सा होवाच, ब्राह्मणा भगवन्तस्तदेव बहु मन्येध्वं यदस्मान्नमस्कारेण मुच्येध्वम्; न वै जातु युष्माकमिमं कश्चिद्ब्रह्मोद्यं जेतेति; ततो ह वाचक्नव्युपरराम ॥ १२ ॥
इत्यष्टमं ब्राह्मणम् ॥
sā hovāca, brāhmaṇā bhagavantastadeva bahu manyedhvaṃ yadasmānnamaskāreṇa mucyedhvam; na vai jātu yuṣmākamimaṃ kaścidbrahmodyaṃ jeteti; tato ha vācaknavyupararāma || 12 ||
ityaṣṭamaṃ brāhmaṇam ||
12. She said, ‘Revered Brāhmaṇas, you should consider yourselves fortunate if you can get off from him through salutations. Never shall any of you beat him in describing Brahman.’ Then the daughter of Vacaknu kept silent.
She said: ‘Revered Brāhmaṇas, listen to my words. You should consider yourselves fortunate if you can get off from him, Yājñavalkya, through salutations, by saluting him. You must never even think of defeating him, much less do it. Why? Because never shall any of you beat him, Yājñavalkya, in describing Brahman. I already said that if he answered my two questions, none could beat him. I still have the conviction that in describing Brahman he has no match.’ Then the daughter of Vacaknu kept silent.
In the section dealing with the Internal Ruler it has been said, ‘Whom the earth does not know,’ and ‘Whom no being knows.’ Now what is the similarity as well as difference among the Internal Ruler whom they do not know, those who do not know Him, and the conscious Principle which, being the subject of the activities of vision etc. of all things, is spoken of as the Immutable?
Regarding this some say: The Internal Ruler is the slightly agitated state of the ocean of Supreme Brahman, the Immutable, which never changes its nature. The individual self, which does not know that Internal Ruler, is the extremely agitated state of that ocean. They also imagine five1 other states of Brahman; again they maintain that Brahman has eight states. Others say that these are but the powers of the Immutable, which, according to them, has unlimited powers. Still others maintain that these are modifications of the Immutable.
Now the states and powers are inadmissible, for the Śrutis declare the Immutable to be beyond the relative attributes of hunger etc. Certainly one and the same thing cannot simultaneously be both beyond hunger etc. and subject to those conditions. The same argument applies to the Immutable having powers, while the flaws in attributing modifications and parts to the Immutable have already been pointed out in the second chapter (p. 300). Hence all these views are wrong.
What then is the difference among them? It is all due to the limiting adjuncts, we reply: intrinsically there is neither difference nor identity among them, for they are by nature Pure Intelligence, homogeneous like a lump of salt. Witness the Śruti texts: ‘Without prior or posterior, without interior or exterior’ (II. v. 19), and ‘This self is Brahman’ (Ibid.); also in the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad: ‘It includes the interior and exterior, and is unborn’ (II. i. 2). Therefore the unconditioned Self, being beyond speech and mind, undifferentiated and one, is designated as ‘Not this, not this’; when It has the limiting adjuncts of the body and organs, which are characterised by ignorance, desire and work, It is called the transmigrating individual self; and when the Self has the limiting adjunct of the power of (Māyā manifesting through) eternal and unlimited knowledge, It is called the Internal Ruler and īśvara. The same Self as by nature transcendent, absolute and pure, is called the Immutable and Supreme Self. Similarly, having the limiting adjuncts of the bodies and organs of Hiraṇyagarbha, the Undifferentiated, the gods, the species, the individual, men, animals, spirits, etc., the Self assumes those particular names and forms. Thus have we explained this through the Śruti passage: ‘It moves, and does not move’ (Īś. 5). In this light alone such texts as, ‘This is your self (that is within all)’ (III. iv. 1-2; III. v. 1), ‘He is the inner Self of all beings’ (Mu. II. i. 4), ‘This (self) being hidden in all beings,’ etc. (Ka. III. 12), ‘Thou art That’ (Ch. VI. viii. 7), T Myself am all this’ (Ch. VII. xxv. 1), ‘All this is but the Self’ (Ibid. 2), and ‘There is no other witness but Him’ (III. vii. 23), do not prove contradictory; but in any other view they cannot be harmonised. Therefore they differ only because of their limiting adjuncts, but not otherwise, for all the Upaniṣads conclude: ‘One only without a second’ (Ch. VI. ii. 1).