Verse 2.551

Sanskrit text and transliteration:

भेदे श्रुतिविरोधः स्यादन्योऽसाविति निन्दनात् ।
कर्मकर्तृत्वमेकस्य दोषोऽभेदेऽपि विद्यते ॥ ५५१ ॥

bhede śrutivirodhaḥ syādanyo'sāviti nindanāt |
karmakartṛtvamekasya doṣo'bhede'pi vidyate || 551 ||

English translation of verse 2.551:

If it be said that he is different (from Brahman), it would go against śruti (which affirms the non-difference between the jīva and Brahman), and also against the śruti text, anyo'sau which decries (a person who sees difference). If it be said that he is non-different (from Brahman), there is the defect of one and the same person being both the agent and the object of an action.

Notes:

Of the three alternatives in respect of the relation between the jīva and Brahman mentioned above, the first two are examined in this verse.

It cannot be said that the jīva, the person who knows Brahman, is different from Brahman for the following reasons. First of all, it is opposed to scriptural passages which affirm the truth of non-duality. Consider, for example, the Chāndogya text (VI, viii, 7) tat tvam asi which states the non-difference between the jīva and Brahman. Another text (VI, ii, 1) from the Chāndogya declares that the ultimate reality is “one only, without a second.” There is yet another reason to show why the difference between the jīva and Brahman cannot be accepted. Śruti decries a person who thinks in terms of difference. The Bṛhadāraṇyaka text (I, iv, 10) declares: “He who worships another God thinking, ‘He is one, and I am another,’ does not know. He is like an animal to the gods.” The idea here is that a person who worships another god, offering him praises, salutations, sacrifices, and so on, suffers not only from the evil of ignorance, but also degrades himself like an animal to the gods whom he worships. Commenting on this passage Śaṅkara observes: “As a cow or other animals are utilized through their services such as carrying loads or yielding milk, so is this man of use to every one of the gods and others on account of his many services such as the performance of sacrifices. That is to say, he is therefore engaged to do all kinds of services for them.”

Nor car. it be said that “a person who knows thus” is non-different from Brahman. One and the same person cannot be both the agent and the object of an action, i.e., one who knows and also the object which is known.