उषा इति, ब्राह्मो मुहूर्तः उषाः; वै-शब्दः स्मारणार्थः, प्रसिद्धं कालं स्मारयति; शिरः, प्राधान्यात्; शिरश्च प्रधानं शरीरावयवानाम्; अश्वस्य, मेध्यस्य मेधार्हस्य यज्ञियस्य, उषाः शिर इति सम्बन्धः। कर्माङ्गस्य पशोः संस्कर्तव्यत्वात्कालादिदृष्टयः शिरआदिषु क्षिप्यन्ते; प्राजापत्यत्वं च प्रजापतिदृष्ट्यध्यारोपणात्; काललोकदेवतात्वाध्यारोपणं च प्रजापतित्वकरणं पशोः; एवंरूपो हि प्रजापतिः; विष्णुत्वादिकरणमिव प्रतिमादौ।
The śiraḥ, head; aśvasya medhyasya, of the sacrificial horse, i.e. one fit for a sacrifice, is uṣāḥ, the dawn, a period of about three quarters of an hour just before sunrise. The particle ‘vai’ recalls something well-known, here, the time of dawn. The similarity is due to the importance of each. The head is the most important part of the body (and so is the dawn of the day). The horse which is a part of the sacrifice has to be purified; hence its head and other parts of its body are to be looked upon as certain divisions of time etc. (and not vice versa). And it will be raised to the status of Prajā-pati by being meditated upon as such. In other words, the horse will be deified into Prajā-pati if the ideas of time, worlds and deities be superimposed on it, for Prajā-pati comprises these. It is like converting an image etc. into the Lord Viṣṇu or any other deity.

सूर्यश्चक्षुः, शिरसोऽनन्तरत्वात्सूर्याधिदैवतत्वाच्च; वातः प्राणः, वायुस्वाभाव्यात्; व्यात्तं विवृतं मुखम् अग्निर्वैश्वानरः; वैश्वानर इत्यग्नेर्विशेषणम्; वैश्वानरो नामाग्निर्विवृतं मुखमित्यर्थः, मुखस्याग्निदैवतत्वात्; संवत्सर आत्मा; संवत्सरो द्वादशमासस्त्रयोदशमासो वा; आत्मा शरीरम्; कालावयवानां च संवत्सरः शरीरम्; शरीरं चात्मा, ‘मध्यं ह्येषामङ्गानामात्मा’ (ऐ. आ. २-३-५) इति श्रुतेः; अश्वस्य मेध्यस्य इति सर्वत्रानुषङ्गार्थं पुनर्वचनम्।
Its cakṣuḥ eye; the sūryaḥ, sun, for it is next to the head,
[•as the sun is next to, or rises just after the dawn•]
and has the sun for its presiding deity. Its prāṇaḥ, vital force the vātaḥ, air, because as the breath it is of the nature of air. Its vyāttam, open mouth; the agniḥ, fire called Vaiśvā-nara. The word ’‘Vaiśvā-nara’ specifies the fire. The mouth is fire, because that is its presiding deity. The ātmā, body of the sacrificial horse is the saṃvatsaraḥ, year consisting of twelve or thirteen (Including the intercalary month) months. The word ‘Ātman’ here means the body. The year is the body of the divisions of time; and the body is called ‘Ātman’, as we see it in the Śruti passage, ‘For the Ātman (trunk) is the center of these limbs’ (TaitAr.2.3.5). The repetition of the phrase ‘aśvasya medhyasya, of the sacrificial horse’ is intended to show that it is to be connected with all the terms.

द्यौः पृष्ठम्, ऊर्ध्वत्वसामान्यात्; अन्तरिक्षमुदरम्, सुषिरत्वसामान्यात्; पृथिवी पाजस्यं पादस्यम्, पाजस्यमिति वर्णव्यत्ययेन, पादासनस्थानमित्यर्थः;
Its pṛṣṭham, back; is dyauḥ, heaven, because both are high. Its udaram, belly; the antar-ikṣam, sky, because both are hollow. Its pājasyam, hoof the pṛthivī, earth: ‘Pājasya’, should be ‘pādasya’ by the usual transmutation of letters, meaning a seat for the foot.

दिशः चतस्रोऽपि पार्श्वे, पार्श्वेन दिशां सम्बन्धात्; पार्श्वयोर्दिशां च सङ्ख्यावैषम्यादयुक्तमिति चेत्, न; सर्वमुखत्वोपपत्तेरश्वस्य पार्श्वाभ्यामेव सर्वदिशां सम्बन्धाददोषः; अवान्तरदिश आग्नेय्याद्याः पर्शवः पार्श्वास्थीनि;
Its pārśve, sides; the diśaḥ, four quarters, for they are connected with the quarters. It may be objected that the sides being two and the quarters four in number, the parallel is wrong. The answer to it is that since the head of the horse can be in any direction, its two sides can easily come in contact with all the quarters. So it is all right. Its parśavaḥ, ribs the avāntara-diśaḥ, intermediate quarters such as the south-east.

ऋतवोऽङ्गानि, संवत्सरावयवत्वादङ्गसाधर्म्यात्; मासाश्चार्धमासाश्च पर्वाणि सन्धयः, सन्धिसामान्यात्; अहोरात्राणि प्रतिष्ठाः; बहुवचनात्प्राजापत्यदैवपित्र्यमानुषाणि; प्रतिष्ठाः पादाः, प्रतितिष्ठत्येतैरिति; अहोरात्रैर्हि कालात्मा प्रतितिष्ठति, अश्वश्च पादैः;
Its aṅgāni, members; the ṛtavaḥ, seasons: The latter, being parts of the year, are its limbs, which brings out the similarity. Its parvāṇi, joints; the māsāḥ ca ardha-māsāḥ ca, months and fortnights, because both connect.
[•the latter connect the parts of the year as joints do those of the body•]
Its pratiṣṭhāḥ, feet; the aho-rātrāṇi, days and nights. The plural in the latter indicates that those
[•A month of ours makes a day and night of the Manes. A year of ours makes a day and night of the gods; and twenty-four million years of the latter make a day and night of Prajā-pati, equivalent to two Kalpas or cycles of ours•]
pertaining to Prajā-pati, the gods, the Manes and men are all meant. ‘Pratiṣṭhā’ literally means those by which one stands; hence feet. The deity representing time stands on the days and nights; as the horse does on its feet.

नक्षत्राण्यस्थीनि, शुक्लत्वसामान्यात्; नभो नभःस्था मेघाः, अन्तरिक्षस्योदरत्वोक्तेः; मांसानि, उदकरुधिरसेचनसामान्यात्।
Its asthīni, bones; the nakṣatrāṇi, stars, both being white. Its māṃsāni, flesh; the nabhas, clouds: The word used in the text means the sky, but since this has been spoken of as the belly, here it denotes the clouds which float in it. They are flesh, because they shed water as the flesh sheds blood.

ऊवध्यम् उदरस्थमर्धजीर्णमशनं सिकताः, विश्लिष्टावयवत्वसामान्यात्; सिन्धवः स्यन्दनसामान्यात् नद्यः गुदा नाड्यः, बहुवचनाच्च; यकृच्च क्लोमानश्च हृदयस्याधस्ताद्दक्षिणोत्तरौ मांसखण्डौ; क्लोमान इति नित्यं बहुवचनमेकस्मिन्नेव; पर्वताः, काठिन्यादुच्छ्रितत्वाच्च;
Its ūvadhyam, half-digested food in the stomach is the sikatāḥ, sand, because both consist of loose parts. Its sindhavaḥ, blood-vessels; the nadyaḥ, rivers, for both flow. The word in the text, being plural, denotes blood-vessels here. Its yakṛt klomānaḥ ca, liver and spleen; the parvatāḥ, mountains, both being hard and elevated. ‘Yakṛt’ and ‘Kloman’ are muscles below the heart on the right and left. The latter word, though always used in the plural, denotes a single thing.

ओषधयश्च क्षुद्राः स्थावराः, वनस्पतयो महान्तः, लोमानि केशाश्च यथासम्भवम्;
Its lomāni, hairs; the oṣadhayaḥ vanas-patayaḥ, herbs and trees: These, being small and large plants respectively, should be applied to the short and long hairs according to fitness.

उद्यन् उद्गच्छन्भवति सविता आ मध्याह्नात् अश्वस्य पूर्वार्धः नाभेरूर्ध्वमित्यर्थः; निम्लोचन् अस्तं यन् आ मध्याह्नात् जघनार्धोऽपरार्धः, पूर्वापरत्वसाधर्म्यात्;
Its pūrva-ardhaḥ, forepart, from the navel onward; is the udyan, ascending (lit. ‘rising’) sun, up to noon. Its jaghana-ardhaḥ, hind part; the nimlocan, descending (lit. ‘setting’) sun, from noon on. The similarity consists in their being the anterior and posterior parts respectively in each case.

यद्विजृम्भते गात्राणि विनामयति विक्षिपति, तद्विद्योतते विद्योतनम्, मुखघनविदारणसामान्यात्; यद्विधूनुते गात्राणि कम्पयति, तत्स्तनयति, गर्जनशब्दसामान्यात्; यन्मेहति मूत्रं करोत्यश्वः, तद्वर्षति वर्षणं तत्, सेचनसामान्यात्; वागेव शब्द एव अस्य अश्वस्य वाग् इति, नात्र कल्पनेत्यर्थः॥
Its yad vijṛmbhate, yawning, or stretching or jerking the limbs is tad vidyotate, lightning, because the one splits the cloud, and the other the mouth. Its yad vidhūnute, shaking the body is tat stanayati, thundering, both producing a sound. Its yan mehati, making water; is tad varṣati, raining, owing to the similarity of moistening. And asya vāk, its neighing; is vāk, voice or sound – no fancying is needed here.

अहर्वा इति, सौवर्णराजतौ महिमाख्यौ ग्रहावश्वस्याग्रतः पृष्ठतश्च स्थाप्येते, तद्विषयमिदं दर्शनम्।
Mahimā, the vessel called Mahiman, etc. Two sacrificial vessels called Mahiman, made of gold and silver respectively, are placed before and behind the horse.
[•That is, before and after the horse is killed•]
This is a meditation regarding them..

अहः सौवर्णो ग्रहः, दीप्तिसामान्याद् वै। अहर् अश्वं पुरस्तान्महिमान्वजायत इति कथम्? अश्वस्य प्रजापतित्वात्; प्रजापतिर्ह्यादित्यादिलक्षणोऽह्ना लक्ष्यते; अश्वं लक्षयित्वाजायत सौवर्णो महिमा ग्रहः, वृक्षमनु विद्योतते विद्युदिति यद्वत्।
The gold vessel is the ahar, day, because both are bright. How is it that aśvam purastāt mahimā anvajāyata, the vessel in front of the horse, which appeared about (lit. ‘after’) it, is the day? Because the horse is Prajā-pati. And it is Prajā-pati consisting of the sun etc. who is pointed out by the vessel that we are required to look upon as the day. The preposition ‘anu’ here does not mean ‘after’, but points out something. – So the meaning is, the gold vessel (Mahiman) appeared pointing out the horse as Prajā-pati, just as we say lightning flashes pointing out (anu) the tree.

तस्य ग्रहस्य पूर्वे पूर्वः समुद्रे समुद्रः योनिः, विभक्तिव्यत्ययेन; योनिरित्यासादनस्थानम्।
Tasya yoniḥ, its source, the place from which the vessel is obtained, ‘is’ the pūrve samudre, eastern sea. Literally translated, it would mean, is ‘in’ the eastern sea, but the locative case-ending should be changed into the nominative to give the required sense.

तथा रात्री राजतो ग्रहः, वर्णसामान्याज्जघन्यत्वसामान्याद्वा। एनम् अश्वं पश्चात् पृष्ठतो महिमा अन्वजायत; तस्यापरे समुद्रे योनिः।
Similarly the mahimā, silver vessel, enam paścāt, behind the horse, anvajāyata, which appeared about it, is the rātriḥ, night, because both (silver, ‘rājata’, and ‘rātrī’) begin with the same syllable (rā), or because both are inferior to the previous set. Its yoniḥ, source is the apare samudre, western sea.

महिमा महत्त्वात्। अश्वस्य हि विभूतिरेषा, यत्सौवर्णो राजतश्च ग्रहावुभयतः स्थाप्येते। तै एतौ वै महिमानौ महिमाख्यौ ग्रहौ, अश्वमभितः सम्बभूवतुः उक्तलक्षणावेव सम्भूतौ। इत्थमसावश्वो महत्त्वयुक्त इति पुनर्वचनं स्तुत्यर्थम्।
The vessels are called Mahiman, because they indicate greatness. It is to the glory of the horse that a gold and a silver vessel are placed on each side of it. Etau vai mahimānau, these two vessels called Mahiman, as described above, aśvam abhitaḥ sambabhūvatuḥ, appeared on either side of the horse. The repetition of the sentence is to glorify the horse, as much as to say that for the above reasons it is a wonderful horse.

तथा च हयो भूत्वा इत्यादि स्तुत्यर्थमेव। हयो हिनोतेर्गतिकर्मणः, विशिष्टगतिरित्यर्थः; जातिविशेषो वा;
The words ‘hayaḥ bhūtvā, as a haya’ etc. are similarly eulogistic. ‘Haya’ comes from the root ‘hi,’ meaning, to move. Hence the word means ‘possessing great speed’. Or it may mean a species of horse.

देवानवहद् देवत्वमगमयत्, प्रजापतित्वात्; देवानां वा वोढाभवत्; ननु निन्दैव वाहनत्वम्; नैष दोषः; वाहनत्वं स्वाभाविकमश्वस्य, स्वाभाविकत्वादुच्छ्रायप्राप्तिर्देवादिसम्बन्धोऽश्वस्य इति स्तुतिरेवैषा।
It devān avahat, carried the gods, i.e. made them gods, since it was Prajā-pati; or literally called them. It may be urged that this act of carrying is rather a reproach. But the answer is that carrying is natural to a horse; so it is not derogatory. On the contrary, the act, by bringing the horse into contact with the gods, was a promotion for it. Hence the sentence is a eulogy.

तथा वाज्यादयो जातिविशेषाः; वाजी भूत्वा गन्धर्वान् अवहदित्यनुषङ्गः; तथा अर्वा भूत्वा असुरान्; अश्वो भूत्वा मनुष्यान्।
Similarly ‘vājin’ and the other terms mean species of horses. (As a) vājī (it carried) gandharvān the celestial minstrels; the ellipsis must be supplied with the intermediate words. Similarly (as an) arvan (it carried) the asurān, the gods, and (as an) aśvaḥ (it carried) manuṣyān, men.

समुद्र एव इति परमात्मा, बन्धुर् बन्धनम्, बध्यतेऽस्मिन्निति; समुद्रो योनिः कारणमुत्पत्तिं प्रति;
The Supreme Self – ‘Samudra’ here means that – is its bandhuḥ, stable, the place where it is tied. And the Supreme Self its yoniḥ, source, the cause of its origin.

एवमसौ शुद्धयोनिः शुद्धस्थितिरिति स्तूयते; ‘अप्सुयोनिर्वा अश्वः’ (तै. सं. २-३-१२) इति श्रुतेः प्रसिद्ध एव वा समुद्रो योनिः॥
Thus it has sprung from a pure source and lives in a pure spot. So it is a tribute to the horse. Or ‘Samudra’ may mean the familiar sea, for the Śruti says, ‘The horse has its source in water’ (TaitS.2.3.12).

अथाग्नेरश्वमेधोपयोगिकस्योत्पत्तिरुच्यते। तद्विषयदर्शनविवक्षयैवोत्पत्तिः स्तुत्यर्था। नैवेह किञ्चनाग्र आसीत् इह संसारमण्डले, किञ्चन किञ्चिदपि नामरूपप्रविभक्तविशेषम्, नैवासीत् न बभूव, अग्रे प्रागुत्पत्तेर्मनआदेः।
Now the origin of the fire that is fit for use in the horse sacrifice is being described. This story of its origin is meant as a eulogy in order to prescribe a meditation concerning it. kiñcit na eva āsīt, there was nothing whatsoever, differentiated by name and form (nāma rūpa); iha, here, in the universe, agre, in the beginning, i.e. before the manifestation of the mind etc.

किं शून्यमेव बभूव?
Question: Was it altogether void (śūnyam)?

शून्यमेव स्यात्; ‘नैवेह किञ्चन’ इति श्रुतेः, न कार्यं कारणं वासीत्; उत्पत्तेश्च; उत्पद्यते हि घटः; अतः प्रागुत्पत्तेर्घटस्य नास्तित्वम्।
Nihilistic view: It must be so, for the Śruti says, ‘There was nothing whatsoever here.’ There was neither cause nor effect. Another reason for this connection is the fact of origin. A jar (i.e., a clay pot), for instance, is produced. Hence before its origin it must have been non-existent.

ननु कारणस्य न नास्तित्वम्, मृत्पिण्डादिदर्शनात्; यन्नोपलभ्यते तस्यैव नास्तिता। अस्तु कार्यस्य, न तु कारणस्य, उपलभ्यमानत्वात्।
The logician objects: But the cause cannot be non-existent, for we see the lump of clay, for instance (before the jar is produced). What is not perceived may well be non-existent, as is the case with the effect here. But not so with regard to the cause, for it is perceived.

न, प्रागुत्पत्तेः सर्वानुपलम्भात्। अनुपलब्धिश्चेदभावहेतुः, सर्वस्य जगतः प्रागुत्पत्तेर्न कारणं कार्यं वोपलभ्यते; तस्मात्सर्वस्यैवाभावोऽस्तु।
The nihilist: No, for before the origin nothing is perceived. If the non-perception of a thing be the ground of its non-existence, before the origin of the whole universe neither cause nor effect is perceived. Hence everything must have been non-existent.

न, ‘मृत्युनैवेदमावृतामासीत्’ इति श्रुतेः; यदि हि किञ्चिदपि नासीत्, येनाव्रियते यच्चाव्रियते, तदा नावक्ष्यत्, ‘मृत्युनैवेदमावृतम्’ इति; न हि भवति गगनकुसुमच्छन्नो वन्ध्यापुत्र इति; ब्रवीति च ‘मृत्युनैवेदमावृतमासीत्’ इति।
Vedāntin’s Reply: Not so, for the Śruti says, ‘Mṛtyunā eva idam āvṛtām āsīt, It was covered only by Death.’ Had there been absolutely nothing either to cover or to be covered, the Śruti would not have said, ‘It was covered by Death.’ For it never happens that a barren woman’s son is covered with flowers springing from the sky. Yet the Śruti says, ‘It was covered only by Death.’

तस्मात् येनावृतं कारणेन, यच्चावृतं कार्यम्, प्रागुत्पत्तेस्तदुभयमासीत्, श्रुतेः प्रामाण्यात्, अनुमेयत्वाच्च।
Therefore on the authority of the Śruti we conclude that the cause which covered, and the effect which was covered, were both existent before the origin of the universe. Inference also points to this conclusion.

अनुमीयते च प्रागुत्पत्तेः कार्यकारणयोरस्तित्वम्। कार्यस्य हि सतो जायमानस्य कारणे सत्युत्पत्तिदर्शनात्, असति चादर्शनात्, जगतोऽपि प्रागुत्पत्तेः कारणास्तित्वमनुमीयते, घटादिकारणास्तित्ववत्।
We can infer the existence of the cause and effect (These will be taken up one by one) before creation. We observe that a positive effect which is produced takes place only when there is a cause and does not take place when there is no cause. From this we infer that the cause of the universe too must have existed before creation, as is the case with the cause of a jar, for instance.

घटादिकारणस्याप्यसत्त्वमेव, अनुपमृद्य मृत्पिण्डादिकं घटाद्यनुत्पत्तेरिति चेत्,
Objection: The cause of a jar also does not pre-exist, for the jar is not produced without destroying the lump of clay. And so with other things.

न; मृदादेः कारणत्वात्। मृत्सुवर्णादि हि तत्र कारणं घटरुचकादेः, न पिण्डाकारविशेषः, तदभावे भावात्।
Reply: Not so, for the clay (or other material) is the cause. The clay is the cause of the jar, and the gold of the necklace, and not the particular lump-like form of the material, for they exist without it.

असत्यपि पिण्डाकारविशेषे मृत्सुवर्णादिकारणद्रव्यमात्रादेव घटरुचकादिकार्योत्पत्तिर्दृश्यते। तस्मान्न पिण्डाकारविशेषो घटरुचकादिकारणम्।
We see that effects such as the jar and the necklace are produced simply when their materials, clay and gold, are present, although the lump-like form may be absent. Therefore this particular form is not the cause of the jar and the necklace.

असति तु मृत्सुवर्णादिद्रव्ये घटरुचकादिर्न जायत इति मृत्सुवर्णादिद्रव्यमेव कारणम्, न तु पिण्डाकारविशेषः।
But when the clay and the gold are absent, the jar and the necklace are not produced, which shows that these materials, clay and gold, are the cause, and not the roundish form.

सर्वं हि कारणं कार्यमुत्पादयत्, पूर्वोत्पन्नस्यात्मकार्यस्य तिरोधानं कुर्वत्, कार्यान्तरमुत्पादयति; एकस्मिन्कारणे युगपदनेककार्यविरोधात्। न च पूर्वकार्योपमर्दे कारणस्य स्वात्मोपमर्दो भवति।
Whenever a cause produces an effect, it does so by destroying another effect it produced just before, for the same cause cannot produce more than one effect at a time. But the cause, by destroying the previous effect, does not destroy itself.

तस्मात्पिण्डाद्युपमर्दे कार्योत्पत्तिदर्शनमहेतुः प्रागुत्पत्तेः कारणासत्त्वे।
Therefore the fact that an effect is produced by destroying the previous effect, the lump, for instance, is not a valid reason to disprove that the cause exists before the effect is produced.

पिण्डादिव्यतिरेकेण मृदादेरसत्त्वादयुक्तमिति चेत् – पिण्डादिपूर्वकार्योपमर्दे मृदादि कारणं नोपमृद्यते, घटादिकार्यान्तरेऽप्यनुवर्तते, इत्येतदयुक्तम्, पिण्डघटादिव्यतिरेकेण मृदादिकारणस्यानुपलम्भादिति चेत्,
Objection: It is not correct, for the clay etc. cannot exist apart from the lump and so on. In other words, you cannot say that the cause, the clay, for example, is not destroyed when its previous effect, the lump or any other form, is destroyed, but that it passes on to some other effect such as the jar. For the cause, the clay or the like, is not perceived apart from the lump or jar, and so on.

न; मृदादिकारणानां घटाद्युत्पत्तौ पिण्डादिनिवृत्तावनुवृत्तिदर्शनात्।
Reply: Not so, for we see those cause, the clay etc., persist when the jar and other things have been produced, and the lump or any other form has gone.

सादृश्यादन्वयदर्शनम्, न कारणानुवृत्तेरिति चेत्,
Objection: The persistence noticed is due to similarity, and to actual persistence of the cause.

न; पिण्डादिगतानां मृदाद्यवयवानामेव घटादौ प्रत्यक्षत्वेऽनुमानाभासात्सादृश्यादिकल्पनानुपपत्तेः।
Reply: No. Since the particles of clay or other material which belonged to the lump etc. are perceptible in the jar and other things, it is unreasonable to imagine similarity through a pseudo-inference.

न च प्रत्यक्षानुमानयोर्विरुद्धाव्यभिचारिता, प्रत्यक्षपूर्वकत्वादनुमानस्य; सर्वत्रैवानाश्वासप्रसङ्गात् – यदि च क्षणिकं सर्वं तदेवेदमिति गम्यमानम्, तद्बुद्धेरप्यन्यतद्बुद्ध्यपेक्षत्वे तस्या अप्यन्यतद्बुद्ध्यपेक्षत्वमित्यनवस्थायाम्, तत्सदृशमिदमित्यस्या अपि बुद्धेर्मृषात्वात्, सर्वत्रानाश्वासतैव। तदिदम्बुद्ध्योरपि कर्त्रभावे सम्बन्धानुपपत्तिः।
Nor is inference valid when it contradicts perception, for it depends on the latter, and the contrary view will result in a general disbelief. That is to say, if everything perceived as ‘This is that’ is momentary, then the notion of ‘that’ would depend on another notion regarding something else, and so on, thus leading to a regressus in infinitum; and the notion of ‘This is like that’ being also falsified thereby, there would be no certainty anywhere. Besides the two notions of ‘this’ and ‘that’ cannot be connected, since there is no abiding subject.

सादृश्यात्तत्सम्बन्ध इति चेत्,
Objection: They would be connected through the similarity between them.

न; तदिदम्बुद्ध्योरितरेतरविषयत्वानुपपत्तेः। असति चेतरेतरविषयत्वे सादृश्यग्रहणानुपपत्तिः।
Reply: No, for the notions of ‘this’ and ‘that’ cannot be the object of each other’s perception, and
[•since according to you there is no abiding subject like the Self,•]
there would be no perception of similarity.

असत्येव सादृश्ये तद्बुद्धिरिति चेत्,
Objection: Although there is no similarity, there is the notion of it.

न; तदिदम्बुद्ध्योरपि सादृश्यबुद्धिवदसद्विषयत्वप्रसङ्गात्।
Reply: Then the notions of ‘this’ and ‘that’ would also, like the notion of similarity, be based on nonentities.

असद्विषयत्वमेव सर्वबुद्धीनामस्त्विति चेत्,
Objection (by the ’Yogācāra school): Let all notions be based on nonentities. (What is the harm?)

न; बुद्धिबुद्धेरप्यसद्विषयत्वप्रसङ्गात्।
Reply: Then your view that everything is an idea would also be based on a nonentity.

तदप्यस्त्विति चेत्,
Objection (by the nihilist): Let it be.

न; सर्वबुद्धीनां मृषात्वेऽसत्यबुद्ध्यनुपपत्तेः। तस्मादसदेतत् – सादृश्यात्तद्बुद्धिरिति। अतः सिद्धः प्राक्कार्योत्पत्तेः कारणसद्भावः।
Reply: If all notions are false, your view that all notions are unreal cannot be established. Therefore it is wrong to say that recognition takes place through similarity. Hence it is proved that the cause exists before the effect is produced.

कार्यस्य च अभिव्यक्तिलिङ्गत्वात्। कार्यस्य च सद्भावः प्रागुत्पत्तेः सिद्धः; कथम्? अभिव्यक्तिलिङ्गत्वात् – अभिव्यक्तिर्लिङ्गमस्येति? अभिव्यक्तिः साक्षाद्विज्ञानालम्बनत्वप्राप्तिः। यद्धि लोके प्रावृतं तमआदिना घटादि वस्तु, तदालोकादिना प्रावरणतिरस्कारेण विज्ञानविषयत्वं प्राप्नुवत्, प्राक्सद्भावं न व्यभिचरति;
The effect too exists before it is produced. How? Because its manifestation points out its pre-existence. Manifestation means coming within the range of perception. It is a common occurrence that a thing, a jar for instance, which was hidden by darkness or any other thing and comes within the range of perception when the obstruction is removed by the appearance of light or in some other way, does not preclude its previous existence.

तथेदमपि जगत् प्रागुत्पत्तेरित्यवगच्छामः। न ह्यविद्यमानो घटः उदितेऽप्यादित्ये उपलभ्यते।
Similarly this universe too, we can understand, existed before its manifestation. For a jar that is non-existent is not perceived even when the sun rises.

न; ते अविद्यमानत्वाभावादुपलभ्येतैवेति चेत् – न हि तव घटादि कार्यं कदाचिदप्यविद्यमानमित्युदिते आदित्ये उपलभ्येतैव, मृत्पिण्डेसन्निहिते तमआद्यावरणे चासति विद्यमानत्वादिति चेत्,
Objection: No, it must be perceived, for you deny its previous non-existent. According to you, any effect, say a jar, is never non-existent. So it must be perceived when the sun rises. Its previous form, the lump of clay, is nowhere near, and obstructions like darkness are absent; so, being existent, it cannot but appear.

न; द्विविधत्वादावरणस्य। घटादिकार्यस्य द्विविधं ह्यावरणम् – मृदादेरभिव्यक्तस्य तमःकुड्यादि, प्राङ्मृदोऽभिव्यक्तेर्मृदाद्यवयवानां पिण्डादिकार्यान्तररूपेण संस्थानम्। तस्मात्प्रागुत्पत्तेर्विद्यमानस्यैव घटादिकार्यस्यावृतत्वादनुपलब्धिः। नष्टोत्पन्नभावाभावशब्दप्रत्ययभेदस्तु अभिव्यक्तितिरोभावयोर्द्विविधत्वापेक्षः।
Reply: Not so, for obstruction is of two kinds. Every effect such as a jar has two kinds of obstruction. When it has become manifest from its component clay, darkness and the wall etc. are the obstructions; while before its manifestations from the clay the obstruction consists in the particles of clay remaining as some other effect such as a lump. Therefore the effect, the jar, although existent, is not perceived before its manifestation, as it is hidden. The terms and concepts ‘destroyed (naṣṭa),’ ‘produced (utpanna),’ ‘existence (bhāva)’ and ‘non-existence (a-bhāva)’ depend on this twofold character of manifestation (abhivyakti) and disappearance (tiro-bhāva).

पिण्डकपालादेरावरणवैलक्षण्यादयुक्तमिति चेत् – तमःकुड्यादि हि घटाद्यावरणं घटादिभिन्नदेशं दृष्टम्; न तथा घटादिभिन्नदेशे दृष्टे पिण्डकपाले; तस्मात्पिण्डकपालसंस्थानयोर्विद्यमानस्यैव घटस्यावृतत्वादनुपलब्धिरित्ययुक्तम्, आवरणधर्मवैलक्षण्यादिति चेत्,
Objection: This is incorrect, since the obstructions represented by particular forms such as the lump or the two halves of a jar are of a different nature. To be explicit: Such obstructions to the manifestation of a jar as darkness or the wall, we see, do not occupy the same space as the jar, but the lump or the two halves of a jar do. So your statement that the jar, although present in the form of the lump or the two halves, is not perceived because it is hidden, is wrong, for the nature of the obstruction in this case is different.

न; क्षीरोदकादेः क्षीराद्यावरणेनैकदेशत्वदर्शनात्।
Reply: No, for we see that water mixed with milk occupies the same space as the milk which conceals it.

घटादिकार्ये कपालचूर्णाद्यवयवानामन्तर्भावादनावरणत्वमिति चेत्,
Objection: But since the component parts of a jar such as its two halves or pieces are included in the effect, the jar, they should not prove obstructions at all.

न; विभक्तानाङ्कार्यान्तरत्वादावरणत्वोपपत्तेः।
Reply: Not so, for being separated from the jar they are so many different effects, and can therefore serve as obstructions.

आवरणाभावे एव यत्नः कर्तव्य इति चेत् – पिण्डकपालावस्थयोर्विद्यमानमेव घटादि कार्यमावृतत्वान्नोपलभ्यत इति चेत्, घटादिकार्यार्थिना तदावरणविनाशे एव यत्नः कर्तव्यः, न घटाद्युत्पत्तौ; न चैतदस्ति; तस्मादयुक्तं विद्यमानस्यैवावृतत्वादनुपलब्धिः, इति चेत्,
Objection: Then the effort should be directed solely to the removal of the obstructions. That is to say, if as you say, the effect, the jar for instance, is actually present in the state of the lump or the two halves, and is not perceived because of an obstruction, then one who wants that effect, the jar, should try to remove the obstruction, and not make the jar. But as a matter of fact, nobody does so. Therefore your statement is wrong.

न; अनियमात्। न हि विनाशमात्रप्रयत्नादेव घटाद्यभिव्यक्तिर्नियता; तमआद्यावृते घटादौ प्रदीपाद्युत्पत्तौ प्रयत्नदर्शनात्।
Reply: No, for there is no hard and fast rule about it. It is not always the case that a jar or any other effect manifests itself if only one tries to remove the obstruction; for when a jar, for instance, is covered with darkness etc., one tries to light a lamp.

सोऽपि तमोनाशायैवेति चेत् – दीपाद्युत्पत्तावपि यः प्रयत्नः सोऽपि तमस्तिरस्करणाय; तस्मिन्नष्टे घटः स्वयमेवोपलभ्यते; न हि घटे किञ्चिदाधीयत इति चेत्,
Objection: That too is just for destroying the darkness. This effort to light a lamp is also for removing the darkness, which done, the jar is automatically perceived. Nothing is added to the jar.

न; प्रकाशवतो घटस्योपलभ्यमानत्वात्। यथा प्रकाशविशिष्टो घट उपलभ्यते प्रदीपकरणे, न तथा प्राक्प्रदीपकरणात्।
Reply: No, for the jar is perceived as covered with light when the lump is lighted. Not so before the lighting of the lamp. .

तस्मान्न तमस्तिरस्करणायैव प्रदीपकरणम्; किं तर्हि, प्रकाशवत्त्वाय; प्रकाशवत्त्वेनैवोपलभ्यमानत्वात्। क्वचिदावरणविनाशेऽपि यत्नः स्यात्; यथा कुड्यादिविनाशे। तस्मान्न नियमोऽस्ति – अभिव्यक्त्यर्थिनावरणविनाशे एव यत्नः कार्य इति। नियमार्थवत्त्वाच्च।
Hence this was not simply for removing the darkness, but for covering the jar with light, for it is since perceived as covered with light. Sometimes the effort is directed to the removal of the obstruction, as when the wall, for instance, is pulled down. Therefore it cannot be laid down as a rule that one who wants the manifestation of something must simply try to remove the obstruction. Besides, one should take such steps as will cause the manifestation for the efficacy of the established practice regarding it.

कारणे वर्तमानं कार्यं कार्यान्तराणामावरणमित्यवोचाम। तत्र यदि पूर्वाभिव्यक्तस्य कार्यस्य पिण्डस्य व्यवहितस्य वा कपालस्य विनाशे एव यत्नः क्रियेत, तदा विदलचूर्णाद्यपि कार्यं जायेत। तेनाप्यावृतो घटो नोपलभ्यत इति पुनः प्रयत्नान्तरापेक्षैव।
We have already said that an effect which is patent in the cause serves as an obstruction to the manifestation of other effects. So if one tries only to destroy the previously manifested effect such as the lump or the two halves which stand between it and the jar, one may also have such effects as the potsherds or tiny pieces. These too will conceal the jar and prevent its being perceived; so a fresh attempt will be needed.

तस्माद्घटाद्यभिव्यक्त्यर्थिनो नियत एव कारकव्यापारोऽर्थवान्। तस्मात्प्रागुत्पत्तेरपि सदेव कार्यम्।
Hence the necessary operation of the factors of an action has its utility for one who wants the manifestation of a jar or any other thing. Therefore the effect exists even before its manifestation.

अतीतानागतप्रत्ययभेदाच्च।
From our divergent notions of the past and future also we infer this.

अतीतो घटोऽनागतो घट इत्येतयोश्च प्रत्यययोर्वर्तमानघटप्रत्ययवन्न निर्विषयत्वं युक्तम्। अनागतार्थिप्रवृत्तेश्च। न ह्यसत्यर्थितया प्रवृत्तिर्लोके दृष्टा।
Our notions of a jar that was and one that is yet to be cannot, like the notion of the present jar, be entirely independent of objects. For one who desires to have a jar not yet made sets oneself to work for it. We do not see people strive for things which they know to be non-existent.

योगिनां चातीतानागतज्ञानस्य सत्यत्वात्। असंश्चेद्भविष्यद्घटः, ऐश्वरं भविष्यद्घटविषयं प्रत्यक्षज्ञानं मिथ्या स्यात्; न च प्रत्यक्षमुपचर्यते; घटसद्भावे ह्यनुमानमवोचाम।
Another reason for the pre-existence of the effect is the fact that the knowledge of (God and) the Yogins concerning the past and future jar is infallible. Were the future jar non-existent, His (and their) perception of it would prove false. Nor is this perception a mere figure of speech. As to the reasons for inferring the existence of the jar, we have already stated them.

विप्रतिषेधाच्च।
Another reason for it is that the opposite view involves a self-contradiction.

यदि घटो भविष्यतीति, कुलालादिषु व्याप्रियमाणेषु घटार्थम्, प्रमाणेन निश्चितम्, येन च कालेन घटस्य सम्बन्धो भविष्यतीत्युच्यते, तस्मिन्नेव काले घटोऽसन्निति विप्रतिषिद्धमभिधीयते; भविष्यन्घटोऽसन्निति, न भविष्यतीत्यर्थः; अयं घटो न वर्तत इति यद्वत्।
If on seeing a potter, for instance, at work on the production of a jar one is certain in view of the evidence that the jar will come into existence, then it would be a contradiction in terms to say that the jar is non-existent at the very time with which, it is said, it will come into relation. For to say that the jar that will be is non-existent, is the same thing as to say that it will not be. It would be like saying, ‘This jar does not exist.’

अथ प्रागुत्पत्तेर्घटोऽसन्नित्युच्येत – घटार्थं प्रवृत्तेषु कुलालादिषु तत्र यथा व्यापाररूपेण वर्तमानास्तावत्कुलालादयः, तथा घटो न वर्तत इत्यसच्छब्दस्यार्थश्चेत्, न विरुध्यते;
If, however, you say that before its manifestation the jar is non-existent, meaning thereby that it does not exist exactly as the potter, for instance, exists while he is at work on its production (i.e. as a ready-made jar), then there is no dispute between us.

कस्मात्?
Objection: Why?

स्वेन हि भविष्यद्रूपेण घटो वर्तते; न हि पिण्डस्य वर्तमानता, कपालस्य वा, घटस्य भवति; न च तयोः, भविष्यत्ता घटस्य; तस्मात्कुलालादिव्यापारवर्तमानतायां प्रागुत्पत्तेर्घटोऽसन्निति न विरुध्यते।
Reply: Because the jar exists in its own future (potential) form. It should be borne in mind that the present existence of the lump or the two halves is not the same as that of the jar. Nor is the future existence of the jar the same as theirs. Therefore you do not contradict us when you say that the jar is non-existent before its manifestation while the activity of the potter, for instance, is going on.

यदि घटस्य यत्स्वं भविष्यत्ताकार्यरूपं तत् प्रतिषिध्येत, तत्प्रतिषेधे विरोधः स्यात्; न तु तद्भवान्प्रतिषेधति;
You will be doing this if you deny to the jar its own future form as an effect. But you do not deny that.

न च सर्वेषां क्रियावतामेकैव वर्तमानता भविष्यत्त्वं वा।
Nor do all things undergoing modification have an identical form of existence in the present or in the future.

अपि च, चतुर्विधानामभावानाम्, घटस्येतरेतराभावो घटादन्यो ष्टः – यथा घटाभावः पटादिरेव, न घटस्वरूपमेव। न च घटाभावः सन्पटः अभावात्मकः; किं तर्हि? भावरूप एव।
Moreover, of the four kinds of negation
[•Mutual exclusion (itaretara-abhāva), between things of different classes, as, ‘A jar is not cloth’; previous non-existence (prāg-abhāva), as of a jar before it is made; the non-existence pertaining to destruction (pradhvaṃsa-abhāva), as of a jar when it is broken; and absolute negation (atyanta-abhāva) as, ‘There is no jar.’•]
relating to, say, a jar, we observe that what is called mutual exclusion is other than the jar: The negation of a jar is a cloth or some other thing, not the jar itself. But the cloth, although it is the negation of a jar, is not a nonentity, but a positive entity.

एवं घटस्य प्राक्प्रध्वंसात्यन्ताभावानामपि घटादन्यत्वं स्यात्, घटेन व्यपदिश्यमानत्वात्, घटस्येतरेतराभाववत्; तथैव भावात्मकताभावानाम्।
Similarly the previous non-existence, the non-existence due to destruction, and absolute negation must also be other than the jar; for they are spoken of in terms of it, as in the case of the mutual exclusion relating to it. And these negations must also (like the cloth, for instance) be positive entities.

एवं च सति, घटस्य प्रागभाव इति न घटस्वरूपमेव प्रागुत्पत्तेर्नास्ति। अथ घटस्य प्रागभाव इति घटस्य यत्स्वरूपं तदेवोच्येत, घटस्येति व्यपदेशानुपपत्तिः। अथ कल्पयित्वा व्यपदिश्येत, शिलापुत्रकस्य शरीरमिति यद्वत्; तथापि घटस्य प्रागभाव इति कल्पितस्यैवाभावस्य घटेन व्यपदेशः, न घटस्वरूपस्यैव।
Hence the previous non-existence of a jar does not mean that it does not at all exist as an entity before it comes into being. If, however, you say that the previous non-existence of a jar means the jar itself, then to mention it as being ‘of a jar’ (instead of as ‘the jar itself’) is an incongruity. If you use it merely as a fancy, as in the expression, ‘The body of the stone roller’,
[•The stone roller has no body, it is the body•]
then the phrase ‘the previous non-existence of a jar’ would only mean that it is the imaginary non-existence that is mentioned in terms of the jar, and not the jar itself.

अथार्थान्तरं घटाद्घटस्याभाव इति, उक्तोत्तरमेतत्।
If, on the other hand, you say that the negation of a jar is something other than it, we have already answered the point.

किञ्चान्यत्; प्रागुत्पत्तेः शशविषाणवदभावभूतस्य घटस्य स्वकारणसत्तासम्बन्धानुपपत्तिः, द्विनिष्ठत्वात्सम्बन्धस्य। अयुतसिद्धानामदोष इति चेत्,
Moreover, if the jar before its manifestation be an absolute nonentity like the proverbial horns of a hare, it cannot be connected either with its cause or with existence (as the logicians hold), for connection requires two positive entities.

न; भावाभावयोरयुतसिद्धत्वानुपपत्तेः। भावभूतयोर्हि युतसिद्धता अयुतसिद्धता वा स्यात्, न तु भावाभावयोरभावयोर्वा। तस्मात्सदेव कार्यं प्रागुत्पत्तेरिति सिद्धम्।
Reply: No, for we cannot conceive of an inseparable connection between an existent and a non-existent thing. Separable or inseparable connection is possible between two positive entities only, not between an entity and a nonentity, nor between two nonentities. Therefore we conclude that the effect does exist before is is manifested.

किंलक्षणेन मृत्युनावृतमित्यत आह – अशनायया, अशितुमिच्छा अशनाया, सैव मृत्योर्लक्षणम्, तया लक्षितेन मृत्युना अशनायया। कथमशनाया मृत्युरिति, उच्यते – अशनाया हि मृत्युः। हि-शब्देन प्रसिद्धं हेतुमवद्योतयति। यो ह्यशितुमिच्छति सोऽशनायानन्तरमेव हन्ति जन्तून्। तेनासावशनायया लक्ष्यते मृत्युरिति, अशनाया हीत्याह।
By what sort of Death was the universe covered? This is being answered: Aśanāyayā, By Hunger, or the desire to eat, which is a characteristic of death. How is hunger death? The answer is being given: aśanāyayā hi mṛtyuḥ, For hunger is death. The particle ‘hi’ indicates a well-known reason. He who desires to eat kills animals immediately after. Therefore ‘hunger’ refers to death. Hence the use of the expression.

बुद्ध्यात्मनोऽशनाया धर्म इति स एष बुद्ध्यवस्थो हिरण्यगर्भो मृत्युरित्युच्यते। तेन मृत्युनेदं कार्यमावृतमासीत्, यथा पिण्डावस्थया मृदा घटादय आवृताः स्युरिति तद्वत्।
‘Death’ here means ’Hiraṇya-garbha as identified with the intellect, because hunger is an attribute of that which is so identified. This effect, the universe, was covered by that Death, just as a jar etc. would be covered by clay in the form of a lump.

तन्मनोऽकुरुत, तदिति मनसो निर्देशः; स प्रकृतो मृत्युः वक्ष्यमाणकार्यसिसृक्षया तत् कार्यालोचनक्षमम्, मनःशब्दवाच्यं सङ्कल्पादिलक्षणमन्तःकरणम्, अकुरुत कृतवान्।
Tat manaḥ akuruta, He created the mind. The word ‘Tat’ (that) refers to the mind. That Death of whom we are talking, intending to project the effects which will be presently mentioned, created the inner organ called mind, characterized by deliberation etc. and possessing the power to reflect on those effects.

केनाभिप्रायेण मनोऽकरोदिति, उच्यते – आत्मन्वी आत्मवान् स्यां भवेयम्; अहमनेनात्मना मनसा मनस्वी स्यामित्यभिप्रायः।
What was his object (abhiprāya) in creating the mind? This is being stated: Thinking, ‘ātmanvī syām, Let me have a mind – through this mind (Ātman) let me be possessed of a mind.’ This was his object.

सः प्रजापतिः, अभिव्यक्तेन मनसा समनस्कः सन्, अर्चन् अर्चयन्पूजयन् आत्मानमेव कृतार्थोऽस्मीति, अचरत् चरणमकरोत्।
Saḥ, He, Prajā-pati, being possessed of a mind after it was manifested, arcan acarat, moved about worshiping himself, thinking he was blessed.

तस्य प्रजापतेः अर्चतः पूजयतः आपः रसात्मिकाः पूजाङ्गभूताः अजायन्त उत्पन्नाः। अत्राकाशप्रभृतीनां त्रयाणामुत्पत्त्यनन्तरमिति वक्तव्यम्, श्रुत्यन्तरसामर्थ्यात्, विकल्पासम्भवाच्च सृष्टिक्रमस्य।
Tasya arcataḥ, As he was worshiping; āpaḥ, water, an all-liquid substance forming an accessory of the worship; ajāyanta, was produced. Here we must supply the words, ‘After the manifestation of the space, air and fire,’ for another Śruti (TaitU.2.1.1) says so, and there can be no alternative in the order of manifestation (scripturally and logically).

अर्चते पूजां कुर्वते वै मे मह्यं कम् उदकम् अभूत् इति एवममन्यत यस्मान्मृत्युः, तदेव तस्मादेव हेतोः अर्कस्य अग्नेरश्वमेधक्रत्वौपयोगिकस्य अर्कत्वम्; अर्कत्वे हेतुरित्यर्थः। अग्नेरर्कनामनिर्वचनमेतत् – अर्चनात्सुखहेतुपूजाकरणादप्सम्बन्धाच्चाग्नेरेतद्गौणं नामार्क इति।
Since Death thought, ‘Arcate vai me kam abhūt iti, as I was worshiping, water sprang up,’ tad eva arkasya arkatvam, therefore Arka, the fire that is fit for use in the horse sacrifice, is so called. This is the derivation of the name ’Arka’ given to fire. It is a descriptive epithet of fire derived from the performance of worship (ar-cana) leading to happiness (ka-m), and the connection with water.

यः एवं यथोक्तम् अर्कस्यार्कत्वं वेद जानाति, कम् उदकं सुखं वा, नामसामान्यात्, ह वै इत्यवधारणार्थौ, भवत्येवेति, अस्मै एवंविदे एवंविदर्थं भवति॥
Kam ha vai asmai bhavati yaḥ veda, water or happiness surely comes to one who knows
[•Meditates on the fact till one becomes identified with the idea. So also elsewhere•]
evam etad arkasya arkatvam, how Arka (fire) came to have this name of Arka. This is due to the similarity of names. The particles ’‘ha’ and ‘vai’ are intensive.

आपो वै या अर्चनाङ्गभूतास्ता एव अर्कः, अग्नेरर्कस्य हेतुत्वात्, अप्सु चाग्निः प्रतिष्ठित इति; न पुनः साक्षादेवार्कस्ताः, तासामप्रकरणात्; अग्नेश्च प्रकरणम्; वक्ष्यति च – ‘अयमग्निरर्कः’ इति।
Āpaḥ vai, water, that accessory of worship; arkaḥ is Arka, being the cause of fire. For, it is said, fire rests on water. Water is not directly Arka, for the topic under discussion is not water, but fire. It will be said later on, ‘This fire is Arka’ (BrhU.1.2.7).

तत् तत्र, यदपां शर इव शरो दध्न इव मण्डभूतम् आसीत्, तत् समहन्यत सङ्घातमापद्यत तेजसा बाह्यान्तःपच्यमानम्; लिङ्गव्यत्ययेन वा, योऽपां शरः स समहन्यतेति।
Tat āsīt, what was there; yad apām śaraḥ, like froth on the water, like the coagulated state of curds, samahanyata, was solidified, being subjected to heat internally and externally. Or the word ‘śara’ may be the nominative (instead of a complement), if we change the gender of the pronoun ‘yad’ (i.e. ‘the froth which was there became solidified’).

सा पृथिव्यभवत्, स सङ्घातो येयं पृथिवी साभवत्; ताभ्योऽद्भ्योऽण्डमभिनिर्वृत्तमित्यर्थः;
That solid thing sā pṛthivī abhavat, became this earth. That is to say, out of that water came the embryonic state of the universe, compared to an egg.

तस्यां पृथिव्यामुत्पादितायाम्, स मृत्युः प्रजापतिः अश्राम्यत् श्रमयुक्तो बभूव; सर्वो हि लोकः कार्यं कृत्वा श्राम्यति; प्रजापतेश्च तन्महत्कार्यम्, यत्पृथिवीसर्गः;
Tasyām, when that, earth was produced; he, Death or Prajā-pati, aśrāmyat, was tired. For everyone is tired after work, and the projection of the earth was a great feat of Prajā-pati.

किं तस्य श्रान्तस्येत्युच्यते – तस्य श्रान्तस्य तप्तस्य स्विन्नस्य, तेजोरसः तेज एव रसस्तेजोरसः, रसः सारः, निरवर्तत प्रजापतिशरीरान्निष्क्रान्त इत्यर्थः;
What happened to him then? Tasya śrāntasya taptasya, while he was (thus) tired and distressed; tejo-rasaḥ niravartata, his essence or luster came forth, from his body.

कोऽसौ निष्क्रान्तः? अग्निः सोऽण्डस्यान्तर्विराट् प्रजापतिः प्रथमजः कार्यकरणसङ्घातवाञ्जातः; ‘स वै शरीरी प्रथमः’ इति स्मरणात्॥
What was that? Agni, this was Fire, the first-born Virāj (Virāṭ),
[•The being identified with the sum total of all bodies.•]
also called Prajā-pati, who sprang up within that cosmic egg, possessed of a body and organs. As the Smṛti says, ‘He is the first embodied being’ (SivPur.5.1.8.22).

स च जातः प्रजापतिः त्रेधा त्रिप्रकारम् आत्मानं स्वयमेव कार्यकरणसङ्घातं व्यकुरुत व्यभजदित्येतत्;
Saḥ, he, the Virāj who was born, himself vyakuruta differentiated or divided; ātmānam, himself, his body and organs, tredhā, in three ways.

कथं त्रेधेत्याह – आदित्यं तृतीयम् अग्निवाय्वपेक्षया त्रयाणां पूरणम्, अकुरुतेत्यनुवर्तते; तथाग्न्यादित्यापेक्षया वायुं तृतीयम्; तथा वाय्वादित्यापेक्षयाग्निं तृतीयमिति द्रष्टव्यम्; सामर्थ्यस्य तुल्यत्वात्त्रयाणां सङ्ख्यापूरणत्वे।
How? Making ādityam tṛtīyam, the sun the third form, in respect of fire and air. The verb ‘made’ must be supplied. And vāyum tṛtīyam, air the third form, in respect of fire and the sun. Similarly we must understand., ‘Making agnim tṛtīyam, fire the third form,’ in respect of air and the sun, for this also can equally make up the number three.

स एष प्राणः सर्वभूतानामात्माप्यग्निवाय्वादित्यरूपेण विशेषतः स्वेनैव मृत्य्वात्मना त्रेधा विहितः विभक्तः, न विराट्स्वरूपोपमर्दनेन।
So saḥ eṣaḥ Prāṇa, this Prāṇa (Virāj), although the self, as it were, of all beings, is specially vihitaḥ, divided; by himself as Death, tredhā, in three ways; as fire, air and the sun, without, however, destroying his own form of Virāj.

तस्यास्य प्रथमजस्याग्नेरश्वमेधौपयोगिकस्यार्कस्य विराजश्चित्यात्मकस्याश्वस्येव दर्शनमुच्यते; सर्वा हि पूर्वोक्तोत्पत्तिरस्य स्तुत्यर्थेत्यवोचाम – इत्थमसौ शुद्धजन्मेति।
Now the meditation on this Fire, the first-born Virāj, the Arka fit for use in the horse sacrifice and kindled in it, is being described, like that on the horse. We have already said that the previous account of its origin is all for its eulogy, indicating that it is of such pure birth.

तस्य प्राची दिक् शिरः, विशिष्टत्वसामान्यात्; असौ चासौ च ऐशान्याग्नेय्यौ ईर्मौ बाहू, ईरयतेर्गतिकर्मणः। अथ अस्य अग्नेः, प्रतीची दिक् पुच्छं जघन्यो भागः, प्राङ्मुखस्य प्रत्यग्दिक्सम्बन्धात्; असौ चासौ च वायव्यनैर्‌ऋत्यौ सक्थ्यौ सक्थिनी, पृष्ठकोणत्वसामान्यात्; दक्षिणा चोदीची च पार्श्वे, उभयदिक्सम्बन्धसामान्यात्;
Tasya prācī dik śiraḥ, his head is the east; both being the most important. And his asau ca asau ca īrmau, arms that and that – the north-east and south-east. The word ‘īrma’ (arm) is derived from the root ‘īr,’ meaning motion. Atha asya pratīci dik pṛccham, and his (this Fire’s) hind part is the west; because it points to that direction when he faces the east. His asau ca asau ca sakthyau, hip-bones that and that – the north-west and south-west; both forming angles with the back. Dakṣiṇā ca udīcī ca pārśve, his sides the south and north; both being so related to the east and west.

द्यौः पृष्ठमन्तरिक्षमुदरम् इति पूर्ववत्; इयमुरः, अधोभागसामान्यात्; स एषोऽग्निः प्रजापतिरूपो लोकाद्यात्मकोऽग्निः अप्सु प्रतिष्ठितः, ‘एवमिमे लोका अप्स्वन्तः’ इति श्रुतेः;
Dyauḥ pṛṣṭham antarīkṣam udaram, his back heaven, his belly the sky; as in the case of the horse. And his ayam uras, breast this – earth; both being underneath. Saḥ eṣaḥ, He, this Fire consisting of the worlds, or Prajā-pati, apsu pratiṣṭhitaḥ, rests on water; for the Śruti says, ‘Thus do these worlds lie in water.’ (SatBr.10.5.4.3).

यत्र क्व च यस्मिन्कस्मिंश्चित् एति गच्छति, तदेव तत्रैव प्रतितिष्ठिति स्थितिं लभते; कोऽसौ? एवं यथोक्तमप्सु प्रतिष्ठितत्वमग्नेः विद्वान् विजानन्; गुणफलमेतत्॥
Yatra kva ca eti tad eva pratitiṣṭhiti, he gets a resting place wherever he goes. Who? Vidvān, who knows – that fire rests on water, evam, thus, as described here. This is a subsidiary result (The main result will be stated elsewhere).

सः मृत्युः अकामयत कामितवान्; किम्? द्वितीयः मे मम आत्मा शरीरम्, येनाहं शरीरी स्याम्, स जायेत उत्पद्येत, इति एवमेतदकामयत; सः एवं कामयित्वा, मनसा पूर्वोत्पन्नेन, वाचं त्रयीलक्षणाम्, मिथुनं द्वन्द्वभावम्, समभवत् सम्भवनं कृतवान्, मनसा त्रयीमालोचितवान्; त्रयीविहितं सृष्टिक्रमं मनसान्वालोचयदित्यर्थः।
Saḥ, he, Death, akāmayata, desired, ‘dvitīyaḥ me ātmā jāyeta iti, Let me have a second form or body, through which I may become embodied.’ Having desired thus, saḥ manasā vācam mithunam samabhavat, he brought about the union of speech, of the Vedas, with the mind, that had already appeared. In other words, he reflected on the Vedas, that is, the order of creation enjoined in them, with his mind.

कोऽसौ? अशनायया लक्षितो मृत्युः; अशनाया मृत्युर् इत्युक्तम्; तमेव परामृशति, अन्यत्र प्रसङ्गो मा भूदिति;
Who did it? Mṛtyuḥ, Death, aśanāyā, characterized by hunger. It has been said that hunger is death. The text refers to him lest someone else (Virāj) be understood.

तद्यद्रेत आसीत्, तत् तत्र मिथुने, यद्रेत आसीत्, प्रथमशरीरिणः प्रजापतेरुत्पत्तौ कारणं रेतो बीजं ज्ञानकर्मरूपम्, त्रय्यालोचनायां यद्दृष्टवानासीज्जन्मान्तरकृतम्; तद्भावभावितोऽपः सृष्ट्वा तेन रेतसा बीजेनाप्स्वनुप्रविश्याण्डरूपेण गर्भीभूतः सः, संवत्सरोऽभवत्, संवत्सरकालनिर्माता संवत्सरः, प्रजापतिरभवत्।
Yad retas āsīt, What was the seed, the cause of the origin of Virāj, the first embodied being, viz. the knowledge and resultant of work accumulated in past lives, which Death visualized in his reflection on the Vedas, tat, there, in that union, saḥ saṃvatsaraḥ abhavat, became the Year, the Prajā-pati of that name who makes the year. Death (Hiraṇya-garbha), absorbed in these thoughts, projected water, entered it as the seed and, transformed into the embryo, the cosmic egg, became the year.

न ह, पुरा पूर्वम्, ततः तस्मात्संवत्सरकालनिर्मातुः प्रजापतेः, संवत्सरः कालो नाम, न आस न बभूव ह; तं संवत्सरकालनिर्मातारमन्तर्गर्भं प्रजापतिम्, यावानिह प्रसिद्धः कालः एतावन्तम् एतावत्संवत्सरपरिमाणं कालम् अबिभः भृतवान् मृत्युः। यावान्संवत्सरः इह प्रसिद्धः,
Pūrā tataḥ, before him, the Virāj who makes the year, saṃvatsaraḥ na ha āsa, there had been no year, no period of that name. Kālam tam abibhaḥ, Death reared him, this Virāj who was in embryo, etāvat tam, for as long as that, the well-known yāvāt saṃvatsaraḥ duration of time among us, i.e. for a year.

ततः परस्तात्किं कृतवान्? तम्, एतावतः कालस्य संवत्सरमात्रस्य परस्तात् ऊर्ध्वम् असृजत सृष्टवान्, अण्डमभिनदित्यर्थः। तम् एवं कुमारं जातम् अग्निं प्रथमशरीरिणम्, अशनायावत्त्वान्मृत्युः अभिव्याददात् मुखविदारणं कृतवान् अत्तुम्;
What did he do after that? And etāvataḥ kālasya parastāt, after this period, i.e. a year, tam asṛjata, projected him, i.e. broke the egg. When tam, he, the babe, Fire, the first embodied being, jātam, was born, Death abhivyādadāt, opened his mouth, to swallow him, because he was hungry.

स च कुमारो भीतः स्वाभाविक्याविद्यया युक्तः भाण् इत्येवं शब्दम् अकरोत्; सैव वागभवत्, वाक् शब्दः अभवत्॥
Saḥ, He, the babe, being frightened, as he was possessed of natural ignorance, bhāṇ akarot, cried ‘Bhāṇ’ – made this sound. Sā eva vāk abhavata, that became speech or word.

सः, एवं भीतं कृतरवं कुमारं दृष्ट्वा, मृत्युः ऐक्षत ईक्षितवान्, अशनायावानपि – यदि कदाचिद् वा इमं कुमारम् अभिमंस्ये, अभिपूर्वो मन्यतिर्हिंसार्थः, हिंसिष्ये इत्यर्थः; कनीयोऽन्नं करिष्ये, कनीयः अल्पमन्नं करिष्ये – इति;
Seeing the babe frightened and crying, saḥ, he, Death, aikṣata, thought, although he was hungry, ‘Yadi vai imam abhimaṃsye, if I kill him, this babe, kanīyaḥ annam kariṣye iti, I shall be making very little food.’ – The root ‘man’ with the prefix ‘abhi’ means to injure or kill.

एवमीक्षित्वा तद्भक्षणादुपरराम; बहु ह्यन्नं कर्तव्यं दीर्घकालभक्षणाय, न कनीयः; तद्भक्षणे हि कनीयोऽन्नं स्यात्, बीजभक्षणे इव सस्याभावः।
– Thinking thus he desisted from eating him, for he must make not a little food, but a great quantity of it, so that he might eat it for a long time; and if he ate the babe, he would make very little food as there is no crop if the seeds are eaten up.

सः एवं प्रयोजनमन्नबाहुल्यमालोच्य, तया एव त्रय्या वाचा पूर्वोक्तया, तेन एव च आत्मना मनसा, मिथुनीभावमालोचनमुपगम्योपगम्य, इदं सर्वं स्थावरं जङ्गमं च असृजत, यदिदं किञ्च यत्किञ्चेदम्;
Thinking of the large quantity of food necessary for his purpose, tayā vācā, through that speech, the Vedas already mentioned, and tena ātmanā, that mind, uniting them, that is, reflecting on the Vedas again and again, saḥ idam sarvam asṛjata, he projected all this, the movable and immovable (animals, plants, etc. etc.), yad idam kiñca, whatever there is.

किं तत्? ऋचः, यजूंषि, सामानि, छन्दांसि च सप्त गायत्र्यादीनि – स्तोत्रशस्त्रादिकर्माङ्गभूतांस्त्रिविधान्मन्त्रान्गायत्र्यादिच्छन्दोविशिष्टान्, यज्ञान् च तत्साध्यान्, प्रजाः तत्कर्त्रीः, पशून् च ग्राम्यानारण्यान्कर्मसाधनभूतान्।
What is it? The Vedas Ṛc, Yajus and Sāman, the seven chandas, metres, viz. Gāyatrī and the rest, i.e. the three kinds of Mantras (sacred formulas) forming part of a ceremony, viz. the hymns (Stotra), the praises (Śastra)
[•The hymns are Ṛcs that are sung by one class of priests, the Udgātṛ etc. The Śastras are those very hymns, but only recited by another class of priests, the Hotṛ etc., not sung. There are other Ṛcs too, which are used in a different way by a third class of priests, the Adhvaryu etc., in the sacrifices. These are the third group of Mantras•]
and the rest, composed in Gāyatrī and other metres, yajñān, the sacrifices, which are performed with the help of those Mantras, prajāḥ, men, who perform these, and paśūn, animals, domestic and wild, which are a part of the rites.

ननु त्रय्या मिथुनीभूतयासृजतेत्युक्तम्; ऋगादीनीह कथमसृजतेति?
Objection: It has already been said that Death projected Virāj through the union of speech (the Vedas) with the mind. So how can it now be said that he projected the Vedas?

नैष दोषः; मनसस्त्वव्यक्तोऽयं मिथुनीभावस्त्रय्या; बाह्यस्तु ऋगादीनां विद्यमानानामेव कर्मसु विनियोगभावेन व्यक्तीभावः सर्ग इति।
Reply: It is all right, for the previous union of the mind was with the Vedas in all unmanifested state, whereas the creation spoken of here is the manifestation of the already existing Vedas so that they may be applied to the ceremonies.

सः प्रजापतिः, एवमन्नवृद्धिं बुद्ध्वा, यद्यदेव क्रियां क्रियासाधनं फलं वा किञ्चित् असृजत, तत्तदत्तुं भक्षयितुम् अध्रियत धृतवान्मनः; सर्वं कृत्स्नं वै यस्मात् अत्ति, तत् तस्मात् अदितेः अदितिनाम्नो मृत्योः अदितित्वं प्रसिद्धम्;
Understanding that now the food had increased, saḥ yad yad eva, whatever he, Prajā-pati, asṛjata, projected, whether it was action, its means or its results, tad tad attum adhriyata, he resolved to eat. Because sarvam vai atti iti , he eats everything, therefore Aditi or Death is so called.

तथा च मन्त्रः – ‘अदितिर्द्यौरदितिरन्तरिक्षमदितिर्माता स पिता’ (ऋ. १-५९-१०) इत्यादिः; सर्वस्यैतस्य जगतोऽन्नभूतस्य अत्ता सर्वात्मनैव भवति, अन्यथा विरोधात्; न हि कश्चित्सर्वस्यैकोऽत्ता दृश्यते;
So the Śruti says, ‘Aditi is heaven, Aditi is the sky, Aditi is the mother, and he is the father,’ etc. (RigV.1.89.10). Aditi because of eating everything, sarvasya etasya attā bhavati, becomes the eater of all this universe, which becomes his food – that is, as identified with the universe, otherwise it would involve a contradiction; for nobody, we see, is the sole eater of everything.

तस्मात्सर्वात्मा भवतीत्यर्थः; सर्वमस्यान्नं भवति; अत एव सर्वात्मनो ह्यत्तुः सर्वमन्नं भवतीत्युपपद्यते;
य एवमेतत् यथोक्तम् अदितेः मृत्योः प्रजापतेः सर्वस्यादनाद् अदितित्वं वेद, तस्यैतत्फलम्॥॥
Therefore the meaning is that he becomes identified with everything. And for this very reason sarvam asya annam bhavati, everything becomes his food, for it stands to reason that everything is the food of an eater who is identified with everything.
(The following translation from Panoli:) This result accrues to him yaḥ evam etat aditeḥ adititvam veda, who knows how Aditi derived this name of Aditi or Prajaa-pati, because of eating everything, as described above.

सोऽकामयत इत्यश्वाश्वमेधयोर्निर्वचनार्थमिदमाह।
Saḥ akāmayata, He desired, etc. This and part of the next paragraph are introduced to give the derivation of the words ‘Aśva’ (horse) and ‘Aśva-medha’ (horse sacrifice).

भूयसा महता यज्ञेन भूयः पुनरपि यजेयेति; जन्मान्तरकरणापेक्षया भूयःशब्दः; स प्रजापतिर्जन्मान्तरेऽश्वमेधेनायजत; स तद्भावभावित एव कल्पादौ व्यवर्तत; सोऽश्वमेधक्रियाकारकफलात्मत्वेन निर्वृत्तः सन्नकामयत – भूयसा यज्ञेन भूयो यजेयेति।
‘Bhūyasā yajñena bhūyaḥ yajeya iti, Let me sacrifice again with the great sacrifice.’ The word ‘bhūyaḥ, again’ has reference to his performance in the previous life. Prajā-pati had performed a horse sacrifice in his previous life, and was born at the beginning of the cycle imbued with those thoughts. Having been born as identified with the act of horse sacrifice, its factors and its results, he desired, ‘Let me sacrifice again with the great sacrifice.’

एवं महत्कार्यं कामयित्वा लोकवद् अश्राम्यत्; स तपोऽतप्यत; तस्य श्रान्तस्य तप्तस्य इति पूर्ववत्; यशो वीर्यमुदक्रामत् इति स्वयमेव पदार्थमाह –
Having desired this great undertaking, aśrāmyat, he was tired; like other men, and saḥ tapaḥ atapyata, he was distressed. Tasya śrāntasya taptasya, while he was (thus) tired and distressed – these words have already been explained (in earlier para.) – yaśaḥ vīryam udakrāmat, his reputation and strength departed. The Śruti itself explains the words:

प्राणाः चक्षुरादयो वै यशः, यशोहेतुत्वात्, तेषु हि सत्सु ख्यातिर्भवति; तथा वीर्यं बलम् अस्मिञ्शरीरे; न ह्युत्क्रान्तप्राणो यशस्वी बलवान्वा भवति; तस्मात्प्राणा एव यशो वीर्यं चास्मिञ्शरीरे, तदेवं प्राणलक्षणं यशो वीर्यम् उदक्रामत् उत्क्रान्तवत्।
Prāṇāḥ yaśas, the organs are reputation; being the cause of it, for one is held in repute as long as the organs are in the body; likewise, vīryam, strength in the body. No one can be reputed or strong when the organs have left the body. Hence these are the reputation and strength in this body. So the reputation and strength consisting of the organs departed.

तद् एवं यशोवीर्यभूतेषु प्राणेषूत्क्रान्तेषु, शरीरान्निष्क्रान्तेषु तत् शरीरं प्रजापतेः श्वयितुम् उच्छूनभावं गन्तुम् अध्रियत, अमेध्यं चाभवत्; तस्य प्रजापतेः, शरीरान्निर्गतस्यापि, तस्मिन् एव शरीरे मन आसीत्; यथा कस्यचित्प्रिये विषये दूरं गतस्यापि मनो भवति, तद्वत्॥
Prāṇeṣu, when the organs, forming reputation and strength utkrānteṣu, departed, tad śarīram, the body of Prajā-pati śvayitum adhriyata, began to swell, and became impure or unfit for a sacrifice. (But) although Prajā-pati had left it, tasya eva śarīre manas āsīt, his mind was set on the body, just as one longs for a favorite object even when one is away.

सोऽकामयत। कथम्? मेध्यं मेधार्हं यज्ञियं मे मम इदं शरीरम् स्यात्; किञ्च आत्मन्वी आत्मवांश्च अनेन शरीरेण शरीरवान् स्यामिति – प्रविवेश। यस्मात्, तच्छरीरं तद्वियोगाद्गतयशोवीर्यं सत् अश्वत् अश्वयत्, ततः तस्मात् अश्वः समभवत्; ततोऽश्वनामा प्रजापतिरेव साक्षादिति स्तूयते;
Saḥ akāmayata, he desired. How? ‘medhyam me idam syāt, Let this body of mine be fit for a sacrifice, and ātmanvī anena syām iti, let me be embodied through this.’ And he entered it. Tataḥ, because that body, bereft in his absence of its reputation and strength, aśvat, swelled, , therefore it came to be called Aśva (horse). Hence Prajā-pati (Hiraṇya-garbha) himself is named Aśva. This is a eulogy on the horse.

यस्माच्च पुनस्तत्प्रवेशात् गतयशोवीर्यत्वादमेध्यं सत् मेध्यमभूत्, तदेव तस्मादेव अश्वमेधस्य अश्वमेधनाम्नः क्रतोः अश्वमेधत्वम् अश्वमेधनामलाभः; क्रियाकारकफलात्मको हि क्रतुः; स च प्रजापतिरेवेति स्तूयते।
And because on account of his entering it, the body, although it had become unfit for a sacrifice by having lost its reputation and strength, again medhyam abhūt, became fit for a sacrifice, tad eva aśva-medhasya aśva-medhatvam therefore the horse sacrifice came to be known as Aśva-medha. For a sacrifice consists of an action, its factors and its results. And that it is no other than Prajā-pati, is a tribute to the sacrifice.

क्रतुनिर्वर्तकस्याश्वस्य प्रजापतित्वमुक्तम् – ‘उषा वा अश्वस्य मेध्यस्य’ (BrhU.1.1.1) इत्यादिना। तस्यैवाश्वस्य मेध्यस्य प्रजापतिस्वरूपस्य अग्नेश्च यथोक्तस्य क्रतुफलात्मरूपतया समस्योपासनं विधातव्यमित्यारभ्यते। पूर्वत्र क्रियापदस्य विधायकस्याश्रुतत्वात्, क्रियापदापेक्षत्वाच्च प्रकरणस्य, अयमर्थोऽवगम्यते।
The horse that is a factor of the sacrifice has been declared to be Prajā-pati in the passage, ‘The head of the sacrificial horse is the dawn,’ etc. (BrhU.1.1.1). The present paragraph is introduced to enjoin a collective meditation on that sacrificial horse which is Prajā-pati, and the sacrificial fire which has already been described (as such) – viewing both as the result of the sacrifice. That this is the import of this section we understand from the fact that in the previous section no verb denoting an injunction has been used, and one such is necessary.

एष ह वा अश्वमेधं क्रतुं वेद य एनमेवं वेद – यः कश्चित्, एनम् अश्वमग्निरूपमर्कं च यथोक्तम्, एवं वक्ष्यमाणेन समासेन प्रदर्श्यमानेन विशेषणेन विशिष्टं वेद, स एषोऽश्वमेधं वेद, नान्यः; तस्मादेवं वेदितव्य इत्यर्थः।
The words, eṣaḥ ha vai aśva-medham veda yaḥ enam evam veda, He who knows it thus indeed knows the horse sacrifice, mean: ‘He only, and none else, knows the horse sacrifice, who knows the horse and the Arka or fire, described above, as possessed of the features, to be presently mentioned, which are here shown collectively.’ Therefore one must know the horse sacrifice thus – this is the meaning.

कथम्? तत्र पशुविषयमेव तावद्दर्शनमाह। तत्र प्रजापतिः ‘भूयसा यज्ञेन भूयो यजेय’ इति कामयित्वा, आत्मानमेव पशुं मेध्यं कल्पयित्वा, तं पशुम्, अनवरुध्यैव उत्सृष्टं पशुमवरोधमकृत्वैव मुक्तप्रग्रहम्, अमन्यत अचिन्तयत्।
How? First the meditation on the animal is being described. Prajā-pati, desiring to sacrifice again with the great sacrifice, imagined himself as the sacrificial animal, and tam anavarudhya eva, letting it, the consecrated animal, remain free or unbridled, amanyata, reflected (on it).

तं संवत्सरस्य पूर्णस्य परस्तात् ऊर्ध्वम् आत्मने आत्मार्थम् आलभत – प्रजापतिदेवताकत्वेनेत्येतत् – आलभत आलम्भं कृतवान्। पशून् अन्यान्ग्राम्यानारण्यांश्च देवताभ्यः यथादैवतं प्रत्यौहत् प्रतिगमितवान्।
Tam saṃvasarasya parastāt ātmane ālabhata, After a complete year he sacrificed it to himself, i.e. as dedicated to Prajā-pati (Hiraṇya-garbha), and paśūn pratyauhat, dispatched the other animals, domestic and wild, devatābhyaḥ, to the gods, their respective deities.

यस्माच्चैवं प्रजापतिरमन्यत, तस्मादेवमन्योऽप्युक्तेन विधिना आत्मानं पशुमश्वं मेध्यं कल्पयित्वा, ‘सर्वदेवत्योऽहं प्रोक्ष्यमाणः’ आलभ्यमानस्त्वहं मद्देवत्य एव स्याम्;
And because Prajā-pati reflected like this, therefore others also should likewise fancy themselves, in the manner described above, as the sacrificial horse and meditate: ‘While being sanctified (with the Mantras), I am dedicated to all the gods; but while being killed, I am dedicated to myself.

अन्य इतरे पशवो ग्राम्यारण्या यथादैवतमन्याभ्यो देवताभ्य आलभ्यन्ते मदवयवभूताभ्य एव’ इति विद्यात्। अत एवेदानीं सर्वदेवत्यं प्रोक्षितं प्राजापत्यमालभन्ते याज्ञिका एवम्।
The other animals, domestic and wild, are sacrificed to their respective deities, the other gods, who are but a part of myself.’ (Tasmāt, therefore) priests to this day similarly sarva-devatyam prājā-patyam ālabhante, sacrifice to Prajā-pati the sanctified horse that is dedicated to all the gods.

एष ह वा अश्वमेधो य एष तपति, यस्त्वेवं पशुसाधनकः क्रतुः स एष साक्षात्फलभूतो निर्दिश्यते, एष ह वा अश्वमेधः;
Eṣaḥ ha vai aśva-medhaḥ yaḥ eṣaḥ tapati, he who shines yonder is the horse sacrifice. The sacrifice which is thus performed with the help of the animal is being directly represented as the result.

कोऽसौ? य एषः सविता तपति जगदवभासयति तेजसा; तस्य अस्य क्रतुफलात्मनः, संवत्सरः कालविशेषः, आत्मा शरीरम्, तन्निर्वर्त्यत्वात्संवत्सरस्य; तस्यैव क्रत्वात्मनः
Who is he? The sun who illumines the universe with his light. Tasya ātmā, his body, the body of the sun, who is the result of the sacrifice, saṃvatsaraḥ, is the year, that period of time. The year is called his body, as it is made by him. Now, since the sun, as the horse sacrifice, is performed with the help of fire, (the latter also is the sun).

अयं पार्थिवोऽग्निः, अर्कः, साधनभूतः; तस्य चार्कस्य क्रतौ चित्यस्य, इमे लोकाः त्रयोऽपि, आत्मानः शरीरावयवाः; तथा च व्याख्यातम् – ‘तस्य प्राची दिक्’ इत्यादिना;
Here the result of the sacrifice is being mentioned as the sacrifice itself: Ayam agniḥ arkaḥ, this terrestrial fire is Arka, the accessory of the sacrifice. Tasya ātmānaḥ, its limbs, the limbs of this Arka, the fire that is kindled at the sacrifice, ime lokāḥ, are these (three) worlds. So it has been explained in the passage, ‘His head is the east,’ etc. (BrhU.1.2.3).

तौ अग्न्यादित्यौ एतौ यथाविशेषितौ अर्काश्वमेधौ क्रतुफले; अर्को यः पार्थिवोऽग्निः स साक्षात्क्रतुरूपः क्रियात्मकः; क्रतोरग्निसाध्यत्वात्तद्रूपेणैव निर्देशः; क्रतुसाध्यत्वाच्च फलस्य क्रतुरूपेणैव निर्देशः – आदित्योऽश्वमेध इति।
So tau etau arka-aśvamedhau, these two, fire and the sun, are Arka and the horse sacrifice, as described above – the sacrifice and its result respectively. Arka, the terrestrial fire, is directly the sacrifice, which is a rite. Since the latter is performed with the help of fire, it is here represented as fire. And the result is achieved through the performance of the sacrifice. Hence it is represented as the sacrifice in the statement that the sun is the horse sacrifice.

तौ साध्यसाधनौ क्रतुफलभूतावग्न्यादित्यौ – सा उ, पुनः भूयः, एकैव देवता भवति; का सा? मृत्युरेव; पूर्वमप्येकैवासीत्क्रियासाधनफलभेदाय विभक्ता; तथा चोक्तम् ‘स त्रेधात्मानं व्यकुरुत’ इति; सा पुनरपि क्रियानिर्वृत्त्युत्तरकालमेकैव देवता भवति – मृत्युरेव फलरूपः;
These two, fire and the sun, the means and the end, the sacrifice and its result, sā u punaḥ evā eva devatā bhavati, again become the same god. Who is it? mṛtyuḥ eva, Death. There was but one deity before, who later was divided into action, its means and its end. So it has been said, ‘He differentiated himself in three ways’ (BrhU.1.2.3). And after the ceremony is over, he again becomes one deity, Death, the result of the ceremony.

यः पुनरेवमेनमश्वमेधं मृत्युमेकां देवतां वेद – अहमेव मृत्युरस्म्यश्वमेध एका देवता मद्रूपाश्वाग्निसाधनसाध्येति; सोऽपजयति, पुनर्मृत्युं पुनर्मरणम्, सकृन्मृत्वा पुनर्मरणाय न जायत इत्यर्थः;
He who knows this one deity, horse sacrifice or Death, as, ‘I alone am Death, the horse sacrifice, and there is but one deity identical with myself and attainable through the horse and fire’ – apajayati punar-mṛtyum, conquers further death, i.e. after dying once he is not born to die any more.

अपजितोऽपि मृत्युरेनं पुनराप्नुयादित्याशङ्क्याह – नैनं मृत्युराप्नोति; कस्मात्? मृत्युः, अस्य एवंविदः, आत्मा भवति; किञ्च मृत्युरेव फलरूपः सन् एतासां देवतानामेको भवति; तस्यैतत्फलम्॥
Even though conquered, death may overtake him again. So it is said, na enam mṛtyuḥ āpnoti, death cannot overtake him. Why? Because asya ātmā bhavati, it becomes his self, the self of one who knows thus. Further, being Death (Hiraṇya-garbha), the result, etāsām devatānām ekaḥ bhavati, he becomes one with these deities. This is the result such a knower attains.

द्वया द्विप्रकाराः; ह इति पूर्ववृत्तावद्योतको निपातः; वर्तमानप्रजापतेः पूर्वजन्मनि यद्वृत्तम्, तदवद्योतयति ह-शब्देन;
There were two classes: ‘dvayāḥ, two’ here means two classes. The particle ‘ha’ is an expletive referring to a past incident. It is here used to recall what happened in the past life of the present Prajā-pati.

प्राजापत्याः प्रजापतेर्वृत्तजन्मावस्थस्यापत्यानि प्राजापत्याः; के ते? देवाश्चासुराश्च; तस्यैव प्रजापतेः प्राणा वागादयः;
Prājāpatyāḥ, of Prajā-pati’s sons, in his past incarnation. Who are they? Devāḥ, the gods and the asurāḥ, asuras, the organs, that of speech and the rest, of Prajā-pati himself.

कथं पुनस्तेषां देवासुरत्वम्? उच्यते – शास्त्रजनितज्ञानकर्मभाविता द्योतनाद्देवा भवन्ति; त एव स्वाभाविकप्रत्यक्षानुमानजनितदृष्टप्रयोजनकर्मज्ञानभाविता असुराः,
How can they be the gods and asuras? They become gods when they shine under the influence of thoughts and actions as taught by the scriptures. While those very organs become asuras when they are influenced by their natural thoughts and actions, based only on perception and inference, and directed merely to visible (secular) ends.

स्वेष्वेवासुषु रमणात्, सुरेभ्यो वा देवेभ्योऽन्यत्वात्। यस्माच्च दृष्टप्रयोजनज्ञानकर्मभाविता असुराः, ततः तस्मात्, कानीयसाः, कनीयांस एव कानीयसाः, स्वार्थेऽणि वृद्धिः; कनीयांसोऽल्पा एव देवाः; ज्यायसा असुरा ज्यायांसोऽसुराः; स्वाभाविकी हि कर्मज्ञानप्रवृत्तिर्महत्तरा प्राणानां शास्त्रजनितायाः कर्मज्ञानप्रवृत्तेः, दृष्टप्रयोजनत्वात्; अत एव कनीयस्त्वं देवानाम्, शास्त्रजनितप्रवृत्तेरल्पत्वात्; अत्यन्तयत्नसाध्या हि सा;
They are called asuras, because they delight only in their own lives (asu) or because they are other than the gods (sura). And because the asuras are influenced by thoughts and actions directed to visible ends, tataḥ devāḥ kānīyasāḥ eva, therefore the gods were fewer – the lengthened form of the adjective due to the addition of a vowel augment makes no change of meaning (as kanīyāḥ), and the asuras jyāyasāḥ, the asuras more in number. – The organs, as we know, have a stronger tendency to thoughts and actions that are natural, than to those that are recommended by the scriptures, for the former serve visible ends. Hence the gods are fewer, for the tendency that is cultivated by the scriptures is rare; it is attainable with great effort.

ते देवाश्चासुराश्च प्रजापतिशरीरस्थाः, एषु लोकेषु निमित्तभूतेषु स्वाभाविकेतरकर्मज्ञानसाध्येषु, अस्पर्धन्त स्पर्धां कृतवन्तः; देवानां चासुराणां च वृत्त्युद्भवाभिभवौ स्पर्धा।
Te, they, the gods and the asuras living in Prajā-pati’s body, eṣu lokeṣu aspardhanta, vied with each other for (the mastery of) these worlds, which are attainable through thoughts and actions prompted by one’s natural inclinations as well as those cultivated by the scriptures. The rivalry of the gods and the asuras here means the emergence and subsidence of their respective tendencies.

कदाचित्छास्त्रजनितकर्मज्ञानभावनारूपावृत्तिः प्राणानामुद्भवति। यदा चोद्भवति, तदा दृष्टप्रयोजना प्रत्यक्षानुमानजनितकर्मज्ञानभावनारूपा तेषामेव प्राणानां वृत्तिरासुर्यभिभूयते। स देवानां जयः, असुराणां पराजयः।
Sometimes the organs manifest the impressions of thoughts and actions cultivated by the scriptures; and when this happens, the impressions, manifested by those very organs, of the thoughts and actions based on perception and inference, and producing visible results only – those tendencies characteristic of the asuras – subside. That is the victory of the gods and the defeat of the asuras.

कदाचित्तद्विपर्ययेण देवानां वृत्तिरभिभूयते, आसुर्या उद्भवः। सोऽसुराणां जयः, देवानां पराजयः।
Sometimes the reverse happens. The characteristic tendencies of the gods are overpowered, and those of the asuras emerge. That is the victory of the asuras and the defeat of the gods.

एवं देवानां जये धर्मभूयस्त्वादुत्कर्ष आ प्रजापतित्वप्राप्तेः। असुरजयेऽधर्मभूयस्त्वादपकर्ष आ स्थावरत्वप्राप्तेः। उभयसाम्ये मनुष्यत्वप्राप्तिः।
Accordingly, when the gods win, there is a preponderance of merit, and the result is elevation up to the status of Prajā-pati. And when the asuras triumph, demerit prevails, and the result is degradation down to the level of stationary objects, while if there be a draw, it leads to human birth.

त एवं कनीयस्त्वादभिभूयमाना असुरैर्देवा बाहूल्यादसुराणां किं कृतवन्त इति, उच्यते – ते देवाः, असुरैरभिभूयमानाः, ह किल, ऊचुः उक्तवन्तः; कथम्? हन्त! इदानीम्, अस्मिन् यज्ञे ज्योतिष्टोमे, उद्गीथेन उद्गीथकर्मपदार्थकर्तृस्वरूपाश्रयणेन, अत्ययाम अतिगच्छामः;
What did the gods do when, being fewer, they were overwhelmed by the asuras who outnumbered them? Te devāḥ, the gods, being overwhelmed by the asuras, ūcuḥ, said, to the one another, ‘Hanta atyayāma, Now let us surpass, the asuras, yajñe in this sacrifice, Jyotiṣṭoma, udgīthena through the Udgītha, that is through identity with (the vital force), the chanter of this accessory of a sacrifice called the Udgītha.

असुरान् अभिभूय स्वं देवभावं शास्त्रप्रकाशितं प्रतिपद्यामहे इत्युक्तवन्तोऽन्योन्यम्। उद्गीथकर्मपदार्थकर्तृस्वरूपाश्रयणं च ज्ञानकर्मभ्याम्। कर्म वक्ष्यमाणं मन्त्रजपलक्षणम्, विधित्स्यमानम् – ‘तदेतानि जपेत्’ (BrhU.1.3.28) इति। ज्ञानं त्विदमेव निरूप्यमाणम्।
By overcoming asurān, the asuras we shall realize our divinity as set forth in the scriptures.’ This identity with the vital force is attained through meditation and rites. The rites consist of the repetition of Mantras that will be presently enjoined: ‘These Mantras are to be repeated,’ etc. (BrhU.1.3.28). The meditation is what is being described.

नन्विदमभ्यारोहजपविधिशेषोऽर्थवादः, न ज्ञाननिरूपणपरम्।
Objection: This is a part of an injunction on the repetition of certain Mantras leading to the attainment of divinity, and is a mere eulogy; it has nothing to do with meditation.

न, ‘य एवं वेद’ (BrhU.1.3.7) इति वचनात्।
Reply: No, for there occur the words, ‘He who knows thus.’ (BrhU.1.3.7)

उद्गीथप्रस्तावे पुराकल्पश्रवणादुद्गीथविधिपरमिति चेत्,
Objection: Since the text narrates an old story in this treatment of the Udgītha, it must be a part of an injunction on the latter.

न, अप्रकरणात्; उद्गीथस्य चान्यत्र विहितत्वात्; विद्याप्रकरणत्वाच्चास्य;
Reply: No, for it is a different context. The Udgītha has been enjoined elsewhere (in the ceremonial portion), and this is a section on knowledge.

अभ्यारोहजपस्य चानित्यत्वात् एवंवित्प्रयोज्यत्वात्, विज्ञानस्य च नित्यवच्छ्रवणात्; ‘तद्धैतल्लोकजिदेव’ (BrhU.1.3.28) इति च श्रुतेः;
Besides, the repetition of those Mantras for the attainment of identity with the gods is not an independent act, for it is to be practiced (only) by one who meditates on the vital force as described in this section, and this meditation on the vital force is represented as being independent. And a separate result is mentioned for it in the passage, ‘This (meditation on the vital force) certainly wins the world’ (BrhU.1.3.28).

प्राणस्य वागादीनां च शुद्ध्यशुद्धिवचनात्; न ह्यनुपास्यत्वे – प्राणस्य शुद्धिवचनम्, वागादीनां च सहोपन्यस्तानामशुद्धिवचनम्, वागादिनिन्दया मुख्यप्राणस्तुतिश्चाभिप्रेता, – उपपद्यते
Moreover, the vital force has been stated to be pure, and the organs impure. This implies that the vital force is enjoined as an object of meditation, for otherwise there would be no sense in calling it pure and the organs such as that of speech, mentioned along with it, impure, nor in extolling it, as is evident, by the condemnation of the organ of speech, etc.

– ‘मृत्युमतिक्रान्तो दीप्यते’ (BrhU.1.3.27) इत्यादि फलवचनं च। प्राणस्वरूपापत्तेर्हि फलं तत्, यद्वागाद्यग्न्यादिभावः।
The same remarks apply to the enunciation of the result of meditation on it, ‘(That fire) having transcended death shines,’ etc. (BrhU.1.3.12). For the identification of the organ of speech etc. with fire and so on is the result of attaining oneness with the vital force.

भवतु नाम प्राणस्योपासनम्, न तु विशुद्ध्यादिगुणवत्तेति;
Objection; Granted that the vital force is to be meditated upon, but it cannot possess the attributes of purity etc.

ननु स्याच्छ्रुतत्वात्;
Reply: It must, for the Śruti says so.

न स्यात्, उपास्यत्वे स्तुत्यर्थत्वोपपत्तेः।
Objection: No, for the vital force being an object of meditation, the attributes referred to may just be a eulogy.

न; अविपरीतार्थप्रतिपत्तेः श्रेयःप्राप्त्युपपत्तेः, लोकवत्। यो ह्यविपरीतमर्थं प्रतिपद्यते लोके, स इष्टं प्राप्नोत्यनिष्टाद्वा निवर्तते, न विपरीतार्थप्रतिपत्त्या;
Reply: Not so, for in scriptural, as in secular matters, correct understanding alone can lead to our well-being. In common life one who understands things correctly attains what is good or avoids what is evil – not if one understands things wrongly.

तथेहापि श्रौतशब्दजनितार्थप्रतिपत्तौ श्रेयःप्राप्तिरुपपन्ना, न विपर्यये। न चोपासनार्थश्रुतशब्दोत्थविज्ञानविषयस्यायथार्थत्वे प्रमाणमस्ति।
Similarly here also one can attain well-being if only one correctly understands the meaning of scriptural passages, and not otherwise. Besides there is nothing to disprove the truth of objects corresponding to notions conveyed by the words of the scriptures enjoining a meditation.

न च तद्विज्ञानस्यापवादः श्रूयते। ततः श्रेयःप्राप्तिदर्शनाद्यथार्थतां प्रतिपद्यामहे। विपर्यये चानर्थप्राप्तिदर्शनात्
Nor is there any exception in the Śrutis to meditation on the vital force as pure etc. Since that meditation, we see, is conducive to our well-being, we accept it as true. And we see that the opposite course leads to evil.

– यो हि विपर्ययेणार्थं प्रतिपद्यते लोके – पुरुषं स्थाणुरिति, अमित्रं मित्रमिति वा, सोऽनर्थं प्राप्नुवन्दृश्यते। आत्मेश्वरदेवतादीनामप्ययथार्थानामेव चेद्ग्रहणं श्रुतितः, अनर्थप्राप्त्यर्थं शास्त्रमिति ध्रुवं प्राप्नुयाल्लोकवदेव; न चैतदिष्टम्। तस्माद्यथाभूतानेवात्मेश्वरदेवतादीन्ग्राहयत्युपासनार्थं शास्त्रम्।
We notice in life that one who misjudges things – takes a man, for instance, for a stump; or an enemy for a friend – comes to grief. Similarly, if the Self, God, the deities and so forth, of whom we hear from the scriptures, prove fictitious, then the scriptures, like secular things, would be a veritable source of evil; but this is acceptable to neither of us. Therefore we conclude that the scriptures present, for purposes of meditaton, the Self, God, the deities and so on, as real.

नामादौ ब्रह्मदृष्टिदर्शनादयुक्तमिति चेत्, स्फुटं नामादेरब्रह्मत्वम्; तत्र ब्रह्मदृष्टिं स्थाण्वादाविव पुरुषदृष्टिं विपरीतां ग्राहयच्छास्त्रं दृश्यते; तस्माद्यथार्थमेव शास्त्रतः प्रतिपत्तेः श्रेय इत्ययुक्तमिति चेत्,
Objection: What you say is wrong, for the name and other things are represented as Brahman. That is to say, the name and other things are obviously not Brahman, but the scriptures, we find, ask us, in direct opposition to fact, to look upon them as Brahman, which is analogous to regarding a stump etc. as a man. Hence it is not correct to say that one attains well-being by understanding things as they are from the scriptures.

न; प्रतिमावद्भेदप्रतिपत्तेः। नामादावब्रह्मणि ब्रह्मदृष्टिं विपरीतां ग्राहयति शास्त्रम्, स्थाण्वादाविव पुरुषदृष्टिम् – इति नैतत्साध्ववोचः।
Reply: Not so, for the difference is obvious, as in the case of an image. You are wrong to say that the scriptures ask us, in the face of fact, to look upon the name and other things, which are not Brahman, as Brahman, analogous to regarding a stump etc. as a man.

कस्मात्?
Objection: How?

भेदेन हि ब्रह्मणो नामादिवस्तु प्रतिपन्नस्य नामादौ विधीयते ब्रह्मदृष्टिः, प्रतिमादाविव विष्णुदृष्टिः। आलम्बनत्वेन हि नामादिप्रतिपत्तिः, प्रतिमादिवदेव, न तु नामाद्येव ब्रह्मेति। यथा स्थाणावनिर्ज्ञाते, न स्थाणुरिति, पुरुष एवायमिति प्रतिपद्यते विपरीतम्, न तु तथा नामादौ ब्रह्मदृष्टिर्विपरीता।
Reply: Because the scriptures enjoin meditation on the name etc. as Brahman for one who clearly knows that those things are different from Brahman; it is like meditation on the image etc. as Viṣṇu. Just like the image etc., the name and other things are used merely as aids to meditation; it is not meant that they are Brahman. So long as one does not know a stump as a stump, one mistakes it for a man. But meditation on the name etc. as Brahman is not of that erroneous nature.

ब्रह्मदृष्टिरेव केवला, नास्ति ब्रह्मेति चेत्; – एतेन प्रतिमाब्राह्मणादिषु विष्ण्वादिदेवपित्रादिदृष्टीनां तुल्यता
Objection (By the Mīmāṃsaka): There is only that meditation on the name etc. as Brahman, but not Brahman. Regarding an image as Viṣṇu and other gods, and a Brāhmaṇa as the Manes and so forth belongs to the same category.

– न, ऋगादिषु पृथिव्यादिदृष्टिदर्शनात्, विद्यमानपृथिव्यादिवस्तुदृष्टीनामेव ऋगादिविषये प्रक्षेपदर्शनात्। तस्मात्तत्सामान्यान्नामादिषु ब्रह्मादिदृष्टीनां विद्यमानब्रह्मादिविषयत्वसिद्धिः। एतेन प्रतिमाब्राह्मणादिषु विष्ण्वादिदेवपित्रादिबुद्धीनां च सत्यवस्तुविषयत्वसिद्धिः।
Reply: No, for we are advised to look upon the Ṛc (hymn) etc. as the earth and so on. Here we see only a superimposition on the Ṛc etc. of the notions of actually existing things such as the earth. Therefore on the analogy of that we conclude that viewing the name etc. as Brahman and so forth is based on actually existing Brahman and the rest. This also proves that viewing an image as Viṣṇu and other gods, and a Brāhmaṇa as the Manes and so forth, has a basis in reality.

मुख्यापेक्षत्वाच्च गौणत्वस्य; पञ्चाग्न्यादिषु चाग्नित्वादेर्गौणत्वान्मुख्याग्न्यादिसद्भाववत्, नामादिषु ब्रह्मत्वस्य गौणत्वान्मुख्यब्रह्मसद्भावोपपत्तिः।
Moreover, a figurative sense depends on a primary one. Since the five fires, for instance, are only figuratively such, they imply the existence of the real fire. Similarly, since the name and other things are Brahman only in a figurative sense, they merely prove that Brahman in a real sense must exist.

क्रियार्थैश्चाविशेषाद्विद्यार्थानाम्। यथा च, दर्शपूर्णमासादिक्रिया इदंफला विशिष्टेतिकर्तव्यताका एवङ्क्रमप्रयुक्ताङ्गा च – इत्येतदलौकिकं वस्तु प्रत्यक्षाद्यविषयं तथाभूतं च वेदवाक्यैरेव ज्ञाप्यते;
Besides, matters pertaining to knowledge are akin to those pertaining to rites. That rites like the new and full moon sacrifices produce such and such results, and have to be performed in a certain definite way, with their parts following each other in a particular order, is a supersensuous matter beyond the range of our perception and inference, which we nevertheless understand as true solely from the words of the Vedas.

तथा, परमात्मेश्वरदेवतादिवस्तु अस्थूलादिधर्मकमशनायाद्यतीतं चेत्येवमादिविशिष्टमिति वेदवाक्यैरेव ज्ञाप्यते – इति अलौकिकत्वात्तथाभूतमेव भवितुमर्हतीति।
Similarly it stands to reason that entities like the Supreme Self, God, the deities, etc. of which we learn, also from the worlds of the Vedas, as being characterized by the absence of grossness etc., being beyond hunger and the like, and so on, must be true, for they are equally supersensuous matters.

न च क्रियार्थैर्वाक्यैर्ज्ञानवाक्यानांु बुद्ध्युत्पादकत्वे विशेषोऽस्ति। न चानिश्चिता विपर्यस्ता वा परमात्मादिवस्तुविषया बुद्धिरुत्पद्यते।
There is no difference between texts relating to knowledge and those relating to rites as regards producing an impression. Nor is the impression conveyed by the Vedas regarding the Supreme Self and other such entities indefinite or contrary to fact.

अनुष्ठेयाभावादयुक्तमिति चेत्, क्रियार्थैर्वाक्यैः त्र्यंशा भावनानुष्ठेया ज्ञाप्यतेऽलौकिक्यपि; न तथा परमात्मेश्वरादिविज्ञानेऽनुष्ठेयं किञ्चिदस्ति; अतः क्रियार्थैः साधर्म्यमित्ययुक्तमिति चेत्,
Objection: Not so, for there is nothing to be done. To be explicit: The ritualistic passages mention an activity which, although relating to supersensuous matters, consist of three parts (What? Through what? And how? – denoting respectively the result, the means and the method of a rite) to be performed. But in the knowledge of the Supreme Self, God, etc., there is no such activity to be performed. Hence it is not correct to say that both kinds of passages are alike.

न; ज्ञानस्य तथाभूतार्थविषयत्वात्। न ह्यनुष्ठेयस्य त्र्यंशस्य भावनाख्यस्यानुष्ठेयत्वात्तथात्वम्; किं तर्हि? प्रमाणसमधिगतत्वात्। न च तद्विषयाया बुद्धेरनुष्ठेयविषयत्वात्तथार्थत्वम्; किं तर्हि? वेदवाक्यजनितत्वादेव। वेदवाक्याधिगतस्य वस्तुनस्तथात्वे सति, अनुष्ठेयत्वविशिष्टं चेत् अनुतिष्ठति; नो चेदनुष्ठेयत्वविशिष्टम्, नानुतिष्ठति।
Reply: Not so, for knowledge is of things that already exist. The activity to which you refer is real, not because it is to be performed, but because it is known through proper testimony (the Vedas). Nor is the notion concerning it real because it relates to something to be performed, but solely because it is conveyed by Veda sentences. When a thing has been known to be true from the Vedas, a person will perform it, should it admit of being performed, but will not do it if it is not a thing to be done.

अननुष्ठेयत्वे वाक्यप्रमाणत्वानुपपत्तिरिति चेत्,
Objection: If it is not something to be done, then it will cease to have the support of Veda testimony in the form of sentences.

न ह्यनुष्ठेयेऽसति पदानां संहतिरुपपद्यते; अनुष्ठेयत्वे तु सति तादर्थ्येन पदानि संहन्यन्ते; तत्रानुष्ठेयनिष्ठं वाक्यं प्रमाणं भवति – इदमनेनैवं कर्तव्यमिति; न त्विदमनेनैवमित्येवम्प्रकाराणां पदशतानामपि वाक्यत्वमस्ति, – ‘कुर्यात्क्रियेत कर्तव्यं भवेत्स्यादिति पञ्चमम्’ इत्येवमादीनामन्यतमेऽसति;
We do not understand how words in a sentence can be construed unless there is something to be done. But if there is something to be done, they are construed as bringing out that idea. A sentence is authoritative when it is devoted to an action – when it says that a certain thing is to be done through such and such means in a particular way. But hundreds of such words denoting the object, means and method would not make a sentence unless there is one or other of such terms as the following, ‘Should do, should be done, is to be done, should become and should be.’

अतः परमात्मेश्वरादीनामवाक्यप्रमाणत्वम्; पदार्थत्वे च प्रमाणान्तरविषयत्वम्; अतोऽसदेतदिति चेत्, न; ‘अस्ति मेरुर्वर्णचतुष्टयोपेतः’ इति एवमाद्यननुष्ठेयेऽपि वाक्यदर्शनात्।
Hence such entities as the Supreme Self and God have not the support of Veda testimony in the form of sentences. And if they are denoted by Veda words (instead of sentences), they becomes the objects of other means (Such as perception. Isolated words do not add to our knowledge, but only serve to call up the things they denote, if we happen to know them already) of knowledge. Therefore this (the fact of Brahman being the import of the Vedas) is wrong.

न च, ‘मेरुर्वर्णचतुष्टयोपेतः’ इत्येवमादिवाक्यश्रवणे मेर्वादावनुष्ठेयत्वबुद्धिरुत्पद्यते।
Reply: Not so, for we find sentences like, ‘There is Mt. Meru
[•A fabulous mountain round which the sun and the planets are said to revolve. The direction east, west, etc. vary according to the relative position of the dwellers around this mountain, the east being that in which they see the sun rise. But the direction overhead is obviously constant to all of them•]
, which is of four colors,’ which relate to things other than an action. Nor has anyone, on hearing such sentences, the idea that Meru and the rest are something to be done.

तथा अस्तिपदसहितानां परमात्मेश्वरादिप्रतिपादकवाक्यपदानां विशेषणविशेष्यभावेन संहतिः केन वार्यते।
Similarly, in a sentence containing the very ‘to be,’ what is there to prevent the construing of its words denoting the Supreme Self, God, etc. as substantives and their qualifying words?

मेर्वादिज्ञानवत्परमात्मज्ञाने प्रयोजनाभावादयुक्तमिति चेत्,
Objection: This is not correct, for the knowledge of the Supreme Self etc. serves no useful purpose like that of Meru and so forth.

न; ‘ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परम्’ (TaitU.2.1.1) ‘भिद्यते हृदयग्रन्थि’ (MunU.2.2.8) इति फलश्रवणात्, संसारबीजाविद्यादिदोषनिवृत्तिदर्शनाच्च।
Reply: Not so, for the Śruti mentions such results as, ‘The knower of Brahman attains the highest’ (TaitU.2.1.1), and ‘The knot of the heart (intellect) is broken,’ etc. (MunU.2.2.8). We also find the cessation of ignorance and other evils which are the root of relative existence.

अनन्यशेषत्वाच्च तज्ज्ञानस्य, जुह्वामिव, फलश्रुतेरर्थवादत्वानुपपत्तिः।
Besides, since the knowledge of Brahman does not form part of anything else (e.g. an action), the results rehearsed about it cannot be a mere eulogy as in the case of the sacrificial ladle.
[•The passage, ‘He whose ladle is made of Palāśa, Butea Frondosa, wood never hears an evil verse.’ TaitS.3.5.7.2, is a eulogy, because it is subsidiary to an enjoined rite.•]

प्रतिषिद्धानिष्टफलसम्बन्धश्च वेदादेव विज्ञायते। न चानुष्ठेयः सः। न च प्रतिषिद्धविषये प्रवृत्तक्रियस्य अकरणादन्यदनुष्ठेयमस्ति। अकर्तव्यताज्ञाननिष्ठतैव हि परमार्थतः प्रतिषेधविधीनां स्यात्।
Moreover, it is from the Vedas that we know that a forbidden act produces evil results; and it is not something to be done. A man who is about to do a forbidden act has (on recollecting that it is forbidden) nothing else to do except desisting from it. In fact, prohibitions have just that end in view, viz. to create an idea that the acts in question must not be done.

क्षुधार्तस्य प्रतिषेधज्ञानसंस्कृतस्य, अभक्ष्येऽभोज्ये वा प्रत्युपस्थिते कलञ्जाभिशस्तान्नादौ ‘इदं भक्ष्यम्’ ‘अदो भोज्यम्’ इति वा ज्ञानमुत्पन्नम्, तद्विषयया प्रतिषेधज्ञानस्मृत्या बाध्यते; मृगतृष्णिकायामिव पेयज्ञानं तद्विषययाथात्म्यविज्ञानेन।
When a hungry man who has been chastened by a knowledge of prohibited acts comes across something not to be eaten in any way, such as Kalañja,
[•the meat of an animal killed with a poisoned weapon•]
or food coming from a person under a curse, his first notion is that the food can be eaten, but it is checked by the recollection that it is a forbidden food, as one’s first notion that one can drink from a mirage is checked by the knowledge of its true nature.

तस्मिन्बाधिते स्वाभाविकविपरीतज्ञानेऽनर्थकरी तद्भक्षणभोजनप्रवृत्तिर्न भवति। विपरीतज्ञाननिमित्तायाः प्रवृत्तेर्निवृत्तिरेव, न पुनर्यत्नः कार्यस्तदभावे।
When that natural erroneous notion is checked, the dangerous
[•From the spiritual standpoint. The physical danger is too patent to need a scriptural warning•]
impulse to eat that food is gone. That impulse, being due to an erroneous notion, automatically stops; it does not require an additional effort to stop it.

तस्मात्प्रतिषेधविधीनां वस्तुयाथात्म्यज्ञाननिष्ठतैव, न पुरुषव्यापारनिष्ठतागन्धोऽप्यस्ति।
Therefore prohibitions have just the aim of communicating the real nature of a thing; there is not the least connection of human activity with them.

तथेहापि परमात्मादियाथात्म्यज्ञानविधीनां तावन्मात्रपर्यवसानतैव स्यात्। तथा तद्विज्ञानसंस्कृतस्य, तद्विपरीतार्थज्ञाननिमित्तानां प्रवृत्तीनाम्, अनर्थार्थत्वेन ज्ञायमानत्वात् परमात्मादियाथात्म्यज्ञानस्मृत्या स्वाभाविके तन्निमित्तविज्ञाने बाधिते, अभावः स्यात्।
Similarly here also, the injunction on the true nature of the Supreme Self etc. cannot but have that one aim. And a man who has been chastened by that knowledge knows that his impulses due to an erroneous notion are fraught with danger, and those natural impulses automatically stop when their cause, the false notion, has been exploded by the recollection of the true nature of the Supreme Self and the like.

ननु कलञ्जादिभक्षणादेरनर्थार्थत्ववस्तुयाथात्म्यज्ञानस्मृत्या स्वाभाविके तद्भक्ष्यत्वादिविपरीतज्ञाने निवर्तिते तद्भक्षणाद्यनर्थप्रवृत्त्यभाववत्, अप्रतिषेधविषयत्वाच्छास्त्रविहितप्रवृत्त्यभावो न युक्त इति चेत्,
Objection: Granted that the dangerous impulse to eat Kalañja and the like may stop when the natural erroneous notion about their edibility has been removed by the recollection of their true nature as harmful things; but the tendency to do acts enjoined by the scriptures should not stop in that way, for they are not prohibited.

न; विपरीतज्ञाननिमित्तत्वानर्थार्थत्वाभ्यां तुल्यत्वात्। कलञ्जभक्षणादिप्रवृत्तेर्मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तत्वमनर्थार्थत्वं च यथा, तथा शास्त्रविहितप्रवृत्तीनामपि। तस्मात्परमात्मयाथात्म्यविज्ञानवतः शास्त्रविहितप्रवृत्तीनामपि, मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तत्वेनानर्थार्थत्वेन च तुल्यत्वात्, परमात्मज्ञानेन विपरीतज्ञाने निवर्तिते, युक्त एवाभावः।
Reply: Not so, for both are due to erroneous notions and produce harmful effects. Just as the tendency to eat Kalañja etc. is due to a false notion and productive of harm, so is the tendency to do acts enjoined by the scriptures. Therefore, for a man who has a true knowledge of the Supreme Self, the tendency to do these acts, being equally due to a false notion and productive of harm, will naturally cease when that false notion has been removed by the knowledge of the Supreme Self.

ननु तत्र युक्तः; नित्यानां तु केवलशास्त्रनिमित्तत्वादनर्थार्थत्वाभावाच्च अभावो न युक्त इति चेत्,
Objection: Let it be so with regard to those acts (which are done for material ends), but the regular rites (There are three kinds of actions, viz. the regular, Nitya, the occasional, Naimittika, and those done for material ends, Kāmya. Of these, the first two are obligatory and the third optional), which are performed solely in obedience to the scriptures and produce no harmful effects, should on no account stop.

न; अविद्यारागद्वेषादिदोषवतो विहितत्वात्। यथा स्वर्गकामादिदोषवतो दर्शपूर्णमासादीनि काम्यानि कर्माणि विहितानि, तथा सर्वानर्थबीजाविद्यादिदोषवतस्तज्जनितेष्टानिष्टप्राप्तिपरिहाररागद्वेषादिदोषवतश्च तत्प्रेरिताविशेषप्रवृत्तेरिष्टानिष्टप्राप्तिपरिहारार्थिनो नित्यानि कर्माणि विधीयन्ते; न केवलं शास्त्रनिमित्तान्येव।
Reply: Not so, for they are enjoined on one who has defects such as ignorance, attachment and aversion. As the rites with material ends (Kāmya), such as the new and full moon sacrifices, are enjoined on one who has the defect of desiring heaven etc., so are the regular rites enjoined on one who has the root of all evils, ignorance etc., and the consequent defects of attachment and aversion, manifesting themselves as the quest of what is good and the avoidance of what is evil etc., and who being equally prompted by these tries to seek good and avoid evil; they are not performed solely in obedience to the scriptures.

न चाग्निहोत्रदर्शपूर्णमासचातुर्मास्यपशुबन्धसोमानां कर्मणां स्वतः काम्यनित्यत्वविवेकोऽस्ति। कर्तृगतेन हि स्वर्गादिकामदोषेण कामार्थता; तथा अविद्यादिदोषवतः स्वभावप्राप्तेष्टानिष्टप्राप्तिपरिहारार्थिनस्तदर्थान्येव नित्यानि – इति युक्तम्; तं प्रति विहितत्वात्।
Nor are rites such as the Agni-hotra, the new and full moon sacrifices, Cātur-māsya, Paśu-bandha and Soma-yāga intrinsically either rites with material ends or regular rites. They come under the former category only because the man who performs them has the defect of desiring heaven and so forth. Similarly the regular rites performed by a man who has the defects of ignorance etc., and who out of natural promptings seeks to attain what is good and avoid what is evil, are intended for that purpose alone, for they are enjoined on him.

न परमात्मयाथात्म्यविज्ञानवतः शमोपायव्यतिरेकेण किञ्चित्कर्म विहितमुपलभ्यते। कर्मनिमित्तदेवतादिसर्वसाधनविज्ञानोपमर्देन ह्यात्मज्ञानं विधीयते।
On one who knows the true nature of the Supreme Self, we do not find any other work enjoined except what leads to the cessation of activities. For Self-knowledge is inculcated through the obliteration of the very cause of rites, viz. the consciousness of all its means such as the gods.

न चोपमर्दितक्रियाकारकादिविज्ञानस्य कर्मप्रवृत्तिरुपपद्यते, विशिष्टक्रियासाधनादिज्ञानपूर्वकत्वात्क्रियाप्रवृत्तेः। न हि देशकालाद्यनवच्छिन्नास्थूलाद्वयादिब्रह्मप्रत्ययधारिणः कर्मावसरोऽस्ति।
And one whose consciousness of action, its factors and so forth has been obliterated cannot presumably have the tendency to perform rites, for this presupposes a knowledge of specific actions, their means and so on. One who thinks that he is Brahman unlimited by space, time, etc. and not gross and so on has certainly no room for the performance of rites.

भोजनादिप्रवृत्त्यवसरवत्स्यादिति चेत्,
Objection: He may, as he has for the inclination to eat and so on.

न; अविद्यादिकेवलदोषनिमित्तत्वाद्भोजनादिप्रवृत्तेरावश्यकत्वानुपपत्तेः। न तु, तथा अनियतं कदाचित्क्रियते कदाचिन्न क्रियते चेति, नित्यं कर्मोपपद्यते।
Reply: No, for the inclination to eat and so on is solely due to the defects of ignorance etc. and are not supposed to be compulsory. But the regular rites cannot be uncertain like that; they cannot be sometimes done and sometimes omitted (according to one’s whim).

केवलदोषनिमित्तत्वात्तु भोजनादिकर्मणोऽनियतत्वं स्यात्, दोषोद्भवाभिभवयोरनियतत्वात्, कामानामिव काम्येषु। शास्त्रनिमित्तकालाद्यपेक्षत्वाच्च नित्यानामनियतत्वानुपपत्तिः; दोषनिमित्तत्वे सत्यपि, यथा काम्याग्निहोत्रस्य शास्त्रविहितत्वात्सायम्प्रातःकालाद्यपेक्षत्वमेम्।
Acts like eating, however, may be irregular, as they are solely due to one’s defects, and these have no fixed time for appearing or disappearing, like desires for rites with material ends. But the regular rites, although they are due to defects, cannot be uncertain, for they depend on specific times etc. prescribed by the scriptures, just as the Kāmya Agni-hotra (which is a rite with material ends) depends on such conditions as the morning and evening, because it is enjoined by the scriptures.

तद्भोजनादिप्रवृत्तौ नियमवत्स्यादिति चेत्,
Objection: As the inclination to eat etc. (although due to defects) is regulated by the scriptures, so the restrictions about that Agni-hotra too may apply to the sage.

न; नियमस्य अक्रियात्वात् क्रियायाश्चाप्रयोजनकत्वात् नासौ ज्ञानस्यापवादकरः। तस्मात्, परमात्मयाथात्म्यज्ञानविधेरपि तद्विपरीतस्थूलद्वैतादिज्ञाननिवर्तकत्वात् सामर्थ्यात्सर्वकर्मप्रतिषेधविध्यर्थत्वं सम्पद्यते कर्मप्रवृत्त्यभावस्य तुल्यत्वात्, यथा प्रतिषेधविषये। तस्मात्, प्रतिषेधविधिवच्च, वस्तुप्रतिपादनं तत्परत्वं च सिद्धं शास्त्रस्य॥
Reply: No, for restrictions are not action, nor are they incentives to action. Hence they are not obstacles to the attainment of knowledge (even by an aspirant). Therefore the Veda dicta inculcating the true nature of the Supreme Self, because they remove the erroneous notions about Its being gross, dual and so on, automatically assume the character of prohibitions of all action, for both imply a cessation of the tendency to action. As is the case with prohibited acts (such as the eating of forbidden food). Hence we conclude that like the prohibitions, the Vedas delineate the nature of realities and have that ultimate aim.

ते देवाः, ह एवं विनिश्चित्य, वाचं वागभिमानिनीं देवताम्, ऊचुः उक्तवन्तः; त्वम्, नः अस्मभ्यम्, उद्गाय औद्गात्रं कर्म कुरुष्व; वाग्देवतानिर्वर्त्यमौद्गात्रं कर्म दृष्टवन्तः, तामेव च देवतां जपमन्त्राभिधेयाम् – ‘असतो मा सद्गमय’ इति।
Te, they, the gods, after deciding thus, ha vācam ūcuḥ, said; to the organ of speech, i.e. the deity identified with the organ, ‘Tvam naḥ udgāya, You chant for us (the Udgītha), or perform the function of the priest called Udgātṛ, for us.’ That is, they thought that this function belonged to the deity of the organ of speech, and that it was the deity referred to by the Mantra for repetition, ‘A-sato mā sad gamaya, From evil lead me to good’ (BrhU.1.3.28).

अत्र चोपासनायाः कर्मणश्च कर्तृत्वेन वागादय एव विवक्ष्यन्ते। कस्मात्? यस्मात्परमार्थतस्तत्कर्तृकस्तद्विषय एव च सर्वो ज्ञानकर्मसंव्यवहारः। वक्ष्यति हि ‘ध्यायतीव लेलायतीव’ (BrhU.4.3.7) इत्यात्मकर्तृकत्वाभावं विस्तरतः षष्ठे।
Here the organ of speech and the rest are spoken of as the agents of meditation and work. Why? Because in reality all our activities in the field of meditation and work are done by them and belong to them. That they are not done by the Self will be stated at length in the fourth chapter, in the passage, ‘It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were,’ etc. (BrhU.4.3.7).

इहापि च अध्यायान्ते उपसंहरिष्यति अव्याकृतादिक्रियाकारकफलजातम् – ‘त्रयं वा इदं नाम रूपं कर्म’ (BrhU.1.6.1) इति – अविद्याविषयम्।
Here too, at the end of the chapter it will be concluded that the whole universe of action, its factors and its results, beginning with the Undifferentiated, comes within the category of ignorance: ‘This (universe) indeed consists of these three: name, form and action’ (BrhU.1.6.1).

अव्याकृतात्तु यत्परं परमात्माख्यं विद्याविषयम् अनामरूपकर्मात्मकम्, ‘नेति नेति’ (BrhU.2.3.6) इति इतरप्रत्याख्यानेनोपसंहरिष्यति पृथक्। यस्तु वागादिसमाहारोपाधिपरिकल्पितः संसार्यात्मा, तं च वागादिसमाहारपक्षपातिनमेव दर्शयिष्यति – ‘एतेभ्यो भूतेभ्यः समुत्थाय तान्येवानुविनश्यति’ (BrhU.2.4.12) इति
And the Supreme Self, which is beyond the Undifferentiated, does not consist of name, form and action, and is the subject-matter of knowledge, will be concluded separately by the denial of things other than the Self with the words, ‘Not this, not this.’ While the transmigrating self, which is conjured up by the limiting adjunct (Upādhi) of the aggregate of the organ of speech etc., will be shown as falling under the category of that aggregate in the passage, ‘(The Self) comes out (as a separate entity) from these elements, and (this separateness) is destroyed with them’ (BrhU.2.4.12; BrhU.4.5.13).

तस्माद्युक्ता वागादीनामेव ज्ञानकर्मकर्तृत्वफलप्राप्तिविवक्षा।
Therefore it is but proper to speak of the organ of speech etc. as being the agents of meditation and work and receiving their fruits.

तथेति तथास्त्विति, देवैरुक्ता वाक् तेभ्यः अर्थिभ्यः अर्थाय, उदगायत् उद्गानं कृतवती।
‘Tathā iti, All right, so be it,’ said vāk, the organ of speech, when requested by the gods, udagāyat tebhyaḥ, and chanted for them, for the sake of the gods who wanted it done.

कः पुनरसौ देवेभ्योऽर्थायोद्गानकर्मणा वाचा निर्वर्तितः कार्यविशेष इति, उच्यते – यो वाचि – निमित्तभूतायाम् – वागादिसमुदायस्य य उपकारो निष्पद्यते वदनादिव्यापारेण, स एव। सर्वेषां ह्यसौ वाग्वदनाभिनिर्वृत्तो भोगः फलम्।
What was the particular effect of the chanting done by the organ of speech for the sake of the gods? This is being stated: It is bhogaḥ, the common good, of all the organs yaḥ (āgāyat), that comes vāci, through the instrumentality of the organ of speech, on account of the activities of speaking etc., for this is the fruit shared by all of them.

तं भोगं सा त्रिषु पवमानेषु कृत्वा अवशिष्टेषु नवसु स्तोत्रेषु वाचनिकमार्त्विज्यं फलम् – यत्कल्याणं शोभनम्, वदति वर्णानभिनिर्वर्तयति, तत् – आत्मने मह्यमेव।
Tam, That – it secured for the gods by chanting the three hymns called Pavamāna.
[•In the sacrifice called Jyotiṣṭoma twelve hymns are chanted by the Udgātṛ. The fruits of chanting the first three of these, called Pavamāna, go to the sacrificer, and those of the rest to the chanting priest.•]
While the result produced by chanting the remaining nine, which, as we know from the scriptures ‘Then through the remaining hymns (the chanter) should secure eatable food for himself by chanting’ (BrhU.1.3.28)., accrues to the priest – yad kalyāṇam vadati tad ātmane, the fine or articulated speaking it utilized for itself.

तद्ध्यसाधारणं वाग्देवातायाः कर्म, यत्सम्यग्वर्णानामुच्चारणम्; अतस्तदेव विशेष्यते – ‘यत्कल्याणं वदति’ इति। यत्तु वदनकार्यं सर्वसङ्घातोपकारात्मकम्, तद्याजमानमेव।
Perfect enunciation of syllables is the special function of the deity of speech; hence that is specified by the expression, ‘fine speaking.’ While the effect of speaking that helps the body and organs in general belongs to the sacrificer as his share.

तत्र कल्याणवदनात्मसम्बन्धासङ्गावसरं देवताया रन्ध्रं प्रतिलभ्य ते विदुः असुराः; कथम्? अनेन उद्गात्रा, नः अस्मान्, स्वाभाविकं ज्ञानं कर्म च, अभिभूय अतीत्य, शास्त्रजनितकर्मज्ञानरूपेण ज्योतिषा उद्गात्रा आत्मना अत्येष्यन्ति अतिगमिष्यन्ति
Now, finding a loophole in the attachment of the deity in utilizing its power of fine speaking for itself, te viduḥ, the Asuras knew – What? – that anena udgātrā atyeṣyanti, through this chanter (the gods) would surpass them, overcome the natural thoughts and actions by the light of those acquired through the scriptures, as represented by the chanter.

– इत्येवं विज्ञाय, तम् उद्गातारम्, अभिद्रुत्य अभिगम्य, स्वेन आसङ्गलक्षणेन पाप्मना अविध्यन् ताडितवन्तः संयोजितवन्त इत्यर्थः। स यः स पाप्मा – प्रजापतेः पूर्वजन्मावस्थस्य वाचि क्षिप्तः स एष प्रत्यक्षीक्रियते
Knowing this tam abhidrutya, they charged it, the chanter, pāpmanā avidhyan, and struck, i.e. touched, it with evil – their own attachment. Saḥ yaḥ pāpmā, that evil which – was injected into the vocal organ of Prajā-pati in his former incarnation – saḥ, is this, visible even today.

– कोऽसौ? यदेवेदमप्रतिरूपम् अननुरूपं शास्त्रप्रतिषिद्धं वदति, येन प्रयुक्तोऽसभ्यबीभत्सानृताद्यनिच्छन्नपि वदति; अनेन कार्येणाप्रतिरूपवदनेनानुगम्यमानः प्रजापतेः कार्यभूतासु प्रजासु वाचि वर्तते; स एव अप्रतिरूपवदनेनानुमितः, स प्रजापतेर्वाचि गतः पाप्मा; कारणानुविधायि हि कार्यमिति॥
What is it? yad eva idam a-pratirūpam vadati, What we come across when one speaks improper things, or what is forbidden by the scriptures; it is that which prompts one to speak, even against one’s wishes, what is inelegant, dreadful, false and so on. That it still persists in the vocal organ of people who have descended from Prajā-pati is inferred from this effect of improper speaking. Saḥ eva saḥ pāpmā, this evil that evil – is so inferred to be the one that got into the vocal organ of Prajā-pati, for an effect conforms to its cause.

तथैव घ्राणादिदेवता उद्गीथनिर्वर्तकत्वाज्जपमन्त्रप्रकाश्या उपास्याश्चेति क्रमेण परीक्षितवन्तः।
Likewise they tried one by one the deities of the noses etc., thinking that they were each the deity referred to by the Mantra enjoined for repetition and were to be meditated upon, since they too chanted the Udgītha.

देवानां चैतन्निश्चितमासीत् – वागादिदेवताः क्रमेण परीक्ष्यमाणाः कल्याणविषयविशेषात्मसम्बन्धासङ्गहेतोरासुरपाप्मसंसर्गादुद्गीथनिर्वर्तनासमर्थाः; अतोऽनभिधेयाः, ‘असतो मा सद्गमय’ इत्यनुपास्याश्च; अशुद्धत्वादितराव्यापकत्वाच्चेति।
And the gods came to this conclusion that the deities of the organ of speech and the rest, whom they tried one by one, were incapable of chanting the Udgītha, because they contracted evil from the Asuras owing to their attachment to utilizing their power of doing fine performances for themselves. Hence none of them was the deity referred to by the Mantra, ‘From evil lead me to good.’ etc. (BrhU.1.3.28), nor were they to be meditated upon, since they were impure and did not include the others.

एवमु खलु, अनुक्ता अपि एताः त्वगादि-देवताः, कल्याणाकल्याणकार्यदर्शनात्, एवं वागादिवदेव, एनाः, पाप्मना अविध्यन् पाप्मना विद्धवन्त इति यदुक्तं तत् पाप्मभिरुपासृजन् पाप्मभिः संसर्गं कृतवन्त इत्येतत्॥
Evam u khalu, likewise, just as in the case of the organ of speech etc., etāḥ devatāḥ evam enāḥ avidhyan, they also touched these (other) deities – that have not been mentioned, the skin and the rest, pāpmanā, with evil, that is to say, struck them with evil.

अथ अनन्तरम्, ह इमम् इत्यभिनयप्रदर्शनार्थम्, आसन्यम् आस्ये भवमासन्यं मुखान्तर्बिलस्थं प्राणमूचुः – ‘त्वं न उद्गाय’ इति। तथेति एवं शरणमुपगतेभ्यः स एष प्राणो मुख्य उदगायत् इत्यादि पूर्ववत्।
Atha ha imam ūcuḥ, then they said to this – pointing it out – prāṇam āsanyam, vital force situated in the mouth, having its seat in the oral cavity, ‘Tvam naḥ udgāya iti, chant (the Udgītha) for us.’ eṣaḥ prāṇaḥ, ‘tathā iti, All right,’ said the vital force – to the gods who sought its protection, udgāyat, and chanted, etc. All this has been explained.

पाप्मना अविव्यत्सन् वेधनं कर्तुमिष्टवन्तः, ते च दोषासंसर्गिणं सन्तं मुख्यं प्राणम्, स्वेन आसङ्गदोषेण वागादिषु लब्धप्रसरास्तदभ्यासानुवृत्त्या, संस्रक्ष्यमाणा विनेशुः विनष्टा विध्वस्ताः;
The Asuras avivyatsan, wanted to strike it, the vital force in the mouth, which was free from taint, pāpmanā, with evil, the taint of their own attachment. Having succeeded with the organ of speech etc., they, through the persistence of that habit, desired to contaminate it too, but vineśuḥ, perished, were routed.

कथमिवेति दृष्टान्त उच्यते – स यथा स दृष्टान्तो यथा – लोके अश्मानं पाषाणम्, ऋत्वा गत्वा प्राप्य, लोष्टः पांसुपिण्डः, पाषाणचूर्णनायाश्मनि निक्षिप्तः स्वयं विध्वंसेत विस्रंसेत विचूर्णीभवेत्; एवं हैव यथायं दृष्टान्त एवमेव, विध्वंसमाना विशेषेण ध्वंसमानाः, विष्वञ्चः नानागतयः, विनेशुः विनष्टाः,
How? This is being illustrated: Saḥ yathā, As, in life loṣṭaḥ aśmānam ṛtvā, a clod of earth, striking against a rock, hurled at it, with the intention of crushing it, vidhvaṃseta, is itself shattered, or crushed to atoms, evam ha eva vidhvaṃsamānāḥ, so were they shattered, flung in all directions, and viṣvañcaḥ, perished.

यतः; – ततः तस्मादासुरविनाशाद्देवत्वप्रतिबन्धभूतेभ्यः स्वाभाविकासङ्गजनितपाप्मभ्यो वियोगात्, असंसर्गधर्मिमुख्यप्राणाश्रयबलात्, देवाः वागादयः प्रकृताः, अभवन्; किमभवन्? स्वं देवतारूपमग्न्याद्यात्मकं वक्ष्यमाणम्।
Because it so happened, tataḥ, therefore, owing to this destruction of the Asuras – i.e. dissociation from the evils due to natural attachment, which checked the manifestation of their divinity – by virtue of taking refuge in the vital force in the mouth, which is ever unattached, devāḥ, the gods, the organs that are under consideration, abhavan, became – what? – their own divine selves, fire and so forth, to be mentioned later on.

पूर्वमप्यग्न्याद्यात्मका एव सन्तः स्वाभाविकेन पाप्मना तिरस्कृतविज्ञानाः पिण्डमात्राभिमाना आसन्। ते तत्पाप्मवियोगादुज्झित्वा पिण्डमात्राभिमानं शास्त्रसमर्पितवागाद्यग्न्याद्यात्माभिमाना बभूवुरित्यर्थः। किञ्च ते प्रतिपक्षभूता असुराः परा – अभवन् इत्यनुवर्तते; पराभूता विनष्टा इत्यर्थः।
Formerly also they had been fire and so on, but with their knowledge covered by natural evil, they had identified themselves with the body alone. On the cessation of that evil they gave up their identification with the body; and the organ of speech and the rest realized their identity with fire and so on, as taught by the scriptures. And āsurāḥ parā abhavan, the asuras, their enemies, were crushed.

यथा पुराकल्पेन वर्णितः पूर्वयजमानोऽतिक्रान्तकालिकः एतामेवाख्यायिकारूपां श्रुतिं दृष्ट्वा, तेनैव क्रमेण वागादिदेवताः परीक्ष्य, ताश्चापोह्यासङ्गपाप्मास्पददोषवत्त्वेनादोषास्पदं मुख्यं प्राणमात्मत्वेनोपगम्य, वागाद्याध्यात्मिकपिण्डमात्रपरिच्छिन्नात्माभिमानं हित्वा, वैराजपिण्डाभिमानं वागाद्यग्न्याद्यात्मविषयं वर्तमानप्रजापतित्वं शास्त्रप्रकाशितं प्रतिपन्नः;
The sacrificer of a past age who is mentioned in the story, coming across this Veda allegory, tested in the same order the deity of speech and the rest, discarded them as stricken with the taint of attachment, identified himself with the taintless vital force in the mouth, and thereby giving up his limited identification with the body only, as represented by the organ of speech and the rest, identified himself with the body of Virāj, his present status of Prajā-pati, which as the scriptures say, represents the identification of the organ of speech etc. with fire and so on.

तथैवायं यजमानस्तेनैव विधिना भवति प्रजापतिस्वरूपेण आत्मना; परा च, अस्य प्रजापतित्वप्रतिपक्षभूतः पाप्मा द्विषन्भ्रातृव्यः, भवति;
Similarly the sacrificer of today, by the same procedure, ātmanā bhavati, becomes his true self, as Prajā-pati. And asya dviṣān bhrātṛvyaḥ, his envious kinsman, the evil that opposes his attainment of the status of Prajā-pati, parā bhavati, is crushed.

– यतोऽद्वेष्टापि भवति कश्चिद्भ्रातृव्यो भरतादितुल्यः; यस्त्विन्द्रियविषयासङ्गजनितः पाप्मा, भ्रातृव्यो द्वेष्टा च, पारमार्थिकात्मस्वरूपतिरस्करणहेतुत्वात् – स च पराभवति विशीर्यते, लोष्टवत्, प्राणपरिष्वङ्गात्।
A kinsman is sometimes friendly, as, for instance, Bharata (The half-brother of Rāma in the Rāmāyaṇa). But the evil due to attachment to sense-objects is an envious kinsman, for it hides one’s real nature as the Self. It is crushed like the clod of earth by one’s union with the vital force.

कस्यैतत्फलमित्याह – य एवं वेद, यथोक्तं प्राणमात्मत्वेन प्रतिपद्यते पूर्वयजमानवदित्यर्थः॥
Who gets this result? Yaḥ evam veda, he who knows thus, i.e. like the ancient sacrificer realizes his identity with the vital force described above.

ते प्रजापतिप्राणाः, मुख्येन प्राणेन परिप्रापितदेवस्वरूपाः, ह ऊचुः उक्तवन्तः, फलावस्थाः; किमित्याह – क्व नु इति वितर्के; क्व नु कस्मिन्नु, सोऽभूत्; कः? यो नोऽस्मान्, इत्थम् एवम्, असक्त सञ्जितवान् देवभावमात्मत्वेनोपगमितवान्।
Te, they, the organs of Prajā-pati, which were restored to their divinity by the vital force in the mouth, and thus attained their goal, ha ūcuḥ, said, ‘kva nu saḥ abhūt yaḥ naḥ ittham asakta, Where was he who has thus restored us – to our divinity?’ The particle ‘nu’ indicates deliberation.

स्मरन्ति हि लोके केनचिदुपकृता उपकारिणम्; लोकवदेव स्मरन्तो विचारयमाणाः कार्यकरणसङ्घाते आत्मन्येवोपलब्धवन्तः; कथम्? अयमास्येऽन्तरिति – आस्ये मुखे य आकाशस्तस्मिन्, अन्तः, अयं प्रत्यक्षो वर्तत इति। सर्वो हि लोको विचार्याध्यवस्यति; तथा देवाः।
People who have been helped by somebody generally remember their benefactor. The organs likewise remembered, and thinking on who it might be, realized the vital force within themselves, in the aggregate of body and organs. How? ‘Ayam āsye antar iti, Here he is within the mouth, is visibly present within the space that is in the mouth.’ People decide after deliberation; so did the gods.

यस्मादयमन्तराकाशे वागाद्यात्मत्वेन विशेषमनाश्रित्य वर्तमान उपलब्धो देवैः, तस्मात् – स प्राणोऽयास्यः; विशेषानाश्रयत्वाच्च असक्त सञ्जितवान्वागादीन्; अत एव अङ्गिरसः आत्मा कार्यकरणानाम्;
Since the vital force was perceived by them as being present in the internal space without assuming any particular form like that of the organ of speech etc., therefore saḥ a-yāsyāḥ, the vital force is called A-yāsya. And since it did not assume any particular form, it restored the organ of speech etc. to their real status. Hence it is Āṅgi-rasa, the self of the body and organs.

कथमाङ्गिरसः? प्रसिद्धं हि एतत्, अङ्गानां कार्यकरणलक्षणानाम्, रसः सार आत्मेत्यर्थः; कथं पुनरङ्गरसत्वम्? तदपाये शोषप्राप्तेरिति वक्ष्यामः।
Hi, for it is, as is well known, rasaḥ, the essence, i.e. the self, aṅgānām, of the members, i.e. of the body and organs. And how is it the essence of the members? Because, as we shall say later on, without it they dry up.

यस्माच्चायमङ्गरसत्वाद्विशेषानाश्रयत्वाच्च कार्यकरणानां साधारण आत्मा विशुद्धश्च, तस्माद्वागादीनपास्य प्राण एवात्मत्वेनाश्रयितव्य इति वाक्यार्थः। आत्मा ह्यात्मत्वेनोपगन्तव्यः; अविपरीतबोधाच्छ्रेयःप्राप्तेः, विपर्यये चानिष्टाप्राप्तिदर्शनात्॥
How? Since, being the self of the members and not assuming any particular form, the vital force is the common self of the body and organs and pure, therefore it alone, to the exclusion of the organ of speech etc., should be resorted to as ones’ self – this is the import of the passage. For the Self alone should be realized as one’s self, since correct notions lead to well-being, and erroneous notions, as we find, lead to evil.

सा वा एषा देवता दूर्नाम – यं प्राणं प्राप्याश्मानमिव लोष्टवद्विध्वस्ता असुराः;
Because sā vai eṣā devatā dūr-nāma, this deity is called Dūr. ‘This’ refers to the vital force, reaching which the Asuras were shattered like a clod of earth hitting a rock.

तं परामृशति – सेति; सैवैषा, येयं वर्तमानयजमानशरीरस्था देवैर्निर्धारिता ‘अयमास्येऽन्तः’ इति; देवता च सा स्यात्, उपासनक्रियायाः कर्मभावेन गुणभूतत्वात्;
It is the deity within the present sacrificer’s body whom the gods concluded as their savior saying, ‘Here he is within the mouth.’ And the vital force may well be called a deity, being a part
[•Just as a god is a part of a sacrifice distinct form the offerings etc. A sacrifice consists of the offerings and deities.•]
of the act of meditation as its object.

यस्मात्सा दूर्नाम दूरित्येवं ख्याता – नामशब्दः ख्यापनपर्यायः – तस्मात्प्रसिद्धास्या विशुद्धिः, दूर्नामत्वात्;
Because the vital force is called Dūr, i.e. is well known as Dūr – to be ‘called’ is synonymous with being ‘celebrated as’ – therefore its purity is well known, from this name of Dūr.

कुतः पुनर्दूर्नामत्वमित्याह – दूरं दूरे, हि यस्मात्, अस्याः प्राणदेवतायाः, मृत्युः आसङ्गलक्षणः पाप्मा; असंश्लेषधर्मित्वात्प्राणस्य समीपस्थस्यापि दूरता मृत्योः; तस्माद्दूरित्येवं ख्यातिः; एवं प्राणस्य विशुद्धिर्ज्ञापिता।
Why is is called Dūr? Mṛtyuḥ hi, because Death – the evil of attachment – dūram asyāḥ, is far from it, this deity, vital force. Death, although it is close to the vital force, is away from it, because the latter is ever unattached. Therefore the vital force is well-known as Dūr. Thus its purity is conspicuous.

विदुषः फलमुच्यते – दूरं ह वा अस्मान्मृत्युर्भवति – अस्मादेवंविदः, य एवं वेद तस्मात्, एवमिति – प्रकृतं विशुद्धिगुणोपेतं प्राणमुपास्त इत्यर्थः।
The results accruing to a knower of this are being stated: Dūram ha vai asmāt mṛtyuḥ bhavati yaḥ evam veda, Death is far from one who knows thus, that is, who meditates upon the vital force endowed with purity, which is the topic of the section.

उपासनं नाम उपास्यार्थवादे यथा देवतादिस्वरूपं श्रुत्या ज्ञाप्यते तथा मनसोपगम्य, आसनं चिन्तनम्, लौकिकप्रत्ययाव्यवधानेन, यावत् तद्देवतादिस्वरूपात्माभिमानाभिव्यक्तिरिति लौकिकात्माभिमानवत्; – ‘देवो भूत्वा देवानप्येति’ (BrhU.4.1.2) ‘किन्देवतोऽस्यां प्राच्यां दिश्यसि’ (BrhU.3.9.20) इत्येवमादिश्रुतिभ्यः॥
Meditation is mentally approaching the form of the deity or the like as it is presented by the eulogistic portions of the Vedas relating to the objects of meditation, and concentrating on it, excluding conventional notions, till one is as completely identified with it as with one’s body, conventionally regarded as one’s self. Compare such Śruti passages as, ‘Being a god, he attains the gods’ (BrhU.4.1.2), and ‘What deity are you identified with in the east?’ (BrhU.3.9.20).

सा वा एषा देवता इत्युक्तार्थम्। एतासां वागादीनां देवतानाम्, पाप्मानं मृत्युम् – स्वाभाविकाज्ञानप्रयुक्तेन्द्रियविषयसंसर्गासङ्गजनितेन हि पाप्मना सर्वो म्रियते, स ह्यतो मृत्युः – तम्, प्राणात्माभिमानरूपाभ्यो देवताभ्यः, अपच्छिद्य अपहत्य, – प्राणात्माभिमानमात्रतयैव प्राणोऽपहन्तेत्युच्यते; विरोधादेव तु पाप्मैवंविदो दूरं गतो भवति;
Sā vai eṣā devatā, this deity – already explained – mṛtyum apahatya, took away death, etāsām devatānām pāpmānam, the evil of these gods – such as the god of speech, identified with the vital force. Everybody dies because of the evil due to the attachment of the organs to contact with the sense-objects, prompted by its natural ignorance. Hence this evil is death. The vital force is here spoken of as taking it away from the gods, simply because they identified themselves with the vital force. As a matter of fact, evil keeps away from this knower just because it is out of place there.

किं पुनश्चकार देवतानां पाप्मानं मृत्युमपहत्येत्युच्यते – यत्र यस्मिन्, आसां प्राच्यादीनां दिशाम्, अन्तः अवसानम्, तत् तत्र गमयाञ्चकार गमनं कृतवानित्येतत्।
What did the vital force do after taking away death, the evil of the gods? It yatra āsām diśām tat gamāyāñcakāra, carried it to where these quarters, east and so forth, antaḥ, end.

ननु नास्ति दिशामन्तः, कथमन्तं गमितवानिति; उच्यते – श्रौतविज्ञानवज्जनावधिनिमित्तकल्पितत्वाद्दिशां तद्विरोधिजनाध्युषित एव देशो दिशामन्तः, देशान्तोऽरण्यमिति यद्वत्; इत्यदोषः।
One may question how this was done, since the quarters have no end. The answer is that it is all right, for the quarters are here conceived as being that stretch of territory which is inhabited by people possessing Veda knowledge; hence ‘the end of the quarters’ means the country inhabited by people who hold opposite views, as a forest is spoken of as the end of the country (That is, inhabited country).

तत् तत्र गमयित्वा, आसां देवतानाम्, पाप्मन इति द्वितीयाबहुवचनम्, विन्यदधात् विविधं न्यग्भावेनादधात्स्थापितवती, प्राणदेवता; प्राणात्माभिमानशून्येष्वन्त्यजनेष्विति सामर्थ्यात्; इन्द्रियसंसर्गजो हि स इति प्राण्याश्रयतावगम्यते।
Carrying them tat, there, it, the deity vital force, āsām pāpmanaḥ vinyadadhāt, left their evils, the evils of these gods. – The word ‘pāpmanaḥ’ is accusative plural. – ‘Left,’ lit. placed in various humiliating ways, and, as is understood from the sense of the passage, among the inhabitants of that region beyond the border who do not identify themselves with the vital force. That evil is due to the contact of the senses (with their objects); hence it must reside in some living being.

तस्मात् तमन्त्यं जनम्, नेयात् न गच्छेत् सम्भाषणदर्शनादिभिर्न संसृजेत्; तत्संसर्गे पाप्मना संसर्गः कृतः स्यात्; पाप्माश्रयो हि सः;
Tasmāt na iyāt, therefore one should not approach, i.e. associate with by addressing or seeing, janam, a person – of the region beyond the border. Association with him would involve contact with evil, for it dwells in him.

तज्जननिवासं च अन्तं दिगन्तशब्दवाच्यम्, नेयात् – जनशून्यमपि, जनमपि तद्देशवियुक्तम्, इत्यभिप्रायः। नेद् इति परिभयार्थे निपातः; इत्थं जनसंसर्गे, पाप्मानं मृत्युम्, अन्ववायानीति – अनु अव अयानीति अनुगच्छेयमिति; एवं भीतो न जनमन्तं चेयादिति पूर्वेण सम्बन्धः॥
Antam na iyāt, nor go to that region beyond the border, where such people live, called ‘the end of the quarters,’ although it may be deserted; and the implication is, nor to any man out of that land. Ned pāpmānam mṛtyum anvavāyāni iti, lest one imbibe that evil, death – by coming into contact with such people. Out of this fear one should neither approach these people nor go to that region. ‘Ned’ (lest) is a particle denoting apprehension. (The following translation from Panoli:) Thus it is connected with the preceding verb iyād.

सा वै एषा देवता, तदेतत्प्राणात्मज्ञानकर्मफलं वागादीनामग्न्याद्यात्मत्वमुच्यते।
Sā vai eṣā devatā… Now the result of this act of meditation on the vital force as one’s own self, viz. the identification of the organ of speech etc. with fire and so on, is being stated.

अथ एना मृत्युमत्यवहत् – यस्मादाध्यात्मिकपरिच्छेदकरः पाप्मा मृत्युः प्राणात्मविज्ञानेनापहतः, तस्मात्स प्राणोऽपहन्ता पाप्मनो मृत्योः; तस्मात्स एव प्राणः, एना वागादिदेवताः, प्रकृतं पाप्मानं मृत्युम्, अतीत्य अवहत् प्रापयत् स्वं स्वमपरिच्छिन्नमग्न्यादिदेवतात्मरूपम्॥
Atha enāḥ mṛtyum atitya avahat, this deity next carried them beyond death. Because death, or the evil that limits one to the body, is removed by the identification with the vital force, therefore the latter is the destroyer of the evil of death. Hence that vital force carried these gods, that of speech and the rest, beyond death, the evil which is being discussed, and made them realize their respective unlimited divine forms as fire and so on.

स वै वाचमेव प्रथमामत्यवहत् – स प्राणः, वाचमेव, प्रथमां प्रधानामित्येतत् – उद्गीथकर्मणीतरकरणापेक्षया साधकतमत्वं प्राधान्यं तस्याः – तां प्रथमाम् अत्यवहत् वहनं कृतवान्।
Saḥ, it, the vital force, vācam eva prathamām atyavahat, carried the organ of speech, the foremost one, first. Its importance consists in being a better instrument in the chanting of the Udgītha than the other organs.

तस्याः पुनर्मृत्युमतीत्योढायाः किं रूपमित्युच्यते – सा वाक्, यदा यस्मिन्काले, पाप्मानं मृत्युम्, अत्यमुच्यत अतीत्यामुच्यत मोचिता स्वयमेव, तदा सः अग्निः अभवत् – सा वाक्
What was its form after it was carried beyond death? Yadā sā mṛtyum atyamucyata saḥ agniḥ abhavat, when the organ of speech got rid of death, it became fire.

– पूर्वमप्यग्निरेव सती मृत्युवियोगेऽप्यग्निरेवाभवत्। एतावांस्तु विशेषो मृत्युवियोगे – सोऽयमतिक्रान्तोऽग्निः, परेण मृत्युं परस्तान्मृत्योः, दीप्यते; प्राङ्मोक्षान्मृत्युप्रतिबद्धोऽध्यात्मवागात्मना नेदानीमिव दीप्तिमानासीत्; इदानीं तु मृत्युं परेण दीप्यते मृत्युवियोगात्॥
Formerly also it was fire, and being dissociated from death it became fire itself, with only this difference: saḥ ayam agniḥ mṛtyum atikrāntaḥ, that fire, having transcended death, pareṇa dīpyte, shines beyond its reach. Before its deliverance it was hampered by death and, as the organ of speech pertaining to the body, was not luminous as now; but now, being freed from death, it shines beyond its reach.

तथा – प्राणः घ्राणम् – वायुरभवत्; स तु पवते मृत्युं परेणातिक्रान्तः। सर्वमन्यदुक्तार्थम्॥
Similarly the nose vāyuḥ abhavat, became air. It, mṛtyum atikrāntaḥ pareṇa pavate, having transcended death, blows beyond its reach. The rest has been explained.

तथा चक्षुरादित्योऽभवत्; स तु तपति॥
Likewise cakṣuḥ ādityaḥ abhavat, the eye became the sun. Saḥ tapati, he shines.

तथा श्रोत्रं दिशोऽभवन्; दिशः प्राच्यादिविभागेनावस्थिताः॥
Similarly śrotram diśaḥ abhavan, the ear became the quarters. The diśaḥ, quarters, remain divided into the east and so forth.

मनः चन्द्रमाः – भाति। यथा पूर्वयजमानं वागाद्यग्न्यादिभावेन मृत्युमत्यवहत्, एवम् एनं वर्तमानयजमानमपि, ह वै, एषा प्राणदेवता मृत्युमतिवहति वागाद्यग्न्यादिभावेन, एवं यो वागादिपञ्चकविशिष्टं प्राणं वेद; ‘तं यथा यथोपासते तदेव भवति’ (शत. १०-५-२-२०) इति श्रुतेः॥
Manaḥ candramāḥ, the mind became the moon and bhāti, shines. As the vital force carried the ancient sacrificer beyond death by transforming the organ of speech etc. into fire and so on, evam enam ha vai eṣā mṛtyum ativahati, so does this deity carry one, the sacrificer of today, yaḥ evam veda, who knows thus – the vital force as including the five organs, that of speech etc. For the Śruti says, ‘One becomes exactly as one meditates upon Him’ (SatBr.10.5.2.20).

अथात्मने। यथा वागादिभिरात्मार्थमागानं कृतम्; तथा मुख्योऽपि प्राणः सर्वप्राणसाधारणं प्राजापत्यफलमागानं कृत्वा त्रिषु पवमानेषु, अथ अनन्तरं शिष्टेषु नवसु स्तोत्रेषु, आत्मने आत्मार्थम्, अन्नाद्यम् अन्नं च तदाद्यं च अन्नाद्यम्, आगायत्।
As the organ of speech and the rest had chanted for their own sake, so the vital force in the mouth, after securing, by chanting the three hymns called Pavamāna, the result to be shared by all the organs, viz. identity with Virāj, atha ātmane annādyam āgāyat, next secured eatable food for itself by chanting, the remaining nine hymns.

कर्तुः कामसंयोगो वाचनिक इत्युक्तम्।
We have already said that according to the Vedas the priests get the results of a sacrifice.
[•This although they officiate in the sacrifice on behalf of the sacrificer. The latter afterwards purchases them on payment of a fee to the priests.•]

कथं पुनस्तदन्नाद्यं प्राणेनात्मार्थमागीतमिति गम्यत इत्यत्र हेतुमाह –
How do we know that the vital force secured that eatable food for itself by chanting? The reason is being stated:

यत्किञ्च इति – सामान्यान्नमात्रपरामर्शार्थः; हि इति हेतौ; यस्माल्लोके प्राणिभिर्यत्किञ्चिद् अन्नमद्यते भक्ष्यते तदनेनैव प्राणेनैव; अन इति प्राणस्याख्या प्रसिद्धा; अनः शब्दः सान्तः शकटवाची, यस्त्वन्यः स्वरान्तः स प्राणपर्यायः;
Yat kiñca hi annam, for whatever food – food in general is meant – adyate, is eaten, by creatures in the world tad anena eva, is eaten by the vital force, ana, alone. The particle ‘hi’ (for) denotes a reason. ‘Ana’ is a well-known name of the vital force. There is another word ‘anas’
[•The nominative singular of both is ‘anaḥ.’ Hence the explanation. It should be noted that the word ‘anena’ is also the instrumental singular of the pronoun ‘idam,’ this or it’.•]
ending in ‘s’, which means a cart (śakaṭa) –, but this word (ana, in our mantra here) ends in a vowel (not ‘s’) and is a synonym of the vital force.

प्राणेनैव तद् अद्यते इत्यर्थः; किञ्च, न केवलं प्राणेनाद्यत एवान्नाद्यम्, तस्मिञ्शरीराकारपरिणतेऽन्नाद्ये इह, प्रतितिष्ठति प्राणः;
Besides, the vital force not only adyate, eats the eatable food, iha pratitiṣṭhati, it also rests on that – food, when it has been transformed into the body.

तस्मात्प्राणेनात्मनः प्रतिष्ठार्थमागीतमन्नाद्यम्। यदपि प्राणेनान्नादनं तदपि प्राणस्य प्रतिष्ठार्थमेवेति न वागादिष्विव कल्याणासङ्गजपाप्मसम्भवः प्राणेऽस्ति॥
Therefore the vital force secured the eatable food for itself by chanting, in order that it might live in the body. Although the vital force eats food, yet, because it is only in order that it might live in the body, there is no question of its contracting the evil due to attachment to fine performance, as was the case with the organ of speech and the rest.

ते देवाः। नन्ववधारणमयुक्तम् ‘प्राणेनैव तदद्यते’ इति, वागादीनामप्यन्ननिमित्तोपकारदर्शनात्;
Is it wrong to assert that all food ‘is eaten by the vital force alone,’ since the organ of speech and the rest are also benefited by the food?

नैष दोषः, प्राणद्वारत्वात्तदुपकारस्य। कथं प्राणद्वारकोऽन्नकृतो वागादीनामुपकार इत्येतमर्थं प्रदर्शयन्नाह –
The answer is: No, for that benefit comes through the vital force. How the benefit done to the organ of speech etc. by the food comes through the vital force, is being explained:

ते वागादयो देवाः, स्वविषयद्योतनाद्देवाः, अब्रुवन् उक्तवन्तो मुख्यं प्राणम् – ‘इदम् एतावत्, नातोऽधिकमस्ति; वा इति स्मरणार्थः;
Te devāḥ, the gods, the organ of speech etc., called gods because they bring their respective objects to light, abruvan, said, to the vital force in the mouth, ‘Whatever food there is, is eaten in the world to sustain life, etāvad vai, is just this much, and no more. – The particle ‘vai’ recalls what is well known.

इदं तत् सर्वमेतावद् एव; किम्? यदन्नं प्राणस्थितिकरमद्यते लोके, तत्सर्वम् आत्मने आत्मार्थम्, आगासीः आगीतवानसि आगानेनात्मसात्कृतमित्यर्थः; वयं चान्नमन्तरेण स्थातुं नोत्सहामहे; अतः अनु पश्चात्, नः अस्मान्, अस्मिन् अन्ने आत्मार्थे तवान्ने, आभजस्व आभाजयस्व; णिचोऽश्रवणं छान्दसम्; अस्मांश्चान्नभागिनः कुरु’।
– And idam sarvam etāvad yad annam ātmane āgāsīḥ, you have secured it all for yourself by chanting, i.e. have appropriated it through chanting for your own use; and we cannot live without food. Therefore anu naḥ anne ābhajasva, now let us have a share in this food, that is for yourself.’ – The absence of the causative suffix in the verb is a Veda license. – The meaning is, make us also sharers of the food.

इतर आह – ‘ते यूयं यदि अन्नार्थिनः वै, मा माम्, अभिसंविशत समन्ततो मामाभिमुख्येन निविशत’ – इति एवमुक्तवति प्राणे, तथेति एवमिति, तं प्राणं परिसमन्तं परिसमन्तात्, न्यविशन्त निश्चयेनाविशन्त, तं प्राणं परिवेष्ट्य निविष्टवन्त इत्यर्थः। तथा निविष्टानां प्राणानुज्ञया तेषां प्राणेनैवाद्यमानं प्राणस्थितिकरं सदन्नं तृप्तिकरं भवति;
The other said, ‘Te (tava) vai, then if you want (food) mā abhisaṃviśata iti, sit around facing me.’ When the vital force said this, the gods said, ‘tathā iti, All right, and tam parisamantam nyaviśanta, sat down around it, i.e. encircling the vital force. As they sit thus at the command of the vital force, the food eaten by it, while sustaining life, also satisfies them.

न स्वातन्त्र्येणान्नसम्बन्धो वागादीनाम्। तस्माद्युक्तमेवावधारणम् – ‘अनेनैव तदद्यते’ इति। तदेव चाह – तस्मात् यस्मात्प्राणाश्रयतयैव प्राणानुज्ञयाभिसन्निविष्टा वागादिदेवताः तस्मात्, यदन्नम्, अनेन प्राणेन, अत्ति लोकः, तेन अन्नेन, एता वागाद्याः, तृप्यन्ति।
The organ of speech and the rest have no independent relation to food. Therefore the assertion that all food ‘is eaten by the vital force alone’ is quite correct. This is what the text says: Tasmāt, hence, because the gods, the organ of speech etc., at the command of the vital force, sat around facing it, being under its protection, therefore yad annam anena atti tena etāḥ tṛpyanti, whatever food one eats through the vital force satisfies these, the organ of speech etc.

वागाद्याश्रयं प्राणं यो वेद – ‘वागादयश्च पञ्च प्राणाश्रयाः’ इति, तमपि एवम्, एवं ह वै, स्वा ज्ञातयः, अभिसंविशन्ति वागादय इव प्राणम्; ज्ञातीनामाश्रयणीयो भवतीत्यभिप्रायः।
Evam ha vai, so, as the organ of speech and the rest did with the vital force, svāḥ, do his relatives also abhisaṃviśanti, sit around facing him who knows thus, knows the vital force as support of the organ of speech etc. – knows that the five organs such as that of speech rest on the vital force; that is, he becomes the refuge of his relatives.

अभिसन्निविष्टानां च स्वानाम्, प्राणवदेव वागादीनाम्, स्वान्नेन भर्ता भवति; तथा श्रेष्ठः; पुरोऽग्रतः, एता गन्ता, भवति, वागादीनामिव प्राणः; तथा अन्नादोऽनामयावीत्यर्थः; अधिपतिः अधिष्ठाय च पालयिता स्वतन्त्रः पतिः प्राणवदेव वागादीनाम्;
And svānām bhartā, with his food he becomes the support, of his relatives who sit around facing him, as the vital force was of the organ of speech etc. Also, śreṣṭhaḥ puraḥ etāḥ bhavati, the greatest among them and their leader, as the vital force was of the organs. Further, anna-adaḥ, a good eater of food, i.e. free from disease, adhipatiḥ, and the ruler of them, an absolute protector, or independent master, just as the vital force was of the organs of speech etc.

य एवं प्राणं वेद तस्यैतद्यथोक्तं फलं भवति।
All this result comes to one yaḥ evam veda, who knows the vital force in the above way.

किञ्च य उ हैवंविदं प्राणविदं प्रति, स्वेषु ज्ञातीनां मध्ये, प्रतिः प्रतिकूलः, बुभूषति प्रतिस्पर्धीभवितुमिच्छति, सोऽसुरा इव प्राणप्रतिस्पर्धिनो न हैवालं न पर्याप्तः, भार्येभ्यः भरणीयेभ्यः, भवति, भर्तुमित्यर्थः।
Moreover yaḥ u ha evam-vidaṃ sveṣu prati-pratiḥ bubhūṣati, that one among his relatives who desires to rival a man of such knowledge, i.e. the knower of the vital force, na ha eva alam bhāryebhyaḥ bhavati, is powerless to support his dependents, like the Asuras who had rivalry with the vital force.

अथ पुनः य एव ज्ञातीनां मध्ये एतम् एवंविदं वागादय इव प्राणम्, अनु अनुगतो भवति, यो वा एतम् एवंविदम्, अनु एव अनुवर्तयन्नेव, आत्मीयान् भार्यान् बुभूर्षति भर्तुमिच्छति, यथैव वागादयः प्राणानुवृत्त्यात्मबुभूर्षव आसन्; स हैवालं पर्याप्तः, भार्येभ्यो भरणीयेभ्यः, भवति भर्तुम्, नेतरः स्वतन्त्रः।
Atha, but, among his relatives, yaḥ eva etam anu-bhavati, one who follows him, this knower of the vital force, as the organ of speech and the rest did the vital force, yaḥ vā etam anu bhāryān bubhūrṣati, or who desires to maintain one’s dependents being under him, just as the organs desired to support themselves by following the vital force, saḥ ha eva alam bhāryebhyaḥ, is alone capable of supporting them, and none else who is independent.

सर्वमेतत्प्राणगुणविज्ञानफलमुक्तम्।
All this is described as the result of knowing the attributes of the vital force.

कार्यकरणानामात्मत्वप्रतिपादनाय प्राणस्याङ्गिरसत्वमुपन्यस्तम् – ‘सोऽयास्य आङ्गिरसः’ इति; ‘अस्माद्धेतोरयमाङ्गिरसः’ इत्याङ्गिरसत्वे हेतुर्नोक्तः; तद्धेतुसिद्ध्यर्थमारभ्यते। तद्धेतुसिद्ध्यायत्तं हि कार्यकरणात्मत्वं प्राणस्य॥
In order to demonstrate that the vital force is the self of the body and organs, it has been introduced as Āṅgi-rasa, ‘It is Ayāsya Āṅgi-rasa’ (BrhU.1.3.8). But it has not been specifically stated why it is called Āṅgi-rasa. The following is introduced to furnish that reason. If that reason is valid, then only will the vital force be admitted to be the self of the body and organs.

‘सोऽयास्य आङ्गिरसः’ इत्यादि यथोपन्यस्तमेवोपादीयते उत्तरार्थम्। ‘प्राणो वा अङ्गानां रसः’ इत्येवमन्तं वाक्यं यथाव्याख्यातार्थमेव पुनः स्मारयति। कथम्? – प्राणो वा अङ्गानां रस इति। प्राणो हि; हि-शब्दः प्रसिद्धौ; अङ्गानां रसः;
Saḥ a-yāsyaḥ āṅgi-rasaḥ, it is called A-yāsya Āṅgi-rasa, etc. – This is repeated here as it is (from above) for the sake of the answer. The passage ending with, ‘The vital force is indeed the essence of the members,’ reminds us of what has already been explained. How? Prāṇaḥ vai aṅgānām rasaḥ, the vital force is indeed the essence of the members. Prāṇaḥ hi aṅgānām rasaḥ, of course it is their essence. The particle ‘hi’ denotes a well-known fact.

प्रसिद्धमेतत्प्राणस्याङ्गरसत्वं न वागादीनाम्; तस्माद्युक्तम् ‘प्राणो वा’ इति स्मारणम्।
Everybody knows that the vital force, and not the organ of speech etc., is the essence of the members. Therefore it is right to remind us of this fact with the words, ‘The vital force is indeed.’

कथं पुनः प्रसिद्धत्वमित्यत आह – तस्मात्-शब्द उपसंहारार्थं उपरित्वेन सम्बध्यते; यस्माद् यतोऽवयवात्, कस्माद् अनुक्तविशेषात्; यस्मात्कस्मात् यतः कुतश्चिद् च, अङ्गात् शरीरावयवादविशेषितात्, प्राणः उत्क्रामति अपसर्पति, तदेव तत्रैव, तद् अङ्गं शुष्यति नीरसं भवति शोषमुपैति। तस्माद् एष हि वा अङ्गानां रस इत्युपसंहारः।
How is it well known? Yasmāt tasmāt ca aṅgāt, from whichever member – any part of the body without distinction is meant – prāṇaḥ utkāmati tad eva tad, the vital force departs, right there it, that member, śuṣyati, withers or dries up. The word ‘tasmāt, therefore,’ signifying conclusion, is construed with the last sentence. Therefore eṣaḥ hi vai aṅgānām rasaḥ, this is of course the essence of the members, is the conclusion.

अतः कार्यकरणानामात्मा प्राण इत्येतत्सिद्धम्। आत्मापाये हि शोषो मरणं स्यात्। तस्मात्तेन जीवन्ति प्राणिनः सर्वे।
Hence it is proved that the vital force is the self of the body and organs. Because when the self departs, withering or death (of the body) takes place. Hence all creatures live through that.

तस्मादपास्य वागादीन्प्राण एवोपास्य इति समुदायार्थः॥
Therefore, leaving out the organ of speech and the rest, the vital force alone should be meditated upon. This is the sense of the whole passage.

एष उ एव प्रकृत आङ्गिरसो बृहस्पतिः। कथं बृहस्पतिः इति, उच्यते – वाग्वै बृहती बृहतीच्छन्दः षट्त्रिंशदक्षरा।
Eṣaḥ u eva, this alone, the vital force in question called Āṅgi-rasa, bṛhas-patiḥ, is also Bṛhas-pati. How? Vāk vai bṛhatī, speech is indeed Bṛhatī, the meter with thirty-six syllables.

अनुष्टुप्च वाक्; कथम्? ‘वाग्वा अनुष्टुप्’ (तै. सं. १-३-५) इति श्रुतेः; सा च वागनुष्टुब्बृहत्यां छन्दस्यन्तर्भवति; अतो युक्तम् ‘वाग्वै बृहती’ इति प्रसिद्धवद्वक्तुम्।
The meter Anuṣṭubh (thirty-two syllables) is speech. How? For the Śruti says, ‘Speech is indeed Anuṣṭubh’ (TaitS.5.1.3.5). And this speech called Anuṣṭubh is included in the meter Bṛhatī. Hence it is right to say, ‘Speech is indeed Bṛhatī,’ as a well-known fact.

बृहत्यां च सर्वा ऋचोऽन्तर्भवन्ति, प्राणसंस्तुतत्वात्; ‘प्राणो बृहती’ (ऐ. आ. २-१-६) ‘प्राण ऋच इत्येव विद्यात्’ (ऐ. आ. २-२-२) इति श्रुत्यन्तरात्;
And in Bṛhatī all Ṛcs are included, for it is extolled as the vital force. For another Śruti says, ‘Bṛhatī is the vital force.’ (AitAr.2.1.6); ‘One should know the Ṛcs as the vital force’ (AitAr.2.2.2).

वागात्मत्वाच्चर्चां प्राणेऽन्तर्भावः; तत्कथमित्याह – तस्या वाचो बृहत्या ऋचः, एषः प्राणः, पतिः, तस्या निर्वर्तकत्वात्; कौष्ठ्याग्निप्रेरितमारुतनिर्वर्त्या हि ऋक्;
The Ṛcs are included in the vital force, as they consist of speech. How this is so is being explained: Eṣaḥ, and this, vital force tasyāḥ patiḥ, is its lord, the lord of speech, i.e. of the Ṛcs in the form of Bṛhatī. For it gives rise to speech, since the Ṛcs are recited through the air which is propelled by the fire in the stomach.

पालनाद्वा वाचः पतिः; प्राणेन हि पाल्यते वाक्, अप्राणस्य शब्दोच्चारणसामर्थ्याभावात्;
Or the vital force may be the lord of speech, being its protector, for speech is protected by the vital force, since a dead man has no power to utter words.

तस्मादु बृहस्पतिः ऋचां प्राण आत्मेत्यर्थः॥
Tasmāt u bṛhas-patiḥ, therefore this is also Bṛhas-pati, i.e. the vital force is the self of the Ṛcs.

तथा यजुषाम्। कथम्? एष उ एव ब्रह्मणस्पतिः। वाग्वै ब्रह्म – ब्रह्म यजुः; तच्च वाग्विशेष एव। तस्या वाचो यजुषो ब्रह्मणः, एष पतिः; तस्मादु ब्रह्मणस्पतिः – पूर्ववत्।
Similarly the self of the Yajuses. How? Eṣaḥ u eva brahmaṇas-pati, This alone is also Brahmaṇas-pati. Vāk vai brahma, speech is brahman, or Yajus, which is a kind of speech. And tasyāḥ eṣaḥ patiḥ, this is its lord, the lord of that Yajus. Tasmāt brahmaṇas-patiḥ, therefore this is indeed Brahmaṇas-pati, as before.

कथं पुनरेतदवगम्यते बृहतीब्रह्मणोर्‌ऋग्यजुष्ट्वं न पुनरन्यार्थत्वमिति? उच्यते – वाचः अन्ते सामसामानाधिकरण्यनिर्देशात् ‘वाग्वै साम’ इति।
How is it known that the words ‘Bṛhatī’ and ‘Brahman’ mean the Ṛc and the Yajus respectively, and nothing else? Because at the end (of the topic, in the next paragraph) the word ‘speech’ is used as co-ordinate with ‘Sāman,’ ‘Speech is indeed Sāman.’

तथा च ‘वाग्वै बृहती’ ‘वाग्वै ब्रह्म’ इति च वाक्समानाधिकरणयोर्‌ऋग्यजुष्ट्वं युक्तम्।
Similarly in the sentences, ‘Speech is indeed Bṛhatī’ and ‘Speech is indeed Brahman,’ the words ‘Bṛhatī,’ and ‘Brahman,’ which are co-ordinate with ‘speech’, ought to mean the Ṛc and the Yajus respectively.

परिशेषाच्च – साम्न्यभिहिते ऋग्यजुषी एव परिशिष्टे।
On the principle of the residuum also this is correct. When the Sāman is mentioned, the Ṛc and the Yajus alone remain.

वाग्विशेषत्वाच्च – वाग्विशेषौ हि ऋग्यजुषी; तस्मात्तयोर्वाचा समानाधिकरणता युक्ता।
Another reason is that they are both forms of speech. The Ṛc and the Yajus are particular kinds of speech. Hence they can well be co-ordinated with speech.

अविशेषप्रसङ्गाच्च – ‘साम’ ‘उद्गीथः’ इति च स्पष्टं विशेषाभिधानत्वम्, तथा बृहतीब्रह्मशब्दयोरपि विशेषाभिधानत्वं युक्तम्; अन्यथा अनिर्धारितविशेषयोरानर्थक्यापत्तेश्च, विशेषाभिधानस्य वाङ्मात्रत्वे चोभयत्र पौनरुक्त्यात्;
Moreover, unless they are taken in that sense, there will be no difference between the two terms of each sentence. (In BrhU.1.3.22, 23) ‘Sāman’ and ‘Udgītha’ clearly denote specific objects. Similarly the words ‘Bṛhatī’ and ‘Brahman’ ought to denote specific objects. Otherwise, not conveying any specific object, they would be useless, and if that specific object be mere speech, both sentences would be tautological.

ऋग्यजुःसामोद्गीथशब्दानां च श्रुतिष्वेवं क्रमदर्शनात्॥
And lastly, the words Ṛc, Yajus, Sāman and Udgītha occur in the Vedas in the order here indicated.

एष उ एव साम। कथम्? इत्याह – वाग्वै सा यत्किञ्चित्स्त्रीशब्दाभिधेयं सा वाक्; सर्वस्त्रीशब्दाभिधेयवस्तुविषयो हि सर्वनाम-सा-शब्दः; तथा अम एष प्राणः; सर्वपुंशब्दाभिधेयवस्तुविषयोऽमः-शब्दः;
Eṣaḥ u eva sāma, this alone is also Sāman. How? This is being explained: Vāk vai sā, speech is indeed Sā, whatever is denoted by feminine words is speech, for the pronoun Sā (she) refers to all objects denoted by them. Similarly eṣaḥ, this, vital force, amaḥ, is Ama. The word ‘Ama’ refers to all objects denoted by masculine words.

‘केन मे पौंस्नानि नामान्याप्नोषीति, प्राणेनेति ब्रूयात्; केन मे स्त्रीनामानीति, वाचा’ (कौ. उ. १-७) इति श्रुत्यन्तरात्; वाक्प्राणाभिधानभूतोऽयं सामशब्दः।
For another Śruti says, ‘How do you get my masculine names? He should reply: Through the vital force. And how my feminine names? Through speech’ (KausU.1.7). So this word ‘Sāman’ denotes speech and the vital force.

तथा प्राणनिर्वर्त्यस्वरादिसमुदायमात्रं गीतिः सामशब्देनाभिधीयते; अतो न प्राणवाग्व्यतिरेकेण सामनामास्ति किञ्चित्, स्वरवर्णादेश्च प्राणनिर्वर्त्यत्वात्प्राणतन्त्रत्वाच्च।
Again, the word ‘Sāman’ denotes a chant consisting only of a combination of tones etc. that are produced by the vital force. Hence there is nothing called Sāman except the vital force and speech, for the tone, syllables, etc. are produced by the vital force and depend on it.

एष उ एव प्राणः साम। यस्मात् साम सामेति वाक्प्राणात्मकम् – सा चामश्चेति, तत् तस्मात् साम्नो गीतिरूपस्य स्वरादिसमुदायस्य सामत्वं तत् प्रगीतं भुवि।
‘This’ vital force ‘alone is also Sāman,’ because what is generally known as Sāman is a combination of speech and the vital force, sā ca amaḥ ca iti, Sā and Ama. Tat, therefore sāmnaḥ, Sāman, the chant consisting of a combination of tones etc., sāmatvam, is so called (i.e. the word Sāman has this nature of being sa-ama), well known in the world.

यत् उ एव समः तुल्यः सर्वेण वक्ष्यमाणेन प्रकारेण, तस्माद् वा सामेत्यनेन सम्बन्धः। वा-शब्दः सामशब्दलाभनिमित्तप्रकारान्तरनिर्देशसामर्थ्यलभ्यः। केन पुनः प्रकारेण प्राणस्य तुल्यत्वमित्युच्यते –
yad u eva samaḥ sarveṇa, or because it is equal in all those respects, to be presently mentioned – tasmāt, therefore, this is also Sāman. This is the construction. The word ‘or’ is gathered on the strength of the alternative reason indicated for the derivation of the word ‘Sāman’. In what respects is the vital force equal? This is being answered:

समः प्लुषिणा पुत्तिकाशरीरेण, समो मशकेन मशकशरीरेण, समो नागेन हस्तिशरीरेण, सम एभिस्त्रिभिर्लोकैः त्रैलोक्यशरीरेण प्राजापत्येन, समोऽनेन जगद्रूपेण हैरण्यगर्भेण।
Samaḥ pluṣiṇā, equal to (the body of) a white ant, samaḥ maśakena, equal to (the body of) a mosquito, samaḥ nāgena, equal to (the body of) an elephant, samaḥ ebhiḥ tribhiḥ lokaiḥ, equal to these three worlds, i.e. the body of Virāj, samaḥ anena sarveṇa, equal to this universe, i.e. the form of Hiraṇya-garbha.

पुत्तिकादिशरीरेषु गोत्वादिवत्कार्‌त्स्न्येन परिसमाप्त इति समत्वं प्राणस्य, न पुनः शरीरमात्रपरिमाणेनैव; अमूर्तत्वात्सर्वगतत्वाच्च।
The vital force is equal to all these bodies such as that of the white ant in the sense that it is present in its entirely in them, as the essential characteristics of a cow (gotva) are present in each individual cow. It cannot be merely of the size of these bodies, for it is formless and all-pervading.

न च घटप्रासादादिप्रदीपवत्सङ्कोचविकासितया शरीरेषु तावन्मात्रं समत्वम्। ‘त एते सर्व एव समाः सर्वेऽनन्ताः’ (BrhU.1.5.13) इति श्रुतेः। सर्वगतस्य तु शरीरेषु शरीरपरिमाणवृत्तिलाभो न विरुध्यते।
Nor does the equality mean just filling up those bodies by contraction or expansion like lamp-light in a jar, a mansion, etc. For the Śruti says, ‘These are all equal, and all infinite’ (BrhU.1.5.13). And there is nothing inconsistent in an all-pervading principle assuming in different bodies their particular size.

एवं समत्वात्सामाख्यं प्राणं वेद यः श्रुतिप्रकाशितमहत्त्वं तस्यैतत्फलम् – अश्नुते व्याप्नोति, साम्नः प्राणस्य, सायुज्यं सयुग्भावं समानदेहेन्द्रियाभिमानत्वम्, सालोक्यं समानलोकतां वा, भावनाविशेषतः, य एवमेतत् यथोक्तं साम प्राणं वेद
Yaḥ etat sāma veda, He who knows this Sāman, i.e. the vital force called Sāman because of its equality, whose glories are revealed by the Vedas, evam, to be such, gets this result: aśnute sāmnaḥ sāyujyam, attains union with it, identification with the same body and organs as the vital force, or sa-lokatām, lives in the same world as it, according to the difference in meditation.

– आ प्राणात्माभिमानाभिव्यक्तेरुपास्ते इत्यर्थः॥
This is meant to be the result of meditation continued till identity with the vital force is established.

एष उ वा उद्गीथः। उद्गीथो नाम सामावयवो भक्तिविशेषः नोद्गानम्; सामाधिकारात्।
Eṣaḥ u vai udgīthaḥ, this indeed is also Udgītha. The Udgītha is a particular division of the Sāman, not chanting, for the topic under discussion is Sāman.

कथमुद्गीथः प्राणः? प्राणो वा उत् – प्राणेन हि यस्माद् इदं सर्वं जगत् उत्तब्धम् ऊर्ध्वं स्तब्धमुत्तम्भितं विधृतमित्यर्थः; उत्तब्धार्थावद्योतकोऽयमुच्छब्दः प्राणगुणाभिधायकः; तस्मादुत् प्राणः;
How is the vital force Udgītha? Prāṇaḥ vai ut prāṇena hi idam sarvam ut-tabdham, the vital force is indeed Ut, for all this (universe) is held aloft or supported by the vital force. This prefix ‘ut’, meaning holding aloft, denotes a characteristic of the vital force. Therefore the vital force is Ut.

वागेव गीथा, शब्दविशेषत्वादुद्गीथभक्तेः; गायतेः शब्दार्थत्वात्सा वागेव; न ह्युद्गीथभक्तेः शब्दव्यतिरेकेण किञ्चिद्रूपमुत्प्रेक्ष्यते, तस्माद्युक्तमवधारणं वागेव गीथेति।
Vāk eva gīthā, speech alone is Gīthā, for the division of Sāman called Udgītha is a variety of sound. ‘Gīthā,’ coming from the root ‘gai’, denoting sound, is nothing but speech. The Udgītha cannot be conceived of as having any other form but sound. Hence it is right to assert that speech is Gīthā.

उच्च प्राणः, गीथा च प्राणतन्त्रा वाक्, इत्युभयमेकेन शब्देनाभिधीयते, स उद्गीथः॥
The vital force is ut ca, Ut, gīthā ca, and Gīthā is speech – dependent on the vital force; hence the two together are denoted by one word: Saḥ ud-gīthaḥ, this is Udgītha.

तद्धापि। तत् तत्रैतस्मिन्नुक्तेऽर्थे, ह अपि आख्यायिकापि श्रूयते ह स्म।
Tad ha api, tad ha, regarding this – subject described above, a story is api, also – narrated in the Śruti.

ब्रह्मदत्तः नामतः; चिकितानस्यापत्यं चैकितानः तदपत्यं युवा चैकितानेयः, राजानं यज्ञे सोमम्, भक्षयन्नुवाच;
Brahma-dattaḥ caikitāneyaḥ, Brahma-datta, the great-grandson
[•Whose great-grandfather, i.e. Cikitāna, at least was living. This is implied by the suffix. See Panini IV. i. 163.•]
of Cikitāna, rājānam bhakṣayan uvāca, while drinking Soma, in a sacrifice, said,

किम्? ‘अयं चमसस्थो मया भक्ष्यमाणो राजा, त्यस्य तस्य ममानृतवादिनः, मूर्धानं शिरः, विपातयतात् विस्पष्टं पातयतु’; तोरयं तातङादेशः, आशिषि लोट् – विपातयतादिति; यद्यहमनृतवादी स्यामित्यर्थः;
‘Iyam rājā, Let this Soma – in the bowl that I am drinking – tyasya mūrdhānam vipātayatāt, strike off this (my) head – for being a liar, i.e. if I have told a lie.’ – The suffix of the verb is a substitute for an imperative suffix and expresses a wish (Panini VII. i. 35).

कथं पुनरनृतवादित्वप्राप्तिरिति, उच्यते – ‘यत् यदि इतोऽस्मात्प्रकृतात्प्राणाद्वाक्संयुक्तात्, अयास्यः – मुख्यप्राणाभिधायकेन अयास्याङ्गिरसशब्देनाभिधीयते विश्वसृजां पूर्वर्षीणां सत्रे उद्गाता – सोऽन्येन देवतान्तरेण वाक्प्राणव्यतिरिक्तेन, उदगायत् उद्गानं कृतवान्; ततोऽहमनृतवादी स्याम्; तस्य मम देवता विपरीतप्रतिपत्तुर्मूर्धानं विपातयतु’
– How can he become a liar? This is being explained: ‘Yad āyāsyaḥ udgāyat, If I say that Ayāsya Āṅgirasa chanted the Udgītha, anyena, through any other, deity, itaḥ, than this, vital force combined with speech, which is being discussed.’ The term ‘Ayāsa Āṅgirasa,’ denoting the vital force in the mouth, refers to the priest who chanted in the sacrifice of the ancient sages who projected this world. ‘If I say like this, I shall be a liar, and for entertaining this false notion let that deity strike of my head.’

इत्येवं शपथं चकारेति विज्ञाने प्रत्ययकर्तव्यतादार्ढ्यं दर्शयति।
The mention of his taking this oath shows that one must have a firm conviction of this knowledge (That the vital force is the deity of the Udgītha).

तमिममाख्यायिकानिर्धारितमर्थं स्वेन वचसोपसंहरति श्रुतिः – वाचा च प्राणप्रधानया प्राणेन च स्वस्यात्मभूतेन, सः अयास्य आङ्गिरस उद्गाता, उदगायत् इति एषोऽर्थो निर्धारितः शपथेन॥
This purport of the story the Śruti concludes in its own words: Saḥ, He, that chanter, called here Ayāsya Āṅgirasa, vācā ca udgāyat, chanted through speech, which is subordinate to the vital force, prāṇena ca iti, and the vital force, which is his own self, meaning this is the significance of the oath.

तस्य हैतस्य। तस्य इति प्रकृतं प्राणमभिसम्बध्नाति। ह एतस्य इति मुख्यं व्यपदिशत्यभिनयेन। साम्नः सामशब्दवाच्यस्य प्राणस्य, यः स्वं धनम्, वेद; तस्य ह किं स्यात्? भवति हास्य स्वम्।
Yaḥ tasya ha etasya sāmnaḥ svam veda, He who knows the wealth of this Sāman, the vital force under consideration, denoted by the word ‘Sāman,’ which is here pointed out as being the one in the mouth – what happens to him? – he asya svam bhavati ha, attains wealth.

फलेन प्रलोभ्याभिमुखीकृत्य शुश्रूषवे आह – तस्य वै साम्नः स्वर एव स्वम्। स्वर इति कण्ठगतं माधुर्यम्, तदेवास्य स्वं विभूषणम्; तेन हि भूषितमृद्धिमल्लक्ष्यत उद्गानम्;
Having drawn his attention by tempting him with (a mention of) the result, the scripture tells the listener: tasya vai svaraḥ eva svam, tone is indeed its wealth. ‘Tone’ is sweetness of the voice; that is its wealth or ornament. For chanting, when attended with a good tone, appears as magnificent.

यस्मादेवं तस्मात् आर्त्विज्यम् ऋत्विक्कर्मोद्गानम्, करिष्यन्, वाचि विषये, वाचि वागाश्रितम्, स्वरम्, इत्छेत इच्छेत्, साम्नो धनवत्तां स्वरेण चिकीर्षुरुद्गाता।
Because this is so, tasmāt ārtvijyam kariṣyan, therefore one who is going to officiate as a priest, i.e. a chanter, vāci svaram itcheta, should desire to have a rich tone in his voice, in order to enrich the Sāman with that tone.

इदं तु प्रासङ्गिकं विधीयते; साम्नः सौस्वर्येण स्वरवत्त्वप्रत्यये कर्तव्ये, इच्छामात्रेण सौस्वर्यं न भवतीति, दन्तधावनतैलपानादि सामर्थ्यात्कर्तव्यमित्यर्थः। तयैवं संस्कृतया वाचा स्वरसम्पन्नया आर्त्विज्यं कुर्यात्।
This is an incidental injunction; for if the vital force (identified with the chanter) is to be realized as having a good tone through the fact of Sāman possessing it, a mere wish will not effect this, and therefore, it is implied, appropriate means such as cleaning the teeth and sipping oil should be adopted. And vācā svara-sampannayā ārtvijyam kuryāt, he should do his priestly duties through that cultured voice with a fine tone.

तस्मात् – यस्मात्साम्नः स्वभूतः स्वरः तेन स्वेन भूषितं साम, अतो यज्ञे स्वरवन्तम् उद्गातारम्, दिदृक्षन्त एव द्रष्टुमिच्छन्त्येव, धनिनमिव लौकिकाः। प्रसिद्धं हि लोके – अथो अपि, यस्य स्वं धनं भवति, तं धनिनं दिदृक्षन्ते – इति।
Because tone is the wealth of Sāman and the later is embellished by it, tasmāt yajñe svaravantam didṛkṣante eva, therefore in a sacrifice people long to see a priest with a good voice, as they do a rich man. It is a well-known fact that people want to see atha u yasya svam bhavati, one who has wealth.

सिद्धस्य गुणविज्ञानफलसम्बन्धस्योपसंहारः क्रियते – भवति हास्य स्वम्, य एवमेतत्साम्नः स्वं वेदेति॥
The result, already declared, of the meditation on this characteristic of the vital force is repeated as a conclusion: Yaḥ evam etat sāmnaḥ svam veda iti, He who knows the wealth of Sāman to be such, asya svam bhavati ha, attains wealth.

अथान्यो गुणः सुवर्णवत्तालक्षणो विधीयते। असावपि सौस्वर्यमेव। एतावान्विशेषः – पूर्वं कण्ठगतमाधुर्यम्; इदं तु लाक्षणिकं सुवर्णशब्दवाच्यम्। तस्य हैतस्य साम्नो यः सुवर्णं वेद, भवति हास्य सुवर्णम्; सुवर्णशब्दसामान्यात्स्वरसुवर्णयोः।
Now meditation on another attribute, viz. possessing gold, is being enjoined. That too is having a good tone, but there is this difference: The previous one was sweetness of the voice; whereas this, denoted by the word ‘suvarṇa’, is correct articulation according to the laws of phonetics. Tasya ha etasya sāmnaḥ yaḥ suvarṇam veda, he who knows the gold of this Sāman, asya suvarṇam bhavati ha, obtains gold, for the word ‘suvarṇa’ means both correct sound and gold.

लौकिकमेव सुवर्णं गुणविज्ञानफलं भवतीत्यर्थः। तस्य वै स्वर एव सुवर्णम्। भवति हास्य सुवर्णं य एवमेतत्साम्नः सुवर्णं वेद इति पूर्ववत्सर्वम्॥
That is to say, the result of meditating upon this attribute is the obtaining of gold, which is the common meaning of the word ‘suvarṇa’. Tasya vai svaraḥ eva suvarṇam, tone is indeed its gold. Evam etat sāmnaḥ suvarṇam veda, he who knows the gold of Sāman to be such, asya suvarṇam bhavati ha, obtains gold. All this has been explained.

तथा प्रतिष्ठागुणं विधित्सन्नाह – तस्य हैतस्य साम्नो यः प्रतिष्ठां वेद; प्रितितिष्ठत्यस्यामिति प्रतिष्ठा वाक्; तां प्रतिष्ठां साम्नो गुणम्, यो वेद स प्रतितिष्ठति ह।
Similarly, in order to enjoin meditation on another feature of the vital force, viz. its support, the text says: Tasya ha etasya sāmnaḥ yaḥ pratiṣṭhām veda, he who knows the support of this Sāman, i.e. speech on which the Sāman rests, pratitiṣṭhati ha, gets a resting place.

‘तं यथा यथोपासते’ (शत. ब्रा. १०-५-२-२०) इति श्रुतेस्तद्गुणत्वं युक्तम्।
The result is aptly in accordance with the meditation, for the Śruti says, ‘(One becomes) exactly as one meditates upon Him’ (SatBr.10.5.2.20).

पूर्ववत्फलेन प्रतिलोभिताय का प्रतिष्ठेति शुश्रूषव आह – तस्य वै साम्नो वागेव। वाग् इति जिह्वामूलादीनां स्थानानामाख्या; सा एव प्रतिष्ठा।
As before, when one has been tempted by a mention of the result and wants to hear what that support is, the scripture says: Tasya vai vāk eva pratiṣṭhā, speech is indeed the support, of the Sāman. ‘Speech’ here means the different parts of the body such as the root of the tongue; those are the support.

तदाह – वाचि हि जिह्वामूलादिषु हि यस्मात् प्रतिष्ठितः सन् एष प्राणः एतद् गानं गीयते गीतिभावमापद्यते, तस्मात्साम्नः प्रतिष्ठा वाक्।
This is explained by the text: Vāci hi pratiṣṭhitaḥ, for resting on speech, i.e. the root of the tongue and other places, eṣaḥ prāṇaḥ etad gīyate, is the vital force thus chanted, assumes the form of a chant. Therefore speech is the support of the Sāman.

अन्ने प्रतिष्ठितो गीयत इत्यु ह एके अन्ये आहुः; इह प्रतितिष्ठतीति युक्तम्। अनिन्दितत्वादेकीयपक्षस्य विकल्पेन प्रतिष्ठागुणविज्ञानं कुर्यात् – वाग्वा प्रतिष्ठा, अन्नं वेति॥
Eke āhuḥ, some say, it is chanted, anne iti u ha, resting on food. It is but proper to say that the vital force rests on this. Since this latter view is also unexceptionable, one should meditate at his option either speech or food as the support of the vital force.

एवं प्राणविज्ञानवतो जपकर्म विधित्स्यते। यद्विज्ञानवतो जपकर्मण्यधिकारस्तद्विज्ञानमुक्तम्।
A repetition of mantras is being prescribed for one who knows the vital forces as such. The meditation by knowing which one is entitled to this repetition of mantras has been mentioned.

अथ अनन्तरम्, यस्माच्चैवं विदुषा प्रयुज्यमानं देवभावायाभ्यारोहफलं जपकर्म, अतः तस्मात् तद्विधीयते इह।
Atha, now, because this repetition of mantras by one possessed of such knowledge produces the result of elevation of divinity, ataḥ, therefore, it is being described here.

तस्य चोद्गीथसम्बन्धात्सर्वत्र प्राप्तौ पवमानानाम् इति वचनात्, पवमानेषु त्रिष्वपि कर्तव्यतायां प्राप्तायाम्, पुनः कालसङ्कोचं करोति – स वै खलु प्रस्तोता साम प्रस्तौति। स प्रस्तोता, यत्र यस्मिन्काले, साम प्रस्तुयात् प्रारभेत, तस्मिन्काल एतानि जपेत्।
This repetition, being connected with chanting, may be thought applicable to every chant; so it is restricted by the mention – pavamānānām, of the Pavamānas. But since one may think that it should be done with all the three Pavamānas, the time is being further restricted: Saḥ vai khalu prastotā sāma prastauti, The priest called Prastotṛ indeed recites the Sāman. Yatra, while – he recites it, i.e. when he begins to chant the Sāman, etāni japet, these (mantras) are to be repeated.

अस्य च जपकर्मण आख्या अभ्यारोह इति। आभिमुख्येनारोहत्यनेन जपकर्मणैवंविद्देवभावमात्मानमित्यभ्यारोहः।
And this repetition of mantras is called ‘Abhyāroha’, because through this repetition one possessed of such knowledge ‘advances towards’ the realization of one’s innate divinity.

एतानीति बहुवचनात्त्रीणि यजूंषि। द्वितीयानिर्देशाद्ब्राह्मणोत्पन्नत्वाच्च यथापठित एव स्वरः प्रयोक्तव्यो न मान्त्रः।
The plural in ‘these’ indicates that there are three Yajus Mantras. The use of the accusative case and the fact that these Mantras occur in a Brāhmaṇa or explanatory portion of the Vedas, indicate that the usual accent should be used in these words, and not the special intonation
[•Which is indicated by the use of the instrumental case in the directions.•]
used in the hymns.

याजमानं जपकर्म। एतानि तानि यजूंषि –
This repetition of mantras is to be done by the sacrificer
[•Yājamāna, the part of a sacrificial ceremony performed by the Yajamāna, the sponsor of the ritual, the sacrificer himself. Or, per Ānandagiri, the act is of the Ārtvijya or Yājamāna, i.e. by the priest (i.e. the Prastotṛ as above) or by the sacrificer.•]
These are the Yajus mantras in question:

‘असतो मा सद्गमय’
‘तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमय’
‘मृत्योर्मामृतं गमय’ इति।
A-sataḥ mā sad gamaya, From evil (a-sat) lead me to good (sat).
Tamaso mā jyotir gamaya, From darkness (tamas) lead me to light (jotir.
Mṛtyor mā a-mṛtam gamaya, From death (mṛtyu) lead me to immortality (a-mṛta).

मन्त्राणामर्थस्तिरोहितो भवतीति स्वयमेव व्याचष्टे ब्राह्मणं मन्त्रार्थम् –
The meaning of the mantras is hidden. So the Brāhmaṇa itself explains them:

सः मन्त्रः, यदाह यदुक्तवान्; कोऽसावर्थ इत्युच्यते – ‘असतो मा सद्गमय’ इति। मृत्युर्वा असत् – स्वाभाविककर्मविज्ञाने मृत्युरित्युच्येते; असत् अत्यन्ताधोभावहेतुत्वात्; सत् अमृतम् – सत् शास्त्रीयकर्मविज्ञाने, अमरणहेतुत्वादमृतम्। तस्मादसतः असत्कर्मणोऽज्ञानाच्च, मा माम्, सत् शास्त्रीयकर्मविज्ञाने, गमय, देवभावसाधनात्मभावमापादयेत्यर्थः। तत्र वाक्यार्थमाह – अमृतं मा कुर्वित्येवैतदाह इति।
Saḥ yad āha, when the mantra says, ‘A-sataḥ mā sad gamaya iti, From evil lead me to good,’ what is the meaning? Mṛtyuḥ vai a-sat, ‘Evil’ means death, i.e. our natural actions and thoughts; ‘evil,’ because they degrade us very much; and sat, ‘good,’ i.e. actions and thoughts as they are regulated by the scriptures, means a-mṛtam, immortality, because they lead to it. Therefore the meaning is, ‘From evil actions and ignorance lead me to actions and thoughts that are regulated by the scriptures, i.e. help me to identify myself with those things that lead to divinity.’ The import of the sentence is being stated: A-mṛtam mā kuru iti eva etad āha, so it says, ‘Make me immortal.’

तथा तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमयेति। मृत्युर्वै तमः, सर्वं ह्यज्ञानमावरणात्मकत्वात्तमः, तदेव च मरणहेतुत्वान्मृत्युः। ज्योतिरमृतं पूर्वोक्तविपरीतं दैवं स्वरूपम्। प्रकाशात्मकत्वाज्ज्ञानं ज्योतिः; तदेवामृतम् अविनाशात्मकत्वात्; तस्मात्तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमयेति। पूर्ववत् मृत्योर्मामृतं गमय इत्यादि; अमृतं मा कुर्वित्येवैतदाह – दैवं प्राजापत्यं फलभावमापादयेत्यर्थः।
Similarly, tamasaḥ mā jyotiḥ gamaya iti, when it says, ‘From darkness lead me to light,’ mṛtuḥ vai tamaḥ, ‘darkness’ means death. All ignorance, being of the nature of a veil, is darkness and it again is death, being the cause of it. And jyotiḥ a-mṛtam, ‘light’ means immortality, the opposite of the above, one’s divine nature. Knowledge being luminous, is called light; and it again is immortality, being of an imperishable nature. Mṛtyoḥ mā a-mṛtam gamaya, a-mṛtam mā kuru iti eva etad āha, so it says, ‘From death lead me to immortality, or make me immortal,’ as before, i.e. help me to realize the divine status of Virāj.

पूर्वो मन्त्रोऽसाधनस्वभावात्साधनभावमापादयेति; द्वितीयस्तु साधनभावादप्यज्ञानरूपात्साध्यभावमापादयेति।
The first mantra means, help me to identify myself with the means of realization, instead of with things that are not such; while the second one means, help me to go beyond that even – for it is a form of ignorance – and attain identity with the result.

मृत्योर्मामृतं गमयेति पूर्वयोरेव मन्त्रयोः समुच्चितोऽर्थस्तृतीयेन मन्त्रेणोच्यत इति प्रसिद्धार्थतैव। नात्र तृतीये मन्त्रे तिरोहितम् अन्तर्हितम् इव अर्थरूपं पूर्वयोरिव मन्त्रयोः अस्ति; यथाश्रुत एवार्थः।
The third mantra, ‘Mṛtyoḥ mā a-mṛtam gamaya iti, From death lead me to immortality,’ gives the combined meaning of the first two, and is quite clear. In this na atra tirohitam iva asti, the meaning does not seem to be hidden, as in the first two, i.e. it should be taken literally.

याजमानमुद्गानं कृत्वा पवमानेषु त्रिषु, अथ अनन्तरं यानीतराणि शिष्टानि स्तोत्राणि, तेष्वात्मनेऽन्नाद्यमागायेत् – प्राणविदुद्गाता प्राणभूतः प्राणवदेव।
Atha, then, after chanting for the sacrificer with the three Pavamānas, yāni itarāṇi stotrāṇi, through the remaining hymns, the chanter who knows the vital force and has become identified with it, teṣu ātmane anna-adyam āgāyet, should secure eatable food for himself by chanting, just like the vital force.

यस्मात्स एष उद्गाता एवं प्राणं यथोक्तं वेत्ति, अतः प्राणवदेव तं कामं साधयितुं समर्थः; तस्माद् यजमानः तेषु स्तोत्रेषु प्रयुज्यमानेषु वरं वृणीत; यं कामं कामयेत तं कामं वरं वृणीत प्रार्थयेत। यस्मात् स एष एवंविदुद्गात इति तस्माच्छब्दात्प्रागेव सम्बध्यते। आत्मने वा यजमानाय वा यं कामं कामयते इच्छत्युद्गाता, तमागायति आगानेन साधयति।
Because this chanter knows the vital force as above described, therefore he is able to obtain that desired object. Tasmāt teṣu varam vṛṇīta, therefore, while they are being chanted, the sacrificer should ask for a boon – yam kāmam kāmateta tam, anything that he desires. Because saḥ eṣaḥ evam-vid udgātā, ātmane vā yajamānāya vā yam kāmam kāmayate, whatever objects this chanter possessed of such knowledge desires, either for himself or for the sacrificer, tam āgāyati, he secures them by chanting. This sentence should precede the one before it (for the sake of sense).

एवं तावज्ज्ञानकर्मभ्यां प्राणात्मापत्तिरित्युक्तम्; तत्र नास्त्याशङ्कासम्भवः।
Thus it has been stated that meditation and rites together lead to identification with Hiraṇya-garbha. There is no possibility of a doubt regarding this.

अतः कर्मापाये प्राणापत्तिर्भवति वा न वेत्याशङ्क्यते;
Therefore a doubt is being raised as to whether, in the absence of rites, meditation alone can lead to that result or not.

तदाशङ्कानिवृत्त्यर्थमाह – तद्धैतल्लोकजिदेवेति। तद्ध तद् एतत् प्राणदर्शनं कर्मवियुक्तं केवलमपि, लोकजिदेव इति लोकसाधनमेव।
To remove it, the text says: Tad hi etat, this, meditation on the vital force, certainly loka-vit eva, certainly wins the world,
[•Hiraṇya-garbha, who is the cosmic form of the vital force.•]
even if it is disjoined from the rites.

न ह एव अलोक्यतायै अलोकार्हत्वाय, आशा आशंसनं प्रार्थनम्, नैव अस्ति ह। न हि प्राणात्मन्युत्पन्नात्माभिमानस्य तत्प्राप्त्याशंसनं सम्भवति।
Na ha eva a-lokakyatāyai āśā asti, He has not to pray lest he be unfit for this world, for one who has already realized his identity with Hiraṇya-garbha cannot possibly pray for the attainment of him.

न हि ग्रामस्थः कदा ग्रामं प्राप्नुयामित्यरण्यस्थ इवाशास्ते। असन्निकृष्टविषये ह्यनात्मन्याशंसनम्, न तत्स्वात्मनि सम्भवति। तस्मान्नाशास्ति – कदाचित्प्राणात्मभावं न प्रतिपद्येयेति।
A man who is already in a village is not eager about when he will reach it, as a man who is in a forest is. Expectation is always about something remote, something other than one’s self; it is impossible with regard to one’s own self. Therefore there is no chance of his fearing lest he should ever miss identity with Hiraṇya-garbha.

कस्यैतत्। य एवमेतत्साम प्राणं यथोक्तं निर्धारितमहिमानं वेद –
Who gets this result? Yaḥ evam etat sāma veda, he who knows this Sāman as such, meditates upon the vital force whose glories have been described above (till he realizes his identity with it in the following way):

‘अहमस्मि प्राण इन्द्रियविषयासङ्गैरासुरैः पाप्मभिरधर्षणीयो विशुद्धः;
‘I am the pure vital force, not to be touched by the evils characteristic of the Asuras, viz. the attachment of the senses to their objects.

वागादिपञ्चकं च मदाश्रयत्वादग्न्याद्यात्मरूपं स्वाभाविकविज्ञानोत्थेन्द्रियविषयासङ्गजनितासुरपाप्मदोषवियुक्तम्; सर्वभूतेषु च मदाश्रयान्नाद्योपयोगबन्धनम्;
The five organs such as that of speech have, by resting on me, been freed from the defects of these evils which spring from one’s natural thoughts, and have become fire and so forth; and they are connected with all bodies by partaking of the eatable food that belongs to me.

आत्मा चाहं सर्वभूतानाम्, आङ्गिरसत्वात्;
Being Āṅgi-rasa, I am the self of all beings.

ऋग्यजुःसामोद्गीथभूतायाश्च वाच आत्मा, तद्व्याप्तेस्तन्निर्वर्तकत्वाच्च;
And I am the self of speech manifesting itself as Ṛc, Yajus, Sāman and Udgītha, for I pervade it and produce it.

मम साम्नो गीतिभावमापद्यमानस्य बाह्यं धनं भूषणं सौस्वर्यम्; ततोऽप्यन्तरतरं सौवर्ण्यं लाक्षणिकं सौस्वर्यम्;
I am transformed into a chant as Sāman, and have the external wealth or embellishment of a good voice; and I also have a more intimate treasure, consisting of fine articulation according to phonetics.

गीतिभावमापद्यमानस्य मम कण्ठादिस्थानानि प्रतिष्ठा;
And when I become the chant, the throat and other parts of the body are my support.

एवं गुणोऽहं पुत्तिकादिशरीरेषु कार्‌त्स्न्येन परिसमाप्तः, अमूर्तत्वात्सर्वगतत्वाच्च’
With these attributes I am completely present in all bodies beginning with that of a white ant, being formless and all-pervading.’

– इति आ एवमभिमानाभिव्यक्तेर्वेद उपास्ते इत्यर्थः॥
(The following translation from Panoli:) Whosoever knows the Prāṇa, i.e. meditates upon it until the identity, as described, is achieved, (to him accrues the result stated above).

आत्मैव आत्मेति प्रजापतिः प्रथमोऽण्डजः शरीर्यभिधीयते। वैदिकज्ञानकर्मफलभूतः स एव – किम्? इदं शरीरभेदजातं तेन प्रजापतिशरीरेणाविभक्तम् आत्मैव आसीत् अग्रे प्राक्शरीरान्तरोत्पत्तेः।
Agre, In the beginning, before the manifestation of any other body, idam, this, universe of different bodies ātmā eva āsīt, was but the self, was undifferentiated from the body of Virāj, the first embodied, being born out of the cosmic egg, who is here meant by the word ‘self.’

स च पुरुषविधः पुरुषप्रकारः शिरःपाण्यादिलक्षणो विराट्; स एव प्रथमः सम्भूतोऽनुवीक्ष्य अन्वालोचनं कृत्वा – ‘कोऽहं किंलक्षणो वास्मि’ इति, नान्यद् वस्त्वन्तरम्, आत्मनः प्राणपिण्डात्मकात्कार्यकरणरूपात्, ना अपश्यत् न ददर्श। केवलं त्वात्मानमेव सर्वात्मानमपश्यत्।
He is the product of Veda meditations and rites. And this self was puruṣa-vidhaḥ, of a human form, with a head, hands, etc., i.e. Virāj. Saḥ, he, who is born first, anuvīkṣya, reflected – on who he was and what his features were, and na anyad ātmanaḥ apaśyat, found nothing else but himself, consisting of the body and organs. He found only himself, the self of all.

तथा पूर्वजन्मश्रौतविज्ञानसंस्कृतः ‘सोऽहं प्रजापतिः, सर्वात्माहम् अस्मि’ इत्यग्रे व्याहरत् व्याहृतवान्। ततः तस्मात्, यतः पूर्वज्ञानसंस्कारादात्मानमेवाहमित्यभ्यधादग्रे तस्मात्, अहन्नामाभवत्; तस्योपनिषदहमिति श्रुतिप्रदर्शितमेव नाम वक्ष्यति;
And as he had been purified by Veda knowledge in his past life, saḥ aham asmi iti agre vyāharat, he first uttered, ‘I am he,’, the Virāj who is the self of all. And because owing to his past impressions he first declared himself as Aham, tataḥ, therefore, he aham nāma abhavat, was called Aham (I). That this is his name as given out by the Śruti will be mentioned later: ‘His secret name is Aham’ (BrhU.5.5.1).

तस्मात्, यस्मात्कारणे प्रजापतावेवं वृत्तं तस्मात्, तत्कार्यभूतेषु प्राणिषु एतर्हि एतस्मिन् अपि काले, आमन्त्रितः कस्त्वमित्युक्तः सन्, ‘अहमयम्’ इत्येवाग्रे उक्त्वा कारणात्माभिधानेनात्मानमभिधायाग्रे, पुनर्विशेषनामजिज्ञासवे अथ अनन्तरं विशेषपिण्डाभिधानम् ‘देवदत्तः’ ‘यज्ञदत्तः’ वेति प्रब्रूते कथयति – यद् नाम अस्य विशेषपिण्डस्य मातापितृकृतं भवति, तत्कथयति।
Tasmāt, Hence, because this happened with Virāj, the cause, therefore, etarhi api, to this day, among men, his effects, āmantritaḥ, when a person is addressed – as, ‘Who are you?’ Aham ayam iti eva agre uktvā, he first says, ‘It is I,’ – describes himself as identified with his cause, Virāj, atha prabrūte, and then says, to one who inquires about his particular name, (anyad) nāma, the other name, the name of his particular body, such as Deva-datta or Yajña-datta, yad asya bhavati, that he may have, as given to that a particular body by his parents.

स च प्रजापतिः, अतिक्रान्तजन्मनि सम्यक्कर्मज्ञानभावनानुष्ठानैः साधकावस्थायाम्, यद् यस्मात्, कर्मज्ञानभावनानुष्ठानैः प्रजापतित्वं प्रतिपित्सूनां पूर्वः प्रथमः सन्, अस्मात् प्रजापतित्वप्रतिपित्सुसमुदायात् सर्वस्मात्, आदौ औषत् अदहत्; किम्? आसङ्गाज्ञानलक्षणान् सर्वान्पाप्मनः प्रजापतित्वप्रतिबन्धकारणभूतान्; यस्मादेवं तस्मात्पुरुषः – पूर्वमौषदिति पुरुषः।
And saḥ yad, because he, Virāj, in his past incarnation when he was an aspirant, by an adequate practice of meditation and rites, pūrvaḥ, was the first, of those who wanted to attain the status of Virāj by the same method, and asmāt sarvasmāt, and before this whole – band of aspirants, auṣat, burnt – what? – sarvān pāpmanaḥ, all evils, viz. attachment and ignorance, which obstructed his attainment of the status of Virāj – because it was so, tasmāt puruṣaḥ, therefore he is called Pur-uṣa, i.e. one who burnt first.

यथायं प्रजापतिरोषित्वा प्रतिबन्धकान्पाप्मनः सर्वान्, पुरुषः प्रजापतिरभवत्; एवमन्योऽपि ज्ञानकर्मभावनानुष्ठानवह्निना केवलं ज्ञानबलाद्वा ओषति भस्मीकरोति ह वै सः तम् – कम्? योऽस्माद् विदुषः पूर्वः प्रथमः प्रजापतिः बुभूषति भवितुमिच्छति तमित्यर्थः। तं दर्शयति – य एवं वेद इति; सामर्थ्याज्ज्ञानभावनाप्रकर्षवान्।
As this Virāj became Puruṣa and Virāj by burning all the obstructing evils, so another person, by the fire of his practice of meditation and rites, or by virtue of meditation alone, saḥ oṣati ha vai, burns one – whom? – tam yaḥ bubhūṣati, who wants to be Virāj, asmāt purvaḥ, before him, this sage. The text points out in the words, ‘Yaḥ evam veda, who knows thus.’ It is implied that he has perfected himself in the practice of meditation.

नन्वनर्थाय प्राजापत्यप्रतिपित्सा, एवंविदा चेद्दह्यते;
Objection: The desire to attain the status of Virāj must be dangerous, if one is burnt by a sage possessing this knowledge.

नैष दोषः, ज्ञानभावनोत्कर्षाभावात् प्रथमं प्रजापतित्वप्रतिपत्त्यभावमात्रत्वाद्दाहस्य। उत्कृष्टसाधनः प्रथमं प्रजापतित्वं प्राप्नुवन् न्यूनसाधनो न प्राप्नोतीति, स तं दहतीत्युच्यते;
Reply: There is nothing wrong in it, for burning here means only the failure to attain the status of Virāj first, due to a deficiency in the practice of meditation. The man who uses the best means attains it first, and the man who is deficient in his means does not. This is spoken of as the former burning the latter.

न पुनः प्रत्यक्षमुत्कृष्टसाधनेनेतरो दह्यते – यथा लोके आजिसृतां यः प्रथममाजिमुपसर्पति तेनेतरे दग्धा इवापहृतसामर्थ्या भवन्ति, तद्वत्॥
It is not that one who uses the best means actually burns the other. As in the world, when several people are having a running contest, the man who first reaches the destination may be said to burn the others, as it were, for they are shorn of their strength, so is the case here.

सोऽबिभेत्। सः प्रजापतिः, योऽयं प्रथमः शरीरी पुरुषविधो व्याख्यातः सः, अबिभेत् भीतवान् अस्मदादिवदेवेत्याह। यस्माद् अयं पुरुषविधः शरीरकरणवान् आत्मनाशविषयविपरीतदर्शनवत्त्वादबिभेत्, तस्मात्तत्सामान्यादद्यत्वेऽपि एकाकी बिभेति।
Saḥ, he, Virāj, who has been presented as the first embodied being of a human form, abibhet, was afraid, just like us, says the text. Because of ayam, this, being with a human form, possessing a body and organs, was afraid owing to a false notion about his extinction, therefore, being similarly situated, to this day ekākī bibheti, people are afraid to be alone.

किञ्चास्मदादिवदेव भयहेतुविपरीतदर्शनापनोदकारणं यथाभूतात्मदर्शनम्।
And the means of removing this false notion that caused the fear, was, as in our case, the right knowledge of the Self.

सोऽयं प्रजापतिः ईक्षाम् ईक्षणं चक्रे कृतवान् ह। कथमित्याह – यत् यस्मात् मत्तोऽन्यत् आत्मव्यतिरेकेण वस्त्वन्तरं प्रतिद्वन्द्वीभूतं नास्ति, तस्मिन्नात्मविनाशहेत्वभावे, कस्मान्नु बिभेमि इति। तत एव यथाभूतात्मदर्शनाद् अस्य प्रजापतेः भयं वीयाय विस्पष्टमपगतवत्।
Saḥ ha, He, Virāj, īkṣām cakre, thought, ‘Yad mattaḥ anyad na asti, If there is nothing else but me, no other entity but myself to be my rival, kasmāt nu bibheme iti, what am I afraid of, for there is nothing to kill me?’ Tataḥ, from that – right knowledge of the self, eva asya, alone his, Virāj’s bhayam vīyāya, fear was clean gone.

तस्य प्रजापतेर्यद्भयं तत्केवलाविद्यानिमित्तमेव परमार्थदर्शनेऽनुपपन्नमित्याह – कस्माद् हि अभेष्यत्? किमित्यसौ भीतवान्? परमार्थनिरूपणायां भयमनुपपन्नमेवेत्यभिप्रायः।
That fear of Virāj, being due to sheer ignorance, was inconsistent with the knowledge of the Supreme Self. This is what the text says: Kasmāt hi abheṣyat, For what was there to fear? That is, why was he afraid, since there could be no fear when the truth was known?

यस्माद् द्वितीयाद् वस्त्वन्तराद्वै भयं भवति; द्वितीयं च वस्त्वन्तरमविद्याप्रत्युपस्थापितमेव।
Because dvitīyāt bhayam bhavati, it is from a second entity that fear comes; and that second entity is merely projected by ignorance.

न ह्यदृश्यमानं द्वितीयं भयजन्मनो हेतुः, ‘तत्र को मोहः कः शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यतः’ (IsU.7) इति मन्त्रवर्णात्।
A second entity that is not perceived at all cannot certainly cause fear, for the Śruti says, ‘Then what delusion and what grief can there be for one who sees unity?’ (IsU.7).

यच्चैकत्वदर्शनेन भयमपनुनोद, तद्युक्तम्; कस्मात्? द्वितीयाद्वस्त्वन्तराद्वै भयं भवति; तदेकत्वदर्शनेन द्वितीयदर्शनमपनीतमिति नास्ति यतः।
That his fear was removed by the knowledge of unity was quite proper. Why? Because fear comes of a second entity, and that notion of a second entity was removed by the knowledge of unity; it was non-existent.

अत्र चोदयन्ति – कुतः प्रजापतेरेकत्वदर्शनं जातम्? को वास्मा उपदिदेश? अथानुपदिष्टमेव प्रादुरभूत्; अस्मदादेरपि तथा प्रसङ्गः।
Here some object: What was Virāj’s knowledge of unity due to? And who instructed him? If it came without any instruction, the same might also be true of us.

अथ जन्मान्तरकृतसंस्कारहेतुकम्; एकत्वदर्शनानर्थक्यप्रसङ्गः। यथा प्रजापतेरतिक्रान्तजन्मावस्थस्यैकत्वदर्शनं विद्यमानमप्यविद्याबन्धकारणं नापनिन्ये, यतोऽविद्यासंयुक्त एवायं जातोऽबिभेत्, एवं सर्वेषामेकत्वदर्शनानर्थक्यं प्राप्नोति।
If, however, it was due to the impressions of his past life, then the knowledge of unity would be useless. As Virāj’s knowledge of unity acquired in his past life, although it was present, did not remove the cause of his bondage, ignorance – for being born with that ignorance, he was afraid – so the knowledge of unity would be useless in the case of everybody.

अन्त्यमेव निवर्तकमिति चेत्, न; पूर्ववत्पुनः प्रसङ्गेनानैकान्त्यात्।
Should it be urged that the knowledge prevailing at the last moment only removes ignorance, our answer is that it cannot be laid down as a rule, since ignorance may appear again just as it did before.

तस्मादनर्थकमेवैकत्वदर्शनमिति।
Therefore we conclude that the knowledge of unity serves no useful purpose.

नैष दोषः; उत्कृष्टहेतूद्भवत्वाल्लोकवत्। यथा पुण्यकर्मोद्भवैर्विविक्तैः कार्यकरणैः संयुक्ते जन्मनि सति प्रज्ञामेधास्मृतिवैशारद्यं दृष्टम्, तथा प्रजापतेर्धर्मज्ञानवैराग्यैश्वर्यविपरीतहेतुसर्वपाप्मदाहाद्विशुद्धैः कार्यकरणैः संयुक्तमुत्कृष्टं जन्म; तदुद्भवं चानुपदिष्टमेव युक्तमेकत्वदर्शनं प्रजापतेः। तथा च स्मृतिः – ‘ज्ञानमप्रतिघं यस्य वैराग्यं च प्रजापतेः। ऐश्वर्यं चैव धर्मश्च सहसिद्धं चतुष्टयम्’ इति॥
Reply: Not so, for, as in the world, his knowledge sprang from his perfected birth. That is to say, as we see that when a person has been born with a select body and organs as a result of his past merits, he excels in knowledge, intelligence and memory, similarly Virāj, having burnt all his evils which produce qualities the very opposite of righteousness, knowledge, dispassion and lordship, had a perfected birth in which he was possessed of a pure body and organs; hence he might well have the knowledge of unity without any instruction. As the Smṛti says, ‘The Lord of the universe is born with these four virtues – infallible knowledge, dispassion, lordship and righteousness’ (VayPur.1.1.3).

सहसिद्धत्वे भयानुपपत्तिरिति चेत् – न ह्यादित्येन सह तम उदेति –
Objection: If he was born with those virtues, he could not have fear. Darkness never appears with the sun.

न, अन्यानुपदिष्टार्थत्वात्सहसिद्धवाक्यस्य।
Reply: Not so, for the expression, ‘He is born with these virtues,’ means that he is not instructed about them by others.

श्रद्धातात्पर्यप्रणिपातादीनामहेतुत्वमिति चेत् – स्यान्मतम् – ‘श्रद्धावांल्लभते ज्ञानं तत्परः संयतेन्द्रियः’ (BhG.4.39) ‘तद्विद्धि प्रणिपातेन’ (BhG.4.34) इत्येवमादीनां श्रुतिस्मृतिविहितानां ज्ञानहेतूनामहेतुत्वम्,
Objection: In that case qualities like faith, devotion and prostration (to the teacher) cease to be the means of knowledge. The Gītā, for instance, says, ‘One who has faith and devotion and controls one’s senses attains knowledge’ (BhG.4.39), and ‘Know it through prostration’ (BhG.4.34). There are other texts from the Śrutis as well as Smṛtis which prescribe similar means for knowledge.

प्रजापतेरिव जन्मान्तरकृतधर्महेतुत्वे ज्ञानस्येति चेत्,
Now, if knowledge is due to the merits of one’s past life, as you say was the case with Virāj, then the above means become useless.

न; निमित्तविकल्पसमुच्चयगुणवदगुणवत्त्वभेदोपपत्तेः। लोके हि नैमित्तिकानां कार्याणां निमित्तभेदोऽनेकधा विकल्प्यते। तथा निमित्तसमुच्चयः। तेषां च विकल्पितानां समुच्चितानां च पुनर्गुणवदगुणवत्त्वकृतो भेदो भवति।
Reply: No, for there may be differences as regards the means such as their alternation or combination, efficacy or inefficacy. We observe in life that effects are produced from various causes, which may operate singly or in combination. Of these causes operation singly or in combination, some may be more efficacious than others.

तद्यथा – रूपज्ञान एव तावन्नैमित्तिके कार्ये
Let us take a single instance of an effect produced from various causes, say, the perception of form or color:

तमसि विनालोकेन चक्षूरूपसन्निकर्षो नक्तञ्चराणां रूपज्ञाने निमित्तं भवति; मन एव केवलं रूपज्ञाननिमित्तं योगिनाम्; अस्माकं तु सन्निकर्षालोकाभ्यां सह तथादित्यचन्द्राद्यालोकभेदैः समुच्चिता निमित्तभेदा भवन्ति; तथालोकविशेषगुणवदगुणवत्त्वेन भेदाः स्युः।
In the case of animals that see in the dark, the connection of the eye with the object alone suffices, even without the help of light, to cause the perception. In the case of Yogins the mind alone is the cause of it. While with us, there is a combination of causes such as the connection of the eye with the object, and light, which again may vary according as it is sunlight or moonlight, and so on. Similarly there would be differences due to that light being of a particular character, strong or feeble, and so on.

एवमेवात्मैकत्वज्ञानेऽपि
Exactly in the same way with the knowledge of the unity of the Self.

क्वचिज्जन्मान्तरकृतं कर्म निमित्तं भवति; यथा प्रजापतेः।
Sometimes the actions of one’s past life are the causes, as in the case of Virāj.

क्वचित्तपो निमित्तम्; ‘तपसा ब्रह्म विजिज्ञासस्व’ (TaitU.3.2.1) इति श्रुतेः।
Sometimes it is reflection, for the Śruti says, ‘Desire to know Brahman through reflection’ (TaitU.3.3.1–5.1).

क्वचित् ‘आचार्यवान्पुरुषो वेद’ (ChanU.6.14.2) ‘श्रद्धावांल्लभते ज्ञानम्’ (BhG.4.39) ‘तद्विद्धि प्रणिपातेन’ (BhG.4.34) ‘आचार्याद्धैव’ (ChanU.4.9.3) ‘ज्ञातव्यो द्रष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यः’ (BrhU.2.4.5), (BrhU.4.5.6) इति श्रुतिस्मृतिभ्य एकान्तज्ञानलाभनिमित्तत्वं श्रद्धाप्रभृतीनाम्
Sometimes faith and other things are the only causes of attaining knowledge, as we learn from such Śruti and Smṛti texts as the following: ‘He only knows who has got a teacher’ (ChanU.6.14.2), ‘One who has faith … attains knowledge’ (BhG.4.39), ‘Know it through prostration’ (BhG.4.34), ‘(Knowledge received) from the teacher alone (is best)’ (ChanU.4.9.3), ‘(The Self) is to be realized through hearing,’ etc. (BrhU.2.4.5; BrhU.4.5.6).

अधर्मादिनिमित्तवियोगहेतुत्वात्; वेदान्तश्रवणमनननिदिध्यासनानां च साक्षाज्ज्ञेयविषयत्वात्; पापादिप्रतिबन्धक्षये चात्ममनसोः, भूतार्थज्ञाननिमित्तस्वाभाव्यात्।
For the above causes remove obstacles to knowledge such as demerit. And the hearing, reflection and meditation on Vedānta texts have a direct relation to Brahman which is to be known, for they are naturally the causes to evoke the knowledge of Reality when the evils, connected with the body and mind, that obstruct it have been destroyed.

तस्मादहेतुत्वं न जातु ज्ञानस्य श्रद्धाप्रणिपातादीनामिति॥
Therefore faith, prostration and the like never cease to be the means of knowledge.

इतश्च संसारविषय एव प्रजापतित्वम्, यतः सः प्रजापतिः वै नैव रेमे रतिं नान्वभवत् – अरत्याविष्टोऽभूदित्यर्थः – अस्मदादिवदेव यतः; इदानीमपि तस्माद् एकाकित्वादिधर्मवत्त्वात् एकाकी न रमते रतिं नानुभवति।
Here is another reason why the state of Virāj is within the relative world, because saḥ vai, he, Virāj, na eva reme, was not at all happy, i.e. was stricken with dissatisfaction, just like us. Because it was so, tasmāt, therefore, on account of loneliness etc., even today na ramate, people are not happy, do not delight, ekākī, when alone.

रतिर्नामेष्टार्थसंयोगजा क्रीडा। तत्प्रसङ्गिन इष्टवियोगान्मनस्याकुलीभावोऽरतिरित्युच्यते।
Delight is a sport due to conjunction with a desired object. A person who is attached to it feels troubled in mind when he is separated from his desired object; this is called dissatisfaction.

सः तस्या अरतेरपनोदाय द्वितीयम् अरत्यपघातसमर्थं स्त्रीवस्तु ऐच्छत् गृद्धिमकरोत्। तस्य चैवं स्त्रीविषयं गृध्यतः स्त्रिया परिष्वक्तस्येवात्मनो भावो बभूव। सः तेन सत्येप्सुत्वात् एतावान् एतत्परिमाण आस बभूव ह। किम्परिमाण इत्याह – यथा लोके स्त्रीपुमांसौ अरत्यपनोदाय सम्परिष्वक्तौ यत्परिमाणौ स्याताम्, तथा तत्परिमाणः, बभूवेत्यर्थः।
To remove that dissatisfaction, saḥ dvitīyam aicchat, he desired a mate, able to take away that dissatisfaction, i.e. a wife. And as he thus longed for a wife, he felt as if he was embraced by his wife. Being of an infallible will, through that idea saḥ etāvān āsa ha, he became as big – as what? – yathā strī-pumāṃsau, as man and wife, in the world, sampariṣvaktau, embracing each other, to remove their dissatisfaction. He became of that size.

स तथा तत्परिमाणम् एव इममात्मानं द्वेधा द्विप्रकारम् अपातयत् पातितवान्। इममेवेत्यवधारणं मूलकारणाद्विराजो विशेषणार्थम्। न क्षीरस्य सर्वोपमर्देन दधिभावापत्तिवद्विराट् सर्वोपमर्देनैतावानास; किं तर्हि? आत्मना व्यवस्थितस्यैव विराजः सत्यसङ्कल्पत्वादात्मव्यतिरिक्तं स्त्रीपुंसपरिष्वक्तपरिमाणं शरीरान्तरं बभूव।
Saḥ eva imam ātmānam apātayat, He parted this very body, of that size, dvedhā, into two. The emphatic word ‘very’ used after ‘this’ is for distinguishing between the new body and its cause, the original body of Virāj. Virāj did not become of this size by wiping out his former entity, as milk turns into curd by wholly changing its former substance. What then? He remained as he was, but being of an infallible resolve, he projected another body of the size of man and wife together.

स एव च विराट् तथाभूतः – ‘स हैतावानास’ इति सामानाधिकरण्यात्।
He remained the same Virāj, as we find from the sentence, ‘He became as big as,’ etc., where ‘he’ is co-ordinate with the complement.

ततः तस्मात्पातनात् पतिश्च पत्नी चाभवताम् इति दम्पत्योर्निर्वचनं लौकिकयोः; अत एव तस्मात् – यस्मादात्मन एवार्धः पृथग्भूतः – येयं स्त्री – तस्मात् – इदं शरीरमात्मनोऽर्धबृगलम् – अर्धं च तत् बृगलं विदलं च तदर्धबृगलम्, अर्धविदलम् इव इत्यर्थः। प्राक्‌स्त्र्युद्वहनात्कस्यार्धबृगलमित्युच्यते – स्व आत्मन इति।
Tataḥ, from that – parting – patiḥ ca patnī ca abhavatām, came husband (Pati) and wife (Patnī). This is the derivation of terms denoting an ordinary couple. And because the wife is but one-half of oneself separated, tasmāt idam, therefore this – body – ardha-bṛgalam, is one-half, iva, like – one of the two halves a split pea, before one marries a wife. Whose half? Svaḥ ātmanaḥ, of oneself.

एवम् आह स्म उक्तवान्किल, याज्ञवल्क्यः – यज्ञस्य वल्को वक्ता यज्ञवल्कस्तस्यापत्यं याज्ञवल्क्यो दैवरातिरित्यर्थः; ब्रह्मणो वा अपत्यम्। यस्माद् अयं पुरुषार्ध आकाशः स्त्र्यर्धशून्यः, पुनरुद्वहनात् तस्मात् पूर्यते स्त्रिया अर्धेन, पुनः सम्पुटीकरणेनेव विदलार्धः।
Thus āha sma yājña-valkyaḥ, said Yājña-valkya, the son of Yajña-valka, lit. the expounder of a sacrifice, i.e. the son of Deva-rāta. Or it may mean a descendant of Hiraṇya-garbha (who is the expounder). Since one-half of a man is void when he is without a wife representing the other half, tasmāt ayam ākāśaḥ, therefore this space is indeed, again, striyā pūryate, filled by the wife – when he marries, as one-half of a split pea gets its complement when again joined to the other half.

तां स प्रजापतिर्मन्वाख्यः शतरूपाख्यामात्मनो दुहितरं पत्नीत्वेन कल्पितां समभवत् मैथुनमुपगतवान्। ततः तस्मात्तदुपगमनात् मनुष्या अजायन्त उत्पन्नाः॥
He, the Virāj called Manu, tām samabhavat, was united with her, his daughter called Śata-rūpā, whom he conceived of as his wife. Tataḥ, From that, union, manuṣhāḥ ajāyanta, men were born.

सा शतरूपा उ ह इयम् – सेयं दुहितृगमने स्मार्तं प्रतिषेधमनुस्मरन्ती ईक्षाञ्चक्रे। ‘कथं नु इदमकृत्यम्, यन् मा माम् आत्मन एव जनयित्वा उत्पाद्य सम्भवति उपगच्छति;
Remembering the prohibition made in the Smṛtis of union with one’s daughter, sā u ha, she, Śata-rūpā, iyam īkṣāñcakre, thought, ‘Katham nu, How can he – do this vile thing – mā ātmanaḥ eva janayitvā sambhavati, be united with me after producing me from himself?’

यद्यप्ययं निर्घृणः, अहं हन्त इदानीं तिरोऽसानि जात्यन्तरेण तिरस्कृता भवानि’ इति एवमीक्षित्वा असौ गौरभवत्। उत्पाद्य प्राणिकर्मभिश्चोद्यमानायाः पुनः पुनः सैव मतिः शतरूपाया मनोश्चाभवत्। ततश्च ऋषभ इतरः। तां समेवाभवद् इत्यादि पूर्ववत्। ततो गावोऽजायन्त।
Although he has no abhorrence, ‘Hanta tiroḥ asāni iti, Well, let me hide myself – by changing into another species.’ Thinking thus gauḥ abhavat, she became a cow. Impelled by the past work of the creatures that were to be produced, Śata-rūpā (the multi-formed female) and Manu (the male progenitor) had the same thought over and over again. Then ṛṣabhaḥ itaraḥ tām eva sam-abhavat, the other became a bull and was united with her. The latter portion has been explained. Tataḥ gāvaḥ ajāyanta, from that cows were born.

तथा बडबेतराभवत् अश्ववृष इतरः। तथा गर्दभीतरा गर्दभ इतरः। तत्र बडबाश्ववृषादीनां सङ्गमात् तत एकशफम् एकखुरम् अश्वाश्वतरगर्दभाख्यं त्रयम् अजायत।
Similarly baḍavā itarā abhavat aśva-vṛṣaḥ itaraḥ, the one (she) became a mare, the other a stallion; likewise gardabhī itarā gardabhaḥ itaraḥ, the one became a she-ass, the other became a he-ass. Tataḥ eka-śapham, from that (union) one-hoofed animals, viz. the three species, horses, mules and asses, ajāyata, were born.

तथा अजा इतराभवत्, बस्तः छाग इतरः। तथा अविरितरा, मेष इतरः। तां समेवाभवत्। तां तामिति वीप्सा। तामजां तामविं चेति समभवदेवेत्यर्थः। ततोऽजाश्चावयश्च अजावयोऽजायन्त।
Similarly ajā itarā abhavat bastaḥ itaraḥ, the one became a she-goat, the other became a he-goat; likewise aviḥ itarā meṣaḥ itaraḥ, the one became a ewe, the other became a ram, and tām eva sam-abhavat, was united with her. The word ‘tām, her’ is to be repeated so as to apply to both she-goat and ewe. Tataḥ aja-avayoḥ ajāyanta, from that goats and sheep were born.

एवमेव यदिदं किञ्च यत्किञ्चेदं मिथुनं स्त्रीपुंसलक्षणं द्वन्द्वम्, आ पिपीलिकाभ्यः पिपीलिकाभिः सह अनेनैव न्यायेन तत्सर्वमसृजत जगत्सृष्टवान्॥
Evam eva, thus, through this process, yad idam kiñca mithunam tad sarvam asṛjata, did he project everything that exists in pairs, as male and female, ā pipīlikābhyaḥ, down to the ants, i.e. the whole (animate) world.

सः प्रजापतिः सर्वमिदं जगत्सृष्ट्वा अवेत्। कथम्? अहं वाव अहमेव, सृष्टिः – सृज्यत इति सृष्टं जगदुच्यते सृष्टिरिति – यन्मया सृष्टं जगत् मदभेदत्वादहमेव अस्मि, न मत्तो व्यतिरिच्यते;
Saḥ, he, Virāj after projecting this whole world, avet, knew, ‘aham vāva sṛṣṭiḥ asmi, I indeed am the creation, i.e. the projected world.

कुत एतत्? अहं हि यस्मात्, इदं सर्वं जगत् असृक्षि सृष्टवानस्मि, तस्मादित्यर्थः।
The world I have projected not being different from me, I myself am that; it is not something over and above myself. How? Aham hi idam sarvam asṛkṣi, For I projected all this, the whole world.’

यस्मात्सृष्टिशब्देनात्मानमेवाभ्यधात्प्रजापतिः ततः तस्मात् सृष्टिरभवत् सृष्टिनामाभवत् सृष्ट्यां जगति ह अस्य प्रजापतेः एतस्याम् एतस्मिञ्जगति, स प्रजापतिवत्स्रष्टा भवति, स्वात्मनोऽनन्यभूतस्य जगतः; कः? य एवं प्रजापतिवद्यथोक्तं स्वात्मनोऽनन्यभूतं जगत् ‘साध्यात्माधिभूताधिदैवं जगदहमस्मि’ इति वेद॥
Because Virāj designated himself by the word ‘creation’, tataḥ sṛṣṭiḥ abhavat, therefore he was called Creation. Like Virāj, bhavati (note: present tense), he becomes – a creator of a world not different from himself, sṛṣṭyām ha asya, in this creation of his, of Virāj, i.e. in this world. Who? He Yaḥ, who, like Virāj, evam veda, knows this – the world described above, in its threefold division relating to the body, the elements and the gods – as such, as identical with himself.

एवं स प्रजापतिर्जगदिदं मिथुनात्मकं सृष्ट्वा ब्राह्मणादिवर्णनियन्त्रीर्देवताः सिसृक्षुरादौ – अथ-इति-शब्दद्वयमभिनयप्रदर्शनार्थम् – अनेन प्रकारेण मुखे हस्तौ प्रक्षिप्य अभ्यमन्थत् आभिमुख्येन मन्थनमकरोत्।
Atha, then, having thus projected this world consisting of pairs, saḥ, he, Virāj, desiring to project the gods controlling the Brāhmaṇa and other castes, first iti abhyamanthat, rubbed back and forth thus. The words ‘then’ and ‘thus’ show the process by a gesture. Putting his hands into his mouth he went on rubbing back and forth.

सः मुखं हस्ताभ्यां मथित्वा, मुखाच्च योनेः हस्ताभ्यां च योनिभ्याम्, अग्निं ब्राह्मणजातेरनुग्रहकर्तारम्, असृजत सृष्टवान्। यस्माद्दाहकस्याग्नेर्योनिरेतदुभयम् – हस्तौ मुखं च, तस्मात् उभयम् अपि एतद् अलोमकं लोमविवर्जितम्; किं सर्वमेव? न, अन्तरतः अभ्यन्तरतः। अस्ति हि योन्या सामान्यमुभयस्यास्य। किम्? अलोमका हि योनिरन्तरतः स्त्रीणाम्।
Having rubbed the mouth with his hands, he, agnim asṛjata, produced fire, the benefactor of the Brāhmaṇa caste, mukhāt ca hastābhām ca yoneḥ, from its source, the mouth and the hands. Because the mouth and the hands are the source of fire, which burns, tasmāt ubhayam etad a-lomakam, therefore both these are without hair. Is it all over? No, only antarataḥ, at the inside. (Following translation is from Panoli:) There is similarity between both the sources (yonis)
[•Viz. the mouth, and the vagina.•]
What similarity? There is no hair inside the vagina of women.

तथा ब्राह्मणोऽपि मुखादेव जज्ञे प्रजापतेः। तस्मादेकयोनित्वाज्ज्येष्ठेनेवानुजोऽनुगृह्यते, अग्निना ब्राह्मणः। तस्माद्ब्राह्मणोऽग्निदेवत्यो मुखवीर्यश्चेति श्रुतिस्मृतिसिद्धम्।
Similarly the Brāhmaṇa also was born from the mouth of Virāj. Because both have sprung from the same source, the Brāhmaṇa is favored by fire, as a younger brother is by his elder brother. Therefore it is well known from the Śrutis and Smṛtis that the Brāhmaṇas have fire as their deity, and their strength lies in their mouth.

तथा बलाश्रयाभ्यां बाहुभ्यां बलभिदादिकं क्षत्रियजातिनियन्तारं क्षत्त्रियं च। तस्मादैन्द्रं क्षत्त्रं बाहुवीर्यं चेति श्रुतौ स्मृतौ चावगतम्।
Similarly from his arms, which are the abode of strength, he manifested Indra and other gods who control the Kṣatriya caste, as well as that caste itself. Therefore we know from the Śrutis and Smṛtis that the Kṣatriyas and physical strength are presided over by Indra.

तथोरुत ईहा चेष्टा तदाश्रयाद्वस्वादिलक्षणं विशो नियन्तारं विशं च। तस्मात्कृष्यादिपरो वस्वादिदेवत्यश्च वैश्यः।
Similarly from his thighs, which are the source of effort, he manifested the Vasus and other gods who control the Vaiśyas, as well as that caste itself. Therefore the Vaiśyas are devoted to agriculture and other such pursuits, and have the Vasus etc. as their deities.

तथा पूषणं पृथ्वीदैवतं शूद्रं च पद्भ्यां परिचरणक्षममसृजतेति – श्रुतिस्मृतिप्रसिद्धेः।
Similarly from his feet he manifested Pūṣan, the deity of the earth, and the Śūdras, who have the capacity to serve – as we know from the Śrutis and Smṛtis.

त्र क्षत्रादिदेवतासर्गमिहानुक्तं वक्ष्यमाणमप्युक्तवदुपसंहरति सृष्टिसाकल्यानुकीर्त्यै।
The manifestation of the deities of the Kṣatriya etc. has not been described here; it will be described later on (In BrhU.1.4.11–3). But the text concludes as if they were described, in order to deal with creation as a whole.

यथेयं श्रुतिर्व्यवस्थिता तथा प्रजापतिरेव सर्वे देवा इति निश्चितोऽर्थः; स्रष्टुरनन्यत्वात्सृष्टानाम्, प्रजापतिनैव तु सृष्टत्वाद्देवानाम्।
The real aim of the text is (not to describe creation, but) to indicate that all the gods are but Virāj, as stated here, for manifested objects are not different from the manifestor, and the gods have been manifested by Virāj.

अथैवं प्रकरणार्थे व्यवस्थिते तत्स्तुत्यभिप्रायेणाविद्वन्मतान्तरनिन्दोपन्यासः। अन्यनिन्दा अन्यस्तुतये।
Now, this being the import of the section, the views of some ignorant people are being put forward as a eulogy on that. The criticism of one serves as a tribute to another.

तत् तत्र कर्मप्रकरणे, केवलयाज्ञिका यागकाले, यदिदं वच आहुः – ‘अमुम् अग्निं यज अमुम् इन्द्रं यज’ इत्यादि – नाम-शस्त्र-स्तोत्र-कर्मादि-भिन्नत्वाद्भिन्नमेव अग्न्यादि-देवमेकैकं मन्यमाना आहुरित्यभिप्रायः – तन्न तथा विद्यात्; यस्माद् एतस्यैव प्रजापतेः सा विसृष्टिः देवभेदः सर्वः; एष उ ह्येव प्रजापतिरेव प्राणः सर्वे देवाः।
Tat, when, in discussing ceremonials, the priests, who know only mechanical rites, yad idam, talk of particular (gods), āhuḥ, saying, at the time of performing a sacrifice, ‘Amum yaja, Sacrifice to him, viz. Fire,’ ‘Amum yaja, Sacrifice to the other one, viz. Indra,’ and so on, thinking, on account of differences regarding name, type of hymns recited or sung, function, and the like, that they are separate gods, it should not be understood that way, because devam eka-ekam, these different gods etasya eva sā visṛṣṭiḥ, are all his projection, manifestation of Virāj, eṣaḥ u hi eva, for he, Virāj, the (cosmic) vital force, sarve devāḥ, is all the gods.

अत्र विप्रतिपद्यन्ते – पर एव हिरण्यगर्भ इत्येके; संसारीत्यपरे।
Here there is a difference of opinion. Some say that Hiraṇya-garbha is the Supreme Self, others that he is the transmigrating individual self.

पर एव तु मन्त्रवर्णात् – ‘इन्द्रं मित्रं वरुणमग्निमाहुः’ (ऋ. १-१९४-४६) इति श्रुतेः; ‘एष ब्रह्मैष इन्द्र एष प्रजापतिरेते सर्वे देवाः’ (AitU.3.1.3) इति च श्रुतेः; स्मृतेश्च – ‘एतमेके वदन्त्यग्निं मनुमन्ये प्रजापतिम्’ (मनु. १२-१२३) इति, ‘योऽसावतीन्द्रियोऽग्राह्यः सूक्ष्मोऽव्यक्तः सनातनः। सर्वभूतमयोऽचिन्त्यः स एव स्वयमुद्बभौ’ (मनु १-७) इति च।
The first group says: He must be the Supreme Self, for the Śruti says so, as for instance in the passage, ‘They call It Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa and Fire’ (RigV.1.164.46), and also in, ‘It is Hiraṇya-garbha, It is Indra, It is Virāj and all these gods’ (AitU.3.1.3). And the Smṛti too, ‘Some call It Fire, others Manu and Virāj’ (ManSamh.12.123), and ‘That (Supreme Self) which is beyond the organs, imperceptible, subtle, undifferentiated, eternal, consisting of all beings, and unthinkable, manifested Itself’ (ManSamh.1.7).

संसार्येव वा स्यात् – ‘सर्वान्पाप्मन औषत्’ (BrhU.1.4.1) इति श्रुतेः; न ह्यसंसारिणः पाप्मदाहप्रसङ्गोऽस्ति; भयारतिसंयोगश्रवणाच्च; ‘अथ यन्मर्त्यः सन्नमृतानसृजत’ (BrhU.1.4.6) इति च, ‘हिरण्यगर्भं पश्यत जायमानम्’ (श्वे. ४-१२) इति च मन्त्रवर्णात्; स्मृतेश्च कर्मविपाकप्रक्रियायाम् – ‘ब्रह्मा विश्वसृजो धर्मो महानव्यक्तमेव च। उत्तमां सात्त्विकीमेतां गतिमाहुर्मनीषिणः’ (मनु. १२-५०) इति।
Or, according to the second group: He must be the individual self, for the Śruti says, ‘He burnt all evils’ (BrhU.1.4.1). There can be no question of the burning of evils in the case of the Supreme Self. The Śruti also mentions his having fear and dissatisfaction, and also, ‘That he, although mortal himself, projected the immortals’ (this text), and ‘Behold Hiraṇya-garbha as he is being born’ (SvetU.4.12; MahU.10.3). Further, the Smṛti treating of the results of rites says, ‘Sages are of opinion that the attainment of oneness with Virāj, the world-projectors (Manu and others), Yama (the god of justice), Hiraṇya-garbha and the Undifferentiated is the highest result produced by Sattva or pure materials (rites coupled with meditation)’ (ManSamh.12.50).

अथैवं विरुद्धार्थानुपपत्तेः प्रामाण्यव्याघात इति चेत् –
Should it be urged that such contradictory statements being inadmissible, the scripture lose their authority, the answer is:

न, कल्पनान्तरोपपत्तेरविरोधात्। उपाधिविशेषसम्बन्धाद्विशेषकल्पनान्तरमुपपद्यते।
Not so, for they can be harmonized on the ground that different conceptions are possible. That is to say, through his relation to particular limiting adjuncts he can be conceived of as different.

‘आसीनो दूरं व्रजति शयानो याति सर्वतः। कस्तं मदामदं देवं मदन्यो ज्ञातुमर्हति’ (KathU.1.2.21) इत्येवमादिश्रुतिभ्यः उपाधिवशात्संसारित्वम्, न परमार्थतः। स्वतोऽसंसार्येव। एवमेकत्वं नानात्वं च हिरण्यगर्भस्य।
That the transmigratory character of Hiraṇya-garbha is not real, but due to limiting adjuncts, is known from such Śruti texts as the following: ‘Sitting, It roams far, and lying, It goes everywhere. Who else but me can know that effulgent entity which is endowed with joy and its absence as well?’ (KathU.1.2.21). Essentially he is but the Supreme Self. So Hiraṇya-garbha is one as well as many.

तथा सर्वजीवानाम्, ‘तत्त्वमसि’ (ChanU.6.8.7) इति श्रुतेः।
The same is the case with all beings, as the Śruti says, ‘Thou art That’ (ChanU.6.8.7 etc.).

हिरण्यगर्भस्तूपाधिशुद्ध्यतिशयापेक्षया प्रायशः पर एवेति श्रुतिस्मृतिवादाः प्रवृत्ताः।
But Hiraṇya-garbha, possessing limiting adjuncts of extraordinary purity, is described by the Śrutis and Smṛtis mostly as the Supreme Self, and seldom as the transmigratory self.

संसारित्वं तु क्वचिदेव दर्शयन्ति। जीवानां तूपाधिगताशुद्धिबाहुल्यात्संसारित्वमेव प्रायशोऽभिलप्यते।
While ordinary individuals, owing to an excess of impurity in their limiting adjuncts, are mostly spoken of as the transmigratory self.

व्यावृत्तकृत्स्नोपाधिभेदापेक्षया तु सर्वः परत्वेनाभिधीयते श्रुतिस्मृतिवादैः।
But when divested of all limiting adjuncts, everyone is spoken of by the Śrutis and Smṛtis as the Supreme Self.

तार्किकैस्तु परित्यक्तागमबलैः अस्ति नास्ति कर्ता अकर्ता इत्यादि विरुद्धं बहु तर्कयद्भिराकुलीकृतः शास्त्रार्थः। तेनार्थनिश्चयो दुर्लभः।
The rationalists, however, who discard the authority of Revelation and rely on mere argument, say all sorts of conflicting things such as that the self exists or does not exist, that it is the agent or is not the agent, and mystify the meaning of the scriptures. This makes it extremely difficult to find out their real import.

ये तु केवलशास्त्रानुसारिणः शान्तदर्पास्तेषां प्रत्यक्षविषय इव निश्चितः शास्त्रार्थो देवतादिविषयः।
But those who only follow the scriptures and have overcome their pride find the meaning of the scriptures regarding the gods etc. as definite as objects of perception.

तत्र प्रजापतेरेकस्य देवस्यात्राद्यलक्षणो भेदो विवक्षित इति –
Now the Śruti wishes to tell of one and the same god, Virāj, being differentiated as food and so forth.

तत्राग्निरुक्तोऽत्ता, आद्यः सोम इदानीमुच्यते।
Fire, which is the eater of food, has already been described. Now Soma, the food, is being described:

अथ यत्किञ्चेदं लोक आर्द्रं द्रवात्मकम्, तद्रेतस आत्मनो बीजात् असृजत; ‘रेतस आपः’ (AitU.1.1.4) इति श्रुतेः। द्रवात्मकश्च सोमः।
Atha yad kiñca idam ārdam, now all this that is liquid, in the world, tad retasaḥ asṛjata, he produced from his seed, for the Śrutis says, ‘From the seed water’ (AitU.1.1.1), and Soma is liquid.

तस्माद्यदार्द्रं प्रजापतिना रेतसः सृष्टम्, तदु सोम एव। एतावद्वै एतावदेव, नातोऽधिकम्, इदं सर्वम्। किं तत्? अन्नं चैव सोमो द्रवात्मकत्वादाप्यायकम्, अन्नादश्च अग्निः औष्ण्याद्रूक्षत्वाच्च।
Therefore whatever liquid was produced out of Virāj’s seed tad somaḥ, is Soma. Etāvat vai idam sarvam, this universe is indeed this much, and no more. What is it? Annam ca eva, food, i.e. Soma, which being liquid is appearing, anna-adaḥ ca, and the eater of food, i.e. fire, because it is hot and dry.

तत्रैवमवध्रियते – सोम एवान्नम्, यदद्यते तदेव सोम इत्यर्थः; य एवात्ता स एवाग्निः; अर्थबलाद्ध्यवधारणम्।
Now follows a decision on the point: Somaḥ eva annam, Soma is food, i.e. whatever is eaten is Soma. (And agniḥ anna-adaḥ, fire the eater of food) – whoever eats is fire. This decision is based on sense.

अग्निरपि क्वचिद्धूयमानः सोमपक्षस्यैव; सोमोऽपीज्यमानोऽग्निरेव, अत्तृत्वात्।
Sometimes fire too is offered as an oblation, when it falls into the category of Soma (food). And when a sacrifice is made to Soma, it too becomes fire, being the eater.

एवमग्नीषोमात्मकं जगदात्मत्वेन पश्यन्न केनचिद्दोषेण लिप्यते; प्रजापतिश्च भवति।
One who thus regards the universe consisting of fire and Soma as oneself is not touched by evil, and becomes Virāj.

सैषा ब्रह्मणः प्रजापतेः अतिसृष्टिः आत्मनोऽप्यतिशया। का सेत्याह – यच्छ्रेयसः प्रशस्यतरानात्मनः सकाशात् यस्माद् असृजत देवान्, तस्माद्देवसृष्टिरतिसृष्टिः।
Sā eṣā brahmaṇah ati-sṛṣṭiḥ, this is the super-creation of Virāj, i.e. one that is even superior to him. What is it? Yad śreyasaḥ devān asṛjata, that he projected the gods, who are even superior to him. This is why this manifestation of the gods is called a super-creation.

कथं पुनरात्मनोऽतिशया सृष्टिरित्यत आह – अथ यत् यस्मात् मर्त्यः सन् मरणधर्मा सन्, अमृतान् अमरणधर्मिणो देवान्, कर्मज्ञानवह्निना सर्वानात्मनः पाप्मन ओषित्वा, असृजत; तस्माद् इयम् अतिसृष्टिः उत्कृष्टज्ञानस्य फलमित्यर्थः।
How is this creation even superior to him? This is being explained: Atha yad martyaḥ san a-mṛtān asṛjata, because he, although mortal himself, projected the immortals, the gods, by burning all his evils with the fire of meditation and rites, tasmāt ati-sṛṣṭiḥ, therefore this is a super-creation, i.e. the result of superior knowledge (and rites).

तस्मादेतामतिसृष्टिं प्रजापतेरात्मभूतां यो वेद, स एतस्यामतिसृष्ट्यां प्रजापतिरिव भवति प्रजापतिवदेव स्रष्टा भवति॥
Hence yaḥ veda, he who knows, this super-creation of Virāj which is identical with him (i.e. identifies himself with Virāj, who projected the gods), bhavati, becomes, like him, etasyām atisṛṣṭyām, in this super-creation, of Virāj, i.e. becomes a creator like Virāj himself.

तद्धेदम्। तद् इति बीजावस्थं जगत्प्रागुत्पत्तेः, तर्हि तस्मिन्काले; परोक्षत्वात्सर्वनाम्ना अप्रत्यक्षाभिधानेनाभिधीयते – भूतकालसम्बन्धित्वादव्याकृतभाविनो जगतः; सुखग्रहणार्थमैतिह्यप्रयोगो ह-शब्दः; एवं ह तदा आसीदित्युच्यमाने सुखं तां परोक्षामपि जगतो बीजावस्थां प्रतिपद्यते – युधिष्ठिरो ह किल राजासीदित्युक्ते यद्वत्;
‘Tad ha idam (tarhi), This was then: ‘Tat’ (that) refers to the seed-form of the universe before its manifestation. Being remote, it is indicated by a pronoun denoting an object not directly perceived, for the universe that was to emanate from the Undifferentiated is related to past time. The particle ‘ha’ denoting tradition is used to make the meaning easily understood. When it is said, ‘It was then like this,’ one easily comprehends the causal state of the universe, although it is not an object of perception, just as when it is said, ‘There was a king named Yudhi-ṣṭhira.’

इदम् इति व्याकृतनामरूपात्मकं साध्यसाधनलक्षणं यथावर्णितमभिधीयते;
‘Idam, This’ refers to the universe differentiated (vyākṛta) into name and form, consisting of means and ends, as described above.

तदिदंशब्दयोः परोक्षप्रत्यक्षावस्थजगद्वाचकयोः सामानाधिकरण्यादेकत्वमेव परोक्षप्रत्यक्षावस्थस्य जगतोऽवगम्यते; तदेवेदम्, इदमेव च तद् अव्याकृतमासीत् इति।
The co-ordination of the two words ‘that’ and ‘this,’ denoting respectively the remote and present states of the universe, indicates as identity of the universe in these two states, meaning that which was this, and this which was that, a-vyākṛtam āsīt, was undifferentiated.

अथैवं सति नासत उत्पत्तिर्न सतो विनाशः कार्यस्येत्यवधृतं भवति।
From this it is clear that a non-existent effect is not produced, nor an existent effect lost.

तद् एवम्भूतं जगत् अव्याकृतं सत् नामरूपाभ्यामेव नाम्ना रूपेणैव च, व्याक्रियत। व्याक्रियतेति कर्मकर्तृप्रयोगात्तत्स्वयमेवात्मैव व्याक्रियत – वि आ अक्रियत – विस्पष्टं नामरूपविशेषावधारणमर्यादं व्यक्तीभावमापद्यत – सामर्थ्यादाक्षिप्तनियन्तृकर्तृसाधनक्रियानिमित्तम्।
Tat, It, this sort of universe, having been undifferentiated, nāma-rūpābhyām eva vyākriyata, is differentiated into name and form only. The neuter-passive form of the verb indicates that it is differentiated of itself, i.e. manifested itself till it could be clearly perceived in terms of name and form.
[•Since no effect can be produced without a cause.•]
It is implied that this manifestation took place with the help of the usual auxiliaries, viz. the controller (niyantṛ, the agent (kartṛ) and the operation of the means (sādhana).

असौ नामा इति सर्वनाम्नाविशेषाभिधानेन नाममात्रं व्यपदिशति। देवदत्तो यज्ञदत्त इति वा नामास्येत्यसौनामा अयम्। तथा इदमिति शुक्लकृष्णादीनामविशेषः। इदं शुक्लमिदं कृष्णं वा रूपमस्येति इदंरूपः।
Asau nāmā, It was called such and such. The use of a pronoun not specifying any particular name indicates that it got some name such as Deva-datta or Yajña-datta. And ayam idam-rūpam, was of such and such form: No particular form such as white or black is mentioned. It had some form, say white or black.

तदिदम् अव्याकृतं वस्तु, एतर्हि एतस्मिन् अपि काले, नामरूपाभ्यामेव व्याक्रियते – असौनामायमिदंरूप इति।
Tad idam etarhi api, so to this day that, an undifferentiated thing, nāma-rūpābhyām eva vyākriyate, is differentiated into name and form – asau-nāmā ayam idaṃ-rūpaḥ, it is called such and such, and is of such and such form.

यदर्थः सर्वशास्त्रारम्भः, यस्मिन्नविद्यया स्वाभाविक्या कर्तृक्रियाफलाध्यारोपणा कृता, यः कारणं सर्वस्य जगतः, यदात्मके नामरूपे सलिलादिव स्वच्छान्मलमिव फेनमव्याकृते व्याक्रियेते, यश्च ताभ्यां नामरूपाभ्यां विलक्षणः स्वतो नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभावः –
This Self, which it is the aim of all scriptures to teach, on which differences of agent, action and result have been superimposed by primordial ignorance, which is the cause of the whole universe, of which name and form consist as they pass from the undifferentiated to the differentiated state, like foam, an impurity, appearing from limpid water, and which is distinct from that name and form, being intrinsically eternal pure, enlightened and free by nature –

स एषः अव्याकृते आत्मभूते नामरूपे व्याकुर्वन्, ब्रह्मादिस्तम्बपर्यन्तेषु देहेषु इह कर्मफलाश्रयेष्वशनायादिमत्सु प्रविष्टः।
Saḥ eṣaḥ, this, Self, while manifesting undifferentiated name and form, which are a part of It, iha praviṣṭaḥ, has entered into – these bodies from Hiraṇya-garbha down to a clump of grass, which are the support (the abodes) of the results of people’s actions, and are characterized by hunger etc.

नन्वव्याकृतं स्वयमेव व्याक्रियतेत्युक्तम्; कथमिदमिदानीमुच्यते – पर एव त्वात्मा अव्याकृतं व्याकुर्वन्निह प्रविष्ट इति।
Objection: It was stated before that the undifferentiated universe differentiated of itself. How then is it now stated that the Supreme Self, while manifesting that universe, has entered into it?

नैष दोषः – परस्याप्यात्मनोऽव्याकृतजगदात्मत्वेन विवक्षितत्वात्। आक्षिप्तनियन्तृकर्तृक्रियानिमित्तं हि जगदव्याकृतं व्याक्रियतेत्यवोचाम।
Reply: There is nothing wrong in it, for really the Supreme Self was meant as being identical with the undifferentiated universe. We have already said that that universe was necessarily manifested with the help of the controller, the agent and the operation (of the means).

इदंशब्दसामानाधिकरण्याच्च अव्याकृतशब्दस्य। यथेदं जगन्नियन्त्राद्यनेककारकनिमित्तादिविशेषवद्व्याकृतम्, तथा अपरित्यक्तान्यतमविशेषवदेव तदव्याकृतम्।
This is also borne out by the fact that the word ‘undifferentiated’ has been co-ordinately used with ‘idam, this’. Just as this differentiated universe has several distinguishing features like the controller and other factors, which serve as its causes, similarly that undifferentiated universe also must not be without a single one of these distinguishing features.

व्याकृताव्याकृतमात्रं तु विशेषः।
The only difference between them is that the one is differentiated and the other is not.

दृष्टश्च लोके विवक्षातः शब्दप्रयोगो ग्राम आगतो ग्रामः शून्य इति – कदाचिद्ग्रामशब्देन निवासमात्रविवक्षायां ग्रामः शून्य इति शब्दप्रयोगो भवति; कदाचिन्निवासिजनविवक्षायां ग्राम आगत इति; कदाचिदुभयविवक्षायामपि ग्रामशब्दप्रयोगो भवति ग्रामं च न प्रविशेदिति यथा –
Moreover, we see in the world that people use expressions according to their wish, as for instance, ‘The village has come,’ and ‘The village is deserted.’ Sometimes they mean only a habitation, as when they use the latter expression. Sometimes they mean the inhabitants, as when they use the former expression. Sometimes again the word ‘village’ is used in both the senses, as in the sentence, ‘And one must not enter (praviśet) the village.’

तद्वदिहापि जगदिदं व्याकृतमव्याकृतं चेत्यभेदविवक्षायामात्मानात्मनोर्भवति व्यपदेशः
Similarly here too, this universe is spoken of as both differentiated and undifferentiated to indicate the identity of the Self and not-Self.

तथेदं जगदुत्पत्तिविनाशात्मकमिति केवलजगद्व्यपदेशः।
Likewise only the (manifested) universe is meant when it is said that this universe is characterized by origin and dissolution.

तथा ‘महानज आत्मा’ ‘अस्थूलोऽनणुः’ ‘स एष नेति नेति’ इत्यादि केवलात्मव्यपदेशः।
Again, only the Self is meant in such expressions as, ‘(That) great, birthless Self’ (BrhU.4.4.22 & BrhU.4.4.24–5), ‘Not gross, not minute’ (BrhU.3.8.8 adapted), ‘This (self) is that which has been described as “Not this, not this,” etc.’ (BrhU.3.9.26; BrhU.4.2.4; BrhU.4.4.22; BrhU.4.5.15).

ननु परेण व्याकर्त्रा व्याकृतं सर्वतो व्याप्तं सर्वदा जगत्; स कथमिह प्रविष्टः परिकल्प्यते; अप्रविष्टो हि देशः परिच्छिन्नेन प्रवेष्टुं शक्यते, यथा पुरुषेण ग्रामादिः; नाकाशेन किञ्चित्, नित्यप्रविष्टत्वात्।
Objection: The manifested universe is always completely pervaded by the Supreme Self, its manifestor. So how is It conceived of as entering into it? Only a limited thing can enter into a space that is not occupied by it, as a man can enter into a village etc. But the space cannot enter into anything, since it is ever present in it.

पाषाणसर्पादिवद्धर्मान्तरेणेति चेत् – अथापि स्यात् – न पर आत्मा स्वेनैव रूपेण प्रविवेश; किं तर्हि? तत्स्थ एव धर्मान्तरेणोपजायते; तेन प्रविष्ट इत्युपचर्यते; यथा पाषाणे सहजोऽन्तस्थः सर्पः, नारिकेले वा तोयम् –
Tentative answer:
[•From now on a set of prima facie views will be presented. The decision will come later.•]
The entrance in question may be the assumption of a different feature, as in the case of a snake born in a (crevice of a) rock. To explain: The Supreme Self did not enter into the universe in Its own form, but, while in it, appeared under a different feature (That is, as the individual self); hence It is metaphorically spoken of as having entered it, like the snake that is born in a rock and is within it, or like the water in a coconut.

न, ‘तत्सृष्ट्वा तदेवानुप्राविशत्’ (TaitU.2.6.1) इति श्रुतेः। यः स्रष्टा स भावान्तरमनापन्न एव कार्यं सृष्ट्वा पश्चात्प्राविशदिति हि श्रूयते।
Objection: Not so, for the Śruti says, ‘After projecting it, the Self entered into it’ (TaitU.2.6.1). This text says that the Creator, after projecting the effect, entered into it unchanged.

यथा ‘भुक्त्वा गच्छति’ इति भुजिगमिक्रिययोः पूर्वापरकालयोरितरेतरविच्छेदः, अविशिष्टश्च कर्ता, तद्वदिहापि स्यात्; न तु तत्स्थस्यैव भावान्तरोपजनन एतत्सम्भवति।
When it is said, ‘After eating he goes,’ the acts of eating and going, belonging to earlier and later periods, are separate from each other, but the agent is the same. This is an analogous case. It would not be possible if the Self remains in the universe and changes at the same time.

न च स्थानान्तरेण वियुज्य स्थानान्तरसंयोगलक्षणः प्रवेशो निरवयवस्यापरिच्छिन्नस्य दृष्टः।
Nor is an entity that has no parts and is unlimited ever seen to enter into something in the sense of leaving one place and being connected with another.

सावयव एव प्रवेशश्रवणादिति चेत्,
Tentative answer: Well, then, the Self has parts, for the Śruti speaks of Its entrance.

न; ‘दिव्यो ह्यमूर्तः पुरुषः’ (MunU.2.1.2) ‘निष्कलं निष्क्रियम्’ (श्वे. ६-१९) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः, सर्वव्यपदेश्यधर्मविशेषप्रतिषेधश्रुतिभ्यश्च।
Objection: No, for there are Śruti texts like the following: ‘The Supreme Being is resplendent, formless’ (MunU.2.1.2), and ‘Without parts, devoid of activity’ (SvetU.6.19). Also there are Śruti texts denying all particular nameable attributes to the Self.

प्रतिबिम्बप्रवेशवदिति चेत्,
Tentative answer: The entrance may be like that of a reflection.

न; वस्त्वन्तरेण विप्रकर्षानुपपत्तेः।
Objection: No, for it cannot be admitted that the Self is ever removed from anything.
[•As a reflection from the reflected•]

द्रव्ये गुणप्रवेशवदिति चेत्,
Tentative answer: May it not be like the entrance of an attribute in a substance?

न; अनाश्रितत्वात्। नित्यपरतन्त्रस्यैवाश्रितस्य गुणस्य द्रव्ये प्रवेश उपचर्यते; न तु ब्रह्मणः स्वातन्त्र्यश्रवणात्तथा प्रवेश उपपद्यते।
Objection: No, for the Self is not supported by anything. An attribute, which is always dependent on and supported by something else (the substance), is metaphorically spoken of as entering it. But Brahman cannot enter like that, for the Śrutis describe It as independent.

फले बीजवदिति चेत्,
Tentative answer: Suppose we say that the Self has entered into the universe in the same sense as a seed enters into a fruit?

न; सावयवत्ववृद्धिक्षयोत्पत्तिविनाशादिधर्मवत्त्वप्रसङ्गात्। न चैवं धर्मवत्त्वं ब्रह्मणः, ‘अजोऽजरः’ (BrhU.4.4.25) इत्यादिश्रुतिन्यायविरोधात्।
Objection: No, for then It would be subject to such attributes as being possessed of parts, growth and decay, birth and death. But the Self has no such attributes for it is against such Śruti texts as, ‘Birthless, undecaying’ (BrhU.4.4.25, adapted) as well as against reason.

अन्य एव संसारी परिच्छिन्न इह प्रविष्ट इति चेत्,
Tentative answer: Well then, let us say some other entity that is relative and limited has entered into the universe.

न; ‘सेयं देवतैक्षत’ (ChanU.6.3.2) इत्यारभ्य ‘नामरूपे व्याकरवाणि’ (ChanU.6.3.2) इति तस्या एव प्रवेशव्याकरणकर्तृत्वश्रुतेः।
Reply (by the A-dvaitin): Not so, for we find in the Śruti that beginning with, ‘That deity (Existence) thought’ (ChanU.6.3.2), and ending with, ‘And let me manifest name and form’ (ChanU.6.3.2), the same deity is spoken of as the agent of entering as well as manifesting the universe.

तथा ‘तत्सृष्ट्वा तदेवानुप्राविशत्’ (TaitU.2.6.1) ‘स एतमेव सीमानं विदार्यैतया द्वारा प्रापद्यत’ (AitU.1.3.12) ‘सर्वाणि रूपाणि विचित्य धीरो नामानि कृत्वाभिवदन्यदास्ते’ (तै. आ. ३-१२-७) ‘त्वं कुमार उत वा कुमारी त्वं जीर्णो दण्डेन वञ्चसि’ (श्वे. ४-३) ‘पुरश्चक्रे द्विपदः’ (BrhU.2.5.18) ‘रूपं रूपम्’ (BrhU.2.5.19), (ऋ. २-५-१८) इति च मन्त्रवर्णान्न परादन्यस्य प्रवेशः।
Similarly, ‘After projecting it, the Self entered into it’ (TaitU.2.6.1), ‘Piercing this dividing line (of the head), It entered through that gate’ (AitU.1.3.12), ‘The Wise One, who after projecting all forms names them, and goes on uttering those names’ (TaitAr.3.12.7), ‘Thou art the boy, and Thou art the girl, Thou art the decrepit man trudging on his staff’ (SvetU.4.3), ‘He made bodies with two feet’ (BrhU.2.5.18), ‘He transformed Himself in accordance with each form’ (BrhU.2.5.19; KathU.2.2.9–10) – these Śruti texts show that none other than the Supreme Self entered into the universe.

प्रविष्टानामितरेतरभेदात्परानेकत्वमिति चेत्,
Objection: Since the objects It has entered into mutually differ, the Supreme Self (being identical with them) must be many.

न। ‘एको देवो बहुधा सन्निविष्टः’ (तै. आ. ३-१४-१) ‘एकः सन्बहुधा विचार’ (तै. आ. ३-११-१) ‘त्वमेकोऽसि बहूननुप्रविष्टः’ (तै. आ. ३-१४-१३) ‘एको देवः सर्वभूतेषु गूढः सर्वव्यापी सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा’ (श्वे. ६-११) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः।
Reply: No, for there are such Śruti texts as the following: ‘The same Lord resides in various ways’ (TaitAr.3.14.1), ‘Although one, It roamed in many ways’ (TaitAr.3.11.1), ‘Although one, Thou hast penetrated diverse things’ (TaitAr.3.14.3), ‘The one Lord is hidden in all beings, all-pervading and the Self of all’ (SvetU.6.11).

प्रवेश उपपद्यते नोपपद्यत इति – तिष्ठतु तावत्; प्रविष्टानां संसारित्वात्तदनन्यत्वाच्च परस्य संसारित्वमिति चेत्,
Objection: Leaving aside the question whether the Supreme Self can or cannot consistently enter, since those objects that have been entered into are subject to transmigration, and the Supreme Self is identical with them, It too comes under transmigration.

न; अशनायाद्यत्ययश्रुतेः।
Reply: No, for the Śrutis speak of It as being beyond hunger etc.

सुखित्वदुःखित्वादिदर्शनान्नेति चेत्,
Objection: It cannot be, for we see that It is happy or miserable, and so on.

न; ‘न लिप्यते लोकदुःखेन बाह्यः’ (KathU.2.2.11) इति श्रुतेः।
Reply: Not so, for the Śruti says, ‘It is not affected by human misery, being beyond it’ (KathU.2.2.11).

प्रत्यक्षादिविरोधादयुक्तमिति चेत्,
Objection: This is not correct, for it conflicts with perception etc.

न; उपाध्याश्रयजनितविशेषविषयत्वात्प्रत्यक्षादेः। ‘न दृष्टेर्द्रष्टारं पश्येः’ (BrhU.3.4.2) ‘विज्ञातारमरे केन विजानीयात्’ (BrhU.2.4.14), (BrhU.4.5.1) ‘अविज्ञातं विज्ञातृ’ (BrhU.3.8.11) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यो न आत्मविषयं विज्ञानम्; किं तर्हि? बुद्ध्याद्युपाध्यात्मप्रतिच्छायाविषयमेव ‘सुखितोऽहं’ ‘दुःखितोऽहम्’ इत्येवमादि प्रत्यक्षविज्ञानम्; ‘अयम् अहम्’ इति विषयेण विषयिणः सामानाधिकरण्योपचारात्; ‘नान्यदतोऽस्ति द्रष्टृ’ (BrhU.3.8.11) इत्यन्यात्मप्रतिषेधाच्च। देहावयवविशेष्यत्वाच्च सुखदुःखयोर्विषयधर्मत्वम्।
Reply: No, perception and the like have for their object only the particular form (the apparent self) that It takes owing to Its being the support of Its limiting adjunct (mind). Such Śruti texts as, ‘One cannot see the seer of sight’ (BrhU.3.4.2), ‘Through what, O Maitreyī, should one know the knower?’ (BrhU.2.4.14; BrhU.4.5.15), ‘It is never known, but is the Knower’ (BrhU.3.8.11), show that the consciousness in question is not of the Self, but that such perceptions as that one is happy or miserable, concern only the reflection of the Self in limiting adjuncts like the intellect, for in the perception, ‘I am this’ the subject is metaphorically spoken of as co-ordinate with the object (body). Besides, any other self is refuted by the statement, ‘There is no other witness but This’ (BrhU.3.8.11). Happiness or misery, being related to parts of the body, are attributes of the object.

‘आत्मनस्तु कामाय’ (BrhU.2.4.5), (BrhU.4.5.6) इत्यात्मार्थत्वश्रुतेरयुक्तमिति चेत्,
Objection: This is wrong, for the Śruti speaks of their being for the satisfaction of the self, in the words, ‘But it is for one’s own sake (that all is loved)’ (BrhU.2.4.5; BrhU.4.5.6).

न; ‘यत्र वा अन्यदिव स्यात्’ (BrhU.4.3.31) इत्यविद्याविषयात्मार्थत्वाभ्युपगमात्, ‘तत्केन कं पश्येत्’ (BrhU.2.4.14), (BrhU.4.5.15) ‘नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन’ (BrhU.4.4.19), (KathU.2.1.11) ‘तत्र को मोहः कः शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यतः’ (IsU.7) इत्यादिना विद्याविषये तत्प्रतिषेधाच्च न आत्मधर्मत्वम्।
Reply: Not so, for in the words, ‘When there is something else, as it were’ (BrhU.4.3.31), it is taken for granted that the happiness, misery, etc. are for the satisfaction of the self while it is in a state of ignorance. They are not attributes of the self, for they are denied of the enlightened self, as in such passages as, ‘Then what should one see and through what?’ (BrhU.2.4.14; BrhU.4.5.15), ‘There is no difference whatsoever in It’ (BrhU.4.4.19; KathU.2.1.11), ‘Then what delusion and what grief can there be for one who sees unity?’ (IsU.7).

तार्किकसमयविरोधादयुक्तमिति चेत्,
Objection: It is wrong, for it clashes with the system of logic.
[•In which the self is supposed to possesses fourteen attributes, viz. intelligence, happiness, misery, and so on.•]

न; युक्त्याप्यात्मनो दुःखित्वानुपपत्तेः। न हि दुःखेन प्रत्यक्षविषयेणात्मनो विशेष्यत्वम्, प्रत्यक्षाविषयत्वात्।
Reply: No; from the standpoint of reason too the Self cannot be miserable. For misery, being an object of perception, cannot affect the Self, which is not an object of perception.

आकाशस्य शब्दगुणवत्त्ववदात्मनो दुःखित्वमिति चेत्,
Objection: The Self may have misery as the space has the attribute of sound.

न; एकप्रत्ययविषयत्वानुपपत्तेः। न हि सुखग्राहकेण प्रत्यक्षविषयेण प्रत्ययेन नित्यानुमेयस्यात्मनो विषयीकरणमुपपद्यते। तस्य च विषयीकरण आत्मन एकत्वाद्विषय्यभावप्रसङ्गः।
Reply: No, for the two cannot be objects of the same consciousness. The consciousness that perceives happiness and deals with objects of perception only, cannot certainly be supposed to cognize the Self, which is ever to be inferred (The view of the old school of Nyāya as also the Sāṅkhyas). If It were so cognized, there would be no subject left, since there is only one Self.

एकस्यैव विषयविषयित्वम्, दीपवदिति चेत्,
Objection: Suppose we say that the same Self is both subject and object, like a lamp?

न; युगपदसम्भवात्, आत्मन्यंशानुपपत्तेश्च। एतेन विज्ञानस्य ग्राह्यग्राहकत्वं प्रत्युक्तम्।
Reply: No, for It cannot be both simultaneously. Besides the Self cannot be supposed to have parts,
[•As a lamp has, the flame illumining the rest of it.•]
This also refutes the (Buddhist) view that the same consciousness is both subject and object.

प्रत्यक्षानुमानविषययोश्च दुःखात्मनोर्गुणगुणित्वे न अनुमानम्; दुःखस्य नित्यमेव प्रत्यक्षविषयत्वात्; रूपादिसामानाधिकरण्याच्च;
Moreover, we have no reason to infer that misery and the Self, which are the objects of perception and inference respectively, stand to each other in the relation of attribute and substance; for misery is always an object of perception and abides in the same substance (body) that has form or color.

मनःसंयोगजत्वेऽप्यात्मनि दुःखस्य, सावयवत्वविक्रियावत्त्वानित्यत्वप्रसङ्गात्। न ह्यविकृत्य संयोगि द्रव्यं गुणः कश्चिदुपयन् अपयन्वा दृष्टः क्वचित्।
Even if the misery of the Self is said to be due to Its contact with the mind (Vaiśeṣika view), it would make the Self a thing which has parts, is changeful and transitory, for no attribute is ever seen to come or go without making some change in the substance connected with it.

न च निरवयवं विक्रियमाणं दृष्टं क्वचित्, अनित्यगुणाश्रयं वा नित्यम्। न चाकाश आगमवादिभिर्नित्यतयाभ्युपगम्यते। न चान्यो दृष्टान्तोऽस्ति।
And a thing which has no parts is never seen to change, nor is an eternal entity seen to possess transitory attributes. The space is not accepted as eternal by those who believe in the Vedas, and there is no other illustration.

विक्रियमाणमपि तत्प्रत्ययानिवृत्तेः नित्यमेवेति चेत्,
Objection: Although a thing may change, yet, since the notion of its identity abides, it is eternal.

न; द्रव्यस्यावयवान्यथात्वव्यतिरेकेण विक्रियानुपपत्तेः।
Reply: No, for change in a thing implies that its parts become otherwise.

सावयवत्वेऽपि नित्यत्वमिति चेत्,
Objection: Suppose we say that the same Self is eternal.

न; सावयवस्यावयवसंयोगपूर्वकत्वे सति विभागोपपत्तेः।
Reply: Not so, for a thing that has parts is produced by their combination, hence they may divide again.

वज्रादिष्वदर्शनान्नेति चेत्,
Objection: It is wrong, for we do not see this in thunder, for instance.

न; अनुमेयत्वात्संयोगपूर्वत्वस्य। तस्मान्नात्मनो दुःखाद्यनित्यगुणाश्रयत्वोपपत्तिः।
Reply: Not so, for we can easily infer that it must have been preceded by a combination. Therefore the Self cannot be proved to have transitory attributes like misery.

परस्यादुःखित्वेऽन्यस्य च दुःखिनोऽभावे दुःखोपशमनाय शास्त्रारम्भानर्थक्यमिति चेत्,
Objection: If the Supreme Self has no misery, and there is no other entity to be miserable, then it is useless for the scriptures to try to remove misery.

न; अविद्याध्यारोपितदुःखित्वभ्रमापोहार्थत्वात् – आत्मनि प्रकृतसङ्ख्यापूरणभ्रमापोहवत्; कल्पितदुःख्यात्माभ्युपगमाच्च।
Reply: Not so, for they are meant to remove the false notion of misery superimposed by ignorance. And the Self being admitted to imagine Itself as miserable, the scriptures help to remove that error, as in the case of the failure to count the tenth man, although he was there.
[•Ten rustics swam across a stream, and one of them counted their number to see if everyone had safely crossed. To their dismay one was found missing. Then everyone took his turn at counting, but the result was the same. So they began to lament, when a kind passer-by inquired what it was all about. On being told what had happened, he readily understood the situation, and asked one of them to count again. When he stopped at nine, the new-comer said to him, ‘You are the tenth man.’ This he repeated with the rest of them. Then they saw their mistake and went away happy. Everyone had left himself out in the counting!•]

जलसूर्यादिप्रतिबिम्बवत् आत्मप्रवेशश्च प्रतिबिम्बवत् व्याकृते कार्ये उपलभ्यत्वम्। प्रागुत्पत्तेरनुपलब्ध आत्मा पश्चात्कार्ये च सृष्टे व्याकृते बुद्धेरन्तरुपलभ्यमानः, सूर्यादिप्रतिबिम्बवज्जलादौ, कार्यं सृष्ट्वा प्रविष्ट इव,
Like the reflection of the sun etc. in water, the entrance of the Self means only Its being perceived like a reflection in the differentiated universe. Before the manifestation of the latter the Self is not perceived, but after it is manifested, the Self is perceived within the intellect, like the reflection of the sun etc. in water and the like. Because It is thus perceived as having entered, as it were, into the universe after manifesting it,

लक्ष्यमाणो निर्दिश्यते – ‘स एष इह प्रविष्टः’ ‘तत्सृष्ट्वा तदेवानुप्राविशत्’ (TaitU.2.6.1) ‘स एतमेव सीमानं विदार्यैतया द्वारा प्रापद्यत’ (AitU.1.3.12) ‘सेयं देवतैक्षत हन्ताहमिमास्तिस्रो देवता अनेन जीवेनात्मनानुप्रविश्य’ (ChanU.6.3.2) इत्येवमादिभिः। न तु सर्वगतस्य निरवयवस्य दिग्देशकालान्तरापक्रमणप्राप्तिलक्षणः प्रवेशः कदाचिदप्युपपद्यते।
It is indicated in such terms as the following: ‘This Self has entered into these bodies’ (this text), ‘After projecting it, the Self entered into it’ (TaitU.2.6.1), ‘Piercing this dividing line (of the head), It entered through what gate’ (AitU.1.3.12), and ‘That deity (Existence) thought: Well, let me enter into these three gods (fire, water, and earth) as this individual self’ etc. (ChanU.6.3.2). The all-pervading Self, which is without parts, can never be supposed to enter in the sense of leaving a certain quarter, place or time and being joined to new ones.

न च परादात्मनोऽन्योऽस्ति द्रष्टा, ‘नान्यदतोऽस्ति द्रष्टृ’ ‘नान्यदतोऽस्ति श्रोतृ’ (BrhU.3.8.11) इत्यादिश्रुतेः – इत्यवोचाम।
Nor is there, as we have said, any other seer but the Supreme Self, as is testified by such Śruti texts as, ‘There is no other witness but This, no other hearer but This’ etc. (BrhU.3.8.11).

उपलब्ध्यर्थत्वाच्च सृष्टिप्रवेशस्थित्यप्ययवाक्यानाम्; उपलब्धेः पुरुषार्थत्वश्रवणात्
The passages delineating the projection of the universe and the entrance of the Self into it as well as its continuance and dissolution, serve only as aids to the realization of the Self, for this is described in the Śrutis as the highest end of man.

– ‘आत्मानमेवावेत् तस्मात्तत्सर्वमभवत्’ (BrhU.1.4.10) ‘ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परम्’ (TaitU.2.1.1) ‘स यो ह वै तत्परं ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति’ (MunU.3.2.9) ‘आचार्यवान्पुरुषो वेद’‘तस्य तावदेव चिरम्’ (ChanU.6.14.2) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः; ‘ततो मां तत्त्वतो ज्ञात्वा विशते तदनन्तरम्’ (BhG.18.55) ‘तद्ध्यग्र्यं सर्वविद्यानां प्राप्यते ह्यमृतं ततः’ (मनु. १२-८५) इत्यादिस्मृतिभ्यश्च।
Witness such texts as the following: ‘It knew only Itself … Therefore It became all’ (BrhU.1.4.10), ‘The knower of Brahman attains the highest’ (TaitU.2.1.1), ‘He who knows that Supreme Brahman becomes Brahman’ (MunU.3.2.9), ‘He only knows who has got a teacher’ (ChanU.6.14.2), ‘It takes him only so long (as he does not give up the body),’ etc. (ChanU.6.14.2). And the Smṛtis, ‘Then knowing Me truly, he enters into Me’ (BhG.18.55), ‘That (Self-knowledge) is the chief of all knowledge, for it leads to immortality’ (ManSamh.12.85).

भेददर्शनापवादाच्च, सृष्ट्यादिवाक्यानामात्मैकत्वदर्शनार्थपरत्वोपपत्तिः।
Besides, since duality has been repudiated, the passages delineating the manifestation etc. of the universe can have the sole aim of helping the realization of the unity of the Self.

तस्मात्कार्यस्थस्योपलभ्यत्वमेव प्रवेश इत्युपचर्यते।
Therefore we conclude that the entrance of the Self into the universe is but a metaphorical way of stating that It is perceived in the midst of the latter.

आ नखाग्रेभ्यः – नखाग्रमर्यादमात्मनश्चैतन्यमुपलभ्यते।
Ā nakha-agrebhyaḥ, up to the tip of the nails – is the intelligence of the Self perceived.

तत्र कथमिव प्रविष्ट इत्याह – यथा लोके, क्षुरधाने क्षुरो धीयते अस्मिन्निति क्षुरधानं तस्मिन् नापितोपस्कराधाने, क्षुरः अन्तस्थ उपलभ्यते – अवहितः प्रवेशितः, स्यात्; यथा वा विश्वम्भरः अग्निः – विश्वस्य भरणात् विश्वम्भरकुलाये नीडे अग्निः काष्ठादौ, अवहितः स्यादित्यनुवर्तते; तत्र हि स मथ्यमान उपलभ्यते।
How It has entered is being explained: Yathā, as, in the world, kṣura-dhāne kṣuraḥ avahitaḥ syāt, a razor may be put in its case, the barber’s instrument-bag – the razor is perceived as being within it – viśam-bharaḥ vā viśvam-bhara-kulāye, or as fire which sustains the world, may be in its source (kulāya, nest), wood etc. – the predicate (syāt, may be) is to be repeated with ‘fire’ where it is perceived through friction.

यथा च क्षुरः क्षुरधान एकदेशेऽवस्थितः, यथा चाग्निः काष्ठादौ सर्वतो व्याप्यावस्थितः, एवं सामान्यतो विशेषतश्च देहं संव्याप्यावस्थित आत्मा; तत्र हि स प्राणनादिक्रियावान् दर्शनादिक्रियावांश्चोपलभ्यते।
As a razor lies in one part of the case, or as fire lies in wood pervading it, so does the Self reside in the body pervading it in a general and particular way. There It is perceived as doing the functions of living as well as sight etc.

तस्मात् तत्र एवं प्रविष्टं तम् आत्मानं प्राणनादिक्रियाविशिष्टम्, न पश्यन्ति नोपलभन्ते।
Therefore tam na paśyanti, people do not see It, realize the Self
[•As It is in reality, although they see Its conditioned aspect.•]
that has thus entered into the body and does the above functions.

नन्वप्राप्तप्रतिषेधोऽयम् – ‘तं न पश्यन्ति’ इति, दर्शनस्याप्रकृतत्वात्;
It may be urged that this statement, ‘People do not see It,’ repudiates something for which there was no occasion, for the vision of It is not the topic under consideration.

नैष दोषः; सृष्ट्यादिवाक्यानामात्मैकत्वप्रतिपत्त्यर्थपरत्वात्प्रकृतमेव तस्य दर्शनम्; ‘रूपं रूपं प्रतिरूपो बभूव तदस्य रूपं प्रतिचक्षणाय’ (BrhU.2.5.19) इति मन्त्रवर्णात्।
The answer to it is: There is nothing wrong it it, for since the passages delineating the projection etc. of the universe are meant as aids to the realization of the unity of the Self, the vision of the Self is the subject under consideration. Compare the Śruti, ‘He transformed Himself in accordance with each form; that form of His was for the sake of making Him known’ (BrhU.2.5.19).

तत्र प्राणनादिक्रियाविशिष्टस्य दर्शने हेतुमाह – अकृत्स्नः असमस्तः, हि यस्मात्, सः प्राणनादिक्रियाविशिष्टः।
Now the reason is being given why people see It only as doing the functions of the vital force etc. (but not as a whole): Saḥ hi a-kṛtsnaḥ, For It is incomplete, when It does the above functions.

कुतः पुनरकृत्स्नत्वमिति, उच्यते – प्राणन्नेव प्राणनक्रियामेव कुर्वन्, प्राणो नाम प्राणसमाख्यः प्राणाभिधानो भवति; प्राणनक्रियाकर्तृत्वाद्धि प्राणः प्राणितीत्युच्यते, नान्यां क्रियां कुर्वन् – यथा लावकः पाचक इति; तस्मात्क्रियान्तरविशिष्टस्यानुपसंहारादकृत्स्नो हि सः।
Why incomplete? Prāṇan eva prāṇe nāma bhavati, When It does the function of living, It is called the vital force. Because of doing this function only, and none other, the Self is called the vital force, from the derivative meaning of the term, as one is called a cutter or a cook. Therefore, not combining the other aspects doing other functions, It is incomplete.

तथा वदन् वदनक्रियां कुर्वन्, वक्तीति वाक्, पश्यन् चक्षुः, चष्ट इति चक्षुः द्रष्टा, शृण्वन् शृणोतीति श्रोत्रम्।
Similarly, vadam vāk, when It speaks, it is the organ of speech (or speaker); paśyan cakṣuḥ, when It sees, it is the eye, or seer; śṛṇvan śrotram, when It hears, it is the ear, or listener.

‘प्राणन्नेव प्राणो वदन्वाक्’ इत्याभ्यां क्रियाशक्त्युद्भवः प्रदर्शितो भवति।
In the two sentences, ‘When It does the function of living, It is the vital force,’ and ‘When It speaks, the organ of speech,’ the manifestation of its power of action is indicated.

‘पश्यंश्चक्षुः शृण्वञ्श्रोत्रम्’ इत्याभ्यां विज्ञानशक्त्युद्भवः प्रदर्श्यते, नामरूपविषयत्वाद्विज्ञानशक्तेः। श्रोत्रचक्षुषी विज्ञानस्य साधने, विज्ञानं तु नामरूपसाधनम्; न हि नामरूपव्यतिरिक्तं विज्ञेयमस्ति; तयोश्चोपलम्भे करणं चक्षुश्रोत्रे।
While the two sentences, ‘When It sees, the eye’ and ‘When It hears, the ear,’ indicate the manifestation of Its power of knowledge, for this is concerned with name and form. The ear and the eye are the instruments of knowledge, which has name and form as its material, for there is nothing to be known except these two, and the ear and the eye are the instruments to perceive them.

क्रिया च नामरूपसाध्या प्राणसमवायिनी; तस्याः प्राणाश्रयाया अभिव्यक्तौ वाक् करणम्; तथा पाणिपादपायूपस्थाख्यानि; सर्वेषामुपलक्षणार्था वाक्।
And action has name and form as its auxiliaries and inheres in the vital force; the organ of speech is the instrument to manifest this action inherent in the vital force. Likewise the Self is called the hand, the foot and the organs of excretion and generation, which are all suggested by the organ of speech.

एतदेव हि सर्वं व्याकृतम् – ‘त्रयं वा इदं नाम रूपं कर्म’ (BrhU.1.6.1) इति हि वक्ष्यति। मन्वानो मनः – मनुते इति; ज्ञानशक्तिविकासानां साधारणं करणं मनः – मनुतेऽनेनेति; पुरुषस्तु कर्ता सन्मन्वानो मन इत्युच्यते।
The whole differentiated universe is this much. It will be said later on, ‘This (universe) indeed consists of three things: name, form, and action’ (BrhU.1.6.1). And manvānaḥ manas, when It thinks, it is the mind, that which thinks. The word ‘mind’ also means the common instrument of the different manifestations of the power of knowledge. But here it denotes the Self, the agent who thinks (i.e. the thinker).

तान्येतानि प्राणादीनि, अस्य आत्मनः कर्मनामानि, कर्मजानि नामानि कर्मनामानि एव, न तु वस्तुमात्रविषयाणि; अतो न कृत्स्नात्मवस्त्ववद्योतकानि – एवं ह्यासावात्मा प्राणनादिक्रियया तत्तत्क्रियाजनितप्राणादिनामरूपाभ्यां व्याक्रियमाणोऽवद्योत्यमानोऽपि।
Tāni etāni, these, the vital force etc., asya karma-nāmāni, are merely Its names according to functions, not describing the Self as it is. Hence they do not express the entity of the Self as a whole. Thus the Self is differentiated by the activities of living etc. into name and form such as the vital force, which are engendered by those different activities, and is manifested at the same time (but not realized as a whole).

स योऽतः अस्मात्प्राणनादिक्रियासमुदायात्, एकैकं प्राणं चक्षुरिति वा विशिष्टमनुपसंहृतेतरविशिष्टक्रियात्मकम्, मनसा अयमात्मेति उपास्ते चिन्तयति, न स वेद न स जानाति ब्रह्म।
Saḥ yaḥ ataḥ eka-ekam, the one who thus – through his mind – upon each, of this totality of aspects doing the functions of living etc., qualified as the vital force or the eye, without combining the other aspects doing particular functions – upāste, meditates, that this is the Self, saḥ na veda, he does not know, the Brahman.

कस्मात्? अकृत्स्नोऽसमस्तः हि यस्मात् एष आत्मा, अस्मात्प्राणनादिसमुदायात्, अतः प्रविभक्तः, एकैकेन विशेषणेन विशिष्टः, इतरधर्मान्तरानुपसंहारात् – भवति।
Why? Eṣaḥ hi a-kṛtsnaḥ, For It, this Self, is incomplete, being divided ataḥ, from this, totality of aspects doing the functions of living etc. eka-ekena, by possessing a single characteristic, and not including the other characteristics.

यावदयमेवं वेद – ‘पश्यामि’ ‘शृणोमि’ ‘स्पृशामि’ इति वा स्वभावप्रवृत्तिविशिष्टं वेद, तावदञ्जसा कृत्स्नमात्मानं न वेद।
As long as the man knows the Self as such, as possessed of the natural functions, and thinks that It sees, hears or touches, he does not really know the whole Self.

कथं पुनः पश्यन्वेदेत्याह – आत्मेत्येव आत्मेति –
Through what kind of vision can he know It? This is being explained: Ātmā iti eva, The Self alone (is to be meditated upon).

प्राणादीनि विशेषणानि यान्युक्तानि तानि यस्य सः – आप्नुवंस्तान्यात्मेत्युच्यते। स तथा कृत्स्नविशेषोपसंहारी सन्कृत्स्नो भवति।
That which possesses the characteristics such as living that have been mentioned – includes them – is the Self.
[•The root-meaning of the word ‘Āt-man’ is that which pervades (‘āt’ = āp, āpnuvan, pervading) everything.•]
Combining all the characteristics, It then becomes the whole.

वस्तुमात्ररूपेण हि प्राणाद्युपाधिविशेषक्रियाजनितानि विशेषणानि व्याप्नोति। तथा च वक्ष्यति – ‘ध्यायतीव लेलायतीव’ (BrhU.4.3.7) इति।
It is as the Reality that It includes those characteristics due to the functions of particular limiting adjuncts such as the vital force. As it will be said later on ‘It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were’ (BrhU.4.3.7).

तस्माद् आत्मेत्येव उपासीत। एवं कृत्स्नो ह्यसौ स्वेन वस्तुरूपेण गृह्यमाणो भवति।
Therefore the Self alone upāsīta, is to be meditated upon. When perceived thus as the Reality, It becomes complete.

कस्मात्कृत्स्न इत्याशङ्क्याह – अत्र अस्मिन्नात्मनि, हि यस्मात्, निरुपाधिके, जलसूर्यप्रतिबिम्बभेदा इवादित्ये, प्राणाद्युपाधिकृता विशेषाः प्राणादिकर्मजनामाभिधेया यथोक्ता हि एते, एकम् अभिन्नताम्, भवन्ति प्रतिपद्यन्ते।
How is It complete? This is being answered: hi ete, For all these – differences due to the limiting adjuncts such as the vital force, and denoted by names arising from the functions of living etc., as described above, atra ekam bhavanti, are unified in It, become one with the unconditioned Self, as the different reflections of the sun (i.e. many flashes of light) in water become one in the sun (i.e, the one light being reflected).

‘आत्मेत्येवोपासीत’ (BrhU.1.4.7) इति नापूर्वविधिः, पक्षे प्राप्तत्वात्।
‘The Self alone is to be meditated upon’ (BrhU.1.4.7) – this is not an original injunction,
[•Apūrva-vidhi: It enjoins something totally unknown through any other source. There are two other kinds of injunction. One is the restrictive injunction, Niyama-vidhi, which only specifies which one among the possible known alternatives is to be adopted, and the other is exclusion, Parisaṅkhyā, or limitation to what is expressly mentioned, so that everything else is excluded•]
(but is a restrictive one), for meditation on the Self is known as a possible alternative.

‘यत्साक्षादपरोक्षाद्ब्रह्म’ (BrhU.3.4.1), (BrhU.3.5.1) ‘कतम आत्मेति – योऽयं विज्ञानमयः’ (BrhU.4.3.7) इत्येवमाद्यात्मप्रतिपादनपराभिः श्रुतिभिरात्मविषयं विज्ञानमुत्पादितम्;
[•In fact, neither injunction is necessary on the point, for this meditation is inevitable, in the following way:•]
The knowledge of the Self has been imparted by such Śruti passages dealing with the subject as, ‘The Brahman that is immediate and direct’ (BrhU.3.4.1–2; BrhU.3.5.1), ‘Which is the Self? This (infinite entity) that is identified with the intellect,’ etc. (BrhU.4.3.7).

तत्रात्मस्वरूपविज्ञानेनैव तद्विषयानात्माभिमानबुद्धिः कारकादिक्रियाफलाध्यारोपणात्मिका अविद्या निवर्तिता;
The very knowledge of the nature of the Self removes the ignorance about It, consisting in identification with the non-Self, and the superimposing of action, its factors, principal and subsidiary, and its results (on the Self).

तस्यां निवर्तितायां कामादिदोषानुपपत्तेरनात्मचिन्तानुपपत्तिः; पारिशेष्यादात्मचिन्तैव।
When that is removed, evils such as desire cannot exist, and consequently thinking of the non-Self is also gone. Hence on the principle of the residuum thinking of the Self follows as a matter of course.

तस्मात्तदुपासनमस्मिन्पक्षे न विधातव्यम्, प्राप्तत्वात्।
Therefore meditation on it, from this point of view, has not be enjoined, for it is already known (from other sources).

तिष्ठतु तावत् – पाक्षिक्यात्मोपासनप्राप्तिर्नित्या वेति। अपूर्वविधिः स्यात्, ज्ञानोपासनयोरेकत्वे सत्यप्राप्तत्वात्;
On this some say: Apart from the question whether meditation on the Self is known as just a possible alternative or as something that is always known, the present case must be an original injunction, for knowledge and meditation being the same, this (meditation on the Self) is not something already known.

‘न स वेद’ इति विज्ञानं प्रस्तुत्य ‘आत्मेत्येवोपासीत’ (BrhU.1.4.7) इत्यभिधानाद्वेदोपासनशब्दयोरेकार्थतावगम्यते। ‘अनेन ह्येतत्सर्वं वेद’ ‘आत्मानमेवावेत्’ (BrhU.1.4.10) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यश्च विज्ञानमुपासनम्।
The clause, ‘He does not know,’ introduces knowledge, and the sentence, ‘The Self alone is to be meditated upon,’ coming just after that, indicates that the words ‘knowledge’ and ‘meditation’ have the same meaning. Such Śruti texts as, ‘For one knows all these through It’ (this text), and ‘It knew only Itself’ (BrhU.1.4.10), show that knowledge is meditation.

तस्य चाप्राप्तत्वाद्विध्यर्हत्वम्।
And this, not being familiar to people, requires an injunction.

न च स्वरूपान्वाख्याने पुरुषप्रवृत्तिरुपपद्यते। तस्मादपूर्वविधिरेवायम्।
Nor is a man induced to act merely by a statement of the nature of a thing. Therefore this must be an original injunction.

कर्मविधिसामान्याच्च – यथा ‘यजेत’ ‘जुहुयात्’ इत्यादयः कर्मविधयः, न तैरस्य ‘आत्मेत्येवोपासीत’ (BrhU.1.4.7) ‘आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः’ (BrhU.2.4.5), (BrhU.4.5.6) इत्याद्यात्मोपासनविधेर्विशेषोऽवगम्यते।
Its similarity to the injunctions about rites also corroborates this view. For instance, ‘One should sacrifice,’ ‘One should offer oblations,’ etc., are injunctions about rites, and we do not see any difference between these and the injunctions about meditation on the Self such as, ‘The Self alone is to be meditated upon,’ and ‘The Self, my dear, is to be realized’ (BrhU.2.4.5; BrhU.4.5.6).

मानसक्रियात्वाच्च विज्ञानस्य – यथा ‘यस्यै देवतायै हविर्गृहीतं स्यात्तां मनसा ध्यायेद्वषट्करिष्यन्’ (ऐ. ब्रा. ३-८-१) इत्याद्या मानसी क्रिया विधीयते, तथा ‘आत्मेत्येवोपासीत’ (BrhU.1.4.7) ‘मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यः’ (BrhU.2.4.5), (BrhU.4.5.6) इत्याद्या क्रियैव विधीयते ज्ञानात्मिका। तथावोचाम वेदोपासनशब्दयोरेकार्थत्वमिति।
Besides knowledge is a mental act. Just as mental acts are enjoined by such (ritualistic) texts as, ‘Just before uttering the invocation ending with “Vaṣat” (the invoking priest) should meditate upon the deity to whom the offering is to made’ (AitBr.11.8), similarly cognitive acts are enjoined by such texts as, ‘This Self alone is to be meditated upon,’ ‘(The Self) is to be reflected on and meditated upon’ (BrhU.2.4.5; BrhU.4.5.6). And we have said that the words ‘knowledge’ and ‘meditation’ are synonymous.

भावनांशत्रयोपपत्तेश्च – यथा हि ‘यजेत’ इत्यस्यां भावनायाम्, किम्? केन? कथम्? इति भाव्याद्याकाङ्क्षापनयकारणमंशत्रयमवगम्यते,
Another reason in support of this view is that the requisite effort (in meditation also) should have its three divisions. That is to say, just as in the effort in connection with the injunction, ‘One should sacrifice,’ we know that in order to satisfy our curiosity about the proposed act, it must have three divisions, viz. ‘What is it?’ ‘Through what means?’ and ‘In what way?’ –

तथा ‘उपासीत’ इत्यस्यामपि भावनायां विधीयमानायाम्, किमुपासीत? केनोपासीत? कथमुपासीत? इत्यस्यामाकाङ्क्षायाम्, ‘आत्मानमुपासीत मनसा त्यागब्रह्मचर्यशमदमोपरमतितिक्षादीतिकर्तव्यतासंयुक्तः’ इत्यादिशास्त्रेणैव समर्थ्यते अंशत्रयम्।
Similarly, in the effort in connection with the injunction, ‘One should meditate,’ in answer to one’s queries regarding what to meditate upon, through what means to meditate, and in what way to meditate, the scriptures themselves support these three divisions by saying that the Self is to be meditated upon, through the mind, and by the practice of renunciation [•Giving up forbidden acts as well as rites with material ends•], continence, equanimity, self-control, self-withdrawal [•Giving up the regular and occasional rites•], fortitude etc., and so on.

यथा च कृत्स्नस्य दर्शपूर्णमासादिप्रकरणस्य दर्शपूर्णमासादिविध्युद्देशत्वेनोपयोगः; एवमौपनिषदात्मोपासनप्रकरणस्यात्मोपासनविध्युद्देशत्वेनैवोपयोगः।
And just as the entire section dealing with the new and full moon sacrifices etc. is used as part of the injunction regarding these sacrifices, similarly the section of the Upaniṣads dealing with meditation on the Self must be used only as part of the injunction regarding this meditation.

‘नेति नेति’ (BrhU.2.3.6) ‘अस्थूलम्’ (BrhU.3.8.8) ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (ChanU.6.2.1) ‘अशनायाद्यतीतः’ (BrhU.3.5.1) इत्येवमादिवाक्यानामुपास्यात्मस्वरूपविशेषसमर्पणेनोपयोगः।
Such passages as ‘Not this, not this’ (BrhU.2.3.6), ‘Not gross,’ (BrhU.3.8.8), ‘One only without a second’ (ChanU.6.2.1), ‘Beyond hunger etc.’ (BrhU.3.5.1, adapted), are to be used as setting forth the particular nature of the Self, the object of meditation.

फलं च मोक्षोऽविद्यानिवृत्तिर्वा।
And the result is liberation or the cessation of ignorance.

अपरे वर्णयन्ति – उपासनेनात्मविषयं विशिष्टं विज्ञानान्तरं भावयेत्; तेनात्मा ज्ञायते; अविद्यानिवर्तकं च तदेव, नात्मविषयं वेदवाक्यजनितं विज्ञानमिति।
Others say that meditation generates a new special kind of consciousness regarding the Self, through which the latter is known, and which alone removes ignorance, and not the knowledge due to the Veda dicta about the Self.

एतस्मिन्नर्थे वचनान्यपि – ‘विज्ञाय प्रज्ञां कुर्वीत’ (BrhU.4.4.21) ‘द्रष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यः’ (BrhU.2.4.5), (BrhU.4.5.6) ‘सोऽन्वेष्टव्यः स विजिज्ञासितव्यः’ (ChanU.8.7.1) इत्यादीनि।
And in support of this view they cite such texts as the following: ‘(The aspirant after Brahman) knowing about this alone, should attain intuitive knowledge’ (BrhU.4.4.21), ‘(The Self) is to be realized – to be heard of, reflected on and meditated upon’ (BrhU.2.4.5; BrhU.4.5.6), ‘That is to be sought, and That one should desire to realize’ (ChanU.8.7.1 & .3).

न, अर्थान्तराभावात्।
Both views are wrong, for there is no reference to anything else in the passage in question.

न च ‘आत्मेत्येवोपासीत’ (BrhU.1.4.7) इत्यपूर्वविधिः; कस्मात्? आत्मस्वरूपकथनानात्मप्रतिषेधवाक्यजनितविज्ञानव्यतिरेकेणार्थान्तरस्य कर्तव्यस्य मानसस्य बाह्यस्य वाभावात्।
To be explicit: The sentence, ‘The Self alone is to be meditated upon,’ is not an original injunction. Why? Because except the knowledge that arises from the dictum setting forth the nature of the Self and refuting the non-Self, there is nothing to be done, either mentally or outwardly.

तत्र हि विधेः साफल्यम्, यत्र विधिवाक्यश्रवणमात्रजनितविज्ञानव्यतिरेकेण पुरुषप्रवृत्तिर्गम्यते – यथा ‘दर्शपूर्णमासाभ्यां स्वर्गकामो यजेत’ इत्येवमादौ।
An injunction is appropriate only where, over and above the knowledge that arises immediately from hearing a sentence of the nature of an injunction, an activity on the part of a man is easily understood, as in sentences like, ‘One who desires heaven must perform the new and full moon sacrifices.’

न हि दर्शपूर्णमासविधिवाक्यजनितविज्ञानमेव दर्शपूर्णमासानुष्ठानम्। तच्चाधिकाराद्यपेक्षानुभावि।
The knowledge arising from a sentence enjoining these sacrifices is certainly not the performance of them. This depends on considerations such as whether a person is entitled to perform them.

न तु ‘नेति नेति’ (BrhU.2.3.6) इत्याद्यात्मप्रतिपादकवाक्यजनितविज्ञानव्यतिरेकेण दर्शपूर्णमासादिवत्पुरुषव्यापारः सम्भवति; सर्वव्यापारोपशमहेतुत्वात्तद्वाक्यजनितविज्ञानस्य।
But apart from the knowledge arising from such passages delineating the Self as ‘Not this, not this,’ there is no scope for human activity as in the case of the new and full moon sacrifices etc., because that knowledge puts a stop to all activity.

न ह्युदासीनविज्ञानं प्रवृत्तिजनकम्; अब्रह्मानात्मविज्ञाननिवर्तकत्वाच्च ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (ChanU.6.2.1) ‘तत्त्वमसि’ (ChanU.6.8.7) इत्येवमादिवाक्यानाम्। न च तन्निवृत्तौ प्रवृत्तिरुपपद्यते, विरोधात्।
For a neutral (udāsīna) knowledge cannot initiate any activity, since such passages as, ‘One only without a second,’ and ‘Thou art That’ (ChanU.6.8.7), merely remove the consciousness of any other entity but the Self or Brahman. And when this is gone, no activity is possible, for they are contradictory to each other.

वाक्यजनितविज्ञानमात्रान्नाब्रह्मानात्मविज्ञाननिवृत्तिरिति चेत्,
Objection: The mere knowledge arising from those passages does not suffice to remove the consciousness of entities other than the Self or Brahman.

न; ‘तत्त्वमसि’ (ChanU.6.8.7) ‘नेति नेति’ (BrhU.2.3.6) ‘आत्मैवेदम्’ (ChanU.7.25.2) ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (ChanU.6.2.1) ‘ब्रह्मैवेदममृतम्’ (MunU.2.2.11) ‘नान्यदतोऽस्ति द्रष्टृ’ (BrhU.3.8.11) ‘तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि’ (KenU.1.5) इत्यादिवाक्यानां तद्वादित्वात्।
Reply: Not so, for such passages as, ‘Thou art That,’ ‘Not this, not this,’ ‘All this is but the Self’ (ChanU.7.25.2), ‘One only without a second,’ ‘This universe is but Brahman and immortal’ (MunU.2.2.11), ‘There is no other witness but This’ (BrhU.3.8.11), and ‘Know that alone to be Brahman’ (KenU.1.5–9), describe the Reality alone.

द्रष्टव्यविधेर्विषयसमर्पकाण्येतानीति चेत्,
Objection: Do they not supply the object for the injunction about realizing the Self.

न; अर्थान्तराभावादित्युक्तोत्तरत्वात् – आत्मवस्तुस्वरूपसमर्पकैरेव वाक्यैः ‘तत्त्वमसि’ (ChanU.6.8.7 etc.) इत्यादिभिः श्रवणकाल एव तद्दर्शनस्य कृतत्वाद्द्रष्टव्यविधेर्नानुष्ठानान्तरं कर्तव्यमित्युक्तोत्तरमेतत्।
Reply: No, for we have already answered that point by saying that there is no reference to anything else in those passages. That is to say, since sentences such as, ‘Thou art That,’ which only delineate the nature of the Self, immediately lead to Its realization, there is no further action to be done with regard to the injunction about that realization.

आत्मस्वरूपान्वाख्यानमात्रेणात्मविज्ञाने विधिमन्तरेण न प्रवर्तत इति चेत्,
Objection: A man does not proceed to know the Self immediately on hearing a statement of the nature of the Self, unless there is an injunction to that effect.

न; आत्मवादिवाक्यश्रवणेनात्मविज्ञानस्य जनितत्वात् – किं भोः कृतस्य करणम्।
Reply: Not so, for the knowledge of the Self is already attained by hearing the dictum about it. So what is the good of doing It over again?

तच्छ्रवणेऽपि न प्रवर्तत इति चेत्,
Objection: He may not even proceed to hear about the Self. (So an injunction is necessary).

न; अनवस्थाप्रसङ्गात् – यथात्मवादिवाक्यार्थश्रवणे विधिमन्तरेण न प्रवर्तते, तथा विधिवाक्यार्थश्रवणेऽपि विधिमन्तरेण न प्रवर्तिष्यत इति विध्यन्तरापेक्षा; तथा तदर्थश्रवणेऽपीत्यनवस्था प्रसज्येत।
Reply: Not so, for it would lead to a regressus in infinitum. In other words, just as without an injunction he does not proceed to hear the meaning of a passage about the Self, similarly he would not, in the absence of another injunction, proceed to hear the meaning of a passage enjoining this; so another injunction is necessary. Similarly with that injunction too. Hence there would be a regressus in infinitum.

वाक्यजनितात्मज्ञानस्मृतिसन्ततेः श्रवणविज्ञानमात्रादर्थान्तरत्वमिति चेत्,
Objection: Is not the train of remembrance of the knowledge of the Self generated by the passage relating to It something different from the knowledge itself arising from the hearing of It (and hence that is to be prescribed)?

न; अर्थप्राप्तत्वात् – यदैवात्मप्रतिपादकवाक्यश्रवणादात्मविषयं विज्ञानमुत्पद्यते, तदैव तदुत्पद्यमानं तद्विषयं मिथ्याज्ञानं निवर्तयदेवोत्पद्यते;
Reply: No, for the remembrance of the Self comes automatically. That is to say, as soon as the knowledge of the Self arises in consequence of hearing a dictum delineating It, it necessarily destroys the false notion about It. It could not arise otherwise.

आत्मविषयमिथ्याज्ञाननिवृत्तौ च तत्प्रभवाः स्मृतयो न भवन्ति स्वाभाविक्योऽनात्मवस्तुभेदविषयाः;
And when this false notion about the Self is gone, memories due to that, which are natural to man and concern the multitude of things other than the Self, cannot last.

अनर्थत्वावगतेश्च – आत्मावगतौ हि सत्याम् अन्यद्वस्तु अनर्थत्वेनावगम्यते, अनित्यदुःखाशुद्ध्यादिबहुदोषवत्त्वात् आत्मवस्तुनश्च तद्विलक्षणत्वात्;
Moreover, everything else is then known to be an evil. In other words, when the Self is known, things other than It are realized as evils, being full of defects such as transitoriness, painfulness and impurity, while the Self is contrary to them.

तस्मादनात्मविज्ञानस्मृतीनामात्मावगतेरभावप्राप्तिः; पारिशेष्यादात्मैकत्वविज्ञानस्मृतिसन्ततेरर्थत एव भावान्न विधेयत्वम्।
Therefore the memories of notions about the non-Self die out when the Self is known. As the only alternative left, the train of remembrance of the knowledge that the Self is one, which comes automatically, is not to be prescribed.

शोकमोहभयायासादिदुःखदोषनिवर्तकत्वाच्च तत्स्मृतेः – विपरीतज्ञानप्रभवो हि शोकमोहादिदोषः; तथा च ‘तत्र को मोहः’ (IsU.7) ‘विद्वान्न बिभेति कुतश्चन’ (TaitU.2.9.1) ‘अभयं वै जनक प्राप्तोऽसि’ (BrhU.4.2.4) ‘भिद्यते हृदयग्रन्थिः’ (MunU.2.2.8) इत्यादिश्रुतयः।
Besides, the memory of the Self removes the painful defects such as grief, delusion, fear and effort, for these defects spring from the opposite kind of knowledge. Compare the Śruti texts, ‘Then what delusion can there be?’ (IsU.7), ‘Knowing (the bliss of Brahman) he is not afraid of anything’ (TaitU.2.9.1), ‘You have attained That which is free from fear, O Janaka’ (BrhU.4.2.4), ‘The knot of the heart is broken’ (MunU.2.2.8), and so on.

निरोधस्तर्ह्यर्थान्तरमिति चेत् – अथापि स्याच्चित्तवृत्तिनिरोधस्य वेदवाक्यजनितात्मविज्ञानादर्थान्तरत्वात्, तन्त्रान्तरेषु च कर्तव्यतया अवगतत्वाद्विधेयत्वमिति चेत् –
Objection: Well then, the control of the mind may be something different. In other words, since the control of mental states is something different from the knowledge of the Self arising from the Veda texts, and since we know this has been prescribed for practice in another system (Yoga), let this be enjoined.

न, मोक्षसाधनत्वेनानवगमात्। न हि वेदान्तेषु ब्रह्मात्मविज्ञानादन्यत्परमपुरुषार्थसाधनत्वेनावगम्यते –
Reply: No, for it is not known as a means of liberation. In the Upaniṣads nothing is spoken of as a means to the attainment of the highest end of man except the knowledge of the identity of the self and Brahman. Witness hundreds of Śruti texts like the following:

‘आत्मानमेवावेत्तस्मात्तत्सर्वमभवत्’ ‘ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परम्’ (TaitU.2.1.1) ‘स यो ह वै तत्परमं ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति’ (MunU.3.2.9) ‘आचार्यवान्पुरुषो वेद’‘तस्य तावदेव चिरम्’ (ChanU.6.14.2) ‘अभयं हि वै ब्रह्म भवति। य एवं वेद’ (BrhU.4.4.25) इत्येवमादिश्रुतिशतेभ्यः।
‘It knew only Itself … Therefore It became all’ (BrhU.1.4.10), ‘The knower of Brahman attains the highest’ (TaitU.2.1.1), ‘He who knows that Supreme Brahman becomes Brahman’ (MunU.3.2.9), ‘He only knows who has got a teacher. It takes him only so long (as he does not give up the body)’ (ChanU.6.14.2), ‘He who knows it as such indeed becomes the fearless Brahman’ (BrhU.4.4.25; NrsUtU.8).

अनन्यसाधनत्वाच्च निरोधस्य – न ह्यात्मविज्ञानतत्स्मृतिसन्तानव्यतिरेकेण चित्तवृत्तिनिरोधस्य साधनमस्ति। अभ्युपगम्येदमुक्तम्; न तु ब्रह्मविज्ञानव्यतिरेकेण अन्यत् मोक्षसाधनमवगम्यते।
Besides there is no other means for the control of mental states except the knowledge of the Self and the train of remembrance about it. We have said this as a tentative admission; really we know of no other means of liberation except the knowledge of Brahman.

आकाङ्क्षाभावाच्च भावनाभावः।
Moreover, there being no curiosity to know, no effort is necessary.

यदुक्तम् ‘यजेत’ इत्यादौ किम्? केन? कथम्? इति भावनाकाङ्क्षायां फलसाधनेतिकर्तव्यताभिः आकाङ्क्षापनयनं यथा, तद्वदिहाप्यात्मविज्ञानविधावप्युपपद्यत इति
To be explicit: You said, in the effort in connection with injunction such as, ‘One should sacrifice,’ there is the curiosity to know what the sacrifice is about, what its means are, and how it is to be performed, and it is satisfied by the mention of the goal, the means and the method of the sacrifices; similarly here too, in the injunction about the knowledge of the Self, those things are necessary.

– तदसत्; ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (ChanU.6.2.1) ‘तत्त्वमसि’ (ChanU.6.8.7) ‘नेति नेति’ (BrhU.2.3.6) ‘अनन्तरमबाह्यम्’ (BrhU.2.5.19) ‘अयमात्मा ब्रह्म’ (BrhU.2.5.19) इत्यादिवाक्यार्थविज्ञानसमकालमेव सर्वाकाङ्क्षाविनिवृत्तेः।
But you are wrong, for all curiosity is ended as soon as one knows the meaning of such texts as, ‘One only without a second,’ ‘Thou art That,’ ‘Not this, not this,’ ‘Without interior or exterior’ (BrhU.2.5.19; BrhU.3.8.8), and ‘This self is Brahman’ (BrhU.2.5.19; ManU.2).

न च वाक्यार्थविज्ञाने विधिप्रयुक्तः प्रवर्तते।
And a man does not proceed to know the meaning of those passages, prompted by an injunction.

विध्यन्तरप्रयुक्तौ चानवस्थादोषमवोचाम। न च ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयं ब्रह्म’ इत्यादिवाक्येषु विधिरवगम्यते, आत्मस्वरूपान्वाख्यानेनैवावसितत्वात्।
We have already said that if another injunction is needed for this, it would lead to a regressus in infintum. Nor is an injunction noticed in such sentences as ‘Brahman is one only without a second,’ for they finish by simply stating the nature of the Self.

वस्तुस्वरूपान्वाख्यानमात्रत्वादप्रामाण्यमिति चेत् – अथापि स्यात्, यथा ‘सोऽरोदीद्यदरोदीत्तद्रुद्रस्य रुद्रत्वम्’ (तै. सं. १-५-१-१) इत्येवमादौ वस्तुस्वरूपान्वाख्यानमात्रत्वादप्रामाण्यम्, एवमात्मार्थवाक्यानामपीति चेत् –
Objection: Do they not lose their authority (as Vedas) by being mere statements of the nature of a thing? In other words, just as passages like, ‘He (the deity Fire) cried. That is why he was called Rudra’ (TaitS.1.5.1.1), being a mere narration of an event,
[•And not an injunction, which is the sole test of authority for the Vedas according to the Mīmāṃsakas.•]
have no authority, so also the passages delineating the Self have more.

न, विशेषात्। न वाक्यस्य वस्त्वन्वाख्यानं क्रियान्वाख्यानं वा प्रामाण्याप्रामाण्यकारणम्; किं तर्हि, निश्चितफलवद्विज्ञानोत्पादकत्वम्; तद्यत्रास्ति तत्प्रमाणं वाक्यम्; यत्र नास्ति तदप्रमाणम्।
Reply: Not so, for there is a difference.
[•Between the two sets of passages.•]
The test of the authority or otherwise of a passage is not whether it states a fact or an action, but its capacity to generate certain and fruitful knowledge. A passage that has this is authoritative, and one that lacks it, is not.

किं च, भोः! पृच्छामस्त्वाम् – आत्मस्वरूपान्वाख्यानपरेषु वाक्येषु फलवन्निश्चितं च विज्ञानमुत्पद्यते, न वा? उत्पद्यते चेत्, कथमप्रामाण्यमिति।
But we want to ask you: Is or is not certain and fruitful knowledge generated by passages setting forth the nature of the Self, and if so, how can they lose their authority?

किं वा न पश्यस्यविद्याशोकमोहभयादिसंसारबीजदोषनिवृत्तिं विज्ञानफलम्?
Do you not see the result of knowledge in the removal of the evils which are the root of transmigration, such as ignorance, grief, delusion and fear?

न शृणोषि वा किम् – ‘तत्र को मोहः कः शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यतः’ (IsU.7), ‘मन्त्रविदेवास्मि नात्मवित्सोऽहं भगवः शोचामि तं मा भगवाञ्शोकस्य पारं तारयतु’ (ChanU.7.1.3) इत्येवमाद्युपनिषद्वाक्यशतानि?
Or do you not hear those hundreds of Upaniṣad texts such as, ‘Then what delusion and what grief can there be for one who sees unity?’ (IsU.7), ‘I am but a knower of (Veda) mantras, not of the Self, so I am tormented with grief, and you, sir, must take me beyond the reach of it’ (ChanU.7.1.3).

एवं विद्यते किम् ‘सोऽरोदीत्’ इत्यादिषु निश्चितं फलवच्च विज्ञानम्? न चेद्विद्यते, अस्त्वप्रामाण्यम्;
Do passages like, ‘He cried,’ lead to this kind of certain and fruitful knowledge? If they do not, they may well be without authority.

तदप्रामाण्ये, फलवन्निश्चितविज्ञानोत्पादकस्य किमित्यप्रामाण्यं स्यात्? तदप्रामाण्ये च दर्शपूर्णमासादिवाक्येषु को विश्रम्भः?
But how can the fact of their having no authority take away the authority of passages leading to certain and fruitful knowledge? And if these are without authority, what trust one can repose in passages dealing with the new and full moon sacrifices, for instance?

ननु दर्शपूर्णमासादिवाक्यानां पुरुषप्रवृत्तिविज्ञानोत्पादकत्वात्प्रामाण्यम्, आत्मविज्ञानवाक्येषु तन्नास्तीति;
Objection: These have authority because they generate knowledge leading to action on the part of a man. But passages inculcating the knowledge of the Self do not do that.

सत्यमेवम्; नैष दोषः, प्रामाण्यकारणोपपत्तेः। प्रामाण्यकारणं च यथोक्तमेव, नान्यत्। अलङ्कारश्चायम्, यत् सर्वप्रवृत्तिबीजनिरोधफलवद्विज्ञानोत्पादकत्वम् आत्मप्रतिपादकवाक्यानाम्, न अप्रामाण्यकारणम्।
Reply: True, but it is nothing against them, for there is reason enough for their authority. And that reason is what we have already stated, and none other. It is not a reason to disprove the authority of passages inculcating the Self that they generate knowledge which has the effect of destroying the seeds of all activity, rather it is their ornament.

यत्तूक्तम् – ‘विज्ञाय प्रज्ञां कुर्वीत’ (BrhU.4.4.21) इत्यादिवचनानां वाक्यार्थविज्ञानव्यतिरेकेणोपासनार्थत्वमिति, सत्यमेतत्; किन्तु न अपूर्वविध्यर्थता; पक्षे प्राप्तस्य नियमार्थतैव।
You said sentences like, ‘(The aspirant after Brahman) knowing about this alone should attain intuitive knowledge,’ (BrhU.4.4.21) convey the necessity of meditation in addition to knowing the meaning of the Veda dicta. It is true, but they do not constitute an original injunction. Since meditation on the Self is already known as a possible alternative, they can only be restrictive.

कथं पुनरुपासनस्य पक्षप्राप्तिः, यावता पारिशेष्यादात्मविज्ञानस्मृतिसन्ततिर्नित्यैवेत्यभिहितम्?
Objection; How is that meditation already known as a possible alternative, since, as you said, on the principle of the residuum the train of remembrance of the knowledge of the Self is an inevitable fact?

बाढम् – यद्यप्येवम्, शरीरारम्भकस्य कर्मणो नियतफलत्वात्, सम्यग्ज्ञानप्राप्तावपि अवश्यम्भाविनी प्रवृत्तिर्वाङ्मनःकायानाम्, लब्धवृत्तेः कर्मणो बलीयस्त्वात् – मुक्तेष्वादिप्रवृत्तिवत्;
Reply: It is true, but nevertheless, since the resultant of past actions that led to the formation of the present body must produce definite results, speech, mind and the body are bound to work even after the highest realization, for actions that have begun to bear fruit are stronger than knowledge; as for instance an arrow that has been let fly continues its course for some time.

तेन पक्षे प्राप्तं ज्ञानप्रवृत्तिदौर्बल्यम्। तस्मात् त्यागवैराग्यादिसाधनबलावलम्बेन आत्मविज्ञानस्मृतिसन्ततिर्नियन्तव्या भवति; न त्वपूर्वा कर्तव्या; प्राप्तत्वात् – इत्यवोचाम।
Hence the operation of knowledge, being weaker than they, (is liable to be interrupted by them and) becomes only a possible alternative. Therefore there is need to regulate the train of remembrance of the knowledge of the Self by having recourse to means such as renunciation and dispassion; but it is not something that is to be originally enjoined, being, as we said, already known as a possible alternative.

तस्मात्प्राप्तविज्ञानस्मृतिसन्ताननियमविध्यर्थानि ‘विज्ञाय प्रज्ञां कुर्वीत’ (BrhU.4.4.21) इत्यादिवाक्यानि, अन्यार्थासम्भवात्।
Hence we conclude that passages such as, ‘(The aspirant after Brahman) knowing about this alone, should attain intuitive knowledge,’ (BrhU.4.4.21) are only meant to lay down the rule that the train of remembrance – already known (as a possible alternative) – of the knowledge of the Self must be kept up, for they can have no other import.

ननु अनात्मोपासनमिदम्, इति-शब्दप्रयोगात्; यथा ‘प्रियमित्येतदुपासीत’ (BrhU.4.1.3) इत्यादौ न प्रियादिगुणा एवोपास्याः, किं तर्हि, प्रियादिगुणवत्प्राणाद्येवोपास्यम्;
Objection: This should be a meditation on the non-Self, for the particle ‘iti’ (‘as’) has been used.
[•The passage under discussion is, ‘Ātmā iti eva upāsīta’ (BrhU.1.4.7)•]
In passages such as, ‘Priyam iti etad upāsīta, It should be meditated upon as dear’ (BrhU.4.1.3), the meaning is not that features such as dearness are to be meditated upon, but that the vital force etc. possessing these features should be meditated upon.

तथा इहापि इति-परात्मशब्दप्रयोगात् आत्मगुणवदनात्मवस्तु उपास्यमिति गम्यते;
Similarly here also, from the use of the particle ‘iti’ along with the word ‘Self’ it is understood that something other than the Self (i.e. the Undifferentiated) but having the features of the Self is to be meditated upon.

आत्मोपास्यत्ववाक्यवैलक्षण्याच्च – परेण च वक्ष्यति – ‘आत्मानमेव लोकमुपासीत’ (BrhU.1.4.15) इति;
Another reason in support of this view is the difference of the passage in question from another where the Self is presented as the object of meditation. For instance, it will be stated later on, ‘One should meditate only upon the world of the Self’ (BrhU.1.4.15).

तत्र च वाक्ये आत्मैवोपास्यत्वेनाभिप्रेतः, द्वितीयाश्रवणात् ‘आत्मानमेव’ इति; इह तु न द्वितीया श्रूयते, इति-परश्च आत्मशब्दः – ‘आत्मेत्येवोपासीत’ (BrhU.1.4.7) इति; अतो न आत्मोपास्यः, आत्मगुणश्चान्यः – इति त्ववगम्यते।
In that passage the Self alone is meant to be the object of meditation, for there is the accusative inflexion in the word ‘Self.’ Here, however, there is no accusative inflexion, but the particle ‘iti’ is used along with the word ‘Self.’ Hence it is understood that the Self is not the object of meditation here, but something else having the features of the Self.

न, वाक्यशेषे आत्मन उपास्यत्वेनावगमात्; अस्यैव वाक्यस्य शेषे आत्मैवोपास्यत्वेनावगम्यते – ‘तदेतत्पदनीयमस्य सर्वस्य, यदयमात्मा’, ‘अन्तरतरं यदयमात्मा’ (BrhU.1.4.8), ‘आत्मानमेवावेत्’ (BrhU.1.4.10) इति।
Reply: No, for at the end of this very passage (this text) the Self alone, we find, is presented as the object of meditation, ‘Of all these, this Self alone should be realized,’ (and elsewhere), ‘This Self which is innermost’ (BrhU.1.4.8), and ‘It knew only Itself’ (BrhU.1.4.10).

प्रविष्टस्य दर्शनप्रतिषेधादनुपास्यत्वमिति चेत् – यस्यात्मनः प्रवेश उक्तः, तस्यैव दर्शनं वार्यते – ‘तं न पश्यन्ति’ इति प्रकृतोपादानात्; तस्मादात्मनोऽनुपास्यत्वमेवेति चेत् –
Objection: The Self is not the object of meditation, for the vision of that which entered is negated. In other words, the Śruti precludes the vision of that very Self whose entrance (into the universe) was described, for the words, ‘People do not see It’ (this text), refer to the Self which is under consideration. Hence the Self is certainly not to be meditated upon.

न, अकृत्स्नत्वदोषात्।
Reply: Not so, for this is because of the defect of incompleteness.

दर्शनप्रतिषेधोऽकृत्स्नत्वदोषाभिप्रायेण, न आत्मोपास्यत्वप्रतिषेधाय; प्राणनादिक्रियाविशिष्टत्वेन विशेषणात्;
In other words, the preclusion of the vision is only to indicate the defect of incompleteness in the Self, not to forbid It as an object of meditation, for It is qualified by possessing the functions of living etc.

आत्मनश्चेदुपास्यत्वमनभिप्रेतम्, प्राणनाद्येकैकक्रियाविशिष्टस्यात्मनोऽकृत्स्नत्ववचनमनर्थकं स्यात् – ‘अकृत्स्नो ह्येषोऽत एकैकेन भवति’ इति।
If the Self were not meant to be the object of meditation, the mention of Its incompleteness when endowed with single functions such as living, in the passage, ‘For It is incomplete (being divided) from this totality by possessing a single characteristic’ (this text), would be meaningless.

अतः अनेकैकविशिष्टस्त्वात्मा कृत्स्नत्वादुपास्य एवेति सिद्धम्।
Hence the conclusion is that Self alone which is not possessed of single features is to be meditated upon, for It is complete.

यस्त्वात्मशब्दस्य इति-परः प्रयोगः, आत्मशब्दप्रत्यययोः आत्मतत्त्वस्य परमार्थतोऽविषयत्वज्ञापनार्थम्;
The use of the particle ‘iti’ along with the word ‘Self,’ to which you referred, only signifies that the truth of the Self is really beyond the scope of the term and the concept ‘Self.’

अन्यथा ‘आत्मानमुपासीत’ इत्येवमवक्ष्यत्; तथा च अर्थात् आत्मनि शब्दप्रत्ययावनुज्ञातौ स्याताम्;
Otherwise the Śruti would only say, ‘Ātmānam upāsīta, One should meditate upon the Self.’ But this would imply that the term and the concept ‘Self’ were permissible with regard to the Self.

तच्चानिष्टम् – ‘नेति नेति’ (BrhU.2.3.6) ‘विज्ञातारमरे केन विजानीयात्’ (BrhU.2.4.14), (BrhU.4.5.15) ‘अविज्ञातं विज्ञातृ’ (BrhU.3.8.11) ‘यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते अप्राप्य मनसा सह’ (TaitU.2.9.1) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः।
That, however, is repugnant to the Śruti. Witness such passages as ‘Not this, not this’ (BrhU.2.3.6), ‘Through what, O Maitreyī, should one know the Knower?’ (BrhU.2.4.14; BrhU.4.5.15), ‘It is never known, but is the Knower’ (BrhU.3.8.11), and ‘Whence speech returns baffled together with the mind’ (TaitU.2.4.1 and TaitU.2.9.1).

यत्तु ‘आत्मानमेव लोकमुपासीत’ (BrhU.1.4.15) इति, तत् अनात्मोपासनप्रसङ्गनिवृत्तिपरत्वात् न वाक्यान्तरम्।
As for the passage, ‘One should meditate only upon the world of the Self,’ since it is meant to preclude the possibility of meditation on things other than the Self, it does not convey a different meaning from the one we have been discussing.

अनिर्ज्ञातत्वसामान्यात् आत्मा ज्ञातव्यः, अनात्मा च। तत्र कस्मादात्मोपासन एव यत्न आस्थीयते – ‘आत्मेत्येवोपासीत’ (BrhU.1.4.7) इति, नेतरविज्ञाने इति;
Objection: Since they are alike incompletely known, the Self and the non-Self are both to be known. Such being the case, why should care be taken to know the Self alone, as is evident from the passage, ‘The Self alone is to be meditated upon,’ and not the other?

अत्रोच्यते – तदेतद् एव प्रकृतम्, पदनीयं गमनीयम्, नान्यत्; अस्य सर्वस्य इति निर्धारणार्था षष्ठी; अस्मिन्सर्वस्मिन्नित्यर्थः; यदयमात्मा यदेतदात्मतत्त्वम्;
Reply: Asya sarvasya, Of all these, tad etad yad ayam ātmā, this – entity called Self, which we are considering padanīyam, alone should be realized, and nothing else. The ‘of’ has a partitive force, meaning ‘among all these.’

किं न विज्ञातव्यमेवान्यत्?
Objection: Is the rest not to be known at all?

न; किं तर्हि, ज्ञातव्यत्वेऽपि न पृथग्ज्ञानान्तरमपेक्षते आत्मज्ञानात्; कस्मात्? अनेन आत्मना ज्ञातेन, हि यस्मात्, एतत्सर्वम् अनात्मजातम् अन्यद्यत् तत्सर्वं समस्तम्, वेद जानाति।
Reply: Not so. Although it is to be known, it does not require a separate knowledge over and above that of the Self. Why? Anena hi etad sarvam veda, For one knows all these – things other than the Self – through It, when the Self is known.

नन्वन्यज्ञानेनान्यन्न ज्ञायत इति;
Objection: But we cannot know one thing by knowing another.

अस्य परिहारं दुन्दुभ्यादिग्रन्थेन वक्ष्यामः।
Reply: We shall answer the point while explaining the passage relating to the drum etc. (BrhU.2.4.7).

कथं पुनरेतत्पदनीयमिति,
Objection: How is the Self the one that should be realized?

उच्यते – यथा ह वै लोके, पदेन – गवादिखुराङ्कितो देशः पदमित्युच्यते, तेन पदेन – नष्टं विवित्सितं पशुं पदेनान्वेषमाणः अनुविन्देत् लभेत; एवम् आत्मनि लब्धे सर्वमनुलभते इत्यर्थः।
Reply: Yathā ha vai, Just as in the world anuvindet, one may get, a missing animal that is wanted back, by searching it padena, through its footprints – ‘foot’ here means the ground with the print of hoof-marks left by a cow etc. – evam, similarly, when the Self is attained, everything is automatically attained. This is the idea.

नन्वात्मनि ज्ञाते सर्वमन्यज्ज्ञायत इति ज्ञाने प्रकृते, कथं लाभोऽप्रकृत उच्यत इति;
Objection: The topic was knowledge – when the Self is known, everything else is known. So why is a different topic, viz. attainment, introduced here?

न, ज्ञानलाभयोरेकार्थत्वस्य विवक्षितत्वात्।
Reply: Not so, for the Śruti uses the words ‘knowledge’ and ‘attainment’ as synonymous.

आत्मनो ह्यलाभोऽज्ञानमेव; तस्माज्ज्ञानमेवात्मनो लाभः;
The non-attainment of the Self is but the ignorance of It. Hence the knowledge of the Self is Its attainment.

न अनात्मलाभवत् अप्राप्तप्राप्तिलक्षण आत्मलाभः, लब्धृलब्धव्ययोर्भेदाभावात्।
The attainment of the Self cannot be, as in the case of things other than It, the obtaining of something not obtained before, for here there is no difference between the person attaining and the object attained.

यत्र ह्यात्मनोऽनात्मा लब्धव्यो भवति, तत्रात्मा लब्धा, लब्धव्योऽनात्मा।
Where the Self has to attain something other than Itself, the Self is the attainer and the non-Self is the object attained.

स चाप्राप्तः उत्पाद्यादिक्रियाव्यवहितः, कारकविशेषोपादानेन क्रियाविशेषमुत्पाद्य लब्धव्यः। स त्वप्राप्तप्राप्तिलक्षणोऽनित्यः, मिथ्याज्ञानजनितकामक्रियाप्रभवत्वात् – स्वप्ने पुत्रादिलाभवत्।
This, not being already attained, is separated by acts such as producing, and is to be attained by the initiation of a particular action with the help of particular auxiliaries. And that attainment of something new is transitory, being due to desire and action that are themselves the product of a false notion, like the birth of a son etc. in a dream.

अयं तु तद्विपरीत आत्मा। आत्मत्वादेव नोत्पाद्यादिक्रियाव्यवहितः।
But this Self is the very opposite of that. By the very fact of Its being the Self, It is not separated by acts such as producing.

नित्यलब्धस्वरूपत्वेऽपि अविद्यामात्रं व्यवधानम्। यथा गृह्यमाणाया अपि शुक्तिकाया विपर्ययेण रजताभासाया अग्रहणं विपरीतज्ञानव्यवधानमात्रम्, तथा ग्रहणं ज्ञानमात्रमेव, विपरीतज्ञानव्यवधानापोहार्थत्वाज्ज्ञानस्य; एवमिहाप्यात्मनोऽलाभः अविद्यामात्रव्यवधानम्;
But although It is always attained, It is separated by ignorance only. Just as when a mother-of-pearl through mistake as a piece of silver, the non-apprehension of the former, although it is being perceived all the while, is merely due to the obstruction of the false impression, and its (subsequent) apprehension is but knowledge, for this is what removes the obstruction of false impression, similarly here also the non-attainment of the Self is merely due to the obstruction of ignorance.

तस्माद्विद्यया तदपोहनमात्रमेव लाभः, नान्यः कदाचिदप्युपपद्यते।
Therefore the attainment of It is simply the removal of that obstruction by knowledge; in no other sense it is consistent.

तस्मादात्मलाभे ज्ञानादर्थान्तरसाधनस्य आनर्थक्यं वक्ष्यामः। तस्मान्निराशङ्कमेव ज्ञानलाभयोरेकार्थत्वं विवक्षन्नाह – ज्ञानं प्रकृत्य – ‘अनुविन्देत्’ इति; विन्दतेर्लाभार्थत्वात्।
Hence we shall explain how for the realization of the Self every other means but knowledge is useless. Therefore the Śruti, wishing to express the indubitable identity of meaning of knowledge and attainment, says after introducing knowledge, ‘anuvindet, may get,’ for the root ‘vid’ also means ‘to get.’

गुणविज्ञानफलमिदमुच्यते – यथा – अयमात्मा नामरूपानुप्रवेशेन ख्यातिं गतः आत्मेत्यादिनामरूपाभ्याम्, प्राणादिसंहतिं च श्लोकं प्राप्तवान् – इति – एवम्, यो वेद; सः कीर्तिं ख्यातिम्, श्लोकं च सङ्घातमिष्टैः सह, विन्दते लभते।
Now the result of meditation on the characteristic is being stated: Yaḥ evam veda, He who knows It as such, knows how this Self, entering into name and form, kīrtim vindate, became famous, through that name and form as the ‘Self,’ and got the association of the vital force etc., and ślokam vindate, obtains association – with his dear ones.

यद्वा यथोक्तं वस्तु यो वेद; मुमुक्षूणामपेक्षितं कीर्तिशब्दितमैक्यज्ञानम्, तत्फलं श्लोकशब्दितां मुक्तिमाप्नोति – इति मुख्यमेव फलम्॥
Or, he who knows the Self as described above obtains Kīrti or the knowledge of unity coveted by seekers of liberation, and Śloka or liberation which results from that knowledge – gets these primary results of knowledge.

कुतश्चात्मतत्त्वमेव ज्ञेयम् अनादृत्यान्यदित्याह – तदेतद् आत्मतत्त्वम्, प्रेयः प्रियतरम्, पुत्रात्;
Here is another reason why the Self should be known to the exclusion of everything else. Tad etad preyaḥ putrāt, this, Self, is dearer than a son:

पुत्रो हि लोके प्रियः प्रसिद्धः, तस्मादपि प्रियतरम् – इति निरतिशयप्रियत्वं दर्शयति; तथा वित्तात् हिरण्यरत्नादेः; तथा अन्यस्मात् यद्यल्लोके प्रियत्वेन प्रसिद्धं तस्मात् सर्वस्मात् इत्यर्थः।
A son is universally held dear in the world; but the Self is dearer than he, which shows that It is extremely dear. Similarly dearer vittāt, than wealth, such as gold or jewels, and anyasmāt sarvasmāt, everything else, whatever is admittedly held dear in the world.

तत्कस्मादात्मतत्त्वमेव प्रियतरं न प्राणादीति, उच्यते – अन्तरतरम् – बाह्यात्पुत्रवित्तादेः प्राणपिण्डसमुदायो हि अन्तरः अभ्यन्तरः सन्निकृष्ट आत्मनः; तस्मादप्यन्तरात् अन्तरतरम्, यदयमात्मा यदेतदात्मतत्त्वम्।
Why is the Self dearer than those things, and not the organs etc.? This is being explained: And is antrataram, innermost. The body and the organs are inner and nearer to oneself than a son or wealth, for instance, which are external things. But yad ayam ātmā, this Self, is nearer (ātma-tattva) than those even.

यो हि लोके निरतिशयप्रियः स सर्वप्रयत्नेन लब्धव्यो भवति; तथा अयमात्मा सर्वलौकिकप्रियेभ्यः प्रियतमः; तस्मात्तल्लाभे महान्यत्न आस्थेय इत्यर्थः – कर्तव्यताप्राप्तमप्यन्यप्रियलाभे यत्नमुज्झित्वा।
A thing which is extremely dear deserves to be attained by the utmost effort. So is this Self, which is dearer than everything else held dear in the world. Therefore one should make the utmost effort to attain It, even abandoning that which is imposed as a duty
[•By the scriptures; e.g. marriage, for the sake of having son•]
on one, for the attainment of other dear objects.

कस्मात्पुनः आत्मानात्मप्रिययोः अन्यतरप्रियहानेन इतरप्रियोपादानप्राप्तौ, आत्मप्रियोपादानेनैवेतरहानं क्रियते, न विपर्ययः
But one may ask, when both Self and non-self are dear, and the choice of one means the rejection of the other, why should the Self alone be chosen to the exclusion of the other, and not inversely?

– इति, उच्यते – स यः कश्चित्, अन्यम् अनात्मविशेषं पुत्रादिकम्, प्रियतरम् आत्मनः सकाशात्, ब्रुवाणम्, ब्रूयाद् आत्मप्रियवादी – किम्? प्रियं तवाभिमतं पुत्रादिलक्षणम्, रोत्स्यति आवरणं प्राणसंरोधं प्राप्स्यति विनङ्क्ष्यति इति;
This is being answered: Saḥ yaḥ brūyāt, Should a person – holding the Self as dear – say, anyam bruvāṇam, to one calling anything else, but the Self, such as a son, priyam ātmanaḥ, dearer than the Self, ‘What you hold dear, for instance, the son, rotsyati iti, will die (lit. will meet with the extinction of life)’

स कस्मादेवं ब्रवीति? यस्माद् ईश्वरः समर्थः पर्याप्तोऽसावेवं वक्तुं ह; यस्मात् तस्मात् तथैव स्यात्; यत्तेनोक्तम् – ‘प्राणसंरोधं प्राप्स्यति’; यथाभूतवादी हि सः, तस्मात्स ईश्वरो वक्तुम्। ईश्वरशब्दः क्षिप्रवाचीति केचित्; भवेद्यदि प्रसिद्धिः स्यात्।
– Why does he say like this? Because īśvaraḥ ha, he is certainly competent, to say so. Hence – tathā eva syāt, it, what he said, will indeed come true, the dear one will die, for he speaks the truth. Therefore he is in a position to say like that. Some say that the word ‘Īśvara’ (competent) means ‘swift.’ It might if it was commonly used in that sense.

तस्मादुज्झित्वान्यत्प्रियम्, आत्मानमेव प्रियमुपासीत। स य आत्मानमेव प्रियमुपास्ते – आत्मैव प्रियो नान्योऽस्तीति प्रतिपद्यते, अन्यल्लौकिकं प्रियमप्यप्रियमेवेति निश्चित्य, उपास्ते चिन्तयति, न हास्य एवंविदः प्रियं प्रमायुकं प्रमरणशीलं भवति।
Therefore, giving up all other dear things, saḥ yaḥ ātmānam eva priyam upāste, one should meditate upon the Self alone as dear. Of him who meditates upon the Self alone as dear, who knows that the Self alone is dear and nothing else, and thinks of It with the full conviction that the other things commonly held dear are really anything but dear – of one possessed of this knowledge, na ha asya priyam pramāyukam bhavati, the dear ones are not mortal (pra-māy-uka, from the root mī, to disappear).

नित्यानुवादमात्रमेतत्, आत्मविदोऽन्यस्य प्रियस्याप्रियस्य च अभावात्;
This is a mere restatement of a universal fact,
[•Viz that everybody has dear ones and suffers when they die. Although the knower of Brahman has no such limited vision and therefore does not suffer on that account, yet he is here described in terms that are merely conventional•]
for a knower of the Self has nothing else to call dear or the opposite.

आत्मप्रियग्रहणस्तुत्यर्थं वा;
Or it may be a eulogy on the choice of the Self as dear (in preference to non-Self);

प्रियगुणफलविधानार्थं वा मन्दात्मदर्शिनः, ताच्छील्यप्रत्ययोपादानात्॥
Or it may be the declaration of a result for one who is an imperfect knower of the Self, if he meditates upon the Self as dear, for a suffix signifying a habit has been used in the word ‘Pramāy-uka’ (mortal).
[•Since mortal things cannot be immortal, it only means that they attain longer life by virtue of this meditation•]

तद् इति वक्ष्यमाणमनन्तरवाक्येऽवद्योत्यं वस्तु – आहुः –
Tad āhuḥ, they say ‘tat’ (that) – is preparatory to what is going to be unfolded in the next clause.

ब्राह्मणाः ब्रह्म विविदिषवः जन्मजरामरणप्रबन्धचक्रभ्रमणकृतायासदुःखोदकापारमहोदधिप्लवभूतं गुरुमासाद्य तत्तीरमुत्तितीर्षवः धर्माधर्मसाधनतत्फललक्षणात् साध्यसाधनरूपान्निर्विण्णाः तद्विलक्षणनित्यनिरतिशयश्रेयःप्रतिपित्सवः;
‘They’ refers to those seekers of Brahman who, on getting a teacher who is like a boat on that boundless ocean which has for its water the painful struggle due to rotation in the cycle of birth, decay and death, desire to cross that ocean, and being disgusted with the world of means and ends consisting of righteousness and unrighteousness, their means and their results, long to attain the eternal, supreme good which is entirely, different from the above.

किमाहुरित्याह – यद्ब्रह्मविद्यया; ब्रह्म परमात्मा, तत् यया वेद्यते सा ब्रह्मविद्या तया ब्रह्मविद्यया, सर्वं निरवशेषम्, भविष्यन्तः भविष्याम इत्येवम्, मनुष्या यत् मन्यन्ते; मनुष्यग्रहणं विशेषतोऽधिकारज्ञापनार्थम्; मनुष्या एव हि विशेषतोऽभ्युदयनिःश्रेयससाधनेऽधिकृता इत्यभिप्रायः;
What do they say? This is being stated: Manuṣyāḥ manyante, Men think, ‘Yad brahma-vidyayā, Through the knowledge of Brahman, or the Supreme Self, sarvam bhaviṣyantaḥ, we shall become all, excluding nothing.’ The use of the word ‘men’
[•Manuṣya, humans, unlike other creatures lacking adequate buddhi.•]
indicates their special aptitude for this as they are specially qualified for the achievement of prosperity and liberation. This is the idea.

यथा कर्मविषये फलप्राप्तिं ध्रुवां कर्मभ्यो मन्यन्ते, तथा ब्रह्मविद्यायाः सर्वात्मभावफलप्राप्तिं ध्रुवामेव मन्यन्ते, वेदप्रामाण्यस्योभयत्राविशेषात्;
As those seekers think with regard to rites that they would bring sure results, similarly they think that the knowledge of Brahman is sure to lead to identity with all, for the Vedas are equally the authority for both.

तत्र विप्रतिषिद्धं वस्तु लक्ष्यते; अतः पृच्छामः – किमु तद्ब्रह्म, यस्य विज्ञानात्सर्वं भविष्यन्तो मनुष्या मन्यन्ते? तत्किम् अवेत्, यस्माद् विज्ञानात् तद् ब्रह्म सर्वमभवत्? ब्रह्म च सर्वमिति श्रूयते,
Now this seems to be something inconsistent, hence we ask, kim u tad brahma avet, what did that Brahman – by knowing which men think they will become all – know, yasmāt tad sarvam abhavat, by which It became all? And the Śrutis say that It is all.

तत् यदि अविज्ञाय किञ्चित्सर्वमभवत्, तथान्येषामप्यस्तु; किं ब्रह्मविद्यया?
If It became all without knowing anything, let it be the same with others too, what is the use of the knowledge of Brahman?

अथ विज्ञाय सर्वमभवत्, विज्ञानसाध्यत्वात्कर्मफलेन तुल्यमेवेत्यनित्यत्वप्रसङ्गः सर्वभावस्य ब्रह्मविद्याफलस्य;
If, on the other hand, It became all by knowing something, then this identity with all which is the result of the knowledge of Brahman, being the product of knowledge, becomes just like the result of an action, and therefore transitory.

अनवस्थादोषश्च – तदप्यन्यद्विज्ञाय सर्वमभवत्, ततः पूर्वमप्यन्यद्विज्ञायेति।
There would also be a regressus in infinitum, viz. that too had become all by knowing something else, that earlier thing, again, by knowing something else, and so on.

न तावदविज्ञाय सर्वमभवत्, शास्त्रार्थवैरूप्यदोषात्।
We take it for granted than It did not become all without knowing something, for that would be distorting the meaning of the scriptures.

फलानित्यत्वदोषस्तर्हि?
But the charge of the result being transitory stands, does it not?

नैकोऽपि दोषः, अर्थविशेषोपपत्तेः॥
– Nor, none of those charges can be levelled at it, for there is a particular meaning to it.

ब्रह्म अपरम्, सर्वभावस्य साध्यत्वोपपत्तेः; न हि परस्य ब्रह्मणः सर्वभावापत्तिर्विज्ञानसाध्या;
Prima facie view: Brahman here must be the conditioned (a-param) Brahman (The view of an earlier commentator (Vṛtti-kāra), for then only can the identity with all be the product of effort. The Supreme Brahman cannot become all as a result of knowledge.

विज्ञानसाध्यां च सर्वभावापत्तिमाह – ‘तस्मात्तत्सर्वमभवत्’ इति; तस्माद्ब्रह्म वा इदमग्र आसीत् इत्यपरं ब्रह्मेह भवितुमर्हति।
But this identity with all is spoken of as a result of knowledge: ‘Therefore It became all.’ Hence the Brahman referred to in the passage, ‘This was indeed Brahman in the beginning,’ must be the conditioned Brahman.

मनुष्याधिकाराद्वा तद्भावी ब्राह्मणः स्यात्; ‘सर्वं भविष्यन्तो मनुष्या मन्यन्ते’ इति हि मनुष्याः प्रकृताः; तेषां च अभ्युदयनिःश्रेयससाधने विशेषतोऽधिकार इत्युक्तम्, न परस्य ब्रह्मणो नाप्यपरस्य प्रजापतेः;
Or, since men alone are qualified (for this identification with all), the word ‘Brahman’ may refer to a future knower of Brahman who will be identified with It. For in the passage, ‘Men think … we shall become all’ (BrhU.1.4.9), men have been introduced, and it has already been said that they alone are specially qualified for the practice of the means of prosperity and liberation – neither the Supreme Brahman nor Hiraṇya-garbha, the conditioned Brahman.

अतो द्वैतैकत्वापरब्रह्मविद्यया कर्मसहितया अपरब्रह्मभावमुपसम्पन्नो भोज्यादपावृत्तः सर्वप्राप्त्योच्छिन्नकामकर्मबन्धनः परब्रह्मभावी ब्रह्मविद्याहेतोर्ब्रह्मेत्यभिधीयते;
Therefore by the word ‘Brahman’ is meant a man who through the knowledge of the conditioned Brahman – identified with the whole universe – combined with rites, attained identity with the conditioned Brahman (Hiraṇya-garbha), and turning away from all enjoyments (in that state) and having broken his ties of desire and action by attaining everything, sought unity with the Supreme Brahman through the knowledge of It.

दृष्टश्च लोके भाविनीं वृत्तिमाश्रित्य शब्दप्रयोगः – यथा ‘ओदनं पचति’ इति, शास्त्रे च – ‘परिव्राजकः सर्वभूताभयदक्षिणाम्’ इत्यादि,
It is a common occurrence in the world that words are used having reference to future states, as in the sentence, ‘They are cooking rice (‘Rice’ here means the cooked grains),’ and in the scriptures too, ‘The monk (He can be a monk only after the sacrifice), after performing a sacrifice in which wishing fearlessness to all beings is his fee to the priests,’ etc. (VasSmrt.10).

तथा इह – इति केचित् – ब्रह्म ब्रह्मभावी पुरुषो ब्राह्मणः इति व्याचक्षते।
Similarly here also Brahman means a man desiring to know Brahman and aspiring identity with It. This is the view of some (Bhartṛ-prapañca, another commentator).

तन्न, सर्वभावापत्तेरनित्यत्वदोषात्। न हि सोऽस्ति लोके परमार्थतः, यो निमित्तवशाद्भावान्तरमापद्यते नित्यश्चेति।
Reply: Not so, for that kind of identity with all would be open to the charge of transitoriness. There is no such thing in the world that really assumes a different state through some cause and still is eternal.

तथा ब्रह्मविज्ञाननिमित्तकृता चेत्सर्वभावापत्तिः, नित्या चेति विरुद्धम्। अनित्यत्वे च कर्मफलतुल्यतेत्युक्तो दोषः।
Similarly, if identity with all be due to the knowledge of Brahman, it cannot at the same time be eternal. And if it be transitory, it would be, as we have already said, like the result of an action.

अविद्याकृतासर्वत्वनिवृत्तिं चेत्सर्वभावापत्तिं ब्रह्मविद्याफलं मन्यसे, ब्रह्मभाविपुरुषकल्पना व्यर्था स्यात्।
But if by identity with all you mean the cessation, through the knowledge of Brahman, of that idea of not being all which is due to ignorance, then it would be futile to understand by the term ‘Brahman’ a man who will be Brahman.

प्राग्ब्रह्मविज्ञानादपि सर्वो जन्तुर्ब्रह्मत्वान्नित्यमेव सर्वभावापन्नः परमार्थतः; अविद्यया तु अब्रह्मत्वमसर्वत्वं चाध्यारोपितम् – यथा शुक्तिकायां रजतम्, व्योम्नि वा तलमलवत्त्वादि;
Even before knowing Brahman, everybody, being Brahman, is really always identical with all, but ignorance superimposes on him the idea that he is not Brahman and not all, as a mother-of-pearl is mistaken for silver, or as the sky is imagined to be concave, or blue, or the like.

तथेह ब्रह्मण्यध्यारोपितमविद्यया अब्रह्मत्वमसर्वत्वं च ब्रह्मविद्यया निवर्त्यते – इति मन्यसे यदि, तदा युक्तम् – यत्परमार्थत आसीत्परं ब्रह्म, ब्रह्मशब्दस्य मुख्यार्थभूतम् ‘ब्रह्म वा इदमग्र आसीत्’ इत्यस्मिन्वाक्ये उच्यत इति वक्तुम्; यथाभूतार्थवादित्वाद्वेदस्य।
Similarly, if you think that here also the idea of not being Brahman and not being all that has been superimposed on Brahman by ignorance, is removed by the knowledge of Brahman, then, since the Vedas speak the truth, it is proper to say that what was really the Supreme Brahman is referred to in the sentence, ‘This was indeed Brahman in the beginning,’ for that is the primary meaning of the word ‘Brahman.’

न त्वियं कल्पना युक्ता – ब्रह्मशब्दार्थविपरीतो ब्रह्मभावी पुरुषो ब्रह्मेत्युच्यत इति, श्रुतहान्यश्रुतकल्पनाया अन्याय्यत्वात्
But one must not think that the word ‘Brahman’ here means a man who will be Brahman, which would be contrary to the meaning of that term. For it is wrong to give up the plain meaning of a word used in the Śruti and put a new meaning in its place, unless there is a higher purpose behind it.

– महत्तरे प्रयोजनान्तरेऽसति अविद्याकृतव्यतिरेकेणाब्रह्मत्वमसर्वत्वं च विद्यत एवेति चेत्,
Objection: But the fact of not being Brahman and not being all exists apart from the creation of ignorance.

न, तस्य ब्रह्मविद्ययापोहानुपपत्तेः। न हि क्वचित्साक्षाद्वस्तुधर्मस्यापोढ्री दृष्टा कर्त्री वा ब्रह्मविद्या, अविद्यायास्तु सर्वत्रैव निवर्तिका दृश्यते;
Reply: No, for then it cannot be removed by the knowledge of Brahman. This knowledge has never been observed either directly to remove some characteristic of a thing or to create one. But everywhere it is seen to remove ignorance.

तथा इहाप्यब्रह्मत्वमसर्वत्वं चाविद्याकृतमेव निवर्त्यतां ब्रह्मविद्यया; न तु पारमार्थिकं वस्तु कर्तुं निवर्तयितुं वा अर्हति ब्रह्मविद्या। तस्माद्व्यर्थैव श्रुतहान्यश्रुतकल्पना।
Similarly here also let the idea of not being Brahman and not being all that is due to ignorance, be removed by the knowledge of Brahman, but it can neither create nor put a stop to a real entity. Hence it is entirely futile to give up the plain meaning of a word used in the Śruti and put a new meaning in its place.

ब्रह्मण्यविद्यानुपपत्तिरिति चेत्,
Objection: But is not ignorance out of place in Brahman?

न, ब्रह्मणि विद्याविधानात्। न हि शुक्तिकायां रजताध्यारोपणेऽसति शुक्तिकात्वं ज्ञाप्यते – चक्षुर्गोचरापन्नायाम् – ‘इयं शुक्तिका न रजतम्’ इति।
Reply: Not so, for knowledge regarding Brahman has been enjoined. When there has been no superimposition of silver on a mother-or-pearl, and it is directly visible, no one takes the trouble to say it is a mother-of-pearl, and not silver.

तथा ‘सदेवेदं सर्वम्’ (ChanU.6.8.7) ‘ब्रह्मैवेदं सर्वम्’ (?) ‘आत्मैवेदं सर्वम्’ (ChanU.7.25.2) ‘नेदं द्वैतमस्त्यब्रह्म’ (?) इति ब्रह्मण्येकत्वविज्ञानं न विधातव्यम्, ब्रह्मण्यविद्याध्यारोपणायामसत्याम्।
Similarly, were there no superimposition of ignorance on Brahman, the knowledge of unity regarding Brahman would not be enjoined in such terms as the following: All this is Existence, All this is Brahman (Adapted from ChanU.6.2.1 and MunU.2.2.11 respectively). ‘All this is the Self’ (ChanU.7.25.2), and This duality has no existence apart from Brahman (An echo of BrhU.4.4.19).

न ब्रूमः – शुक्तिकायामिव ब्रह्मण्यतद्धर्माध्यारोपणा नास्तीति; किं तर्हि न ब्रह्म स्वात्मन्यतद्धर्माध्यारोपनिमित्तम् अविद्याकर्तृ चेति
Objection: We do not say that there is no superimposition on Brahman of attributes not belonging to It, as in the case of a mother-of-pearl, but that Brahman is not the cause of the superimposition of these attributes on Itself, nor the author of ignorance.

– भवत्येवं नाविद्याकर्तृ भ्रान्तं च ब्रह्म।
Reply: Let it be so. Brahman is not the author of ignorance nor subject to error.

किन्तु नैव अब्रह्म अविद्यकर्ता चेतनो भ्रान्तोऽन्य इष्यते – ‘नान्योऽतोऽस्ति विज्ञाता’ (BrhU.3.7.23) ‘नान्यदतोऽस्ति विज्ञातृ’ (BrhU.3.8.11) ‘तत्त्वमसि’ (ChanU.6.8.7) ‘आत्मानमेवावेत् अहं ब्रह्मास्मि’ (BrhU.1.4.10) ‘अन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति, न स वेद’ (BrhU.1.4.10) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः; स्मृतिभ्यश्च – ‘समं सर्वेषु भूतेषु’ (BhG.13.27) ‘अहमात्मा गुडाकेश’ (BhG.10.20) ‘शुनि चैव श्वपाके च’ (BhG.5.18); ‘यस्तु सर्वाणि भूतानि’ (IsU.6) ‘यस्मिन्सर्वाणि भूतानि’ (IsU.7) इति च मन्त्रवर्णात्।
But it is not admitted that there is any other conscious entity but Brahman which is the author of ignorance or subject to error. Witness such Śruti texts as, ‘There is no other knower but Him’ (BrhU.3.7.23), ‘There is no other knower but This’ (BrhU.3.8.11), ‘Thou art That’ (ChanU.6.8.7), ‘It knew only Itself as, “I am Brahman” ’ (BrhU.1.4.10), and ‘He (who worships another god thinking), “He is one, and I am another,” does not know’ (BrhU.1.4.10). And the Smṛtis: ‘(Living) the same in all beings’ (BhG.13.27), ‘I am the self, O Arjuna (dwelling in the minds of all beings)’ (BhG.10.20), and ‘(Wise men are even-minded) to a dog as well as a Caṇḍāla’ (BhG.5.18). And the Veda mantras:
[•Iśāvāsya Upaniṣad is held to be part of the Veda Saṃhita proper, not of a following Brāhmaṇa•]
‘He who (sees) all beings (in himself)’ (IsU.6), and ‘When all beings (have become his self)’ (IsU.7).

नन्वेवं शास्त्रोपदेशानर्थक्यमिति;
Objection: In that case scriptural instruction is useless.

बाढमेवम्, अवगते अस्त्वेवानर्थक्यम्।
Reply: Quite so, let it be, when the truth has been known.

अवगमानर्थक्यमपीति चेत्,
Objection: But it is also useless to know the truth.

न, अनवगमनिवृत्तेर्दृष्टत्वात्।
Reply: No, for we see it removes ignorance.

तन्निवृत्तेरप्यनुपपत्तिरेकत्व इति चेत्,
Objection: If there is unity, this removal of ignorance also is impossible.

न, दृष्टविरोधात्; दृश्यते ह्येकत्वविज्ञानादेवानवगमनिवृत्तिः;
Reply: Not so, for it contradicts experience. We actually see that the knowledge of unity alone dispels ignorance.

दृश्यमानमप्यनुपपन्नमिति ब्रुवतो दृष्टविरोधः स्यात्; न च दृष्टविरोधः केनचिदप्यभ्युपगम्यते; न च दृष्टेऽनुपपन्नं नाम, दृष्टत्वादेव।
If you deny an observed fact, saying it is impossible, you would be contradicting experience, a thing which nobody will allow. Nor is there any question of impossibility with regard to an observed fact, because it has actually been observed.

दर्शनानुपपत्तिरिति चेत्,
Objection: But this observation also is impossible.

तत्राप्येषैव युक्तिः।
Reply: There also the same logic will apply.

‘पुण्यो वै पुण्येन कर्मणा भवति’ (BrhU.3.2.13) ‘तं विद्याकर्मणी समन्वारभेते’ (BrhU.4.4.2) ‘मन्ता बोद्धा कर्ता विज्ञानात्मा पुरुषः’ (PrasU.4.9) इत्येवमादिश्रुतिस्मृतिन्यायेभ्यः परस्माद्विलक्षणोऽन्यः संसार्यवगम्यते;
Objection: ‘One indeed becomes good through good work’ (BrhU.3.2.13), ‘It is followed by knowledge, work’ (BrhU.4.4.2), ‘The individual self, the Puruṣa, is a thinker, knower and doer’ (PrasU.4.9) – from such Śruti and Smṛti texts as well as from reason we know that there is a transmigrating self other than and distinct from the Supreme Self.

तद्विलक्षणश्च परः ‘स एष नेति नेति’ (BrhU.2.3.6) ‘अशनायाद्यत्येति’ (BrhU.3.5.1) ‘य आत्मापहतपाप्मा विजरो विमृत्युः’ (ChanU.8.7.1) ‘एतस्य वा अक्षरस्य प्रशासने’ (BrhU.3.8.9) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः;
And the latter is known to be distinct from the former from such Śruti texts as the following: ‘This (Self) is That which has been described as “Not this, not this,” ’ (BrhU.2.3.6), ‘It transcends hunger etc. (Adapted from BrhU.3.5.1),’ ‘The Self that is sinless, undecaying, deathless’ (ChanU.8.7.1), and ‘Under the mighty rule of this Immutable’ (BrhU.3.8.9).

कणादाक्षपादादितर्कशास्त्रेषु च संसारिविलक्षण ईश्वर उपपत्तितः साध्यते;
Again, in the systems of logic (Vaiśeṣika and Nyāya) advocated by Kaṇāda and Gautama, the existence of a God distinct from the transmigrating self is established through argument.

संसारदुःखापनयार्थित्वप्रवृत्तिदर्शनात् स्फुटमन्यत्वम् ईश्वरात् संसारिणोऽवगम्यते; ‘अवाक्यनादरः’ (ChanU.3.14.2) ‘न मे पार्थास्ति’ (BhG.3.32) इति श्रुतिस्मृतिभ्यः;
That the latter is different from God is clearly seen from its activity due to its desire to get rid of the misery of relative existence. Also from such Śruti and Smṛti texts as: ‘It is without speech and without zeal’ (ChanU.3.14.2), and ‘I have no duties, O Arjuna’ (BhG.3.32).

‘सोऽन्वेष्टव्यः स विजिज्ञासितव्यः’ (ChanU.8.7.1) ‘तं विदित्वा न लिप्यते’ (BrhU.4.4.23) ‘ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परम्’ (TaitU.2.1.1) ‘एकधैवानुद्रष्टव्यमेतत्’ (BrhU.4.4.20) ‘यो वा एतदक्षरं गार्ग्यविदित्वा’ (BrhU.3.8.10) ‘तमेव धीरो विज्ञाय’ (BrhU.4.4.21) ‘प्रणवो धनुः, शरो ह्यात्मा, ब्रह्म तल्लक्ष्यमुच्यते’ (MunU.2.2.4) इत्यादिकर्मकर्तृनिर्देशाच्च;
And from the distinct mention of God as the object of search and the individual self as the seeker, in such (Śruti) passages as: ‘That is to be sought, and That one should desire to realize’ (ChanU.8.7.1, .3), ‘Knowing It one is not touched (by evil action)’ (BrhU.4.4.23), ‘The knower of Brahman attains the highest’ (TaitU.2.1.1), ‘It should be realized in one form only’ (BrhU.4.4.20), ‘He, O Gārgī, who without knowing this Immutable’ (BrhU.3.8.10), ‘Knowing It alone, the sage’ (BrhU.4.4.21), and ‘The syllable Om is called the bow, the individual self the arrow, and Brahman the target’ (MunU.2.2.4).

मुमुक्षोश्च गतिमार्गविशेषदेशोपदेशात्; असति भेदे कस्य कुतो गतिः स्यात्? तदभावे च दक्षिणोत्तरमार्गविशेषानुपपत्तिः गन्तव्यदेशानुपपत्तिश्चेति; भिन्नस्य तु परस्मात् आत्मनः सर्वमेतदुपपन्नम्;
Another reason for the difference is the mention of a journey, particular routes and a destination for a seeker of liberation. If there is no difference, who should make the journey and how, and in the absence of this, two particular routes, viz. the southern and northern, are meaningless, and the destination as well. But if the individual self is different from the Supreme Self, all this would be consistent.

कर्मज्ञानसाधनोपदेशाच्च – भिन्नश्चेद्ब्रह्मणः संसारी स्यात्, युक्तस्तं प्रत्यभ्युदयनिःश्रेयससाधनयोः कर्मज्ञानयोरुपदेशः, नेश्वरस्य आप्तकामत्वात्;
Also they must be different because the scriptures prescribe the two means, viz. rites and knowledge. If the individual self is different from Brahman, the teaching of rites and knowledge as means to prosperity and liberation respectively may aptly apply to it, but not to God, for the objects of His desire are eternally attained.

तस्माद्युक्तं ब्रह्मेति ब्रह्मभावी पुरुष उच्यत इति चेत् –
Therefore it is proper to understand the word ‘Brahman’ in the sense of a man aspiring to be Brahman.

न, ब्रह्मोपदेशानर्थक्यप्रसङ्गात् – संसारी चेद्ब्रह्मभावी अब्रह्म सन्, विदित्वात्मानमेव अहं ब्रह्मास्मीति, सर्वमभवत्; तस्य संसार्यात्मविज्ञानादेव सर्वात्मभावस्य फलस्य सिद्धत्वात्परब्रह्मोपदेशस्य ध्रुवमानर्थक्यं प्राप्तम्। तद्विज्ञानस्य क्वचित्पुरुषार्थसाधनेऽविनियोगात्
Reply: No, for then instruction about Brahman would be useless. If a man subject to transmigration and only aspiring to be identified with Brahman became all by knowing himself to be Brahman, although he was not It, then instruction about the Supreme Brahman is certainly useless, for he attained identity with all as a result of knowing only the transmigrating self, and the knowledge of the Supreme Brahman is never utilized (By scriptural injunctions, making it a subsidiary part of rites) for attaining human ends.

संसारिण एव – अहं ब्रह्मास्मीति – ब्रह्मत्वसम्पादनार्थ उपदेश इति चेत् –
Objection: The instruction is only meant for the man subject to transmigration, so that he may practice the meditation based on resemblance
[•This is a kind of meditation known as ‘Sampad’, in which an inferior thing is thought of as a superior thing through some common features, often fanciful.•]
with regard to Brahman as, ‘I am Brahman.’

अनिर्ज्ञाते हि ब्रह्मस्वरूपे किं सम्पादयेत् – अहं ब्रह्मास्मीति? निर्ज्ञातलक्षणे हि ब्रह्मणि शक्या सम्पत्कर्तुम्
For if he does not fully know the nature of Brahman, with what can he identify himself in fancy as, ‘I am Brahman’? This meditation based on resemblance is possible only when the characteristics of Brahman are fully known.

– न ‘अयमात्मा ब्रह्म’ (BrhU.2.5.19) ‘यत्साक्षादपरोक्षाद्ब्रह्म’‘य आत्मा’ (BrhU.3.4.1) ‘तत्सत्यं स आत्मा’ (ChanU.6.8.7) ‘ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परम्’ (TaitU.2.1.1) इति प्रकृत्य ‘तस्माद्वा एतस्मादात्मनः’ (TaitU.2.1.1) इति सहस्रशो ब्रह्मात्मशब्दयोः सामानाधिकरण्यात् एकार्थत्वमेवेत्यवगम्यते;
Reply: Not so, for we know that the words ‘Brahman’ and ‘self’ are synonymous, being used thousands of times in co-ordination in such texts as the following: ‘This self is Brahman’ (BrhU.2.5.19; ManU.2), ‘The Brahman that is immediate and direct’ (BrhU.3.4.1–2; BrhU.3.5.1), ‘It is truth, It is the Self’ (ChanU.6.8.7 etc.) and ‘The knower of Brahman attains the highest’ (TaitU.2.1.1), these last introductory words (in TaitU.2.1.1) being shortly after followed by the words, ‘From this Self,’ etc. (to TaitU.2.1.1).

अन्यस्य वै अन्यत्र सम्पत् क्रियते, नैकत्वे; ‘इदं सर्वं यदयमात्मा’ (BrhU.2.4.6) इति च प्रकृतस्यैव द्रष्टव्यस्यात्मन एकत्वं दर्शयति; तस्मान्नात्मनो ब्रह्मत्वसम्पदुपपत्तिः।
The meditation based on resemblance is performed when the two things concerned are different, not when they are identical. And the sentence, ‘This all is the Self’ (BrhU.2.4.6), shows the unity of the Self under consideration that is to be realized. Therefore the Self cannot be regarded as Brahman through the meditation based on resemblance.

न चाप्यन्यत्प्रयोजनं ब्रह्मोपदेशस्य गम्यते; ‘ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति’ (MunU.3.2.9) ‘अभयं हि जनक प्राप्तोऽसि’ (BrhU.4.2.4) ‘अभयं हि वै ब्रह्म भवति’ (BrhU.4.4.25) इति च तदापत्तिश्रवणात्।
Nor do we see any other necessity for instruction about Brahman, for the Śruti mentions identification with It in the passages, ‘(He who) knows (that Supreme) Brahman becomes Brahman’ (BrhU.3.2.9), ‘You have attained That which is free from fear, O Janaka’ (BrhU.4.2.4), and ‘He … becomes the fearless Brahman’ (BrhU.4.4.25).

सम्पत्तिश्चेत्, तदापत्तिर्न स्यात्। न ह्यन्यस्यान्यभाव उपपद्यते।
If the meditation based on resemblance were meant, this identity would not take place, for one thing cannot become another.

वचनात्, सम्पत्तेरपि तद्भावापत्तिः स्यादिति चेत्,
Objection: On the strength of scriptural statements, even the meditation based on resemblance may led to identity.

न, सम्पत्तेः प्रत्ययमात्रत्वात्। विज्ञानस्य च मिथ्याज्ञाननिवर्तकत्वव्यतिरेकेणाकारकत्वमित्यवोचाम।
Reply: No, for this meditation is only an idea. And knowledge, as we have said, only removes the false notion, it does not create anything.

च वचनं वस्तुनः सामर्थ्यजनकम्। ज्ञापकं हि शास्त्रं न कारकमिति स्थितिः।
Nor can a scriptural statement impart any power to a thing. For it is an accepted principle that the scriptures are only informative, not creative.
[•They only give first-hand information about things unknown. They do not produce anything new.•]

‘स एष इह प्रविष्टः’ (BrhU.1.4.7) इत्यादिवाक्येषु च परस्यैव प्रवेश इति स्थितम्। तस्माद्ब्रह्मेति न ब्रह्मभाविपुरुषकल्पना साध्वी।
Besides, in the passage, ‘This Self has entered into these bodies,’ etc. (BrhU.1.4.7), it is clear that the Supreme Self alone has entered. Therefore the view that the word ‘Brahman’ means a man who will be Brahman, is not a sound one.

इष्टार्थबाधनाच्च – सैन्धवघनवदनन्तरमबाह्यमेकरसं ब्रह्म – इति विज्ञानं सर्वस्यामुपनिषदि प्रतिपिपादयिषितार्थः – काण्डद्वयेऽप्यन्तेऽवधारणात् – अवगम्यते – ‘इत्यनुशासनम्’ (BrhU.2.5.19) ‘एतावदरे खल्वमृतत्वम्’ (BrhU.4.5.15) इति;
Another reason is that it contradicts the intended meaning. The desired import of this whole Upaniṣad is the knowledge that Brahman is without interior or exterior and homogeneous like a lump of salt, as is known from, the assertion, made at the end of both Madhu and Muni Kāṇḍas (Consisting of chapter 1 – 2 and 3 – 4 respectively), ‘This is the teaching’ (BrhU.2.5.19), and ‘This much indeed is (the means of) immortality, my dear’ (BrhU.4.5.15).

तथा सर्वशाखोपनिषत्सु च ब्रह्मैकत्वविज्ञानं निश्चितोऽर्थः;
Similarly, in the Upaniṣads of all recensions the knowledge of the unity of Brahman (self) is the certain import.

तत्र यदि संसारी ब्रह्मणोऽन्य आत्मानमेवावेत् – इति कल्प्येत, इष्टस्यार्थस्य बाधनं स्यात्, तथा च शास्त्रमुपक्रमोपसंहारयोर्विरोधादसमञ्जसं कल्पितं स्यात्।
If, therefore, the passage in question is interpreted to mean that the transmigrating self, which is different from Brahman, knew itself, the desired meaning of the Upaniṣads would be contradicted. And in that case the scripture, having its beginning and end not tallying with each other, would be considered inconsistent.

व्यपदेशानुपपत्तेश्च – यदि च ‘आत्मानमेवावेत्’ इति संसारी कल्प्येत, ‘ब्रह्मविद्या’ इति व्यपदेशो न स्यात् आत्मानमेवावेदिति, संसारिण एव वेद्यत्वोपपत्तेः।
Moreover, the name would be out of place. In other words, if in the passage, ‘It knew only Itself’, the word ‘It’ is supposed to refer to the transmigrating self, the name given to the knowledge would not be ‘the knowledge of Brahman,’ for then, ‘It knew only Itself,’ should mean that the transmigrating self was the entity that was known.

‘आत्मा’ इति वेत्तुरन्यदुच्यत इति चेत्,
Objection: Suppose we say that the word ‘Self’ refers to an entity other than the knower.
[•Which, according to the opponent, is the individual self. Hence the entity known would be Brahman, thus justifying the name of the knowledge.•]

न, ‘अहं ब्रह्मास्मि’ इति विशेषणात्; अन्यश्चेद्वेद्यः स्यात्, ‘अयमसौ’ इति वा विशेष्येत, न तु ‘अहमस्मि’ इति।
Reply: Not so, for there is the specification, ‘I am Brahman.’ If the entity known were other than the knower, the specification should be, ‘It is Brahman,’ or ‘That is Brahman,’ and not ‘I am Brahman.’

‘अहमस्मि’ इति विशेषणात् ‘आत्मानमेवावेत्’ इति च अवधारणात् निश्चितम् आत्मैव ब्रह्मेति अवगम्यते; तथा च सति उपपन्नो ब्रह्मविद्याव्यपदेशः, नान्यथा; संसारिविद्या ह्यन्यथा स्यात्;
But since it is, ‘I am Brahman,’ and there is the assertion, ‘It knew only Itself,’ we know it for certain that the self is Brahman. And then only the name ‘the knowledge of Brahman’ would be appropriate, not otherwise. In the other case it would be ‘the knowledge of the transmigrating self.’

न च ब्रह्मत्वाब्रह्मत्वे ह्येकस्योपपन्ने परमार्थतः तमःप्रकाशाविव भानोः विरुद्धत्वात्;
Nor can the same entity really be both Brahman and not Brahman, just as the sun cannot be both bright and dark, for these are contradictory features.

न चोभयनिमित्तत्वे ब्रह्मविद्येति निश्चितो व्यपदेशो युक्तः, तदा ब्रह्मविद्या संसारिविद्या च स्यात्;
And if both were the cause of the name, there should not be the sure appellation ‘the knowledge of Brahman.’ It should then be ‘the knowledge of Brahman and of the transmigrating self.’

न च वस्तुनोऽर्धजरतीयत्वं कल्पयितुं युक्तं तत्त्वज्ञानविवक्षायाम्, श्रोतुः संशयो हि तथा स्यात्;
Nor in proceeding to expound the knowledge of Truth should one present the reality as an absurdity, like a woman, for instance, being one-half old and one-half young. That will only cause doubt in the mind of the listener.

निश्चितं च ज्ञानं पुरुषार्थसाधनमिष्यते – ‘यस्य स्यादद्धा न विचिकित्सास्ति’ (ChanU.3.14.4) ‘संशयात्मा विनश्यति’ (BhG.4.40) इति श्रुतिस्मृतिभ्याम्। अतो न संशयितो वाक्यार्थो वाच्यः परहितार्थिना।
Whereas it is sure knowledge that is regarded as leading to liberation, the goal of human life, as is evidenced by the following Śruti and Smṛti texts: ‘He who really has (the conviction that he will attain the conditioned Brahman after death) and has no doubt about it (does attain him)’ (ChanU.3.14.4), and ‘The doubting man perishes’ (BhG.4.40). Hence one who wishes to do good to others should not use expressions of a doubtful import.

ब्रह्मणि साधकत्वकल्पनास्मदादिष्विव, अपेशला – ‘तदात्मानमेवावेत्तस्मात्तत्सर्वमभवत्’ इति – इति चेत्,
Objection: To think that Brahman, like us, is a seeker of liberation, is not proper, and that is what we see in the passage, ‘It knew only Itself … Therefore It became all.

न, शास्त्रोपालम्भात्;
Reply: Not so, for by saying this you will be flouting the scriptures.

न ह्यस्मत्कल्पनेयम्; शास्त्रकृता तु; तस्माच्छास्त्रस्यायमुपालम्भः;
It is not our idea, but that of the scriptures. Hence your fling hits them.

न च ब्रह्मण इष्टं चिकीर्षुणा शास्त्रार्थविपरीतकल्पनया स्वार्थपरित्यागः कार्यः।
And you who wish to please Brahman should not give up the real meaning of the scriptures by fancying things contrary to it.

न चैतावत्येवाक्षमा युक्ता भवतः; सर्वं हि नानात्वं ब्रह्मणि कल्पितमेव ‘एकधैवानुद्रष्टव्यम्’ (BrhU.4.4.20) ‘नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन’ (BrhU.4.4.19) ‘यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति’ (BrhU.4.5.15) ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (ChanU.6.2.1) इत्यादिवाक्यशतेभ्यः, सर्वो हि लोकव्यवहारो ब्रह्मण्येव कल्पितो न परमार्थः सन् – इत्यत्यल्पमिदमुच्यते – इयमेव कल्पनापेशलेति।
Nor should you lose your patience over this much only, for all plurality is but imagined in Brahman, as we know from hundreds of texts like the following: ‘It should be realized in one form only’ (BrhU.4.4.20), ‘There is no difference whatsoever in Brahman’ (BrhU.4.4.19; KathU.2.1.11), ‘When there is duality, as it were’ (BrhU.2.4.14; BrhU.4.5.15), and ‘One only without a second’ (ChanU.6.2.1). Since the whole phenomenal world is imagined in Brahman alone and is not real, you say very little when you condemn this particular idea as improper.

तस्मात् – यत्प्रविष्टं स्रष्टृ ब्रह्म, तद्ब्रह्म, वै-शब्दोऽवधारणार्थः, इदं शरीरस्थं यद्गृह्यते, अग्रे प्राक्प्रतिबोधादपि, ब्रह्म एव आसीत्, सर्वं च इदम्;
Therefore the conclusion is that the word ‘Brahman’ refers to that Brahman which projected the universe and entered into it. Idam, this, the Brahman (self) that is perceived as being in this body, vai eva āsīt, was indeed – this word is emphatic – brahman, Brahman, and all, agre, in the beginning, even before realization.

किन्त्वप्रतिबोधात् ‘अब्रह्मास्मि असर्वं च’ इत्यात्मन्यध्यारोपात् ‘कर्ताहं क्रियावान्फलानां च भोक्ता सुखी दुःखी संसारी’ इति च अध्यारोपयति; परमार्थस्तु ब्रह्मैव तद्विलक्षणं सर्वं च।
But owing to ignorance it superimposes on itself the notion that it is not Brahman, and that it is not all, and consequently thinks, through mistake, that it is an agent, possessed of activity, the experiencer of its fruits, happy or miserable, and transmigrating. But really it is Brahman different from all the foregoing and is all.

तत् कथञ्चिदाचार्येण दयालुना प्रतिबोधितम् ‘नासि संसारी’ इति आत्मानमेव अवेत् स्वाभाविकम्; अविद्याध्यारोपितविशेषवर्जितमिति एव-शब्दस्यार्थः।
Being somehow awakened by a merciful teacher who told it that it was not subject to transmigration, ‘Tad ātmānam eva avet, It knew only Itself,’ its own natural Self, that is, which is free from differentiations superimposed by ignorance. This is the meaning of the particle ‘eva’ (only).

ब्रूहि कोऽसावात्मा स्वाभाविकः, यमात्मानं विदितवद्ब्रह्म।
Objection: Tell me, what is that natural Self which Brahman knew?

ननु न स्मरस्यात्मानम्; दर्शितो ह्यसौ, य इह प्रविश्य प्राणित्यपानिति व्यानित्युदानिति समानितीति।
Reply: Do you not remember the Self? It has been pointed out as the one that entering into these bodies does the function of the Prāṇa, Apāna, Vyāna, Udāna and Samāna (See commentary on BrhU.1.5.3).

ननु असौ गौः असावश्व इत्येवमसौ व्यपदिश्यते भवता, न आत्मानं प्रत्यक्षं दर्शयसि;
Objection: You are describing It as one would describe a cow or a horse by simply saying, ‘It is a cow,’ or ‘It is a horse.’ You do not show the Self directly.

एवं तर्हि द्रष्टा श्रोता मन्ता विज्ञाता स आत्मेति।
Reply: Well then, the Self is the seer, hearer, thinker and knower.

ननु अत्रापि दर्शनादिक्रियाकर्तुः स्वरूपं न प्रत्यक्षं दर्शयसि; न हि गमिरेव गन्तुः स्वरूपं छिदिर्वा छेत्तुः;
Objection: Here also you do not directly point out the nature of that which does the function of seeing etc. Going is surely not the nature of one who goes, nor cutting that of a cutter.

एवं तर्हि दृष्टेर्द्रष्टा श्रुतेः श्रोता मतेर्मन्ता विज्ञातेर्विज्ञाता स आत्मेति।
Reply: In that case the Self is the seer of sight, the hearer of hearing, the thinker of thought and the knower of knowledge.

ननु अत्र को विशेषो द्रष्टरि; यदि दृष्टेर्द्रष्टा, यदि वा घटस्य द्रष्टा, सर्वथापि द्रष्टैव; द्रष्टव्य एव तु भवान्विशेषमाह दृष्टेर्द्रष्टेति; द्रष्टा तु यदि दृष्टेः, यदि वा घटस्य, द्रष्टा द्रष्टैव।
Objection: But what difference does it make in the seer? Whether it be the seer of sight or of a jar, it is but the seer under all circumstances. By saying ‘The seer of sight’ you are simply stating a difference as regards the object seen. But the seer, whether it be the seer of sight or of a jar, is just the same.

न, विशेषोपपत्तेः – अस्त्यत्र विशेषः; यो दृष्टेर्द्रष्टा सः दृष्टिश्चेद्भवति नित्यमेव पश्यति दृष्टिम्, न कदाचिदपि दृष्टिर्न दृश्यते द्रष्ट्रा; तत्र द्रष्टुर्दृष्ट्या नित्यया भवितव्यम्;
Reply: No, for there is a difference, and it is this: If that which is the seer of sight is identical with that sight, it always visualizes the latter, and there is never a time when sight is not visualized by the seer. So the vision of the seer must be eternal.

अनित्या चेद्द्रष्टुर्दृष्टिः, तत्र दृश्या या दृष्टिः सा कदाचिन्न दृश्येतापि – यथा अनित्यया दृष्ट्या घटादि वस्तु;
If it were transitory, then sight, which is the object visualized, may sometimes not be seen, as a jar, for instance, may not always be perceived by the transitory vision.

न च तद्वत् दृष्टेर्द्रष्टा कदाचिदपि न पश्यति दृष्टिम्।
But the seer of sight never ceases to visualize sight like that.

किं द्वे दृष्टी द्रष्टुः – नित्या अदृश्या अन्या अनित्या दृश्येति?
Objection: Has the seer then two kinds of vision, one eternal and invisible, and the other transitory and visible?

बाढम्; प्रसिद्धा तावदनित्या दृष्टिः, अन्धानन्धत्वदर्शनात्; नित्यैव चेत्, सर्वोऽनन्ध एव स्यात्;
Reply: Yes. The transitory vision is familiar to us, for we see some people are blind, and others are not. If the eternal vision were the only one in existence, all people would be possessed of vision.

द्रष्टुस्तु नित्या दृष्टिः – ‘न हि द्रष्टुर्दृष्टेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यते’ (BrhU.4.3.23) इति श्रुतेः;
But the vision of the seer is an eternal one, for the Śruti says, ‘The vision of the witness can never be lost’ (BrhU.4.3.23).

अनुमानाच्च – अन्धस्यापि घटाद्याभासविषया स्वप्ने दृष्टिरुपलभ्यते; सा तर्हि इतरदृष्टिनाशे न नश्यति; सा द्रष्टुर्दृष्टिः;
From inference also we know this. For we find even a blind man has vision consisting of the impressions of a jar etc. in dreams. This shows that the vision of the seer is not lost with the loss of the other kind of vision.

तया अविपरिलुप्तया नित्यया दृष्ट्या स्वरूपभूतया स्वयञ्ज्योतिःसमाख्यया इतरामनित्यां दृष्टिं स्वप्नान्तबुद्धान्तयोर्वासनाप्रत्ययरूपां नित्यमेव पश्यन्दृष्टेर्द्रष्टा भवति।
Through that unfailing eternal vision, which is identical with It and is called the self-effulgent light, the Self always sees the other, transitory vision in the dream and waking states, as idea and perception respectively, and becomes the seer of sight.

एवं च सति दृष्टिरेव स्वरूपमस्य अग्न्यौष्ण्यवत्, न काणादानामिव दृष्टिव्यतिरिक्तः अन्यः चेतनः द्रष्टा।
Such being the case, the vision itself is Its nature, like the heat of fire, and there is no other conscious (or unconscious) seer over and above the vision, as the Vaiśeṣikas maintain.

तद् ब्रह्म आत्मानमेव नित्यदृग्रूपमध्यारोपितानित्यदृष्ट्यादिवर्जितमेव अवेत् विदितवत्।
It, Brahman, knew only Itself, the eternal vision, devoid of the transitory vision etc. superimposed on It.

ननु विप्रतिषिद्धम् – ‘न विज्ञातेर्विज्ञातारं विजानीयाः’ (BrhU.3.4.2) इति श्रुतेः – विज्ञातुर्विज्ञानम्।
Objection: But knowing the knower is self-contradictory, for the Śruti says, ‘One should not try to know the knower of knowledge’ (BrhU.3.4.2).

न, एवं विज्ञानान्न विप्रतिषेधः; एवं दृष्टेर्द्रष्टेति विज्ञायत एव; अन्यज्ञानानपेक्षत्वाच्च
Reply: No, this sort of knowledge involves no contradiction. The Self is indeed known thus, as ‘the seer of sight.’ Also it does not depend on any other knowledge.

– न च द्रष्टुर्नित्यैव दृष्टिरित्येवं विज्ञाते द्रष्टृविषयां दृष्टिमन्यामाकाङ्क्षते;
He who knows that the vision of the seer is eternal, does not wish to see It in any other way.

निवर्तते हि द्रष्टृविषयदृष्ट्याकाङ्क्षा तदसम्भवादेव; न ह्यविद्यमाने विषये आकाङ्क्षा कस्यचिदुपजायते; न च दृश्या दृष्टिर्द्रष्टारं विषयीकर्तुमुत्सहते, यतस्तामाकाङ्क्षेत;
This wish to see the seer automatically stops because of its very impossibility, for nobody hankers after a thing that does not exist. And that sight which is itself an object of vision does not dare to visualize the seer, in which case one might wish to do it.

न च स्वरूपविषयाकाङ्क्षा स्वस्यैव;
Nor does anybody want to see himself.

तस्मात् अज्ञानाध्यारोपणनिवृत्तिरेव आत्मानमेवावेदित्युक्तम्, नात्मनो विषयीकरणम्।
Therefore the sentence, ‘It knew only Itself,’ only means the cessation of the superimposition of ignorance, and not the actual cognizing of the Self as an object.

तत्कथमवेदित्याह –
How did It know Itself?

अहं दृष्टेर्द्रष्टा आत्मा ब्रह्मास्मि भवामीति। ब्रह्म इति – यत्साक्षादपरोक्षात्सर्वान्तर आत्मा अशनायाद्यतीतो नेति नेत्यस्थूलमनण्वित्येवमादिलक्षणम्,
As ‘Aham brahma asmi iti, I am Brahman, the Self that is the seer of sight.’ ‘Brahman’ is That which is immediate and direct, the Self that is within all, beyond hunger and the like, described as ‘Not this, not this’ neither gross nor subtle, and so on.

तदेवाहमस्मि, नान्यः संसारी, यथा भवानाहेति। तस्मात् एवं विज्ञानात् तद् ब्रह्म सर्वमभवत् –
‘I am, as you (The teacher) said, That and no other, not the transmigrating self.’ Tasmāt, therefore, from knowing thus, tat, It, Brahman, sarvam abhavat, became all.

अब्रह्माध्यारोपणापगमात् तत्कार्यस्यासर्वत्वस्य निवृत्त्या सर्वमभवत्।
Brahman, its effect, the notion of not being all, was also gone, therefore It became all.

तस्माद्युक्तमेव मनुष्या मन्यन्ते – यद्ब्रह्मविद्यया सर्वं भविष्याम इति।
Hence men are justified in thinking that through the knowledge of Brahman they would become all.

त्पृष्टम् – किमु तद्ब्रह्मावेद्यस्मात्तत्सर्वमभवदिति, तन्निर्णीतम् – ब्रह्म वा इदमग्र आसीत्तदात्मानमेवावेदहं ब्रह्मास्मीति तस्मात्तत्सर्वमभवदिति।
The question, “Well, what did that Brahman know by which It became all?’ has been answered: ‘This was indeed Brahman in the beginning. It knew only Itself as, “I am Brahman.” Therefore It became all.’

तत् तत्र, यो यो देवानां प्रत्यबुध्यत प्रतिबुद्धवानात्मानं यथोक्तेन विधिना, स एव प्रतिबुद्ध आत्मा तत् ब्रह्म अभवत्; तथा ऋषीणाम्, तथा मनुष्याणां च मध्ये।
And yaḥ tat devānām pratyabudhyata, whoever among the gods knew It, the Self, in the manner described above, that awakened self also tad abhavat, became That, Brahman. And tathā ṛṣīṇām tathā manuṣyāṇām, the same with sages and men.

देवानामित्यादि लोकदृष्ट्यपेक्षया न ब्रह्मत्वबुद्ध्योच्यते; पुरः पुरुष आविशदिति सर्वत्र ब्रह्मैवानुप्रविष्टमित्यवोचाम; अतः शरीराद्युपाधिजनितलोकदृष्ट्यपेक्षया देवानामित्याद्युच्यते;
The words ‘gods’ etc. are used from the conventional point of view, not from that of the vision of Brahman. We have already said that it is Brahman which has entered everywhere, as set forth in the passage, ‘That Supreme Being first entered the bodies’ (BrhU.2.5.18). Hence the words ‘gods’ etc. are used from the conventional standpoint determined by the limiting adjuncts such as the body.

परमार्थतस्तु तत्र तत्र ब्रह्मैवाग्र आसीत् प्राक्प्रतिबोधात् देवादिशरीरेषु अन्यथैव विभाव्यमानम्, तदात्मानमेवावेत्, तथैव च सर्वमभवत्।
Really it was Brahman which was in those divine and other bodies even before realization, being only looked upon as something else. It knew only Itself and thereby became all.

अस्या ब्रह्मविद्यायाः सर्वभावापत्तिः फलमित्येतस्यार्थस्य द्रढिम्ने मन्त्रानुदाहरति श्रुतिः।
To strengthen the import of the passage that this knowledge of Brahman leads to identity with all, the Śruti quotes some mantras.

कथम्? तत् ब्रह्म एतत् आत्मानमेव अहमस्मीति पश्यन् एतस्मादेव ब्रह्मणो दर्शनात् ऋषिर्वामदेवाख्यः प्रतिपेदे ह प्रतिपन्नवान्किल; स एतस्मिन्ब्रह्मात्मदर्शनेऽवस्थितः एतान्मन्त्रान्ददर्श – अहं मनुरभवं सूर्यश्च इत्यादीन्।
How? Ṛṣiḥ, The sage, called Vāma-devaḥ, etad paśyan, while realizing This – his own self, as identical with – tad, That, Brahman, pratipede ha, knew, from this realization of Brahman, i.e. in that state of realization of the identity of the self, and Brahman, visualized these mantras, aham manuḥ abhavam sūryaḥ ca, ‘I was Manu, and the sun,’ etc. (RgV.4.26.1).

तदेतद्ब्रह्म पश्यन्निति ब्रह्मविद्या परामृश्यते; अहं मनुरभवं सूर्यश्चेत्यादिना सर्वभावापत्तिं ब्रह्मविद्याफलं परामृशति; पश्यन्सर्वात्मभावं फलं प्रतिपेदे इत्यस्मात्प्रयोगात् ब्रह्मविद्यासहायसाधनसाध्यं मोक्षं दर्शयति – भुञ्जानस्तृप्यतीति यद्वत्।
The expression, ‘While realizing (paśy-an) this (self) as That’ – Brahman – refers to the knowledge of Brahman. And the words, ‘I was Manu, and the sun,’ refer to its result, identity with all. By the use of the form (The suffix Śatṛ, -at, denoting concurrence), ‘While realising’ It he attained this result, viz. identity with all, the Śruti shows that liberation is attainable through the aid of the knowledge of Brahman, as in the expression, ‘While eating he is getting satisfaction.’

सेयं ब्रह्मविद्यया सर्वभावापत्तिरासीन्महतां देवादीनां वीर्यातिशयात्, नेदानीमैदंयुगीनानां विशेषतो मनुष्याणाम्, अल्पवीर्यत्वात् – इति स्यात्कस्यचिद्बुद्धिः, तद्व्युत्थापनायाह –
Someone may think that the gods, who are great, attained this identity with all through the knowledge of Brahman because of their extraordinary power, but those of this age, particularly men, can never attain it owing to their limited power. In order to remove this notion the text says:

तदिदं प्रकृतं ब्रह्म यत्सर्वभूतानुप्रविष्टं दृष्टिक्रियादिलिङ्गम्, एतर्हि एतस्मिन् अपि वर्तमानकाले यः कश्चित् व्यावृत्तबाह्यौत्सुक्य आत्मानमेव एवं वेद अहं ब्रह्मास्मि इति – अपोह्य उपाधिजनितभ्रान्तिविज्ञानाध्यारोपितान्विशेषान् संसारधर्मानागन्धितमनन्तरमबाह्यं ब्रह्मैवाहमस्मि केवलमिति – सः अविद्याकृतासर्वत्वनिवृत्तेर्ब्रह्मविज्ञानाद् इदं सर्वं भवति।
Etarhi api saḥ, And to this day whoever, curbing his interest in external things, tad idam evam veda, in like manner knows It, the Brahman under consideration which has entered into all beings and is indicated by the functions of seeing etc., i.e. his own Self, as, ‘Aham brahma asmi iti, I am Brahman,’ which is untouched by the attributes of the phenomenal universe, is without interior or exterior and absolute, by discarding the differences superimposed by the false notion created by limiting adjuncts, idam sarvam bhavati, becomes all this, owing to his notion of incompleteness – the effect of ignorance – being removed by the knowledge of Brahman.

न हि महावीर्येषु वामदेवादिषु हीनवीर्येषु वा वार्तमानिकेषु मनुष्येषु ब्रह्मणो विशेषः तद्विज्ञानस्य वास्ति।
For there is no difference as regards Brahman or the knowledge of It between giants like Vāma-deva and the human weaklings of today.

वार्तमानिकेषु पुरुषेषु तु ब्रह्मविद्याफलेऽनैकान्तिकता शङ्क्यत इत्यत आह –
But, one may suppose, the result of the knowledge of Brahman may be uncertain in the case of the present generation. This is answered as follows:

तस्य ह ब्रह्मविज्ञातुर्यथोक्तेन विधिना देवा महावीर्याः, चन अपि, अभूत्यै अभवनाय ब्रह्मसर्वभावस्य, न ईशते न पर्याप्ताः, किमुतान्ये।
Devāḥ cana, Even the gods, powerful as they may be, tasya ha na īśate, cannot prevail against him, the man who has known Brahman in the manner described above – a-bhūtyai, have not the capacity, to stop his becoming Brahman and all, much less others.

ब्रह्मविद्याफलप्राप्तौ विघ्नकरणे देवादय ईशत इति का शङ्केति –
Objection: Is there any ground for supposing that the gods and others can thwart the attainment of the results of the knowledge of Brahman?

उच्यते – देवादीन्प्रति ऋणवत्त्वान्मर्त्यानाम्; ‘ब्रह्मचर्येण ऋषिभ्यो यज्ञेन देवेभ्यः प्रजया पितृभ्यः’ (तै. सं. ६-३-१०) इति हि जायमानमेव ऋणवन्तं पुरुषं दर्शयति श्रुतिः;
Reply: Yes, because men are indebted to them. The Śruti text, ‘(Every Brāhmaṇa – twice-born – by his very birth is indebted) to the sages in respect of continence, to the gods in respect of sacrifices, and to the Manes in respect of progeny’ (TaitS.6.3.10.5), shows that a man by his very birth is under certain obligations.

पशुनिदर्शनाच्च ‘अथो अयं वा...’ (BrhU.1.4.16) इत्यादिलोकश्रुतेश्च आत्मनो वृत्तिपरिपिपालयिषया अधमर्णानिव देवाः परतन्त्रान्मनुष्यान्प्रति अमृतत्वप्राप्तिं प्रति विघ्नं कुर्युरिति न्याय्यैवैषा शङ्का। स्वपशून् स्वशरीराणीव च रक्षन्ति देवाः; महत्तरां हि वृत्तिं कर्माधीनां दर्शयिष्यति देवादीनां बहुपशुसमतयैकैकस्य पुरुषस्य;
And we know it from the illustration of animals (in this text). There is also the text, ‘Now this self (the ignorant man),’ etc. (BrhU.1.4.16), describing him as an object of enjoyment for all, which shows that it is reasonable to suppose that the gods, in order to maintain their livelihood, may hinder men, who are dependent, from attaining immortality, as creditors do with their debtors. The gods also protect their animals like their own bodies, for the Śruti will show that each man being equivalent to many animals, the gods have a great source of livelihood in the rites performed by him.

‘तस्मादेषां तन्न प्रियं यदेतन्मनुष्या विद्युः’ इति हि वक्ष्यति, ‘यथा ह वै स्वाय लोकायारिष्टिमिच्छेदेवं हैवंविदे सर्वाणि भूतान्यरिष्टिमिच्छन्ति’ (BrhU.1.4.16) इति च; ब्रह्मवित्त्वे पारार्थ्यनिवृत्तेः न स्वलोकत्वं पशुत्वं चेत्यभिप्रायो अप्रियारिष्टिवचनाभ्यामवगम्यते;
It will presently be stated, ‘Therefore it is not liked by them that men should know this’ (this text), and ‘Just as one wishes safety to one’s body, so do all beings wish safety to him who knows it as such’ (BrhU.1.4.16). From the mention of dislike and safety we understand that the gods think that when a man attains the knowledge of Brahman, he will cease to be their object of enjoyment and their animal, for his dependence will end.

तस्माद्ब्रह्मविदो ब्रह्मविद्याफलप्राप्तिं प्रति कुर्युरेव विघ्नं देवाः। प्रभाववन्तश्च हि ते।
Therefore the gods may very well hinder a prospective knower of Brahman from attaining the results of the knowledge of Brahman, for they are also powerful.

ननु एवं सत्यन्यास्वपि कर्मफलप्राप्तिषु देवानां विघ्नकरणं पेयपानसमम्; हन्त तर्ह्यविस्रम्भोऽभ्युदयनिःश्रेयससाधनानुष्ठानेषु; तथा ईश्वरस्याचिन्त्यशक्तित्वाद्विघ्नकरणे प्रभुत्वम्; तथा कालकर्ममन्त्रौषधितपसाम्; एषां हि फलसम्पत्तिविपत्तिहेतुत्वं शास्त्रे लोके च प्रसिद्धम्; अतोऽप्यनाश्वासः शास्त्रार्थानुष्ठाने।
Objection: In that case the gods may find it like drinking a beverage to obstruct the fruition of results in other spheres too, viz. rites. Well, it would shake one’s faith in the performance of the means of achieving prosperity and liberation. Similarly God also, being of inscrutable power, can put obstacles, as also time, action, sacred formulas, herbs and austerities, which, as we know from the scriptures as well as experience, can help or hinder the fruition of results. This too would shake one’s faith in the performance of scriptural rites.

न; सर्वपदार्थानां नियतनिमित्तोपादानात् जगद्वैचित्र्यदर्शनाच्च, स्वभावपक्षे च तदुभयानुपपत्तेः,
Reply: Not so, for all things spring from definite causes, and we also see variety in the universe. Both these will be inconsistent if things happen spontaneously.

सुखदुःखादिफलनिमित्तं कर्मेत्येतस्मिन्पक्षे स्थिते वेदस्मृतिन्यायलोकपरिगृहीते, देवेश्वरकालास्तावन्न कर्मफलविपर्यासकर्तारः, कर्मणां काङ्क्षितकारकत्वात्
Since it is the accepted view of the Vedas, Smṛtis, reasoning and tradition that happiness, misery, and the like are the outcome of one’s past work – the gods, or God, or time by no means upset the results of work, for these depend on requisite factors.

– कर्म हि शुभाशुभं पुरुषाणां देवकालेश्वरादिकारकमनपेक्ष्य नात्मानं प्रति लभते, लब्धात्मकमपि फलदानेऽसमर्थम्, क्रियाया हि कारकाद्यनेकनिमित्तोपादानस्वाभाव्यात्; तस्मात् क्रियानुगुणा हि देवेश्वरादय इति कर्मसु तावन्न फलप्राप्तिं प्रत्यविस्रम्भः।
Work, good or bad, that men do cannot come into being without the help of factors such as the gods, time and God, and even if it did, it would not have the power to produce results, for it is the very nature of work to spring from many causes such as the different factors. Therefore the gods, God and others being auxiliaries to work, there is another to shake our faith in the attainment of its results.

कर्मणामपि एषाम् वशानुगत्वं क्वचित्, स्वसामर्थ्यस्याप्रणोद्यत्वात्। कर्मकालदैवद्रव्यादिस्वभावानां गुणप्रधानभावस्त्वनियतो दुर्विज्ञेयश्चेति तत्कृतो मोहो लोकस्य –
Sometimes also (in the matter of thwarting) they have to depend on the past work of men, for its inherent power cannot be checked. And there is no fixity about the relative predominance of past work, time, destiny and the nature of things etc.; it is inscrutable, and hence throws people into confusion.

कर्मैव कारकं नान्यत्फलप्राप्ताविति केचित्; दैवमेवेत्यपरे; काल इत्येके; द्रव्यादिस्वभाव इति केचित्; सर्व एते संहता एवेत्यपरे।
Some, for instance, say that in bringing about results one’s past work is the only factor. Others say it is destiny. A third group mentions time. Still others say it is the nature of things etc. While yet another group maintains it is all these things combined.

तत्र कर्मणः प्राधान्यमङ्गीकृत्य वेदस्मृतिवादाः – ‘पुण्यो वै पुण्येन कर्मणा भवति पापः पापेन’ (BrhU.3.2.13) इत्यादयः।
Regarding this the Vedas and Smṛtis uphold the primacy of past work, as in the passage, ‘One indeed becomes good through good work and evil through evil work’ (BrhU.3.2.13), and so on.

यद्यपि एषां स्वविषये कस्यचित्प्राधान्योद्भवः इतरेषां तत्कालीनप्राधान्यशक्तिस्तम्भः, तथापि न कर्मणः फलप्राप्तिं प्रति अनैकान्तिकत्वम्, शास्त्रन्यायनिर्धारितत्वात्कर्मप्राधान्यस्य।
Although one or other of these at times gains ascendancy in its own sphere over the rest, whose potential superiority lies in abeyance for the time being, yet there is no uncertainty about work producing results, for the importance of work is decided by the scriptures as well as reason.
[•The variety that we see in the world can be explained only as the outcome of men’s diverse past work.•]

न, अविद्यापगममात्रत्वाद्ब्रह्मप्राप्तिफलस्य – यदुक्तं ब्रह्मप्राप्तिफलं प्रति देवा विघ्नं कुर्युरिति, तत्र न देवानां विघ्नकरणे सामर्थ्यम्;
Nor (can the gods check the result of knowledge), for the realization of Brahman, which is this result, consists in the mere cessation of ignorance. It has been suggested that the gods may thwart the attainment of Brahman, which is the result expected from the knowledge of It; but they do not have that power.

कस्मात्? विद्याकालानन्तरितत्वाद्ब्रह्मप्राप्तिफलस्य; कथम्; यथा लोके द्रष्टुश्चक्षुष आलोकेन संयोगो यत्कालः, तत्काल एव रूपाभिव्यक्तिः, एवमात्मविषयं विज्ञानं यत्कालम्, तत्काल एव तद्विषयाज्ञानतिरोभावः स्यात्;
Why? Because this result, the attainment of Brahman, immediately follows the knowledge. How? As in the world a form is revealed as soon as the observer’s eye is in touch with light, similarly the very moment that one has a knowledge of the Supreme Self, ignorance regarding It must disappear.

अतो ब्रह्मविद्यायां सत्याम् अविद्याकार्यानुपपत्तेः, प्रदीप इव तमःकार्यस्य, केन कस्य विघ्नं कुर्युर्देवाः – यत्र आत्मत्वमेव देवानां ब्रह्मविदः।
Hence, the effects of ignorance being impossible in the presence of the knowledge of Brahman, like the effects of darkness in the presence of a lamp, whom should the gods thwart and by what means, for is not the knower of Brahman the self of the gods?

तदेतदाह – आत्मा स्वरूपं ध्येयं यत्तत्सर्वशास्त्रैर्विज्ञेयं ब्रह्म, हि यस्मात्, एषां देवानाम्, स ब्रह्मवित्, भवति ब्रह्मविद्यासमकालमेव – अविद्यामात्रव्यवधानापगमात् शुक्तिकाया इव रजताभासायाः शुक्तिकात्वमित्यवोचाम।
This is what the text says: ‘Saḥ hi, For he, the knower of Brahman, eṣām ātmā, becomes their self, the reality of these gods, the object of their meditation, the Brahman that is to be known from all scriptures, simultaneously with the knowledge of Brahman, since, as we have said, the only obstruction of ignorance vanishes then and there, like a mother-of-pearl mistaken for a piece of silver becoming itself again.

अतो नात्मनः प्रतिकूलत्वे देवानां प्रयत्नः सम्भवति। यस्य हि अनात्मभूतं फलं देशकालनिमित्तान्तरितम्, तत्रानात्मविषये सफलः प्रयत्नो विघ्नाचरणाय देवानाम्; न त्विह विद्यासमकाल आत्मभूते देशकालनिमित्तानन्तरिते, अवसरानुपपत्तेः।
Hence the gods cannot possibly try to stand against their own self. They succeed in their effort to put obstacles only in the case of one who seeks a result which is other than the Self and is separated by space, time and causation, but not with regard to this sage, who becomes their self simultaneously with the awakening of knowledge, and is not separated by space, time and causation for there is no room for opposition here.

एवं तर्हि विद्याप्रत्ययसन्तत्यभावात् विपरीतप्रत्ययतत्कार्ययोश्च दर्शनात् अन्त्य एव आत्मप्रत्ययोऽविद्यानिवर्तकः, न तु पूर्व इति।
Objection: In that case, since there is not a stream of consciousness about knowledge (of Brahman), and since we see that a consciousness of an opposite nature together with its effects persists, let us say that only the last (The one arising at the moment of death) consciousness of the Self removes ignorance, and not the first one.

न, प्रथमेनानैकान्तिकत्वात् – यदि हि प्रथम आत्मविषयः प्रत्ययोऽविद्यां न निवर्तयति, तथा अन्त्योऽपि, तुल्यविषयत्वात्।
Reply: No, for your ground of inference will be falsified on account of the first. If the first consciousness of the Self does not remove ignorance, neither will the last, for they are alike consciousness of the Self.

एवं तर्हि सन्ततोऽविद्यानिवर्तकः न विच्छिन्न इति।
Objection: Well then, let us say, it is not the isolated consciousness that removes ignorance, but that which is continuous.

न, जीवनादौ सति सन्तत्यनुपपत्तेः – न हि जीवनादिहेतुके प्रत्यये सति विद्याप्रत्ययसन्ततिरुपपद्यते, विरोधात्।
Reply: Not so, for there cannot be a continuity, since it would be broken by thoughts of self-preservation etc. So long as these crop up, there cannot be an unbroken stream of consciousness about knowledge, for the two are contradictory.

अथ जीवनादिप्रत्ययतिरस्करणेनैव आ मरणान्तात् विद्यासन्ततिरिति चेत्,
Objection: Suppose the latter continues till death to the exclusion of the former.

न, प्रत्ययेयत्तासन्तानानवधारणात् शास्त्रार्थानवधारणदोषात् – इयतां प्रत्ययानां सन्ततिरविद्याया निवर्तिकेत्यनवधारणात् शास्त्रार्थो नावध्रियेत; तच्चानिष्टम्।
Reply: Not so, for the uncertainty about the requisite number of thoughts to make up that stream would be open to the charge of making the meaning of the scriptures indefinite. In other words, there being nothing to determine that so many thoughts would make up a stream that will remove ignorance, it would be impossible to determine the meaning of the scriptures, which is not desirable.

सन्ततिमात्रत्वेऽवधारित एवेति चेत्,
Objection: The meaning is quite definite, for in so far as it is a stream of consciousness, it will remove ignorance.

न, आद्यन्तयोरविशेषात् – प्रथमा विद्याप्रत्ययसन्ततिः मरणकालान्ता वेति विशेषाभावात्, आद्यन्तयोः प्रत्यययोः पूर्वोक्तौ दोषौ प्रसज्येयाताम्।
Reply: No, for there is no difference between the first and the last stream of consciousness. There being nothing to determine whether it is the first stream of consciousness about knowledge that removes ignorance, or the last one ending with the moment of death, they too would be open to those two charges already mentioned with regard to the first and last thoughts.

एवं तर्हि अनिवर्तक एवेति चेत्,
Objection: Well then, let us say that knowledge does not remove ignorance.

न ‘तस्मात्तत्सर्वमभवत्’ इति श्रुतेः, ‘भिद्यते हृदयग्रन्थिः’ (MunU.2.2.8) ‘तत्र को मोहः’ (IsU.7) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यश्च।
Reply: Not so, for the Śruti says, ‘Therefore It became all,’ as also, ‘The knot of the heart is broken,’ etc. (MunU.2.2.8), ‘Then what delusion can there be?’ (IsU.7), and so on.

अर्थवाद इति चेत्,
Objection: These may be mere eulogies.

न, सर्वशाखोपनिषदामर्थवादत्वप्रसङ्गात्; एतावन्मात्रार्थत्वोपक्षीणा हि सर्वशाखोपनिषदः।
Reply: No, for then the Upaniṣads in all the recensions would be classed as such, for they have just this one aim.

प्रत्यक्षप्रमितात्मविषयत्वात् अस्त्येवेति चेत्,
Objection: Suppose we say that they are but eulogies, for they deal with the self which is already known through perception (As the basis of our ego-consciousness).

न, उक्तपरिहारत्वात् – अविद्याशोकमोहभयादिदोषनिवृत्तेः प्रत्यक्षत्वादिति चोक्तः परिहारः।
Reply: No, for we have already refuted that contention.
[•The ego-consciousness deals with the individual self, not the Supreme Self, the Witness.•]
Also we have said that knowledge produces palpable results, viz. the cessation of such evils as ignorance, grief, delusion and fear.

तस्मात् आद्यः अन्त्यः सन्ततः असन्ततश्चेत्यचोद्यमेतत्, अविद्यादिदोषनिवृत्तिफलावसानत्वाद्विद्यायाः – य एव अविद्यादिदोषनिवृत्तिफलकृत्प्रत्ययः आद्यः अन्त्यः सन्ततः असन्ततो वा, स एव विद्येत्यभ्युपगमात् न चोद्यस्यावतारगन्धोऽप्यस्ति।
Therefore there can be no question about knowledge removing ignorance, whether it be first or last, continuous or non-continuous, for knowledge culminates in producing the cessation of ignorance and other evils. Any consciousness that produces this result, whether first or last, continuous or non-continuous, is knowledge according to us. Hence there is no scope whatsoever for any objection.

यत्तूक्तं विपरीतप्रत्ययतत्कार्ययोश्च दर्शनादिति,
You said, the first consciousness does not remove ignorance, because we see that a consciousness of an opposite nature to knowledge together with its effects persists.

न, तच्छेषस्थितिहेतुत्वात्
This is wrong, for the residue of Prārabdha work is the cause of the persistence of the body after knowledge.

– येन कर्मणा शरीरमारब्धं तत्, विपरीतप्रत्ययदोषनिमित्तत्वात् तस्य तथाभूतस्यैव विपरीतप्रत्ययदोषसंयुक्तस्य फलदाने सामर्थ्यमिति, यावत् शरीरपातः तावत्फलोपभोगाङ्गतया विपरीतप्रत्ययं रागादिदोषं च तावन्मात्रमाक्षिपत्येव – मुक्तेषुवत् प्रवृत्तफलत्वात् तद्धेतुकस्य कर्मणः।
In other words, that resultant of past work which led to the formation of the present body (Prārabdha), being the outcome of false notions (Notions opposed to reality considering the non-Self to be the Self and vice versa) and the evils (of attachment etc.), is able to bear fruit only as such, i.e. as coupled with those notions and evils; hence until the body falls, it cannot but produce, as part of one’s experience of the results of past work, just so much of false notions and the evils of attachment etc., for the past work that made this body has already begun to bear fruit and must run its course like an arrow that has been shot.

तेन न तस्य निवर्तिका विद्या, अविरोधात्;
Therefore knowledge cannot stop that, for they are not contradictory.

किं तर्हि स्वाश्रयादेव स्वात्मविरोधि अविद्याकार्यं यदुत्पित्सु तन्निरुणद्धि, अनागतत्वात्; अतीतं हि इतरत्।
What does it do then? It stops the effects of ignorance which are contradictory to it and are about to spring up from (the ignorance lying in) the self, which is the substratum of that knowledge, for they have not yet appeared. But the other is past.

किञ्च न च विपरीतप्रत्ययो विद्यावत उत्पद्यते, निर्विषयत्वात् –
Moreover, false notions do not arise in a man of realization, for there is then no object for them.

अनवधृतविषयविशेषस्वरूपं हि सामान्यमात्रमाश्रित्य विपरीतप्रत्यय उत्पद्यमान उत्पद्यते, यथा शुक्तिकायां रजतमिति; स च विषयविशेषावधारणवतो अशेषविपरीतप्रत्ययाशयस्योपमर्दितत्वात् न पूर्ववत्सम्भवति, शुक्तिकादौ सम्यक्प्रत्ययोत्पत्तौ पुनरदर्शनात्।
Whenever a false notion arises, it does so on account of a certain similarity of something to another, without ascertaining the particular nature of that thing, as when a mother-of-pearl is mistaken for a piece of silver. And this can nor more happen to one who has ascertained the particular nature of that thing, for the source of all false notions (that cursory resemblance) has been destroyed; as they no more appear when a right perception of the mother-of-pearl, for instance, has taken place.

क्वचित्तु विद्यायाः पूर्वोत्पन्नविपरीतप्रत्ययजनितसंस्कारेभ्यो विपरीतप्रत्ययावभासाः स्मृतयो जायमाना विपरीतप्रत्ययभ्रान्तिम् अकस्मात् कुर्वन्ति – यथा विज्ञातदिग्विभागस्याप्यकस्माद्दिग्विपर्ययविभ्रमः।
Sometimes, however, memories due to the impressions of false notions, antecedent to the dawning of knowledge, simulating those notions, suddenly appear and throw him into the error regarding them as actual false notions; as one who is familiar with the points of the compass sometimes all of a sudden gets confused about them.

सम्यग्ज्ञानवतोऽपि चेत् पूर्ववद्विपरीतप्रत्यय उत्पद्यते, सम्यग्ज्ञानेऽप्यविस्रम्भाच्छास्त्रार्थविज्ञानादौ प्रवृत्तिरसमञ्जसा स्यात्, सर्वं च प्रमाणमप्रमाणं सम्पद्येत, प्रमाणाप्रमाणयोर्विशेषानुपपत्तेः।
If even a man of realization comes to have false notions as before, then faith in realization itself being shaken, no one would care to understand the meaning of the scriptures, and all evidences of knowledge would cease to be such, for then there would be no distinction between things that are valid evidences and those that are not.

एतेन सम्यग्ज्ञानानन्तरमेव शरीरपाताभावः कस्मादित्येतत्परिहृतम्।
This also answers the question why the body does not fall immediately after realization.

ज्ञानोत्पत्तेः प्राक् ऊर्ध्वं तत्कालजन्मान्तरसञ्चितानां च कर्मणामप्रवृत्तफलानां विनाशः सिद्धो भवति फलप्राप्तिविघ्ननिषेधश्रुतेरेव;
The destruction of actions done before, after and at the time of realization as well as those accumulated in past lives – actions that have not yet begun to bear fruit – is proved by the very negation of obstructions to the attainment of results in the present text,

‘क्षीयन्ते चास्य कर्माणि’ (MunU.2.2.8) ‘तस्य तावदेव चिरम्’ (ChanU.6.14.2) ‘सर्वे पाप्मानः प्रदूयन्ते’ (ChanU.5.24.3) ‘तं विदित्वा न लिप्यते कर्मणा पापकेन’ (BrhU.4.4.23) ‘एतमु हैवैते न तरतः’ (BrhU.4.4.22) ‘नैनं कृताकृते तपतः’ (BrhU.4.4.22) ‘एतं ह वाव न तपति’ (TaitU.2.9.1) ‘न बिभेति कुतश्चन’ (TaitU.2.9.1) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यश्च; ‘ज्ञानाग्निः सर्वकर्माणि भस्मसात्कुरुते’ (BhG.4.37) इत्यादिस्मृतिभ्यश्च।
As also from such Śruti texts as the following: ‘And his actions are destroyed’ (MunU.2.2.8), ‘It takes him only so long (as he does not give up his body)’ (ChanU.6.14.2), ‘All demerits are burnt up’ (ChanU.5.24.3), ‘Knowing It one is not touched by evil action’ (BrhU.4.4.23), ‘He is never overtaken by these two thoughts (of having done good and evil acts)’ (BrhU.4.4.22), ‘Actions done or omitted do not trouble him’ (BrhU.4.4.22), ‘(Remorse for doing evil and not doing good) does not trouble him’ (TaitU.2.9.1), and ‘He is not afraid of anything’ (TaitU.2.9.1). Also from such Smṛti texts as the following: ‘The fire of knowledge reduces all actions to ashes’ (BhG.4.37).

यत्तु ऋणैः प्रतिबध्यत इति, तन्न अविद्यावद्विषयत्वात् –
The objection that he is tied up by his obligations (to the gods etc.) is not valid, for they concern an ignorant man.

अविद्यावान्हि ऋणी, तस्य कर्तृत्वाद्युपपत्तेः, ‘यत्र वा अन्यदिव स्यात्तत्रान्योऽन्यत्पश्येत्’ (BrhU.4.3.31) इति हि वक्ष्यति – अनन्यत् सद्वस्तु आत्माख्यं यत्राविद्यायां सत्यामन्यदिव स्यात् तिमिरकृतद्वितीयचन्द्रवत् तत्राविद्याकृतानेककारकापेक्षं दर्शनादिकर्म तत्कृतं फलं च दर्शयति, तत्रान्योऽन्यत्पश्येदित्यादिना;
It is he who is under those obligations, for he can be presumed to be an agent and so forth. It will be said later on, ‘When there is something else, as it were, then one can see something’ (BrhU.4.3.31). These last words show that the acts of seeing etc. together with their results, which are dependent on many factors created by ignorance, are possible only in the state of ignorance, when the Self, the Reality that has no second, appears as something else, like a second moon when one has got the disease of double vision (Timira).

यत्र पुनर्विद्यायां सत्यामविद्याकृतानेकत्वभ्रमप्रहाणम्, ‘तत्केन कं पश्येत्’ (BrhU.4.5.15) इति कर्मासम्भवं दर्शयति,
But the text, ‘Then what should one see and through what?’ (BrhU.2.4.14; BrhU.4.5.15) shows that work is impossible in the state of knowledge, when the illusion of manifoldness created by ignorance has been destroyed.

तस्मादविद्यावद्विषय एव ऋणित्वम्, कर्मसम्भवात्, नेतरत्र। एतच्चोत्तरत्र व्याचिख्यासिष्यमाणैरेव वाक्यैर्विस्तरेण प्रदर्शयिष्यामः।
Therefore the indebtedness in question belongs only to an ignorant man, for whom it is possible to work, and to none else. We shall show this at length while dealing with passages that are yet to be explained.

तद्यथेहैव तावत् – अथ यः कश्चिदब्रह्मवित्, अन्याम् आत्मनो व्यतिरिक्तां यां काञ्चिद् देवताम्, उपास्ते स्तुतिनमस्कारयागबल्युपहारप्रणिधानध्यानादिना उप आस्ते तस्या गुणभावमुपगम्य आस्ते – अन्योऽसौ अनात्मा मत्तः पृथक्, अन्योऽहमस्मि अधिकृतः, मया अस्मै ऋणिवत्प्रतिकर्तव्यम् – इत्येवम्प्रत्ययः सन्नुपास्ते, न स इत्थम्प्रत्ययः वेद विजानाति तत्त्वम्।
As, for instance, here. Atha yaḥ anyām devanām upāste, while he – one is not a knower of Brahman – who worships another god, a god different from himself, approaches him in a subordinate position, offering him praises, salutations, sacrifices, presents, devotion, meditation, etc., thinking, ‘Asau anyaḥ, He is one, non-self, different from me, and aham anyaḥ asmi I am another, qualified for rites, and I must serve him like a debtor’ – worships him with such ideas, saḥ na veda, does not know – the truth.

न स केवलमेवम्भूतः अविद्वान् अविद्यादोषवानेव, किं तर्हि, यथा पशुः गवादिः वाहनदोहनाद्युपकारैरुपभुज्यते, एवं सः इज्याद्यनेकोपकारैरुपभोक्तव्यत्वात् एकैकेन देवादीनाम्; अतः पशुरिव सर्वार्थेषु कर्मस्वधिकृत इत्यर्थः।
Saḥ, he, this ignorant man, has not only the evil of ignorance, but is also yathā paśuḥ evam devānām, like an animal to the gods. As a cow or other animals are utilized through their services such as carrying loads or yielding milk, so is this man of use to every one of the gods and others on account of his many services such as the performance of sacrifices. That is to say, he is therefore engaged to do all kinds of services for them.

एतस्य हि अविदुषो वर्णाश्रमादिप्रविभागवतोऽधिकृतस्य कर्मणो विद्यासहितस्य केवलस्य च शास्त्रोक्तस्य कार्यं मनुष्यत्वादिको ब्रह्मान्त उत्कर्षः;
The scriptural rites, with or without the accompaniment of meditation, which this ignorant man, for whom the divisions of caste, order of life and so forth exist, and who is bound to those rites, performs, lead to progress beginning with human birth and ending with identity with Hiraṇya-garbha.

शास्त्रोक्तविपरीतस्य च स्वाभाविकस्य कार्यं मनुष्यत्वादिक एव स्थावरान्तोऽपकर्षः;
While his natural activities, as distinguished from those prescribed by the scriptures, lead to degradation beginning with the human birth itself and ending with identity with stationary objects.

यथा चैतत् तथा ‘अथ त्रयो वाव लोकाः’ (BrhU.1.5.16) इत्यादिना वक्ष्यामः कृत्स्नेनैवाध्यायशेषेण।
That it is so we shall explain in the latter part of this chapter beginning with, ‘There are indeed three worlds’ (BrhU.1.5.16), and continuing right up to the end.

विद्यायाश्च कार्यं सर्वात्मभावापत्तिरित्येतत् सङ्क्षेपतो दर्शितम्। सर्वा हि इयमुपनिषत् विद्याविद्याविभागप्रदर्शनेनैवोपक्षीणा। यथा च एषोऽर्थः कृत्स्नस्य शास्त्रस्य तथा प्रदर्शयिष्यामः।
While the effect of knowledge (meditation) has been briefly shown to be identity with all. The whole of this Upaniṣad is exclusively devoted to showing the distinction between the spheres of knowledge and ignorance. We shall show that this is the import of the whole book.

यस्मादेवम्, तस्मादविद्यावन्तं पुरुषं प्रति देवा ईशत एव विघ्नं कर्तुम् अनुग्रहं च
Since it is so, therefore the gods can thwart as well as help an ignorant man.

इत्येतद्दर्शयति – यथा ह वै लोके, बहवो गोऽश्वादयः पशवः मनुष्यं स्वामिनमात्मनः अधिष्ठातारं भुञ्ज्युः पालयेयुः, एवं बहुपशुस्थानीयः एकैकः अविद्वान् पुरुषः देवान् – देवानिति पित्राद्युपलक्षणार्थम् – भुनक्ति पालयतीति
This is being shown: Yathā ha vai, As, in the world, bahavaḥ paśavaḥ, many animals, such as cows or horses, manuṣyam bhujjyuḥ, serve a man, their owner and controller, evam eka-ekaḥ, so does each, ignorant, puruṣaḥ, man, equivalent to many animals, devatān bhunakti, serve the gods. This last word is suggestive of the Manes and others as well.

– इमे इन्द्रादयः अन्ये मत्तो ममेशितारः भृत्य इवाहमेषां स्तुतिनमस्कारेज्यादिना आराधनं कृत्वा अभ्युदयं निःश्रेयसं च तत्प्रत्तं फलं प्राप्स्यामीत्येवमभिसन्धिः।
He thinks, ‘This Indra and the other gods are different from me and are my masters. I shall worship them like a servant through praises, salutations, sacrifices, etc., and shall attain as results prosperity and liberation granted by them.

तत्र लोके बहुपशुमतो यथा एकस्मिन्नेव पशावादीयमाने व्याघ्रादिना अपह्रियमाणे महद् अप्रियं भवति,
Now, in the world, ekasin eva paśāvau ādīyamāne, even if one animal, of a man possessing many such, is taken away, seized by a tiger, for instance, a-priyam bhavati, it causes great anguish.

तथा बहुपशुस्थानीय एकस्मिन्पुरुषे पशुभावात् व्युत्तिष्ठति, अप्रियं भवतीति – किं चित्रम् – देवानाम्, बहु-पश्वपहरण इव कुटुम्बिनः।
Similarly kim, what is there to wonder at if the gods feel mortified when a man, equivalent to bahu, many animals, gets rid of the idea that he is their creature, as when a householder is robbed of many animals?

तस्मादेषां तन्न प्रियम्; किं तत्? यदेतद् ब्रह्मात्मतत्त्वं कथञ्चन मनुष्या विद्युः विजानीयुः।
Tasmāt eṣām tat na priyam , Therefore it is not liked by them, these gods – what? – Yad etad manuṣyāḥ vidyuḥ, that men should, somehow, know this – truth of the identity of the self and Brahman.

तथा च स्मरणमनुगीतासु भगवतो व्यासस्य – ‘क्रियावद्भिर्हि कौन्तेय देवलोकः समावृतः। न चैतदिष्टं देवानां मर्त्यैरुपरिवर्तनम्’ (अश्व. १९-६१) इति।
So the revered Vyāsa writes in the Anugītā, ‘The world of the gods, O Arjuna, is filled with those who perform rites. And the gods do not like that mortals should surpass them’ (MBh.14.20.59).

अतो देवाः पशूनिव व्याघ्रादिभ्यः, ब्रह्मविज्ञानाद्विघ्नमाचिकीर्षन्ति – अस्मदुपभोग्यत्वान्मा व्युत्तिष्ठेयुरिति।
Hence as men try to save animals from being seized by tigers etc., so the gods seek to prevent men from attaining the knowledge of Brahman lest they should cease to be their objects of enjoyment.

यं तु मुमोचयिषन्ति, तं श्रद्धादिभिर्योक्ष्यन्ति, विपरीतमश्रद्धादिभिः।
Those, however, whom they wish to set free, they endow with faith and the like; while the opposite class they visit with lack of faith etc.

तस्मान्मुमुक्षुर्देवाराधनपरः श्रद्धाभक्तिपरः प्रणेयोऽप्रमादी स्यात् विद्याप्राप्तिं प्रति विद्यां प्रतीति वा काक्वैतत्प्रदर्शितं भवति देवाप्रियवाक्येन।
Therefore a seeker of liberation should be devoted to worshiping the gods, have faith and devotion, be obedient (to the gods) and be alert about the attainment of knowledge or about knowledge itself. The mention of the dislike of the gods is an indirect hint at all this.

सूत्रितः शास्त्रार्थ – ‘आत्मेत्येवोपासीत’ इति;
In the sentence, ‘The Self alone is to be meditated upon’ (BrhU.1.4.7) the gist (The knowledge of Brahman) of the scriptures has been put in a nutshell.

तस्य च व्याचिख्यासितस्य सार्थवादेन ‘तदाहुर्यद्ब्रह्मविद्यया’ इत्यादिना सम्बन्धप्रयोजने अभिहिते
In order to explain it, its relation,
[•To the resulting identification with the universe, and so on. The relation here is that of means and end.•]
and utility have also been stated in the eulogistic passage, ‘They say, through the knowledge of Brahman…’, etc. (BrhU.1.4.9).

अविद्यायाश्च संसाराधिकारकारणत्वमुक्तम् – ‘अथ योऽन्यां देवतामुपास्ते’ (BrhU.1.4.10) इत्यादिना;
And that ignorance is the cause of one’s belonging to the relative plane has been stated in the passage, ‘While he who worships another god,’ etc. (BrhU.1.4.10).

तत्र अविद्वान् ऋणी पशुवद्देवादिकर्मकर्तव्यतया परतन्त्र इत्युक्तम्। किं पुनर्देवादिकर्मकर्तव्यत्वे निमित्तम्? वर्णा आश्रमाश्च;
There it has been said that an ignorant man is indebted and dependent like an animal, having to do duties for the gods etc. What is the cause of their having to do those duties? The different castes and order of life.

तत्र के वर्णा इत्यत इदमारभ्यते – यन्निमित्तसम्बद्धेषु कर्मसु अयं परतन्त्र एवाधिकृतः संसरति।
The following paragraphs are introduced in order to explain what these castes are, because of which this dependent man is bound to the rites connected with them, and transmigrates.

एतस्यैवार्थस्य प्रदर्शनाय अग्निसर्गानन्तरमिन्द्रादिसर्गो नोक्तः; अग्नेस्तु सर्गः प्रजापते सृष्टिपरिपूरणाय प्रदर्शितः;
It is to explain this in detail that the creation of Indra and other gods was not mentioned immediately after that of Fire. This last, however, was described to complete the picture of creation by Virāj.

अयं च इन्द्रादिसर्गः तत्रैव द्रष्टव्यः, तच्छेषत्वात्; इह तु स एवाभिधीयते अविदुषः कर्माधिकारहेतुप्रदर्शनाय॥
It should be understood that this creation of Indra and other gods also belongs to that, being a part of it. It is being described here only to indicate the reason why the ignorant man alone is qualified for the performance of rites.