The eater, we reply, must be the highest Self ’because there is mentioned what is movable and what is immovable.’  For all things movable and immovable are here to be taken as constituting the food, while death is the condiment.  But nothing beside the highest Self can be the consumer of all these things in their totality; the highest Self, however, when reabsorbing the entire aggregate of effects may be said to eat everything.  If it is objected that here no express mention is made of things movable and things immovable, and that hence we have no right to use the (alleged) mention made of them as a reason, we reply that this objection is unfounded; firstly, because the aggregate of all living beings is seen to be meant from the circumstance of death being the condiment; and, secondly, because the Brahmans and Kshattriyas may here, on account of their pre-eminent position, be viewed as instances only (of all beings).  Concerning the objection that the highest Self cannot be an eater on account of the passage quoted (’the other looks on without eating’), we remark that that passage aims at denying the fruition (on the part of the highest Self) of the results of works, such fruition being mentioned in immediate proximity, but is not meant to negative the reabsorption of the world of effects (into Brahman); for it is well established by all the Vedanta-texts that Brahman is the cause of the creation, subsistence, and reabsorption of the world.  Therefore the eater can here be Brahman only.

10.  And on account of the topic under discussion.  That the highest Self only can be the eater referred to is moreover evident from the passage (Ka.  Up.  I, 2, 18), (’The knowing Self is not born, it dies not’), which shows that the highest Self is the general topic.  And to adhere to the general topic is the proper proceeding.  Further, the clause, ’Who then knows where he is,’ shows that the cognition is connected with difficulties; which circumstance again points to the highest Self.

11.  The ‘two entered into the cave’ (are the individual soul and the highest Self), for the two are (intelligent) Selfs (and therefore of the same nature), as it is seen (that numerals denote beings of the same nature).

In the same Ka/th/avalli we read (I, 3, 1), ’There are the two drinking the reward of their works in the world, (i.e. the body,) entered into the cave, dwelling on the highest summit.  Those who know Brahman call them shade and light; likewise those householders who perform the Tri/n/a/k/iketa sacrifice.’

Here the doubt arises whether the mind (buddhi) and the individual soul are referred to, or the individual soul and the highest Self.  If the mind and the individual soul, then the individual soul is here spoken of as different from the aggregate of the organs of action, (i.e. the body,) among which the mind occupies the first place.  And a statement on this point is to be expected, as a question concerning it is asked