यत्र हि द्वैतम् इव भवति तद् इतरः इतरं जिघ्रति तद् इतरः इतरं पश्यति तद् इतरः इतरं शृणोति तद् इतरः इतरं जिघ्रति तद् इतरः इतरम् अभिवदति तद् इतरः इतरं मनुते तद् इतरः इतरं विजानाति यत्र वा अस्य सर्वम् आत्म एव अभूत् तत् केन कं जिघ्रेत् तत् केन कं जिघ्रेत् तत् केन कं पश्येत् तत् केन कं शृणुयात् तत् केन कम् अभिवदेत् तत् केन कं मन्वीत तत् केन कं विजानीयात् येन इदम् सर्वम् विजानाति तं केन विजानीयात् विज्ञातारम् अरे केन विजानीयात् इति
yatra hi dvaitam iva bhavati tad itaraḥ itaraṃ jighrati tad itaraḥ itaraṃ paśyati tad itaraḥ itaraṃ śṛṇoti tad itaraḥ itaraṃ jighrati tad itaraḥ itaram abhivadati tad itaraḥ itaraṃ manute tad itaraḥ itaraṃ vijānāti yatra vā asya sarvam ātma eva abhūt tat kena kaṃ jighret tat kena kaṃ jighret tat kena kaṃ paśyet tat kena kaṃ śṛṇuyāt tat kena kam abhivadet tat kena kaṃ manvīta tat kena kaṃ vijānīyāt yena idam sarvam vijānāti taṃ kena vijānīyāt vijñātāram are kena vijānīyāt iti
For where there is duality as it were, there one smells another, one sees another, one hears another, one speaks to another, one thinks of another, one knows another. But when everything has become the very ātman for him — then by what and whom should he smell? by what and whom see? by what and whom hear? by what and to whom speak? by what and of whom think? by what and whom know? By what should one know Him by whom all this is known? The Knower — by what, my dear, should you know him?"
8beeb7d9555a · published Jul 27, 2026, 12:55:53 AM UTC
Available inRUENPage between verses with
The close of the conversation, and one of the summits of the world's thought. So long as there is "duality as it were" (dvaitam iva — that priceless iva: duality only "as it were", on loan!), objective knowing works: one sees another. But when "everything has become the very ātman", objectivity ends — not because the knower has gone out, but because no "other" is left as alien: light does not light itself with a lamp.
And the final question is inexhaustible for ever: vijñātāram are kena vijānīyāt — "the Knower — by what should you know him?" He by whom all is known cannot become one of his own objects, as the eye will not see itself in the row of things. Here is the final resolution of Maitreyī's bewilderment: at departing the objective saṁjñā goes out — but the Knower does not go out: he is that very "mass of consciousness" which cannot vanish, since vanishing would be one more thing known by it.
The Vedānta of love adds its quiet note here: the Knower is not to be known — as an object; but the tradition knows another access — not to grasp but to surrender; not to see but to be seen. The Knower is not known — one belongs to Him; and that love with which the conversation began ("for the sake of the ātman is a husband dear") is the one bond that does not require turning Him into an object. On this Yājñavalkya falls silent — by one account going off to the forest for good; Maitreyī is left with what cannot be contained — and with what is enough.