Establishment of Brahman 3.4

3.4

brahmaṇo hi pramāṇāntarānadhigamanīyarūpatvācchabdādhigamyasvabhāvaviṣayaṃ jñānaṃ vidheyam /
tatra yacchabdādeva jñānaṃ tadavidheyam, vidhimantareṇa bhāvātkarmāvabodhavat /
yathaiva ‘svargakāmo yajeta'; iti śrutavākyasya vākyārthāvabodhastadvākyaprāmāṇyādeva bhavati, na vidhyantaramapekṣate, tathātmasvarūpābhidhāyivākyaprāmāṇyādātmāvabodho vidhyanapekṣaḥ saṃjāyate, sati pramāṇe tatsāmarthyenaiva prameyabodhotpatteḥ /
na khalu sopakaraṇe samagre pramāṇe satīcchāpi puruṣasyāpekṣyate jñānaṃ prati, aniṣṭānāmapyavabodhāt, prāgeva vidhiḥ /

Since Brahman's nature cannot be apprehended by other means of valid cognition, knowledge whose object is of a nature knowable through verbal testimony would have to be enjoined. There, the knowledge that arises solely from verbal testimony is not to be enjoined, because it occurs without an injunction, just like the comprehension of ritual action. Just as the comprehension of the meaning of the sentence “One who desires heaven should sacrifice” occurs from the validity of that sentence alone and does not depend on another injunction, so too the comprehension of the Self arises independently of an injunction, from the validity of the sentence expressing the true nature of the Self; because when the means of valid cognition is present, the cognition of the object of valid cognition arises by its very capacity. Indeed, when the complete means of valid cognition along with its auxiliaries is present, not even a person's desire is required for knowledge — since there is cognition even of undesired things — let alone an injunction.