Yajnavalkya Kanda. Adhyaya 4, Brahmana 5. Yajnavalkya and Maitreyi, again
New to these pages?
Each mantra is given four ways: the Sanskrit in its Devanagari script, the same sounds in Roman letters, an English translation set in our own voice, and then the line once more in plain words, for a first and unhurried reading.
Not every passage is opened to the same depth. A few central mantras carry the full cross-school commentary, where the schools are set side by side. The rest are kept here whole and faithful, set in their place but not expounded, so the book stays entire and nothing is dropped for being thought minor.
Where the schools read a line differently, the difference is kept open. None is crowned and none is corrected. Each is met on its own terms, and where they contradict, the contradiction is left standing for you to sit with.
By what would one know the knower
For where there is duality, as it were, there one sees another, one smells another, one tastes another, one speaks to another, one hears another, one thinks of another, one touches another, one knows another. But where everything has become the very Self, then by what and whom should one see, by what and whom should one smell, by what and whom should one taste, by what and whom should one speak, by what and whom should one hear, by what and whom should one think, by what and whom should one touch, by what and whom should one know? By what should one know That by which all this is known? This Self is that which is described as "not this, not this." It is ungraspable, for it is not grasped; indestructible, for it is never destroyed; unattached, for it does not attach itself; unbound, it does not tremble, it is not injured. By what, O Maitreyi, should one know the Knower? Thus you have the instruction. This much is the means of immortality. Having said this, Yajnavalkya went forth.
Where there is duality, as it were, there one thing sees another, smells another, tastes another, speaks to another, hears another, thinks of another, touches another, knows another. But when, for the knower, everything has become the Self alone, then with what instrument and whom would one see, smell, taste, address, hear, think of, touch, or know? In non-duality there are no longer two things, a knower and a known. By what could one know That by which everything else is known? This Self is the one pointed to only by negation, "not this, not this" (neti neti): it cannot be grasped, for it is the grasper; it cannot decay, it cannot be attached, it cannot be bound, it does not tremble and is never injured. How could anyone know the very Knower? This, Maitreyi, is the whole teaching; this much is the means to immortality (amrtatva). Having said this, Yajnavalkya went away into the homeless life.
In the commentaries
Sankara takes this as the culmination: perception and knowing belong only to the realm of seeming duality, so when all has become the one Self there is no second thing to know and no instrument to know it with; the Self, the ever-present Knower, can only be indicated by neti neti, and this knowledge alone is immortality.