54. There is an eternal division between the two, from the words of the Veda, "two birds;" [Footnote: Rig V. i. 164, 20, "Two birds associated together, two friends, take refuge in the same tree; one of them eats the sweet fig; the other, abstaining from food, merely looks on."] from the mention there of "two friends," how can there be identity between them? 55. I become Brahman, that is, I cease to have mundane existence through beholding the soul in Brahman; the result of this would be the abolition of sorrow, etc., but in no way absolute Oneness. 56. I become Brahman also through beholding Brahman in the soul [Footnote: Another reading is __brahma.ny âtmanirîksha.nât__]; the result would be the abolition of His being out of sight [Footnote: __I.e.__ it would be always __videre videntem__], but in no way Oneness. 57. It must not be said that by continued meditation with intent thought a man becomes Brahman; there will only enter into him a little merit; as we see indeed in the case of worms, bees, and the like [Footnote: Cf. Hitopadeša, Introd. šl. 45.]; 58. By devotedly worshipping Brâhmans without ceasing, a Šûdra will never become a Brâhman; there may enter into him a little merit, but one of the Šûdra caste will never become a Brâhman. 59. The venerable author of the Aphorisms himself established a duality when he spoke of the application of the terms "object" and "agent" [Footnote: In Vedânta S. i. 2. 4, it is shown that certain passages in the Upanishads refer to Brahman and not the embodied soul, "because of the application therein of the terms object and agent;" as __e.g.__ in the passage of the Chhândogya Upan. iii. 14, "I shall attain it when I have departed from hence." These words imply an agent who attains and also an object which is attained, __i.e.__ Brahman. Ša"nkara in his comment on i. 2. 11 illustrates this by the passage in the Katha Upanishad iii. 1, "The two, drinking the due reward from their works, in this world entered the cave, in the highest place of the supreme soul" (sc. the heart)]; and thus has it been explained by the author of the commentary by quoting passages of the Veda which imply duality, as that which says "the two entered the cave." 60. The soul is also shown to be different [from Brahman] by the evidence of Šm.riti [Footnote: Cf. Vedânta Sûtras i. 2. 6, where Ša"nkara quotes the passage from the Bhagavad Gîtâ (xviii. 61), "The Lord of all beings abides in the region of the heart,--causing all beings to revolve by his illusion as though mounted on a machine."]; thus their difference is proved to be essential. If it were not so, how could the Commentator have used such an expression as "the worshipper" and "the worshipped" [Footnote: He uses this very expression __upâsyopâsakabhâva__ in his Comment. on i. 2. 4.]?