^38:3 The commentator states that, besides atmaratih kriyavan, there was another reading, viz. atmaratikriyavan. This probably owed its origin to a difficulty felt in reconciling kriyavan, performing acts, with the brahmavidam varishthah, the best of those who know Brahman, works being utterly incompatible with a true knowledge of Brahman. Kriyavan, however, as Sankara points out, may mean here simply, having performed meditation and other acts conducive to a knowledge of Brahman. Probably truthfulness, penance, &c., mentioned in the next following verse, are the kriyas or works intended. For grammatical reasons also this reading is preferable. But the last foot esha brahmavidam varishthah is clearly defective. If we examine the commentary, we see that Sankara read brahmanishthah, and that he did not read esha, which would give us the correct metre, brahmanishtho brahmavidam varishthah.

^39:1 Cf. Kath. Up. VI, 12.

^39:2 Cf. Brih. Ar. I, 4, 15.

^40:1 All this is said by the commentator to refer to a knowledge of the conditioned Brahman only.