Aphorisms on Brahman 2: dvitīya pādaḥ

2.p1

atha prathamādhyāyasya dvitīyapādaḥ

Now begins the second quarter of the first chapter.

2.p2

|1.2.1

2.p3

chāndogye śrūyate "sarvaṃ khalvidaṃ brahma tajjalāniti śānta upāsīta, atha khalu kratumayo'yaṃ puruṣo yathā kraturasmiṃlloke puruṣo bhavati tathetaḥ pretya bhavati sa kratuṃ kurvīta manomayaḥ prāṇaśarīsaraḥ"iti| atra "sarvaṃ khalvidaṃ brahma"iti sarvātmatvena nirdiṣṭaṃ brahma kiṃ pratyagātmota paramātmeti saṃśayaḥ|| pratyagātmeti pūrvaḥ pakṣaḥ| sarva tādātmyopadeśo hi tasyaivopapadyate| parasya tu brahmaṇaḥ sakalaheyapratyanīkalyāṇaikatānasya

In the Chāndogya [Upaniṣad] it is heard: "All this, indeed, is Brahman; one should meditate with tranquility [on it as] arising, dissolving, and breathing in that. Now, indeed, this person consists of resolve; according as his resolve is in this world, so the person becomes on departing hence; he should make [this] resolve: consisting of mind, having the breath for his body..." Here a doubt arises: Is Brahman, designated as the Self of all through "All this, indeed, is Brahman," the individual inner self or the supreme Self? The prima facie view is that it is the individual inner self. For the instruction of identity with all is fitting only for that [individual self]. But for the supreme Brahman, whose sole nature is auspiciousness antithetical to all imperfection,

2.p4

samastaheyākarasarvatādātmyaṃ virodhādeva na saṃbhavati| pratyagātmano hi karmanimittabrahmādistambapayantasarvabhāva upapadyate| sṛṣṭyādihetukatvaṃ ca tattatkarmanimittatvena sṛṣṭyāderupapadyate| brahmaśabdo'pi bṛhatvaguṇayogena "tasmādetadbrahma nāmarūpamannaṃ ca jāyate"iti vattatraiva varttate||rāddhantastu ṭṭhaṭṭha"tajjalān"iti "sarvaṃ khalvidaṃ brahma"iti tajjanmasthitilayahetukaṃ tadātmakatvaṃ prasiddhavannirdiśyamānaṃ parasyaiva brahmaṇa upapadyate| parasmātadbrahmaṇa eva hi jagajjanmasthitilayāḥ prasiddhāḥ " so'kāmayata bahusyāṃ prajāyeyeti| idaṃ sarvamasṛjata"ityādiṣu| tathā sarvātmakatvaṃ ca janmādihetukaṃ parasyaiva brahmaṇaḥ prasiddhaṃ "sansūlāḥ somyemāḥ sarvāḥ prajāḥ sadāyatanāḥ satpratiṣṭāḥ| aitadātmyamidaṃ sarvam"iti| heyapratyanīkakalyāṇaikatānātmanaśca parasya heyākarasarvabhūtātmatvamaviruddham| yaḥ pṛthivyāṃ tiṣṭan - yasya pṛthivīśarīram| ya ātmani tiṣṭan ṭṭhaṭṭhayasyatmāśarīraṃ sa ta ātmāntaryāmyamṛtaḥ"ityādinā śarīrātmabhāvena sarvātmatvopapādanāt| śarīrātmabhāvena sarvātmatvopapādanāt| śarīratmanośca svabhāvavyavasthāpanāt| sarvaṃ brahmeti sarvatra sarvaśabdasya sarvaśarīrake brahmaṇyeva pravṛtterupapadyate| śarīravācī hi śabdaḥ śarīriṇyātmanyeva rpayyavasyīti| devamanuṣyādiśabdanat|| sūtrārthaḥ - sarvatra "sarvaṃ khalvidaṃ brahma"iti nirdiṣṭe sarvatra sarvaśabdasāmānādhikaraṇyena tadātmatayā nirdiṣṭaṃ paraṃ brahmaiva| kutaḥ| prasiddhopadeśāt tajjalāniti sarvamidaṃ brahma khalviti prasiddhavatsarvātmakatvasyopadeśāt| tadeva hi jagajjanmasthitilaya hetutvena vedānteṣu prasiddham||

identity with all having the form of all imperfections is not possible, precisely because of contradiction. For it is the individual inner self whose being everything, from Brahmā down to a clump of grass, caused by karma, is fitting. And its being the cause of creation and the rest is fitting because creation and the rest are caused by its respective karma. The word 'Brahman' also, through its connection with the attribute of greatness, applies right there [to the individual self], as in: "From him this Brahman, name, form, and food are born." The established conclusion, however, is: In "arising, dissolving, and breathing in that" and "All this, indeed, is Brahman," having that as its Self because of being the cause of its origination, maintenance, and dissolution—which is referred to as well-known—is fitting only for the supreme Brahman. For the origination, maintenance, and dissolution of the world from the supreme Brahman alone are well known in passages such as: "He desired: 'May I become many, may I reproduce'; he created all this." Likewise, being the Self of all, caused by origination and the rest, is well known of the supreme Brahman alone: "All these creatures, my dear, have Being as their root, have Being as their abode, have Being as their support; all this has that as its Self." And that the supreme [Brahman], whose essential nature is solely auspiciousness antithetical to all imperfection, is the Self of all beings having the form of imperfections is not contradictory, because its being the Self of all through the relationship of body and embodied self is established through: "He who, dwelling in the earth... whose body is the earth... he who, dwelling in the self... whose body is the self, he is your Self, the inner controller, immortal," and so forth; and because the distinct natures of body and embodied self are settled. The statement "All is Brahman" is fitting because the word 'all' everywhere applies only to Brahman, which has all for its body. For a word expressive of a body terminates only in the embodied self, just like the words 'god', 'human', and the like. The meaning of the aphorism is: In every case, that which is designated in "All this, indeed, is Brahman" as the Self of all through co-ordinate predication with the word 'all' is the supreme Brahman alone. Why? "Because of the instruction of what is well known": because of the instruction, as something well known, of its being the Self of all through "arising, dissolving, and breathing in that," [and] "All this, indeed, is Brahman." For that alone is well known in the Upaniṣads as the cause of the origination, maintenance, and dissolution of the world.

2.p5

|1.2.2

2.p6

manomayatvādikāḥ satyasaṃkalpatvamiśrā vivakṣitāḥ guṇāḥ parasminnevopapadyante||

The intended qualities, such as consisting of mind, combined with having true resolve, are fitting only in the supreme [Brahman].

2.p7

|1.2.3

2.p8

eteṣāṃ guṇānāmanantaduḥkhamiśraparimitasukhalavabhāginyajñekarmaparavaśe śarīre pratyagātmanyanupapateścāyaṃ na śarīraḥ| api tu parameva brahma||

And because these qualities are unfitting in the individual inner self, which is embodied, subject to karma, ignorant, and partaker of a tiny fraction of limited pleasure mixed with endless suffering, this one is not the embodied [individual self]; rather, it is the supreme Brahman alone.

2.p9

|1.2.4

2.p10

"etamitaḥ pratyābhisaṃbhavitāsmi"iti prāpyatayopāsyo nirdiśyate, prāptṛtayā ca jīvaḥ| ataśca jīvādanyadevedaṃ paraṃ brahma||

In "Departing hence, I shall attain him," the one to be meditated upon is designated as the object to be attained, and the individual self as the attainer. For this reason also, this supreme Brahman is other than the individual self.

2.p11

|1.2.5

2.p12

"eṣa ma ātmā'ntarhṛdaye"iti śārīraḥ ṣaṣṭyā nirdiṣṭaḥ, upāsyaḥ prathamayā| ataśca jīvādanyaḥ||

In "This Self of mine within the heart," the embodied [individual self] is designated by the genitive case, [and] the object of meditation by the nominative case. For this reason also, it is other than the individual self.

2.p13

|1.2.6

2.p14

"sarvasya cāhaṃ hṛdi saṃniviṣṭo mattaḥ smṛtirjñānamapohanaṃ ca"iti smṛteśca jīvādanya upāsyaḥ paramātmā||

And on account of the sacred tradition, "And I am seated in the heart of all; from me come memory, knowledge, and their loss," the supreme Self, which is other than the individual self, is the object of meditation.

2.p15

|1.2.7

2.p16

"eṣa ma ātmā'ntarhṛdaye"ityalpasthānatvāt "aṇīyānvīhevā yavādvā"ityalpatvavyapadeśācca na paraṃ brahmeti cenna|nicāyyatvādevaṃ evamupāsyatvāddhetoralpāyatanatvālpatvavyapadeśaḥ| na svarūpālpatvena| "jyāyānpṛthivyāḥ" ityādinā sarvasmājjyāyastvopadeśāt| jyāyaso'pyasya hṛdayāyatanāvacchedenālpatvānusaṃdhānamupapadyate| vyomavat yathā mahato'pi vyomnaḥ sūcivāśyādiṣvalpatvānusaṃdhānam| caśabdo'vadhāraṇe tadvadevetyarthaḥ| svābhāvikaṃ cāsya mahattvamatravyapadiśyata ityarthaḥ| "jyāyānpṛthivyā jyāyānantariśkṣājjyāyāndivo jyāyānebhyo lokebhyaḥ"iti hyanantarameva vyapadiśyate||

If it is objected that, because of having a small place in "This Self of mine within the heart," and because of the designation of smallness in "smaller than a grain of rice or a barleycorn," it is not the supreme Brahman, [we reply:] No. "Because of being meditated upon thus": because of being an object of meditation in this manner, there is the designation of a small abode and of smallness, not because of smallness of essential nature; for its being greater than all is taught in "greater than the earth," and so forth. Even for this [Brahman], which is greater [than all], contemplation of smallness through delimitation by the heart as its abode is fitting. "Like space": just as, even for vast space, contemplation of smallness in the eye of a needle, an awl, and so forth [is fitting]. The word 'and' (ca) denotes restriction, meaning: just like that. And its greatness is natural, which is designated here—this is the meaning; for immediately afterwards it is indeed designated: "greater than the earth, greater than the intermediate region, greater than the sky, greater than these worlds."

2.p17

|1.2.8

2.p18

yadyupāsakaśarīrehṛdaye'yamapi varttate tatastadvadenāsyāpi śarīraprayuktasukhaduḥkhasaṃbhogaprāptiriti cenna| hetuvaiśeṣyāt| na hi śarīrāntarvarttitvameva sukhaduḥkhopabhogahetuḥ| api tu karmaparavaśatvam| tattvapahatapāpmanaḥ paramātmano na saṃbhavati||

If it is objected that, if this [supreme Self] also dwells in the heart within the body of the meditator, then, just as for that [individual self], there would accrue to it also the experience of pleasure and pain occasioned by the body, [we reply:] No; "on account of the difference in causes." For merely dwelling inside a body is not the cause of the experience of pleasure and pain; rather, it is being subject to karma. And that is impossible for the supreme Self, which is free from evil.

2.p19

|1.2.9

2.p20

kaṭhavallīṣvāmnāyate "yasya brahma ca kṣatraṃ cobhe bhavata odanaḥ"mṛtyuryasyopasecanaṃ ka itthā veda yatra saḥ"iti| atraudanopasecanasūcito'ttā kiṃ jīva uta paramātmeti saṃśayaḥ|| jīva iti pūrvaḥ pakṣaḥ|

In the Kaṭha chapters it is recited: "He for whom both the brāhmaṇa and the kṣatriya become food, and death is the sauce—who thus knows where he is?" Here a doubt arises: Is the eater indicated by the food and sauce the individual self or the supreme Self? The prima facie view is that it is the individual self,

2.p21

bhoktṛttvasya karmanimittattvāt jīvasyaiva tatsaṃbhāvāt|| rāddhāntastu - sarvopasaṃhāre mṛtyūpasecanamadanīyaṃ carācarātmakaṃ kṛtsnaṃ jagaditi tasyaitasyāttāparamātmaiva na cedaṃ karmanimittaṃ bhoktṛttvam| apitu jagatsṛṣṭisthitilayalīlasya paramātmano

because being an experiencer is caused by karma, and that is possible only for the individual self. The established conclusion, however, is: At the cosmic dissolution of all, the entire world consisting of the moving and the unmoving is the eatable thing with death as its sauce; therefore, the eater of this is the supreme Self alone. And this being an eater is not an experience caused by karma; rather, it belongs to the supreme Self, whose sport is the creation, maintenance, and dissolution of the world...

2.p22

jagadupasaṃhāritvarūpaṃ bhoktṛtvam|| sūtrārthaḥ - brahmakṣatraudanasyāttā paramātmā| brahmakṣatraśabdena carācarasya kṛtsnasya jagato grahaṇāt| mṛtyūpasecano hyodano na brahmakṣatramātram| api tu tagupalakṣitaṃ carācarātmakaṃ kṛsnaṃ jagadeva||

consists in being the consumer in the form of the destroyer of the world. The meaning of the aphorism is: The eater of the food of the brāhmaṇa and kṣatriya is the supreme Self; because by the words 'brāhmaṇa' and 'kṣatriya' the entire world of moving and unmoving entities is meant. For the food whose sauce is death is not merely the brāhmaṇa and kṣatriya; rather, it is the entire world consisting of moving and unmoving beings indicated by them.

2.p23

|1.2.10

2.p24

"mahāntaṃ vibhumātmānaṃ matvā dhīro na śocati nāyamātmā pravacanena labhyo na medhayā" iti parasyaiva hīdaṃ prakaraṇam| ataścāyaṃ paramātmā||

For this context belongs to the Supreme alone, as in: "Thinking upon the great, all-pervading Self, the wise man does not grieve," and "This Self is not to be obtained by instruction, nor by intellect." And for this reason, this [eater] is the supreme Self.

2.p25

anantaraṃ "ṛtaṃ pibantau sukṛtasya loke guhaṃ praviṣṭau parame parārddhye"iti dvayoḥ karmaphalādanānanvayādantaḥ karaṇa dvitīyo jīva eva tatrātteti pratīyate, ato'trāpi sa eva jīvo'ttā bhavitumarhatītyāśaṅkyāha --

Immediately following, it is said: "Two, drinking the truth of good deeds in the world, having entered the cave in the supreme upper sphere..." Because eating the fruit of actions applies to two, it is recognized that the eater there is only the individual self accompanied by the internal organ; therefore here too only that individual self ought to be the eater. In anticipation of this objection, [the author] says:

2.p26

|1.2.11

2.p27

guhāṃ praviṣṭau hi jīvātmaparamātmānau| jīvadvitīyaḥ paramātmātmaiva tatra pratīyata ityarthaḥ| svayamanaśnato'pi paramātmanaḥ prayojakatayā pāne'vanyo vidyate| jīvadvitīyaḥ paramātmeti kathamavagamyate| taddarśanāt| tayoreva hyasminprakaraṇe guhāpraveśavyapadeśo dṛśayate "taṃ durdarśaṃ gūḍhamanupraviṣṭaṃ guhāhitaṃ gahvareṣṭaṃ purāṇam, adhyātmayogādhigamena devaṃ matvā dhīro harṣaṣokau jahāti"iti paramātmanaḥ "yā prāṇena saṃbhavatyaditirdevatāmayī, guhāṃ praviśya tiṣṭantī sā bhūtebhirvyajāyata"iti jīvasya| karmaphalānyattītyaditirjīvaḥ||

For the two who have entered into the cave are the individual self and the supreme Self. The meaning is that it is the supreme Self, having the individual self as companion, who is recognized there. Even though He does not eat Himself, the relation to drinking belongs [to the supreme Self] as an instigator. How is it known that it is the supreme Self accompanied by the individual self? Because of seeing that. For in this context, the mention of entering the cave is seen of these two alone: of the supreme Self in "Thinking through communion with the inner Self upon the deity who is hard to see, who has entered into the hidden, who is placed in the cave, dwelling in the abyss, ancient, the wise man abandons joy and grief"; and of the individual self in "She who arises with the vital breath, Aditi, made of the deities, who, having entered the cave, stands, she was born through the elements." The individual self is Aditi because it eats the fruits of actions.

2.p28

|1.2.12

2.p29

asminprakaraṇe hyupakramaprabhṛtyopasaṃhārā jjīvaparamātmanāvevopāsyatvopāsakatvaprāpyatvādibhirviśiṣyete "mahāntaṃ vibhumātmānaṃ matvā dhīro na śocati| vijñānasārathiryastu manaḥpragrahavānnaraḥ, so'dhvanaḥ pāramāpnoti tadviṣṇoḥ paramaṃ padam" ityādiṣu| ataścāttā paramātmā||

For in this context, from the beginning up to the conclusion, the individual self and the supreme Self alone are distinguished as the object of meditation and the meditator, as the goal to be attained [and the attainer], etc., in such passages as: "Thinking upon the great, all-pervading Self, the wise man does not grieve," and "He who has discernment as his charioteer, a man who has the mind as reins, he reaches the end of the journey, that supreme abode of Viṣṇu." And therefore the eater is the supreme Self.

2.p30

|1.2.13

2.p31

chāndogye"ya eṣo'kṣiṇi puruṣo dṛśyate eṣa ātmeti hovāca etadamṛtamabhayametadbrahma"ityatrākṣyādhāraḥ

In the Chāndogya [Upaniṣad, it is stated]: "'This person who is seen in the eye, this is the Self,' he said, 'this is the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman.'" Here, concerning the person whose locus is the eye,

2.p32

puruṣaḥ kiṃ pratibimbātmajīvadevatāviṣeṣeṣvanyatama uta paramātmeti saṃśayaḥ|| eṣvanyatama iti pūrvapakṣaḥ| "ya eṣa-dṛśyate"iti prasiddhavatsākṣatkāraṇanirddeśāt|| rāddhāntastu - paramātmaivāyamakṣyādhāraḥ puruṣaḥ akṣipuruṣasaṃbandhitayā śrūyamāṇā nirūpādhikātmatvāmṛtatvābhayatvabrahmatvasaṃyadvāmatvādayaḥ paramātmanyevopapadyante| prasiddhavannirddeśaśca"yaścakṣuṣi tiṣṭhan"ityādi śrutyantaraprasiddherupapadyate| sākṣātkāraśca tadupāsananiṣṭhānāṃ yogināmiti|| sūtrārthaḥ - akṣyantarapuruṣaḥ paramātmā| saṃyadvāmatvādīnāṃ guṇānāmatraivopapatteḥ||

there is a doubt: Is the person one among the reflection-self, the individual self, and a particular deity, or the supreme Self? The prima facie view is: one among these; because of the reference through perceptual presentation as something well-known, in "this [person] who is seen." But the established conclusion is: This person whose locus is the eye is the supreme Self alone. The unconditioned selfhood, immortality, fearlessness, being Brahman, being the possessor of all blessings, and so forth, which are heard as pertaining to the person in the eye, are possible only in the supreme Self. And the reference as well-known is appropriate because of being well-known from other scriptural passages such as "He who, abiding in the eye..."; and direct perception belongs to the yogins intent on meditating upon Him. The meaning of the aphorism is: The person inside the eye is the supreme Self; because qualities such as being the possessor of all blessings are possible only here.

2.p33

|1.2.14

2.p34

sthānaṃ sthitiḥ| paramātmana eva "yaścakṣuṣi tiṣṭhan"ityādau cakṣuṣi sthitiniyamanādīnāṃ vyapadeśāccāyaṃ paramātmā||

Abode means presence. And this is the supreme Self because presence, ruling, and so forth in the eye are stated of the supreme Self alone in passages such as "He who, abiding in the eye..."

2.p35

|1.2.15

2.p36

"prāṇo brahma kaṃ brahma khaṃ brahma"iti sukhaviśiṣṭatayā prakṛtasyaiva parasya brahmaṇo'kṣyādhāratayopāsyatvābhidhānāccāyaṃ paramātmā| evakāro'syaiva hetornairapekṣyāvagamāya||

And because the supreme Brahman itself, introduced as qualified by bliss in "Prāṇa is Brahman, Ka is Brahman, Kha is Brahman," is stated to be meditated upon as having the eye as its locus, this is the supreme Self. The word "only" (eva) is for understanding the independence of this very reason.

2.p37

"prāṇo brahma kaṃ brahma khaṃ brahma"ityatra sukhaviśiṣṭaṃ parameva brahmābhihitamiti kathamidamavagamyate yāvatā nāmādivatpratīkopāsanamevetyāśaṅkyāha -

How is it understood that the supreme Brahman alone qualified by bliss is spoken of in "Prāṇa is Brahman, Ka is Brahman, Kha is Brahman," when in fact it is merely meditation on a symbol like name and the like? In anticipation of this objection, [the author] says:

2.2

16
yatastatra bhavabhayabhītāyopakosalāya brahmasvarupaji jñāsave "kaṃ ca tu khaṃ ca na vijānāpi "iti pṛcchate "yadvā va kaṃ tadeva khaṃ yadeva khaṃ tadeva kam"ityanyonyavyavacchedakatāyā'parichinnasukhasvarūpaṃ brahmatyabhidhāya "prāṇaṃ ca hāsmai tadākāśaṃ cocuḥ" ityuktam| ata eva khaśabdābhidheyaḥ sa ākaśo'parichinnasukhaviśiṣṭaṃ paraṃ brahmaiva||
|12.17
śrutopaniṣatkairadhigatabrahmayāthātmyairbrahmaprāptaye yā gatirarcirādikā'dhigantavyatayā'vagatā śratyantare tasyaiścehākṣipurūṣaṃ śrutavato'dhigantavyatayā "te'rciṣamevā'bhisaṃbhavanti"ityādinā'bhidhānādakṣipurūṣaḥ paramātmā||
|1.2.18
paramātmana itaro jīvādikaḥ| tasyākṣiṇi niyamenānavasthiteramṛtatatvasaṃyadvāmatvādīnāṃ cāsambhavānna so'kṣyādhāraḥ||

[1.2.]16
Because there, to Upakosala, who was terrified by the fear of transmigratory existence and was desirous of knowing the true nature of Brahman, when he asked, "I understand that Ka is Brahman, but I do not understand Kha," [the fires] declared that Brahman has the nature of unconditioned bliss by mutually qualifying each other in "What indeed is Ka, that is Kha; what is Kha, that is Ka," and said: "They taught him prāṇa and that space (ākāśa)." Therefore, that space, designated by the word "Kha", is indeed the supreme Brahman qualified by unconditioned bliss.
| 1.2.17
Because the path consisting of the rays of light, etc., which is known from other scriptural texts as that to be traversed by those who have heard the Upaniṣads and have understood the true nature of Brahman in order to attain Brahman, is declared here as that to be traversed by one who has heard about the person in the eye, in passages such as "They indeed pass into the light ray," the person in the eye is the supreme Self.
| 1.2.18
Other than the supreme Self is the individual self and the like. Because it does not constantly abide in the eye, and because immortality, being the possessor of all blessings, and so forth are impossible [for it], it is not the locus in the eye.

2.2-2

19
bṛhadāraṇyake "yaḥ pṛthivyāṃ tiṣṭanpṛthivyā antaroyaṃ pṛthivī na veda yasya pṛthivī śarīraṃ yaḥ pṛthivīmantaro yamatyeṣa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ"ityādiṣu sarveṣu paryāyeṣu śrūyamāṇo'ntaryāmī kiṃ pratyagātmota paramātmeti saṃśayaḥ|| pratyagātmeti pūrva pakṣaḥ| "nānyo'to'sti draṣṭā"iti draṣṭantaraniṣedhācca| rāddhāntastu - pṛthivyādyātmaparyantasarvatattvānāṃ sarvairebhiradṛṣṭenaikena niyamanaṃ nirupādhikāmṛtatvādikaṃ ca paramātmana eva dharma ityantaryāmī paramātmā | draṣṭṛtvādiśca rupādisākṣātkāraḥ|
sa ca "paśyatyacakṣuḥ saśṛṇotya karṇaḥ"ityādinā ca paramātmāno'pyasti| "nānyo'to'sti draṣṭā"iti jīvenādṛṣṭāntaryāmi- draṣṭṭavat antaryāmiṇā'pyadṛṣṭadrantaraniṣedhaparaḥ|| sūtrārthaḥ - adhidaivādhilokādipadacihniteṣu vākyeṣu śrūyamāṇo'ntaryāmī paramātmā| sarvāntaratvasarvāviditatvasarvaśarīrakatvasarvaniyamanasarvātmatvāmṛtatvādiparamātmadharmāṇāṃ vyapadeśāt||
(1-2-20)
smārttaṃ pradhānam| śārīraḥ pratyagātmā| smārttaṃ ca śārīraśca nāntaryāmī| tayorasaṃbhāvitātmadharmābhilāpāt| yathā smārttasyācetanasyāsaṃbhāvanayā nāntaryāmitvaprasaktistrathā pratyagātmano'pītyarthaḥ||
(1-2-21)
ubhaye kāṇvā mādhyāndināścāpi " yo vijñāne tiṣṭan| ya ātmani tiṣṭan"iti yataḥ pratyagātmano bhedenainamantaryāmiṇamadhīyate ato'yaṃ tadātiriktaḥ paramātmā||
(1-2-22)
ātharvaṇe " atha parā yayā tadakṣaramadhigamyate yattadadreyam"ityārabhya "yadbhūtayoniṃ paripaśyanti dhīrāḥ| akṣarātparataḥ paraḥ" ityādau kiṃ pradhānapuruṣau pratipādyete uta paramātmeti saṃśayaḥ|| prādhānapuruṣāviti pūrva pakṣaḥ| pṛthivyādyacetanagatadṛśyatvādīnāṃ pratiṣedhāttajjātīyamacetanaṃ pradhānameva bhūtayonyaśkṣaramiti patīyate| tathā" akṣarātparataḥ paraḥ "iti ca tasyādhiṣṭātā puruṣa eveti||rāddhāntastu--uttaratra ’’yaḥ sarvajñaḥ sarvavit ’’ iti pradhānapuruṣayorasaṃbhāvitaṃ sārvajñyanabhidhāya ’’tasmādetahbrahma nāmarūpamannaṃ ca jāyate ’’ iti sarvajñātsatyaskalpājjagadutpattiśranaṇātpūrvoktamadṛśyatvādiguṇakaṃ bhūtayonyakṣaram| ’’trprakṣarātparataḥ paraḥ ’’ iti ca nirdiṣṭaṃ tadakṣaraṃ paraṃ brahmaiveti vijñāyate||sūtrārthaḥ--trpradṛśyatlādiguṇakaḥ paramātmā|sārvajñyā| (1-2-23) viśinaṣṭi hi prakaraṇaṃ pradhānādbhūtayonyakṣaramekavijñānena sarvavijñānādinā|tathā ’’a7rātparataḥ paraḥ ’’
ityakṣarādavyakṛtātpararato'vasthitātpuruṣātpara iti puruṣāccāsya bhūtayonyakṣarasya bhedo vyapadiśyate|ataśca na pradhānapuruṣau|trprapi tu paramātmaivātra nirdiṣṭaḥ||
(1-2-24)
’’agnirmūrddhā’’ ityādinā samastasya cidacidātmakaprapañcasya bhūtayonyakṣararūpatvenopanyāsāccāyamadṛśyatvādiguṇakaḥ paramātmā||
(1-2-25)
chāndogye ’’ trprātmānamevemaṃ vaiśvānaraṃ saṃpratyadhyeṣi tameva no brūhi ’’ ityārambha ’’ yatsvetameva prādeśamātramabhivimānamātmānaṃ vaiśvānaramupāste"ityatra kimayaṃ vaiśvānaraḥ paramātmeti śakyanirṇayaḥ, uta neti saṃśayaḥ| aśakyanirṇaya iti pūrvaḥ pakṣaḥ; vaiśvānaraśabdasya jāṭharāgnau, bhūtatṛtīye, devatāviśeṣe paramātmani ca vaidikaprayogadarśanāt ; asmin prakaraṇe sarveṣāṃ liṅgopalabdheśca| rāddhāntastu - "ko na ātmā kiṃ brahma" iti sarviṣāṃ jīvānāmātmabhūtaṃ brahma kimiti prakramāt, uttaratra ca, "ātmānaṃ vaiśvānaram " iti brahmaśabdasthāne sarvatra vaiśvānaraśabdaprayogācca, vaiśvānarātmā sarveṣāṃ jīvanāmātmabhūtaṃ brahma kimiti prakramāt, uttaratra ca, | trprātmānamevemaṃ vaiśvānaraṃ | iti brahmaśabdasthāne sarvatra vaiśvānaraśabdaprayogācca, vaiśvānarātmā sarveṣāṃ jīvānāmātmabhūtaṃ paraṃ brahmeti
vijñāyate| sūtrārthaḥ-- vaiśvānaraśabdanirdiṣṭaḥ paramātmā, vaiśvānaraśabdasyānekārthasādhāraṇasyāpyasminprakaraṇe paramātmāsādhāraṇaviśeṣaṇaissarvātmatvādibhiḥ viśeṣyamāṇatvāt| viśeṣyata iti viśeṣaḥ||

19
In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka [Upaniṣad], in all the parallel sections heard as: "He who, dwelling in the earth, is within the earth, whom the earth does not know, whose body is the earth, who controls the earth from within—he is your Self, the inner controller, the immortal," there arises the doubt: Is the inner controller the individual inner self or the supreme Self? The prima facie view is that it is the individual inner self, because another seer is denied by "There is no other seer than this." But the established conclusion is: The inner controller is the supreme Self alone, because controlling all real entities from the earth up to the individual self, by one who is unseen by all of them, and unconditioned immortality and the rest, are attributes belonging solely to the supreme Self. And being a seer and so forth is the direct perception of colour and so forth.
And that belongs to the supreme Self as well, through texts such as "He sees without eyes, he hears without ears." The statement "There is no other seer than this" aims at denying another seer who is unseen by the inner controller, just like the inner controller who is unseen by the individual self. The meaning of the aphorism is: The inner controller heard in the passages marked by words such as "governing deities" and "governing worlds" is the supreme Self, because the attributes of the supreme Self are declared, such as being within all, being unknown by all, having all as his body, controlling all, being the Self of all, and being immortal.
(1-2-20)
"What is in sacred tradition" is the pradhāna. The "embodied one" is the individual inner self. Neither the one in sacred tradition nor the embodied one is the inner controller, because attributes of the Self that are impossible in the two are declared. The meaning is: just as the one in sacred tradition, being insentient, cannot possibly apply and hence cannot be the inner controller, so too it is with the individual inner self.
(1-2-21)
Both the Kāṇvas and the Mādhyandinas, since they recite of this inner controller as distinct from the individual inner self by "He who, dwelling in cognition" [and] "He who, dwelling in the self," therefore this [inner controller] is the supreme Self, who is additional to that [individual self].
(1-2-22)
In the Atharvaṇa [Upaniṣad], beginning with "Now, the higher [knowledge] by which that Imperishable is apprehended, that which cannot be seen," down to "which the wise perceive as the source of beings; higher than the high Imperishable," there arises the doubt: Are the pradhāna and the individual soul taught here, or the supreme Self? The prima facie view is that they are the pradhāna and the soul. Because visibility and so forth belonging to insentient entities like the earth are negated, the imperishable source of beings is understood to be the insentient pradhāna belonging to that same category; likewise, by "higher than the high Imperishable," it is only the soul that presides over it. But the established conclusion is: because later on, after stating omniscience and all-knowingness, which are impossible in the pradhāna and the soul, by "He who is omniscient, all-knowing," the origination of the world from the omniscient one of true resolve is heard by "From him this Brahman, name and form, and food are born," it is recognized that the imperishable source of beings possessing the attributes of invisibility and the like mentioned earlier, and that which is designated by "higher than the high Imperishable," is the supreme Brahman alone. The meaning of the aphorism is: The one possessing attributes such as invisibility is the supreme Self, because of omniscience.
(1-2-23)
For the context distinguishes the imperishable source of beings from the pradhāna through the knowledge of everything by the knowledge of the one, and so forth. Likewise, by "higher than the high Imperishable," a difference of this imperishable source of beings from the soul is declared by [stating that he is] higher than the soul that stands higher than the imperishable unmanifest. And therefore, they are not the pradhāna and the soul; rather, it is the supreme Self alone that is designated here.
(1-2-24)
And because the entire universe consisting of sentient and insentient entities is presented as the form of the imperishable source of beings by "Fire is his head" and so forth, this one possessing attributes such as invisibility is the supreme Self.
(1-2-25)
In the Chāndogya [Upaniṣad], beginning with "You now study this very Self, Vaiśvānara; explain him to us," down to "He who meditates on this very Self, Vaiśvānara, measuring a span and boundless," there arises the doubt: Can this Vaiśvānara be determined to be the supreme Self, or not? The prima facie view is that it cannot be determined, because the word "Vaiśvānara" is seen used in the Veda for the digestive fire, the third element, a particular deity, and the supreme Self, and because indicators of all of them are found in this context. But the established conclusion is: because of the opening statement, "What is our Self? What is Brahman?", [inquiring] what is the Brahman that constitutes the Self of all individual selves, and because later on, the word "Vaiśvānara" is used everywhere in place of the word "Brahman" by "this very Self, Vaiśvānara," the Self Vaiśvānara is understood to be the supreme Brahman that constitutes the Self of all individual selves. The meaning of the aphorism is: The one designated by the word "Vaiśvānara" is the supreme Self, because although the word "Vaiśvānara" is common to multiple meanings, in this context it is qualified by the exclusive qualifiers of the supreme Self, such as being the Self of all. "A qualifier (viśeṣa)" is that which qualifies.

2.2-3

26)
smaryamāṇaṃ-- pratyabhijñāyamānam, anumīyate'neneti anumānam, iti śabdaḥ prakāravacanaḥ, itthaṃ rūpaṃ
smaryamāṇaṃ vaiśvānarasya paramātmatve'numānaṃ syāt ; dyuprabhṛtipṛthivyantamavayavavibhāgena vaiśvānarasya rūpamihopadiṣṭam |agnirmūrdhā cakṣuṣī candrasūryau | | dyāṃ mūrdhānaṃ yasya viprāvadanti |iti śrutismṛtiprasiddhaṃ paramapuruṣarūpamiha pratyabhijñāyamānaṃ vaiśvānarasya paramātmatve liṅgaṃ syādityarthaḥ||

26)
"That which is remembered" means that which is recognized. "An inference" is that by which [something] is inferred; the word "iti" indicates the manner. A form thus remembered would be an inference—[that is, an inferential sign]—for Vaiśvānara being the supreme Self. Here, the form of Vaiśvānara divided into parts from heaven down to earth is taught. The meaning is: the form of the Supreme Person well known in scripture and sacred tradition as "Fire is his head, the moon and sun are his eyes" and "Whose head the wise declare to be heaven," when recognized here, would be a sign that Vaiśvānara is the supreme Self.

2.2-4

27)
anirṇayamāśaṅkya pariharati-- śabdādibhyo'ntaḥpratiśṭhānācceti| śabdastāvat vājināṃ vaiśvānaravidyāprakaraṇe |sa eṣo'gnirvaiśvānaraḥ |iti vaiśvānarasamānādhikaraṇo'gniśabdaḥ| asmin prakaraṇe ca hṛdaye gārhapatyaḥ|ityārabhya vaiśvānarasya hṛdayādisthānasyāgnitrayaparikalpanaṃ prāṇāhutyādhāravañcetyādi pratīyate| vājināmapi |sa yo ha vaitamevamagniṃ vaiśvānaraṃ puruṣavidhaṃ puruṣe'ntaḥ pratiṣṭhitaṃ veda |iti vaiśvānarasya śarīrāntaḥpratiṣṭhitatvaṃ pratīyate| ataḥ etairliṅgairvaiśvānarasya jāṭharāgnitvapratīternāyaṃ paramātmeti śakyanirṇaya iti cet tanna tathā dṛṣṭyupadeśāt, dṛṣṭiḥ-- upāsanam, tathopāsanopadeśādityarthaḥ| jāṭharāgniśarīratayā vaiśvānarasya paramātmānaṃ upāsanaṃ hyatropadiśyate |ayamagnirvaiśvānaraḥ puruṣe'ntaḥ pratiṣṭhitaḥ|ityādau| kathamavagamyata iti cet, asaṃbhavāt--- kevalajāṭharāgnestrailokya śarīratvādyasaṃbhavāt| puruṣamapi cainamadhīyate-- caśabdaḥ prasiddhau vājinastatraiva |sa eṣo'gnirvaiśvānaro yatpuruṣaḥ |iti enaṃ vaiśvānakaṃ puruṣamapi hyadhīyate| puruṣaśca paramātmaiva |puruṣa evedaṃ sarvam | puruṣānna paraṃ kiñcit | ityādiṣu prasiddheḥ||

27)
Apprehending an objection that there is no determination, he resolves it: "Because of the words, etc., and because of abiding within." First, regarding words: in the context of the meditation on Vaiśvānara among the Vājins, the word 'fire' is in co-ordinate predication with Vaiśvānara in "This very fire is Vaiśvānara." And in this context, beginning with "The Gārhapatya is the heart," there is understood an imaginative representation of the three sacred fires whose locations are the heart and so forth, as well as being the receptacle of the breath-oblations, and so on. Among the Vājins too, Vaiśvānara is understood to abide within the body in "He who truly knows this fire, Vaiśvānara, of the form of a person, established within the person." Therefore, if it is argued that because of these marks Vaiśvānara is understood to be the digestive fire and thus cannot be determined to be the supreme Self, that is not so: "Because of the teaching of visualization in that manner"—"visualization" means meditation; that is, because of the teaching of meditation in that manner. For what is taught here is meditation upon the supreme Self having the digestive fire as his body, in passages such as "This fire Vaiśvānara is established within the person." If it is asked how this is known: "Because of impossibility"—because it is impossible for the mere digestive fire to have the three worlds as its body, and so on. "And they also study him as a person"—the word 'and' denotes well-known fact. There indeed the Vājins also study this Vaiśvānara as a person in "This very fire is Vaiśvānara, who is the Person." And the Person is indeed the supreme Self, because it is well known in passages such as "The Person alone is all this" and "There is nothing higher than the Person."

2.2-5

28)
yatastrailokyaśarīro'sau vaiśvānaraḥ, yataśca nirupādhikapuruṣaśabdanirdiṣṭaḥ ; ata eva nāgnyākhyā devatā, mahābhūtatṛtīyaśca vaiśvānaraśśaṅkanīyaḥ||

28)
Because this Vaiśvānara has the three worlds as his body, and because he is designated by the word 'Person' without any limiting adjunct, for this very reason Vaiśvānara is not to be suspected as the deity named Fire, nor as the third of the gross elements.

2.2-6

29)
agniśarīratayā vaiśvānarasyopāsanārthamagniśabdasāmānādhikaraṇyanirdeṣa ityuktam| viśveṣāṃ narāṇāṃ netṛtvādinā saṃbandhena yathā vaiśvānaraśabdaḥ paramātmani vartate, tathāvāgniśabdasyāpi agnanayanādinā yogena sākṣātparamātmani vṛttau na kaścidvirodha iti jaiminirācāryo manyate||
|yastvetamevaṃ prādeśamātramabhivāmanamātmānaṃ vaiśvānaram |iti dyuprabhṛtipṛthivyantapradeśasaṃbandhinyā mātrayā paricchinnatvamanavacchinnasya paramātmano vaiśvānarasya kathamupapadyata ityatrāha---

29)
It has been stated that the designation through co-ordinate predication with the word 'fire' is for the purpose of meditating on Vaiśvānara as having fire as his body. Teacher Jaimini considers that just as the word 'Vaiśvānara' applies to the supreme Self through the relation of being the leader of all men and so forth, so also there is no contradiction in the direct application of the word 'fire' (agni) to the supreme Self by the etymological connection of 'leading forward' (agra-nayana) and so on.
Regarding the text, "He, however, who meditates thus upon this Vaiśvānara Self measured by a span and as measuring [the universe]," how can the supreme Self, Vaiśvānara, who is uncircumscribed, properly be circumscribed by a measure related to the regions beginning with heaven and ending with earth? To this, he says:

2.2-7

30)
anavacchinnasyaiva paramātmanaḥ upāsanābhivyaktyarthaṃ dyuprabhṛtipṛthivyantapradeṣaparicchinnatvamiti āśmarathya ācāryo manyate||
dyuprabhṛtipradeṣāvacchedenābhivyaktasya paramātmano dyubhvādityādīnāṃ mūrdhādyavayavakalpanaṃ kimarthamiti cet ; tatrāha----

30)
Teacher Āśmarathya considers that the supreme Self, though uncircumscribed, is circumscribed by the regions beginning with heaven and ending with earth for the sake of manifestation in meditation.
If it is asked: for what purpose is the imaginative representation of heaven, earth, the sun, and so forth as limbs such as the head of the supreme Self manifested as circumscribed by regions beginning with heaven? To that, he says:

2.2-8

31)
anusmṛtiḥ- upāsanam, brahmaprāptaye tathopāsanārthaṃ mūrdhaprabhṛtipādāntadehaparikalpanamiti bādarirācāryo manyate||
ayaṃ vaiśvānaraḥ paramātmā trailokyaśarīraḥ upāsya upadiśyate cet, |ura eva vedirlomāni barhirhṛdayaṃ gārhapatyaḥ | ityādinā upāsakaśarīrāvayavānāṃ gārhapatyādiparikalpanaṃ kimarthamityatrāha--

31)
Teacher Bādari considers that "continuous recollection" means meditation; the imaginative representation of a body beginning with the head and ending with the feet is for the purpose of such meditation in order to attain Brahman.
If it is said that this Vaiśvānara, the supreme Self having the three worlds as his body, is taught as an object of meditation, then for what purpose is the imaginative representation of the limbs of the meditator's body as the Gārhapatya and so forth in "The chest alone is the altar, the hairs the sacrificial grass, the heart the Gārhapatya"? To this, he says:

2.2-9

32)
vaiśvānaravidyāṅgabhūtāyāḥ upāsakairaharahaḥ kriyamāṇāyāḥ prāṇāhuteragnihotratvasaṃpādanāya gārhapatyādiparikalpanamiti jaiminirācāryo manyate| tathā hyagnihotrasaṃpattimeva darśayatīyaṃ śrutiḥ prāṇahutiṃ vidhāya, |
atha ya evaṃ vidvānagnihotraṃ juhoti| iti | uktānāmarthānāṃ pūjitatvakhayāpanāyācāryagrahaṇam||

32)
Teacher Jaimini considers that the imaginative representation of the Gārhapatya and so forth is for the purpose of realizing the nature of the Agnihotra in the oblation to breath that forms an auxiliary part of the meditation on Vaiśvānara and is performed day after day by the meditators. For this scripture, having enjoined the oblation to breath, shows the attainment of the Agnihotra itself in "Then, he who, knowing thus, offers the Agnihotra." The mention of teachers is for the sake of making known the venerable authority of the views stated.

2.2-10

33)
enaṃ paramapuruṣaṃ vaiśvānaraṃ dyubhvādideham, asmin upāsakadehe prāṇāgnihotreṇārādhyatvāya āmananti hi |tasya ha vā etasya vaiśvānarasya mūrdhaiva sutejāḥ |ityādinā| upāsakamūrdhādipādāntā eva dyuprabhṛtayaḥ paramapuruṣasya mūrdhādaya iti prāṇāgnihotravelāyāmanusandheyā ityarthaḥ||

33)
For they record in sacred text this Supreme Person, Vaiśvānara, whose body consists of heaven, earth, and so on, as an object to be worshipped in this body of the meditator through the Agnihotra of breath, in "Of this very Vaiśvānara, the head indeed is the very brilliant," and so forth. The meaning is that the regions beginning with heaven, which are the head and other parts of the Supreme Person, are to be contemplated at the time of the Agnihotra of breath as identical to the parts beginning with the head and ending with the feet of the meditator.