Kena Upanisad

“केनेषितम्” (KenU.1.1) इत्याद्योपनिषत् पर-ब्रह्म-विषया वक्तव्या_इति नवम् अस्य_अध्यायस्यारम्भः। प्राग् एतस्मात् कर्माण्य् अशेषतः परिसमापितानि, समस्त-कर्माश्रय-भूतस्य च प्राणस्य_उपासनानि_उक्तानि, कर्माङ्ग-साम-विषयाणि च (TalBr.1–8)। अन्-अन्तरं च गायत्र-साम-विषयं दर्शनं वंशान्तम् उक्तं (कार्यम्)।
Since the Upaniṣad commencing with ‘Keneṣitam’ and revealing the supreme Brahman has to be spoken of, the ninth chapter
[•The Kena Upaniṣad forms part of the Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa of the Talavakāra branch of the Sāma-Veda.•]
begins. Earlier than this, rites have been exhaustively dealt with, and the (different) meditations on the vital force as the basis of rites, as also the meditations on the (Various) Sāmas
[•A Sāma song is divided into parts – five or seven. This Sāma as also each of its parts has to be thought of variously.•],
forming parts of rites, have been spoken of. After that is stated the meditation on the Gāyatra Sāma, (thought of as the vital force), which ends with a succession of teachers and pupils and which relates to effects of action.

सर्वम् एतद् यथोक्तं कर्म च ज्ञानं च सम्यग्-अनुष्ठितं निष्कामस्य मुमुक्षोः सत्त्व-शुद्ध्यर्थं भवति।
If all these rites and meditations, as enjoined, are properly observed, they become the cause of purification of the mind of one who is free from desires and longs for emancipation.

स-कामस्य तु ज्ञान-रहितस्य केवलानि श्रौतानि स्मार्तानि च कर्माणि दक्षिण-मार्ग-प्रतिपत्तये पुनर्-आवृत्तये च भवन्ति। स्वाभाविक्या त्व् अशास्त्रीयया प्रवृत्त्या पश्वादि-स्थावरान्ता अधो-गतिः स्यात्। “अथैतयोः पथोर् न कतरेण चन तानीमानि क्षुद्राण्य् असकृद् आवर्तीनि भूतानि भवन्ति ‘जायस्व म्रियस्व’ इत्येतत् तृतीयं स्थानम्” (ChanU.5.10.8) इति श्रुतेः, “प्रजा ह तिस्रोऽत्यायम् ईयुः” (AitAr.2.1.1) इति च मन्त्र-वर्णात्।
But in the case of one who cherishes desires and has no enlightenment (i.e. meditation on or knowledge of gods), the rites by themselves, as enjoined in the Vedas and Smṛtis, become the cause for the attainment of the Southern Path and for return to this world. But through activity prompted by natural impulses that are repugnant to the scriptures, there will be degradation into lower beings ranging from beasts to the motionless ones (trees etc.) in accordance with the Veda text. ‘(If one does not perform rites or meditation), then one does not proceed by either of these Paths (Northern or Southern). They become these little creatures (mosquitoes etc.) that are constantly subject to birth and death following the (divine) order “Be born and die.” This is the third state’ (ChanU.5.10.8); and in accordance with the words of the other text: ‘Three kinds of beings [•Born from the womb, egg, or earth.•] followed a course that deviates (from these Northern and Southern Paths)’ [•And thereby they tread a path of sorrow.•] (AitAr.2.1.1).

विशुद्ध-सत्त्वस्य तु निष्-कामस्यैव बाह्याद् अनित्यात् साध्य-साधन-सम्बन्धाद् इह-कृतात् पूर्व-कृताद् वा संस्कार-विशेषोद्भवाद् विरक्तस्य प्रत्यग्-आत्म-विषया जिज्ञासा प्रवर्तते। तद् एतद् वस्तु प्रश्न-प्रतिवचन-लक्षणया श्रुत्या प्रदर्श्यते “केनेषितम्” (KenU.1.1) इत्याद्यया। काठके चोक्तम्
The longing for the knowledge of the indwelling Self arises only in that desireless man of pure mind who has renounced all transitory, external means and ends by virtue of the emergence of a special kind of tendency (in his mind) created by works done in this life or in previous ones. This fact is being shown in the form of questions and answers by the Veda text beginning with ‘Keneṣitam’.

पराञ्चि खानि व्यतृणत् स्वयम्-भूस् तस्मात् पराङ् पश्यति नान्तरात्मन्।
○ कश्चिद् धीरः प्रत्यग्-आत्मानम् ऐक्षद् आवृत्त-चक्षुर् अमृतत्वम् इच्छन्॥ (KathU.2.1.1) इत्यादि।
In the Kaṭha Upaniṣad, too, it is said, 'The self-existent Lord destroyed the outgoing senses; therefore one sees the outer things and not the Self within. A rare discriminating man, desiring immortality, turns his eyes away and then sees the indwelling Self' (KathU.2.1.1) etc.

परीक्ष्य लोकान् कर्म-चितान् ब्राह्मणो निर्वेदम् आयान् नास्त्य् अकृतः कृतेन।
○ तद्-विज्ञानार्थं स गुरुम् एवाभिगच्छेत् समित्-पाणिः श्रोत्रियं ब्रह्म-निष्ठम्॥ (MunU.1.2.12) इत्याद्य्-आथर्वणे च।
And in the (Muṇḍaka) Upaniṣad of the Ātharva-Veda it is said, ‘Having examined the worlds attainable by work thus: “The unproduced (everlasting emancipation) is not to be produced by work”, the Brāhmaṇa should resort to renunciation. In order to know that Reality fully, he must go, with sacrificial sticks in hand, only to a teacher versed in the Vedas and is established in Brahman’ (MunU.1.2.12).

एवं हि विरक्तस्य प्रत्यग्-आत्म-विषयं विज्ञानं श्रोतुं मन्तुं विज्ञातुं च सामर्थ्यम् उपपद्यते, नान्यथा। एतस्माच् च प्रत्यग्-आत्म-ब्रह्म-विज्ञानात् संसार-बीजम् अज्ञानं काम-कर्म-प्रवृत्ति-कारणम् अशेषतो निवर्तते, “तत्र को मोहः कः शोक एकत्वम् अनुपश्यतः” (IsU.7) इति मन्त्र-वर्णात्, “तरति शोकम् आत्म-वित्” (ChanU.7.1.3) इति
In this way alone, does a man of detachment acquire the competence to hear, meditate on, and realize the knowledge of the indwelling Self, and not otherwise. Besides, as a result of this realization of the indwelling Self as Brahman, there comes the total cessation of ignorance which is the seed of bondage and the cause of the emergence of desire and activity, in accordance with the verse: ‘What sorrow and what delusion can there be for that seer of oneness?’ (IsU.7); and also in accordance with the Veda texts: 'The knower of the Self transcends sorrow' (ChanU.7.1.3);

भिद्यते हृदय-ग्रन्थिश् छिद्यन्ते सर्व-संशयाः।
○ क्षीयन्ते चास्य कर्माणि तस्मिन् दृष्टे परावरे॥ (MunU.2.2.8) इत्यादि-श्रुतिभ्यश् च।
‘When the One that is both cause and effect is realized the knot of the heart (of the seer) gets untied, all (his) doubts are resolved, and all karma is consumed’ (MunU.2.2.8) etc.

कर्म-सहिताद् अपि ज्ञानाद् एतत् सिध्यति_इति चेत्?
Objection: May it not be argued that this result can be attained even from Knowledge
[•The word jñāna occurs in two senses: (i) Vedānta knowledge and (ii) knowledge about gods or meditation on them. Jñāna in the second sense can be combined with rites and duties, but not Vedānta jñāna.•]
coupled with rites and duties?

न, वाज-सनेयके तस्य_अन्य-कारणत्व-वचनात्। “जाया मे स्यात्” (BrhU.1.4.17) इति प्रस्तुत्य “पुत्रेण…अयं…लोको…जय्यो नान्येन कर्मणा, कर्मणा पितृ-लोको, विद्यया देव-लोकः” (BrhU.1.5.16) इति_आत्मनोऽन्यस्य लोक-त्रयस्य कारणत्वम् उक्तं वाज-सनेयके।
Answer: No, because in the Vāja-saneyaka (Bṛhad-āraṇyaka) Upaniṣad that (combination of rites and meditation) has been spoken of as the cause of a different result. Starting with the text, ‘Let me have a wife’ (BrhUEng.1.4.17), the Vāja-saneyaka shows in the text, ‘This world of man is to be won through the son alone, and by no other rite; the world of the Manes through rites; and the world of the gods through meditation’ (BrhUEng.1.5.16), how rites and duties lead to the attainment of the three worlds that are different from the Self.

तत्र_एव च पारिव्राज्य-विधाने हेतुर् उक्तः “किं प्रजया करिष्यामो येषां नोऽयम् आत्मायं लोकः?” (BrhU.4.4.22) इति। तत्र_अयं हेत्व्-अर्थः – ‘प्रजा-कर्म-तत्-संयुक्त-विद्याभिर् मनुष्य-पितृ-देव-लोक-त्रय-साधनैर् अनात्म-लोक-प्रतिपत्ति-कारणैः किं करिष्यामः? न च_अस्माकं लोक-त्रयम् अनित्यं साधन-साध्यम् इष्टम्, येषाम् अस्माकं स्वाभाविकोऽजोऽजरोऽमृतोऽभयो न वर्धते कर्मणा न-उ कनीयान् नित्यश् च लोक इष्टः’।
And there (in that Upaniṣad itself), again, the reason for embracing renunciation is adduced thus: ‘What shall we achieve through children, we to whom the Self we have attained is the goal?’ (BrhUEng.4.4.22). The explanation of that reason is this: What shall we do with progeny, rites, and meditation combined with rites, which are the means for the attainment of worlds other than that of the Self, and are the causes for the attainment of the three worlds of men, Manes, and gods? Nor are the three worlds – transitory and attainable by means as they are – desirable to us, to whom is desirable the world that is natural, ‘birthless, undecaying, immortal, fearless’ (BrhUEng.4.5.25), that ‘neither increases nor decreases through work’ (BrhUEng.4.4.23), and is eternal.

स च नित्यत्वान् न_अविद्या-निवृत्ति-व्यतिरेकेण_अन्य-साधन-निष्पाद्यः। तस्मात् प्रत्यग्-आत्म-ब्रह्म-विज्ञान-पूर्वकः सर्वैषणा-संन्यास एव कर्तव्य इति।
And being eternal, it is not to be secured by any means other than the cessation of ignorance. Hence the only duty is to renounce all desires after the realization of the unity of the indwelling Self and Brahman.

कर्म-सह-भावित्व-विरोधाच् च प्रत्यग्-आत्म-ब्रह्म-विज्ञानस्य। न हि_उपात्त-कारक-फल-भेद-विज्ञानेन कर्मणा प्रत्यस्तमित-सर्व-भेद-दर्शनस्य प्रत्यग्-आत्म-ब्रह्म-विषयस्य सह-भावित्वम् उपपद्यते, वस्तु-प्राधान्ये सति अपुरुष-तन्त्रत्वाद् ब्रह्म-विज्ञानस्य।
Besides, the knowledge of the identity of the indwelling Self and Brahman militates against its co-existence with work, because the realization of the identity of the Self and Brahman, which eradicates all dual ideas, cannot reasonably coexist with work which presupposes the ideas of the difference of agent and results; for the object (of knowledge) being the deciding factor, the realization of Brahman is not determined by human effort.
[•‘An object of injunction is that which has to be achieved by effort consequent on the injunction. Knowledge is not of that kind’-A.G. The object is the determining factor as regards the content of any valid knowledge. Neither injunction nor any accessory has any effect here.•]

तस्माद् दृष्टादृष्टेभ्यो बाह्य-साधन-साध्येभ्यो विरक्तस्य प्रत्यग्-आत्म-विषया ब्रह्म-जिज्ञासा_इयम् “केनेषितम्” (KenU.1.1) इत्यादि-श्रुत्या प्रदर्श्यते। शिष्याचार्य-प्रश्न-प्रतिवचन-रूपेण कथनं तु सूक्ष्म-वस्तु-विषयत्वात् सुख-प्रतिपत्ति-कारणं भवति। केवल-तर्कागम्यत्वं च दर्शितं भवति।
Therefore this desire to know the indwelling Self, in the case of a man who has renounced all seen and unseen results attainable by external means, is being shown by the Veda text beginning with ‘Keneṣitam’. But the object (of the inquiry) being subtle, the presentation in the form of questions and answers of the student and teacher leads to easy comprehension; and it is also shown that the object is not realizable through mere dialectics.

“नैषा तर्केण मतिर् आपनेया” (KathU.1.2.9) इति श्रुतेश् च। “आचार्यवान् पुरुषो वेद” (ChanU.6.14.2) “आचार्याद् धैव विद्या विदिता साधिष्ठं प्रापद् इति” (ChanU.4.9.3) “तद् विद्धि प्रणिपातेन” (BhG.04.34) इत्यादि-श्रुति-स्मृति-नियमाच् च॥
Moreover, in accordance with the Veda text, ‘This wisdom is not to be attained through dialectics’ (KathU.1.2.9), and the obligation about taking a teacher implied in the Veda and Smṛti texts, ‘One who has a teacher acquires knowledge’ (ChanU.6.14.2), ‘Such knowledge alone as is acquired from a teacher becomes the best’ [•‘Leads to the acquisition of the best result.’-A.G.•] (ChanU.4.9.3). ‘Learn that through surrender (to a teacher)’ (BhG.4.34).

कश्चिद् गुरुं ब्रह्म-निष्ठं विधिवद् उपेत्य, प्रत्यग्-आत्म-विषयाद् अन्यत्र शरणम् अपश्यन्न्, अभयं नित्यं शिवम् अचलम् इच्छन् पप्रच्छ_इति कल्प्यते –
It can be imagined that someone, having found no refuge in anything other than the indwelling Self, and having a longing for the fearless, eternal, auspicious, and unshakable (Brahman), approached a teacher who is established in Brahman, and asked:

केन इषितं केन कर्त्रा इषितम् इष्टम् अभिप्रेतं सत् मनः पतति गच्छति स्व-विषयं प्रति_इति सम्बध्यते। इषेर् आभीक्ष्ण्यार्थस्य गत्य्-अर्थस्य च_इह_असम्भवाद् इच्छार्थस्य_एव_एतद् रूपम् इति गम्यते। इषितम् इति इट्-प्रयोगस् तु छान्दसः।
Kena, by what agent; being iṣitam, willed, directed (iṣṭam, abhipretam); manaḥ, the mind; patati, goes, goes towards its own object – this is the construction. Since the root iṣ cannot be taken here to imply either repetition or going;
[•‘Since the intention here is not to make the mind an object of the concept of either repeated occurrence or going, and since the desire is for knowing some special director of the mind.’-A.G.•]
it must be understood that the present form of the root iṣ in its sense of desiring. The form in which the suffix -iṭ ( the -i- before -ta suffix to its derivative, causal, stem SG.6.6) is used in the word iṣ-i-tam is a Veda licence
[•The correct form should have been ‘eṣ-itam (causal).’-A.G.•].

तस्य_एव प्र-पूर्वस्य नियोगार्थे प्रेषितम् इत्येतत्। तत्र ‘प्रेषितम्’ इति_एव_उक्ते प्रेषयितृ-प्रेषण-विशेष-विषयाकाङ्क्षा स्यात् – केन प्रेषयितृ-विशेषेण, की-दृशं वा प्रेषणम् इति। ‘इषितम्’ इति तु विशेषणे सति तद्-उभयं निवर्तते, कस्य_इच्छामात्रेण प्रेषितम् इत्यर्थ-विशेष-निर्धारणात्।
Preṣitam is a form of the same root, with pra- prefixed to it, in the sense of directing. If the word preṣitam alone were used (without iṣitam) there would arise such an inquiry about the particular kind of director and the direction as; ‘By what particular director? And how is the direction?’ But the attribute iṣitam being there, both the questions are set at rest, because thereby is ascertained a special meaning, viz ‘directed (preṣitam) through whose mere will?’
[•‘By mere presence that involves no effort.’-A.G.•]

यदि_एषोऽर्थोऽभिप्रेतः स्यात्, ‘केनेषितम्’ इति_एतावता_एव सिद्धत्वात् ‘प्रेषितम्’ इति न वक्तव्यम्। अपि च ‘शब्दाधिक्याद् अर्थाधिक्यं युक्तम्’ इति ‘इच्छया कर्मणा वाचा वा केन प्रेषितम्’ इत्यर्थ-विशेषोऽवगन्तुं युक्तः।
Objection: If this be the meaning intended, the purpose is served by the expression willed by alone, and the expression directed need not be used. Moreover, since it is reasonable that an additional word should imply an additional meaning, it is proper to understand some special sense as: ‘By what is it directed – by will, act, or speech?’

न, प्रश्न-सामर्थ्यात्। देहादि-संघाताद् अनित्यात् कर्म-कार्याद् विरक्तः [शिष्यः] अतोऽन्यत् कूट-स्थं नित्यं वस्तु बुभुत्समानः पृच्छति_इति सामर्थ्याद् उपपद्यते। इतरथा इच्छा-वाक्-कर्मभिर् देहादि-संघातस्य प्रेरयितृत्वं प्रसिद्धम् इति प्रश्नोऽनर्थक एव स्यात्।
Answer: This cannot be so because of the trend of the question. For the reasonable conclusion derived from the trend (of the question) is that the inquiry is made by a man who has become disgusted with the ephemeral works and their results, such as the assemblage of the body, senses, etc., and seeks to know something other than these, which is unchangeable and eternal. If it were not so, the question would be surely meaningless, since the directorship of the group of body etc. (over the mind) through will, word, and act is a familiar fact.

एवम् अपि प्रेषित-शब्दस्य_अर्थो न प्रदर्शित एव।
Objection: Even so, the sense of the word directed is not certainly brought out.

न, संशयवतोऽयं प्रश्न इति प्रेषित-शब्दस्य_अर्थ-विशेष उपपद्यते। किं यथा-प्रसिद्धम् एव कार्य-करण-संघातस्य प्रेषयितृत्वम्, किं वा संघात-व्यतिरिक्तस्य स्व-तन्त्रस्य_इच्छामात्रेण_एव मनआदि-प्रेषयितृत्वम्, इत्य् अस्य_अर्थस्य प्रदर्शनार्थं केन_इषितं पतति प्रेषितं मन इति विशेषण-द्वयम् उपपद्यते।
Answer: No, since the word directed can reasonably convey a special sense, viz that it is the question of a man in doubt. Both the adjectives iṣitam (willed) and preṣitam (directed), in the sentence willed by whom the directed mind goes, are justifiable as implying: ‘Does the directorship belong to the aggregate of body and senses, which is a well-known fact; or does the directorship through mere will, over the mind etc., belong to some independent entity which is different from the aggregate?’

ननु स्व-तन्त्रं मनः स्व-विषये स्वयं पतति_इति प्रसिद्धम्, तत्र कथं प्रश्न उपपद्यते? इति,
Objection: Is it not a well-known fact that the mind is free and goes independently to its own object? How can the question arise with regard to that matter?

उच्यते – यदि स्व-तन्त्रं मनः प्रवृत्ति-निवृत्ति-विषये स्यात्, तर्हि सर्वस्य_अनिष्ट-चिन्तनं न स्यात्, अनर्थं च जानन् संकल्पयति। अभ्यग्र-दुःखे च कार्ये वार्यमाणम् अपि प्रवर्तते_एव मनः। तस्माद् युक्त एव ‘केन_इषितम्’ इत्यादि-प्रश्नः।
The answer is this: If the mind were independent in engaging and disengaging itself, then nobody would have contemplated any evil. And yet the mind, though conscious of consequences, wills evil; and though dissuaded, it does engage in deeds of intensely sorrowful result. Hence the question, keneṣitam patati etc., is appropriate.

केन प्राणः युक्तः नियुक्तः प्रेरितः सन् प्रैति गच्छति स्व-व्यापारं प्रति। प्रथम इति प्राण-विशेषणं स्यात्, तत्-पूर्वकत्वात् सर्वेन्द्रिय-प्रवृत्तीनाम्।
Kena, by whom; Prāṇaḥ, the vital force; being yuktaḥ, engaged, directed; praiti, goes, towards its own activity? Prathamaḥ, first, should be an adjective of the vital force, for the activities of all the organs are preceded by it.

केन_इषितां वाचम् इमां शब्द-लक्षणां वदन्ति लौकिकाः।
Imām vācam, this speech, consisting of words; which ordinary people vadanti, utter; kena iṣitām, by whom is it willed (during that utterance)?

तथा चक्षुः श्रोत्रं च स्वे स्वे विषये क उ देवः द्योतनवान् युनक्ति नियुङ्क्ते प्रेरयति॥
Similarly, kaḥ u devaḥ, which effulgent being; yunakti, engages, directs towards their respective objects; cakṣuḥ śrotram, the eyes and the ears?

एवं पृष्टवते योग्याय_आह गुरुः ‘शृणु यत् त्वं पृच्छसि, मनआदि-करण-जातस्य को देवः स्व-विषयं प्रति प्रेरयिता, कथं वा प्रेरयति?’ इति –
To the worthy disciple who had asked thus, the teacher said, ‘Hear what you have asked for in the question, “Who is that effulgent being who is the director of the mind and other organs towards their own objects, and how does he direct?”’

श्रोत्रस्य श्रोत्रं शृणोति_अनेन_इति श्रोत्रम्, शब्दस्य श्रवणं प्रति करणं शब्दाभिव्यञ्जकं श्रोत्रम् इन्द्रियम्, तस्य श्रोत्रं सः यस् त्वया पृष्टः “चक्षुः श्रोत्रं क उ देवो युनक्ति” (KenU.1.1) इति।
Śrotrasya śrotram, the Ear of the ear. The śrotram is that by which one hears, the instrument for the hearing of sound, the organ of hearing which reveals words. He about whom you put the question, ‘Who is the effulgent being who directs the eyes and the ears?’ – is the Ear of the ear.

असौ_एवं-विशिष्टः श्रोत्रादीनि नियुङ्क्ते इति वक्तव्ये, ननु_एतद् अन्-अनुरूपं प्रतिवचनं “श्रोत्रस्य श्रोत्रम्” इति।
Objection: Is it not incongruous to answer, ‘He is the Ear of the ear’, when the reply should have been, ‘So-and-so, with such and such attributes, directs the ears etc.’?

न_एष दोषः, तस्य_अन्यथा विशेषानवगमात्।
Answer: This is no fault, because His distinction cannot be ascertained otherwise.

यदि हि श्रोत्रादि-व्यापार-व्यतिरिक्तेन स्व-व्यापारेण विशिष्टः श्रोत्रादि-नियोक्ता अवगम्येत दात्रादि-प्रयोक्तृवत्, तदा_इदम् अन्-अनुरूपं प्रतिवचनं स्यात्। न तु_इह श्रोत्रादीनां प्रयोक्ता स्व-व्यापार-विशिष्टो लवित्रादिवद् अधिगम्यते।
If the director of the ears etc. could be known as possessed of His own activity, independently of the activities of the ears etc. just as it is in the case of the wielder of sickle etc., then this answer would be incongruous. But as a matter of fact, no director of ears etc., possessed of his own activity, is apprehended here like a mower possessed of a sickle etc.

श्रोत्रादीनाम् एव तु संहतानां व्यापारेण_आलोचन-सङ्कल्पाध्यवसाय-लक्षणेन फलावसान-लिङ्गेन_अवगम्यते ‘अस्ति हि श्रोत्रादिभिर् असंहतः, यत्-प्रयोजन-प्रयुक्तः श्रोत्रादि-कलापः गृहादिवद्’, इति संहतानां परार्थत्वाद् अवगम्यते श्रोत्रादीनां प्रयोक्ता। तस्माद् अनुरूपम् एव_इदं प्रतिवचनं श्रोत्रस्य श्रोत्रम् इत्यादि।
But He can be known (as existing unmixed with the ear etc.) from the logical necessity that such activities as deliberation, volition, determination, of those very composite things, viz the ear etc., must be meant for some one’s benefit. Just as in the case of a house, so also (in this case) there does exist some one, standing outside the conglomeration of ears etc., by whose necessity is impelled the group of ears etc. Thus from the fact that composite things exist for the need of some one else, a director of the ears etc. can be known (i.e., inferred).
[•‘Ears etc. are subsidiary to some one different from themselves, for they are composite things, like a house etc. – by this inference the master of the ears etc. can be known. If he, too, should be a part of the combination, then he will be insentient like the house etc. Then we shall have to imagine another master for him, and so also a third for this. Thus to avoid an infinite regress, a Consciousness that is not a part of the combination is apprehended.’-A.G.•]
Hence the reply, ‘He is the Ear of the ear’, etc. is quite appropriate.

कः पुनर् अत्र पदार्थः “श्रोत्रस्य श्रोत्रम्” इत्यादेः? न हि_अत्र श्रोत्रस्य श्रोत्रान्तरेण_अर्थः, यथा प्रकाशस्य प्रकाशान्तरेण।
Objection: What, again, can there be in the significance here of the expression, ‘The Ear of the ear’ etc? For just as a light has no need for another light, so in this context the ear can have no need for another ear.

न_एष दोषः। अयम् अत्र पदार्थः – श्रोत्रं तावत् स्व-विषय-व्यञ्जन-समर्थं दृष्टम्। तत् तु स्व-विषय-व्यञ्जन-सामर्थ्यं श्रोत्रस्य चैतन्ये हि_आत्म-ज्योतिषि नित्येऽसंहते सर्वान्तरे सति भवति, न_अ-सति_इति। अतः श्रोत्रस्य श्रोत्रम् इत्यादि_उपपद्यते।
Answer: There is no such fault. The significance here of the expression is this: The ear, to wit, is seen to be able to reveal its own object. This ability of the ear to reveal its own object is possible only when the eternal non-composite, all-pervading light of the Self is there, but not otherwise. Hence the expression, ‘Ear of the ear’ etc. is justifiable.

तथा च श्रुत्य्-अन्तराणि – “आत्मना_एव_अयं ज्योतिषा_आस्ते” (BrhU.4.3.6) “तस्य भासा सर्वम् इदं विभाति” (MunU.2.2.10) “येन सूर्यस् तपति तेजसा_इद्धः” (TaitBr.3.12.9.7) इत्यादीनि। “यद् आदित्य-गतं तेजो जगद् भासयतेऽखिलम्।” (BhG.15.12) “क्षेत्रं क्षेत्री तथा कृत्स्नं प्रकाशयति भारत” (BhG.13.33) इति च गीतासु। काठके च “नित्यो नित्यानां चेतनश् चेतनानाम्” (KathU.2.2.13) इति।
To the same effect there are other Veda texts: ‘It is through the light of the Self that he sits’ (BrhUEng.4.3.6), ‘Through His light all this shines’ (KathU.2.2.15; SvetU.6.14; MunU.2.2.10), ‘Kindled by which light the sun shines’ (TaitBr.3.12.9.7), etc. And in the Gītā, ‘(Know that light to be mine), which is in the sun and which illumines the whole universe’ (BhG.15.12), and ‘(As the one sun illumines the whole universe), so does He who reside in the body, O descendant of Bharata, illumine the whole body’ (BhG.13.33). So also in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad, ‘the eternal among the ephemeral, the the consciousness among all that is conscious’ (KathU.2.2.13).

श्रोत्रादि_एव सर्वस्य_आत्म-भूतं चेतनम् इति प्रसिद्धम्, तद् इह निवर्त्यते। अस्ति किम्-अपि विद्वद्-बुद्धि-गम्यं सर्वान्तरतमं कूट-स्थम् अजम् अजरम् अमृतम् अभयं श्रोत्रादेर् अपि श्रोत्रादि तत्-सामर्थ्य-निमित्तम् इति प्रतिवचनं शब्दार्थश् च_उपपद्यत एव।
It is a commonly accepted belief that the ears etc. constitute the Self of all, and that these are conscious. This is being refuted here. There does exist something which is known to the intellect of the men of realization, which dwells in the inmost recesses of all, which is changeless, undecaying, immortal, fearless, and unborn, and which is the Ear etc., of even the ear etc., i.e. the source of their capacity to act. Thus the answer and significance of the words can certainly be justified.

तथा मनसः अन्तः-करणस्य मनः। न हि_अन्तः-करणम् अन्तरेण चैतन्य-ज्योतिषो दीधितिं (चैतन्य-ज्योतिषा दीपितं) स्व-विषय-सङ्कल्पाध्यवसायादि-समर्थं स्यात्। तस्मान् मनसोऽपि मन इति। इह बुद्धि-मनसी एकी-कृत्य निर्देशो मनस इति।
Similarly, manasaḥ, of the mind, of the internal organ; (He is) the manaḥ, Mind; because the internal organ is not able to perform its own functions – thinking, determination, etc. – unless it is illumined by the light of consciousness. Therefore He is the Mind of the mind, too. Here the mind and the intellect are jointly mentioned by the word manaḥ (mind).

यद् वाचो ह वाचं, यच्-छब्दो यस्माद्-अर्थे श्रोत्रादिभिः सर्वैः सम्बध्यते – यस्माच् छ्रोत्रस्य श्रोत्रम्, यस्मान् मनसो मन इत्येवम्। “वाचो ह वाचम्” इति द्वितीया प्रथमात्वेन विपरिणम्यते, “प्राणस्य प्राण” इति दर्शनात्।
Yad vāco ha vācam: the word yat, used in the sense of ‘because’, is connected with all such words as śrotra (ear) in this way: because He is the Ear of the ear, because He is the Mind of the mind, and so on. The objective case in vāca ha vācam is to be changed into the nominative in consonance with the expression prāṇasya prāṇaḥ (the Life of life).

वाचो ह वाचम्” इति_एतद् अनुरोधेन “प्राणस्य प्राणम्” इति कस्माद् द्वितीया_एव न क्रियते?
Objection: In conformity with vāco ha vācam, why should not the conversion be into the objective case thus; prāṇasya prāṇam?

न, बहुनाम् अनुरोधस्य युक्तत्वात्। “वाचम्” इति_अस्य ‘वाग्’ इति_एतावद् वक्तव्यं स उ प्राणस्य प्राण इति शब्द-द्वयानुरोधेन, एवं हि बहूनाम् अनुरोधो युक्तः कृतः स्यात्।
Answer: No, for it is reasonable to conform to the majority. So in consonance with the two words, (saḥ and prāṇaḥ), in saḥ u prāṇasya prāṇaḥ (where they are in the nominative case), the implication of the word vācam is vāk, for thus is the reasonable conformity with the majority maintained.

पृष्टं च वस्तु प्रथमया_एव निर्देष्टुं युक्तम्। ‘स यस् त्वया पृष्टः प्राणस्य प्राणाख्य-वृत्ति-विशेषस्य प्राणः’, तत्-कृतं हि प्राणस्य प्राणन-सामर्थ्यम्। न हि_आत्मना_अनधिष्ठितस्य प्राणनम् उपपद्यते, “को हि_एव_अन्यात् कः प्राण्याद् यद् एष आकाश आनन्दो न स्यात्” (TaitU.2.7.1) “ऊर्ध्वं प्राणम् उन्नयति_अपानं प्रत्यग् अस्यति” (KathU.2.2.3) इत्यादि-श्रुतिभ्यः। इह_अपि च वक्ष्यते “येन प्राणः प्रणीयते तद् एव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि” (KenU.1.8) इति।
Moreover, a thing asked about should properly be denoted in the first (nominative) case. He, of whom you ask, and who is the Life of prāṇa – of that particular function called life, by Him, indeed, is ensured the capacity of the vital force to discharge its functions of sustaining life, and this is because there can be no sustaining of life by anything that is not presided over by the Self, in accordance with the Veda texts: ‘Who, indeed, will inhale, and who will exhale, if this Bliss (Brahman) be not there in the supreme Space (within the heart)?’ (TaitU.2.7.1), ‘Who pushes the prāṇa upward and impels the apāna inward’ (KathU.2.2.3), etc. Here, too, it will be said, ‘That which man does not smell with prāṇa (the organ of smell), but that by which prāṇa is impelled, know that to be Brahman’ (KenU.1.8).

श्रोत्रादीन्द्रिय-प्रस्तावे घ्राणस्य_एव ग्रहणं युक्तं, न तु प्राणस्य? सत्यम् एवम्। प्राण-ग्रहणेन_एव तु घ्राणस्य ग्रहणं कृतम् एव मन्यते श्रुतिः।
Objection: Is it not proper to understand prāṇa as the sense of smelling (and not life)
[•The word prāṇa is used in different senses in different contexts. It may mean vital force, exhaling, sense of smell, etc.•]
in a context which deals with the senses – ears etc.?

सर्वस्य_एव करण-कलापस्य यद्-अर्थ-प्रयुक्ता प्रवृत्तिः, तद् ब्रह्म_इति प्रकरणार्थो विवक्षितः।
Answer: This is true. But the text considers that by the mention of prāṇa (meaning the vital force) the sense of smell is referred to ipso facto. The meaning intended in the context in this: That for whose purpose occurs the activity of all the (motor and sensory) organs is Brahman.

तथा चक्षुषश् चक्षुः रूप-प्रकाशकस्य चक्षुषो यद् रूप-ग्रहण-सामर्थ्यं तद् आत्म-चैतन्याधिष्ठितस्य_एव। अतश् चक्षुषश् चक्षुः।
So also He is the cakṣuṣaḥ cakṣuḥ, the Eye of the eye; the capacity to perceive colour that the eye, the organ of sight, possesses is merely by virtue of its being presided over by the consciousness of the Self. Hence He is the Eye of the eye.

प्रष्टुः पृष्टस्य_अर्थस्य ज्ञातुम् इष्टत्वात् श्रोत्रादेः श्रोत्रादि-लक्षणं यथा_उक्तं ब्रह्म ‘ज्ञात्वा’ इति_अध्याह्रियते, “अमृता भवन्ति” (KenU.2.5) इति फल-श्रुतेश् च। ज्ञानाद् धि_अमृतत्वं प्राप्यते।
Since a questioner’s desire is to know the thing he asks for, the expression, ‘having known’ has to be supplied thus: ‘Having known Brahman, as the Ear etc. of the ear etc.’, as indicated before. This (addition) is also necessary, because the result is stated thus, ‘They become immortal’ (KenU.2.5), and because immortality is attained through realization (i.e. knowing, jñānāt).

ज्ञात्वा, अतिमुच्य इति सामर्थ्यात् श्रोत्रादि-करण-कलापम् उज्झित्वा – श्रोत्रादौ हि_आत्म-भावं कृत्वा, तद्-उपाधिः सन्, तद्-आत्मना जायते म्रियते संसरति च। अतः श्रोत्रादेः श्रोत्रादि-लक्षणं ब्रह्म ‘आत्मा’ इति विदित्वा, अतिमुच्य श्रोत्राद्यात्म-भावं परित्यज्य – ये श्रोत्राद्य्-आत्म-भावं परित्यजन्ति, ते धीराः धीमन्तः। न हि विशिष्ट-धीमत्त्वम् अन्तरेण श्रोत्राद्य्-आत्म-भावः शक्यः परित्युक्तम्।
From the fact that a man becomes free after getting realization (i.e. knowing, jñātvā), it follows (that he becomes immortal) atimucya, by giving up, (through the strength of knowledge), the group of organs beginning with the ear; that is to say, since by identifying the Self with the ear etc. a man becomes conditioned by these and takes birth, dies, and transmigrates, therefore having realized, as one’s Self, the Brahman that is defined as the ‘Ear of the ear’ etc., and atimucya, giving up self-identification with the ear etc. – (he becomes immortal). Those who give up self-identification with the ear etc. are the dhīrāḥ, intelligent, because the self-identification with the ear etc. cannot be given up unless one is endowed with uncommon intellect.

प्रेत्य व्यावृत्य अस्मात् लोकात् पुत्र-मित्र-कलत्र-बन्धुषु ममाहं-भाव-संव्यवहार-लक्षणात्, त्यक्त-सर्वैषणाः_भूत्वा_इत्यर्थः। अमृताः अमरण-धर्माणः भवन्ति। “न कर्मणा न प्रजया धनेन त्यागेन_एके अमृतत्वम् आनशुः” (KaivU.1.3) “पराञ्चि खानि व्यतृणत् … आवृत्त-चक्षुर् अमृतत्वम् इच्छन्” (KathU.2.1.1) “यदा सर्वे प्रमुच्यन्ते … अत्र ब्रह्म समश्नुते” (KathU.2.3.14) इत्यादि-श्रुतिभ्यः।
Pretya, desisting; asmāt lokāt, from this world of empirical dealings involving ideas of ‘I and mine’ with regard to sons, friends, wives, and relatives; i.e. having renounced all desires; (they) bhavanti, become; a-mṛtāḥ, immortal, immune from death. This is in accordance with the Veda texts: ‘Not by work, not by progeny, not by wealth, but by renunciation some (rare ones) attained immortality’, (KaivU.1.3), 'The self-existent Lord destroyed the outgoing senses; hence one perceives the external things and not the Self within. A rare, discriminating man, longing for immortality, turns his eyes away and then sees the indwelling Self (KathU.2.1.1), 'When all desires that cling to one's heart fall off, ....then one attains Brahman here' (KathU.2.3.14), etc.

अथवा, “अतिमुच्य”_इति_अनेन_एव_ऐषणा-त्यागस्य सिद्धत्वात् “अस्माल् लोकात् प्रेत्य” अस्माच् छरीराद् अपेत्य मृत्वा_इत्यर्थः॥
Or, renunciation of desires being implied in the expression atimucya (giving up) itself, asmāt lokāt pretya means separating from this body, dying.

यस्माच् छ्रोत्रादेर् अपि श्रोत्रादि_आत्म-भूतं ब्रह्म, अतः –
Since Brahman, as the Ear etc. of the ear etc., is the Self of those organs, therefore:

न तत्र तस्मिन् ब्रह्मणि चक्षुः गच्छति, स्वात्मनि गमनासम्भवात्। तथा न वाग् गच्छति। वाचा हि शब्द उच्चार्यमाणोऽभिधेयं प्रकाशयति यदा, तदा_अभिधेयं प्रति वाग् गच्छति_इत्युच्यते। तस्य च शब्दस्य तन्-निर्वर्तकस्य च करणस्य_आत्मा ब्रह्म। अतो न वाग् गच्छति। यथा_अग्निर् दाहकः प्रकाशकश् च_अपि सन् न हि_आत्मानं प्रकाशयति दहति वा, तद्वत्।
Tatra, there, to that Brahman; cakṣuḥ, the eye; na gacchati, does not go; for it is not possible to go to oneself. Similarly na vāk gacchati, speech does not go. When a word, as expressed by the organ of speech, reveals its own idea, speech is said to go to its object. But Brahman is the Self of that word, as also of the organ that utters it; therefore speech does not go. Just as fire, which burns and illumines, does not burn or illumine itself, similarly is this so.

न_उ मनः मनश् च_अन्यस्य सङ्कल्पयितृ अध्यवसातृ च सत् न_आत्मानं सङ्कल्पयति_अध्यवस्यति च, तस्य_अपि ब्रह्म_आत्मा_इति।
Na u manaḥ, nor the mind. Though the mind thinks and determines other things, it does not think or determine itself; for of it, too, Brahman is the Self.

इन्द्रिय-मनोभ्यां हि वस्तुनो विज्ञानम्। तद्-अगोचरत्वात् न विद्मः तद् ब्रह्म ‘ईदृशम्’ इति।
A thing is cognized only by the mind and the senses. As Brahman is not an object of perception to these, therefore, na vidmaḥ, we do not know, ‘That Brahman is of this kind’.

अतो न विजानीमः यथा येन प्रकारेण एतद् ब्रह्म अनुशिष्याद् उपदिशेच् छिष्याय_इत्यभिप्रायः।
Hence na vijānīmaḥ, we are not aware of; yathā, the process by which; etat, this Brahman; anuśiṣyāt, should be taught, instructed to a disciple – this is the significance.

यद् धि करण-गोचरं, तद् अन्यस्मै उपदेष्टुं शक्यं जाति-गुण-क्रिया-विशेषणैः। न तज् जात्यादि-विशेषणवद् ब्रह्म। तस्माद् विषमं शिष्यान् उपदेशेन प्रत्याययितुम् इति उपदेशे तद्-अर्थ-ग्रहणे च यत्नातिशय-कर्तव्यतां दर्शयति॥
For, a thing that is perceived by the senses can be taught to another through categories denoting class, quality, and action. Brahman is not possessed of these categories, viz class etc.; hence it is very difficult to convince the disciples about It through instruction. In this way the Upaniṣad shows the necessity of putting forth great effort in the matter of imparting instruction and comprehending its meaning.

“न विद्मो न विजानीमो यथा_एतद् अनुशिष्यात्” (KenU.1.3) इति अत्यन्तम् एव_उपदेश-प्रकार-प्रत्याख्याने प्राप्ते तद्-अपवादोऽयम् उच्यते। सत्यम्, एवं प्रत्यक्षादिभिः प्रमाणैर् न परः प्रत्याययितुं शक्यः, आगमेन तु शक्यत एव प्रत्याययितुम् इति तद्-उपदेशार्थम् आगमम् आह – “अन्यद् एव तद् विदिताद् अथ_उ अविदिताद् अधि”_इति –
The contingency of the total denial of any process of instruction having arisen from the text, ‘We do not know Brahman, and hence we are not aware of any process of instructing about It’ (KenU.1.3), an exception to this is being stated in the next verse. True it is that one cannot impart knowledge about the Highest with the help of such means of valid knowledge as the evidence of the senses; but the knowledge can be produced with the help of traditional authority. Therefore traditional authority
[•The word used by Śaṅkara is āgama, which literally means traditional knowledge which has come down through the line of teachers and pupils. By quoting traditional teaching one does not expose oneself to the charge of speaking about something that defies speech.•]
is being quoted for the sake of imparting instruction about It:

अन्यद् एव पृथग् एव तद् यत् प्रकृतं श्रोत्रादीनां श्रोत्रादि_इत्य्-उक्तम् अविषयश् च तेषाम्। तद् विदिताद् अन्यद् एव हि। विदितं नाम यद् विदि-क्रियया_अतिशयेन_आप्तं, तद् विदि-क्रिया-कर्म-भूतम्। क्वचित् किंचित् कस्यचिद् विदितं स्याद् इति सर्वम् एव व्याकृतं विदितम् एव, तस्माद् अन्यद् एव_इत्यर्थः।
Anyat eva, different indeed; is tat, that which is the topic under discussion and which has been spoken of as the Ear etc., of the ear etc., and as beyond their reach. It is, indeed, different from the known (viditāt). The known is very much within the grasp of the act of knowing, that which is the object of the verb, ‘to know’. Inasmuch as everything is known somewhere by somebody, all that is manifested is certainly known. The idea is that, It (Brahman) is different from that.

अविदितम् अज्ञातं तर्हि_इति प्राप्ते आह – अथ_उ अपि अविदितात् विदित-विपरीताद् अव्याकृताद् अविद्या-लक्षणाद् व्याकृत-बीजात्। अधि इति उपर्य्-अर्थे, लक्षणया अन्यद् इत्यर्थः। ‘यद् धि यस्माद् अधि उपरि भवति, तत् तस्माद् अन्यद्’ इति प्रसिद्धम्।
Lest, in that case, It should be unknown, the text says, (It is,) atha u, again; different a-viditāt, from the unknown, from what is opposed to the known, from that which consists of the unmanifested ignorance, which is the seed of the manifested. The word adhi, used in the sense of ‘above’, means ‘different’ by a figure of speech; for it is well known that anything that exists above another is different from that other.

यद् विदितं तद् अल्पं मर्त्यं दुःखात्मकं च_इति हेयम्। तस्माद् विदिताद् अन्यद् ब्रह्म_इत्युक्ते तु_अहेयत्वम् उक्तं स्यात्। तथा “अविदिताद् अधि”_इत्युक्तेऽनुपादेयत्वम् उक्तं स्यात्। कार्यार्थं हि कारणम् अन्यद् अन्येन_उपादीयते।
Whatever is known is limited, mortal, and full of misery; and hence it is to be rejected. So when it is said that Brahman is different from the known it amounts to asserting that It is not to be rejected. Similarly, when it is affirmed that It is different from the unknown, it amounts to saying that It is not a thing to be obtained. It is for the sake of getting an effect, indeed, that somebody different from it acquires some other thing to serve as a cause.

अतश् च न वेदितुर् अन्यस्मै प्रयोजनाय_अन्यद् उपादेयं भवति_इति, एवं विदिताविदिताभ्याम् अन्यद् इति हेयोपादेय-प्रतिषेधेन स्वात्मनोऽनन्यत्वाद् ब्रह्म-विषया जिज्ञासा शिष्यस्य निवर्तिता स्यात्।
For this reason, too, nothing different (from the Self) need be acquired to serve any purpose distinct from the knower (Self). Thus the statement, that Brahman is different from the known and the unknown, having amounted to Brahman being denied as an object to be acquired or rejected, the desire of the disciple to know Brahman (objectively) comes to an end, for Brahman is non-different from the Self. (Or, according to a different reading - the desire of the disciple to know a Brahman different from the Self, comes to an end).’

न हि_अन्यस्य स्वात्मनो विदिताविदिताभ्याम् अन्यत्वं वस्तुनः सम्भवति_इति_आत्मा ब्रह्म_इति_एष वाक्यार्थः, “अयम् आत्मा ब्रह्म” (BrhU.4.4.5) “य आत्मा_अपहत-पाप्मा” (ChanU.8.7.1) “यत् साक्षाद् अपरोक्षाद् ब्रह्म य आत्मा सर्वान्तरः” (BrhU.3.4.1) इत्यादि-श्रुत्यन्तरेभ्यश् च_इति।
For nothing other than one’s own Self can possibly be different from the known and the unknown. Thus it follows that the meaning of the sentence is that the Self is Brahman. And this also follows from such Veda texts as: ‘This Self is Brahman’ (ManU.2; BrhUEng.2.5.19, 4.4.5), ‘that Self which is untouched by sin’ (ChanU.8.7.1), ‘the Brahman that is immediate and direct, the Self that is within all’ (BrhUEng.3.4.1), etc.

एवं सर्वात्मनः सर्व-विशेष-रहितस्य चिन्मात्र-ज्योतिषो ब्रह्मत्व-प्रतिपादकस्य वाक्यार्थस्य_आचार्योपदेश-परम्परया प्राप्तत्वम् आह – इति शुश्रुम_इत्यादि। ब्रह्म च_एवम् आचार्योपदेश-परम्परया_एव_अधिगन्तव्यं न तर्कतः प्रवचन-मेधा-बहु-श्रुत-तपो-यज्ञादिभ्यश् च, इति एवं शुश्रुम श्रुतवन्तो वयं पूर्वेषाम् आचार्याणां वचनं, ये आचार्याः नः अस्मभ्यं तद् ब्रह्म व्याचचक्षिरे व्याख्यातवन्तः विस्पष्टं कथितवन्तः तेषाम् इत्यर्थः॥
In this way, the text, ‘Thus we heard’ etc., states how through a succession of preceptors and disciples, was derived the purport of the sentence which establishes as Brahman that Self of all which is devoid of all distinguishing features, and is the light of pure consciousness. Moreover, Brahman is to be known only through such a traditional instruction of preceptors and not through argumentation, nor by study (or exposition), intelligence, great learning, austerity, sacrifices, etc. – iti, such (was what); śuśruma, we heard; pūrveṣām, of the ancient teachers; the teachers ye, who; vyācacakṣire, explained, taught clearly; naḥ, to us; tat, that Brahman.

“अन्यद् एव तद्-विदिताद् अथो अविदिताद् अधि” (KenU.1.3) इति_अनेन वाक्येन आत्मा ब्रह्म_इति प्रतिपादिते श्रोतुर् आशङ्का जाता – तत् कथं नु_आत्मा ब्रह्म?
The idea that the Self is Brahman having been established through the sentence, ‘That is surely different from the known, and again, that is above the unknown’ (KenU.1.3), the hearer has this doubt: ‘How can the Self be Brahman’?

आत्मा हि नाम_अधिकृतः कर्मणि_उपासने च संसारी, कर्म_उपासनं वा साधनम् अनुष्ठाय ब्रह्मादि-देवान् स्वर्गं वा प्राप्तुम् इच्छति। तत् तस्माद् अन्य उपास्यो विष्णुर् ईश्वर [शिवः इत्यर्थः] इन्द्रः प्राणो वा ब्रह्म भवितुम् अर्हति, न तु_आत्मा, लोक-प्रत्यय-विरोधात्।
For the Self is familiarly known to be that which is entitled to undertake rites and meditation and which, being subject to birth and death, seeks to attain either the gods headed by Brahmā (Creator) or heaven by undertaking the practice of rites or meditation. Therefore some adorable being other than that (Self), e.g. Viṣṇu, Īśvara (Siva), Indra, or Prāṇa (vital force or Hiraṇya-garbha) may well be Brahman, but not so the Self; for this is opposed to common sense.

यथा_अन्ये तार्किका ‘ईश्वराद् अन्य आत्मा’_इति_आचक्षते, तथा कर्मिणो ‘ऽमुं यज_अमुं यज’_इति_अन्या एव देवता उपासते। तस्माद् यक्तं यद् विदितम् उपास्यं तद् ब्रह्म भवेत्। ततोऽन्य उपासक इति –
Just as other logicians say that the Self is different from the Lord, so also the ritualists worship other gods saying, “Sacrifice to that one”, “Sacrifice to that one”. Therefore it is reasonable that, that should be Brahman which is known and adorable; and ‘the worshipper should be one who is different from this.’

ताम् एताम् आशङ्कां शिष्य-लिङ्गेन_उपलक्ष्य, तद्-वाक्याद् वा आह। मा_एवं शङ्किष्ठाः –
Having noticed this doubt either from the looks or the words of the disciple, the teacher said, ‘Don't be in doubt thus’:

यत् चैतन्यमात्र-सत्ताकम्, वाचा – वाग् इति जिह्वामूलादिष्व्_अष्टसु स्थानेषु विषक्तम् आग्नेयं वर्णानाम् अभिव्यञ्जकं करणम्, वर्णाश् च_अर्थ-संकेत-परिच्छिन्ना एतावन्त एवं-क्रम-प्रयुक्ता इति, एवं तद्-अभिव्यङ्ग्यः शब्दः पदं ‘वाग्’ इति_उच्यते, “अ-कारो [ओम्-कारः इत्यर्थः] वै सर्वा वाक्, सा_एषा स्पर्शान्तःस्थोष्मभिर् व्यज्यमाना बह्वी नाना-रूपा भवति” (AitAr.2.3.6) इति श्रुतेः।
Yat, that – whose essence consists of Consciousness alone–, which; (is not uttered) vācā, by speech–. Vāk (speech) is the organ which, clinging to the eight localities, viz the root of the tongue etc.
[•Chest, throat, head, root of the tongue, teeth, nose, lips, and palate.•],
and being presided over by (the god of) Fire, expresses the letters. The letters, too, as limited in their number and as subject to a certain sequence, in conformity with the meaning intended to be conveyed, are also called vāk.
[•The word gau (cow), for instance, consists of the letter g and au which are fixed as regards their sequence so as to be able to express the meaning ‘cow’. This is the view of the Mīmāṃsaka school.•]
Thus also the sound expressible by them, which is the pada (sphoṭa),
[•This is the view of the Sphoṭa-vadī grammarians. ‘Sphoṭa is derived from the root sphuṭ in the sense of that which is manifested by letters, i.e., that which imparts definite knowledge of word (pada), sentence, etc. Their idea is that this (pada-) sphoṭa has to be admitted since a unified idea (conveyed by the word) cannot be contingent on a multiplicity of letters.’-A.G.•]
is called vāk. this is in accordance with the Veda text: ‘The letter a, indeed, is all speech.
[•‘That power of Consciousness is vāk which is indicated by Om, in which a predominates. (Om is a combination of a, u, m), and this Om is called sphoṭa,-A.G.•]
And that speech, being manifested as the sparśa letters, the antaḥ-stha letters (semi-vowels), and usma letters (aspirates),
[•Sparśa – 25 consonants from ka to ma; antaḥ-stha – y, r, l, v; uṣma – ś, ṣ, s, h.•]
becomes many and multifarious’ (AitAr.2.3.7.13).

मितम् अमितं स्वरः सत्यानृते एष विकारो यस्याः तया वाचा पदत्वेन परिच्छिन्नया करण-गुणवत्या – अनभ्युदितम् अप्रकाशितम् अनभ्युक्तम्।
(Yat, that which) is an-abhyuditam, not expressed, not uttered; vaca, by vāk, by speech, which has these modifications, viz regulated (mitam, material, Ṛk), non-regulated (a-mitam, prose, Yajur), musical (svaraḥ, Sāma), true, and false – by that vāk which becomes defined as words and to which the organ of speech is subordinate;
[•‘The power of speech that human beings have, is established in sounds and letters, for it is expressed by these.’•]

येन ब्रह्मणा विवक्षितेऽर्थे स-करणा वाग् अभ्युद्यते चैतन्य-ज्योतिषा प्रकाश्यते प्रयुज्यत इत्येतत्। ‘यद् वाचो ह वाक्’ (KenU.1.2) इति_उक्तम्, “वदन् वाक्” (BrhU.1.4.7) “यो वाचम् अन्तरो यमयति” (BrhU.3.7.10) इत्यादि च वाजसनेयके। “या वाक् पुरुषेषु सा घोषेषु प्रतिष्ठिता कश्चित् तां वेद ब्राह्मणः?” इति प्रश्नम् उत्पाद्य प्रतिवचनम् उक्तम् “सा वाग् यया स्वप्ने भाषते” इति [कश्चित्-श्रुतेः]। सा हि वक्तुर् वक्तिर् नित्या वाक् चैतन्य-ज्योतिः-स्वरूपा, “न हि वक्तुर् वक्तेर् विपरिलोपो विद्यते” (BrhU.4.3.26) इति श्रुतेः।
Yena, that by which – that Brahman, the light of Consciousness, by which–; vāk, speech, together with its organs; abhyudyate, is uttered, is expressed, that is to say, is used in relations to the desired meaning–. That which has been spoken of here as ‘the Speech of speech’ (KenU.1.2), and as ‘When It speaks, It is called the organ of speech’ (BrhUEng.1.4.71), and ‘He who controls the organ of speech from within’ (BrhUEng.3.7.17), etc., in the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad, and about whom the question has been raised thus, ‘The (power of) speech that is found in men, is established in sounds. Does any Brāhmaṇa know it?', and the answer has been given by saying, ‘That by which one speaks in dream is speech, – that eternal power of speech which a speaker has is vāk which is in essence, the light of Consciousness. And this follows from the Veda text, ‘For the speaker’s power of speech can never be lost’ (BrhUEng.4.3.26).

तद् एव आत्म-स्वरूपं ब्रह्म निरतिशयं भूमाख्यं (ChanU.7.23-24) बृहत्त्वाद् ब्रह्म_इति विद्धि विजानीहि त्वम्। यैर् वागाद्य्-उपाधिभिः “वाचो ह वाक्” “चक्षुषश् चक्षुः” “श्रोत्रस्य श्रोत्रं” “मनसो मनः” (KenU.1.2) “कर्ता भोक्ता विज्ञाता नियन्ता प्रशासिता” “विज्ञानम् आनन्दं ब्रह्म” (BrhU.3.9.7) इति_एवम्-आदयः संव्यवहारा असंव्यवहार्ये निर्-विशेषे परे साम्ये ब्रह्मणि प्रवर्तन्ते, तान् व्युदस्य, आत्मानम् एव निर्-विशेषं ब्रह्म विद्धि_इति “एव”-शब्दार्थः।
Tat eva, that indeed, that Self in its true nature; tvam, you; viddhi, know; as brahma, Brahman – (so called) because of its extensity (or unsurpassability – that which is all-surpassing and is called Bhumā, great (ChanU.7.23-24). The significance of the word eva is this: Know the Self alone to be the unconditioned Brahman after eradicating all such adjuncts as speech because of which there occur such empirical expressions, with regard to the transcendental, unconditioned, unsurpassable, and equipoised Brahman, as ‘It is the Speech of speech’, ‘the Eye of the eye’, ‘the Ear of the ear’, ‘the Mind of the mind’, the agent, the enjoyer, the knower, the controller, governor. ‘Consciousness, Bliss, Brahman’ (BrhUEng.3.9.28.7), etc.

न_इदं ब्रह्म यद् इदम् इति_उपाधि-भेद-विशिष्टम् अनात्मेश्वरादि उपासते ध्यायन्ति। तद् एव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि इति_उक्तेऽपि न_इदं ब्रह्म इति_अनात्मनोऽब्रह्मत्वं पुनर् उच्यते नियमार्थम् अन्य-ब्रह्म-बुद्धि-परिसंख्यानार्थं वा॥
Na idam, this is not; brahma, Brahman; Yat, which; people upāsate, meditate on; as idam, this, (as a limited object) possessed of distinctions created by limiting adjuncts – as a non-Self, e.g. God, etc. Although in the sentence, ‘Know that alone to be Brahman’, it has already been stated that the non-Self is not Brahman, still with a view to enunciating as explicit rule (that leaves no scope for option) the idea is repeated in the sentence, ‘This is not Brahman’; or this may be with a view to excluding the identification of Brahman with what is not Brahman.
[•In Mīmāṃsā philosophy Niyama-vidhi pins one down to one thing only when alternatives are possible. Here the possibilities are, thinking of both Brahman and non-Brahman as Brahman. And the rule fixes us to the pursuit of Brahman only. Parisaṅkhyā-vidhi merely excludes something – here the thought of non-Brahman as Brahman. So the text may be interpreted from either point of view.•]

यन् मनसा न मनुते। “मन” इति_अन्तःकरणं बुद्धि-मनसोर् एकत्वेन गृह्यते। ‘मनुतेऽनेन’_इति मनः सर्व-करण-साधारणं, सर्व-विषय-व्यापकत्वात्। “कामः सङ्कल्पो विचिकित्सा श्रद्धा_अश्रद्धा धृतिर् अधृतिर् ह्रीर् धीर् भीर् इति_एतत् सर्वं मन एव” (BrhU.1.5.3) इति श्रुतेः कामादि-वृत्तिमन् मनः।
Manas means the internal organs, mind and intellect being taken as one entity. The word manas, derived from the root man in the sense of that by which one thinks, is common to all organs, since, it embraces all objects. In accordance with the Veda text, ‘Desire, deliberation, doubt, faith, want of faith, steadiness, unsteadiness, shame, intelligence, and fear – all these are but the mind’ (BrhUEng.1.5.3), mind is that which has desire etc. as its functions.

तेन मनसा यत् चैतन्य-ज्योतिर्-मनसोऽवभासकं न मनुते न सङ्कल्पयति न_अपि निश्चिनोति लोकः, मनसोऽवभासकत्वेन नियन्तृत्वात्।
Yat, that – the light of Consciousness illumining the mind–, which; one na manute, does not think nor determine, with that mind (manasā), because It rules the mind by virtue of being the enlightener of the mind–.

सर्व-विषयं प्रति प्रत्यग् एव [आत्मा], इति स्वात्मनि न प्रवर्ततेऽन्तःकरणम्। अन्तः-स्थेन हि चैतन्य-ज्योतिषा_अवभासितस्य मनसो मनन-सामर्थ्यं, तेन स-वृत्तिकं मनः येन ब्रह्मणा मतं विषयी-कृतं व्याप्तम् आहुः कथयन्ति ब्रह्म-विदः। तस्मात् तद् एव मनस आत्मानं प्रत्यक्-चेतयितारं ब्रह्म विद्धि। न_इदम् इत्यादि पूर्ववत्॥
Since the Self, indeed, constitutes the essence of everything, therefore the mind cannot act with regard to its own Self. The mind can think only when it is illumined by the light of Consciousness within. That Brahman, yena, by which; – they, the knowers of Brahman, āhuḥ, say-; manas, the mind, together with its modes; matam, is thought of, encompassed–. Therefore viddhi, know, tat eva, that very one, the Self of the mind, the internal illuminator, as Brahman. Na idam, etc. is to be understood as before.

यत् चक्षुषा न पश्यति न विषयी-करोति अन्तःकरण-वृत्ति-संयुक्तेन लोकः, येन चक्षूंषि अन्तःकरण-वृत्ति-भेद-भिन्नाश् चक्षुर्-वृत्तीः पश्यति चैतन्यात्म-ज्योतिषा विषयी-करोति व्याप्नोति। तद् एव_इत्यादि पूर्ववत्॥
Yat, that which; cakṣuṣā, with the eye, associated with the functions of the internal organ; na paśyati, (a man) does not see, does not make an object of perception; yena, that by which; man paśyati; sees, perceives, encompasses, through the light of Consciousness; cakṣūṃṣi, the activities of the eye – diversified in accordance with the modes of the internal organ–. Tat eva, etc., as before.

यत् श्रोत्रेण न शृणोति दिग्-देवताधिष्ठितेन आकाश-कार्येण मनो-वृत्ति-संयुक्तेन न विषयी-करोति लोकः, येन श्रोत्रम् इदं श्रुतं यत् प्रसिद्धं चैतन्यात्म-ज्योतिषा विषयी-कृतम्। तद् एव_इत्यादि पूर्ववत्॥
Yat śrotreṇa na śṛṇoti, that which man does not hear with the ear, that is presided over by the deity of the quarters, that is produced from ākāśa, and that is connected with the activity of the mind; yena, that by which, by which light of Consciousness; idam śrotram śrutam, this well-known ear is encompassed–. Tat eva, etc., as before.

यत् प्राणेन घ्राणेन पार्थिवेन नासिका-पुटान्तर्-अवस्थितेन_अन्तःकरण-प्राण-वृत्तिभ्यां सहितेन यन् न प्राणिति गन्धवन् न विषयी-करोति, येन चैतन्यात्म-ज्योतिषा_अवभास्यत्वेन स्व-विषयं प्रति प्राणः प्रणीयते, तद् एव_इत्यादि सर्वं समानम्॥
Prāṇena, by the organ of smell, produced from earth, existing in the nostrils, and associated with the activities of the internal organ and the vital force; yat, that which; man na prāṇiti, does not smell, does not comprehend like smell; yena, that light of the Self by which; prāṇaḥ, the organ of smell – being illumined as an object; praṇīyate, is impelled – towards its own object–. All the rest, tat eva etc., is just like what has gone before.

एवं हेयोपादेय-विपरीतस् त्वम् आत्मा ब्रह्म_इति प्रत्यायितः शिष्यः ‘अहम् एव ब्रह्म_इति सुष्ठु वेद_अहम्’ इति मा गृह्णीयाद् इति_आशयाद् आह_आचार्यः शिष्य-बुद्धि-विचालनार्थम् – “यदि”_इत्यादि (KenU.2.1)।
Fearing that the disciple, to whom has been brought home the conviction, ‘You are the Self, which is opposed to the acceptable and, the unacceptable, and which is Brahman’, may jump to the conclusion, ‘I know myself well enough that I, indeed, am Brahman’, the teacher, with a view to dispelling that notion of the disciple, says, ‘If you think,’ (KenU.2.1) etc.:

ननु_इष्टा_एव सु-वेद_अहम् इति निश्चिता प्रतिपत्तिः।
Objection: Is not such a firm conviction as, ‘I know well enough’, desirable?

सत्यम्, इष्टा निश्चिता प्रतिपत्तिः, न हि सु-वेद_अहम् इति। यद् धि वेद्यं वस्तु विषयी-भवति, तत् सुष्ठु वेदितुं शक्यम्, दाह्यम् इव दग्धुम् अग्नेर् दग्धुः, न तु_अग्नेः स्वरूपम् एव। सर्वस्य हि वेदितुः स्वात्मा ब्रह्म_इति सर्व-वेदान्तानां सुनिश्चितोऽर्थः।
Answer: True, a firm conviction is desirable but not such a one as, ‘I know It well enough.’ That knowable thing alone that falls within the range of cognition can be known thoroughly, just as an inflammable substance becomes consumable to a fire that burns it, but not so the essence itself of the fire. The well-ascertained purport of all the Upaniṣads is that the personal Self of each knower is Brahman.

इह च तद् एव प्रतिपादितं प्रश्न-प्रतिवचनोक्त्या “श्रोत्रस्य श्रोत्रम्” (KenU.1.2) इत्याद्यया। “यद् वाचा_अनभ्युदितम्” (KenU.1.4) इति च विशेषतोऽवधारितम्। ब्रह्मवित्-सम्प्रदाय-निश्चयश् च_उक्तः “अन्यद् एव तद् विदिताद् अथो अविदिताद् अधि” (KenU.1.3) इति। उपन्यस्तम् उपसंहरिष्यति च “अविज्ञातं विजानतां विज्ञातम् अविजानताम्” (KenU.2.3) इति। तस्माद् युक्तम् एव शिष्यस्य ‘सु-वेद’ इति बुद्धिं निराकर्तुम्।
Here, too, the same fact has been established in the form of an answer to questions, in the text beginning with, ‘That which is the Ear of the ear’ etc. (KenU.1.2); and the same has been specifically affirmed in the text, ‘That which is not uttered by speech’ (KenU.1.4). Besides, the positive conclusion of the (traditional) line of knowers of Brahman has been adduced in the text: ‘That is surely different from the known; and again, It is above the unknown’ (KenU.1.3). And the topic will be concluded thus: ‘It is unknown to those who know well, and known to those who do not know’ (KenU.2.3). Hence it is proper to dispel the disciple’s notion: ‘I know well enough.’

न हि वेदिता वेदितुर् वेदितुं शक्यः, अग्निर् दग्धुर् इव दग्धुम् अग्नेः। न च_अन्यो वेदिता ब्रह्मणोऽस्ति यस्य वेद्यम् अन्यत् स्याद् ब्रह्म। “न_अन्यद् अतोऽस्ति विज्ञातृ” (BrhU.3.8.11) इति_अन्यो विज्ञाता प्रतिषिध्यते। तस्मात् सुष्ठु वेद_अहं ब्रह्म_इति प्रतिपत्तिर् मिथ्या एव। तस्माद् युक्तम् एव_आह_आचार्यो “यदि”_इत्यादि –
For the knower cannot be known by the knower, just as fire cannot be consumed by the consuming fire; and there is no other knower different from Brahman to whom Brahman can become a separate knowable. A separate knower is denied by the Veda text: ‘There is no other knower but this’ (BrhUEng.3.8.11). Therefore the conviction, ‘I know Brahman well enough’, is certainly false. Hence the teacher has justifiably said, ‘If you think,’ etc.:

यदि कदाचिद् मन्यसे सु-वेद इति सुष्ठु वेद_अहं ब्रह्म_इति। कदाचिद् यथा-श्रुतं दुर्-विज्ञेयम् अपि क्षीण-दोषः सु-मेधाः कश्चित् प्रतिपद्यते, कश्चिन् न – इति साशङ्कम् आह “यदि”_इत्यादि।
Yadi, if perchance; manyase, you think; su-veda iti, ‘I know Brahman well enough.' Although the entity may be inscrutable, yet some one who is possessed of real wisdom and who is free from defects, may at some time comprehend It as it was heard of, whereas some one else may not; hence the teacher says with hesitation, ‘If you think,’ etc.

दृष्टं च “य एषोऽक्षिणि पुरुषो दृश्यत एष आत्मा_इति ह_उवाच_एतद् अमृतम् अभयम् एतद् ब्रह्म” (ChanU.8.7.4) इति_उक्ते प्राजा-पत्यः पण्डितोऽपि_असुर-राड् विरोचनः स्व-भाव-दोष-वशाद् अन्-उपपद्यमानम् अपि विपरीतम् अर्थं ‘शरीरम् आत्मा’_इति प्रतिपन्नः। तथा_इन्द्रो देव-राट् सकृद् द्विस् त्रिर् उक्तं च_अप्रतिपद्यमानः स्व-भाव-दोष-क्षयम् अपेक्ष्य चतुर्थे पर्याये प्रथमोक्तम् एव ब्रह्म प्रतिपन्नवान्।
And it has been noticed that when it was declared, ‘“The person that is perceived in the eye – is this Self”, so said he (Prajā-pati). “This is immortal, fearless – this is Brahman”’ (ChanU.8.7.4), Virocana, though he was a son of Prajā-pati, and a scholar, and a king of the demons, still, owing to his natural defects, understood contrary to what was taught, an opposite object, viz the body, to be the Self. Similarly, Indra, the king of the gods, who could not comprehend when instructed once, twice, and thrice, did, at the fourth stage, when his natural defects had been removed, realize the same Brahman that was spoken of at the very initial stage (ChanU.8.7.7-12).

लोकेऽपि एकस्माद् गुरोः शृण्वतां कश्चिद् यथावत् प्रतिपद्यते, कश्चिद् अ-यथावत्, कश्चिद् विपरीतं, कश्चिन् न प्रतिपद्यते। किम् उ वक्तव्यम् अतीन्द्रियम् आत्म-तत्त्वम्। अत्र हि विप्रतिपन्नाः सद्-असद्-वादिनस् तार्किकाः सर्वे।
In ordinary life also it is seen that, of the disciples hearing from the same teacher, some one understands accurately, some one inaccurately, some one contrarily, and some one nothing at all. What more need one speak with regard to (the knowledge of) the real nature of the Self which is beyond the senses? In this matter, indeed, all dialecticians, whether they believe in (the) existence or non-existence (of the Self), have got their misconceptions.

तस्माद् ‘विदितं ब्रह्म’_इति सुनिश्चितोक्तम् अपि विषम-प्रतिपत्तित्वाद् “यदि मन्यसे” इत्यादि साशङ्कं वचनं युक्तम् एव_आचार्यस्य। दहरम् (दभ्रम्) अल्पम् एव_अपि नूनं त्वं वेत्थ जानीषे ब्रह्मणो रूपम्।
Therefore though the statement, ‘Brahman has been realized’, has been made with firm conviction, still the teacher’s apprehensive remark, ‘If you think,’ etc., is quite appropriate in view of the comprehension being difficult. Tvam, you; vettha, know; nūnam, certainly; daharam
[•A different reading is dabhram, having the same sense.•]
rūpam eva api, the very little from (i.e. only an expression), brahmaṇaḥ, of Brahman.

किम् अनेकानि ब्रह्मणो रूपाणि महानति_अर्भकाणि च, येन_आह “दहरम् एव”_इत्यादि?
Objection: Are there many forms of Brahman, great and small, because of which it is said, ‘very little form’ etc.?

बाढम्। अनेकानि हि नाम-रूपोपाधि-कृतानि ब्रह्मणो रूपाणि, न स्वतः। स्वतस् तु “अशब्दम् अस्पर्शम् अरूपम् अव्ययं तथा_अरसं नित्यम् अगन्धवच् च यत्” (KathU.1.3.15) इति शब्दादिभिः सह रूपाणि प्रतिषिध्यन्ते।
Answer: Quite so, Many, indeed, are the aspects of Brahman created by the adjuncts of name and form (nāma-rūpa), but not naturally. From Its own standpoint, forms, together with words are denied thus: ‘That which is without sound, touch, form, and destruction; likewise tasteless, eternal and odourless’ (KathU.1.3.15; Nr. 9; Muk. II. 72).

ननु, येन_एव धर्मेण यद् रूप्यते, तद् एव तस्य स्व-रूपम्, इति ब्रह्मणोऽपि येन विशेषेण निरूपणं, तद् एव तस्य स्व-रूपं स्यात्। अत उच्यते – चैतन्यं पृथिव्यादीनाम् अन्यतमस्य सर्वेषां [महा-भूतानां] विपरिणतानां [तत्-कार्यानां] वा धर्मो न भवति, तथा श्रोत्रादीनाम् [इन्द्रियाणाम्] अन्तःकरणस्य च धर्मो न भवति, इति ‘ब्रह्मणो रूपम्’, इति ब्रह्म रूप्यते चैतन्येन। तथा च_उक्तं “विज्ञानम् आनन्दं ब्रह्म” (BrhU.3.9.28 (7)) “विज्ञान-घन एव” (BrhU.2.4.12) “सत्यं ज्ञानम् अनन्तं ब्रह्म” (TaitU.2.1.1) “प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म” (AitU.3.1.3) इति च ब्रह्मणो रूपं निर्दिष्टं श्रुतिषु।
Objection: Is it not a fact that the very attribute by which a thing is determined is its own nature? Therefore that very distinctive feature by which Brahman is defined must be Its nature. Hence it is argued that since consciousness cannot be an attribute of any one of (the elements), earth etc., nor can it be of all of them in their transformation (as body), and as it is not an attribute of either of (the senses such as) the ear etc., or of the internal organ (mind), therefore it is a feature of Brahman; and thus is Brahman defined by consciousness. Thus it has been said, ‘Knowledge, Bliss, Brahman’ (BrhUEng.3.9.28 (7)), ‘Pure intelligence only’ (BrhUEng.2.4.12), ‘Brahman is Truth, Knowledge, Infinite’ (TaitU.2.1.1), ‘Brahman is consciousness’ (AitU.3.1.3) – thus, too, is the feature (rūpa) of Brahman determined in the Veda texts.

सत्यम् एवम्, तथापि तद् अन्तःकरण-देहेन्द्रियोपाधि-द्वारेण_एव विज्ञानादि-शब्दैर् निर्दिश्यते, तद्-अनुकारित्वाद् देहादि-वृद्धि-संकोच-च्छेदादिषु नाशेषु च, न स्वतः। स्वतस् तु “अविज्ञातं विजानतां, विज्ञातम् अविजानताम्” (KenU.2.3) इति स्थितं भविष्यति।
Answer: Truly this is so. But even so, that aspect is indicated by such words as consciousness, not from the intrinsic point of view, but merely with reference to the limiting adjuncts – mind, body, and senses–, because of Its correspondence with those things, in accordance as the body etc. undergo expansion, contraction, disruption, destruction, etc. But in reality, the conclusion will be: ‘unknown to those who know well, and known to those who do not know’ (KenU.2.3).

यद् अस्य “ब्रह्मणो रूपम्” इति पूर्वेण सम्बन्धः। न केवलम् अध्यात्मोपाधि-परिच्छिन्नस्य_अस्य ब्रह्मणो रूपं त्वम् अल्पं वेत्थ, यद् अपि_अधिदैवतोपाधि-परिच्छिन्नस्य_अस्य ब्रह्मणो रूपं देवेषु वेत्थ त्वम्, तद् अपि नूनं दहरम् एव वेत्थ इति मन्येऽहम्।
The expression, yat asya, should be construed with the preceding expression, brahmaṇaḥ rūpam (the aspect of Brahman ), (meaning thereby: that form of Brahman which ....). Not only do you know very little of the expression of that Brahman that is conditioned by the human personality (adhyātma), but the expression asya, of this Brahman as conditioned by divine (adhidaivata) adjuncts, which you deveṣu vettha , know among the gods, that too, as known to you, is very little indeed. This is how I (as a Teacher) think.

यद् अध्यात्मं यद् अपि देवेषु तद् अपि च_उपाधि-परिच्छिन्नत्वाद् दहरत्वान् न निवर्तते। यत् तु विध्वस्त-सर्वोपाधि-विशेषं शान्तम् अनन्तम् एकम् अद्वैतं भूमाख्यं नित्यं ब्रह्म, न तत् सु-वेद्यम् इत्यभिप्रायः।
Whether the expression be in the human personality or whether it be among the gods, it does not become freed from insignificance, since it is conditioned by adjuncts (upādhis). The purport is that the Brahman, that is free from all distinctions, that is one without a second, and that is known as Bhumā (great) and eternal, cannot be known as a fully comprehended object.

यत एवम् अथ नु तस्माद् मन्ये अद्यापि मीमांस्यं विचार्यम् एव ते तव ब्रह्म।
Since this is so, atha nu, therefore; manye, I think; te, for you; even now, Brahman is mīmaṃsyam eva, certainly to be deliberated on.

एवम् आचार्योक्तः शिष्यः एकान्ते उपविष्टः समाहितः सन्, यथोक्तम् आचार्येण आगमम् अर्थतो विचार्य, तर्कतश् च निर्धार्य, स्वानुभवं कृत्वा, आचार्य-सकाशम् उपगम्य, उवाच –
The disciple having been told so by the teacher, sat in solitude with his mind concentrated, deliberated on the traditional teaching as imparted by the teacher together with its purport, ascertained it by a process of reasoning, made it a matter of personal experience (sva-anubhavam kṛtvā, assimilated it as his own), approached the teacher, and said –

‘मन्ये अहम् अथ_इदानीं विदितं ब्रह्म’ इति॥
‘Now manye, I think; (Brahman) is viditam, known.'

कथम्? इति शृणु –
(Teacher): ‘How (is Brahman known to you)?'
(Disciple) : 'Listen!’:

न अहं मन्ये सु-वेद_इति, न_एव_अहं मन्ये ‘सु-वेद ब्रह्म’_इति। ‘न_एव तर्हि विदितं त्वया ब्रह्म’_इति_उक्ते आह – न_उ न वेद_इति वेद च। “वेद च”_इति च-शब्दाद् न वेद च।
Na aham manye su-veda iti, I do not think, ‘I know Brahman well enough.’ Being told (by the teacher), ‘Then Brahman is not certainly known by you’, (the disciple) replies, ‘Na u na veda iti, veda ca, not that I do not know Brahman: and I know, too.’ From the use of the word ca, (and) in the expression veda ca, we are to understand, ‘Na veda ca, and I do not know, as well.’

ननु विप्रतिषिद्धं “न_अह मन्ये सु-वेद”_इति, “न_उ न वेद”_इति, “वेद च” इति।
(Teacher): It is not contradictory (to say), ‘I do not think, “I know (Brahman) well enough”,’ and ‘Not that I do not know; I know and I do not know as well’?

यदि न मन्यसे “सु-वेद”_इति, कथं मन्यसे “वेद च”_इति।
If you do not consider, ‘I know well enough’, then how can you consider, ‘I know too’?

अथ मन्यसे “वेद_एव”_इति, कथं न मन्यसे “सु-वेद”_इति।
Again if you consider, ‘I do not know’, then why do you not consider, ‘I know well enough’?

‘एकं वस्तु येन ज्ञायते, तेन_एव तद् एव वस्तु न सुविज्ञायते’_इति विप्रतिषिद्धं, संशय-विपर्ययौ वर्जयित्वा।
Leaving out of consideration doubt and false knowledge, it is a contradiction to say that the very same thing which is known by a man is not known well enough by him.

न च ब्रह्म संशयितत्वेन ज्ञेयं विपरीतत्वेन वा_इति नियन्तुं शक्यं, संशय-विपर्ययौ हि सर्वत्र_अनर्थकरत्वेन_एव प्रसिद्धौ।
Nor can a restrictive rule be laid down to the effect that Brahman is to be known as an object of doubt or false knowledge. For doubt and false knowledge are, indeed, everywhere known to be the causes of harm.

एवम् आचार्येण विचाल्यमानोऽपि शिष्यो न विचचाल, “अन्यद् एव तद् विदिताद् अथो अविदिताद् अधि” (KenU.1.3) इति_आचार्योक्तागम-सम्प्रदाय-बलात् उपपत्त्य्-अनुभवबलाच् च, जगर्ज च ब्रह्म-विद्यायां दृढ-निश्चयतां दर्शयन्न् आत्मनः।
Though the disciple was thus given a shaking by the teacher, he remained unmoved. Moreover, revealing his own firm conviction in the knowledge of Brahman, he boldly declared with the strength derived from the traditional knowledge as imparted by the teacher in the sentence, ‘It is different from the known and is also above the unknown’, as also from the strength derived from reasoning and (personal) realization.

कथम्? इति_उच्यते – ‘यः यः कश्चिद् नः अस्माकं स-ब्रह्मचारिणां मध्ये तद् मद्-उक्तं वचनं तत्त्वतो वेद, सः तद् ब्रह्म वेद’।
How (did he declare)? That is being said; ‘Yaḥ, anyone who; naḥ, among us, among my co-disciples; veda, knows in reality; tat, that, that sentence uttered (by me); he veda, knows; tat, that Brahman.’

किं पुनस् तद्-वचनम् इति_अत आह – न_उ न वेद_इति वेद च इति। यद् एव “अन्यद् एव तद् विदिताद् अथो अविदिताद् अधि” (KenU.1.3) इति_उक्तम्, तद् एव वस्तु अनुमानानुभवाभ्यां संयोज्य निश्चितं वाक्यान्तरेण “न_उ न वेद_इति वेद च” इति_अवोचत् आचार्य-बुद्धि-संवादार्थं मन्द-बुद्धि-ग्रहण-व्यपोहार्थं च।
(Teacher): ‘What again is your assertion?’ To this the answers: ‘Na u na veda iti veda ca, not that I do not know; I know and I do not know as well.’ With a view to showing his concurrence with the idea of the teacher and counteracting the comprehension of people of dull intellect, the disciple repeated with conviction in another language, viz ‘Not that I do not know; I know and I do not know as well’, the very same thing which was presented in the sentence, ‘It is different from the known and it is above the unknown’; and in doing so, he associated with this his own inference and realization.

तथा च गर्जितम् उपपन्नं भवति “यो नस् तद् वेद तद् वेद” इति॥
Thus the exclamation, ‘He among us who understands that utterance knows that (Brahman)’, becomes justifiable.

शिष्याचार्य-संवादात् प्रतिनिवृत्य स्वेन रूपेण श्रुतिः समस्त-संवाद-निर्वृत्तम् अर्थम् एव बोधयति। “यस्य_अमतम्” इत्यादिना –
Stepping aside from the dialogue between the teacher and the taught, the Upaniṣad, speaking for itself, presents in these words yasyāmatam etc., the whole of the conclusion arrived at through the dialogue:

यस्य ब्रह्म-विदः अमतम् अविज्ञातम् ‘अविदितं ब्रह्म’_इति मतम् [=] अभिप्रायः निश्चयः, तस्य मतं ज्ञातं सम्यग् ब्रह्म_इति_अभिप्रायः।
To that knower of Brahman, yasya, to whom; (It is) a-matam, unknown – whose view, conviction, is that Brahman is not known; tasya, to him; matam, is known, Brahman is fully known – that is the meaning.

यस्य पुनः मतं ज्ञातं विदितं मया ब्रह्म_इति निश्चयः, न वेद_एव सः न ब्रह्म विजानाति सः।
Again, yasya, he to whom; (It is) matam, known – he who has the conviction, ‘Brahman is known to me’; saḥ, he; na veda, does not know, to be sure; he does not know Brahman.

विद्वद्-अविदुषोर् यथोक्तौ पक्षाव् अवधारयति – “अविज्ञातं विजानताम्” इति,
The two views of the man of knowledge and the man of ignorance, which are thus presented, are being distinctly affirmed (in the second line), a-vijñātam vijānatām etc.

अविज्ञातम् अमतम् अविदितम् एव ब्रह्म विजानतां सम्यग्-विदितवताम् इत्येतत्।
A-vijñātam, not known; Brahman is in fact unknown to vijānatām, to the people who know – that is to say, to those who have fully realized.

विज्ञातं विदितं ब्रह्म अविजानताम् असम्यग्-दर्शिनाम्, इन्द्रिय-मनो-बुद्धिष्व् एव_आत्म-दर्शिनाम् इत्यर्थः, न तु_अत्यन्तम् एव_अव्युत्पन्न-बुद्धीनाम्। न हि तेषां ‘विज्ञातम् अस्माभिर् ब्रह्म’_इति मतिर् भवति।
Brahman is vijñātam, known; a-vijānatām, to those who do not know, to those who have not full realization – that is to say, to those who identify the Self merely with the senses, the mind, and the intellect, but not to those whose intelligence is extremely primitive, (these latter being left out of consideration), for the latter do not have the consciousness, ‘Brahman is known by us’.

इन्द्रिय-मनो-बुद्ध्युपाधिष्व् आत्म-दर्शिनां तु ब्रह्मोपाधि-विवेकानुपलम्भाद्, बुद्ध्याद्य्-उपाधेश् च विज्ञातत्वाद् – ‘विदितं ब्रह्म’_इति_उपपद्यते भ्रान्तिर् इति,
The error involved in the idea, ‘Brahman is known by us’, is possible for those, however, who, by reason of non-discrimination between Brahman and the limiting adjuncts, and because of their familiarity with the limiting adjuncts such as the intellect, consider the senses, the mind and the intellect as the Self.

अतः असम्यग्-दर्शनं पूर्व-पक्षत्वेन_उपन्यस्यते “विज्ञातम् अविजानताम्” इति।
Hence the incomplete knowledge is presented as a view to be refuted (as a pūrva-pakṣa) in the text, ‘known to those who do not know’.

अथवा हेत्व्-अर्थ उत्तरार्धोऽविज्ञातम् इत्यादिः॥
Or the latter half (of the verse viz) a-vijñātam etc., is adduced as a reason (hetu for the first half, i.e. that by which the former half is inferred).
[•‘Just as is common experience it is well known that to the people, aware of the nature of the mother-of-pearl, the silver superimposed on it remains unknown (on that mother-of-pearl), but to the ignorant alone, the superimposed silver is known (as silver), similarly, knowableness being a thing superimposed on Brahman, the men of realization do not consider that Brahman as known.'-A.G.•]

“अविज्ञातं विजानताम्” (KenU.2.3) इति_अवधृतम्। यदि ब्रह्म_आत्यन्तम् एव_अविज्ञातम्, लौकिकानां ब्रह्म-विदां च_अविशेषः प्राप्तः। “अविज्ञातं विजानताम्” इति च परस्पर-विरुद्धम्। कथं तु तद् ब्रह्म सम्यग्-विदितं भवति? इति_एवम् अर्थम् आह –
It has been ascertained that Brahman is unknown to those who know. If Brahman be wholly unknown, then there remains no distinction between the ordinary people and the knowers of Brahman. Besides, the statement, ‘unknown to those who know’, is self contradictory. How then can Brahman be known adequately? To explain this the Upaniṣad says:

प्रति-बोध-विदितं बोधं बोधं प्रति विदितम्। ‘बोध’-शब्देन बौद्धाः प्रत्यया उच्यन्ते। सर्वे प्रत्यया विषयी-भवन्ति यस्य स आत्मा – सर्व-बोधान् प्रति बुध्यते (प्रति-बुध्यते) [मनः अभिव्यञ्ज्यं आत्मा अभिव्यञ्जकः, एवम् आत्मा अभिव्यञ्ज्यः इति मनः अभिव्यञ्जकं, सूर्य-प्रकाश-चन्द्रवत्] सर्व-प्रत्यय-दर्शी चिच्-छक्ति-स्वरूपमात्रः प्रत्ययैर् एव प्रत्ययेष्व् अविशिष्टतया लक्ष्यते, न_अन्यद् द्वारम् अन्तर्-आत्मनो विज्ञानाय।
Prati-bodha-viditam, known with reference to each (prati-, every) state of intelligence. By the word bodha are meant the cognitions acquired through the intellect. The Self, that encompasses all ideas as Its objects, is known in relation to all these ideas. Being the witness of all cognitions, and by nature nothing but the power of Consciousness, the Self is indicated by the cognitions themselves, in the midst of cognitions, as pervading (all of) them. There is no other door to Its awareness.

अतः प्रत्यय-प्रत्यग्-आत्मतया विदितं ब्रह्म यदा, तदा तद् मतं, तत् सम्यग्-दर्शनम् इत्यर्थः। सर्व-प्रत्यय-दर्शित्वे [ब्रह्मणः सति] च_उपजननापाय-वर्जित-दृक्-स्वरूपता, नित्यत्वं, विशुद्ध-स्वरूपत्वम्, आत्मत्वं [जाग्रदाद्यवस्थासु अतति इति आत्मा], निर्-विशेषता, एकत्वं च सर्व-भूतेषु सिद्धं भवेत्, लक्षण-भेदाभावाद् व्योम्न इव घट-गिरि-गुहादिषु।
Therefore when Brahman is known as the innermost Self (i.e. witness) of cognitions, then is It matam, known, that is to say, then there is Its complete realization. Only by accepting Brahman as the witness of all cognitions can it be established that It is by nature a witness that is not subject to growth and decay, and is eternal, pure in essence, the Self, unconditioned, and one in all beings,
[•‘Since the reality of my consciousness, by virtue of which I am the witness, exists equally in all, I am not a mere witness in a single body. And since difference, origination, etc; do not inhere in the witness, therefore the non-duality, eternality, etc. of the witness are also established.’-A.G.•]
just as it is in the case of ākāśa (space), because of the non-difference of its characteristics despite its existence in pots, caves, etc.

विदिताविदिताभ्याम् अन्यद् ब्रह्म_इति_आगम-वाक्यार्थ एवं परिशुद्ध एव_उपसंहृतो भवति। ‘दृष्टेर् द्रष्टा श्रुतेः श्रोता मतेर् मन्ता विज्ञातेर् विज्ञाता’ (BrhU.3.4.2) इति हि श्रुत्य्-अन्तरम्।
The purport of that very traditional text, ‘It is different from the known, and again It is above the unknown’ (KenU.1.3), which is thus clarified, is concluded here. For (in support of this) there is the other Veda text: ‘The Witness of vision, the Hearer of hearing, the Thinker of thought, the Knower of knowledge’ (BrhUEng.3.4.2).

यदा पुनर् [आत्मा] बोध-क्रिया-कर्ता_इति बोध-क्रिया-लक्षणेन तत्-कर्तारं विजानाति_इति बोध-लक्षणेन विदितं “प्रति-बोध-विदितम्” इति व्याख्यायते, यथा यो वृक्ष-शाखाश् चालयति स वायुर् इति तद्वत्, तदा बोध-क्रिया-शक्तिमान् आत्मा द्रव्यं, न बोध-स्वरूप एव। बोधस् तु जायते विनश्यति च। यदा बोधो जायते, तदा बोध-क्रियया स-विशेषः। यदा बोधो नश्यति, तदा नष्ट-बोधो द्रव्यमात्रं निर्-विशेषः।
Again, if the explanation of pratibodha-viditam be, ‘The Self being the agent of the act of knowing, one infers It to be agent of the action from the fact of the cognitive act itself, just as one knows that to be the wind which moves a tree’, then the Self is a substance possessed of the power of knowing, but It is not knowledge itself; and as for knowledge, it originates and dies; when knowledge originates, the Self becomes modified by it; and when knowledge dies, the Self becomes nothing but an unmodified substance with its intelligence destroyed.

तत्र_एवं सति [आत्मा] विक्रियात्मकः सावयवोऽनित्योऽशुद्ध इत्य्-आदयो दोषा न परिहर्तुं शक्यन्ते।
In such a case, one cannot avoid the objection that the Self (thereby) becomes changeable, composed of parts, non-eternal, impure, etc.

यद् अपि काणादानाम् – आत्म-मनः-संयोग-जो बोध आत्मनि समवैति, अत आत्मनि बोद्धृत्वं, न तु विक्रियात्मक आत्मा, द्रव्यमात्रस् तु भवति घट इव राग-समवायी। अस्मिन् पक्षेऽपि_अचेतनं द्रव्यमात्रं ब्रह्म_इति “विज्ञानम् आनन्दं ब्रह्म” (BrhU.3.9.28) “प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म” (AitU.3.1.3) इत्य्-आद्याः श्रुतयो बाधिताः स्युः।
As for the (following) view of the school of Kaṇāda, ‘Knowledge, arising from the contact of the soul and the mind, inheres in the soul; hence is the soul endowed with knowership. But it is not changeable; it is merely a substance just like a pot in which colour inheres’ – since according to this view, too, Brahman is a mere substance without consciousness, it contradicts such Veda text as, ‘Knowledge, Bliss, Brahman’ (BrhUEng.3.9.28 (7)), ‘Brahman is Consciousness’ (AitU.3.1.3).

आत्मनो निर्-अवयवत्वेन प्रदेशाभावाद्, नित्य-संयुक्तत्वाच् च मनसः स्मृत्य्-उत्पत्ति-नियमानुपपत्तिर् अपरिहार्या स्यात्। संसर्ग-धर्मित्वं च_आत्मनः श्रुति-स्मृति-न्याय-विरुद्धं कल्पितं स्यात्। “असङ्गो न हि सज्जते” (BrhU.3.9.26, BrhU.4.5.15) “असक्तं सर्व-भृत्” (BhG.13.14) इति हि श्रुति-स्मृती।
And as the soul is partless and hence has no locality in it, and as the mind is ever in contact with it, the consequent illogicality of admitting any law regarding the origination of memory becomes insurmountable. Besides, one has to imagine that the Self can have the attribute of coming in contact with others, which idea is repugnant to the Vedas and the Smṛtis; for such are the two Veda and Smṛti texts: ‘Unattached, for It is never attached’ (BrhUEng.3.9.26), ‘It is unconnected, and is the supporter of all’ (BhG.13.14).

न्यायश् च – गुणवद् गुणवता संसृज्यते, न_अतुल्य-जातीयम्। अतः निर्-गुणं निर्-विशेषं सर्व-विलक्षणं केनचिद् अपि_अतुल्य-जातीयेन संसृज्यते, इति_एतद् न्याय-विरुद्धं भवेत्।
Moreover, since logic demands that a thing that has attributes, and is not of a different category, can come into contact with another having attributes, therefore it is illogical to hold that the Self which is attributeless, undifferentiated, and distinct from everything else, can come into contact with anything whatsoever that does not belong to the same category.

तस्माद् ‘नित्यालुप्त-ज्ञान-स्वरूप-ज्योतिर् आत्मा ब्रह्म’ इति_अयम् अर्थः सर्व-बोध-बोद्धृत्वे आत्मनः सिध्यति, न_अन्यथा। तस्मात् “प्रति-बोध-विदितं मतम्” इति यथा-व्याख्यात एव_ अर्थोऽस्माभिः।
Hence if the Self is the witness of all cognitions, then and not otherwise is established the idea that the Self, which is an effulgence that is in reality eternal and undecaying knowledge, in Brahman. Therefore the expression pratibodha-viditam has the meaning as explained by us.

यत् पुनः स्व-संवेद्यता “प्रति-बोध-विदित्यम्” इति अस्य वाक्यस्य_अर्थो वर्ण्यते, तत्र भवति ‘सोपाधिकत्वे आत्मनो बुद्ध्य्-उपाधि-स्वरूपत्वेन भेदं परिकल्प्य_आत्मना_आत्मानं वेत्ति’ इति संव्यवहारः – “आत्मनि_एव_आत्मानं पश्यति” (BrhU.4.4.23) “स्वयम् एव_आत्मना_आत्मानं वेत्थ त्वं पुरुषोत्तम” (BhG.10.15) इति।
As for the explanation, ‘The expression, pratibodha-viditam means that the Self is known to oneself, it is possible where difference is imagined in a context in which the Self appears as a conditioned thing through identification with the limiting adjunct, intellect, so as to have such apparent activities as knowing the Self by the self (referred to in the texts): ‘Sees the Self in his own self.’ (BrhUEng.4.4.23), ‘O Puruṣottama (lit. Supreme Puruṣa, i.e. Being), you yourself know your Self through the self’ (BhG.10.15).

न तु निर्-उपाधिकस्य_आत्मन एकत्वे स्व-संवेद्यता पर-संवेद्यता वा सम्भवति, संवेदन-स्वरूपत्वात् संवेदनान्तरापेक्षा च न सम्भवति, यथा प्रकाशस्य प्रकाशान्तरापेक्षाया न सम्भवः तद्वत्।
But in a context where the unconditioned Self is one, there can neither be knowing by oneself nor by another. Besides, It being by nature Consciousness Itself, there can be no dependence on another consciousness, just as a light does not depend on another light.

बौद्ध-पक्षे स्व-संवेद्यतायां तु (BrS.2.2.25, .31) क्षण-भङ्गुरत्वं निर्-आत्मकत्वं च विज्ञानस्य स्याद्, “न हि विज्ञातुर् विज्ञातेर् विपरिलोपो विद्यतेऽविनाशित्वात्” (BrhU.4.3.30) “नित्यं विभुं सर्व-गतम्” (MunU.1.1.6) “स वा एष महान् अज आत्मा_अजरोऽमरोऽमृतोऽभयः” (BrhU.4.4.25) इत्य्-आद्याः श्रुतयो बाध्येरन्।
If the fact of being known to oneself is held in accordance with the Buddhist theory (BrSEng.2.2.25, .31), then knowledge becomes momentary and is left without a Self (Reality); and this will contradict such Veda texts as: ‘For the knower’s function of knowing can never be lost, because it is immortal’. (BrhUEng.4.3.30), ‘Eternal, multi-formed, all-pervading’ (MunU.1.1.6), ‘That great birthless Self is undecaying, immortal, undying, fearless’ (BrhUEng.4.4.25Br. IV. iv. 25).

यत् पुनः ‘प्रति-बोध’-शब्देन निर्-निमित्तो बोधः प्रति-बोधः यथा सुप्तस्य इत्यर्थं परिकल्पयन्ति, सकृद् विज्ञानं प्रति-बोध इति_अपरे,
Others, again, imagine that by the word pratibodha is meant the uncaused knowledge as in the case of a sleeping man; according to still others, pratibodha is the knowledge that flashes but once.
[•‘Once the unchanging Self is realized, there can no more be any knowership and therefore, no possibility of further knowledge. Hence the knowledge that flashes but once and becomes the cause of immediate emancipation is called pratibodha,'-A.G.•]

निर्-निमित्तः स-निमित्तः सकृद् वा_असकृद् वा प्रति-बोध एव हि सः।
(To this we say): Whether it be caused or uncaused, and whether it flashes once or repeatedly, it is (nevertheless) pratibodha to be sure.

अमृतत्वम् अमरण-भावं स्वात्मनि_अवस्थानं मोक्षं हि यस्माद् विन्दते लभते यथोक्तात् प्रति-बोधात् प्रति-बोध-विदितात्मकात्, तस्मात् “प्रति-बोध-विदितम्” एव मतम् इत्यभिप्रायः।
Hi, because; vindate, (one) attains; a-mṛtatvam, immortality, existence in one’s own Self, emancipation – by virtue of the aforesaid pratibodha, i.e. from the knowledge of the Self as appearing with reference to (i.e. as the witness of) each state of consciousness, therefore, the idea is that the Self is truly known when It is known along with each state of consciousness.

[अमृत-ब्रह्म-]बोधस्य हि प्रत्यग्-आत्म-विषयत्वं च मतम् [प्रत्यग्-आत्म-]अमृतत्वे हेतुः। न हि_आत्मनोऽनात्मत्वम् अमृतत्वं भवति। आत्मत्वाद् आत्मनोऽमृतत्वं निर्-निमित्तम् एव। एवं [तद्] मर्त्यत्वम् आत्मनो, यद् अविद्यया, अनात्मत्व-प्रतिपत्तिः।
Besides, consciousness, as having the indwelling Self as its content, is alone held to be the cause of immortality. Immortality does not surely consist in the Self becoming a non-Self. Immortality being the very nature of the Self, it is certainly without any cause. And thus mortality consists in the Self being perceived as the non-Self through ignorance.

कथं पुनर् यथोक्तया_आत्म-विद्यया_अमृतत्वं विन्दते? इति_अत आह – आत्मना स्वेन रूपेण विन्दते लभते वीर्यं बलं सामर्थ्यम्।
How, again, is immortality attained through the aforesaid knowledge of the Self? This is being answered. Ātmanā, through one’s own Self; vindate, (one) attains; vīryam, strength, capacity.

धन-सहाय-मन्त्रौषधि-तपो-योग-कृतं वीर्यं मृत्युं न शक्नोति_अभिभवितुम्, अनित्य-वस्तु-कृतत्वात्। आत्म-विद्या-कृतं तु वीर्यम् आत्मना_एव विन्दते, न_अन्येन, इति_अतोऽनन्य-साधनत्वाद् आत्म-विद्या-वीर्यस्य तद् एव वीर्यं मृत्युं शक्नोति_अभिभवितुम्।
The strength got from wealth, friend, incantation, medicine, austerity, or Yoga cannot conquer death, for it is produced by impermanent things. But the strength, consequent on the knowledge of the Self, is acquired through the Self alone and not through anything else. Thus, since the strength resulting from the knowledge of the Self is independent of any means of acquisition, that strength alone is able to conquer death.

यत एवम् आत्म-विद्या-कृतं वीर्यम् आत्मना_एव विन्दते, अतः विद्यया आत्म-विषयया विन्दतेऽमृतम् अमृतत्वम्। “न_अयम् आत्मा बल-हीनेन लभ्यः” (MunU.3.2.4) इति_आथर्वणे। अतः समर्थो हेतुः “अमृतत्वं हि विन्दते” इति॥
Since the strength produced by the knowledge of the Self is thus attained through the Self, therefore, vidyayā, through knowledge about the Self; (one) vindate, attains; a-mṛtam, immortality. In the Upaniṣad of the Ātharva Veda it is said, ‘This Self is not attained by one who has no strength (of commitment, resulting from steadfastness in the Self)’ (MunU.3.2.4). Therefore the statement of the reason, ‘because thereby one attains immortality’, is quite appropriate.

कष्टा खलु सुर-नर-तिर्यक्-प्रेतादिषु संसार-दुःख-बहुलेषु प्राणि-निकायेषु जन्म-जरा-मरण-रोगादि-संप्राप्तिर् अज्ञानात्। अतः –
Pitiable, indeed, it is to suffer through ignorance, birth, old age, death, disease, etc., among multitudes of birth, old age, death, disease, etc., among multitudes of beings such as gods, men, animals, ghosts, etc., in whom there is an abundance of misery natural to transmigratory existence. Therefore:

इह एव चेद् मनुष्योऽधिकृतः समर्थः सन् यदि अवेदीद् आत्मानं यथोक्त-लक्षणं विदितवान् यथोक्तेन प्रकारेण, अथ तदा अस्ति सत्यं मनुष्य-जन्मनि_अस्मिन्न् अविनाशोऽर्थवत्ता वा सद्-भावो वा परमार्थता वा सत्यं विद्यते।
Cet, if – a man having scriptural sanction and ability; avedīt, has known – the Self as defined and in the manner already explained; iha, here, indeed; atha, then; asti satyam, there is truth, there subsist in this human birth the values consisting in long life, wealth, and holiness,
[•‘This is said by way of eulogy. (The idea is that) even worldly reality (or value), comprising long life (a-vināśa), wealth (arthavattā), holiness (sad-bhāva), and fame, comes to the knower of Brahman (as a by-product). In reality, the result consisting in being established in Brahman follows as a necessary consequence.’ -A.G.•]
or supreme reality.

“न चेद् इह_अवेदीद्” इति, न चेद् इह जीवंश् चेद् अधिकृतः अवेदीद् न विदितवान्, तदा महती दीर्घा अनन्ता विनष्टिः विनाशनं जन्म-जरा-मरणादि-प्रबन्धाविच्छेद-लक्षणा संसार-गतिः।
Iha, here, even while living, cet, if; a competent man na avedīt, has not realized; then there is mahatī, great interminable; vinaṣṭiḥ, destruction, transmigratory existence consisting in non-cessation of a continuous succession of birth, old age, death, etc.

तस्माद् एवं गुण-दोषौ विजानन्तो ब्राह्मणाः भूतेषु भूतेषु सर्व-भूतेषु स्थावरेषु चरेषु च एकम् आत्म-तत्त्वं ब्रह्म विचित्य विज्ञाय साक्षात् कृत्य धीराः धीमन्तः प्रेत्य व्यावृत्य ममाहं-भाव-लक्षणाद् अविद्या-रूपाद् अस्माल् लोकाद् उपरम्य सर्वात्मा_एक-भावम् अद्वैतम् आपन्नाः सन्तः अमृता भवन्ति ब्रह्म_एव भवन्ति_इत्यर्थः।
Therefore the dhīrāḥ, wise, Brāhmaṇas (the knowers of Brahman), who are thus familiar with merits and demerits; vicitya, having known, realized, the one reality on the Self; bhūteṣu bhūteṣu, in all beings, moving and unmoving; pretya, turning away, desisting; asmāt lokāt, from this world of ignorance – the world consisting of ‘I am mine’ – i.e. having attained the non-dual state consisting in being identified with the Self of all; a-mṛtāḥ bhavanti, become immortal, become Brahman indeed – this is idea;

“स यो ह वै तत् परं (परमं) ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्म_एव भवति” (MunU.3.2.9) इति श्रुतेः॥
As it has been said in the Veda text: ‘He who knows that supreme Brahman becomes Brahman indeed’ (MunU.3.2.9).

“अविज्ञातं विजानतां विज्ञातम् अविजानताम्” (KenU.2.3) इत्यादि-श्रवणाद् ‘यद् अस्ति तद् विज्ञातं प्रमाणैः, यन् न_अस्ति तद् अविज्ञातं शश-विषाण-कल्पम् अत्यन्तम् एव_असद् दृष्टं’, तथा_‘इदं ब्रह्म_अविज्ञातत्वाद् असद् एव’_इति मन्द-बुद्धीनाम्
After hearing the text, ‘unknown to those who know well, and known to those who do not know’ etc. (KenU.2.3), some people of dull intellect may have this kind of delusion: ‘It is seen that whatever exists is known through the valid means of cognition; and whatever does not exist remains unknown, is like the horns of a hare, and absolutely non-existent. Similarly this Brahman, being unknown, is certainly nonexistent.’

व्यामोहो, मा भूद् इति, तद्-अर्था इयम् आख्यायिका आरभ्यते। तद् एव हि ब्रह्म सर्व-प्रकारेण प्रशास्तृ देवानाम् अपि परो देवः, ईश्वराणाम् अपि परमेश्वरः, दुर्-विज्ञेयः, देवानां जय-हेतुः, असुराणां परा-जय-हेतुः। तत् कथं न_अस्ति? इति_एतस्य_अर्थस्य_अनुकूलानि हि_उत्तराणि वचांसि दृश्यन्ते।
Lest there be this delusion, this story is begun. For the subsequent passages are seen to be leading to this conclusion: ‘Since that very Brahman is the ruler in every way, the supreme Deity of even the deities, the supreme Lord over the lordly beings, inscrutable, the cause of the victory of gods, and the cause of the defeat of the devils, therefore, how can It be non-existent?’

अथवा ब्रह्म-विद्यायाः स्तुतये। कथम्? ब्रह्म-विज्ञानाद् धि अग्न्य्-आदयो देवा देवानां श्रेष्ठत्वं जग्मुः। ततोऽपि_अतितराम् इन्द्र इति।
Or the story is meant to eulogize the knowledge of Brahman. How? By saying that it was surely by virtue of the knowledge of Brahman, that Fire and other gods attained supremacy over the gods, and Indra got still greater pre-eminence.

अथवा दुर्-विज्ञेयं ब्रह्म_इति_एतत् प्रदर्श्यते, येन_अग्न्य्-आदयोऽतितेजसोऽपि क्लेशेन_एव ब्रह्म विदितवन्तः, तथा_इन्द्रो देवानाम् ईश्वरोऽपि सन्न् इति।
Or (through the story) it is shown that Brahman is inscrutable, inasmuch as Fire and others, powerful though they are, knew Brahman with sheer difficulty, and so also did Indra, even though he is the ruler of the gods.

वक्ष्यमाणोपनिषद्-विधि-परं वा सर्वम्।
Or the whole thing is meant to enjoin and injunction regarding the secret teaching (about meditations) that will follow (KenU.4.4-8)
[•‘The realization of the Self as Brahman, which is meant for the most advanced ones and which is not an object of knowledge, has been spoken of earlier. Later will be stated the meditation on the qualified Brahman which is for the less advanced people. The following passages present that meditation, since the injunction for it is clearly to be seen (in KenU.4.6-8). so the real significance lies in this. As for the other interpretations (advanced by Śaṅkāra), they are merely by way of showing possibilities.’-A.G.•].

‘ब्रह्म-विद्या-व्यतिरेकेण प्राणिनां कर्तृत्व-भोक्तृत्वाद्य्-अभिमानो मिथ्या’_इति_एतद् दर्शनार्थं वा आख्यायिका, यथा देवानां जयाद्य्-अभिमानः तद्वद् इति –
Or the story is meant to show, that apart from the knowledge of Brahman, all notions of agentship etc. that creatures possess, as for instance the conceit of the gods with regard to victory etc., are false.

ब्रह्म यथोक्त-लक्षणं परं ह किल देवेभ्योऽर्थाय विजिग्ये जयं लब्धवद्। देवानाम् असुराणां च संग्रामेऽसुराञ् जित्वा जगद्-अरातीन् ईश्वर-सेतु-भेत्तॄन् देवेभ्यो जयं तत्-फलं च प्रायच्छज् जगतः स्थेम्ने। तस्य ह किल ब्रह्मणो विजये देवाः अग्न्य्-आदयः अमहीयन्त महिमानं प्राप्तवन्तः॥
Brahma, the supreme Brahman already spoken of; ha, verily; devebhyaḥ, for the sake of the gods; vijigye, achieved victory. In a fight between the gods and the devils, Brahman, after conquering the devils, the enemies of the world and transgressors of divine rules, gave to the gods the victory and its results for ensuring the stability of the world. Tasya ha Brahmaṇaḥ vijaye, in that victory which was, indeed, Brahman’s; devāḥ, the gods, Fire etc.; amahīyanta, became elated.

तदा आत्म-संस्थस्य प्रत्यग्-आत्मन ईश्वरस्य सर्व-ज्ञस्य सर्व-क्रिया-फल-संयोजयितुः प्राणिनां सर्व-शक्तेः जगतः स्थितिं चिकीर्षोः अयं जयो महिमा च – इति यजानन्तः ते देवाः ऐक्षन्त ईक्षितवन्तः ‘अग्न्य्-आदि-स्वरूप-परिच्छिन्नात्म-कृतः अस्माकम् एव_अयं विजयः अस्माकम् एव_अयं महिमा अग्नि-वाय्व्-इन्द्रत्वादि-लक्षणो जय-फल-भूतोऽस्माभिर् अनुभूयते न_अस्मत्-प्रत्यग्-आत्म-भूतेश्वर-कृत’ इति।
Then, not knowing that this victory and this glory belonged to God who sits in the hearts as the indwelling Self – omniscient, dispenser of the fruits of all works of all creatures, omnipotent, and desirous of encompassing the stability of the world – te, they, those gods; aikṣanta, thought; ‘Ayam vijayaḥ, this victory; is eva asmākam, indeed ours, is of ourselves, who are limited by our personalities as Fire and others. Asmākam eva, ours indeed, and not of God as our indwelling Self, is ayam mahimā, this glory evidenced by such states as of Fire, Air, Indra, etc. which is experienced by us as the result of victory. This has not been achieved by God who is our indwelling Self.’

एवं मिथ्याभिमानेक्षणवतां तद् ह किल एषां मिथ्येक्षणं विजज्ञौ विज्ञातवद् ब्रह्म। सर्वेक्षितृ हि तत् सर्व-भूत-करण-प्रयोक्तृत्वाद्।
Brahman ha, surely; vijajñau, knew; tat, that, that erroneous deliberation of those whose thoughts were being directed by a false self-conceit; for Brahman is omniscient by virtue of being the director of the senses of all creatures.

देवानां च मिथ्या-ज्ञानम् उपलभ्य ‘मा_एव_असुरवद् देवा मिथ्याभिमानात् पराभवेयुर्’ इति तद्-अनुकम्पया ‘देवान् मिथ्याभिमानापनोदनेन_अनुगृह्णीयाम्’ इति तेभ्यः देवेभ्यः ह किल अर्थाय प्रादुर्-बभूव स्व-योग-माहात्म्य-निर्मितेन_अत्यद्भुतेन विस्मापनीयेन रूपेण देवानाम् इन्द्रिय-गोचरे प्रादुर्-बभूव प्रादुर्-भूतवत्।
Noticing this false idea of the gods, and thinking, ‘In order that the gods may not be thus defeated like the devils, as a consequence of their vainglory, I shall, out of grace for them, favour the gods by removing their presumptuousness’ – with this idea, It, ha, indeed; for their sake, prādur-babhūva, appeared as an object of perception; tebhyaḥ, to the gods; through an unprecedentedly wonderful and astonishing form created by Brahman’s own power of Māyā,
[•‘The yoga, or the combination of attributes – Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas is Māyā. Through the power of that.’-A.G.•]

तत् प्रादुर्-भूतं ब्रह्म न व्यजानत न_एव विज्ञातवन्तः देवाः किम् इदं यक्षं पूज्यं महद्-भूतम् इति॥
It appeared as an object of perception to the senses of the gods. The gods na vyajānata, did not comprehend; tat, that, the Brahman which had become manifest; kim iti, as to what; idam yakṣam, this venerable, great Being, might be.

ते तद् अजानन्तो देवाः सान्तर्-भयास् तद्-विजिज्ञासवः अग्निम् अग्र-गामिनं जात-वेदसं सर्व-ज्ञ-कल्पम् अब्रुवन् उक्तवन्तः। हे जात-वेदः एतद् अस्मद्-गोचर-स्थं यक्षं विजानीहि विशेषतो बुध्यस्व। त्वं नस् तेजस्वी, किम् एतद् यक्षम् इति। ‘तथा अस्तु’ इति॥
Te, they – those gods who failed to know, It, and were desirous of knowing It, but had fear in their hearts; abruvan, said; agnim, to Fire, (lit.) who goes ahead (of all); and who is jāta-vedas, almost omniscient;
[•Agni precedes all other deities (agre gacchati) in receiving oblations at sacrifices; and Jāta-vedas is one who knows (vedas) all that is created (jāta).•]
O jāta-vedas, you having knowledge of all created beings; vijānīhi, thoroughly find out about; etat, this Yakṣa that is in our view; kim etat yakṣam iti, as to what; this Yakṣa (venerable Being) is. (Agni replied,) ‘Tathā, so be it’, iti, this much.

तद् यक्षम् अभ्यद्रवत् तत् प्रति गतवान् अग्निः।
Fire abhyadravat, approached, moved, towards It, tat, towards that Yakṣa.

तं च गतवन्तं पिपृच्छिषुं तत्-समीपेऽप्रगल्भत्वात् तूष्णीं-भूतं तद् यक्षम् अभ्यवदत् अग्निं प्रति अभाषत – कोऽसि_इति।
Tam, to him, to Fire, who had approached and was desirous of asking, but had become silent because of absence of arrogance in Its presence; the Yakṣa abhyavadat, said; ‘Kaḥ asi iti, who are you?’

एवं ब्रह्मणा पृष्टोऽग्निः अब्रवीत् अग्निर् वै अग्निर् नाम_अहं प्रसिद्धो जात-वेदा इति च नाम-द्वयेन प्रसिद्धतया_आत्मानं श्लाघयन्न् इति॥
Thus being asked by Brahman, Fire said, ‘Agniḥ vai, I am Fire (agni) by name, and am also familiarly known as Jāta-vedas, showing thereby his self-importance consisting in his being well known through the two names.

एवम् उक्तवन्तं ब्रह्म_अवोचत् तस्मिन् एवं प्रसिद्ध-गुण-नामवति त्वयि किं वीर्यं सामर्थ्यम् इति।
To him who had spoken thus, Brahman said, ‘Tasmin tvayi, in you who are such, who possess such famous names and attributes; kim vīryam iti, what power, what ability, is there?'

सोऽब्रवीद् इदं जगत् सर्वं दहेयं भस्मी-कुर्यां यद् इदं स्थावरादि पृथिव्याम् इति। पृथिव्याम् इति_उपलक्षणार्थम्, यतोऽन्तरिक्ष-स्थम् अपि दह्यत एव_अग्निना॥
He replied, ‘Daheyam, I can burn up, reduce to ashes; idam sarvam, all this creation that moves and does not move; pṛthivyām iti, on this earth;’ The word pṛthivyām is used illustratively (to indicate everything), for api, even, things that are in the region above the earth are surely consumed by fire.

तस्मै एवम् अभिमानवते ब्रह्म तृणं निदधौ पुरोऽग्नेः स्थापितवत्। ब्रह्मणा ‘एतत् तृणमात्रं मम_अग्रतः दह, न चेद् असि दग्धुं समर्थः, मुञ्च दग्धृत्वाभिमानं सर्वत्र’ इति_उक्तः
Tasmai, for him who had such presumption; Brahman tṛṇam nidadhau, placed a straw, in front of Fire. Being told by Brahman, ‘Etat, this mere straw; daha iti, burn, in front of me. If you are not able to burn it give up your vanity as a consumer everywhere.

तत् तृणम् उपप्रेयाय तृण-समीपं गतवान् सर्व-जवेन सर्वोत्साह-कृतेन वेगेन। गत्वा तद् न शशाक न_अशकत् दग्धुम्।
(Fire) tat upapreyāya, went near that straw; sarva-javena, with the speed born of the fullest enthusiasm. Going there, tat, that thing; na śaśāka dagdhum, he could not burn.

सः जात-वेदाः तृणं दग्धुम् अशक्तो व्रीडितो हत-प्रतिज्ञः तत एव यक्षाद् एव तूष्णीं देवान् प्रति निववृते निवृत्तः प्रतिगतवान्। न एतद् यक्षम् अशकं शक्तवान् अहं विज्ञातुं विशेषतः यद् एतद् यक्षम् इति॥
Saḥ that Fire, being unable to burn the straw and becoming ashamed and foiled in his promise, silently nivavṛte, withdrew; tataḥ eva, from that Yakṣa; and went back towards the gods (to tell them), ‘Na aśakam, I did not succeed; vijñātum, in knowing fully; etat, this Yakṣa: yat etat yakṣam iti, as to what this Yakṣa is.’

अथ अनन्तरं वायुम् अब्रुवन् “हे वायो_एतद् विजानीहि”_इत्यादि समानार्थं पूर्वेण। वानाद् गमनाद् गन्धनाद् वा ‘वायुः’। मातरि_अन्तरिक्षे श्वयति_इति ‘मातरि-श्वा’। “इदं सर्वम् अपि आददीय गृह्णीयां यद् इदं पृथिव्याम्” इत्यादि समानम् एव॥
Atha, after that; vāyum abruvan they said to Air; ‘Vāyo etad vijānīhi O Air, find out‘ etc. bears the same meaning as before. Vāyu (air) is so, called because it blows, goes, or carries smell. Mātari-śvā means that which travels (śvayati) in space (mātari). ‘Idam sarvam api, all this; ādadīya, I can take up, blow away. Yad idam pṛthivyām’ etc. is just as explained earlier.

अथ_इन्द्रम् अब्रुवन् मघवन्न् एतद् विजानीहि_इत्यादि पूर्ववत्। ‘इन्द्रः’ परमेश्वरो ‘मघवा’ बलवत्त्वात् तथा_इति तद् अभ्यद्रवत्।
Atha indram abruvan maghavan etat vijānīhi etc. is to be explained as before. Indra, who is a great Lord and is called Maghavā because of strength, tat abhyadravat, approached that Yakṣa.

तस्माद् इन्द्राद् आत्म-समीपं गतात् तद् ब्रह्म तिरो-दधे तिरो-भूतम्। इन्द्रस्य_इन्द्रत्वाभिमानोऽतितरां निराकर्तव्य इति_अतः संवादमात्रम् अपि न_अदाद् ब्रह्म_इन्द्राय॥
Tasmāt, from him, from Indra who had approached Itself (Yakṣa); that Brahman, tiro-dadhe, vanished from sight. Brahman did not so much as grant him an interview, so that Indra’s pride at being Indra might be totally eradicated.

तद् यक्षं यस्मिन्न् आकाशे आकाश-प्रदेशे आत्मानं दर्शयित्वा तिरो-भूतम् इन्द्रश् च ब्रह्मणस् तिरो-धान-काले यस्मिन्न् आकाशे आसीत्, सः इन्द्रः तस्मिन्न् एव आकाशे तस्थौ ‘किं तद् यक्षम्?’ इति ध्यायन्, न निववृतेऽग्न्य्-आदिवत्।
The space, or the part of the space where that Yakṣa vanished after revealing Itself, and the space where Indra also was at the time of the disappearance of Brahman, tasmin eva ākāśe, in that very space; saḥ, he, Indra, stayed on, deliberating in his mind, ‘What is this Yakṣa?’ He did not return like Fire etc.

तस्य_इन्द्रस्य यक्षे भक्तिं बुद्ध्वा विद्या उमा-रूपिणी प्रादुर् अभूत् स्त्री-रूपा।
Understanding his devotion to Yakṣa, Knowledge (of Brahman) made Her appearance as a strī, woman, in the form of Umā.

सः इन्द्रः ताम् उमां बहु-शोभमानां, सर्वेषां हि शोभमानानां शोभनतमा विद्या। तदा बहु-शोभमाना_इति विशेषणम् उपपन्नं भवति। हैमवतीं हेम-कृताभरणवतीम् इव बहु शोभमानाम् इत्यर्थः। अथवा उमा एव हिमवतो दुहिता हैमवती। नित्यम् एव सर्व-ज्ञेन_ईश्वरेण सह वर्तत, इति ज्ञातुं समर्था_इति कृत्वा ताम् उप-जगाम इन्द्रः। तां ह_उमां किल उवाच पप्रच्छ ब्रूहि ‘किम् एतद् दर्शयित्वा तिरो-भूतं यक्षम्’ इति॥
He, Indra, ā-jagāma, approached; tām, Her, Umā; who was bahu-śobhamānām, superbly charming – Knowledge being the most fascinating of all fascinating things, the attribute ‘superbly charming’ is appropriate for it. He approached her, haimavatīm, who was as though attired in dress of gold (hema), i.e. exquisitely beautiful. Or, Umā Herself is Haimavatī, the daughter of Himavat (Hima-ālaya mountains, ‘the abode of snow (hima)’). Thinking that, since She is ever in association with the omniscient God, She must be able to know, Indra approached Her; (and) tam, to Her, to Umā; uvāca, said, ‘Tell me, kim etat yakṣam iti, what is this Yakṣa – that showed Itself and vanished.

सा “ब्रह्म” इति ह_उवाच ह किल, ब्रह्मणः वै_ईश्वरस्य_एव विजये – ईश्वरेण_एव जिता असुराः, यूयं तत्र निमित्तमात्रं, तस्य_एव विजये – यूयं महीयध्वं महिमानं प्राप्नुथ। एतद् इति क्रिया-विशेषणार्थम्। मिथ्याभिमानस् तु युष्माकम् – ‘अस्माकम् एव_अयं विजयोऽस्माकम् एव_अयं महिमा’ इति।
Sā, She; uvāca ha, said, ‘Brahma’ iti, It was Brahman. Brahmaṇaḥ vai vijaye, in the victory of God, indeed: The devils were conquered only by God, and you were mere instruments there. In the victory that was really His, you mahīyadhvam, became elated, you attained glory.’ The word etat, in this way, is used adverbially (to modify the verb). ‘But yours is this vain-gloriousness: “(Asmākam eva ayam vijayaḥ, asmākam eva ayam mahimā) – ours is this victory, ours is this glory”’ (KenU.3.2).

ततः तस्माद् उमा-वाक्याद् ह_एव विदां-चकार ब्रह्म_इति इन्द्रः, अवधारणात् “ततो ह_एव इति”, न स्वा-तन्त्र्येण॥
Tataḥ ha eva, from that, from that utterance of Umā, to be sure; Indra, vidām-cakāra, learned; brahma iti, that It was Brahman. The emphatic limitation; implied in tataḥ ha eva, from that alone, to be sure, implies (that he came to learn) not independently.

यस्माद् अग्नि-वाय्व्-इन्द्रा एते देवा ब्रह्मणः संवाद-दर्शनादिना सामीप्यम् उपगताः –
Since these gods – Fire, Air, and Indra – approached Brahman through conversation, visualization, etc.:

तस्मात् स्वैर् गुणैः अतितराम् इव शक्ति-गुणादि-महा-भाग्यैः अन्यान् देवान् अतितराम् अतिशयेन (अतिशेरते) इव एते देवाः। ‘इव’-शब्दोऽनर्थकोऽवधारणार्थो वा।
Tasmāt, therefore; ete devāḥ, these gods; atitarām iva, surpassed greatly, through their own excellence, i.e. good luck comprising power, quality, etc.; anyān devān, the other gods. The word iva is meaningless or is used for the sake of emphasis.

यद् अग्निः वायुः इन्द्रः ते हि देवा यस्माद् एनद् ब्रह्म नेदिष्ठम् अन्तिकतमं प्रियतमं पस्पृशुः (पस्पर्शुः) स्पृष्टवन्तो यथोक्तैर् ब्रह्मणः संवादादि-प्रकारैः, ते हि यस्माच् च हेतोः एनद् ब्रह्म प्रथमः प्रथमाः प्रधानाः सन्त इति_एतद् विदां-चकार विदां-चक्रुर् इत्येतत्, ब्रह्म_इति॥
Yat agniḥ vāyuḥ indraḥ, for, (the gods) viz Fire, Air and Indra; te, they, those gods; hi, indeed, nediṣṭham paspṛśuḥ, [•A different reading is pasparśuḥ.•] most proximately, intimately, touched; enat, this Brahman, through the process of conversation etc. with Brahman, as described earlier. Hi, because, because of the further reason that; te they; being prathamaḥ (should be plural prathamāḥ) first, i.e. being prominent; vidām-cakāra, (should be plural vidām-cakruḥ), knew; enat, It Brahman, – that ‘this is Brahman.’

यस्माद् अग्नि-वायू अपि इन्द्र-वाक्याद् एव विदां-चक्रतुः, इन्द्रेण हि उमा-वाक्यात् प्रथमं श्रुतं ब्रह्म_इति –
Since even Fire and Air knew from the words of Indra alone, and since Indra heard first from Umā’s words that It was Brahman:

तस्माद् वै_इन्द्रः अतितराम् इव अतिशेते_इव अन्यान् देवान्। स हि_एनन् नेदिष्ठं पस्पर्श यस्मात् स हि_एनत् प्रथमो विदां-चकार ब्रह्म_इति_उक्तार्थं वाक्यम्॥
Tasmāt vai indraḥ atitarām iva, therefore, Indra did excel anyān devān, the other gods. Hi saḥ enat nediṣṭham pasparśa, for he touched It most proximately; saḥ hi enat prathamaḥ vidām-cakāra brahma iti – this sentence has been already explained.

तस्य प्रकृतस्य ब्रह्मणः एषः आदेशः उपमोपदेशः। निरुपम् अस्य ब्रह्मणो येन_उपमानेन_उपदेशः सोऽयम् आदेश इति_उच्यते।
Tasya, of the Brahman under discussion; eṣaḥ ādeśaḥ, this is the instruction, through analogy. That analogy through which the instruction about the incomparable Brahman is imparted is called ādeśaḥ.

किं तत्? यद् एतत् प्रसिद्धं लोके विद्युतः व्यद्युतद् विद्योतनं कृतवद् इति_एतद् अनुपपन्नम् इति विद्युतो विद्योतनम् इति कल्प्यते। आ३ इति_उपमार्थः। विद्युतो विद्योतनम् इव_इत्यर्थः, “यथा सकृद् विद्युत्तम्” (BrhU.2.3.6) इति श्रुत्य्-अन्तरे च दर्शनात्। विद्युद् इव हि सकृद् आत्मानं दर्शयित्वा तिरो-भूतं ब्रह्म देवेभ्यः।
What is that? Yat etat, that fact, which is well known among people as the flash of lighting. Since vidyutaḥ vyadyutat, cannot mean that Brahman flashed (vyadyutat) (by borrowing Its light) from lightning, (Vidyutaḥ)
[•‘The meaning, “It flashed from lightning”’ is inadmissible, for Brahman being self-effulgent, Its effulgence cannot be dependent on others. The meaning, “It performed the flashing of lightning,” is unacceptable, since the flash that belongs to something cannot be produced by another.’-A.G.•]
therefore the meaning has to be assumed to be ‘the flash of lightning.’ Ā, like, is used in the sense of comparison. The meaning is: ‘It is like the flash of lightning’; and (this meaning is acceptable) since it is seen in a different Veda text, ‘Comparable to a single flash of lightning’ (BrhUEng.2.3.6); for Brahman disappeared after revealing Itself but once to the gods like lightning.

अथवा विद्युतः ‘तेजः’ इति_अध्याहार्यम्। व्यद्युतद् विद्योतितवत् आ३ इव। विद्युतस् तेजः सकृद् विद्योतितवद् इव_इत्यभिप्रायः। ‘इति’-शब्दः आदेश-प्रतिनिर्देशार्थः – इति_अयम् आदेश इति।
Or the word tejaḥ (brilliance) has to be supplied after the word vidyutaḥ (of lightning). Vyadyutat (in this case) means, flashed; (and) ‘ā’ means as it were. The purport is: It was as though, the brilliance of lightning flashed but once. The word iti is meant to call back to memory the word ādeśa; (so the meaning is): This is the ādeśa, the analogy.

इच्-छब्दः समुच्चयार्थः। अयं च_अपरस् तस्य_आदेशः। कोऽसौ? न्यमीमिषद्। यथा चक्षुः न्यमीमिषद् निमेषं कृतवत्। स्वार्थे णिच्। उपमार्थ एव ‘आ’-कारः। चक्षुषो विषयं प्रति प्रकाश-तिरो-भाव इव च_इत्यर्थः। इति अधि-दैवतं देवता-विषयं ब्रह्मण उपमान-दर्शनम्॥
The word ‘id’ is used for joining together. (So the sense is): Here is another analogy for It. What is that one? Nyamīmiṣat, winked, as the eye did the act of winking. The causative form (in nyamīmiṣat) is used in the same sense as the root (ni-miṣ) itself. The ‘ā’ is used here, too, in the sense of comparison. The meaning is: And it was like the opening and shutting of the eye with regard to its object. Iti adhi-daivatam, this is by way of showing analogies of Brahman in a divine context.

अथ अनन्तरम् अध्यात्मं प्रत्यग्-आत्म-विषय आदेश उच्यते। यद् एतद् गच्छति_इव च मनः। एतद् ब्रह्म ढौकत इव विषयी-करोति_इव।
Atha, after this; is being told the analogical instruction adhyātmam, in the context of the soul (ātman), with regard to the indwelling Self. Yat etat, that which is a known fact; viz that etat, to this Brahman; gacchati iva ca manaḥ, though the mind goes, as it were, the mind enters into Brahman, as it were, encompasses It as an object.

यच् च अनेन मनसा एतद् ब्रह्म उपस्मरति समीपतः स्मरति साधकः। अभीक्ष्णं भृशं सङ्कल्पश् च मनसो ब्रह्म-विषयः। मनौपाधिकत्वाद् धि मनसः सङ्कल्प-स्मृत्यादि-प्रत्ययैर् अभिव्यज्यते ब्रह्म, विषयी-क्रियमाणम् इव। अतः स एष ब्रह्मणोऽध्यात्मम् आदेशः।
And the fact that anena, by that mind; the spiritual aspirant; abhīkṣṇam, repeatedly; upasmarati, remembers intimately; etat, this Brahman; and the saṅkalpaḥ, thought of the mind with regard to Brahman. Since Brahman has got the mind as Its limiting adjunct, It seems to be revealed by such states of the mind as thought, memory, etc., by which It seems to be objectified. Therefore this is an instruction about Brahman, through analogy, in the context of the soul.

विद्युन् निमेषणवद् अधि-दैवतं द्रुत-प्रकाशन-धर्मि, अध्यात्मं च मनः-प्रत्यय-सम-कालाभिव्यक्ति-धर्मि, इति_एष आदेशः।
In the divine context (adhi-daivata), Brahman has the attribute of revealing Itself quickly like lightning and winking
[•‘The winking of the eye is rapid – this is well known; similar is Brahman's power of acting quickly. Its attribute in the divine context is the power to act quickly with regard to creation etc., since there is an absence of obstruction and efforts..... The light of lightning covers the whole world at once. Similarly Brahman is unsurpassingly bright by nature, and It accomplishes creation etc. of everything quickly, and It is possessed of supreme glory.’-A.G.•];
and in the context of the soul, It has the attribute of manifesting Itself simultaneously with the states of the mind.
[•‘One should meditate thus: “Towards this Brahman, that is of the nature of light, my mind proceeds and there is rests.” The instruction in this form is the instruction in the context of the individual soul. The indwelling Brahman becomes revealed to one who meditates thus: “The thoughts in my mind constantly revolve round Brahman.”’-A.G.•]
This is the instruction about Brahman through analogy.

एवम् आदिश्यमानं हि ब्रह्म मन्द-बुद्धि-गम्यं भवति_इति ब्रह्मण आदेशोपदेशः। न हि निर्-उपाधिकम् एव ब्रह्म मन्द-बुद्धिभिर् आकलयितुं शक्यम्॥
The need for this teaching about Brahman through analogy is that It becomes easily comprehensible to people of dull intellect when instruction is thus imparted. For the unconditioned Brahman, as such, cannot be comprehended by people of dull intellect.

किञ्च –
Further:

तद् ब्रह्म ह किल तद्-वनं नाम तस्य वनं तद्-वनं तस्य प्राणि-जातस्य प्रत्यग्-आत्म-भूतत्वाद् वनं वननीयं सम्भजनीयम्। अतः तद्-वनं नाम प्रख्यातं ब्रह्म तद्-वनम् इति यतः, तस्मात् तद्-वनम् इति अनेन_एव गुणाभिधानेन उपासितव्यं चिन्तनीयम्।
Tat, that Brahman; is ha, certainly; tad-vanam nāma: tad-vanam is derived from the words tasya, his, and vanam, adorable; It is adorable to all creatures, since It is their indwelling Self. Therefore Brahman is tad-vanam nāma, well known as the one to be adored by all beings. Since it is tad-vana, therefore tad-vanam iti, through this very name, tad-vana, which is indicative of Its quality; It is upāsitavyam, to be meditated on.

अनेन नाम्ना_उपासनस्य फलम् आह – स यः कश्चिद् एतद् यथोक्तं ब्रह्म एवं यथोक्त-गुणं वेद उपास्ते अभि ह_एनम् उपासकं सर्वाणि भूतानि अभि संवाञ्छन्ति ह प्रार्थयन्त एव, यथा ब्रह्म॥
The text states the results of meditation
[•In place of ‘upāsanasya, of meditation’, some read ’upāsakasya, to the meditator’.•]
through this name; saḥ yaḥ, anyone who; veda, meditates on; etat, the aforesaid Brahman; evam, thus, as possessed of the qualities mentioned above; sarvāṇi bhūtāni, all beings; ha, certainly; enam, to him, this meditator; abhi saṃvāñchanti, pray, as (they do) to Brahman.

एवम् अनुशिष्टः शिष्य आचार्यम् उवाच –
After being instructed thus, the disciple said to the teacher:

उपनिषदं रहस्यं यच् चिन्त्यं भो भगवन् ब्रूहि_इति।
‘Bhoḥ, sir; brūhi, speak (to me) upaniṣad, the secret thing that is to be thought about’; iti.

एवम् उक्तवति शिष्ये आह_आचार्यः – उक्ता अभिहिता ते तव उपनिषत्। का पुनः सा_इति_आह – ब्राह्मीं ब्रह्मणः परमात्मन इयं ब्राह्मी ताम्, परमात्म-विषयत्वाद् अतीत-विज्ञानस्य, वाव एव ते उपनिषदम् अब्रूम_इति उक्ताम् एव परमात्म-विषयाम् उपनिषदम् अब्रूम_इति_अवधारयति_उत्तरार्थम्।
To the student who had spoken thus, the teacher said, ‘Te to you; upaniṣad, the secret knowledge; uktā, has been spoken.’ ‘What is that again?’ – to such a question he answers, ‘Te, to you; upaniṣadam vāva abrūma iti, I have spoken this very secret; brāhmīm, relating to Brahman, to the supreme Self – since the knowledge already imparted relates to the supreme Self.’ For the sake of (distinguishing) what follows, the teacher delimits (his teaching) thus: ‘The Upaniṣad that I have told you consists of nothing but what has already been presented as the Upaniṣad of the supreme Self.'

परमात्म-विषयाम् उपनिषदं श्रुतवतः उपनिषदं भो ब्रूहि_इति पृच्छतः शिष्यस्य कोऽभिप्रायः? यदि तावच् छ्रुतस्य_अर्थस्य प्रश्नः कृतः, ततः पिष्ट-पेषणवत् पुनर्-उक्तोऽनर्थकः प्रश्नः स्यात्। अथ सा_अवशेषोक्तोपनिषत् स्यात्, ततस् तस्याः फल-वचनेन_उपसंहारो न युक्तः “प्रेत्य_अस्माल् लोकाद् अमृता भवन्ति” (KenU.2.5) इति। तस्माद् उक्तोपनिषच्-छेष-विषयोऽपि प्रश्नोऽनुपपन्न एव, अनवशेषितत्वात्। कस् तर्हि_अभिप्रायः प्रष्टुर् इति। उच्यते।
Objection: What motive could have prompted the disciple, who had heard the Upaniṣad about the supreme Self, to put this question: ‘Sir, speak of the Upaniṣad’? If, now, the question related to what had been already heard, then it is useless, inasmuch as it involved a repetition like the grinding (of grain) over again of what had already been ground. If, again, the earlier Upaniṣad was incomplete, then it was not proper to conclude it by mentioning its result thus: ‘Having turned away from this world, the intelligent ones become immortal’ (KenU.2.5). Hence the question is surely improper even if it relates to some unexplained portion of the Upaniṣad already presented, inasmuch as no remainder was left over. What then is the intention of the questioner?

किं पूर्वोक्तोपनिषच्-छेषतया तत्-सहकारि-साधनान्तरापेक्षा, अथ निर्-अपेक्षा_एव? सापेक्षा चेद् अपेक्षित-विषयाम् उपनिषदं ब्रूहि। अथ निर्-अपेक्षा चेद् अवधारय पिप्पलादवन् “न_अतः परम् अस्ति”_इति (PrasU.6.7) एवम् अभिप्रायः। एतद् उपपन्नम् आचार्यस्य_अवधारण-वचनम् “उक्ता त उपनिषद्” इति।
Answer: We say that this is the intention (of the disciple): ‘Does the secret teaching already imparted need anything as an accessory, or does it not need any? If it does, tell me of the secret teaching with regard to that needed accessory. Or if it does not, then like Pippalāda make the clinching assertion; “There is nothing beyond this” (PrasU.6.7). Thus this clincher of the teacher; ‘I have told you the Upaniṣad’ is justified.

ननु न_अवधारणम् इदम्, यतोऽन्यद् वक्तव्यम् आह “तस्यै तपो दमः” (KenU.4.8) इत्यादि।
Objection: May it not be urged that this is not a concluding remark, inasmuch as the teacher has something more to add in the statement: ‘Concentration, cessation from sense-objects, rites, etc. are its legs’ etc. (KenU.4.8).

सत्यम्, वक्तव्यम् उच्यते आचार्येण। न तु_उक्तोपनिषच्-छेषतया तत्-सहकारि-साधनान्तराभिप्रायेण वा, किंतु ब्रह्म-विद्या-प्राप्त्य्-उपायाभिप्रायेण वेदैस् तद्-अङ्गैश् च सह-पाठेन समी-करणात् तपः-प्रभृतीनाम्। न हि वेदानां शिक्षाद्य्-अङ्गानां च साक्षाद् ब्रह्म-विद्या-शेषत्वं तत्-सहकारि-साधनत्वं वा सम्भवति।
Answer: It is true that a fresh matter is introduced by the teacher; but this is not done either by way of bringing in something as an attributive constituent (śeṣa) of the Upaniṣad or as an accessory (saha-kārin) to it,
[•‘By the word śeṣa is implied an attributive part contributing to the production of the effect (of the main rite). By the word saha-kārin is implied something that need not necessarily be a constituent, but can be combined (with the principal rite).’-A.G. Both have a bearing on the result.•]
but rather as a means for the acquisition of the knowledge of Brahman, because tapas (concentration) etc., occurring as they do in the same passage along with the Vedas and their supplementaries, are given an equal status with the latter, and because neither the Vedas nor the science of pronunciation and euphony (śikṣā) etc., which are their supplementaries, can directly be either attributive constituents of the knowledge of Brahman or its helpful accessories.

सह-पठितानाम् अपि यथा-योगं विभज्य विनियोगः स्याद् इति चेद्, यथा सूक्त-वाकानुमन्त्रण-मन्त्राणां यथा-दैवतं विभागः, तथा तपो-दम-कर्म-सत्यादीनाम् अपि ब्रह्म-विद्या-शेषत्वं तत्-सहकारि-साधनत्वं वा_इति कल्प्यते। वेदानां तद्-अङ्गानां च_अर्थ-प्रकाशकत्वेन कर्मात्म-ज्ञानोपायत्वम् इति_एवं हि_अयं विभागो युज्यते अर्थ-सम्बन्धोपपत्ति-सामर्थ्याद् इति चेत्।
Objection: Should not even things that occur in the same passage be put to separate uses according to their appropriateness? Just as the mantras, occurring at the end of a sacrifice, in the form of a hymn meant for the invocation of (many) deities, are applied with respect to the individual deities concerned, similarly it can be imagined that concentration, self-control, rites, truth, etc., will either be attributive constituents of the knowledge of Brahman or be helpful accessories (in accordance with their respective appropriateness).
[•At the end of all sacrifices, the deities are invoked with the hymn beginning with: Now although in this hymn many deities are mentioned, still, it is proper to invoke at the end the deity to whom any particular sacrifice is made, the hymn itself has to be applied in accord with that propriety. Similarly concentration etc., will themselves be used as attributive constituents of knowledge.’-A.G.•]
As for the Vedas and their subsidiaries, they are means for either knowledge of the Self or rites by virtue of their respective meanings (ideas). In this way this division becomes appropriate when significance of words, relation (of things denoted), and reason are taken into consideration. Suppose we advance such an argument?

न, अयुक्तेः। न हि_अयं विभागो घटनां प्राञ्चति। न हि सर्व-क्रिया-कारक-फल-भेद-बुद्धि-तिरस्-कारिण्या ब्रह्म-विद्यायाः शेषापेक्षा सहकारि-साधन-सम्बन्धो वा युज्यते। सर्व-विषय-व्यावृत्त-प्रत्यग्-आत्म-विषय-निष्ठत्वाच् च ब्रह्म-विद्यायास् तत्-फलस्य च निःश्रेयसस्य। “मोक्षम् इच्छन् सदा कर्म त्यजेद् एव स-साधनम्। त्यजत_एव हि तज् ज्ञेयं त्यक्तुः प्रत्यक् परं पदम्” (?) तस्मात् कर्मणां सहकारित्वं कर्म-शेषापेक्षा वा न ज्ञानस्य_उपपद्यते।
Answer: No, because this is illogical. This division does not certainly accord with facts, because it is not reasonable that the knowledge of Brahman, which repels all ideas of distinction of deeds, doers and results, should have dependence on any attributive constituent, or any relation with any helpful accessory, and because the knowledge of Brahman and its result, freedom, are concerned only with the Self which is unassociated with any object. ‘He who wants emancipation should for ever give up all works together with their instruments, because it is known only by the man of renunciation. The state of the supreme Reality that is the same as the indwelling Self is attained by the man of renunciation.’ Therefore knowledge cannot reasonably have work either as an accessory or as a complement.

ततोऽसद् एव सूक्त-वाकानुमन्त्रणवद् यथा-योगं विभाग इति। तस्माद् अवधारणार्थता_एव प्रश्न-प्रतिवचनस्य_उपपद्यते। एतावत् या एव_इयम् उपनिषद् उक्ता_अन्य-निर्-अपेक्षा अमृतत्वाय॥
Therefore the division of (concentration etc.) on the analogy of the invocation through hymn, occurring at the end of a sacrifice, is quite inappropriate. Hence it is proper to say that the question and the answer are meant for fixing a limit thus: ‘The secret teaching (Upaniṣad) that has been imparted extends thus far only; it is adequate for the attainment of knowledge without depending on anything else.'

याम् इमां ब्राह्मीम् उपनिषदं तव_अग्रेऽब्रूम_इति तस्यै तस्या उक्ताया उपनिषदः प्राप्त्य्-उपाय-भूतानि तप-आदीनि। तपः कायेन्द्रिय-मनसां समाधानम्। दमः उपशमः। कर्म अग्नि-होत्रादि। एतैर् हि संस्कृतस्य सत्त्व-शुद्धि-द्वारा तत्त्व-ज्ञानोत्पत्तिर् दृष्टा। दृष्टा हि_अ-मृदित-कल्मषस्य_उक्तेऽपि ब्रह्मणि_अप्रतिपत्तिर् विपरीत-प्रतिपत्तिश् च, यथा_इन्द्र-विरोचन-प्रभृतीनाम्।
Concentration etc. are the means for the acquisition, tasyai, (should be tasyāḥ), of that secret teaching (Upaniṣad), regarding Brahman which I thus spoke before you. Tapaḥ, the concentration of the body, the senses, and the mind; damaḥ, cessation (form sense objects); karma, rites, Agni-hotra etc. (are the means); for it is found that the knowledge of Brahman arises in a man who has attained the requisite holiness by means of purification of the heart through these. For it is a matter of experience that, even though Brahman is spoken of, there is either non-comprehension or mis-comprehension in the case of one who has not been purged of his sin, as for instance, in the cases of Indra and Virocana (ChanU.8.7–12).

तस्माद् इह वा_अतीतेषु वा बहुषु जन्मान्तरेषु तप-आदिभिः कृत-सत्त्व-शुद्धेर् ज्ञानं समुत्पद्यते यथा-श्रुतम्, “यस्य देवे परा भक्तिर् यथा देवे तथा गुरौ। तस्य_एते कथिता हि_अर्थाः प्रकाशन्ते महात्मनः” (ChanU.8.7.1, SvetU.6.23) इति मन्त्र-वर्णात्। “ज्ञानम् उत्पद्यते पुंसां क्षयात् पापस्य कर्मणः” (MBhSan.204.8) इति स्मृतेश् च।
Therefore knowledge, as imparted by the Vedas, dawns on one whose mind has been purified by concentration etc., either in this life or in many past ones, as is mentioned by the Veda verse: ‘These things get revealed when spoken to that high-souled man who has supreme devotion towards the Effulgent One, and the same devotion to his teacher as to the Effulgent One’ (SvetU.6.23). And this is borne out by the Smṛti, ‘Knowledge dawns on a man on the eradication of sinful acts.’ (Mahā-bhārata Śānti-parva 204.8).

इति-शब्दः उपलक्षणत्व-प्रदर्शनार्थः। इति एवम्-आद्य्-अन्यद् अपि ज्ञानोत्पत्तेर् उपकारकम् “अमानित्वम् अदम्भित्वम्” (BhG.13.7) इति_आद्य्-उपदर्शितं भवति। प्रतिष्ठा पादौ पादाव् इव_अस्याः, तेषु हि सत्सु प्रतितिष्ठति ब्रह्म-विद्या प्रवर्तते, पद्भ्याम् इव पुरुषः।
The word iti is used to draw attention to a synecdoche
[•I.e. a figure of speech in which a term for a part of something is used to refer to the whole, or vice versa.•];
that is to say, by the word iti are suggested other factors, beginning with these, which are helpful to the rise of knowledge, such as ‘Humility, unpretentiousness,’ etc. (BhG.13.7). (Concentration etc. are the) pratiṣṭhā, two legs, stands as it were, of this (Upaniṣad); for when these exist, knowledge of Brahman stands firm and becomes active, just as a man does with his legs.

वेदाश् चत्वारः [सर्वाङ्गानि] सर्वाणि च_अङ्गानि शिक्षादीनि षट् कर्म-ज्ञान-प्रकाशकत्वाद् वेदानां तद्-रक्षणार्थत्वाद् अङ्गानां प्रतिष्ठात्वम्।
Vedāḥ, the four Vedas; and sarva-angāni, all the six subsidiaries beginning with the science of pronunciation and euphony (śikṣā) (are also the legs). The Vedas are the legs because they reveal the rites and knowledge; and all the angāni, subsidiaries, are so because they are meant for the protection (rakṣaṇa) of the Vedas.

अथवा, प्रतिष्ठा-शब्दस्य पाद-रूप-कल्पनार्थत्वाद् वेदास् तु_इतराणि “सर्वाङ्गानि” शिर-आदीनि। अस्मिन् पक्षे शिक्षादीनां वेद-ग्रहणेन_एव ग्रहणं कृतं प्रत्येतव्यम्। अङ्गिनि हि गृहीतेऽङ्गानि गृहीतानि_एव भवन्ति, तद्-आयत्तत्वाद् अङ्गानाम्।
Or since the word pratiṣṭhā has been imagined to imply the two legs (of the knowledge), the Vedas are its sarva-angāni, all the other limbs beginning with the head. In this case, the subsidiaries, such as the science of pronunciation and euphony, are to be understood to have been mentioned by the word Vedas; because when the principal factor is mentioned, the subsidiaries are mentioned ipso facto, they being dependent on the principal.

सत्यम् आयतनं यत्र तिष्ठति_उपनिषत् तद्-आयतनम्। सत्यम् इति अमायिता अकौटिल्यं वाङ्-मनः-कायानाम्। तेषु हि_आश्रयति विद्या ये अमायाविनः साधवः, न_असुर-प्रकृतिषु मायाविषु, “न येषु जिह्मम् अनृतं न माया च” (PrasU.1.16) इति श्रुतेः। तस्मात् सत्यम् आयतनम् इति कल्प्यते।
Satyam āyatanam, satya is the āyatana, the dwelling place where the secret teaching resides. Satya means freedom from deceit and crookedness in speech, mind, and body; for knowledge abides in those who are free from deceit and who are holy, and not in those who are devilish by nature and are deceitful, as the Veda text says, ‘those in whom there are no crookedness falsehood and deceit’ (PrasU.1.16). Therefore satya (truth) is imagined as the abode.

तप-आदिषु_एव प्रतिष्ठात्वेन प्राप्तस्य सत्यस्य पुनर् आयतनत्वेन ग्रहणं साधनातिशयत्व-ज्ञापनार्थम्। “अश्व-मेध-सहस्रं च सत्यं च तुलया धृतम्। अश्व-मेध-सहस्राच् च सत्यम् एकं विशिष्यते” (MBhAsv.74.103) इति स्मृतेः॥
Although by implication, truth has already been mentioned as legs, along with concentration etc., still its allusion again as the abode is for indicating that, as a means (for the acquisition of knowledge) it excels others, as the Smṛti says, ‘A thousand horse-sacrifices and truth are weighed in a balance: and one truth outweighs a thousand horse sacrifices’ (Mahā-bhārata Śānti-parva 204.8).