I shall declare that nature of the individual self (brahman) which is the object to be known, namely, what is to be gained by means of virtues like modesty etc., by knowing which one attains to the self which is immortal, birthless, free from old age, death and such other material qualities. [The expression is split up as—Anadi= beginningless; Mat-param=having Me as the Highest.] Anadi means that which is beginningless. Indeed, there is no origination for this individual self ( brahman ) and for the same reason, It is endless. The Shruti also declares: ‘The wise one is not born, nor dies’ (Ka.U., 2.18). ‘Matpara’ means having Me for the Highest. Verily, it has been told: ‘Know that which is other than this (lower nature), which is the life-principle, to be the highest Prakrti of Mine’ (7.5). By virtue of being the body of the Lord, the nature of the self finds joy in being completely subsidiary to Him. So the Shruti declares: ‘He who, dwelling in the self, is within the self, whom the self does not know, whose body the self is and who controls the self from within...’ (Br.U.Madh., 5.7.22). Similarly do the texts declare: ‘He is the cause, Lord of Lords and of sense organs. He has no progenitor, nor lord’ (Shve.U., 6.9); and ‘He is the Lord of the Pradhana and of the individual selves, and the Lord of qualities (Ibid., 6.16). That which is conjoined with the quality of infinite dimension or extensiveness can be designated as brahman. It is different from, and not circumscribable by, the body etc. The meaning is, It is the principle which apprehends the Kshetra. Shruti also declares: ‘He (i.e., the individual self) partakes of infinity’ (Shve.U., 5.9). By Its Karma It is circumscribed. It assumes Its infinite nature only when It is freed from the bonds of Karma. The term brahman is applied to designate the individual self as in: ‘He, crossing beyond the Gunas’, becomes fit for the state of brahman’ (14.26), ‘I am the ground of the brahman, who is immutable and immortal’ (14.27), and ‘Having attained to the state of brahman , tranquil, he neither grieves nor craves; regarding all beings alike, he attains supreme devotion to Me’ (18.54). It (brahman) is said to be neither being nor non-being. The terms ‘being’ and ‘non-being’ cannot signify the nature of the self because It is neither effect nor cause. For It is called ‘being’ (Sat) in the condition of effect when It has the form of gods etc. As It cannot possess names and forms in the condition of cause, It is said to be ‘non-being’ or Asat. So the Shruti texts declare: ‘In the beginning, verily, this (brahman ) was non-existence; therefrom the being was born’ (Tai.U., 2.7.1) and ‘Verily, this (brahman)-was then undifferentiated. It became differentiated by names and forms’ (Br.U., 1.4.7). The self’s conditions as effect and cause have arisen on account of veiling by Avidya or ignorance in the form of Karma. It is not an expression of Its real nature. So, the terms ‘being’ and ‘non-being’ do not signify the nature of the self, If it is argued that, in the passage ‘In the beginning, verily, this (Brahman) was non-existence’ (Tai.U., 2.7.1), it is the Supreme Brahman in the state of cause that is described—even then it can be pointed out that the Supreme Brahman in causal condition has, for His body, the conscient and non-conscient entities in a subtle state, incapable of being differentiated by names and forms. Such a description is therefore valid. On the same principle the nature of Kshetra (body) and Kshetrajña (individual self) in the state of cause can also be indicated by the term ‘non-being’. But this condition of the individual self has arisen due to Karma and such descriptions as ‘being’ and ‘non-being’ are applicable to the self only in the state of bondage. Its pure form cannot be signified by the terms ‘being’ and ‘non-being’.