(4) For he is the Breath shining forth in all beings, and he who understands this becomes truly wise, not a talker only. He revels in the Self, he delights in the Self, and having performed his works (truthfulness, penance, meditation, &c.) he rests, firmly established in Brahman, the best of those who know Brahman.

(29) He who, after he has attained, is wholly free from self, reaches the essence of all that can be known, gathered together like a cloud. This is the true spiritual consciousness.

(1) Verily, at that time the world was undifferentiated. It became differentiated just by name and foim, as the saying is: differentiated just by name and form, as the saying is: ' He has such a name, such a form.' He entered in here, even to the fingernail-tips, as a razor would be hidden in a razor-case, or fire in a fire-holder.' Him they see not, for [as seen] he Is incomplete. When breathing, he becomes breath (prdnd) by name; when speaking, voice; when seeing, the eye; when hearing, the ear; when thinking, the mind: these are merely the names of his acts. Whoever worships one or another of these — he knows not; for he is the earliest occurrence of a favorite simile of the later Vedanta; cf. for example, £ankara on the Brahma-Sutras 3. 2. 6 ' as fire is latent in firewood or in covered embers.* But the meaning of m&vambJiara is uncertain. Etymologically the word is a compound signifying * all-bearing.' As such it is an unambiguous appellation of the earth at AV 12. I 6. The only other occurrence of its adjectival -use that is cited in BR. is AV. 2. 16. 5, where the commentator substantiates his rendering the meaning ( fire ' (A V Tr. p. 60-61), and in his criticism of Bohtlingk's translation of this Upamshad (AJP n. 432) suggests that ' vtivambhara may perhaps here mean some kind of insect, in accordance with its later use,' and * since the point of comparison is the invisibility of the things encased ' proposes the translation * or as a vitvambhara in a vtfvam&kara-uest. But Professor Lanman adds to Whitney's note on AV. a. 16. 5 (AV, Tr. p. 60- j); 'I think, nevertheless, that fire may be meant.' The same simile recurs at Kaush. 4. 20. incomplete with one or another of these. One should worship with the thought that he is just one's self (atman\ for therein all these become one That same thing, namely, this self, is the trace (fadaniyd) of this All, for by it one knows this All. Just as, verily, one might find by a footprint (^r),thus— - He finds fame and praise who knows this.

(13) 'By the words "He is," is he to be apprehended, and by (admitting) the reality of both (the invisible Brahman and the visible world, as coming from Brahman). When he has been apprehended by the words "He is," then his reality reveals itself'

(4) For where there is a duality, as it were, there one sees another; there one smells another; there one tastes another; there one speaks to another; there one hears another; theie one thinks of another; there one touches another; there one understands another. But where everything has become just one's own self, then whereby and whom would one see? then whereby and whom would one smell? then whereby and whom would one taste? then whereby and to whom would one speak? then whereby and whom would one hear? then whereby and of whom would one think? then whereby and whom would one touch? then whereby and whom would one understand? whereby would one understand him by means of whom one understands this All? That Soul (Atman) is not this, it is not that (neti, neti). It is unseizable, for it can not be seized; indestructible, for it can not be destroyed; unattached, for it does not attach itself; is unbound, does not tremble, is not injured. Lo, whereby would one understand the understander? Thus you have the instruction told to you, Maitreyl. Such, lo, indeed, is immortality.' After speaking thus, Yajnavalkya departed, 1 La

(4) Verily, he Is the great, unborn Soul, who is this [person] consisting of knowledge among the senses. In the space within the heart lies the ruler of all, the lord of all, the king of all. He does not become gi eater by good action nor inferior by bad action. He is the lord of all, the overlord of beings, the protector of beings. He is the separating dam for keeping these worlds apart. Such a one the Brahmans desire to know by repetition of the Vedas, by sacrifices, by offerings, by penance, by fasting. On knowing him, in truth, one becomes an ascetic (muni). Desiring him only as their home, mendicants wander forth. Verily, because they know this, the ancients desired not off- spring, saying: <c What shall we do with offspring, we whose is this Soul, this home? " They, verily, rising above the desire for sons and the desire for wealth and the desire for worlds, lived the life of a mendicant. For the desire for sons is the desire for wealth, and the desire for wealth is the desire for worlds; for both these are desires. That Soul (Atman) is not this, it is not that (neti, neti}. It is unseizable, for it cannot be seized. It is indestructible, for it cannot be destroyed. It is unattached, for it does not attach Itself. It is unbound. It does not tremble. It is not injured. Him [who knows this] these two do not overcome — neither the thought <c Hence I did wrong," nor the thought " Hence I did right/' Verily, he overcomes them both. What he has done and what he has not done do not affect him.

(3) What, then, is the spirit ?

The Spirit of here and now.

And the God?

The God of here and now.

Spirit, God; This in act within us, conducts every life; for, even here and now, it is the dominant of our Nature.

That is to say that the dominant is the spirit which takes possession of the human being at birth?

No: the dominant is the Prior of the individual spirit; it presides inoperative while its secondary acts: so that if the acting force is that of men of the sense-life, the tutelary spirit is the Rational Being, while if we live by that Rational Being, our tutelary Spirit is the still higher Being, not directly operative but assenting to the working principle. The words "You shall yourselves choose" are true, then; for by our life we elect our own loftier.

But how does this spirit come to be the determinant of our fate?

It is not when the life is ended that it conducts us here or there; it operates during the lifetime; when we cease to live, our death hands over to another principle this energy of our own personal career.

That principle strives to gain control, and if it succeeds it also lives and itself, in turn, possesses a guiding spirit : if on the contrary it is weighed down by the developed evil in the character, the spirit of the previous life pays the penalty: the evil-liver loses grade because during his life the active principle of his being took the tilt towards the brute by force of affinity. If, on the contrary, the Man is able to follow the leading of his higher Spirit, he rises: he lives that Spirit; that noblest part of himself to which he is being led becomes sovereign in his life; this made his own, he works for the next above until he has attained the height.

For the Soul is many things, is all, is the Above and the Beneath to the totality of life: and each of us is an Intellectual Kosmos, linked to this world by what is lowest in us, but, by what is the highest, to the Divine Intellect: by all that is intellective we are permanently in that higher realm, but at the fringe of the Intellectual we are fettered to the lower; it is as if we gave forth from it some emanation towards that lower, or, rather some Act, which however leaves our diviner part not in itself diminished.

(25) For him who discerns between the Mind and the Spiritual Man, there comes perfect fruition of the longing after the real being of the Self.

(13) 'A mortal who has heard this and embraced it, who has separated from it all qualities, and has thus reached the subtle Being, rejoices, because he has obtained what is a cause for rejoicing. The house (of Brahman) is open, I believe, O Nakiketas.'

(1) THE ALL is SPIRIT! But what is Spirit? This question cannot be answered, for the reason that its definition is practically that of THE ALL, which cannot be explained or defined. Spirit is simply a name that men give to the highest conception of Infinite Living Mind--it means "the Real Essence"--it means Living Mind, as much superior to Life and Mind as we know them, as the latter are superior to mechanical Energy and Matter. Spirit transcends our understanding, and we use the term merely that we may think or speak of THE ALL. For the purposes of thought and understanding, we are justified in thinking of Spirit as Infinite Living Mind, at the same time acknowledging that we cannot fully understand it. We must either do this or stop thinking of the matter at all.

(7) '(He who knows) Aditi also, who is one with all deities, who arises with Prâna (breath or Hiranyagarbha), who, entering into the heart, abides therein, and was born from the elements. This is that.'

(2) “Honoured of the Worlds! having heard this unprecedented Scripture, faith, clear understanding, and firm resolve to observe its precepts, follow as a natural sequence. If, in future ages, disciples destined to hear this Scripture, likewise believe, understand, and observe its precepts, their merit will incite the highest wonder and praise. And why? Because, the minds of those disciples will have outgrown such arbitrary ideas of phenomena as an entity, a being, a living being, or a personality. And why? Because, the entity is in reality non-entity; and a being, a living being, or a personality, are ideas equally nebulous and hypothetical. Wherefore, discarding every arbitrary idea of phenomena, the wise and wholly enlightened were severally designated Buddha.”

(4) " He is becoming one," they say; ce he does not see." " He is becoming one," they say; " he does not smell." '• He is becoming one," they say; "he does not taste." "He is becoming one," they say; "he does not speak." " He is becoming one," yamdina text and does not fit in well with the context. Cf. 4. 3. 16. they say; "he does not hear." " He is becoming one," they say; " he does not think.3' " He is becoming one," they say; " he does not touch." <% He is becoming one/' they say; u he does not know." The point of his heart becomes lighted up. By that light the self departs, either by the eye, or by the head, or by other bodily parts. After him, as he goes out, the life (prand) goes out. After the life, as it goes out, all the breaths (prdnd) go out. He becomes one with intelligence. What has intelligence departs with him. His knowledge and his woiks and his former intelligence [i.e. instinct] lay hold of him. The soul of the unreleased after death

(6) And, in the degree that Man realizes the existence of the Indwelling Spirit immanent within his being, so will he rise in the spiritual scale of life. This is what spiritual development means--the recognition, realization, and manifestation of the Spirit within us. Try to remember this last definition--that of spiritual development. It contains the Truth of True Religion.

(13) He who sees the Supreme Lord abiding alike in all beings, and not perishing when they perish— verily he alone sees.

(5) 'He who knows this living soul which eats honey (perceives objects) as being the Self, always near, the Lord of the past and the future, henceforward fears no more. This is that.'

(9) The philosopher Avicenna says, "The spirit which is truly sanctified attains to so lofty a degree that all which it sees is real, all which it desires is granted, and in all which it commands, it is obeyed." When the free spirit is stablished in true sanctification, it draws God to itself, and were it placed beyond the reach of contingencies, it would assume the properties of God. But God cannot part with those to anyone; all that He can do for the sanctified spirit is to impart Himself to it. The man who is wholly sanctified is so drawn towards the Eternal, that no transitory thing may move him, no corporeal thing affect him, no earthly thing attract him. This was the meaning of St Paul when he said, "I live; yet not I; Christ liveth in me."

(3) Then Ushasta Cakrayana questioned him. ' Yajnavalkya/ said he, ' explain to me him who is the Brahma present and not beyond our ken, him who is the Soul in all things.' ' He is your soul (dtman), which is in all things.' c Which one, O Yajnavalkya, is in all things? ' in Soul of yours, which is in all things. He who breathes out with your breathing out (apand] is the Soul of yours, which is in all things. He who breathes about with your breathing about (vyana] is the Soul of yours, which is in all things. He who breathes up with your breathing up (uddna) is the Soul of yours, which is in all things. He is your soul, which is in all things.' a. Ushasta Cakrayana said: ' This has been explained to me just as one might say, <cThis is a cow. This is a horse." Explain to me him who is just the Brahma present and not beyond our ken, him who is the Soul in all things. c He is your soul, which is in all things/ £ Which one, O Yajnavalkya, is in all things? ' c You could not see the seer of seeing. You could not hear the hearer of hearing. You could not think the thinker of thinking. You could not understand the undcrstander of understanding. He is your soul, which is in all things. Aught else than Him [or, than this] is wretched.' Thereupon Ushasta Cakrayana held his peace.

(10) The Person is all this, sacrifice, penance, Brahman, the highest immortal; he who knows this hidden in the cave (of the heart), he, O friend, scatters the knot of ignorance here on earth.

(2) For where there is a duality (dvaita), as it were (iva\ there one sees another; there one smells another; there one hears another; there one speaks to another; there one thinks of another; there one understands another. Where, verily, everything has become just one's own self, then whereby and whom would one smell? then whereby and whom would one see? then whereby and whom would one hear? then whereby and to whom would one speak? then whereby and on whom would one think? then whereby and forth whom would one understand? Whereby would one under- stand him by whom one understands this All? Lo, whereby would one understand the understander? '