Upadesa Sahasri


1. The Self is to be known. It is beyond everything knowable as there exists nothing else except It. I bow down to that pure, all knowing and omniscient One which is to be known.

2. I always bow down to those teachers who are conversant with words, sentences and sources of Knowledge and who, like lamps, have shown clearly to us Brahman, the secret of the Vedas.

3. I bow down to my teacher whose words fell (in to my ears) and destroyed ignorance (in me) like the sun's rays falling on darkness and destroying it. I shall now state the reasoning leading to the right conclusion about the Knowledge of Brahman.

4. There is no other attainment higher than that of the Self. For that is the purpose for which the teachings of the Vedas, the Smriti and the actions (described in the work portion of the Vedas) are there.

5. The acquisition on the part of oneself considered to be a source of happiness produces the opposite result also. It is for this reason that the Knowers of Brahman say that the greatest acquisition is that of the Self as it is eternal.

6. Of the nature of being always attained, the Self does not depend on anything else in order to be acquired. The acquisition that depends on other things (e.g. effort etc.) is due to ignorance (and so vanishes when the means to which it is due vanish.)

7. The conception (of the existence) of the non-Self is what is called ignorance, the destruction of which is known to be liberation. This destruction is possible by means of Knowledge only, which is incompatible with ignorance. (Compatible with ignorance), actions cannot destroy it.

8.That actions produced by desires caused by ignorance gives rise to results which are perishable, and that Knowledge produces an imperishable result are known on the evidence of the Vedas.

9. The learned know the Vedas to be one continuous whole the only purpose to which is to demonstrate one thing viz., Knowledge in as much as the oneness of the Self is to be known by the understanding of the Vedic sentences.

10. (One may object that Brahman and the individual Self are different from each other as they are the meanings of two words which are not synonymous. The object is not reasonable) in as much as one has to know the difference between the words from that between their meanings and the difference between their meanings from that between the words. (Therefore the objector is led to the fallacy of reciprocal dependence. So no difference between them can be accepted, there being no Vedic evidence.) (Objection): As the Sruti states three things besides the Self viz. names, forms and actions (it evidently supports the existence of things other than the Self).

11-12. (Reply): As they are interdependent like a painting and a description of it, they are unreal. So the whole of the universe is really non-existent but exists only for a deluded intellect.

13. It is, therefore, reasonable that this universe is unreal. Existence-Knowledge only is real. Existing prior to everything, it is both the knower and the known. It is the form only that is unread.

14-15. Existence-Knowledge through which all things in dream are known is the knower. It is the same entity that is known in dream by Maya. It is the same Consciousness through which one sees, hears, speaks, smells, tastes, touches and thinks in that state is respectively called the eye, ear, the larynx, the auditive organ, the tongue, the organ of touch and the mind. Similarly, it is the same Consciousness that becomes in dream the other organs also functioning variously.

16. Just as the same jewel assumes different colours owing to its proximity to different (coloured) things, so, Pure Consciousness assumes different forms on account various adjuncts which are superimposed on It (in dream).

17. As in dream so in the waking state different forms are superimposed on this Consciousness. It manifests the objects of the intellect when It performs actions produced by desires due to delusion.

18. The events in the waking state are similar to those in dream. The ideas of the interior and exterior in the former state are as unreal as in the latter like reading and writing depending on each other.

19. When the Self manifests different objects, It desires to have them; and accordingly there arises in it a determination (to acquire those objects). It then meets with those particular results of actions done according to particular desires followed by particular determination.

20. Unperceived in deep sleep but perceived (in waking and dream) by those only who are ignorant, the whole of this universe is an outcome of Ignorance and therefore unreal.

21. It is said that in the Sruti that the consciousness of the oneness of the individual Self and Brahman) is Knowledge, and that of a difference (between them) is Ignorance. Knowledge is, therefore demonstrated in the scriptures with great care.

22. When the mind becomes purified like a mirror, Knowledge is revealed in it. Care should, therefore, be taken to purify the mind by Yama, Niyama sacrifices and religious austerities.

23. The best austerities regarding the body, the mind and speech should be practiced in order to purify the mind. The controlling of the mind and emaciating of the body in different seasons should be undertaken.

24. The attainment of the one pointed ness of the mind and the senses is the best of austerities. It is superior to all religious duties and all other austerities.

25. Sensuous perceptions are to be regarded as the waking state. Those very perceptions revealed in sleep as impressions constitute the dream state. The absence of perception and their impressions is known as to be deep sleep. (The witness of three states) one's own Self should be regarded as the supreme Goal to be realised.

26. What is called deep sleep, darkness or ignorance is the seed of the waking and dream states. It gets perfectly burnt by the fire of Self-Knowledge and it no more produces effects, like a burnt seed that does not germinate.

27. That one seed called Maya is evolved into the three states which come one after another again and again. The Self, the Substratum of Maya though only one and immutable, appears to be many, like reflection of the sun in water.

28. Just a the one seed, called Maya, is regarded as different according to different states such as, the undifferentiated dream etc. so, the Self appears to be different in waking and dream bodies, (both individual and aggregate) like reflection of the moon in water.

29. Just as a magician comes and goes on an elephant (created by his own magic), so, the Self, though devoid of all motion, appears to be undergoing conditions such as, the undifferentiated, dreams etc.

30. Just as (in the above example) there is no elephant or its driver, but there stands the magician different from them, so, there are no undifferentiated etc. nor their knower. The Witness which is always of the nature of Pure Consciousness is different from them.

31. There is no magic for the people of right vision or for the magician himself. It is only for the people of clouded vision that magic exists. Hence one, not really a magician, wrongly appears to be so.
[So it is the ignorant only that wrongly believes that Brahman is the wielder of Maya which is equally non-existent both for men of Knowledge and for Brahman.]

32. The Self should be regarded as Brahman in accordance with the Srutis, The Self is immediate; All knots of the heart are torn asunder, If not and so on.

33. (Objection): It is not perceived by the senses as It is devoid of sound etc. Again how can It be perceived by the intellect as It is different from pleasure and so on?

34. (Reply): Just as Rahu, though invisible, is seen in the moon (during an eclipse) and the reflections (of the moon etc.) are seen in the water, so, the Self, though omnipresent, is perceived in the intellect.

35. Just as the reflection and the heat of the sun, found in the water, do not belong to it, so, Consciousness, though perceived in the intellect, is not its quality; for It is of a nature opposite to that of the intellect.

36-37. The Self whose Consciousness never goes out of existence is called the Seer of seeing when it illumines that modification of the intellect which is connected with the eye, and similarly t is called the Hearer of hearing (and so on). The Unborn One called the thinker for thought when It illumines that modification of the mind which is independent of external objects. It is called the knower as Its power of Consciousness never fails; so the Sruti says, the Seeing of the Seen is not destroyed.

38. That the Self is immutable is known from the Srutis, as if It were at rest and It moves as it were. That It is pure is known from other Srutis: The thief in this state and Unattached.

39. The Self is conscious even in deep sleep as well as in the waking and dream as Its power of Consciousness never ceases to exist and as It is changeless. It is only in the objects of knowledge that there is a difference (in dreamless sleep) as the Sruti says, when there is.

40. The consciousness of objects (which arises out of the functioning of the eye etc.) is immediately known; for it depends on an intervening reflection of the Self (in order to be known). As it is the Self of (phenomenal) consciousness Brahman is immediately known.

41. Just as a second lamp is not necessary in order to illumine a lamp, so, a second consciousness is not necessary to make known Pure Consciousness which is of the nature of the Self.

42. The Self is not an object (of knowledge). There is no change or many-ness in It. It is, therefore, capable of neither being accepted nor rejected by Itself or by anyone else.

43. Why should a man have even the lesser fear who knows that he is the Self comprising the interior and exterior, beyond birth, death, decay and old age?

44. It is only before the negation of the idea of caste etc. on the evidence of the Sruti Not large, the ascertainment of the nature of the Self, on the authority of the sentences "Thou Art That', and before the demonstration of the Self (to one), on the part of (the knowledge portion of) the Vedas, that Vedic actions are to be performed (and not afterwards).

45. Caste etc. given up with the giving up of the previous body do belong to the body only and not to the Self. For the very same reason of being perishable the body is also not the Self.

46. The conceptions of 'me' and 'mine' with regard to the non-Self, the body etc. are due to Ignorance and should be renounced by means of Self-knowledge as there is the Sruti of the Asuras.

47. Just as the duty of observing defilement for ten days (following child birth or the death of a kinsman) is refrained from when one becomes a wandering religious mendicant; so, the duties belonging to particular castes etc. comes to an end when right Knowledge is achieved.

48. A man of Ignorance reaps the results of those actions done according to particular desires followed by particular determinations. But when the desires of a man of self-knowledge vanish he becomes immortal.

49. The outcome of the ascertainment of the real nature of the Self is cessation of actions etc. The Self is neither an end nor means. It is, according to the Smriti, eternally extended.

50. Four things are only the results of actions viz., the production, acquisition, transformation and purification of something. They produce no other results. All actions with their accessories should, therefore, be given up.

51-52. One desirous of attaining Truth withdraw in to the Self the love that he has for external persons or things. For, this love, secondary to that for the Self, is evanescent and entails pain. He then should take refuge in a Teacher, a knower of Brahman, who is tranquil, free, bereft of actions and established in Brahman as the Sruti and Smriti say, one having a Teacher knows and Know that.

53. That Teacher should immediately take the disciple in the boat of Knowledge of Brahman across the great ocean of darkness which is within him - the disciple who is of a one-pointed mind and endowed with the qualities of a (true) disciple.

54. The powers of seeing, touching, hearing, smelling, thinking, knowing and so on, though of the nature of Pure Consciousness, differ on account of adjuncts.

55. Just as the sun illumines the world with it rays which are from growth and decay, so, the Self always knows all things in general and all particular things and is pure.

56. Appearing to be in the body owing to Ignorance and, therefore, appearing to be of the same size as the body, the Self is regarded as different from things other than the body (and possessed of its qualities) like the moon etc. reflected in water and appearing to be possessed of tits qualities.

57. One who merges the gross external objects experienced in the waking state in the subtle objects experienced in dreams, and these again in ignorance and then comes to know the Consciousness of the Self attains Brahman and has to follow any path northern or southern.

58. Having thus renounced the three states of the undifferentiated etc. one gets across the great ocean of ignorance, for one is by nature established in the Self without qualities, pure, awakened and free.

59. One is not born again when one knows that one is unborn, deathless, devoid of old age, free from fear, pure and knowing all particular things and things in general.

60. How can one be born again who has known the oneness of the Self and Brahman and is sure of the non-existence of the seed called ignorance stated before?

61. When the Witness is discriminated from the intellect etc. which are unreal, It does not identify Itself again with the gross or the subtle body as before, just as butter raised from milk and thrown into it does not get mixed with it again.

62. One becomes free from fear when one knows that one is Brahman which is Existence, Knowledge and Infinite, beyond the five sheaths consisting of food etc. and which is described in Sruti as not perceivable and so on.

63. That knower of the Truth of the Bliss of the Self has no cause of fear whatsoever. For, afraid of him, the organ of speech, the mind, fire and so on act regularly.

64. Whom should the knower of the Self salute if he is established in his own Glory which is infinite, non-dual and beyond name etc? Actions then have no utility from him.

65-66. The externally conscious individual which is one with the aggregate of the Gross bodies and the individual which is conscious internally only and on with the aggregate of the subtle bodies are both merged in the individual experiencing deep sleep which is one with the undifferentiated.
As the three states viz. deep sleep etc. has words only for their support they are unreal. The truthful man, therefore, who knows that he is Existence-Brahman, gets liberated.

67. I have no knowledge or ignorance in Me as I am of the nature of homogeneous Consciousness only, just as there is no day or night in the sun which is of the nature of light only.

68. As the truth of the scriptures may never be doubted one should always remember one identified with Brahman has nothing to accept or reject.

69. A man is never born again who knows that he is one only in all beings like the ether and that all beings are in him.

70. The Self is pure and self-effulgent having by nature no interior, exterior, middle or anything else anywhere, according to the Sruti, devoid of the interior or exterior.

71. The Self is a non-dual (and left over) by the negation of the universe according to the Sruti, 'Not this, not this'. It should be known as described in the Sruti, 'Unknown knower' and never otherwise.

72. If one knows that one is the supreme Brahman, the Self of all, one should be regarded as the Self of all beings according to the Sruti, 'their Self'.

73. The individual becomes adorable by gods and free from being under their control (unlike beasts under men), if he clearly knows the supreme Self, the shining One to be himself.

74. The Truthful man who has renounced everything unreal does not get bound again when he knows that he is always Consciousness, the eternally existing Self devoid of everything like the ether.

75. Those are to be pitied who know the supreme Brahman to be otherwise. Those, on the other hand, who know It to be not different from themselves are established in the Self and are their own masters. They have all the gods under their control.

76-77. Give up all connection with caste etc. all actions and all talk regarding the non-Self. Always meditate on the pure Self, the all-comprehensive Principle, as Aum. The Self, which like a causeway protects everything established (such as, castes, order of life etc.) and which, untouched by day and night, is in all directions, horizontal, upward and downward, and free from unhappiness, is of the nature of eternal consciousness.

78. One should know oneself to be the Supreme Brahman free from all bondage, merit and demerit, past and future, and also from cause and effect.

79. The self is regarded as the doer of everything though It is a non-doer. It is pure. It runs ahead of those that run, though it does not move at all. It appears to be many though unborn. For It possesses all power by Maya.

80. Without action, a non-agent and one without a second, I, the universal Self, make the world go round like a king who is only a witness or like the loadstone which moves iron by its proximity only.

81. One should have the conception that one is Brahman which is without qualities, without actions, Eternal, free from duality, free from unhappiness, pure, awakened and free.

82. Having gained a perfect knowledge of bondage and liberation with their causes (viz. Ignorance and Knowledge respectively) having acquired a complete understanding of causes and effects which are objects of knowledge and are (therefore) to be negated and having properly known the one supreme and pure Truth (to be the Self) which is beyond all objects of knowledge, known in the Vedanta and taught by the Sruti and the teacher, a knower of Brahman stands freed from the fear of being born again, becomes all and all-knowing, goes beyond grief and delusion and has the acme of his life fulfilled.

83. The Self cannot be accepted or rejected by Itself or others, nor does It accept or reject anyone else. This is right Knowledge.

84. For this Knowledge which is the subject of all the Vedantas, produces the conviction that the Self is Brahman. One becomes perfectly free from the bondage of this transmigratory existence when one achieves it.

85. This Knowledge which is the supreme purifier and the greatest secret of all the Vedas and gods is revealed here (in this chapter).

86. This supreme and secret Knowledge should not be imparted to one who has not controlled oneself, but should be given to a disciple who is obedient and dispassionate.

87. As there is no equivalent which a disciple may offer to the teacher for imparting to him Self-knowledge one should always possess the qualities of a disciple, achieve Knowledge and thus get across the ocean of transmigratory existence.

88. I bow down to that All-knowing and Al-powerful One who is of the nature of consciousness and besides whom there is nothing else viz. a knower, knowledge or an object of knowledge.

89. I bow down to my most adorable Teacher who is all-knowing and has, by imparting Knowledge to me, saved me from the great ocean of births and deaths, filled with Ignorance.


1. I bow down to that Eternal consciousness, the Self of the modification of the intellect, in which they merge and from which they spring.

2. I bow down to the great mendicant, the Teacher of my Teacher who, of great intellect, routed hundred of enemies of the Sruti by means of words comparable to swords made impenetrable through thunder-like reasoning and protected the treasure of the real import of the Vedas.

3. If the conviction, 'I am nothing but Existence and am ever free' were impossible to be attained, why should the Sruti teach us that so affectionately like a mother?

4. Just as the idea of a snake is negated from a rope (in a rope-snake), so, everything of the nature of the non-Self is negated from the eternally existing Self implied by the word 'I', on the evidence of the Srutis 'Thou art That' etc., in which the implied meanings of the words have been ascertained by reasoning (and the scriptures).

5. Brahman should be regarded as the Self on the evidence of the scriptures just as religious duties are known from the same source. Ignorance vanishes (immediately on the attainment of right Knowledge) like the effect of poison coming to an end when mantras are remembered.

6-7. It is reasonable that of the two ideas, 'I am Existence-Brahman' and 'I am an agent' both of which have the Self for their witness, the one owing its origin to Ignorance should be given up. Springing from evidences which are apparently so viz., sense-perception etc. it gets negated like a mistaken notion of a direction by the other one which has its source in the right evidence of the Vedas.

8. When they say 'Do this' and 'You are experiencers' the scriptures restate popular conceptions. The Knowledge, 'I am Existence' arises from the Sruti. The other (arising from injunctive scriptures) is negated by it.

9. (Objection): Absolute liberation does not arise when one is told, 'Thou art That'. One should, therefore, have recourse to the repetition (of the idea, 'I am Brahman') and support it with reasoning.

10. Even acquainted with the literal meaning of the sentence one, once told, cannot know its true import but requires other things which, as we have said, are two.

11. Just as an injunction regarding Vedic actions is necessary, so it is not in compatible in the case of one so long as one has not directly Known the Self and the Knowledge has not been firmly grasped.

12. All one's efforts (viz. self-control etc.) become useless if one can know Brahman without being enjoined. One should, therefore, go on with the repetition so long as the self is not known.

13. Firm impressions originating from sense-perception do surely negate the Knowledge, 'I am Brahman' arising from the Sruti. Moreover an aspirant is attracted towards external objects through impurities (such as, attachment and so on).

14. Perceptional Knowledge which has for its objects particular properties of things does surely contradict that which arises from hearsay and inferences and which is related only to generic properties of things.

15-16. No one is seen freed from the distress of this transmigratory existence simply by understanding the meaning of the sentence. If, however, a rare man is seen to be freed from such distress on the mere hearing of it, he must be inferred to have practiced repetition in previous lives. Moreover our conduct will have to be regarded as non-scriptural (if you do not admit the existence of an injunction) in this case. But that is not desirable.

17. Just as everywhere in the Vedas the means to an end is enjoined after stating the result to be achieved, so here the result, Thou art That' is stated and the means can be nothing but this repetition which only is extended as being capable of revealing an eternally existing thing.

18. Therefore, practicing self-control etc. and renouncing everything incompatible with this end and the means to it, one should carefully practice the said repetition in order directly to know the Self.

19. (Reply): This is not so; for the Upanishads end with 'Not this, not this' (and deal with nothing else). Results to be achieved by means of actions are heard of in the previous part of the Vedas but not liberation which has an eternal existence (and is not achievable by means of any action).

20. Just as the distress experienced by one's son is superimposed by the father on himself who has no distress at all, so, the ego is superimposed on the Self which is eternally free from any pain whatsoever.

21. The superimposition (of the ego on the Self) is negated on the evidence of the Sruti, 'Not this, not this' as if it were a reality. And hence no injunctions which are all due to superimposition can by any means be reasonable (after such a negation has taken place).

22. Just as colour is superimposed on and negated from the sky by ignorant people so, there are the superimposition (of the ego) on the Self and its negation from it.

23. This negation is not one of a reality, but is of a false superimposition only like the prohibition of the placing of fire on the highest region of the sky; for liberation would have surely been transitory if things really existing were negated.

24. It is only to objects of knowledge and not to non-objects that a word or an idea can be applied. Brahman which is the Self of them and also of the ego is not within the scope of a word or an idea.

25. Everything such as agency etc. superimposed by the ego on the Self which is Pure Consciousness is negated together with the ego on the evidence of the Sruti, Not this, not this.

26. (The Self is then known to be) Intelligence, Self-effulgent, a Seer, the Innermost, Existence, free from actions, directly cognised, the Self of all, the Witness, One imparting consciousness to others External, devoid of qualities and without a second.

27. On account of the constant proximity of the conscious Self, the ego also appears to be conscious. Hence the two things viz., oneself and things related to oneself that are denoted by the words 'I' and 'mine', originate.

28. As the ego is possessed of species, action, etc. words are applicable to it. But no word can be used with respect to the innermost Self owing to the absence of these from it.

29-30. Words which denote the ego and the other things which reflect the innermost Self express the latter only indirectly, and by no means describe It directly. For, nothing that has no species etc. can be described by means of words.

31. Just as words denoting the actions of fire are applied only indirectly to torches etc (having fire in them) and not directly as they imply a thing different from them; so words implying the Self are applied to the ego having the reflection of he Self and appearing like It.

32-33. As it imitates the mirror the reflection of a face is different from the face. The face which does not depend on the mirror (for its existence) is also different from its reflection. Similarly, the reflection of the Self in the ego is also regarded (as different from the pure Self) like that of the face which is different from the face. The pure Self is considered to be different from Its reflection like the face (which is different from its own). In fact, however, the Self and Its reflection are free from real distinction between each other like the face and its reflection.

34. (Objection): Some say that the reflection in the ego (as distinct from the Self) is the individual soul. (But if one asks how the reflection which is not a reality can experience anything at all, the objects answer that) the reflection is a reality as the shadows of things are known to be realistic according to the Smriti. Not only so, there is another reason also (why a shadow should be regarded as a reality). For a man in shadow feels refreshingly cool.

35. (Other objections): Some say that the individual soul is a part of Pure Consciousness. Others hold that it is a modification of the same. Still others are of opinion that the ego together with the reflection of Pure Consciousness in it is the individual soul. Others again think that it is the independent ego, (neither a part nor a modification), which is the experience of this mundane existence.

36. The Buddhists say that the individual soul is the momentary consciousness, 'I'. There is no witness (distinct from the series to see the beginning and the end of these momentary phenomena). Now examine which of these doctrines is reasonable.

37. Let us now stop discussing the different doctrines about transmigratory soul. Let us go on with the present subject. The reflection of the face in the mirror is a property neither of the face nor of the mirror. For, if it were the property of either of the two, it would continue even if the other were removed.

38. If it is argued that it is the property of the face because it is called after, it cannot be so. For, it imitates the mirror and is not seen even when the face is there (but the mirror is removed).

39. (First line) If you say that it is the property of both, we say, 'No' because it is not seen even when both are present (but improperly placed).
(Second line) (Objection): It may be said that Rahu, a real thing, though invisible, is sometime seen in the sun and moon; (so the reflection of the face, a reality, though invisible, is sometimes seen in the mirror).

40. (Reply): That Rahu is a real thing is known from the scriptures before one sees it in the sun or moon. But according to those who hold that it is the shadow of the earth, it cannot be a real thing and the unreality of the reflection has been proved by arguments before.

41. There is a prohibition regarding the crossing of the shadows (of one's teachers and other superiors); but it does not prove the reality of a shadow as a sentence expressing one meaning cannot express another at the same time.

42. That one feels cool while sitting in a shadow is not the effect of the shadow on one. It is due to one's refraining from using warm things. Coolness is found to belong to water; but not to shadow.

43. The Self, Its reflection and the intellect are comparable to the face, its reflection and the mirror. The unreality of the reflection is known from the scriptures and reasoning.

44. (Objection): Who is the experiencer of transmigratory existence as it cannot belong to the Self which is changeless, neither to the reflection, which is not real nor to the ego which is not a conscious entity?

45. (Reply) Let the transmigratory condition then is only a delusion due to the indiscrimination (between the Self and the non-Self). It always has an (apparent) existence due to the real existence of the changeless Self and, therefore, appears to be pertaining to it.

46. Just as a rope-snake (a rope mistaken for a snake), though unreal, has an existence due to that of the rope before the discrimination between the rope and the snake takes place; so, the transmigratory condition, though unreal, is possessed of an existence due to that of the changeless Self.

47. Some say that the Self to which the reflection belongs, though changeful on account of the modifications of the mind pertaining to Itself such as, 'I am happy', 'I am miserable' and though an experiencer of the transmigratory condition, is eternal.

48. Having no knowledge of the Vedas and deluded on account of the lack of the real knowledge of the Self and Its reflection, they consider the ego to be the Self.

49. The transmigratory existence consisting of agency and the experiencing of pain and pleasure is, according to them, a reality. They, therefore, continue to be born again and again on account of the ignorance of the nature of the Self, its reflection and the intellect between which they cannot discriminate.

50. That the Vedas imply the Self by means of words such as 'Knowledge' etc. becomes reasonable if it is true that the Self is of the nature of Pure Consciousness and the intellect reflects It.

51-52. (Objection) It is well known among the people that the meaning of the root and that of the verbal suffix, though different from each other, in each of the words such as 'does', 'goes' etc. are seen to belong to the same subject. They are not seen to belong to two different subjects either according to ordinary people or grammarians. Now please tell me the reason why the meanings of the root and the suffix should belong to two different subjects in the case of the words such as, 'knows' etc.

53. (Reply): The meaning of the suffix is the reflection of the Self in the intellect and the root denotes an action i.e. a modification of the intellect. As the intellect and the reflection are not discriminated from the Self, the word 'knows' is applied falsely to It.

54. The intellect has no consciousness and the Self no action. The word 'knows' can, therefore, reasonably be applied to neither of them.

55. The word 'knowledge' in the sense of action of knowing, cannot similarly be applied to the Self. For the Self is not a change only (which is indicated by an action as it is taught in the Srutis that It is eternal).

56. The word 'knowledge', in the sense of the instrument of the action of knowing, is applied to the intellect and not to the Self as an instrument cannot exist without an agent. Neither is the word, in the sense of that which is the object of the same action, can be applied to the Self.

57. The Self is never knowable and is not directly denoted by any word according to those who hold that It is eternally changeless, free form pain and one only.

58. If the ego were the Self, a word might be applied to it in the primary sense. But it is not the Self according to the Sruti as it is possessed of hunger etc.

59-62. (Objection): Well, words that have no primary meanings can have no secondary ones also. Therefore you are to explain the application of the words 'knows' etc.
The Vedas would lose their authority as an evidence if words were false, which is not desirable. (Reply) Should one, therefore, have to accept the application of words according to popular usage?
(Objection) If you accept the usage of ignorant people, you will have to arrive at the conclusion of the Charvakas who hold that there is no Self (other than the body). But that is undesirable.
If, on the other hand, you accept the usage of the learned, you will arrive at the same dilemma as before. The Vedas which are an authority do not use meaningless words.

63-64. (Reply) As the reflection appears like the face people accept its oneness with the reflection in a mirror.
All people, therefore, naturally use the verbs 'knows' etc. owing to the indiscrimination between that in which there is the reflection and that which is reflected.

65. The Self is said to know things on account of the superimposition of the agency of the intellect on it. Similarly the intellect is called a knower owing to the superimposition of Consciousness on it.

66. Eternal Knowledge which is the nature of the Self described by the Srutis as the Light of Consciousness is never created by the intellect, by Itself or by anything else.

67. Just as people regard their bodies as themselves and say that they (bodies) know things, so, they speak of the intellect having the agency in producing knowledge and of the Self (as being its seat).

68. Deluded by the modifications of the intellect which appear to be conscious and are created, the argumentative philosophers say that knowledge is produced.

69. Therefore the word "knows' etc. the corresponding modifications of the mind and their memory are possible on account of the indiscrimination regarding the Self, the intellect and the reflection of the Self in it.

70. Just as the properties of a mirror assumed to be reflection of the face in it are attributed to the face, so are the properties of the intellect assumed by the reflection of the Self are superimposed on It.

71. Just as the torches and other things appear to be possessed of the power of burning (on account of there being fire in them) so, the modifications of the intellect, illumined by the reflection of the Self appears to be endowed with the power of perception.

72. The Buddhist philosophers forbid the existence of a Witness by saying that the modifications of the intellect are themselves perceivers and are also perceived (by themselves).

73-74. Say how to refute (the Buddhists who hold) that the modifications of the intellect are not illumined by a witness different from them. (In refuting the Buddhists it may be said that) though a persistent knower must be accepted on account of reality different from the modifications revealing their presence and absence, It is not necessary to assume a reflection of the Self.
(Reply) The persistent knower also is no better than the modifications themselves as the said knower, different from the modifications, will be equally non-Conscious.

75. If you are of opinion that the presence and absence of the modifications will be known owing to the proximity of the permanent knower, we say, No. For, the changeless knower will be of no utility in that respect. (Even admitting that it will reveal them by its proximity only) everything will have mental modifications.

76-77. (First line) It is the disciple, who is suffering from the misery due to transmigratory existence and seeking liberation, the Witness Itself on other than It, that the Witness is miserable and desirous of liberation is not your view.
If, on the other hand, he be an agent other than the Witness, he cannot accept the idea. 'I am Brahman, the Witness'. (In that case) also the teaching of the Sruti, "Thou Art That' would be false, which is not reasonable.

78. (First line) But this teaching may be accepted if the Sruti teaches it without discriminating the two, the Self and the ego.

78. (Last two lines) But if the Sruti discriminates the ego from the innermost Self and then says to the ego, 'Thou Art That', the defects spoken of (in the previous verse) will creep in.

79. If you say that the word 'thou' finally means the witness, you must explain how there can be a relation between It and the ego so that the word 'thou' may express the Witness indirectly.

80. (Objection): Suppose the relation is one of the seer and the seen. (Reply): How can it be with regard to the Witness which is devoid of activity?

81. If it be contented that there will be the identity of the ego and the Witness, though the latter is devoid of activity, (we say it cannot be so; for) the knowledge of the said identity will not be there in the absence of the knowledge of the relation that my Self, the Witness, exists.

82. If you think that the relation will be known from the scriptures, it cannot be so. For (in that case) all the three defects spoken of before will arise. (And if there be a knowledge of the relation at all), it will be one of 'mine' (but not of identity.)

83. When it is accepted that the non-conscious intellect appears to be conscious, its modifications also appear to be so like sparks of red-hot iron.

84. The knowledge on the part of the people of the appearance and disappearance of the mental modifications is possible only on account of the Witness which is the limit and in no other way. And if the reflection of the Self is accepted, the intellect may know itself to be Brahman.

85. (Objection): Is it not a change on the part of the Self to pervade the intellect like fire pervading a mass of iron? (Reply): We have refuted this in the example of the face and it reflection in a mirror.

86. That black iron appears to be red is only an example (to illustrate the fact that the non-conscious intellect appears to be conscious). An illustration and its subject can nowhere be absolutely similar in all respects.

87. Reflecting Consciousness, therefore, the intellect appears to be conscious like a mirror reflecting a face and appearing like it. It has already been said that the reflection is not real.

88. It is not supported by the scriptures or reasoning that the intellect is conscious. For in that case the body, the eye, etc. also would be so.

89. (Objection): Let them be so.
(Reply): No. For (in that case) the position of the Charvaka philosophers comes in. Moreover the knowledge, 'I am Brahman' also will not be possible if there be no reflection of the Self in the intellect.

90. The teaching, 'Thou art That' will surely be useless in the absence of the knowledge 'I am Brahman'. This teaching is of use to those only who are acquainted with the discrimination between the Self and the non-Self.

91. 'Mine' and 'it' are ideas predicated of the non-Self and the idea 'I' of the ego. The ideas such as, 'I am a man' are predicated of both the Self and the non-Self.

92. They should be regarded as principal and subordinate with relation to one another and should be taken as the qualified or qualifying according to reason.

93. Both the ideas 'mine' and 'it' are qualifications of the ego, as for example,' a man having wealth and a man 'having a cow'. Similarly, the gross body is the qualification of the ego.

94. Everything pervaded by the intellect together with the ego is the qualification of the Witness. Without being connected with anything and pervading everything by means of its reflection the Self is, therefore, always of the nature of Knowledge Itself.

95. All this non-Self exists only for those people who are undiscriminating, but it does not exist at all for men of Knowledge.

96. Agreement with contrary with regard to words and with regard to their meanings are the only means by which the meaning implied by the word 'I' may be ascertained.

97. (Waking up from deep sleep one says) 'I did not see anything at all in that state'. (From this it is clear that) one denies the existence of the knower, knowing and the known in deep sleep; but not that of Knowledge Itself.

98. The scriptures themselves discriminate between Knowledge Itself on the one hand and the knower, knowing and the known on the other, and prove that the former is changeless and really existing, and that the later deviate from existence as they say, It is self luminous and The Knowledge of the knower does not (cease to exist).

99-100. Just as Brahma removed the Ignorance of the son of Dasarata by means of words only, but did not teach him any action in order to remove it so that he might know that he was Vishnu; so, the Sruti teaches one 'Thou art That' in order that one's Ignorance may be removed when one has learnt the meanings of the subordinate sentences according to the Srutis and popular grammar.

101. It is the indirectly expressed meaning of the word 'I' viz., the innermost and self-luminous Self which is expressed in the teaching, 'Thou art That'. And the result is liberation.

102. It would surely be necessary to admit an injunction if right knowledge were not produced immediately when one was taught (that one was Brahman).The Self exists in Its own nature even before one is taught (the meaning of the sentence as, 'Thou Art That').

103. The listening to the teachings and the production of right knowledge are simultaneous, and the result is the cessation of (the transmigratory existence consisting of) hunger etc. There can be no doubt about the meaning of the sentences like 'Thou art That' in the past, present or future.

104. The right knowledge of the Self which is of the nature of Pure Consciousness is, no doubt, produced in one at the time of listening to the teachings as all obstacles are removed (beforehand).

105-106. Is the knowledge, 'I am Brahman Itself' or, 'I am something other than It', is produced (when one is taught, 'Thou art That?) If the meaning implied by the word 'I' is something which is Brahman Itself, you must accept the absolute identity of the innermost Self and Brahman. But if the word 'I' imply something other than the Brahman the knowledge, 'I am Brahman' certainly becomes false. The knowledge of their absolute identity cannot, therefore, be forbidden.

107. The intellect and its modifications having the reflection of the Self in them exist for It and are non-conscious. Liberation, the result, is, therefore, supposed to be in the conscious Self.

108. As neither the intellect (with the reflection of the Self) nor its modification in the form of the ego is of the nature of the result or its (material) cause, the result is capable of being attributed to the Self, though immutable, like victory to a King.

109. Just as the reflection of a face which makes a mirror appear like it is the face itself, so the reflection of the Self in the mirror of the ego making it appear like the Self (in the Self). So the meaning of the sentence, 'I am Brahman' is reasonable.

110. It is only in this way and in no other that one knows that one is Brahman (and that Brahman is oneself). Otherwise the teaching, 'Thou art That' also becomes useless in the absence of a medium.

111. Teaching becomes useful if it is meant for a listener, who will be the listener if the Witness is not?

112. If you are of opinion that the intellect proximate to the Witness is the listener, it cannot be regarded as deriving any benefit from the Witness as from a piece of wood.

113. But the Witness must be admitted to the subject to change if there be any benefit rendered by It to the intellect.
What harm is there if the reflection of the Self is accepted as it is supported by the Srutis and Smritis?

114. If you say that there will be changes in the Self in case the reflection is accepted, we say, 'No'. For, we have already said that the reflection of Consciousness in the intellect is an unreality like a snake appearing to be a rope and like the reflection of a face in a mirror appearing to be the face itself.

115-116. (Objection): No. There will be the fallacy of the reciprocal dependence here as the knowledge of the reflection depends on that of the Self (and the knowledge of the Self depends on that of the reflection); (but it is not so in the case of the face etc. and their reflections) as the face etc. are always known independent of their reflections. The reflection may be said to belong to the Self if the latter be known to have an independent existence. Again, the Self may have an independent existence if the reflection belongs to It.

117. (Reply): It is not so. For, the intellect and the Self are known to exist independent of each other to dream like the face and its reflection, as the Self then illumines the modifications of the intellect in the forms of objects such as, chariots etc. though they are not present in that state.

118-119. Pervaded by Consciousness, mental modifications in the forms of objects come into existence. External objects are what impart their forms to these modifications. The most desirable of all things (on the part of the agent), these external objects are called objects of action. One having such a desire is enjoined to perform actions. The mental modifications in which the forms of external objects are present are called the instruments of his knowledge of objects.

120. The ego which is pervaded by the reflection of the Consciousness is called the knower or the agent of the action of knowing. One who knows oneself (the witness) to be distinct from all these three is a real knower of the Self.

121. The modifications of the intellect called right 'knowledge,' 'doubtful knowledge' and 'false knowledge' deviate from their existence. There is one and the same Consciousness in all of them, but the differences are due to modifications.

122. Just as a jewel differs in color owing to the proximity of (colored) things, so, Consciousness differs (according to different modifications of the mind superimposed on It.) Impurities and changes in the Self are all due to Its connection with these modifications.

123. The modifications of the intellect are manifested, known and endowed with existence by the Self which is immediately known and different from them. It is inferred with the help of the example of a lamp.

124. Does one make another accept the Self by means of positive evidence or without one by merely negating the non-Self and leaving over the Self only?

125. The possibility of a void comes in owing to the witness being unknown, if the non-Self be meant to be negated by means of the evidence of words.

126. (Objection): You are a conscious being, how you can be the body?
(Reply): It cannot be so proved, as the Self is not known (from another evidence). It might be proved by negating the non-Self if Pure Consciousness were known to exist.

127. (Objection): The Self is self-existing as Pure Consciousness is immediately known. (Reply): The knowledge of the Self according to you then becomes similar to that of the void assumed by the Nihilist.

128. (Objection): That the agent, the object and instrument are known to exist simultaneously is proved by memory (e.g. when one says) 'I' knew it.

129. (Reply): Though memory is right evidence, simultaneity is a misconception due to quick perception. So they were perceived before one after another and afterwards remembered in the same way.

130. Relative to, and characteristically different from, each other, the things denoted by the words 'it' and 'myself' in the sentence 'I know it and myself', cannot be the objects of simultaneous perception.

131. Three things (namely, an agent, an instrument and an object) are unnecessary in the perception of each of the knower, knowledge and the known. (And in order to avoid a regresses ad infinitum it cannot be said that each of these three things will prove its own existence, because) the agency of the agent exhausted in proving its own existence will not be available to prove that of the instrument and the object at the same time.

132. What is desired to be governed by the action of an agent is an object of that action. The object, therefore, depends on the agent and not on the Self which is other than it.

133. It is only through evidence such as, words, inference, etc. and in no other way that all things become known to those who do not know them.

134. Is the Self also substantiated by means of evidence or not? Though the Self Itself is independent of evidence, evidence is necessary in order to know It.

135. If the conscious Self Itself is taken to be ignorant, evidence is necessary in order that It may know Itself. It is surely necessary in knowing the Self if one (i.e. the ego) other than It be regarded as ignorant.

136-137. Does substantiation means being known, being endowed with existence or anything else? You should remember the two alternatives spoken of in the previous verse if it means 'being known'. As it is well-known that all things come to existence from their causes, no effort (by way of the application of evidence) is necessary for substantiation.

138. Substantiation, therefore, means 'being known' according to the doctrine in which the knower, knowing and the known are admitted. In the case of both he witnesses and the witnessed it denotes 'being known' and not 'endowed with existence'.

139. If it be assumed that the distinctness of the agent, the object, etc. is what substantiation (we say that) there can be distinctness or indistinctness with respect to the other (i.e. the witness) only, but not the agent.

140. There is no distinctness of a jar to a blind man. (It is nothing more than the jar being known). If, however, they want to predicate distinctness of the agent etc. they must admit that knowingness belongs to the Self.

141. Please tell us what benefits you derive by holding that knowledge depends on other things. If it is contended that dependence (of knowledge) on the knower is desirable (we reply that) the knower also, according to us, is nothing but Knowledge.

142. The intellect itself, though indivisible, is looked upon by deluded people as consisting of the divisions of the knower, knowing and the known.

143. Actions, agents, etc. consist, according to us, (idealists), of knowledge only.
(Reply): You must accept an agent of this knowledge if you admit its existence and destruction (every moment).

144. Your own conclusion is given up if you do not admit any quality belonging to knowledge. (Objection): The qualities of existence etc. are nothing but the negation of their non-existence and so on. (Reply): Even then knowledge cannot be liable to destruction (every moment) as it is known by itself according to you.

145. Destruction has for its ultimate limit something which is self-existent. (You say that) destruction is the negation of non-destruction. A cow is defined according to you as the non-existent of a non-cow. It cannot be the definition of a cow.

146. Things denoted by the word 'momentary' are also, according to you, only the negation of things that are non-momentary.

147. (The Idealists). As there cannot be any difference in non-existence differences are due to names only. (Reply) Please, tell me how there can be many-ness in one indivisible non-existence due only to different names.

148. How can the negation (of a non-cow) denote a cow if by the word negation the negation of different things is meant? (Again) No negation distinguishes one thing from another, nor can special properties do it.

149. Just as names, species, etc do not qualify Knowledge according to you as it has no special properties, (so, the negation of a non-cow, homelessness etc. do not qualify a cow).

150. As you have to accept sense-perception and inference in everyday life, you have to admit difference; for they consist of actions, agents and so on.

151. Entities qualifying knowledge such as jars, blue, yellow, etc. and also the knower by which these are known must be accepted.

152. Just as the perceiver is different from colors etc. which are perceivable, so, the knower, the Self, is different from the modifications of the intellect which are knowable. (Again) just as a lamp which reveals things is different from them, so is the knower different from things known.

153-154. What other relation except that of the seer and the seen can there be between the Self, the Witness, and the modifications of the intellect witnessed by It?
(Question) Does the consciousness of the Self pervade the modifications (really or apparently)?
(Answer) If apparently, the eternal Self must be of some utility to the intellect.

155. It has been said before that the benefit derived from (the proximity of) the Self by the intellect is that it appears conscious like the former. Being a revealer the intellect, like light and so on, pervades objects such as jars etc.

156. Just as a jar placed in the sun may be said to be brought to light, so, an object in the intellect may be said to be brought under its cognizance. This bringing to cognizance is nothing but being pervaded by the intellect. Objects become pervaded by the intellect one after another.

157. The intellect pervades an object (and assumes its form) when the object is revealed through the help (i.e. the reflection) of the Self. Like time and space the all pervading Self can have no order or succession (in pervading objects).

158. A thing like the intellect that depends on the agent etc. in pervading its objects and does not pervade all objects at the same time, (some being always left un-pervaded), is liable to transformation.

159. It is to the intellect and not to the Self which is immutable that the knowledge 'I am Brahman' belongs. Moreover, the Self is changeless because It has no other witness.

160. If the agent, the ego, were to feel 'I am liberated' freedom from pain and pleasure would not be reasonable with respect to it.

161-162 The wrong knowledge that one is happy or unhappy due to one's identification with the body etc. like the pleasure or sorrow due to the possession or loss of an ear-ring, is surely negated by the right knowledge that one is Pure Consciousness. An evidence becoming non-evidence, everything will end in non-existence in the reverse case.

163. One feels pain when one's body gets burnt, cut or destroyed, (because one identifies oneself with it. Otherwise the Self (which is different from the body) is never pained. Owing to there being burns etc. in one man another is not pained.

164. As I am not touched by anything and do not possess a body I am never susceptible of being burnt. Pain arises from the wrong notion (due to a false identification with the body) like the wrong notion of one being dead at the death of one's son.

165. Just as the wrong notion 'I possess an ear-ring' is removed when the right knowledge regarding it arises, so, the false consciousness 'I am unhappy' is negated by the right knowledge, 'I am pure Brahman'.

166. The pure Self might be freely imagined to be susceptible to pain if It were proved to possess it at all. One's identification with the body etc. is the cause of the pain felt and is responsible for the idea that the Self is susceptible to pain.

167. Just as due to indiscrimination touch and movement are felt to be in the Self which is devoid of them, so, normal pain is also felt to be in It (owing to the same reason).

168-169. The pain (due to the identification with the subtle body) comes to an end when one has the discriminating knowledge (that one is the Innermost Self) like the movement etc. (belonging to the gross body) which are negated (when one knows that one is different from it). Unhappiness is seen in the Self when the mind roams against one's will on account of Ignorance. But it is not seen in it when the mind is at rest. It is, therefore, not reasonable that unhappiness is in the innermost Self.

170. The saying 'Thou art That' implies an invisible reality, the words 'Thou' and 'That' expressing the same reality indirectly like (the words 'blue' and 'horse' in) the sentence 'it is a blue horse'.

171. The word 'Thou' comes to mean one free from pain on account of its being used in the same predicament with the word 'That' which means One eternally devoid of pain. Similarly, used in the same connection with the word 'Thou', meaning the Innermost Self (which is directly known), the word 'That' also comes to mean a thing directly known.

172. The sentences, 'Thou art That' produces the immediate knowledge of Self-Brahman like the saying, 'You are the tenth'.

173. Without giving up their own meanings the words 'thou' and 'That' deliver (by implication) a special one resulting in the knowledge of Self-Brahman. They do not express any other meaning contrary to it.

174-175. Just as misled by the number nine the tenth boy did not know himself to be so and wanted to know who the tenth was, so, one does not see one's Self, the Witness, though detached from the non-Self, and self-evident, on account of one's eyes being covered by Ignorance and intellect captivated by desires..

176. One knows one's own Self, the witness of the intellect and all its modifications, from sentences such as, 'Thou art That' like the boy who knew himself from the sentence, 'You are the tenth'.

177-178. The understanding of sentences is possible (on the knowledge of the implied meanings of the words) by the method of agreement and contrariety after it has been ascertained which words should be placed first and which next. For the order of words in Vedic sentences follows the meaning of the sentences. The rule about remembering the meanings of words in accordance with their order in which sentences are construed does not hold good in the Vedas.

179. The question is out of place when the meanings of words in sentences having fixed meanings are made clear in order that the meanings of sentences may be comprehended.

180. The method of agreement and contrariety is spoken of in order that one may be acquainted with the (implied) meanings of words, for no one can know the meaning of a sentence without knowing (the meaning of the words in it).

181-183. The meaning of the sentences like 'Thou art That', i.e. one is Brahman ever free, does not become manifest on account of the non-discrimination of the (implied) meaning of the word 'Thou'. Therefore it is the purpose of the discriminating the meaning of that word and for no other purpose that the method of agreement and contrariety has been described. For when the meaning of the word 'thou' is discriminated) one becomes perfectly sure of the nature of the Innermost Self by the negation of the ego connected with unhappiness from the meaning of the word 'I' and then the meaning of the sentence viz. one invisible Pure Consciousness becomes manifest like an AEgle marmelos fruit placed on one's palm.

184. Those who are well-versed in the meanings of words and sentences should not, therefore, assume a meaning which is not in accordance with the Srutis and give up what is in them. For this explanation of the sentence is thus possible.

185. (Objection): The knowledge, 'I am Brahman' is contradicted by sense-perception etc. like the cooking of gold particles.
(Reply): How can that knowledge be contradicted by these which are evidences only apparently?

186. (Objection): The knowledge that one is devoid of unhappiness does not arise from the sentence as long as one feels that one is unhappy, though the feeling of unhappiness may be due to sense-perception etc. which are all fallacious.
(Reply): we say, 'No'. For, there are exceptions.

187-188. (Reply continued) I felt miserable on account of burns, cuts, etc. in dream and was freed from pain through the teaching (imparted to me by a man of knowledge) in that state. Even if it be a contented that the teaching in dream negates no pain, still pain etc. cannot be regarded as belonging to the Self. For the absence of pain is there both before and after it is experienced, a delusion or a pain being never unceasing.

189. There is no contradiction if by negating the idea that one is unhappy one knows oneself to be the Innermost Self (i.e. Brahman) like the boy who knew himself to be the tenth and not one of the other nine.

190-191. It is from the sentence only and from nothing that one knows oneself to be ever free. The meaning of the sentence is known from the knowledge of the (implied) meanings of the words; these meanings again are surely understood by the method of agreement and contrariety. Thus one knows oneself to be free from pain and action.

192-193. The right knowledge of Self-Brahman becomes manifest fro sentences such as 'Thou Art That', like the knowledge acquired from the sentence 'you are the tenth'. The (false) conception of pain with regard to the Self vanishes for ever when the right knowledge of Self-Brahman arises like all kinds of pain experienced in dream which comes to an end as soon as one wakes up.

194. The knowledge (that they have been cooked) does not arise in the case of gold particles etc. as they do not become soft. They are made hot by boiling them for the purpose of producing an unseen result (in connection with sacrifices). It is not a fact that right knowledge does not arise from sentences like 'Thou art That'. For, there is no such contradiction here.

195. The meaning of the two words 'That' and 'art' in the sentence 'Thou art That' are well known. It does not produce right knowledge for want of help when the (implied) meaning of the word 'Thou' is not known.

196. The world 'art' is used in order to show that the words 'Thou' and 'That' are in the same predicament.

197. Being in the same predicament with the word 'Thou', the word 'That' comes to mean the Innermost Self. (Similarly, being in the same relation with the word 'That') the word 'Thou' comes to mean the same thing as the word 'That'. (Thus in relation to each other) the two words show that the Innermost Self is not unhappy and that Brahman is not other than the Self.

198. Thus both of them in conjunction express the same meaning as is implied by the sentences, 'Not this, not this'.

199. Why do you say that the sentence is not evidence (regarding the knowledge of Brahman) and depends on an action (in order to produce the same knowledge) as the result produced by the sentence 'Thou art That' is the right knowledge regarding Self-Brahman?

200. We do not, therefore, admit (the injunction of an action) in the beginning, end or middle, for it is contradictory and not to be met with in the Vedas. Not only so, we have, in that case, to give up what is there in them. And that would be harmful.

201. (Objection): The Bliss of liberation is not obtained by ascertaining the meaning of the sentences unlike the satisfaction which is felt by eating. Just as boiled milk-rice cannot be prepared with cow dung, so, the direct knowledge of Brahman cannot be produced simply by ascertaining the meaning of the sentence.

202. (Reply): Indirect knowledge, it is true, is the result produced by the sentences regarding the non-Self, but it is not so in the case of those regarding the Innermost Self. It is, on the other hand, direct and certain knowledge like that in the case of the tenth boy.

203. Therefore accept the Self as self-evidence which means the same thing as self-knowledge. The knowledge of the Innermost Self according to us thus becomes possible when the ego vanishes.

204. Pain is a property belonging to the intellect How can it, therefore, belong to the innermost Self which is of the nature of Pure Consciousness and not connected with pain?

205. The Witness is known by Itself which is of the nature of knowledge only. It is the birth of the modification of the intellect pervaded by the reflection of Consciousness that is what is known to be the knowledge of the Self.

206. How can you speak of the hearing etc of the Self on your part which is a contradiction when you are the eternally existing Liberation free from hunger etc.?

207. Hearing etc. would be necessary if Liberation were to be brought about. But it would be transitory in that case. The sentence, therefore, can have no other meaning in the presence of inconsistency.

208. The repetition of the idea, 'I am Brahman' might be possible if there were a difference between the listener and what is listened to. The desired meaning would be wronged in that case. Therefore the sentence becomes unreasonable (i.e. loses authority according to that view).

209. Knowing that one is eternally existing Liberation, one who desires to perform actions is a man of clouded intellect and nullifies the scriptures.

210. For knowing oneself to be Brahman one has no duty to perform; nor can one be a knower of Brahman when one has duties to perform. One deceives oneself by having recourse to both sides.

211. (Objection): If a reality is only pointed to (but no injunction be given) when one is told 'Thou are eternally existing Liberation'. How can one apply oneself to know that one is so (without being enjoined)?

212. It is known by perpetual evidence that one is an agent and miserable. And then there is an effort so that one may not remain so.

213. The Sruti, therefore, restates the agency etc. on the part of the people, and enjoins duties such as reasoning etc. in order that they may know that they are eternally existing Brahman.

214. (Reply): How can one accept an inconsistent meaning after knowing that one is eternally existing Liberation which is free from unhappiness, activity and desires?

215. (Objection): You should say why I thought of an opposite nature, should feel that I have desires and activities and am not Brahman.

216. (Reply): A question on this subject is reasonable, but it is not reasonable to ask why one is free. It is only a thing contrary to evidence that should be questioned.

217. The knowledge that one is free arises from a different evidence viz. the evidence, 'Thou art That'. Arising from fallacious perceptual evidence, unhappiness deserves an explanation.

218. One should be told what one asks and wants to know; and the inquirer desires to know liberation, (the Self) which is free from unhappiness.

219. That which removes unhappiness should be told (by the teacher to the disciple) according to his question, inquiring how his happiness might be removed altogether.

220. There can be no doubt about what the Srutis prove as they are an independent source of knowledge. The words of Sruti, therefore, produce the conviction that one is free. So it should be said that such is the meaning of the Srutis as (it has been proved that) they do not contradict any other source of knowledge.

221. The Knowledge of the Self different fro what has been said before is unreasonable on the authority of the Srutis 'It' is unknown to those who know (It), and 'Who' will know the knower?

222. The renunciation of all actions in order to discriminate the (implied) meaning of the word 'thou' becomes the means (to Self-Knowledge) according to the teaching, 'controlling the internal and external senses'.

223. One should know the Self, the innermost One, and the implied meaning of the word 'thou' in the combination of the body and the senses. One then knows the pure Self to be Brahman, the all-comprehensive principle. And that is the meaning of the sentence, 'Thou art That'.

224. How can one be enjoined to perform a duty when the meaning of the sentence that one is Brahman is known by one according to the right source of knowledge, viz. the Srutis, as no other source of knowledge can then exist for one?

225. No action can, therefore, be enjoined on one when one has known the meaning of the sentence. For the two contradictory ideas, 'I am Brahman' and 'I am an agent' cannot exist together.

226-227. That one is Brahman is the right knowledge. It is not negated by the false conceptions that one is an agent, has desires and is bound, arising from fallacious evidences. This (false) knowledge (i.e. I am an agent) like the identification of the Self with the body, becomes unreasonable when the knowledge that one is Brahman and not other than It is firmly grasped according to the teaching of the scriptures.

228. A man who tries to be free of fear and goes to a place which is devoid of it, from one full of fear, does not, if independent, go to such a place again.

229. How can there be the possibility of wrong conduct on the part of one on whom renunciation etc. are enjoined and who is awakened, on knowing the implied meanings of the words and is aspiring after the comprehension of the meaning of the sentence?

230. Everything, therefore that we said before is substantiated.

231. One does not try to attain anything in which one has lost interest. Why will a man seeking liberation make any effort at all who has lost interest in all the three worlds?

232. No one likes to eat poison even if pressed by hunger. So, no one who is not an idiot will knowingly wish to eat it when his hunger has been appeased by eating sweetmeats.

233. I bow down to my Teacher, a knower of Brahman, who collected for us the nectar of knowledge from the Vedanta like a bee collecting the best honey from flowers.