But—­it may be said—­(that would not be a mere assumption, but) Scripture itself, by quoting the parallel instances of clay and so on, declares itself in favour of a Brahman capable of modification; for we know from experience that clay and similar things do undergo modifications.—­This objection—­we reply—­is without force, because a number of scriptural passages, by denying all modification of Brahman, teach it to be absolutely changeless (ku/t/astha).  Such passages are, ’This great unborn Self; undecaying, undying, immortal, fearless, is indeed Brahman’ (B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 4, 25); ’That Self is to be described by No, no’ (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 9, 26); ‘It is neither coarse nor fine’ (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 8, 8).  For to the one Brahman the two qualities of being subject to modification and of being free from it cannot both be ascribed.  And if you say, ’Why should they not be both predicated of Brahman (the former during the time of the subsistence of the world, the latter during the period of reabsorption) just as rest and motion may be predicated (of one body at different times)?’ we remark that the qualification, ‘absolutely changeless’ (ku/t/astha), precludes this.  For the changeless Brahman cannot be the substratum of varying attributes.  And that, on account of the negation of all attributes, Brahman really is eternal and changeless has already been demonstrated.—­Moreover, while the cognition of the unity of Brahman is the instrument of final release, there is nothing to show that any independent result is connected with the view of Brahman, by undergoing a modification, passing over into the form of this world.  Scripture expressly declares that the knowledge of the changeless Brahman being the universal Self leads to a result; for in the passage which begins, ’That Self is to be described by No, no,’ we read later on, ’O Janaka, you have indeed reached fearlessness’ (B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 2, 4).  We have then[285] to accept the following conclusion that, in the sections treating of Brahman, an independent result belongs only to the knowledge of Brahman as devoid of all attributes and distinctions, and that hence whatever is stated as having no special fruit of its own—­as, for instance, the passages about Brahman modifying itself into the form of this world—­is merely to be applied as a means for the cognition of the absolute Brahman, but does not bring about an independent result; according to the principle that whatever has no result of its own, but is mentioned in connexion with something else which has such a result, is subordinate to the latter[286].  For to maintain that the result of the knowledge of Brahman undergoing modifications would be that the Self (of him who knows that) would undergo corresponding modifications[287] would be inappropriate, as the state of filial release (which the soul obtains through the knowledge of Brahman) is eternally unchanging.