nor are told by Scripture that the welfare of man depends on those matters in any way; nor have we the right to assume such a thing; because we conclude from the introductory and concluding clauses that the passages about the creation and the like form only subordinate members of passages treating of Brahman.  That all the passages setting forth the creation and so on subserve the purpose of teaching Brahman, Scripture itself declares; compare Ch.  Up.  VI, 8, 4, ’As food too is an offshoot, seek after its root, viz. water.  And as water too is an offshoot, seek after its root, viz. fire.  And as fire too is an offshoot, seek after its root, viz. the True.’  We, moreover, understand that by means of comparisons such as that of the clay (Ch.  Up.  VI, 1, 4) the creation is described merely for the purpose of teaching us that the effect is not really different from the cause.  Analogously it is said by those who know the sacred tradition, ’If creation is represented by means of (the similes of) clay, iron, sparks, and other things; that is only a means for making it understood that (in reality) there is no difference whatever’ (Gau/d/ap.  Ka.  III, 15).—­On the other hand, Scripture expressly states the fruits connected with the knowledge of Brahman, ’He who knows Brahman obtains the highest’ (Taitt.  Up.  II, 1); ’He who knows the Self overcomes grief’ (Ch.  Up.  VII, 1, 3); ’A man who knows him passes over death’ (Sve.  Up.  III, 8).  That fruit is, moreover, apprehended by intuition (pratyaksha), for as soon as, by means of the doctrine, ‘That art thou,’ a man has arrived at the knowledge that the Self is non-transmigrating, its transmigrating nature vanishes for him.

It remains to dispose of the assertion that passages such as ’Non-being this was in the beginning’ contain conflicting statements about the nature of the cause.  This is done in the next Sutra.

15.  On account of the connexion (with passages treating of Brahman, the passages speaking of the Non-being do not intimate absolute Non-existence).

The passage ‘Non-being indeed was this in the beginning’ (Taitt.  Up.  II, 7) does not declare that the cause of the world is the absolutely Non-existent which is devoid of all Selfhood.  For in the preceding sections of the Upanishad Brahman is distinctly denied to be the Non-existing, and is defined to be that which is (’He who knows the Brahman as non-existing becomes himself non-existing.  He who knows the Brahman as existing him we know himself as existing’); it is further, by means of the series of sheaths, viz. the sheath of food, &c., represented as the inner Self of everything.  This same Brahman is again referred to in the clause, ‘He wished, may I be many;’ is declared to have originated the entire creation; and is finally referred to in the clause, ‘Therefore the wise call it the true.’  Thereupon the text goes on to say, with reference to what has all along been the