Establishment of Brahman 3.22

3.22

yathaiva karmavidhīnāṃ ‘dṛṣṭo hi tasyārthaḥ karmāvabodhanam'; iti nāvivakṣitārthānāmadhyayanātphalāntarakalpanā tathā dṛṣṭatvādātmatattvāvabodhasya vedāntānām /
na ca bhūtārthapratipattau vaiyarthyamiti vakṣyate /
pratipattividhau ca tulyam /
avaśyaṃ caitadevaṃ vijñeyam /
anyathā saha vidhāyakena kṛtsnasyāvivakṣitārthatā syāt /
yato vidhāyakaśabdanibandhanamanyeṣāṃ vivakṣitārthatvam, vidhāyakasya tu na tannibandhanamasti /
evaṃ ca tasyāvivakṣitārthatve itare 'pi tathā syuḥ /
atha vidhāyakaḥ prakṛtyā dṛṣṭārthatvena cārthaparaḥ, itare 'pi tatheti vyartho 'sau vidhiḥ /

Just as in the case of injunctions to action, on the ground that 'Indeed, its seen purpose is the understanding of action,' there is no postulation of another result from study whose meaning is non-intended, so too, because knowledge of the reality of the Self is a seen [result], [there is no such postulation] for the Vedāntas. And it will be stated that there is no purposelessness in the apprehension of an established fact. And in an injunction to apprehension, it is equal.
And this must necessarily be understood in this way; otherwise, the entire [corpus], together with what enjoins, would have a non-intended meaning. For the intended meaning of other [words] is based on the enjoining word, but there is no such basis for the enjoining word [itself]. And thus, if its meaning were non-intended, the others too would be so. If the enjoining word is aimed at meaning by its nature and by having a seen purpose, the others too are likewise; thus that injunction is useless.