if you answer you know you dont know.

यदि मन्यसे सुवेदेति दहरमेवापि नूनम् त्वं वेत्थ ब्रह्मणो रूपम् यदस्य त्वं यदस्य देवेष्वथ नु मीमांस्येमेव ते मन्ये विदितम् ॥ १ ॥

yadi manyase suvedeti daharamevāpi nūnam tvaṃ vettha brahmaṇo rūpam yadasya tvaṃ yadasya deveṣvatha nu mīmāṃsyemeva te manye viditam || 1 ||

yadi—if, O Rudra!; manyase—thou thinkest; su-veda—I know well, being taught so by you; iti—thus; daharam—little, minor; eva—surely, indeed, Api, but; nūnam—certainly; Tvam vettha—thou knowest; brahmaṇaḥ—of Brahman; rūpam—form, nature; yat—because; asya—of this (Unconditioned Brahman, above Time, Space and Causation); tvam—thou (art but one of the many conditioned consciousnesses); In thee, the nominative used in the sense of Locative; That aspect which is in thee; yat—that (form of Brahman which is other than thy conditioned self); asya—of this (Brahman in nature); deveṣu—in the Devas, nature gods like Indra, Agni, etc; atha—therefore; nu—now; mīmāṃsyam—should be thought out; eva—indeed, alone; te—of thee, by thee; manye—I think; viditam—known.

1. (O Maheśvara!) If thou thinkest “I know (Brahman) fully” then even thou also verily knowest but the minor manifestation of Brahman. Because (of this little knowledge), therefore, now thou must think (over the other) manifestations of Brahman, as it is in thee and the Devas. “I think I know”.

Notes:

(An objection is raised, “you have said that Brahman is not known by the Deva of the mind even. But that is improper. I, Rudra, am the Deva of the mind, I certainly know Brahman completely. Why do you then, O Brahmā! say that the Deva of the mind even does not know Brahman completely.” This objection raised by Rudra, is answered by Brahmā in the present verse.)

O Rudra! If thou thinkest “I know Brahman well,” then thou even, like others, hast known only a small portion of the essence of Brahman. Because thou knowest only a small aspect of Brahman (the Dahara Brahman) therefore, that aspect of Brahman which is in thee and that aspect which exists in the Devas, must now be investigated by thee.

नाहं मन्ये सुवेदेति नो न वेदेति वेद च ।
यो नस्तद्वेद तद्वेद नो न वेदेति वेद च ॥ २ ॥

nāhaṃ manye suvedeti no na vedeti veda ca |
yo nastadveda tadveda no na vedeti veda ca || 2 ||

na aham—not I, ie, even I Brahmā; manye—think; (Madhva reads it as “anye”—“others”—“na ahaṃ, anye”; suveda—I well know (or I fully know Brahman); iti—thus; no—not; Na veda—I not know, (ie, I do not know at all); iti—thus (nor is this knowledge an uncertain thing, for); Veda ca—and I know (and knowing it, I do not know; It is no object as I have no idea of difference between me and it for I know); yaḥ—who (different from me); naḥ—amongst us (pupils); tad—that (as I have described above, ie, not fully known, nor totally unknown, but known as near one); veda—knows; tad—that; Veda knows. no—not; Na veda—I do not know; iti—thus; veda—he knows; ca—and.

2. I do not think I know Him fully; though others (say) ‘we know Him fully.’ Nor do I say I know Him not at all, for I know. Amongst us who says “I know Him,” he knows Him not. He who says “I do not know Him,” he knows indeed.—10.

Notes:

The words “I think I know or it is known,” are taken by Madhva as part of the next verse.

Note.—(Admitted that none knows Brahman completely except thee, O Brahma! But thou at least knowest Him fully, for such we have always heard. Therefore, it is not correct to say that Brahman is unknown to all the Devas: To this Brahmā replies)

I do not think that Brahman is fully known by me.

(How does then the world say that thou knowest Brahman fully? The world says so, through ignorance.)

The others (namely, the ignorant only) say that I (Brahma) know Brahman fully.

(Dost thou then know nothing of Brahman?)

It is not a fact that I do not know Brahman at all. I know him a little.

(If thou dost not know Brahman fully, then thou art also an ignorant being and cannot be the Teacher of the whole universe. To this Brahma replies, I am not an ajñānin but a jñānin. For he is an ajñānin or a non-knower of Brahman who thinks that he knows Brahman fully: while he, who thinks that he does not know Brahman fully, is called a jñānin. Thus Brahmā establishes the truth that Brahman is unknowable in His entirety, but knowable in part only.]

Amongst us, that person, who says “I know that Brahman completely” is a nonknower of Brahman, (for he would not have said so had he known Brahman—for he takes the partial knowledge of Brahman to be full knowledge, and thinks Brahman to be a limited Being that can be fully known).

But he, who says “I do not fully know that Brahman,” knows Him (for he has not limited Brahman by the littleness of his knowledge).

यस्यामतं तस्य मतं मतं यस्य न वेद सः ।
अविज्ञातं विजानतां विज्ञातमविजानताम् ॥ ३ ॥

yasyāmataṃ tasya mataṃ mataṃ yasya na veda saḥ |
avijñātaṃ vijānatāṃ vijñātamavijānatām || 3 ||

yasya—by whom (of that knower of Brahman); amatam—is not thought (who thinks that he does not know Brahman) not to be reasoned or thought out or determined; tasya—by him; of him; matam—it is known; matam—it is thought (who thinks that he knows Brahman); yasya—by whom; na—not; veda—he knows; saḥ—he; avijñātam—not known, not realised; vijānatām—of (by) the difference=knowers (who still have the idea of distinctions of the knower, knowledge and known); vijñātam—known; avijānatām—by (of) non-difference knowers, who do not know distinctions of knower, known, and knowledge The force of is to denote “distinction, mainfoldness”.

3. Of whom (the opinion is) “Brahman is not to be thought of,” by him He is (rightly) thought. He who thinks “Brahman has been thought of by me,” he does not know. By those who consider “we have realised Brahman,” He has not been realised. By those who consider “we cannot fully realise Brahman” He is realised.

Notes:

He who thinks “I can not completely think out Brahman”—has got an idea of Brahman—(has brought some portion of Brahman within the grasp of his mind. For he does not fall into the error that Brahman can be made an object of complete mental apprehension).

But he, who thinks “I have completely thought out Brahman,” has got no idea of Brahman (for he has got the wrong notion that Brahman can be completely thought out: and he limits Brahman).

He who thinks “I have made the entire Brahman an object of my meditation, and in my meditation, I have known him entirely” has not known Brahman.

But he who thinks “I cannot know Brahman fully even in meditation,” knows Him.

प्रतिबोध विदितं मतममृतत्वं हि विन्दते ।
आत्मना विन्दते वीर्यं विद्यया विन्दतेऽमृतम् ॥ ३ ॥

pratibodha viditaṃ matamamṛtatvaṃ hi vindate |
ātmanā vindate vīryaṃ vidyayā vindate'mṛtam || 4 ||

prati-bodha-viditam—known as (a witness of or behind) every (act of) cognition (or intellection), known according to one’s intelligence, Understood as an object of intuitive knowledge, realised by direct perception; matam—thought of (according to the extent of one’s intelligence); Is to be understood; (It is to be realised in every act of cognition, and not where cognition ceases, as in deep sleep or trance); By meditation, matam or meditation is means of pratibodham or realisation; amṛtatvam—immortality, Brahman; hi—indeed, because; vindate—he obtains, is made to obtain (causative); ātmanā—by (the knowledge of) self, by performance of sacrifices, by his own effort or by his lower Self, by the grace of the SELF; vindate—he obtains; vīryam—power, strength, (like wealth, etc, but not immortality); or the strength (to destroy ignorance) intense joy; vidyayā—by knowledge; vindate—he obtains; amṛtam—immortality.

4. Understanding (thinking and realising) Him according to one’s intelligence, as a direct object of intuition, verily he obtains immortality. By one’s own (exertion in the performance of duties even after attaining wisdom) he obtains intense joy, through the grace of the Supreme SELF; and by direct knowledge of Brahman, he obtains immortality.—12.

Notes:

He who has realised Brahman directly in the method mentioned above, attains immortality. The words “pratibodha viditam” mean intuitive and direct perception of an object. When Brahman is thus directly realised, He gives salvation to such a person. But what is the nature of this “aparokṣa” called here “pratibodha” and how is this to be gained? The answer to this is “matam” meditation: meditate, meditate meditate-matam, matam, matam—and you will have pratibodha or aparokṣa—direct beatific vision.

But there are texts—such as “the drinking of ambrosia gives immortality”——showing that salvation may be obtained by things other than meditation, namely, by karma or action. The jñāna is not the only means of getting immortality or salvation.

This objection is raised under a misapprehension. The salvation always depends upon jñāna [jñānam] or knowledge and never on karma or action. The Karma is a contributory cause of mukti. Tho Pravṛtti or self-related karmas never lead to mukti. The Nivṛtti karmas or actions performed unselfishly, purify the soul and are instrumental in producing knowledge. The action performed before Mukti leads to knowledge and not to mukti. The actions performed after attaining mukti have a specific efleet of their own. This is mentioned in the verso “ātmanā vindate vīryam, vidyayā vindate amṛtam”——The actions performed after the attainment of wisdom produce the grace of the Lord, and through such grace of the SELF (ātmanā) there results vīrya [vīryam] or intense felicity or expansion of power—the man attains to the fulness of his vīrya [vīryam] or manhood. But the immortality or amṛtatva [amṛtatvam] depends upon vidyā alone—the mukti is obtained through knowledge alone. Thus, if a person after attaining mukti, performs karmas, they tend towards the increase of his bliss: while the non-performance of any karma then, keeps the bliss stationary: there is no increase in it.