आत्मेत्येवं शास्त्रोक्तलक्षणः परमात्मा प्रतिपत्तव्यः ।तथा हि परमात्मप्रक्रियायां जाबाला आत्मत्वेनैवैनमभ्युपगच्छन्ति -- 'त्वं वा अहमस्मि भगवो देवते अहं वै त्वमसि' इति ।तथान्येऽपि -- 'यदेवेह तदमुत्र यदमुत्र तदन्विह' ।'स यश्चायं पुरुषे ।यश्चासावादित्ये ।स एकः' 'तदात्मानमेवावेदहं ब्रह्मास्मीति' 'तदेतद्ब्रह्मापूर्वमनपरमनन्तरमबाह्यमयमात्मा ब्रह्म' 'स वा एष महानज आत्माजरोऽमरोऽमृतोऽभयो ब्रह्म' इत्येवमादयः आत्मत्वोपगमा द्रष्टव्याः ।ग्राहयन्ति च बोधयन्ति चात्मत्वेनेश्वरं वेदान्तवाक्यानि -- 'एष त आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतः' 'यन्मनसा न मनुते येनाहुर्मनो मतम् ।तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते' 'तत्सत्यं स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि' इत्येवमादीनि ॥ननु प्रतीकदर्शनमिदं विष्णुप्रतिमान्यायेन भविष्यति-तदयुक्तम्, गौणत्वप्रसङ्गात्, वाक्यवैरूप्याच्च ।यत्र हि प्रतीकदृष्टिरभिप्रेयते सकृदेव तत्र वचनं भवति ।यथा-'मनो ब्रह्म' 'आदित्यो ब्रह्म' इति ।इह पुनः 'त्वमहमस्मि अहं वै त्वमसि' इत्याह ।अतः प्रतीकश्रुतिवैरूप्यादभेदप्रतिपत्तिः ।भेददृष्ट्यपवादाच्च ।तथा हि-- 'अथ योऽन्यां
In plain words
The Supreme Self, defined by scripture, must be understood precisely as our own true nature. In the teachings concerning the Supreme Self, the Jābālas recognize Him as none other than the Self: 'You indeed am I, O revered deity; I indeed am you.' And other passages declare: 'Whatever is here, that is there; whatever is there, that is here.' 'The person here in man and the person there in the sun—they are one.' 'He realized his own self: I am Brahman.' 'This Brahman has no before and no after, no inside and no outside; this Self is Brahman.' 'This great, unborn Self is ageless, deathless, immortal, fearless, Brahman'—such statements establishing this very identity are found everywhere. The Upanishads reveal and awaken us to the Lord as our own innermost Self: 'This is your Self, the immortal inner controller.' 'That which cannot be thought by the mind, but by which the mind is thought—know that alone to be Brahman, not this external object that people worship.' 'That is the truth, that is the Self, that thou art.' If someone argues that this is merely symbolic meditation, like worshiping an image of Viṣṇu, that is incorrect. Why? Because that reduces a direct truth to a mere figure of speech, and it ruins the natural structure of the sentence. Where a symbol is intended, the statement is made only once, as in 'The mind is Brahman' or 'The sun is Brahman.' But here the text declares: 'You are I, and I indeed am you.' Therefore, because it violates the pattern of symbolic texts, this passage establishes direct, non-dual identity—especially since all perception of difference is emphatically refuted.
Close to the Sanskrit
The Supreme Self, possessing the characteristics declared in scripture, is to be understood as the Self. Thus indeed in the exposition of the Supreme Self, the Jābālas acknowledge Him as the Self: 'You indeed am I, O revered deity; I indeed am you, O deity' — and others also: 'What indeed is here, that is there; what is there, that follows here.' 'He who is this person in man and who is that in the sun, He is one.' 'Then he knew his own self: I am Brahman.' 'This indeed is Brahman, without prior, without posterior, without interior, without exterior; this Self is Brahman.' 'This indeed is the great, unborn Self, ageless, immortal, deathless, fearless, Brahman' — such declarations establishing identity are to be seen. And the Vedānta texts cause us to grasp and awaken to the Lord as the Self: 'This is your self, the inner controller, immortal.' 'That which one does not think with the mind, by which they say the mind is thought, that very Brahman you know, not this which people worship.' 'That is the truth, that is the Self, that thou art' — and similar passages. Now, if someone says that this perception of a symbol will be like the worship of an image of Viṣṇu — that is improper, because of the consequence of secondary application and because of the deformity of the sentence structure. Where indeed symbolic vision is intended, the statement is made only once. As: 'The mind is Brahman,' 'The sun is Brahman.' Here, however, it says: 'You are I, I indeed am you.' Therefore, due to the deformity of symbolic scripture, the comprehension is one of non-difference, and also because of the sublation of the vision of difference. Thus indeed — 'Now, who'