(याज्ञवल्क्यमैत्रेयीसंवादब्राह्मणम् ) अथ ह याज्ञवल्क्यस्य द्वे भार्ये बभूवतुर्मैत्रेयी च कात्यायनी च ।तयोर्ह मैत्रेयी ब्रह्मवादिनी बभूव ।स्त्रीप्रज्ञैव तर्हि कात्यायनी ।अथ ह याज्ञवल्क्योऽन्यद्वृत्तमुपाकरिष्यन् ॥४,५.१ ॥
In plain words
Yājñavalkya had two wives, Maitreyī and Kātyāyanī. Of these Maitreyī was one who discoursed of Brahman, while Kātyāyanī had only such understanding as women have. Now Yājñavalkya was about to take up another way of life.
The commentators
Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadbhāṣyam· Leaf 9.325· bhāṣya
आगमप्रधानेन मधुकाण्डेन ब्रह्मतत्त्वं निर्धारितम् । पुनः तस्यैव उपपत्तिप्रधानेन याज्ञवल्कीयेन काण्डेन पक्षप्रतिपक्ष- परिग्रहं कृत्वा विगृह्यवादेन विचारितम् । शिष्याचार्यसंबन्धेन च षष्ठे प्रश्नप्रतिवचनन्यायेन सविस्तरं विचार्योपसंहृतम् । अथेदानीं निगमनस्थानीयं मैत्रेयीब्राह्मणमारभ्यते; अयं च न्यायः वाक्यकोविदैः परिगृहीतः- 'हेत्वपदेशात्प्रतिज्ञायाः पुनर्वचनं निगमनम्' इति । अथवा आगमप्रधानेन मधुका- ण्डेन यत् अमृतत्वसाधनं ससंन्यासमात्मज्ञानमभिहितम्, तदेव तर्केणापि अमृतत्वसाधनं ससंन्यासमात्मज्ञानमधि- गम्यते; तर्कप्रधानं हि याज्ञवल्कीयं काण्डम्; तस्मात् शा- स्त्रतर्काभ्यां निश्चितमेतत्- यदेतत् आत्मज्ञानं ससंन्यासं अमृतत्वसाधनमिति; तस्मात् शास्त्रश्रद्धावद्भिः अमृतत्वप्रति- पित्सुभिः एतत् प्रतिपत्तव्यमिति; आगमोपपत्तिभ्यां हि नि- श्चितोऽर्थः श्रद्धेयो भवति अव्यभिचारादिति । अक्षराणां तु चतुर्थे यथा व्याख्यातोऽर्थः, तथा प्रतिपत्तव्योऽत्रापि; या- न्यक्षराणि अव्याख्यातानि तानि व्याख्यास्यामः ॥
In plain words
The section built on scripture, the Madhu-kāṇḍa, has already settled what Brahman is. Then that same truth was tested again — argued from every side, position against counter-position — in the section built on reasoning, the Yājñavalkīya. And through the give and take of teacher and student, across the sixth chapter, it was worked through in full and brought to a close. So now, fittingly, comes the Maitreyī section, standing here as the conclusion — and this is exactly how scholars of method describe a conclusion: restating the thesis once more, this time by naming the reason for it. Or, seen another way: the very path to immortality that scripture already named — knowing the Self, together with letting go of everything — is the same path reasoning arrives at on its own, because the Yājñavalkīya section is built on reasoning through and through. So now both scripture and reason agree: knowing the Self, joined to renunciation, is the way to what does not die. That is why anyone who trusts scripture and wants to reach immortality should take hold of this teaching — a truth confirmed by both scripture and reason earns real trust, precisely because nothing in it works against itself. As for the sacred syllables, they were already explained back in the fourth chapter, and that explanation holds here too; whatever syllables still remain unexplained, we will explain as we go.
Close to the Sanskrit
By the scripture-predominant Madhu-kāṇḍa, the truth of Brahman has been ascertained. Again, that very truth has been examined, through the reasoning-predominant Yājñavalkīya section, by adopting positions and counter-positions and arguing them out dialectically. And through the relationship of pupil and teacher, in the sixth chapter, it has been examined at length by the method of question and answer, and concluded. Now, therefore, the Maitreyī-brāhmaṇa, having the status of a conclusion, is begun; and this principle has been accepted by those versed in textual method: 'a conclusion is the repetition of the proposition, on the ground of citing the reason.' Or else: that very means of immortality — Self-knowledge together with renunciation — which was declared by the scripture-predominant Madhu-kāṇḍa, is arrived at also by reasoning, as the very same means of immortality — Self-knowledge together with renunciation; for the Yājñavalkīya section is reasoning-predominant. Therefore this has been ascertained by both scripture and reasoning together — namely, that this Self-knowledge together with renunciation is the means to immortality; therefore this is to be accepted by those who have faith in scripture and who desire to attain immortality; for a meaning ascertained by both scripture and demonstration becomes worthy of faith, because of freedom from error. As for the syllables, just as their meaning has been explained in the fourth chapter, so it is to be understood here also; whatever syllables have not yet been explained, those we shall explain.
Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadbhāṣyam· Leaf 9.326· bhāṣya
अथेति हेतूपदेशानन्तर्यप्रदर्शनार्थः । हेतुप्रधानानि हि वाक्यानि अतीतानि । तदनन्तरम् आगमप्रधानेन प्रतिज्ञा- तोऽर्थः निगम्यते मैत्रेयीब्राह्मणेन । ह-शब्दः वृत्तावद्योतकः । याज्ञवल्क्यस्य ऋषेः किल द्वे भार्ये पत्न्यौ बभूवतुः आस्ताम्- मैत्रेयी च नामत एका, अपरा कात्यायनी नामतः । तयो- र्भार्ययोः मैत्रेयी ह किल ब्रह्मवादिनी ब्रह्मवदनशीला बभूव आसीत् ; स्त्रीप्रज्ञा- स्त्रियां या उचिता सा स्त्रीप्रज्ञा- सैव यस्याः प्रज्ञा गृहप्रयोजनान्वेषणलक्षणा, सा स्त्रीप्रज्ञैव तर्हि तस्मिन्काले आसीत् कात्यायनी । अथ एवं सति ह किल याज्ञवल्क्यः अन्यत् पूर्वस्माद्गार्हस्थ्यलक्षणाद्वृत्तात् पारिव्रा- ज्यलक्षणं वृत्तम् उपाकरिष्यन् उपाचिकीर्षुः सन् ॥
In plain words
The word 'now' here simply marks what comes right after a reason has been given — the argument-heavy sentences that came before have run their course. Right on their heels, the scripture-based claim made earlier gets brought home in the Maitreyi section. And the word 'indeed' just signals that what follows is old, remembered story. Yajnavalkya the sage, so the story goes, had two wives: one named Maitreyi, the other named Katyayani. Of the two, Maitreyi could genuinely speak about Brahman — that was simply her nature. 'A woman's understanding' means the kind of understanding suited to running a household and nothing more; and that was exactly the understanding Katyayani had at the time. So, this being the situation, Yajnavalkya — so the story goes — was about to leave the householder's life behind and take up the very different life of a wandering renunciate...
Close to the Sanskrit
'Atha' here indicates the immediacy following the statement of a reason; for sentences dominated by reason have now passed. Immediately after that, the meaning already promised by the scripture-predominant section is now concluded by the Maitreyī-brāhmaṇa. The word 'ha' is an indicator of a well-known past occurrence. Yājñavalkya the sage, indeed, had two wives — so it is said — Maitreyī, one by name, and the other, Kātyāyanī by name. Of these two wives, Maitreyī, indeed, was — so it is said — versed in discourse on Brahman, of the nature of one habituated to speaking of Brahman. 'Strī-prajñā' means: that understanding which is fitting for a woman is 'strī-prajñā' — that very understanding whose scope is limited to seeking out the concerns of the household; possessed of only that woman's understanding was Kātyāyanī at that time. Now, this being so, Yājñavalkya, indeed — so it is said — being about to undertake, being desirous of undertaking, another mode of life, characterized as renunciation, distinct from the former mode of life characterized as householdership...