sake of the ego is the Brahman caste dear; not
for the sake of the Warrior caste is the Warrior caste dear, but for
love of the ego is the Warrior caste dear; not for the sake of the
worlds are worlds dear, but for the sake of the ego are worlds dear;
not for the sake of gods are gods dear, but for the ego's sake are
gods dear; not for the sake of _bh[=u]ts_ (spirits) are _bh[=u]ts_
dear, but for the ego's sake are _bhuts_ dear; not for the sake of
anything is anything dear, but for love of one's self (ego) is
anything (everything) dear; the ego (self) must be seen, heard,
apprehended, regarded, M[=a]itrey[=i], for with the seeing, hearing,
apprehending, and regarding of the ego the All is known.... Even as
smoke pours out of a fire lighted with damp kindling wood, even so out
of the Great Being is blown out all that which is, Rig Veda, Yajur
Veda, S[=a]ma Veda, Atharva (Angiras) Veda, Stories, Tales, Sciences,
Upanishads, food, drink, sacrifices; all creatures that exist are
blown (breathed) out of this one (Great Spirit) alone. As in the
ocean all the waters have their meeting-place; as the skin is the
meeting-place of all touches; the tongue, of all tastes; the
nose, of all smells; the mind, of all precepts; the heart, of all
knowledges; ... as salt cast into water is dissolved so that one
cannot seize it, but wherever one tastes it is salty, so this
Great Being, endless, limitless, is a mass of knowledge. It arises out
of the elements and then disappears in them. After death there is no
more consciousness.[26] I have spoken.' Thus said Y[=a]jnavalkya. Then
said M[=a]itrey[=i]: 'Truly my Lord has bewildered me in saying that
after death there is no more consciousness.' And Y[=a]jnavalkya said:
'I say nothing bewildering, but what suffices for understanding. 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