Śraddhā

It is well known in the world that anything exists because it is available/accessible through any means of knowledge. In contrast to that, a thing is considered does not exist if there is no means of knowledge to prove its existence. Therefore, brahman, which is not available to the senses, mind, and intellect can be concluded to not exist. Thus, the prescribed meditation in the last mantra is also meaningless. When such a conclusion is arrived at, the following mantra explains.

naiva vācā na manasā prāptum śakyo na cakṣuṣā |

astīti bruvato'nyatra katham tadupalabhyate ||2-3-12||

(Brahman) can be grasped neither through the eye, nor through speech, nor

through mind. How can it be known by anyone other than the one who declares

that it exists?

Brahman without attributes is not available to any sense organs, the mind or any instrument of knowledge; and  is also not logically provable. Therefore, our conclusion will be that brahman does not exist. How about śāstra as the only means of knowledge to know brahman? For that, it required śraddhā towards śāstra, where brahman is the subject matter, until one understands through systematic study of śāstra over a length of time. Unless there is śraddhā for the existence of brahman in the early stage, otherwise one will never come to know - astīti bruvato'nyatra katham tadupalabhyate, because brahman cannot be grasped by speech (instrument of action ) or sight (instrument of knowledge) or the mind (inner instrument) - naiva vācā na manasā prāptum śakyo na cakṣuṣā. No other means of knowledge except śruti reveals brahman. Unless one knows through śruti, one will not stumble upon this truth. The purport of śruti is to reveal I am that brahman, by the sentence “tattvamasi” (you are that).

Even though brahman can’t be objectified, it doesn’t mean brahman does not exist. Brahman as the root (the cause) of entire manifestation, indeed exists, since the essential nature of the cause will be inherent in the effects. Just like cotton as the cause of all cotton products is available in the effect no matter in what kind of form the effect takes. Even though cotton shirt is torn, cotton still exists as pieces of torn cloth. When cloth is disintegrated, cotton still exists as fibres. When fibres are burned, cotton still exists as ashes. The nature of the cause as the basis for its products never ceases to be. If brahman, as the cause of the world does not exist, it means this world as the effect, is non-existent alone; but this is not the case. Everything we experience in the world is existence brahman alone, as “is” (existence) plus name and form, just like we experience clay in all earthenware with different names and forms. In the same way, I as a part of this manifestation, how can I say brahman does not exist? It meant to deny my own existence.

Topic of śraddhā continues.

astītyevopalabdhavyastattvabhāvena cobhayoḥ |

astītyevopalabdhasya tattvabhāvaḥ prasīdati ||2-3-13||

Brahman should be understood as existence, and then in its true nature . Of these two, for one who knows ātmā as existence, the true nature of ātmā becomes revealed.

Śraddhā for the “brahman exists” should be there before the understanding “I am brahman” takes place. One might begin with the idea that brahman is a third person (entity), and as the teaching unfolds, he understands, “brahman I am”. This journey consists of transformation from “is-ness” to “am-ness”. “Brahman is” is parokṣajñānam (indirect knowledge) while “brahman am” is aparokṣajñānam (direct knowledge) which is self-evident here and now. This direct knowledge of knowing as myself is called tattva-bhāvaḥ in this mantra, which means the real nature of brahman (is me the existence consciousness). To own up this knowledge, you must start with “brahman is”. Therefore, śruti says astītyevopalabdhasya -  initially brahman should be grasped as exist. When brahman exists, it will reveal its true nature eventually as existence me - tattvabhāvaḥ prasīdati.

In summary, with śraddhā, one acquires indirect knowledge and then eventually, one will acquire direct knowledge.