For where there is as it were duality (_dv[=a]itam_), there one sees, smells, hears, addresses, notices, knows another; but when all the universe has become mere ego, with what should one smell, see, hear, address, notice, know any one (else)?
How can one know him through whom he knows this all, how can he know the knower (as something different)?
The ego is to be described by negations alone, the incomprehensible, imperishable, unattached, unfettered; the ego neither suffers nor fails.

Thus, M[=a]itrey[=i], hast thou been instructed.

So much for immortality.' And having spoken thus Y[=a]jnavalkya went away (into the forest).
Returning to the Upanishad, of which an outline was given in the beginning of this chapter, one finds a state of things which, in general, may be said to be characteristic of the whole Upanishad period.

The same vague views in regard to cosmogony and eschatology obtain in all save the outspoken sectarian tracts, and the same uncertainty in regard to man's future fate prevails in this whole cycle.[27] A few extracts will show this.

According to the Ch[=a]ndogya (4.17.