Aphorisms on Brahman 96.3

|| 42 || The topical section on "or not"
67) Om, or not, because revelation states they do not go together, Om.
Meditation on the deities of the limbs is not to be performed by those other than the gods; rather, it is by the gods alone—such is the regulated option. Why? "Because revelation states they do not go together": because there is an absence of revelation stating they go together; that is to say, because of hearing the meditation on the deities of the limbs together with the meditation on the attributes found in all branches.
68) Om, and because it is seen, Om.
And because this meaning is seen—that is, stated—in the revelation "He is truth, knowledge..." (Kamaṭha-śruti), meditation on the deities of the limbs is to be performed by the gods alone, not by others—such is the meaning.
Thus ends the third quarter of the third chapter in the Sūtradīpikā composed by the venerable Jagannātha Yati. || 3

|| 1 || The topical section on the goal of human life

1) Om, from this [knowledge comes] the goal of human life, because of scripture, so Bādarāyaṇa holds, Om.

Whatever auspicious result is sought by human beings, all that comes "from this"—that is, from the direct vision of Brahman—and not merely liberation. Why? "Because of scripture": because of the revelation "Whatever [world he desires]..." (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.1.10)—so thinks the venerable Bādarāyaṇa; such is the meaning.

2) Om, because of being subordinate, the statement of the goal of human life [is metaphorical], as in other cases, so Jaimini holds, Om.

"Because of being subordinate": because knowledge is an auxiliary to action, the statement of the goal of human life in the revelation "Whatever [world]..." (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.1.10) that knowledge is a means to goals of human life such as heaven is purely figurative, and not because of its primary status in regard to heaven and the like as it is in liberation. How is that so? "As in other cases": as in the case of wealth and the like, which are subordinate to the ritual action that is the means to heaven; just as there is a statement of primacy such as "Heaven [comes] from wealth", so it is here—so thinks the teacher Jaimini; such is the meaning.

3) Om, because of the observation of conduct, Om.

And because revelation records the performance of rituals even by the gods, in "With sacrifice [the gods sacrificed] to sacrifice" (Taittirīya Āraṇyaka 3.12.17), the attainment of all goals of human life does not come from knowledge alone—such is the meaning.

4) Om, because revelation states that, Om.

Because revelation states that knowledge is subordinate to ritual action, in "Whatever [action one performs] with knowledge..." (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 1.1.10), it is not primary—such is the meaning.

5) Om, because of commencement along with [the soul], Om.

Ritual action is not subordinate to knowledge, nor is there equality between them; rather, it has primacy. Why? "Because of commencement along with [the soul]": because revelation states that it primarily initiates heaven and the like, in "By ritual action alone..." (Māṭhara-śruti)—such is the meaning.

6) Om, because it is enjoined for one who possesses that, Om.

"Because it is enjoined for one who possesses that": because ritual action is enjoined in "And the knower [shall perform] actions..." (Kamaṭha-śruti), the action of a knower is not of the nature of mere sport—such is the meaning.

7) Om, and because of restriction, Om.

And because of the revelation "Performing [works here...]" (Īśa Upaniṣad 2), which shows a restriction of ritual action even for a knower and a sin in its non-performance, the action of a knower is not of the nature of mere sport—such is the meaning.

8) Om, but because of the teaching of something greater, Bādarāyaṇa holds thus, because that is seen, Om.

The word "but" indicates the distinction of Vyāsa's view. But Bādarāyaṇa's view is thus: that the attainment of all goals of human life comes from knowledge alone. Why? "Because of the teaching of something greater": because an excess dependent on action within liberation produced by knowledge is stated in the revelation "From knowledge alone..." (Kauṇṭharavya-śruti). Moreover, "because that is seen": and because that excess in the result generated by knowledge, produced by action, is observed in Yudhiṣṭhira and others by means of the Rājasūya sacrifice and the like (in the Bhaviṣyat-parvan)—such is the meaning. Here, the view of the venerable [Bādarāyaṇa] refers to knowledge resting in deities, whereas the view of Jaimini and others refers to knowledge resting in human beings distinct from them; therefore, it should be understood that there is no contradiction.

9) Om, but the vision is equal, Om.

The action of a knower does not produce an excess in knowledge, but only in the fruit of knowledge. Why? Because "the vision"—that is, knowledge—is "equal indeed", remaining the same whether ritual action is performed or not; therefore—such is the meaning.

|| 2 || The topical section on non-universality

10) Om, [eligibility is] not universal, Om.

Eligibility for knowledge does not exist in all persons—such is the meaning.

11) Om, distribution is like [that of] a hundred, Om.

[The word] "distribution" means the distribution that some are eligible for knowledge and others are not. "Like the hundred": just as there is a distribution that only the one hundred superior and inferior deities surpassing Brahmā are eligible for Soma, not others, because it is stated in such passages as "indeed ninety crores," this is the meaning.

12) Om. Of one who possesses mere study [of the Veda]. Om.

The meaning is that only one who has studied all the Vedas according to one's capacity is eligible for the knowledge of Brahman, not anyone else.

|| 3 || Topical section on non-distinction

13) Om. Not from non-distinction. Om.

The eligibility for knowledge among deities and others does not [arise] "from non-distinction," that is, from equality, but rather through a hierarchy [of eligibility], this is the meaning.

|| 4 || Topical section on praise

14) Om. Or permission for the sake of praise. Om.

There certainly is a distinction between the good and bad conduct of the knower. Why? Because the statement "in whatever manner he may be" is made solely for the praise of the knower, to the effect that the knower is liberated even if acting as he pleases. Or, it is "permission," that is, a mere acquiescence in the knower's acting as he pleases; it is not an injunction to act as he pleases, this is the meaning.

15) Om. And some [affirm liberation] by acting as one pleases. Om.

Some reciters of a Vedic branch read of the liberation of knowers even through acting as they please, in the śruti passage "acting as they please" (in the Sāmaveda branch). Therefore, there is no loss of liberation for a knower due to good or bad conduct; rather, there is only a distinction in the fruit [attained], this is the meaning.

16) Om. And the destruction. Om.

The word "and" means "also". When even for a knower's prārabdha karma that has been partially experienced, some reciters of a Vedic branch read in the śruti (of Tura) beginning "having uttered Om" of its "destruction" by knowledge—meaning a slight diminution of its fruit—then what need be said of the fact that bad actions performed after the rise of knowledge do not obstruct liberation? This is the meaning.

17) Om. And among those of chaste life, for [it is so] in the revealed text. Om.

Just as knowers, even if acting as they please, are eligible for liberation, seekers of knowledge who act as they please are not eligible for knowledge. Why? "For"—because in the revealed text (the Māṭhara śruti) beginning "he who this...", instruction in knowledge is enjoined only for those endowed with virtues such as chaste life; therefore, this is the meaning.

18) Om. Jaimini [holds it to be] a reference [to virtuous conduct], for there is no injunction, and indeed [scripture] censures [the opposite]. Om.

Accepting that in the statement "in whatever manner he may be" the "reference" is only to the virtuous conduct declared in śruti passages like "having risen in the morning," Jaimini considers that here only the performance of virtuous conduct according to one's own will is to be established as a rule, and not the performance of what is prohibited. Why? Because there is "no injunction," that is, an absence of any injunction that what is prohibited should be done by a knower; and, on the contrary, [scripture] "censures"—the śruti "a brāhmaṇa is not to be killed" prohibits wrongful action; therefore, this is the meaning.

19) Om. Bādarāyaṇa [holds that it is] to be performed, because of the śruti declaring equality. Om.

The venerable Bādarāyaṇa, however, considers that the meaning of the śruti "in whatever manner he may be" (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 5.1.1) is indeed the permission to perform, according to one's own will, some actions suitable to be performed as taught in śruti and other texts; it is not, however, an injunction to act as one pleases so as to perform all actions whatsoever. Why? "Because of the śruti declaring equality": since the knower's equality is stated in "he is just such a one," regardless of the manner in which he acts.

20) Om. Or an injunction, like the holding [of the Veda]. Om.

Just as the injunction for the retention of the Veda applies only to those belonging to the three upper classes and not to all, so too this "injunction"—the injunction to act according to one's own will in "in whatever manner he may be" (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 5.1.1)—applies only to knowers, not to non-knowers, this is the meaning. The word "or" indicates that this is another position distinct from the two positions previously mentioned.

21) Om. If it be said that it is mere praise on account of acceptance, [we say] no, because of unprecedentedness. Om.

If it is objected: the statement "in whatever manner he may be" is merely the praise mentioned earlier, not an injunction to act according to one's own will; why? on account of "acceptance," because even knowers accept the common injunctions such as "one should perform the twilight devotion"—we reply: no; why? "because of unprecedentedness," that is, because of subservience to the Supreme Self, who is directly expressible by no word; this is the meaning. And thus, for the knower,
if there were an absence even of an injunction to act according to one's own will, subservience to the Supreme Self would not exist, since it would entail being too far removed from all injunctions; this is the purport.

22) Om. And on account of the word denoting intention. Om.

The word "intention" means desire; and because of the śruti text (of Tura) containing the word "intention", namely "according to the ordinance", this passage "in whatever manner he may be" is an injunction to act as one pleases; this is the meaning.

23) Om. If it be said that they serve the purpose of the revolving cycle of legends, [we say] no, because of specific qualification. Om.

If it is objected that because the position that all religious duties are enjoined to be performed by rule, the position permitting the performance of some duties according to one's will among those to be performed, and the position enjoining action according to one's will are mutually contradictory, texts like "in whatever manner he may be" have the purpose of the revolving cycle of legends, that is, they have an unsettled meaning—we reply: no; why? "because of specific qualification," that is, because in the Gaupavana śruti, "indeed, knowers are threefold," knowers are specifically qualified by words such as "governed by injunction," and thereby their manifold nature is stated, this is the meaning.

24) Om. And thus, because of the connection in a single syntactical whole. Om.

Because it is proper that texts following the three aforesaid positions form a single syntactical whole without contradiction by resorting to the difference of eligible persons. And thus, when the single syntactical wholeness of the śrutis is established, the sentence "in whatever manner he may be" also, due to "the connection in a single syntactical whole," possesses an established meaning according to the difference of eligible persons, so it does not have the purpose of the revolving cycle of legends; this is the meaning. And so Jaimini's view refers to human knowers; Vyāsa's view refers to deities; the view "or an injunction" refers to knowers of injunctions; thus there is no contradiction; this is the purport.

25) Om. And for this very reason, there is no dependence on kindling the fire and the like. Om.

In knowledge being the means to liberation, there is no dependence on kindling the fire and the like, that is, there is no dependence on good works such as the fire sacrifice. Why? "For this very reason"—because the liberation even of those who act as they please is established by valid means of knowledge, this is the meaning.

26) Om. And there is dependence on all, because of the śruti on sacrifice and the like, like a horse. Om.

"Like a horse": just as horses and the like, which are means of locomotion, are required only for the accomplishment of motion and not for its result, the attainment of a village or the like; so too, "there is dependence on all," that is, dependence on all religious duties, only for the origination of knowledge, which is the means to liberation, but not for liberation, which is the fruit of knowledge. Why? "Because of the śruti on sacrifice and the like", namely "they desire to know through sacrifice" (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 6.4.22).

27) Om. Even so, one should be endowed with calmness, self-control, and the like, because that is enjoined as an auxiliary to that, so they must necessarily be performed. Om.

Although liberation is definitely through knowledge alone, nevertheless one who possesses knowledge must be endowed with calmness, self-control, and the like; that is, he should be possessed of calmness, self-control, and the like. Why? Because of the injunction of that; since there is an injunction of calmness, self-control, and the like for that knower through the revelation [beginning with] "From the teacher..." (Māṭhara). Even so, calmness, self-control, and the like are not useless for the knower. Why? Because, as an auxiliary to that—that is, as an auxiliary to knowledge—they are considered conducive to the fruit of knowledge, and because those [virtues], calmness, self-control, and the like, must necessarily be practiced; that is, they must necessarily be observed. The word "but" indicates that calmness, self-control, and the like are meant for the fullness of the fruit.

28) [The aphorism reads:] Om. And permission for all food [applies only] in danger to life, because of that being seen. Om.

The word "and" is in the sense of "only." Permission for all food for the knower—namely, the revelation permitting the eating of all [food], forbidden and unforbidden, [beginning with] "Even if he who knows thus..."—applies only to the time of danger to life, not to all times. Why? Because of that being seen; that is to say, because in that sense there is the revelation, "Indeed, I would not have lived" (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 1.10.4), and because a characteristic mark of that nature is seen.

29) [The aphorism reads:] Om. And because of the absence of impediment. Om.

The meaning is that, because there is an absence of impediment to knowers in not doing what is forbidden, the forbidden is not to be done.

30) [The aphorism reads:] Om. It is also stated in traditional texts. Om.

And in doing that there is littleness of fruit; and that the forbidden is not to be done is stated in traditional texts by Kṛṣṇa and others in traditional texts beginning with "transgressing..." (in the Harivaṃśa). The meaning is that for this reason also, what is forbidden is not to be done by knowers.

31) [The aphorism reads:] Om. And scripture says this about not acting according to one's desires. Om.

The word "and" means "because." In the absence of forbidden action, [that is,] in not acting according to one's desires, there is the scripture, the revelation [beginning with] "He who knows this thus..." (Kauṇḍinya). The meaning is that for this reason also, the forbidden is not to be done by the knower.

32) [The aphorism reads:] Om. And the work of the stage of life also [is to be performed], because it is enjoined. Om.

The word "and" conjoins the reason. The word "also" conjoins the duties of caste and stage of life. Not only must the forbidden not be done by the knower; rather, even the duty of the stage of life, the action proper to caste and stage of life, must be performed for the sake of the complete fruit. Why? Because it is enjoined; that is, because it is enjoined by the revelation [beginning with] "Even though seeing..." (Kauṣārava).

33) [The aphorism reads:] Om. And as an auxiliary. Om.

Good action must indeed be done by the knower for the attainment of the complete fruit. Why? In the revelation, "Just as of kings..." (Kamaṭha), action yielding superiority in the fruit of liberation
is stated to be an auxiliary to knowledge—such is the meaning.

|| 5 || The topical section on both characteristic marks

34) [The aphorism reads:] Om. But in every way only those [obtain knowledge], because of the characteristic marks of both. Om.

In every way—even when there is an abundance of multiple means such as place, time, and the instruction of a teacher—only those who are fit for knowledge obtain knowledge; the unfit do not. Why? Because of the characteristic marks of both; that is, solely because of the indicators consisting in the attainment of correct knowledge and inverted knowledge respectively by both Indra and Virocana, the fit and the unfit, despite the equality of the instruction from Viriñca [Brahmā].

35) [The aphorism reads:] Om. And [revelation] shows non-overcoming. Om.

The word "and" means "because." The revelation [beginning with] "Only the divine..." does not merely show the intrinsic nature of the fit and the unfit; rather, it also shows—that is, establishes—non-overcoming, that is, the non-overcoming or setting aside of one's essential nature. The meaning is that therefore the unfit do not attain knowledge.

36) [The aphorism reads:] Om. And also in the middle, but because of seeing that. Om.

The word "and" is for emphasis. The word "but" is for distinction. In the middle—between correct knowledge and inverted knowledge—even for the eternal transmigrators who stand there, there is precisely non-overcoming of their mixed nature. Why? Because of seeing that; that is, because for them in that mixed knowledge itself, there is the seeing of that [nature] which has been cited.

37) [The aphorism reads:] Om. It is also stated in traditional texts. Om.

Non-overcoming of one's essential nature is also stated in traditional texts by Kṛṣṇa and others (in the Bhagavadgītā) [and] in traditional texts [beginning with] "The demons..." (in the Skandapurāṇa). The meaning is that for this reason also, there is no overcoming of the natures of gods, demons, and humans.

38) [The aphorism reads:] Om. [Revelation shows] special grace. Om.

The word "and" conjoins the reasoning. Because, from the revelation "ṛṇve vī..." (Ṛgveda 6.47.16), it also shows—that is, establishes—the special grace of the Supreme Lord toward the gods. The meaning is that therefore correct knowledge and its fruit belong to the gods alone, not to others.

39) [The aphorism reads:] Om. But the other is greater than this, and because of the characteristic mark. Om.

The word "but" is for emphasis. Than this: since the demonic portion is never lesser than the divine portion, the other—that is, the demonic host alone—is greater, that is, more numerous, than this divine portion. Why? Because of the characteristic mark: because of the characteristic mark consisting in the presumption arising from the statement forbidding entry into a crowd of people, "Therefore let him not go to a crowd of people" (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.3.10), and because of the revelation indicated by the word "and," "Then by the smaller..." (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.3.1).

40) [The aphorism reads:] Om. But the state of that belongs to that which has become that, even according to Jaimini, because of the rule, the absence of other form, and non-becoming. Om.

The state of that belongs to that which has become that: divinity belongs only to one who has become a deity; likewise, demonhood belongs only to a demon. This is established even for the teacher Jaimini. Why? Because of the rule, the absence of other form, and non-becoming: because of the revelation indicated by the word "and," "They are not demons..."; because of the revelation that another does not have another's form, expressed by the word "atadrūpa," [beginning with] "Whoever has whatever form..."; and "abhāva" means non-becoming (abhūti) of the gods and demons, from the revelation designated by the word "bhāva," "They are becoming" (Aitareya Āraṇyaka 2.1.8)—such is the meaning.

|| 6 || The topical section on the official position

41) [The aphorism reads:] Om. And not even the official position, because of the inference of a fall, [and] because of its impropriety. Om.

The word "and" indicates another subsidiary duty for those seeking knowledge, in the form of avoiding improper desire. Even an official position—even the station of a deity—is not to be desired by others; the word "even" is to indicate that the divine sovereignty and the like of the Lord is all the more so [not to be desired]. Why? Because of the inference of a fall: because a fall from improper desire is established by reasoning found in traditional texts. For this very reason, because of its impropriety: that is, because making an improper desire is inappropriate.

42) [The aphorism reads:] Om. Some say even a subordinate [position], like the calming of thoughts; that has been stated. Om.

Like the calming of thoughts: "those whose thoughts are calmed" are the sages who have the calming of the mind in being, that is, devotion to the Lord; just as their station is not to be desired—the word "even" indicates: what then to say of the station of gods and the like, which is all the more so [not to be desired]—thus some reciters of the branches hold. Why? Because for those seeking knowledge, as in the Indradyumna revelation, that has been stated—that is, stated in that way. Therefore, this is the meaning.

23) [The aphorism reads:] Om. But on the outside in both ways, because of traditional texts and conduct. Om.

"Outside, however": outside the status of deities and the like, with respect to knowledge regarding devotion and so on. "In both ways also": whether there is longing or absence of longing, there is no defect. Why? "From traditional text": because of the traditional text, "[Nārada is] a divine seer"; "and from conduct": from the statement prescribing good conduct, "diversity [is permitted]"—this is the meaning.

|| 7 || The topical section on the scriptural declaration of the fruit

44) Om. [The fruit belongs] to the master, because of the scriptural declaration of the fruit; so Ātreya holds. Om.

The singular "to the master" is used with the intention of expressing a collective group. And thus, the fruit of knowledge belongs only to the masters, the deities, not to the subjects. Why? Because to them alone
belongs mastery over knowledge, and because of the scriptural declaration of the fruit only to them in the text beginning, "Whatever indeed..." (Mādhyandina recension)—thus teacher Ātreya holds. This is the meaning.

45) Om. It is the work of a priest; so Auḍulomi holds, for he is engaged for that purpose. Om.

"For" means because. "For that purpose": for the sake of the subjects, it is engaged in by the deities, [that is,] knowledge is produced through the subjects. Therefore, "it is the work of a priest"—"like the work of a priest" completes the sense. Just as priests have a share in the fruit of the sacrifice, so too the subjects have a minor fruit of knowledge; thus teacher Auḍulomi holds. This is the meaning.

46) Om. The injunction of another assistant [holds]; as a position, it is the third, as in the case of the injunction and so forth for one possessing that. Om.

"For one possessing that": for a king possessing subjects, and for a guru possessing disciples. "As in the case of the injunction and so forth": as in the case of the decree and its fruit. Just as in the protection [of subjects] and the teaching [of disciples], the decree and the fruit belong primarily to the king and the guru through the assistance of the subjects and disciples, so also in the granting of knowledge enjoined for them, "the injunction of another assistant" means the deities making them into a specific other assistant that is to be graced [by them]. "As a position": as a view. "The third": the third view in relation to the views of Ātreya and Auḍulomi. This alone is Bādarāyaṇa's view; this is the meaning.

|| 8 || The topical section on complete compliance

47) Om. But [the scripture] concludes with the householder, because of complete compliance. Om.

Because in the revelation, "in his family..." (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.15.1), the text concludes by stating the fruit of liberation for the householder alone, "because of complete compliance": for one who possesses the complete duties of a householder, independently of the deities. Therefore, and because there is no contradiction with revelation, the ascetic alone is the highest among all stages of life; this is the meaning.

48) Om. As in the case of asceticism, because of the teaching of the others as well. Om.

"As in the case of asceticism": just as with the state of an ascetic. "Of the others as well": of the duties of the other stages of life as well. "Because of the teaching": because it is stated in the revelation, "The deities alone are the celibate students" (Kauṇṭharavya recension). The deities are superior to [followers of] all stages of life; this is the meaning.

|| 9 || The topical section on concordance

49) Om. Not revealing [it], because of concordance. Om.

The guru, "not revealing": precisely without displaying it in public assemblies and the like, should teach the sacred knowledge to disciples. Why? "Because of concordance": because of the reasoning that leads to the unacceptable consequence that even unqualified persons would attain knowledge; this is the meaning.

|| 10 || The topical section on this-worldly [knowledge]

50) Om. [The fruit is] of this world when an obstacle is not present, because of that being seen. Om.

"When an obstacle is not present": when there is an absence of prārabdha-karma referred to by the word "present obstacle." Direct knowledge is "of this world": it occurs in the very lifetime of completing hearing and the other [means]. But when there is an obstacle, it occurs in another lifetime. Why? "Because of that being seen": because it is taught thus in the revelation, "having heard..." (Sauparṇa recension); this is the meaning.

|| 11 || The topical section on the fruit of liberation

51) Om. Thus there is no invariable rule for the fruit of liberation, because of the ascertainment of that state, because of the ascertainment of that state. Om.

"Thus": just as there is no invariable rule regarding knowledge, so "there is no invariable rule for the fruit of liberation." Even regarding the fruit called liberation, for a knower there is no rule that liberation occurs immediately after the fall of that body. Rather, when prārabdha-karma is absent, it occurs immediately after the fall of that body; but when it is present, liberation occurs at the end of another body. If it is asked: why is this assumed? In response, he says: "of that." In that revelation, "he who is established in Brahman...", for one who is established in that Brahman—that is to say, for that knower—"because of the ascertainment": because the fruit of liberation is ascertained with the words, "he attains immortality." Therefore, an obstacle is assumed; this is the intention. The repetition is to indicate that everything stated as the subject-matter of this chapter is well established.

Thus ends the fourth quarter of the third chapter in the Sūtradīpikā composed by the venerable Jagannātha Yati.

|| 1 || The topical section on speech and mind

Om. Speech [merges] into mind, because of observation and because of scriptural word. Om.

"Speech": the presiding deity of speech, designated by the word Umā, and Vāruṇī and Sauparṇī, dissolve "into mind": into Śeṣa and Garuḍa, designated by the word Rudra, the presiding deities of mind. Why? Because speech is subordinate to mind—this completes the sense. How is that? "Because of observation": because that is established by perception. Furthermore, "and because of scriptural word": and because of revelation to that effect; this is the meaning.

2) Om. And for this very reason all [deities] follow. Om.

The word "and" has the sense of "also." "All [deities] also": all deities also "follow": suitably dissolve into the deities appropriate to their respective ranks. Why? "For this very reason": precisely because of the revelation, "into fire..." (Gaupavana recension); this is the meaning.

|| 2 || The topical section on mind and vital breath

3) Om. That mind [merges] into vital breath, from the subsequent [text]. Om.

"That mind": the previously mentioned presiding deities of mind, Śeṣa and Suparṇa, dissolve "into vital breath": into the Four-faced Brahmā denoted by that word. Why? "From the subsequent [text]": from the subsequent sentence, "Mind [merges] into vital breath" (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.15.1); this is the meaning.

|| 3 || The topical section on the ruler

4) Om. That [vital breath merges] into the ruler, because of the going to Him and the rest. Om.

"That": the Four-faced Brahmā dissolves "into the ruler": into the sovereign, the Supreme Self. Why? "Because of the going to Him and the rest": from revelations and other texts beginning with, "All...", which teach the attainment of the Supreme Self and the rest; this is the meaning.

|| 4 || The topical section on the elements

5) Om. [The deities dissolve] into the elements, because of that revelation. Om.

The deities other than those specifically mentioned dissolve "into the elements": into the five gross elements. Why? "Because of that revelation": because of the revelation, "the deities into the elements..." (Bṛhat recension); this is the meaning.

[6)] Om. Not into one [element], for the two [texts] show [this]. Om.

"Not into one": all deities do not dissolve into fire alone; rather, appropriately, into all elements. Why? "For": because "the two [texts] show [this]": both the Mahopaniṣad and the Caturvedaśikhā teach thus in the passages, "the Ṛbhus into the earth..." and "the Ṛbhus into the earth..."; therefore, this is the meaning.

|| 6 || The topical section on the common [path]

7) Om. And [the departure is] common up to the commencement of the path, and immortality [is attained] without burning [the subtle body]. Om.

The first "and" (*ca*) is for the purpose of attracting the negative particle (*na*). The second serves to include the revelation that begins: "There are indeed two..." And thus Lakṣmī does not dissolve. Why? Because *anupoṣya* means without even having to worship the Supreme Self. [Her] "immortality" is eternal liberation. Why is that? *Asṛtyupakramāt* means because there is never any beginning of transmigratory existence [for her]. Why is that also? Because she is *samanā*, meaning: she for whom the Supreme Person (*nā*) is equal (*sama*) in terms of space and time is *samanā*—on that account, such is the meaning.

8) Oṃ. [It is] subtle, and by measure, because it is perceived thus. Oṃ.

Brahman is subtler even than primordial matter; by measure (*pramāṇataḥ*), meaning by the measure of attributes such as knowledge and bliss, it is greater. Why? "Because it is perceived thus": because revelation states thus in "[greater] than all..." Therefore also, there is no equality of primordial matter with Brahman, such is the meaning.

10) Oṃ. Not by destruction, from this. Oṃ.

Because both equality and its absence have been established from this.

"Not by destruction" means without sublation of attributes such as independence. The meaning is that the equality of primordial matter with the Supreme Self is only through eternal liberation and the like.

11) Oṃ. Warmth, for of this alone [is there] possibility. Oṃ.

The meaning is that the revelation teaching the possession of warmth and the lack of warmth, namely, "For this is twofold..." (in the *Sauparṇa*), also becomes an explanation for the establishment of the sense of partial equality of this alone.

12) Oṃ. If it be said, on account of denial, no, because of the embodied soul. Oṃ.

If it is objected that because of the denial—the denial of equality of anyone else with the Lord—primordial matter has no equality with the Supreme Self even by pervasive extent in space and time, [we reply] no. Why? Because "from the embodied soul": the equality with the Lord is denied only with respect to the individual soul, not with respect to primordial matter. Hence, such is the meaning.

13) Oṃ. For [it is] clear in [the texts of] some. Oṃ.