga eternal, but only relatively.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—But you having beheld the end of all desires (for, here, i.e., in Hiranyagarbha, all desires are fulfilled), the support of all the worlds comprising the Adhyâtma, the Adhibhûta and the Adhidaiva, i.e., (the bodies, elements and gods), the immortal goal of worship, the place of Hiranyagarbha, the extreme state of fearlessness, praiseworthy, great as combining many desirable powers such as animâ (praiseworthy and great because it is unsurpassable) the boundless and unsurpassable goal of the âtman, have boldly, being intelligent, rejected, wishing only for the highest, all this host of enjoyments within the pale of Samsâra. Oh, what unsurpassable qualities you possess!

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—The âtman which you wish to know is hard to see, being extremely subtle, lodged in the inmost recess, being concealed by the modifications of consciousness, caused by worldly objects. Located in intelligence (being realised, as if there lodged) and seated amidst manifold miseries. Being lodged in the inmost recess and located in intelligence, he is seated amidst miseries; (being thus seated he is hard to see) dwelling on that ancient âtman, with a mind weaned from all external objects and concentrated on the âtman, the intelligent man renounces joy and grief, as there is neither superiority nor inferiority for the âtman.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Again having heard this, the true âtman which I shall explain to you—from the presence of the preceptor and well-grasped it as his own Self, having abstracted the virtuous âtman from the body, etc., and having realized this subtle âtman, the learned mortal rejoices having obtained what gives him joy, i.e., the âtman. The door of such abode of Brahman is, I think, wide open for you, Nachikêtas. The drift is ‘I think you worthy of emancipation.’

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—If I am worthy, and you are, Oh Baghavan, pleased with me:- other than virture, i.e., different from the performance of acts enjoined by the Sâstras, their fruits and their requisites and similarly from vice; other than what is made, i.e., effect; and what is not made, i.e., cause; and again other than the past, i.e., time gone by; and the future, i.e., time yet to come; and similarly the present, i.e., what is not conditioned by time (past, present and future); if you see or know anything like this, beyond the reach of all wordly experience, tell me that.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—To him, who had thus questioned, Death explained the thing asked for and also something else, i.e., the worship of ‘Om.’ What praiseworthy goal all Vêdâs without break, i.e., with one voice, declare, to which goal all acts of îapas are intended to lead, and desirous of which men live in the residence of their preceptor, or practise other kinds of Brahmacharya to attain the Brahman, that goal which you wish to learn, I shall tell you briefly. It is this — ‘Om’. The goal which you wish to learn is the goal which is denoted by the word ‘Om,’ and of which the word ‘Om’ is a substitute (Pratîka).

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Therefore, the word, indeed, is Brahman, (manifested). This word, indeed, is also the highest- Brahman. For, this word is the substitute for both of them. Whoso worships this word as Brahman obtains what he wants, i.e., the manifested or the unmanifested Brahman. If it be unmanifested, it should be known; if it be manifested, it should be reached.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—This being so, this prop is the best, i.e., the most praiseworthy of all props, to attain the Brahman. This prop is both the higher and lower; for, it leads to both the highest and the manifested Brahman i.e., of the highest Brahman and the manifested Brahman. The meaning is:- he becomes one with the Brahman and he becomes fit to be worshipped like Brahman.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—The particle ‘Om’ has been pointed out as a prop of and as a substitute for the âtman, asked about in the text beginning with ‘Anyaira dharmat,’ etc., and devoid of all attributes, for the benefit of the ignorant and the middling class of men who wish to attain the Brahman, manifested and unmanifested. Now, this text is indroduced for the purpose of directly ascertaining the real nature of the âtman, to attain whom the word ‘Om’ was mentioned as a prop; he is not born, i.e., produced; nor does he die; various modifications are incidental to a thing which is produced and not eternal. Of those, the first and the last modifications namely birth and death are at the outset denied of the âtman, with the object of denying all modifications by the expressions ‘he is not born nor does he die.’ Vipaschit, intelligent; for, he is by nature of indestructible intelligence. Again, this âtman came not from anything, i.e., from any other cause; nor did any other real thing proceed from this âtman; therefore, this âtman is unborn, eternal, everlasting, undecaying (for, whoso is not everlasting decays; but he is everlasting); therefore, ancient, i.e., new, even formerly; (for, that which undergoes a development of its parts, is then said to be new); for instance a pot, etc.; but the âtman who is of a contrary nature is ancient, i.e., incapable of development; this being so, he is not slain or affected, even though the body is slain by swords, etc. Though in it, he is in it like the âkâs.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Even the âtman of such description, the slayer who sees the mere body as the âtman thinks of slaying and he who thinks that his âtman is slain, both these do not know their own âtman; for, he does not slay the âtman, being incapable of modification; nor is he slain being incapable of modification like the âkâs. Therefore, all samsâra, the fruit of virtue and vice is only in the case of those who do not know the âtman, and not in the case of one who knows the Brahman; for in his case, virtue and vice are inappropriate both from the authority of the srutis and from the cogency of reasoning.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—How then does one know the âtman is explained? Subtler than the subtle, i.e., subtler than grain, etc.; greater than the great, i.e., greater than things of great dimensions, such as the earth (whatever thing is in the world, that is known to exist only by virtue of the eternal âtman; divorced from the âtman it becomes a non-entity; therefore, this âtman alone is subtler than the subtle and greater than the great, because all names, forms and actions are only conditions imposed upon it). This âtman is seated, as the âtman, in the heart of every living creature, irons Brahma down to the worm. That âtman to whose realisation, hearing, thought and meditation are indicated as aids; one free from desire, i.e., one whose intelligence has been diverted from all external objects, either of this world or of the world to come (when he is so,—the mind and the senses which are called Dhâtus.—because they suppprt the body, become composed); sees, i.e., directly realises, in the form ‘I am he’, the glory of the âtman, devoid of increase or diminution due to Karma; and, therefore, he becomes absolved from grief.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Otherwise, this âtman cannot be known by worldly men having desires, because sitting, i.e., not moving, he goes a great distance. Lying, he goes everywhere. Thus the âtman is both joyful and joyless. Thus he has properties mutually opposed; therefore it being impossible to know him, who else but me can know the âtman, who is joyful and joyless. It is only by persons like us of subtle intellect and learning that the âtman can be known. Being conditioned by conflicting attributes of fixity and movement, and of constancy and change, the âtman appears as if itself possessed conflicting attributes like Visvarupa, a sum of various forms, or (more properly) like Chintâmani (a gem which appears according to the fancy of the seer). Therefore, Death indicates the difficulty of knowing the âtman by the statement ‘who else but me can know the âtman.’ The cessation of the activity of the senses is ‘lying;’ in the person lying, there is a cessation of the partial knowledge produced by the senses. In this state the âtman seems to go everywhere, because its knowledge then is of a general character, i.e., unqualified by conditions; but, though fixed in its own nature, when it has special or qualified knowledge it seems to go a great distance, because it is conditioned by the motion of the mind and the rest, but really he is here alone, i.e., in this body.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—This text shows that by knowing him, grief also vanishes. ‘Bodiless,’ the âtman being like the âkâs by its own nature; ‘bodies,’ bodies of the gods, the manes, men and the rest. ‘Perishable,’ devoid of firmness, not eternal; ‘firmly seate,’ eternal, i.e., not subject to modifications; ‘great,’ to avoid the doubt that the greatness may be relative, the text adds ‘all-pervading.’ The word ‘âtman’ is used to show that it is not distinct from one’s Self. The word âtman is primarily used to denote the Pratyagâtman, i.e., the âtman in the body. Having known the âtman of this description, i.e., having realised him in the form ‘I am he,’ the intelligent do not grieve. There is no occasion for such a knower of the âtman to grieve.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—This text says that though this âtman is hard to know, still he can certainly be known well by proper means. This âtman is not attainable by the study of many Vêdâs, or by intelligence, i.e., a retentive memory of the import of books, or by any amount of mere learning. By what then can he be attained is explained. That âtman (self) whom the neophyte seeks, by the same self, i.e., by the seeker, can the âtman be known. The meaning is that, of one who seeks only the âtman, being free from desire, the âtman is attained by the âtman alone. How it is attained is explained. To the man who seeks the âtman, the âtman reveals its real form, i.e., its own true nature.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Yet something more:- who has not turned away from bad conduct, i.e., from sinful acts prohibited and not permitted by the srutis and the smritis, who has no quietude from the activity of the senses, whose mind is not concentrated, i.e., whose mind is deverted off and on; whose mind is not at rest, i.e., whose mind, though collected, is engaged in looking forward to the fruits of being so collected, cannot attain the âtman now treated of, but only by means of the knowledge of Brahman; the meaning is that he alone who has turned away from bad conduct, who is free from the activity of the senses, whose mind is collected, and whose mind is at rest, even in respect of the fruits of its being so collected, taught by a preceptor, attains the âtman above described by knowing him.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—As for him who is not of this description, the sruti says:- Of whom Brahmins and Kshatriyas, though the stay of all virtue and the protectors of all, are the food; and Death, though destroyer of all, is only a pickle being insufficient as food. How can one of worldly intellect, devoid of helps above described, know where that âtman is, in this manner, as one who is furnished with the helps above described?

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.— The connection of the present valli is this. Knowledge and ignorance have already been described, as leading to many contrary results; but each of them has not been described, in its own nature, with its results. The imagining of the analogy of the chariot is for the purpose of determining them, as also for the easy understanding of the subject. Thus two âtmans are here described for the purpose of distinguishing between the attainer and the attained and the goer and the goal. Drinking, i.e., enjoying; truth, i.e., the fruits of the enjoyer, on the analogy of using the expression ‘the umbrella-carriers go’ when not all of them carry umbrellas. Sukritasya means of deeds done by themselves and is connected with the previous word ‘fruits.’ Lôkê, means in this body. Guhâm pravishtau, means lodged in intelligence. Paramê, superior in relation to the space of the âkâs of the external body. Parârdhê, in the abode of Brahman, for, there, can Brahman be realised. The meaning is that they are lodged in the âkâs within the cavity of the heart; again they are dissimilar like shadow and light, being within the pale of Samsâra and free from Samsâra, respectively. So do the knowers of Brahman tell; not those alone who do not perform Karma say so; but also householders maintaining five sacrificial fires, and others by whom the sacrificial Nachikêta fire has been thrice lit.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—The Nachikêta fire, which is, as it were, a bridge for persons performing sacrifices for the purpose of crossing grief, we can light up. Moreover, what is fearless, and what is the main support of the knowers of Brahman, who wish to go to the other shore of Samsâra, the immortal Brahman known as âtman, we can know. The meaning of the text is that both the unmanifested and the manifested Brahman, the goal of the knowers of Brahman, and those who perform Karma are worthy to be known. It is a description of these that has been given in the previous text.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Here a chariot is imagined for the âtman, conditioned in Samsâra, entitled to acquire knowledge and perform Karma for attaining emancipation and for travelling in Samsâra, as a means to reach both. Know the âtman, who is the enjoyer of the fruits of Karma and is in the bondage of Samsâra, to be the lord of the chariot. Know the body to be verily the chariot, because like a chariot the body is drawn by the senses occupying the place of horses. Know also the intelligence to be the driver, furnished with the capacity for determination, because the body is mainly guided by the intelligence, as the chariot is mainly guided by the driver; for, everything done by the body is generally done by the intelligence. Know the mind with its characteristics of volition, doubt, etc., to be the reins; for, the senses, such as the ear, perform their functions when grasped by the mind as horses by the reins.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Those who are versed in the construction of chariots call the senses, such as the eye and the rest, horses, from the similitude of their drawing the body. Know the objects (such as form, etc.), of these senses, regarded as horses, to be the roads. The intelligent call the âtman combined with the body, the senses and the mind, the enjoyer, i.e., one in Samsâra; for, the pure âtman cannot be the enjoyer. Its enjoyment is only the product of its conditions such as intelligence, etc.; accordingly also, other srutis declare that the pure âtman is certainly not the enjoyer. ‘It seems to think and to move’; only if this is so, in working out the analogy of the chariot to be described, it will be appropriate to understand. ‘The Vishnu Pâda’ as the pure âtman but not otherwise; for, there can be no going beyond Samsâra in the case of the pure âtman.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—This being so, of that driver known as Buddhi, who is not capable of discrimination as to what is to be done or omitted to be done, as the other driver in the guiding of his chariot has a mind like the reins of a chariot not well-grasped by the driver, i.e., uncontrolled by the intellect; of that incompetent driver, i.e., intellect, the senses which stand in the place of the horses become unruly and uncontrollable, as the vicious horses of the other driver.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—But of him who is a driver, the contrary of one already explained, i.e., of the driver who knows and who has the mind always under restraint, the senses standing in the place of the horses can be let go or stopped, i.e., controlled like the good horses of the other driver.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Now the text mentions the results produced by the driver (intelligence) who is unknowing, as above stated; the lord of the chariot, who does not know and who has not the mind under control and who is, therefore, always unclean, does not attain that immortal great goal already described, by reason of having such a driver. It is not alone that he does not attain that, but he reaches Samsâra marked by births and deaths.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—But the second, i.e., the lord of the chariot who has a discriminating intellect as his driver, i.e., the knowing man, having his mind under control and being, therefore, always clean, reaches that goal from which never falling, he is not born again in Samsâra.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—What that goal is, is now explained; but the man who has discerning intelligence for the driver, whose mind is under control, and who is clean, i.e., the knowing man reaches the end of the road of Samsâra, i.e., realises the Supreme; i.e., is absolved from all the ties of Samsâra. The man of knowledge attains 1 the highest place of Vishnu, i.e., the nature of the all-pervading Brahman, the Paramâtman known as Vâsudêva (the Self-luminous).

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Now this subsequent portion is introduced for the purpose of showing that the goal to be reached should be understood to be the Pratyak (the internal) âtman, the subtlest proceeding from the gross senses in the ascending degree of subtlety. The senses are gross and those rudiments (Vishaya) from which these spring for their own illumination are subtler than the senses, their own effects, greater than these and the âtman of these, i.e., bound up with these; subtler than these rudiments and greater than these, being the âtman of these, is the mind. Here, by the word mind is denoted the rudiments of the Bhûta (Bhûta Sûkshma) from which mind originates. Than the mind which is the origin of volition, deliberation and the rest, the intellect is subtler, greater, and more possessed of the functions of seeing, hearing, etc., does not shine, as the âtman of any being concealed by ignorance and delusion. Oh, how deep, unfathomable and marvellous this Mâya, that every living being, though really in its nature the Brahman, does not, though instructed, grasp the truth ‘I am the Paramâtman’ and feels convinced, without any instruction that he is such a person's son mistaking for the âtman the combination of the body, and the senses, etc., which is not the âtman and is only perceived by him, like the pot, etc.; indeed, the world wanders repeatedly deluded by the Mâya of the Brahman alone; so the smriti also says ‘Being concealed by Yôgamâya, I do not shine to all, etc.’ Are not these statements inconsistent? Knowing him, the intelligent do not grieve and ‘he does not shine.’ It is not so. It is said he does not shine, because he cannot be known by the unpurified intellect; but he is seen by the purified intellect. Agryayâ, like a point, i.e., concentrated, subtle, i.e., capable of perceiving subtle objects. By whom? By the subtle seers, i.e., by persons, who, by seeing the different degrees of subtlety as pointed out by the rudiments, are subtler than the senses, etc., are characteristically able to see the subtlest, i.e., by learned persons.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—The text states the means of attaining that Yatchêt, draw into. Prâjnah, one having discernment. What? Vâky, i.e., speech. The word ‘vâk,’ i.e, speech, is illustratively used to denote all the senses. Where? In the mind. The lengthening of the vowel in manasî is a Vedic license; and that mind, let him sink into gnâna, i.e., intellect bright by nature; ‘intellect’ is called âtman here; for, it pervades the mind and the other senses; therefore, it is their ‘Pratyagâtman,’ i.e., internal principle; let him sink the intellect into the âtman; ‘great,’ i.e., first born Hiranyagarbha. The meaning is, let him make his intelligence as clear in its nature as the first born; let him sink that great âtman also into the peaceful âtman, i.e., into the primary âtman whose nature does not admit of any conditions, which is unmodified, which is within all and which is the witness of all the modifications of the intellect.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Having thus merged into the purusha, the âtman, all the three, i.e., name, form and karma which are produced by false knowledge and are of the nature of action, agents and fruits, by a knowledge of the true nature of his âtman, as the water in the mirage, the serpent in the rope and the colour of the sky, disappear by seeing the true nature of the mirage, rope and the sky, one becomes free from anxiety and calm, his purpose accomplished. Therefore to know that, arise, Oh, living beings sleeping in beginningless ignorance, i.e., turn towards the acquisition of the knowledge of the âtman; and awake, i.e., put an end to the sleep of ignorance, horrible in form and the seed of all misery. How? Having approached excellent preceptors who know that, realise the âtman taught by them, the innermost and in all, thus ‘I am he.’ This is not to be neglected. Thus, the sruti, like a mother, says from compassion; because the object to be known can be realised only by very subtle intelligence. Why is it stated ‘by subtle in-tellect’'? The edge of a razor is pointed, i.e., made sharp and impassable, i.e., passable with difficulty; as that cannot be walked over by the feet, similarly hard to attain, the intelligent say, is the road of the knowledge of truth. The meaning is that because the object to be known is very subtle, they say the road of knowledge leading to that is not easily attainable.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—How the object to be known is very subtle is explained. This earth produced by sound, touch, form, taste and scent, and the object of all the senses, is gross; so is the body. Here, by the elimination one by one, of these gunâs, i.e., attributes from earth and the rest, difference in respect of subtlety, greatness, purity and durability, has been found in the element, from water upwards to the âkâs. Therefore the sruti shows that little need be said of the unsurpassable subtlety, etc., of that in which smell and the rest up to sound inclusive, mere modifications being gross, do not exist; which is soundless, touchless, formless, undecaying, so tasteless eternal and scentless, Brahman thus explained is undecaying; for, what has sound, etc., decays. But this having no sound, etc., does not decay or suffer diminution; therefore also, it is eternal; for what decays is ephemeral; but this does not decay. Therefore, it is eternal; and being eternal, it is beginningless; i.e., has no cause; what has a beginning, that being an effect, is not eternal and is absorbed into its cause as earth, etc. But this being the cause of all is not an effect and not being an effect, it is eternal. It has no cause into which it could be absorbed; similarly endless, i.e., that which has no end or anything to be done by it. As the ephemeral nature of plantains, etc., is seen, by the fact of their yielding fruit and other results; not even thus, is it seen that Brahman, has an end; therefore also eternal. Beyond the mahat, distinct in nature from the principle known as mahat called intelligence, for it is the witness of all, eternal knowledge being its nature, and Brahman being the âtman of all things. For, it has been already said ‘This âtman concealed in all living beings, etc.’ Constant, i.e., changeless and eternal. Its eternal nature is not relative like that of the earth, etc. Having realised Brahman thus described as the âtman, one releases the âtman from the mouth of Death, i.e., from what is incidental to Death, i.e., from ignorance, desire and karma.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—The sruti, for extolling the knowledge treated of, says:- Nachikêtam ] obtained by Nachikêtas. Mrityuprôktam ] told by Death. The story] contained in the three vallis. Old] of ancient date, being narrated in the Vêdâs. Repeating] to Brâhmins. Hearing] from preceptors; world of Brahman ] world which is Brahman; attains glory] having become the âtman, is fit to be worshipped.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Whoever causes this text, this highest secret to be recited verbatim and with meaning, in an assembly of Brâhmins, being himself clean, or causes it to be recited at the time of Srâddha to those who are there fed, that Srâddha is able to secure for him endless fruits. The repetition is for concluding the chapter.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—It was stated that this âtman concealed in all living beings does not shine but is seen by the subtle intellect. What is the obstacle to the subtle intellect seeing the âtman, in the absence of which the âtman can be seen? This valli is begun for the purpose of showing why it is not seen; for it is only when the cause of the obstacle to the attainment of good is known, that it is possible to attempt to remove it and not otherwise. Parânchi ] which go out; khâni ] the senses; the ear and the rest are indicated illustratively by this word khâni. These senses go outward to enlighten their objects, such as sound, etc., as they are of this nature; Paramêsvara has damned them. Who is that? The self-existent, the lord of all, because he alone is always independent and never dependent on others. Therefore, the perceiver sees the external objects which are not the âtman, such as sound, etc., and not the âtman within. Though this is the nature of the world, some discerning man, like turning back the current of a river, sees the âtman within (pratyagâtman) the âtman which is pratyak; it is to denote the pratyak (the inner spirit) that the word âtman is technically used in the world and not to denote any other; and even according to its etymology, it is that alone which the word âtman denotes; for, according to the smriti which declares the derivative meaning of the word âtman, what pervades, what absorbs, what enjoys objects here and what makes the continuous existence of this universe is, therefore, called the âtman. The word ‘aikshat’ meaning ‘saw’, here means ‘sees’; for the tense is not strictly observed in the Vêdâs. How he sees is explained. With his eyes turned with all his senses, the eye, the ear and the rest diverted from all objects. Thus prepared, he sees pratyagâtman; for it is not possible for the same man to be intent on external objects and go to see the pratyagâtman. Why again the intelligent man with such great efforts and by restraining his senses from their natural activity sees the pratyagâtman, is explained. Being desirous to secure immortality, i.e., eternal existence for his âtman.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—The natural tendency to see external objects which are not atman is the cause of the obstacle, i.e., ignorance, to the realisation of the âtman. Being, opposed to it, the desire of enjoyments pertaining to this world and to the next, external to self and held up by ignorance, is another obstacle. The realisation of the âtman being impeded by ignorance and desire, men with little intelligence pursue only external objects of desire. By that cause, they get into the meshes of widespread, i.e., omnipresent death, i.e., the combination of ignorance, desire and karma. Meshes] that which binds, consisting in the possession and deprivation of the body, the senses, etc. The meaning is that they fall into a continuous stream of manifold misery, such as birth, death, old age, sickness, etc., This being so, the intelligent, knowing the certain immortality of concentration in the pratyagâtman (the immortality of the Dêvâs and the rest is uncertain; but this consisting in concentration in the pratyagâtman is certain, because it does not increase or suffer diminution by karma); i.e., knowing this constant and unshakable immortality, the knowers of Brahman do not covet any, among the ephemeral objects here, i.e., in samsâra full of misery, because these objects are opposed to the realisation of the pratyagâtman. The drift is that they rise above the desires of sons, wealth and worlds.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—How is that to be known, other than the knowledge of which Brâhmins do not crave anything. This is explained. By which, i.e., the âtman whose nature is intelligence; all the world clearly knows form, taste, smell, sounds, touches and the pleasurable sensations due to the commingling of the sexes. It may here be objected that the experience of the world is not in the form ‘I know by the âtman distinct from the body, etc.’; but that all the world thinks in the form ‘I, the combination of the body, etc., Know.’ Not so; even the combination of the body, etc., not being distinguishable in its nature from sounds and the rest and being in the nature of a knowable, it is not reasonable to attribute the nature of knower to it; for if the combination of the body, etc., being no other than form, etc., could perceive other forms, etc., even external forms, etc., may perceive their own and

Commentary of Shankaracharya

NOTE:- Tranlsation and commentary is missing from the book. The alternate translation for the verse presented above is from Swami Paramananda.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

NOTE:- Tranlsation and commentary is missing from the book. The alternate translation for the verse presented above is from Swami Paramananda.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—This shows that he who was pointed as the pratyagâtman and Isvara is the âtman of all. Yah ] some seeker after emancipation. Pûrvam ] first. Tapasah ] from the Brahman defined as knowledge, etc. Jâtam ] created or produced, the first-born of Brahman, i.e., Hiranyagarhha. ‘Born before whom’ is explained. Adbhyah pûrvam ] before the five elements, including water; not before water alone; ajâyata ] was born. This first-born who having created the bodies of the Dêvâs, etc., entered the âkâs of the heart of every living thing and is there seated, perceiving sounds, etc., Bhûtêbhih means Bhûtâh or elements in the nature of cause and effect. Who sees him seated with them:- who sees thus. See this alone, i.e., Brahman the subject of our present discussion.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Dêvatâmayî ] in the form of all the Dêvatâs. Prâpena ] as Hiranyagarbha; is born] from the highest Brahman; aditi ] so called, because she eats as it were sounds, etc.; her] who as before entered the heart and is there seated, the text describes her. Who was born along with bhûtâs or living creatures.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Again, the sacrificial fire lodged in the upper arani and the lower arani, the eater of all offerings and the fire within the body; which are well-maintained by the ritviks and yôgins, respectively, as the foetus is well-maintained in the world by pregnant women, by means of food, drink, etc., not condemned. Moreover, fit to be worshipped, i.e., eulogised and adored every day by those who follow Karma and by those who follow yôga, in sacrifices and at heart; jâgrivadbhih, who are by nature on the alert, i.e., watchful. Havishmadbhih, by those having offerings such as ghee, etc., and by those having contemplation and meditation. This verily is that—that Brahman now treated of.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Moreover, that prâna from which the sun rises and that where alone the sun every day sets, that prana. i.e., the Adhidaiva and the Adhyâtma aspect of Atman as the gods and speech, etc., as the senses enter into, while they last, as spokes in a wheel. Even he is certainly Brahman. That is this Brahman, the âtman of all. None certainly passes beyond that] none ceasing to be of the nature of that becomes other than that. This verily is that.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—This is said in order that the doubt may not arise in anybody; that what exists in all from the Brahma down to the immovable and appears, being subject to particular conditions, as something other than Brahman and subject to samsâra, he is different from the highest Brahman. What indeed is here subject to conditions of causes and effects and appears to the ignorant as possessing the attributes of sâmsâra, he is indeed the Brahman there centred within the body, in his nature dense with eternal knowledge and devoid of the attributes of all samsâra; again, what there is centred with self is itself here subject to conditions of name, form, cause and effect and is no other. This being so, he who here deluded by ignorance, which consists in seeing difference by the nature of the conditions sees in the Brahman which is one, a variety, thinking thus ‘I am other than the highest Brahman and the highest Brahman is other than I’, goes from death to death, i.e., is again born and dies; so, one should not see thus. The drift of the text is that one should see thus. ‘I am indeed the Brahman, the one unalloyed intelligence, all-pervading, filling all space like the âkâs’.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Before attaining the knowledge of the oneness, by the mind purified by the sâstrâs and by the preceptor, this unalloyed essence of the Brahman should be attained in the form ‘There is the Brahman alone, nothing else exists.’ When attained, ignorance, the cause of the perception of difference being removed, there is not even the slightest difference here, i.e., in the Brahman. But he who does not give up....^[1]

Footnotes: Sloka-2.1.11-C2

Commentary of Shankaracharya

NOTE:- Tranlsation and commentary is missing from the book. The alternate translation for the verse presented above is from Swami Paramananda.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

NOTE:- Tranlsation and commentary is missing from the book. The alternate translation for the verse presented above is from Swami Paramananda.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

NOTE:- Tranlsation and commentary is missing from the book. The alternate translation for the verse presented above is from Swami Paramananda.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—But how becomes the âtman of a thinker who has acquired knowledge, whose perception of difference due to conditions has been destroyed, and who knows the âtman pure, dense with knowledge unalloyed, and one without a second, is explained. As water pure poured into pure becomes of the same quality, not otherwise, the âtman also of the thinker becomes the same, Oh Gautama. Therefore, leaving the perception of difference induced by bad logic and the erroneous notion of no-here-after, the perception of the one-ness of the âtman inculcated by the Vêdâs, a better well-wisher than thousands of mothers and fathers should be anxiously respected by those whose pride has been quelled.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—As Brahman is not easily knowable, this if commenced for the purpose of ascertaining the entity of the Brahman, again by another method. City] being like a city, this body is called a city, because we find in it the appendages of a city such as gatekeepers, their controllers, etc.; a city with all its appendages has been found to exist, for an owner independent of it and not mixed up with it; similarly, from its resemblance to a city, the body, a bundle of many appendages, must exist for an owner occupying the place of a king and not mixed up with it; and this city named body has eleven gates; seven in the head, and three lower down including the navel and one at the top of the head; whose this is, i.e., of the unborn] of the âtman not subject to modifications such as birth, etc., occupying the place of the king and dissimilar in its properties to the city; avakra chêtasah:- whose chetah, i.e., knowledge is not crooked and eternally existent like the splendour of the sun and uniform, i.e., of the Brahman occupying the place of the king; contemplating on that Paramêsvara, highest Lord, the owner of the city; for the word anushthânam here means the contemplation of him leading to sound knowledge or realisation of him contemplating on him, as living equally in all things, one does not grieve, being freed from all desire; fearlessness being attained by knowing him, there being no occasion for grief, whence could he fear? Even here, he becomes freed from the ties of desire and karma induced by ignorance and being thus freed, he becomes free, i.e., does not enter a body again.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—And he the âtman does not live in the city of one body alone; but he lives in all cities. How hamsah ] one who moves; suchishat ] dwelling in heaven as the sun. Vasuh, one who animates all; dwells in the inter-space, as wind; hôtâ ] fire, according to the sruti ‘fire indeed is hôtâ;’ Vêdishat ] dwelling in Vêdi or earth, according to the srutis ‘ this Vêdi is the supreme nature of earth,’ etc. Atithih ] sômah. Durônasat ] dwelling in Durôna, i.e., vessel; or a Brâhmin dwelling in the house (Durôna) as a guest (atithih); nrishat ] dwelling in men; Varasat ] dwelling in betters, i.e., the Devas. Ritasat dwelling in rita, i.e., truth or sacrifice; Vyômasat dwelling in Vyôma, i.e., âkâsa, Abjâh ] those born in water, in the form of conch, mother of pearl, whale, etc.; gojâh ] those born of the earth in the form of corn, grain, etc.; ritajâh, those born in the form of appendages ta sacrifice; adrijâh ] those born of mountains in the form of rivers, etc.; though the âtman of all, he is ritam, i.e., of unchanging nature. Brihat, great, being the cause of all; even when the sun alone is described by the mantra, even then, from the fact that the sun is accepted as âtman in his nature, there is no conflict in this commentary. The meaning of the mantra is that the âtman of the universe is only one and all-pervading and there is no difference in the âtman.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—In realising the existence of the âtman an evidence is offered—Upwards] from the heart. Prâba ] the wind, whose function is connected with breath. Unnayati ] leads upwards. Similarly casts the apâna downwards. The word yah (who), should be supplied to complete the sentence. Him seated in the middle, i.e., in the âkâs of the lotus of the heart, with the light of knowledge clearly shining in the intellect and worthy of worship, all the Dêvâs, i.e., the senses, the eyes and the rest propitiate, by bringing in the perceptions of form, etc., as the subjects please the king, by offerings, i.e., they are uninterruptedly active on his account. The drift of the text is that there is another on whose behalf and by whom is directed all the activity of the winds and the senses.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Again, of this âtman in the body, visramsamânasya ] escaping. Dehinah ] embodied. The meaning of the word visramsamâna is explained by the expression dêhât vimuchyamânasya (being free from the body); what here remains? nothing of the whole lot of prâna, etc., remains. Here] in the body; the âtman, on whose leaving the body, all this lot of effects and causes becomes in an instant enervated, destroyed and defunct, as in the case of the inhabitants of a city, when the lord of the city, is driven out of it, has been established to be some other than all this.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—The theory may be urged ‘that the body becomes destroyed only by the exit of prana, apâna, etc., and not by the exit of the âtman distinct from these; for, man lives only by prana and the rest’. This is not so; not by prâna, not by apâna, not by the eyes, etc., does a mortal having a body live. These acting jointly for the benefit of some other cannot be the source of life. The existence of houses, etc., composite in their nature, has not been seen in the world to be undirected by some other not connected with them, for whose benefit they exist; so also, it should be in the case of the combination of prâna and the rest. Therefore, it is by some other alone, dissimilar to the combination of prâpa and the rest, all these combined maintain their life. On which âtman, dissimilar to those combined, the really existent and the highest, these two prâna, and apâna combined with the eyes and the rest, depend and for the benefit of whom (not so combined) prâna, apâna and the rest perform their functions in combination, he is established to be other than they.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—I will now explain to thee again this secret ancient Brahman by whose knowledge cessation of all samsâra results and not knowing which, how after death the âtman travels in samsâra. Listen, Oh Gautama.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Into wombs, combined with semen virile. Some ignorant fools go to take a body. The meaning is that the jîvas having a body enter the womb. Others, yet inferior after death, become immoveable, such as trees and the rest; ‘according to their karma, means according to karma performed by them, i.e., by the form of karma performed by them, in this birth. Similarly also , ‘ according to their knowledge,’ i.e., according to the nature of knowledge acquired by them. The meaning is that they take a body corresponding to them; for, another sruti says ‘they are born according to their knowledge.’

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—What was pledged in ‘I will explain the secret Brahman’ is now explained. This Purusha who wakes, i.e., does not sleep, when all, i.e., when prâna and the rest are asleep, creating by ignorance whatever was desired, i.e., objects of perception, such as woman and the rest, is certainly pure; and that is the Brahman. There is no other secret Brahman. It is that alone which is said to be immortal, i.e., deathless in all the sâstrâs. Moreover, the worlds, earth and the rest, all depend on the Brahman, that being the cause of all worlds. None passeth beyond that, etc., as already explained.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—As the knowledge of the oneness of the âtman, though supported by authority and often reiterated, is not firmly grasped by the intellect of perverse-headed Brahmins, whose mind is shaken by the intellect (arguments) of many logicians, the sruti, being anxious to inculcate it, says again and again:- as fire, though one, bright by nature, having entered the world (Bhuvanam meaning world, because all bhavanti, i.e., are born there) in respect of everything to be burnt assumes separate shapes; so, being one only, the internal âtrnan of all, having entered all bodies such as fire in logs, etc., being extremely subtle, assumes forms responsive and is also without them all, like the âkâs, in his own unmodified nature.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.— So, another illustration (is offered by ‘as wind though one’, etc.). The analogy is complete, as he enters all bodies as prâtta and takes forms corresponding to every form.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Seeing that if one be the âtman of all, he may be regarded as subject to the grief of samsâra, this is said. As the sun benefiting the eye by its rays and manifesting even unclean things such as urine, ordure, etc., though being the eye of all, the world seeing them is not tainted with sins and other blemishes due to seeing unclean things, etc., and by stains caused by physical contact with unclean objects so the one internal âtman is not tainted with the misery of the world, being outside that; for, the world by ignorance superposed on the âtman, suffers misery arising from desire and karma. But that is not really in the âtman, just as, the serpent, silver, water and dirt superposed on the rope, mother-of-pearl, barren spot and the sky, respectively, do not really exist as blemishes in the rope, etc.; from the superposition, by false notion, they are perceived as blemishes in the true objects connected (by the notion); the true objects are not tainted by such blemishes because they are external to the false notion so superposed. Thus the world having superposed on the âtman, the false notion of deed, agency and fruits like the notion of the serpent (on the rope), suffers the misery of birth, death, etc., due to that. But the âtman, though the âtman of all the world, is not tainted by the misery of the world arising from the superposition of a false notion. Why? being external. Because he is like the rope, etc., external to the false notion superposed on him.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Moreover, he, the lord of all, all-pervading, independent, is one (there is none other equal to him or greater than he); vasî ] under whose control all the universe is; because he is the internal âtman of all; for, he makes himself though one, of the nature of unalloyed pure knowledge, diverse by the differences of impure conditions of name, form, etc., by his mere existence, having unthinkable powers. Âtmastham ] clearly perceived in the form of knowledge, in the conditioned intellect, in the âkâsa of the heart, within the body; for, the body is not the supporter of the âtman, he being formless as the âkâsa. He is like the face reflected in the mirror. To those discerning persons who perceive this lord, this âtman, all their external activities being checked in accordance with the teaching of the preceptor and the âgamâs and realise him directly, to those who have become lords of all, belongs the eternal bliss, i.e., delight in self and not to the undiscerning others, whose intelligence is engrossed by external objects, though the bliss is their own âtman, which in the case of the latter is concealed by ignorance.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Again, deathless among mortal things, conscious among the conscious, such as Brahma and other living beings. As the power of burning in water and the rest, which are not fire in themselves, is due to fire, so, the intelligence of others is due to the intelligence of the âtman; again, he, omniscient and lord over all, dispenses to those having desire, i.e., to those in samsâra, according to their respective karma, the fruits of karma and desired objects, according to his grace, himself one, to many, without effort. To such intelligent men as see him seated in their selves, eternal peace accrues, not to others, i.e., to those who do not see so.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—That bliss of the knowledge of the âtman which is indescribable, highest and which, though beyond the speech and mind of men, under the sway of Prakriti, they, the Brâhmins freed from all desire, describe as this, i.e., as something directly perceived; how; i.e., by what process shall I know that bliss:- i.e., realise it as thus perceivable by my intelligence, as the sanyâsins freed from desire, do? Is that which is luminous of itself an object clearly perceivable by our intelligence or not?

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—The reply here is that it shines and is perceived as shining. The sun, though the enlightener of all, does not shine in the Brahman, being his âtman, i.e., the sun does not illumine the Brahman. Similarly, the moon and the stars do not; nor do these lightnings illumine. How could this fire, perceivable by us? Why say much? All these, the sun and the rest who shine, shine only after him, the lord of all; as water, firebrand, etc., from their contact with fire, burn after the burning fire and not by their own inherent virtue. It is by his light only, that all this, the sun and the rest shine. This being so, that Brahman alone shines and shines variously. From the various kinds of light possessed by its effects, the self-luminosity of the Brahman is inferred. It is not possible for one to impart to another luminosity, which one does not possess, because pots, etc., are found incapable of illumining other objects and the sun and the rest, luminous in their nature, are found capable of that.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—As in the world, the ascertainment of the root of a tree is made by ascertaining the nature of the tula (panicle of the flower), this sixth valli (part) is begun with the object of ascertaining the nature of the Brahman, the source (of the samsâra tree,) by ascertaining the nature of the effect, the tree of samsâra. Root up, having its root up, i.e., ‘that highest place of Vishnu’ is its root, this tree of samsâra, extending from the avyakta to the immoveable, has its root up, i.e., in Brahman. It is vriksha (tree), so called, because it is felled; this tree consisting in manifold miseries of birth, decay, death and grief, etc., changing its nature every moment, like jugglery, waters of the mirage, a city formed by the clouds in the sky, etc.; because like these perceived only to vanish ultimately, non-existent like a tree, sapless like the stem of the plantain tree, the subject of several doubtful alternatives in the intellects of many hundreds of sceptics, not ascertained to be what it really is by seekers after truth, receiving its sap from its source, i.e., the highest Brahman ascertained by Vêdânta, growing from the seed of ignorance, desire, karma and avyaktam, having for its sprout hiranyagarbha—the combination of the power of knowledge and activity of the lower Brahman, having for its skandha (trunk), the various subtle bodies of all living things, possessed of the pride of stature from the sprinkling of the waters of desire, having for its tender buds the objects of intelligence and the senses, having for its leaves the srutis, the smritis, logic, learning and instruction, filled with the lovely flowers of sacrifice, gift, penance and many other deeds, having various tastes such as the experience of joy and sorrow, having endless fruits on which living beings subsist, with its roots well grown, i.e., (tendencies of the mind) entwined and fastened firm by the sprinkling of the waters of desire for the fruits, with the nests built by birds, i.e., all living beings from Brahma downwards in the seven worlds beginning with that called satya, reverberating with the tumultuous noise arising from dancing, singing, instrumental music, joking, clapping on the shoulders, laughing, pulling, crying, exclaiming ‘leave me,’ ‘leave me,’ etc., induced by mirth and grief, produced by the happiness and misery of living beings and felled by the unresisted sword of the realisation of the Paramâtman proved by the Vêdânta, this tree of Samsâra, always shaking by its nature to the wind of desire and karma, like the asvattha tree, having its branches, i.e., heaven, hell, the world of beasts and prêtâs, etc., downwards, existing from time immemorial, because having no beginning. That which is the root of this tree of Samsâra is indeed pure, bright, i.e., resplendent, the intelligence of âtman; that indeed is Brahman, being greater than all; that indeed is described as immortal in nature, being true; any other than that is a mere matter of speech, modification, name and falsehood and therefore subject to death. On that, i. e., on the Brahman absolutely true, do all the worlds, false like the city of clouds in the sky, waters of the mirage and jugglery (mâya) and perceived as non-existent by the knowledge of the absolute truth, depend during their birth, stay and absorption. None, i.e., no modification passes beyond that, i.e., Brahman, as the thing made, such as pot, etc., does not pass beyond the mud, etc. This verily is that.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—If it be said that Brahman, the source of the world, by knowledge of which men are said to become immortal, does not exist and that all this has come out of nothing, it is not sound; all this universe, the highest Brahman existing, moves; and having come out of that alone, acts regularly. This Brahman, the cause of the origin, etc., of the universe is mahatbhaya, i. e., great and terrible. It is like the thunderbolt uplifted; as, at the sight of the master with the thunderbolt raised in his hand, the servants regularly keep his commands, so this world, with its lords and with the sun, moon, planets, constellation and stars, etc., regularly and without a moment's respite obeys the law. This is the drift. Those who know this, this highest Brahman, the witness of all the modifications of one’s mind, become immortal.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—How the world lives from fear, of him, is explained. The fire burns from fear of him, the lord of all; the sun shines from fear; from fear, Indra and Wind; and Death, the fifth, runs; for, if Brahman did not exist as controller of the competent protectors of the world, like one with the thunderbolt uplifted in his hand, their well-regulated activity, as that of the servants trembling from fear of the master would not be possible.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—If he is able to know and knows even during life, this Brahman} the cause of fear, before the falling of the body, then he becomes freed from the bond of Samsâra. If he is not able to know, then, i.e., from want of that knowledge, he becomes able to take, i.e., he takes a body in earth and other worlds, where those who are fit to be created, are created. Therefore, before the falling of the body, attempt should be made to realise the âtman; for the realisation of the âtman even here will be clearly horrible as that of a face reflected in a mirror; not in other worlds except the Brahmalôka; and that is hard to reach.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—How is explained. As one in the world sees his own image reflected in a mirror very distinctly, so the realisation of the âtman in one's intelligence, when spotless like a mirror, becomes clear. As in dreams, the perception is indistinct and produced, i.e., (obscured) by the reminiscences of the waking state, so indistinct is the realisation of the âtman in the world of the manes, being engrossed in the enjoyment of the fruits of karma. As the image of one's self reflected in water is seen indistinctly, with the various parts not defined, so is the realisation of the âtman in the world of the Gandharvâs certainly indistinct. Thus, it is inferred from the authority of the sâstrâs, even in other worlds, it is only in one, the Brahmalôka, that it is very distinct, as that of light and shadow and that (Brahmalôka) is hard to attain requiring as means, a combination of very special karma and knowledge, i.e., (worship). The drift, therefore, is that one should attempt to realise the âtman even while here (in this world).

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—How is he to be known and what avails it to know him are explained. Of the senses, such as the ear, etc., separately originating from their causes, the âkâsa, etc., for perceiving their respective objects, knowing their distinctness, i.e., dissimilarity of their nature to the nature of the âtman extremely pure, untainted, and all intelligence; and also the rising and setting, i.e., the creation and absorption of the senses, to depend on the waking and sleeping states and that the âtman has neither beginning nor end, the intelligent man does not grieve. The eternally identical nature of the âtman never changing, there can be no cause of grief. So also another sruti says ‘The knower of the âtman crosses grief.’

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—As the senses have been stated to be distinct from the âtman, he cannot be externally perceived; because he is the internal principle of all. How it is so, is explained. Beyond the senses, is the mind, etc., As arthâs (rudiments) here are of the same class with the senses, they are included in the word Indriya. The rest as previously explained. The word saiva here denotes ‘intellect.’

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Beyond the Avyaktam is Purusha all-pervad-ing, being the cause of all âkâsa, etc., which is all-pervading. Devoid of linga ] that by which anything is reached (known) is linga such as intellect, etc. That does not exist in him; so he is devoid of linga. The meaning in effect is devoid of all the attributes of samsâra. Him knowing, both from the preceptor and the sâstrâs, the mortal, even during life, is freed from the knots of the heart, such as ignorance, etc., and even when the body falls, attains immortality. This clause is connected with the previous one thus. He is the Purusha beyond the Avyaktam, etc.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

NOTE:- Commentary is missing from the book.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

NOTE:- Tranlsation and commentary is missing from the book. The alternate translation for the verse presented above is from Swami Paramananda.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

NOTE:- Tranlsation and commentary is missing from the book. The alternate translation for the verse presented above is from Swami Paramananda.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—If the Brahman could be perceived by the operation of the intellect, etc., it can be specifically apprehended as this or that. When the intellect, etc., cease to act, Brahman which is not cognised, in the absence of the cause of cognition, does certainly not exist; for, it is only when anything is perceived by the instruments of cognition, it is reputed in the world to exist; and the contrary is said to be non-existing; and, therefore, yôga is useless; or, the Brahman not being known should be known as non-existing. If it is thus urged, it is thus replied ‘true not by speech, not by mind, not by the eye, not by other senses, could he be known; still, though devoid of any attributes, being known as the origin of the universe, he certainly exists; for, that into which effects are absorbed must certainly exist; for, here also, this effect traced back in the ascending series of subtlety leads only to the conviction of something as existent (in the last resort).’ The intellect, even in the ultimate analysis of all the objects of perception, is still pregnant with a belief in the existence of something; for, the intellect is our authority in the comprehending of the real nature of existence and non-existence. If the universe had no existing cause, then the effect (the world) being inseparably connected with non-existence would be apprehended as nonexisting. But this is not so; it is perceived as existing only as pot, etc., made of earth, is perceived in combination with earth. Therefore, the cause of the world, the âtman, must be known as existing. Wherefore? In any other than him who believes in existence, follows the drift of the agâmâs and is possessed of faith, i.e., one who argues that there is no âtman, the source of the universe, and that all this effect not connected with any cause is absorbed into nonexistence and who thus sees perversely, how can that Brahman be truly known? The meaning is it cannot at all be known.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Therefore, having abandoned the theory of those who argue for non-existence, the âtman should be known as existing, as productive of effects and conditioned by intelligence. But when the âtman is devoid of that and subject to no modification (an effect has no existence independent of the cause); as the sruti says ‘a modification is a mere matter of speech and name; that it is mud is alone true,’ then, is the true nature of the âtman unconditioned, devoid of indicative marks, and incapable of being thought of, as existent or non-existent. In that nature also, ‘the âtman should be known’ follows. Of these two] of the conditioned and the unconditioned, i.e., known as existence and its true nature; the genitive case has the froce of Nirdhârana, i.e., determining; of the âtman previously known as merely existent] of the âtman known by the belief in its existence produced by its limitations, i.e., its perceived effects. Afterwards, the real nature of the âtman subject to no condition, different from both the known and the unknown, i.e., the manifested universe and the prakriti, one without a second, and indicated by the srutis ‘ not this, not that, etc.,’ ‘not gross, not subtle, not short ‘in the invisible, bodiless, supportless, etc.,’ faces him who had previously realised it as existent.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—When of the person thus seeing the truth, all desires, which were clinging to the intellect of the knower before he attained the knowledge, fall off from want of anything else to be desired (for intellect and not the âtman is the seat of desires, and also from another sruti which says desire, volition, etc.), then the mortal (he was so before he attained the knowledge), subsequently to the acquisition of knowledge, becomes immortal, death consisting in ignorance, desire and karma being destroyed, and becomes Brahman even here (there being no necessity of going, death resulting in a going having been destroyed) like fire extinguished, all bondage being destroyed.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—When again, the up-rooting of all desires takes place is explained. When all the ties of the heart of one, while yet alive, i.e., all the modifications of the intellect due to ignorance which are in the nature of fast-bound knots are destroyed; when the ties of the heart, i.e., such as the beliefs ‘I am this body,’ ‘this is my wealth,’ ‘I am happy or miserable,’ etc., are destroyed by the rise of the contrary belief in the identity of the Brahman and the âtman, in the form ‘I am certainly Brahman not subject to Samsâra’ the desires which originate in those ties are destroyed to their very root; then the mortal becomes immortal. Thus much alone—the doubt that there is more should not be raised—is the instruction. Of all the Vedântâs’ should be supplied to complete the sentence,

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—It has been stated that there is no going; for, the knower who has attained the knowledge that the âtman is the all-pervading Brahman devoid of all attributes and who has untied all the knots due to ignorance, &c., and who has become Brahman even while alive; because, says the sruti ‘ he attains Brahman here’ and also says another sruti ‘ his prânâs do not go out.’ ‘Being Brahman, he attains Brahman; but, for those who attain Brahmalôka by the knowledge of the lower Brahman and by other kinds of worship and for those of an opposite kind who whirl in samsâra this special way is pointed out, with a view to eulogise the fruits of the knowledge of the higher Brahman now treated of; moreover, the knowledge of the agni has been made the subject of a question and a reply and this mantra is begun also for the purpose of stating the process by which the fruit of that knowledge is attained. Here, nerves, one hundred in number, and one other named sushumnâ branch out from the heart of man. Among them, the one named sushumnâ has gone out piercing the head. At the moment of death, one should control the âtman in the heart and make it join that nerve, nâdi; going up by that nerve, one goes through the orb of the sun and attains relative immortality; according to the smriti permanency till the absorption of the elements is spoken of as immortality; or, he attains absolute immortality along with Brahma, in due course of time, having enjoyed incomparable pleasures in the Brahmalôka. At the time of death, the other nerves travel diverse ways, i.e., they become the cause of one, being born again in samsâra alone.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—Now the sruti says this, for the purpose of concluding the drift of all the vallis. The Purusha of the size of a thumb, the internal âtman, as previously explained, is seated in the heart of all men. One should draw him out, i.e., separate him from one’s own body; ‘like what’ is explained. As the stalk within the grass, from the grass boldly with self-composure. Him, so drawn out from the body, one should know as Brahman previously described, pure, immortal and mere intelligence. The repetition and the use of the particle ‘iti’ are to show that the Upanishad ends here.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—This conclusion of the story intended to eulogise knowledge is now stated. Nachikêtas having obtained from Death by the granting of boons, the knowledge of the Brahman imparted as above said and also all the instruction about yôga with its fruits, attained Brahman, i.e., became immortal. How? Being already freed from vice and virtue and from desire and ignorance. Not merely Nachikêtas alone but even another who like Nachikêtas, knows the âtman and realizes its true nature unconditioned and within all, and not its form which is not within all. Who knows the nature of the âtman, as thus stated, such knower also; ‘being untainted becomes deathless, by attaining Brahman’ should be supplied to complete the sentence.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Com.—This sânti (expiatory prayer) is stated here for the purpose of removing all faults incurred by the disciple and preceptor, in the course of receiving, and imparting knowledge respectively, and caused by dereliction of rules due to oversight or excitement. Let him protect us both by illumining the nature of knowledge. Who? He alone, the Lord of all, revealed by the Upanishads. Again, let him protect us both, by revealing the fruits of such knowledge. Let us together acquire the strength produced by knowledge. Moreover, may what is studied by us, who are bright, be well studied! Or may what is studied, i.e., acquired by study, by us, be very potent! May we, disciple and preceptor, never hate each other, owing to blame incurred by us, by improper recital or instruction due to oversight! The repetition three times of ‘Peace,’ as ‘Peace! Peace! Peace!’ is for averting all evil. The word Om is to show that the Upanishad ends here.