is a Jīva made up of the elements and their compounds, who has neither form nor name, neither the enjoyable nor the enjoyer, neither Saṭ nor asaṭ, neither preservation nor regeneration, neither guṇa nor non-guṇa—that is undoubtedly my Āṭmā. He who has neither the described nor description, neither śravaṇa nor manana, neither Guru nor disciple, neither the world of the Ḍevas nor the Ḍevas nor Asuras, neither duty nor non-duty, neither the immaculate nor non-immaculate, neither time nor non-time, neither certainty nor doubt, neither manṭra nor non-manṭra, neither science nor non-science, neither the seer nor the sight which is subtle, nor the nectar of time—that is Āṭmā. Rest assured that not-Āṭmā is a misnomer. There is no manas as not-Āṭmā. There is no world as not-Āṭma. Owing to the absence of all saṅkalpas and to the giving up of all actions, Brahman alone remains, and there is no not-Āṭmā. Being devoid of the three bodies, the three periods of time, the three guṇas of Jīva, the three pains and the three worlds, and following the saying 'All is Brahman,' know that there is nothing to be known through the absence of chiṭṭa; there is no old age through the absence of body; no motion through the absence of legs; no action through the absence of hands; no death through the absence of creatures; no happiness through the absence of buḍḍhi; no virtue, no purity, no fear, no repetition of manṭras, no Guru nor disciple. There is no second in the absence of one. Where there is not the second, there is not the first. Where there is truth alone, there is no non-truth possible; where there is non-truth alone, there is no truth possible. If you regard a thing auspicious as inauspicious, then auspiciousness is desired (as separate) from inauspiciousness. If you regard fear as non-fear, then fear will arise out of non-fear. If bondage should become emancipation, then in the absence of bondage will be no emancipation. If birth should imply death, then in the absence of birth, there is no death. If 'thou' should imply 'I,' then in the absence of 'thou' there is no 'I'. If 'this' should be 'that,' 'this' does not exist in the absence of 'that'. If being should imply non-being, then non-being will imply being. If an effect implies a cause, then in the absence