यो वा एतदक्शरं गार्ग्यविदित्वास्मिंल्लोके जुहोति यजते तपस्तप्यते बहूनि वर्षसहस्राणि, अन्तवदेवास्य तद्भवति; यो वा एतदक्शरं गार्ग्यविदित्वास्माल्लोकात्प्रैति स कृपणः; अथ य एतदक्शरं गार्गि विदित्वास्माल्लोकात्प्रैति स ब्राह्मणः ॥ १० ॥
yo vā etadakśaraṃ gārgyaviditvāsmiṃlloke juhoti yajate tapastapyate bahūni varṣasahasrāṇi, antavadevāsya tadbhavati; yo vā etadakśaraṃ gārgyaviditvāsmāllokātpraiti sa kṛpaṇaḥ; atha ya etadakśaraṃ gārgi viditvāsmāllokātpraiti sa brāhmaṇaḥ ॥ 10 ॥
10. He, O Gārgī, who in this world, without knowing this Immutable, offers oblations in the fire, performs sacrifices and undergoes austerities even for many thousand years, finds all such acts but perishable; he, O Gārgī, who departs from this world without knowing this Immutable, is miserable. But he, O Gārgī, who departs from this world after knowing this Immutable, is a knower of Brahman.
Here is another reason for the existence of the Immutable, because until one knows It one is bound to suffer transmigration; and That must exist, the knowledge of which puts a stop to it, for this is but logical.
Objection: May not rites alone do this?
Reply: No, he, O Gārgī, wḥo in this world, without knowing this Immutable, offers oblations in the fire, performs sacrifices and undergoes austerities even for many thousand years, finds all such acts but perishable. After he has enjoyed their fruits, those rites are inevitably exhausted. Besides, that mighty Ruler, the Immutable, exists, by knowing which misery is at an end—transmigration is stopped, and not knowing which the ritualist is miserable—enjoys only the results of his rites and moves in an endless series of births and deaths. So the text says: He, O Gārgī, who departs from this world without knowing this Immutable, is miserable, like a slave etc. bought for a price. But he, O Gārgī, who departs from this world after knowing this Immutable, is a knower of Brahman.
It may be contended that like the heat and light of fire, the rulership of the Immutable is natural to the insentient Pradhāna (of the Sāṃkhyas, and not to Brahman). The reply is being given: