Moreover, the distinctive qualities mentioned in the text agree only with the individual Self and the highest Self.  For in a subsequent passage (I, 3, 3), ’Know the Self to be the charioteer, the body to be the chariot,’ which contains the simile of the chariot, the individual soul is represented as a charioteer driving on through transmigratory existence and final release, while the passage (9), ’He reaches the end of his journey, and that is the highest place of Vish/n/u,’ represents the highest Self as the goal of the driver’s course.  And in a preceding passage also, (I, 2, 12, ’The wise, who by means of meditation on his Self, recognises the Ancient who is difficult to be seen, who has entered into the dark, who is hidden in the cave, who dwells in the abyss, as God, he indeed leaves joy and sorrow far behind,’) the same two beings are distinguished as thinker and as object of thought.  The highest Self is, moreover, the general topic.  And further, the clause, ‘Those who know Brahman call them,’ &c., which brings forward a special class of speakers, is in its place only if the highest Self is accepted (as one of the two beings spoken of).  It is therefore evident that the passage under discussion refers to the individual soul and the highest Self.

The same reasoning applies to the passage (Mu.  Up.  III, 1, 1), ’Two birds, inseparable friends,’ &c.  There also the Self is the general topic, and hence no two ordinary birds can be meant; we therefore conclude from the characteristic mark of eating, mentioned in the passage, ‘One of them eats the sweet fruit,’ that the individual soul is meant, and from the characteristic marks of abstinence from eating and of intelligence, implied in the words, ’The other looks on without eating,’ that the highest Self is meant.  In a subsequent mantra again the two are distinguished as the seer and the object of sight.  ’Merged into the same tree (as it were into water) man grieves at his own impotence (ani/s/a), bewildered; but when he sees the other Lord (i/s/a.) contented and knows his glory, then his grief passes away.’

Another (commentator) gives a different interpretation of the mantra, ‘Two birds inseparable,’ &c.  To that mantra, he says, the final decision of the present head of discussion does not apply, because it is differently interpreted in the Pai@ngi-rahasya Brahma/n/a.  According to the latter the being which eats the sweet fruit is the sattva; the other being which looks on without eating, the individual soul (j/n/a); so that the two are the sattva and the individual soul (kshetraj/n/a).  The objection that the word sattva might denote the individual soul, and the word kshetraj/n/a, the highest Self, is to be met by the remark that, in the first place, the words sattva and kshetraj/n/a have the settled meaning of internal organ and individual soul, and are in the second place, expressly so interpreted there, (viz. in the Pai@ngi-rahasya,) ’The sattva is that by means of which man sees dreams; the embodied one,