[paragraph continues] (bodies). Is Ṭatasṭha the seer? or is he not? As (to Ṭatasṭha), there is the property of seeing; the jīva that is affected by the egoism, etc., of agency and enjoyment is not the seer. The one other than jīva (viz., Ṭatasṭha) is not concerned (with egoism, etc.). If it is said that the jīva is not so (concerned with egoism), then it is not a fact. Through the abhimāna of the jīva, there is the abhimāna of the body. And (conversely) through the abhimāna of the body, there is the abhimāna of the jīva. The state of the jīva is as a screen (to screen Brahman) like (the pot and house in) the pot-ākāś and the house-ākāś. Through such a screen, he reaches self-realisation through the manṭra—'Hamsa-So’ham' 1 having the characteristics of inspiration and expiration. Having known thus, if he should give up the identification with the body, then he does not identify himself with the body (i.e., not attain the state of jīva). Such a one is stated to be Brahman. Having given up abhimāna and anger, being content with moderate food, having conquered the organs and having controlled the avenues (of the organs), one should make the mind enter into meditation. The yogin who has always controlled (his mind and organs) should ever diligently commence his meditation in empty places, caves and forests. The knower of yoga who is bent upon accomplishing the end should never be engaged in giving feasts to Brāhmaṇas, in śrāḍḍha sacrifices, etc., or in going to places of pilgrimages, festivals or crowds. The well-controlled yogin should go about as if people had treated him with disrespect. He should not go against the actions of the wise. That great ascetic is said to be a ṭriḍanḍin (or having a three-knotted staff) who holds firmly the three-ḍaṇda (control) of mind, speech, and body. That ascetic is said to be a supreme person who begs alms-food of worthy brāhmaṇas, when smoke has ceased and fire has been extinguished (in their houses). Is he not a degraded ascetic who, though holding the staff and begging food, is without vairāgya and is not intent upon the observances of his order? He is an ascetic—not any other—who does