In the first pada Brahman has been shown to be the cause of the origin, subsistence, and reabsorption of the entire world, comprising the ether and the other elements.  Moreover, of this Brahman, which is the cause of the entire world, certain qualities have (implicitly) been declared, such as all-pervadingness, eternity, omniscience, its being the Self of all, and so on.  Further, by producing reasons showing that some words which are generally used in a different sense denote Brahman also, we have been able to determine that some passages about whose sense doubts are entertained refer to Brahman.  Now certain other passages present themselves which because containing only obscure indications of Brahman give rise to the doubt whether they refer to the highest Self or to something else.  We therefore begin the second and third padas in order to settle those doubtful points.

1. (That which consists of mind is Brahman) because there is taught what is known from everywhere.

Scripture says, ’All this indeed is Brahman, beginning, ending, and breathing in it; thus knowing let a man meditate with calm mind.  Now man is made of determination (kratu); according to what his determination is in this world so will he be when he has departed this life.  Let him therefore form this determination:  he who consists of mind, whose body is breath (the subtle body),’ &c. (Ch.  Up.  III, 14).  Concerning this passage the doubt presents itself whether what is pointed out as the object of meditation, by means of attributes such as consisting of mind, &c., is the embodied (individual) soul or the highest Brahman.

The embodied Self, the purvapakshin says.—­Why?—­Because the embodied Self as the ruler of the organs of action is well known to be connected with the mind and so on, while the highest Brahman is not, as is declared in several scriptural passages, so, for instance (Mu.  Up.  II, 1, 2), ’He is without breath, without mind, pure.’—­But, it may be objected, the passage, ‘All this indeed is Brahman,’ mentions Brahman directly; how then can you suppose that the embodied Self forms the object of meditation?—­This objection does not apply, the purvapakshin rejoins, because the passage does not aim at enjoining meditation on Brahman, but rather at enjoining calmness of mind, the sense being:  because Brahman is all this, tajjalan, let a man meditate with a calm mind.  That is to say:  because all this aggregate of effects is Brahman only, springing from it, ending in it, and breathing in it; and because, as everything constitutes one Self only, there is no room for passion; therefore a man is to meditate with a calm mind.  And since the sentence aims at enjoining calmness of mind, it cannot at the same time enjoin meditation on Brahman[136]; but meditation is separately enjoined in the clause, ‘Let him form the determination, i.e. reflection.’  And thereupon the subsequent passage, ‘He who consists of mind, whose body is breath,’ &c. states the object