Mantra 10

In plain words

The text offers the reply.

Close to the Sanskrit

He states the reply.

In plain words

It is the lower Brahman that is meant here, because attaining the state of all is something that can be accomplished through means. For the supreme Brahman, the state of becoming all cannot be brought about by knowledge, whereas the text says 'Therefore that became all,' showing that this state is accomplished by knowledge. Hence, the statement 'Brahman indeed this in the beginning was' must be understood as referring to the lower Brahman.

Alternatively, because human beings are the ones qualified for this, the person referred to as a Brahmin may be one who is destined to attain that state. The text introduces human beings by stating: 'Human beings thinking they will become all.' It is specifically for humans that scripture declares qualification for both worldly prosperity and liberation—not for the supreme Brahman, nor even for Prajapati. Therefore, through meditation on the lower Brahman combined with ritual, a person attains that state of the lower Brahman. Freed from ordinary appetites, having destroyed the bonds of desire and karma through the attainment of all things, and moving toward supreme Brahman, he is spoken of as 'Brahman' simply on account of his spiritual knowledge. In ordinary life, words are often used based on a future state—as when someone says 'he is cooking rice' while the rice is still raw. Similarly, in scripture, expressions like 'the renunciate gives safety to all beings' use present terms for future attainment. Thus, some scholars explain this passage by saying that the man destined to become Brahman is referred to as Brahman.

That view is incorrect, because it leads to a contradiction regarding the permanence of becoming all. In the real world, nothing undergoes a change of state due to a cause and yet remains eternal. If the state of becoming all is brought about by the act of knowing Brahman, and is also permanent, that is a direct contradiction. If, on the other hand, it is impermanent, then it becomes no different from any ordinary fruit of karma—an objection we have already raised.

Close to the Sanskrit

Lower Brahman, because the state of being all is capable of being accomplished; for of the supreme Brahman the state of becoming all is not accomplished by knowledge; and the state of becoming all is accomplished by knowledge—'Therefore that became all' thus; therefore 'Brahman indeed this in the beginning was'—the lower Brahman here is appropriate to be.

Or due to human qualification, the Brahmin may be one destined to that state; 'Human beings thinking they will become all' - thus human beings are introduced; and for them qualification is especially stated in the means of worldly prosperity and liberation, not of the supreme Brahman nor of the lower Prajapati; therefore through the knowledge of the lower Brahman accompanied by ritual, having attained the state of the lower Brahman, freed from food, whose bondage of desire and karma is cut off by attaining all, destined for the supreme Brahman, because of the knowledge of Brahman he is spoken of as Brahman. And in the world linguistic usage based on a future state is seen - as 'he cooks rice', and in scripture 'the renunciate gives the gift of fearlessness to all beings' etc., thus here some explain that the man who is to become Brahman is a Brahmin.

That is not so, because of the flaw of the state of becoming all being eternal. For there is no object in the world, in ultimate truth, which undergoes a change of state due to a cause and is also eternal. Similarly, if the state of becoming all is produced by the cause of knowledge of Brahman, and is eternal, that is contradictory. And if it is impermanent, the flaw that it is equal to the fruit of karma has already been stated.

In plain words

If you imagine that the fruit of knowing Brahman is the cessation of ignorance-born limitation and the attainment of universal being, then the whole notion of a soul eventually becoming Brahman collapses as redundant. In absolute truth, even before awakening, every living being is already established in that universal state simply because they are intrinsically Brahman. What actually happens is that non-Brahmanhood and limitation are merely superimposed by ignorance—just as silver is projected onto a shell, or flatness and stains onto empty space. Just so, the limitations falsely superimposed upon Brahman by nescience are dispelled by the knowledge of Brahman. If this is your view, it is entirely sound: for the supreme Brahman, which truly existed in the beginning and forms the literal sense of the scriptural declaration 'Brahman indeed was this in the beginning,' is described just as it is, because the Veda speaks the truth of reality. But the notion that a person somehow transforms into Brahman later—contradicting the very definition of the word—is unacceptable, because it discards direct scriptural testimony in favor of an unsupported fiction. If you argue that limitations persist as real features apart from nescience because no greater purpose overrides them, we reply: no, because a real objective trait cannot be eradicated by knowledge. Knowledge is never observed anywhere to act upon or alter the intrinsic nature of a real thing; its sole function everywhere is to dispel ignorance. Therefore, let those limitations born of ignorance be removed here by the knowledge of Brahman, for knowledge has no power to manufacture or destroy actual existence. Hence, any theory that discards direct scripture to invent ungrounded fictions is utterly pointless.

Close to the Sanskrit

If you think the cessation of limitation produced by ignorance and the attainment of all-state is the fruit of the knowledge of brahman, the postulation of a person becoming brahman would be useless. Even prior to the knowledge of brahman, every creature is eternally established in all-state by virtue of being brahman from the absolute standpoint; but non-brahmanhood and non-allness are superimposed by ignorance—just as silver on mother-of-pearl or flatness and dirtiness etc., on empty space; similarly, non-brahmanhood and non-allness superimposed on brahman here by ignorance are removed by the knowledge of brahman—if you think thus, then it is proper to assert that the supreme brahman, which existed in absolute truth and was the primary meaning of the word 'brahman', is spoken of in the scriptural sentence 'Brahman indeed was this in the beginning', because the Veda states things as they are. This imagination is not proper—that a person who becomes brahman, contrary to the meaning of the word 'brahman', is called brahman—because of the impropriety of abandoning what is heard and imagining what is unheard. If it is argued that apart from the distinction made by ignorance, non-brahmanhood and non-allness actually exist when there is no other greater purpose, no, because it is impossible for them to be removed by the knowledge of brahman. For the knowledge of brahman is never seen anywhere as a doer or a remover of an intrinsic property of a real object; but knowledge is seen everywhere as the remover of ignorance. Therefore, let non-brahmanhood and non-allness, which are produced by ignorance, be removed here by the knowledge of brahman; the knowledge of brahman is not fit to make or remove a real existent object. Therefore, the postulation that abandons the heard and imagines the unheard is entirely useless.

In plain words

If you ask how ignorance could possibly attach to Brahman, we answer: Because scripture explicitly enjoins knowledge concerning it. Just as the true nature of a pearl-shell is not recognized until the shell is perceived directly with the correction 'This is a shell, not silver,' so too declarations such as 'All this is Being, all this is Brahman, all this is the Self, there is no duality here' would serve no purpose if ignorance were not already projected upon Brahman. We do not claim that Brahman is entirely free from superimposition in the manner of an oyster-shell; rather, Brahman is never the ignorant agent that projects foreign attributes onto itself. The deluded agent of ignorance is none other than the empirical individual, as confirmed by Vedic passages: 'There is no other witness than this,' 'Thou art that,' 'I am Brahman,' alongside traditional teachings and mantras proclaiming the supreme unity of all beings. If you object that this renders scriptural instruction pointless, we concede: Yes, once truth is realized, instruction naturally ceases. And if you argue that even the process of realization becomes pointless, we reply that the removal of ignorance is a matter of direct experience.

Close to the Sanskrit

If it is objected that ignorance in Brahman is impossible, we reply: No, because knowledge is prescribed regarding Brahman. Nor indeed when the superimposition of silver on a pearl oyster is absent is the oyster-nature made known to one within visual range saying 'This is a pearl oyster, not silver.' Similarly, statements such as 'All this is indeed Being, all this is indeed Brahman, all this is indeed the Self, there is no duality here other than Brahman'—such knowledge of oneness in Brahman need not be prescribed if superimposition of ignorance in Brahman is absent. We do not say that there is no superimposition of foreign attributes in Brahman as there is in the oyster-shell; what then? Brahman is not the agent of ignorance, being the cause of the superimposition of foreign attributes onto itself, nor is Brahman a deluded agent of ignorance. But no other conscious, deluded agent apart from non-brahman is intended, according to scriptural texts such as 'There is no other witness than this,' 'There is no other knower than this,' 'Thou art that,' 'He knew only himself,' 'I am Brahman,' and 'He who perceives another as separate, thinking 'He is another, I am another,' does not know,' as well as smṛti passages: 'Equal in all beings,' 'I am the soul, O Guḍākeśa,' 'In a dog and in an outcaste,' and from the mantra text: 'He who sees all beings,' 'In whom all beings reside.' If someone objects that scriptural instruction thus becomes useless, we reply: Quite so, when truth is known it indeed becomes useless. If it is objected that even the knowledge of truth becomes useless, we reply: No, because the removal of non-understanding is observed. If it is objected that the removal of non-understanding is also impossible in oneness, we reply: No, because it contradicts observation; it is seen...

In plain words

That Brahman realized its own non-dual Self as pure, eternal consciousness, completely free from all transient and projected perceptions. You might object that this contradicts the scriptural warning, 'You cannot know the knower of knowledge.' We reply that there is no contradiction here. Just as the seer of vision is directly recognized, and because self-knowledge requires no auxiliary validation, once the seer's vision is understood to be eternal, all quest for an external object of perception ceases. Since an objective target does not exist, no desire to grasp it can arise. Objective sight can never turn the ultimate subject into an object of perception, nor can the Self seek its own already-attained essence. Therefore, scripture's statement that 'it knew the Self alone' simply means the eradication of superimposed ignorance, not the turning of the Self into a perceived object.

Close to the Sanskrit

That Brahman knew the Self alone, being of the nature of eternal vision and devoid of superimposed non-eternal vision etc., as one who has known. If you object that it is contradictory—from the scripture 'You should not know the knower of knowledge'—cognition of the knower. No, from such knowledge there is no contradiction; thus the seer of sight is known indeed, and because it does not depend on other knowledge—for when the seer's vision is known as eternal, one does not look for another vision regarding the seer; the desire for vision regarding the seer ceases precisely because of its impossibility, for when an object does not exist no desire arises for anyone, nor is visible sight able to make the seer an object, whence one might desire it, nor is there a desire regarding own form of oneself indeed; therefore it is said that 'knew the Self alone' is simply the cessation of the superimposition of ignorance, not the objectification of the Self.

In plain words

Explaining how Brahman realized the Self, the text says: 'I am the ultimate witness, the Self, Brahman.' That which is immediate, beyond the senses, residing within all, transcending hunger and thirst, defined solely through the great negations ('not this, not this')—that very reality am I, not a limited transmigrating soul. Therefore, through this direct realization, Brahman became everything. By removing the false superimposition of non-Brahman and destroying the finitude born of ignorance, it attained universality. Thus, human aspiration is entirely justified when people declare, 'Through the knowledge of Brahman, we shall become all.' The initial question—'What was that Brahman which it knew, whereby it became all?'—has now been fully resolved: 'In the beginning, this universe was Brahman. It knew only itself, saying, "I am Brahman." Therefore, it became all.'

To establish firmly that the fruit of this knowledge of Brahman is the attainment of all states of being, the scripture cites mantras. How? 'That Brahman, seeing this very Self as

Close to the Sanskrit

How it knew, he says: 'I am the seer of the seer, the Self, Brahman, I am'—thus. Brahman, which is directly beyond senses, innermost of all, the Self, transcending hunger etc., having the characteristic of 'not this, not this', neither gross nor subtle etc., that indeed am I, not another transmigrating soul, as you speak. Therefore from such knowledge that Brahman became all—due to the removal of the superimposition of non-Brahman, by the cessation of its product of finitude, it became all. Therefore it is entirely proper that men think: 'By the knowledge of Brahman we shall become all.' What was asked—'What indeed was that Brahman which it knew, from which that became all?'—that has been ascertained: 'Brahman verily was this in the beginning, then it knew the self alone: I am Brahman, therefore that became all'—thus.

To firmly establish this meaning that the fruit of this knowledge of Brahman is the attainment of all states of being, the scripture cites mantras. How? 'That Brahman, seeing this very Self as

In plain words

To establish the certainty that attaining all states of being is the true fruit of this knowledge of Brahman, the scripture cites a mantra. How so? Seeing that 'This very Brahman is the Self, I am,' the sage Vamadeva attained this vision and realized it. Abiding firmly in that direct realization of Brahman as the Self, he beheld these verses: 'I became Manu, and I became the sun.' When the text says 'seeing that Brahman,' it points directly to the knowledge of Brahman. When it says 'I became Manu, and the sun,' it reveals that becoming all of existence is the fruit of that knowledge. The expression 'seeing, he attained the state of being the self of all' shows that liberation is attained through the auxiliary power of knowledge, just as a hungry person eating becomes satisfied. Someone might object: 'This universal attainment was possible for ancient beings and gods because of their extraordinary spiritual power, but it is not possible for ordinary human beings today, whose capacities are so small.' To dispel this doubt, the text declares: Even now, in our own present time, any seeker whose cravings for external things have turned away, knowing the innermost Self directly as 'I am Brahman'—having cast away all the limitations and worldly attributes falsely projected by ignorance and mental adjuncts, standing as pure Brahman, interiorless and exteriorless—that person, because ignorance and its sense of limitation are destroyed by the knowledge of Brahman, becomes this entire universe.

Close to the Sanskrit

To establish the firmness of this meaning that the fruit of this knowledge of Brahman is the attainment of all states of being, the Shruti cites mantras. How? Seeing 'That Brahman is this very Self, I am' - seeing from this very vision of Brahman, the sage named Vamadeva attained, indeed achieved; abiding in this vision of Brahman as the Self, he saw these mantras: 'I became Manu, the sun, and so forth.' 'Seeing that Brahman' - by this knowledge of Brahman is referred to; 'I became Manu, the sun, and so forth' - by this it refers to the attainment of all states of being as the fruit of the knowledge of Brahman; by the expression 'seeing, he attained the state of being the self of all,' it shows that liberation is accomplished by the auxiliary means of the knowledge of Brahman, just as one eating becomes satisfied. Now, someone might think: 'This attainment of all states of being through the knowledge of Brahman pertained only to great beings like gods due to their extraordinary power, not to modern human beings especially, because of their small power.' To dispel that, [the text] says: This Brahman under discussion, which is immanent in all beings and characterized by acts of seeing and so forth, even now in this present time, any person whose external desires have turned away, knowing the self alone thus: 'I am Brahman' - casting off the particular characteristics and transmigratory attributes superimposed by illusion and cognition born of adjuncts, as Brahman alone which is interiorless, exteriorless, pure, and 'I am' - he, because of the cessation of non-allness caused by ignorance through the knowledge of Brahman, becomes all this. Not indeed [that this attainment belongs] only to those of great power...

In plain words

No, because the realization of Brahman is simply the removal of nescience. As for the objection that the gods might place obstacles in the way of attaining Brahman, the gods possess no such capacity. Why? Because the fruit of attaining Brahman is simultaneous with the rise of knowledge. Just as the moment a seer's eye contacts light, forms are instantly manifested, so too, the moment knowledge of the Self arises, the ignorance obscuring it vanishes right then and there. Therefore, when knowledge of Brahman shines forth, no product of ignorance can remain, just as darkness cannot coexist with a lamp. Who could obstruct whom, when the knower of Brahman realizes that the very essence of the gods is his own Self? Scripture speaks of this: the Self, whose true nature is the goal of meditation and who is known through all scriptures, becomes realized as the Brahman of these gods at the very moment of knowledge, simply because the veil of ignorance is removed—just like the illusory silver vanishing to reveal the true oyster-shell, as we have explained. Consequently, the gods can have no hostile intent or effort against the Self. When someone pursues an ordinary, external result separated by time, space, and circumstance, there is room for obstacles to be placed by the gods regarding that non-self object. But here, where the realization is non-separate from the Self and arises instantaneously without any interval of time, space, or cause, there is simply no opening for any obstruction to occur.

Close to the Sanskrit

Not, because of being merely the removal of nescience with respect to the fruit of attaining Brahman—what was said, that the gods might create an obstacle against the fruit of attaining Brahman, there the gods have no capacity in making an obstacle; from what? Because the fruit of attaining Brahman is uninterrupted by the time of knowledge; how? As in the world, the contact of the seer's eye with light is at the very time of which, at that very time is the manifestation of forms, thus knowledge whose object is the Self, at whatever time it is, at that very time is the disappearance of ignorance whose object is that; hence when the knowledge of Brahman is present, due to the non-possibility of the effects of nescience, like the effect of darkness in the presence of a lamp, by whom could the gods create an obstacle for whom, where the very state of the Self is that of the gods of the knower of Brahman? That same thing he states: The Self, whose own form is to be meditated upon, which is Brahman to be known by all scriptures, because it is for these gods, he becomes a knower of Brahman, simultaneously with the knowledge of Brahman—due to the removal of the veil consisting merely of ignorance, just like the shell of an oyster when it appears as silver, we stated. Hence no effort of the gods is possible regarding the hostility of the Self. Of whom indeed the fruit is something other than the Self, separated by place, time, and cause, there regarding the non-Self object, effort is fruitful for the practice of obstruction by the gods; but not here, where the fruit is simultaneous with knowledge, identical with the Self, unseparated by place, time, and cause, due to the non-possibility of an occasion.

In plain words

If that is so, then since an unbroken stream of spiritual realization is impossible, and since we clearly observe erroneous thoughts and their practical consequences, only the very last thought of the Self before death must be what destroys ignorance, not any earlier ones. No, for that makes the first realization ineffective and leads to a logical contradiction. If the first thought that takes the Self as its object cannot dispel ignorance, then the last one cannot either, since both have the exact same object. If you then argue that only an unbroken, continuous stream of realization destroys ignorance, and not a fragmented one... No, because as long as one is alive and active, such absolute continuity is impossible. While thoughts driven by the needs of physical life are present, a continuous stream of pure spiritual realization cannot exist, for they are mutually exclusive. If you suggest that one can suppress all thoughts of physical life and maintain an unbroken stream of realization until death... No, because you can never determine the exact number or duration of thoughts in such a stream. This leads to the serious flaw of leaving the scriptural teachings completely indefinite. If we cannot define how many thoughts constitute the stream that destroys ignorance, the true import of scripture remains unresolved—an unacceptable conclusion. If you say it is defined simply as 'a stream in general' without specifying the number... No, because there is no difference between the beginning and the end. There is no distinguishing factor to decide whether the first stream of realization or the one ending at death is the true destroyer, since the beginning and the end are identical in nature.

Close to the Sanskrit

If that is so, then because of the absence of a continuous stream of knowledge-cognitions, and because of the perception of contrary cognitions and their effects, only the final cognition of the Self is the destroyer of ignorance, not the prior ones. No, because of the inconclusiveness with the first — if indeed the first cognition having the Self as its object does not destroy ignorance, then the final one also [does not], because they have the same object. If that is so, then a continuous stream is the destroyer of ignorance, not an interrupted one. No, because a continuous stream is impossible when life-activities etc. exist — indeed, while cognitions caused by life-activities etc. exist, a continuous stream of knowledge-cognitions is not possible, because of contradiction. If it is argued that by suppressing the cognitions of life-activities etc., there is a continuous stream of knowledge-cognitions up to the end of life (death)... No, because of the non-determination of the quantity and continuity of cognitions, which leads to the defect of not determining the meaning of scripture — since it cannot be determined that 'a stream of this many cognitions is the destroyer of ignorance', the meaning of scripture would not be determined; and that is undesirable. If it is argued that it is determined simply as 'a stream in general'... No, because there is no distinction between the beginning and the end — because there is no distinguishing factor to determine whether the first stream of knowledge-cognitions or that which ends at the time of death [is the destroyer], since the beginning and the end are alike.

In plain words

Furthermore, knowledge arrests any impending effect before it can arise, because it has not yet manifested; past karma, on the other hand, is already spent. Moreover, erroneous perception never arises in one who possesses true knowledge, because its objective basis is gone. False perception requires an unascerned object and fastens onto mere generality—like mistaking a shell for silver. But in a wise person whose subconscious roots of error have been completely crushed, such an illusion is impossible. Once true knowledge arises regarding shells and the like, error never returns. Occasionally, however, lingering mental impressions left by past ignorance may throw up fleeting memories that momentarily simulate error—just as someone who perfectly knows the cardinal directions may still experience a momentary confusion of direction. If an actual illusion could befall a wise person just as before, then trust in scriptural knowledge would be destroyed, and valid knowledge could no longer be distinguished from invalid error, rendering all proof meaningless. This explains why the physical body does not drop off the very second enlightenment occurs. Both prior to and following the dawn of knowledge, the total destruction of unmanifested karma accumulated across past and present lives is firmly established by Vedic declarations that prohibit any obstacle to liberation: 'His karmas are destroyed', 'His delay lasts only until he is freed from the body', 'All sins are burned away', 'Knowing Him, one is untouched by evil', 'These two do not cross this', 'Done and undone do not afflict him', 'This one is never scorched', 'He fears nothing from any quarter'—and likewise by traditional texts such as: 'The fire of knowledge reduces all karma to ashes.'

Close to the Sanskrit

Moreover, the effect which is about to arise it restrains, because of its not having come yet; for the other has passed. Furthermore, a contrary cognition does not arise for a person of knowledge, because of being devoid of an object—for an erroneous cognition arising by taking shelter of mere generality without the specific nature of the object being ascertained, like silver in a shell, that, because the repository of all contrary cognitions of one who has ascertainment of specific objects has been crushed, is not possible as before, since upon the arising of correct cognition in shells and the like it is not seen again. However, in some cases, appearances of contrary cognitions arising from impressions produced by previously arisen contrary cognitions of knowledge suddenly create the delusion of contrary cognition—like the delusion of the reversal of directions suddenly even for one who has known the divisions of directions. If a contrary cognition were to arise like before even for one of correct knowledge, pursuit in scriptural knowledge and the like would be absurd due to lack of trust even in correct knowledge, and all valid knowledge would become invalid, due to the impossibility of distinction between valid and invalid knowledge. By this, why there is no falling of the body immediately after correct knowledge has been refuted. Before and after the arising of knowledge, the destruction of karmas whose fruits have not yet begun to operate, accumulated at that time and in other births, is established precisely from the shruti text prohibiting obstacles to the attainment of the fruit: 'His karmas are destroyed', 'For him there is delay only so long', 'All sins are burned away', 'Having known Him he is not tainted by sinful action', 'These two do not cross this', 'Done and undone do not scorch him', 'Verily this one does not scorch', 'He fears not from anywhere', and from such shruti texts; and from smriti texts such as 'The fire of knowledge burns all actions to ashes'.

In plain words

As for the objection that a person is bound by debts—that applies only to one who lives in ignorance. The debtor is exclusively the ignorant person, because agency and worldly roles belong only to him. As scripture itself declares: 'Where there is duality as it were, there one sees another'—meaning that when the non-dual reality called the Self appears to be divided because of ignorance, just like seeing a second moon due to an eye defect, it gives rise to all the manifold activities of seeing and acting created by nescience. But where true knowledge destroys the illusion of multiplicity, scripture shows the impossibility of action, asking: 'Then by what means and whom should one see?' Therefore, being a debtor belongs solely to the domain of ignorance, where action is still possible, never in liberation. We will explain this in full detail in the passages that follow.

Just as scripture explains: whoever does not know Brahman worships some deity other than the Self, viewing that deity as completely separate—engaging in praise, bowing, ritual sacrifice, offerings, prostrations, and meditation while adopting a position of utter subservience. He thinks: 'That deity is someone else, not the Self, standing apart from me. I am separate and bound by duty, and like a debtor I must repay this deity through my service.'

Close to the Sanskrit

Now, as for the objection that one is bound by debts—that is not so, because it has the ignorant person as its domain; for the ignorant person alone is a debtor, since agency and the like are appropriate for him. As the scripture will state: 'Where indeed there is something like duality, there one might see another'—when the non-dual real entity named the Self appears as if it were something else due to ignorance, like a second moon produced by eye disease, then it displays seeing and other actions dependent upon numerous factors created by ignorance, and the fruit produced by that, through such passages as 'there one might see another'. On the other hand, where in the state of realization there is the abandonment of the illusion of multiplicity created by ignorance, it shows the impossibility of action through 'then by what means should one see whom?'. Therefore, the state of being a debtor belongs exclusively to the sphere of the ignorant, because action is possible, and not elsewhere. And this we will show in detail by sentences which we intend to explain further on.

Just as precisely: now, whoever is a non-knower of Brahman, worships some deity other than the self, distinguished as separate from the self—through praise, obeisance, sacrifice, oblation, offering, prostration, meditation, and the like, serving and remaining with the attitude of subservience to that deity: 'That one is other, an anātman, separate from me, I am another, bound by duty; by me repayment must be made to this deity like a debtor'

In plain words

With such dualistic convictions, he worships; he does not know the ultimate truth. He is not merely someone lacking knowledge; rather, just as domestic animals like cattle are utilized for services such as milking and carrying loads, so this ignorant person is utilized through diverse ritual sacrifices by various deities. Consequently, like a beast of burden, he is qualified only for ritual action. For this ignorant person who belongs to the social classes and stages of life, ritual action—whether combined with meditation or performed alone—yields an elevation ranging upward from human birth all the way to the realm of Brahma. Conversely, action contrary to scripture, driven by natural impulse, leads to degradation ranging from human birth down to stationary plants. We will explain this in full detail throughout the remainder of this chapter, beginning with the passage 'Now there are three worlds indeed.' The fruit of true knowledge, by contrast, is the realization of oneness with all, which has been briefly outlined here. Indeed, this entire Upanishad finds its sole purpose in clarifying the distinction between knowledge and ignorance. We will show how this principle pervades the entire sacred science.

Because this is so, scripture demonstrates that the deities indeed possess the full power to create either obstacles or grace for the person who remains bound in ignorance.

Just as in ordinary life many cattle, cows, horses and the rest, sustain and keep the man who owns and masters them, so each unlearned person, standing in the place of many beasts, the gods ('the gods' here takes in the ancestors and the others too) … The connection and the purpose have been set out in this way; and it has been said, in the words 'Now he who worships another deity…', that ignorance is what binds a person to saṃsāra: that the ignorant man is a debtor, dependent like an animal, obliged to perform rites for the gods and the others. What, then, is the ground of that obligation? The castes and the stages of life. Which are the castes? This passage begins in answer: it is in the rites bound up with these that a person, dependent and obliged, goes on in saṃsāra. To show exactly this, the creation of Indra and the others was not told right after the creation of Fire. The creation of Fire was told to complete Prajāpati's creation, and this creation of Indra and the others belongs there, as its complement; here it is told to show why the ignorant man is bound to ritual action.

Close to the Sanskrit

Harboring such a cognition, he worships; he does not know, he does not discern the truth. Not only is he one who possesses this character, ignorant and possessing the defect of ignorance, but rather, just as an animal, cows and the like, is utilized through services such as carrying loads and milking, so he, because of being fit to be utilized through numerous services such as sacrifice by each of the deities, therefore, like an animal, is qualified for all ritual actions—this is the meaning. For this ignorant person who belongs to the divisions of castes and life-stages, who is qualified for action, combined with subordinate knowledge or pure, prescribed by scripture, the result is elevation ranging from human existence up to the realm of Brahma; and the result of that which is contrary to scripture and natural is degradation ranging from human existence down to immovable plant life. And just as this is, we will state through the entire remaining part of the chapter beginning with 'Now there are three worlds indeed'. And the result of knowledge is the attainment of the state of being the self of all, which has been shown in summary. For this entire Upanishad is fulfilled precisely by the exposition of the distinction between knowledge and ignorance. And just as this is the meaning of the entire scripture, so we will show.

Because this is so, therefore scripture shows this: that with respect to the ignorant person, the deities are indeed able to create obstacles and grace.

Just as indeed in the world, many cattle, cows, horses and the rest, would sustain, that is, maintain, a man, their own owner and controller, so each ignorant person standing in the place of many beasts, the gods ('the gods' stands also for the ancestors and the rest) … and so on, the connection and the purpose having been stated; and that ignorance is what summons one to qualification for saṃsāra was stated by 'Now he who worships another deity' and so on; there it was said that the ignorant man, a debtor, like a beast, is dependent, bound to perform rites for the gods and the rest. What, then, is the ground of the obligation to perform rites for the gods and the rest? The castes and the stages of life. Of these, which are the castes? To answer this, this is begun: qualified for the rites bound up with these grounds, this man, dependent indeed, transmigrates. To show just this meaning, the creation of Indra and the rest was not stated after the creation of Fire; the creation of Fire was shown to complete Prajāpati's creation, and this creation of Indra and the rest is to be understood there, since it is supplementary to that; but here it is stated to show the cause of the ignorant man's qualification for ritual action.