Nor, again, can we connect Brahman with acts by representing it as the object of the action of knowing.  For that it is not such is expressly declared in two passages, viz.  ’It is different from the known and again above (i.e. different from) the unknown’ (Ken.  Up.  I, 3); and ’How should he know him by whom he knows all this?’ (B/ri/.  Up.  II, 4, 13.) In the same way Brahman is expressly declared not to be the object of the act of devout meditation, viz. in the second half of the verse, Ken.  Up.  I, 5, whose first half declares it not to be an object (of speech, mind, and so on), ’That which is not proclaimed by speech, by which speech is proclaimed, that only know to be Brahman, not that on which people devoutly meditate as this.’  If it should be objected that if Brahman is not an object (of speech, mind, &c.) the sastra can impossibly be its source, we refute this objection by the remark that the aim of the sastra is to discard all distinctions fictitiously created by Nescience.  The sastra’s purport is not to represent Brahman definitely as this or that object, its purpose is rather to show that Brahman as the eternal subject (pratyagatman, the inward Self) is never an object, and thereby to remove the distinction of objects known, knowers, acts of knowledge, &c., which is fictitiously created by Nescience.  Accordingly the sastra says, ’By whom it is not thought by him it is thought, by whom it is thought he does not know it; unknown by those who know it, it is known by those who do not know it’ (Ken.  Up.  II, 3); and ’Thou couldst not see the seer of sight, thou couldst not hear the hearer of hearing, nor perceive the perceiver of perception, nor know the knower of knowledge’ (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 4, 2).  As thereby (i.e. by the knowledge derived from the sastra) the imagination of the transitoriness of Release which is due to Nescience is discarded, and Release is shown to be of the nature of the eternally free Self, it cannot be charged with the imperfection of non-eternality.  Those, on the other hand, who consider Release to be something to be effected properly maintain that it depends on the action of mind, speech, or body.  So, likewise, those who consider it to be a mere modification.  Non-eternality of Release is the certain consequence of these two opinions; for we observe in common life that things which are modifications, such as sour milk and the like, and things which are effects, such as jars, &c., are non-eternal.  Nor, again, can it be said that there is a dependance on action in consequence of (Brahman or Release) being something which is to be obtained[78]; for as Brahman constitutes a person’s Self it is not something to be attained by that person.  And even if Brahman were altogether different from a person’s Self still it would not be something to be obtained; for as it is omnipresent it is part of its nature that it is ever present to every one, just as the (all-pervading) ether is.  Nor, again, can it be maintained that Release is something