Bhashya
‘यः सर्वज्ञः सर्ववित्’ ‘योऽशनायापिपासे अत्येति’ ‘अंसङ्गो न हि सज्जते’ ‘एतस्य वा अक्षरस्य प्रशासने’ ‘यः सर्वेषु भूतेषु तिष्ठन्-अन्तर्याम्यमृतः’ ‘स यस्तान्पुरु-षानभिरुह्यात्यक्रामत्’ ‘स वा एष महानज आत्मा’ ‘एष सेतुर्विधरणः’ ‘सर्वस्य वशी सर्वस्येशानः’ ‘य आत्मापहत-पाप्मा विजरो विमृत्युः’ ‘तत्तेजोऽसृजत’ ‘आत्मा वा इदमेक एवाग्र आसीत्’ ‘न लिप्यते लोकदुःखेन बाह्यः’ इत्यादिश्रुतिशतेभ्यः—स्मृतेश्च ‘अहं सर्वस्य प्रभवो मन्तः सर्वं प्रवर्तते’ इति—परोऽस्ति असंसारी श्रुतिस्मृतिन्याये-भ्यश्च; स च कारणं जगतः ।ननु ‘एवमेवास्मादा-त्मनः’ इति संसारिण एवोत्पत्तिं दर्शयतीत्युक्तम्— न, ‘य एषोऽन्तर्हृदय आकाशः’ इति परस्य प्रकृतत्वात्, ‘अस्मादात्मनः’ इति युक्तः परस्यैव परामर्शः ।‘कैष तदा-भूत्’ इत्यस्य प्रश्नस्य प्रतिवचनत्वेन आकाशशब्दवाच्यः पर आत्मा उक्तः ‘य एषोऽन्तर्हृदय आकाशस्तस्मिञ्छेते’ इति; ‘सता सोम्य तदा सम्पन्नो भवति’ ‘अहरहर्गच्छन्त्यकत्वं प्रतिज्ञाय, दृष्टान्तैर्हेतुभिश्च परमात्मनो विकारांशादि-त्वं जगतः प्रतिपाद्य, पुनरेकत्वमुपसंहरति ; तद्यथा इहैवतावत् ' इदं सर्वं यदयमात्मा ' इति प्रतिज्ञाय, उत्पत्तिस्थिति-लयहेतुदृष्टान्तैः विकारविकारित्वाद्येकत्वप्रत्ययहेतून् प्रतिपा-द्य ' अनन्तरमबाह्यम् ' ' अयमात्मा ब्रह्म ' इत्युपसंहरिष्यति ;तस्मात् उपक्रमोपसंहाराभ्यामयमर्थो निश्चीयते- परमात्मै-कत्वप्रत्ययद्रढिम्ने उत्पत्तिस्थितिलयप्रतिपादकानि वाक्यानीति;अन्यथा वाक्यभेदप्रसङ्गाच्च- सर्वोपनिषत्सु हि विज्ञा-नात्मनः परमात्मना एकत्वप्रत्ययो विधीयत इत्यविप्रति-पत्तिः सर्वेषामुपनिषद्वादिनाम्; तद्विध्येकवाक्ययोगे चसंभवति उत्पत्त्यादिवाक्यानां वाक्यान्तरत्वकल्पनायां नप्रमाणमस्ति; फलान्तरं च कल्पयितव्यं स्यात् ; तस्मादु-त्पत्त्यादिश्रुतय आत्मैकत्वप्रतिपादनपराः ॥
In plain words
'He knows everything, in every way there is to know.' 'He has moved beyond hunger and thirst.' 'Untouched, he clings to nothing.' 'Under the rule of this Imperishable, everything holds its place.' 'He lives inside every creature — the deathless one steering from within.' 'He rose above every state of being and simply passed beyond them.' 'This vast, unborn Self.' 'The bridge that keeps the worlds from colliding.' 'Master of everything, ruler of everything.' 'The Self that evil never touches, that never ages, that never dies.' 'That Being sent forth fire.' 'In the very beginning, the Self alone was — nothing else at all.' 'Standing outside it all, untouched by the world's pain.' From these — and a hundred verses like them, and the tradition-texts too, including 'I am the source of everything; everything moves because of me' — we know there is a Supreme, beyond birth and death, on the word of scripture, tradition, and reason alike. And this Supreme is the world's cause. But someone might object: didn't we already agree that 'just so, from this very self' describes only how an ordinary, still-bound self comes to be — not the Supreme? No. Because 'the space within the heart' is exactly what is under discussion here, and that is the Supreme; so 'from this self' points only to the Supreme. As the answer to 'who was this, then,' it is the Supreme Self, named here as 'space,' that is meant: 'the space within the heart — that is where he rests,' and 'then, dear one, he becomes one with Being.' 'Day after day...' [the text breaks off here and resumes further on] — having first declared this oneness, and having shown, through examples and reasoning, that the world is a transformation, a part, springing from the Supreme Self, scripture circles back and concludes with oneness once more. Take the clearest case: it opens by declaring 'all this is nothing but this Self,' works out — through the arising, the persisting, and the dissolving of things — every reason there is to see oneness even within all that change, and then closes with 'nothing within it, nothing outside it' and 'this Self is Brahman.' Because the opening and the closing agree, we know exactly what these teachings are for: every passage about how the world begins, continues, and ends exists only to make the truth of oneness with the Supreme Self unshakeable. Otherwise you would be left with a broken scripture, its sentences pointing nowhere in particular. Every Upanishad, without exception, teaches this same oneness of the individual self with the Supreme Self — every commentator agrees on that much. And one teaching does the job perfectly well on its own. If you insist the passages about the world's origin mean something else entirely, you have no evidence for it — and you would be forced to invent some extra payoff for them out of nowhere. So: every scriptural word about how the world comes to be exists for exactly one purpose — to teach that the self and the Supreme are one.
Close to the Sanskrit
'He who is omniscient, all-knowing'; 'he who transcends hunger and thirst'; 'the unattached one, indeed, does not cling'; 'under the rule of this Imperishable'; 'he who, dwelling in all beings, is the immortal inner controller'; 'he who, having mounted those states, transcended them'; 'this great, unborn Self'; 'this is the bridge, the sustainer'; 'the controller of all, the ruler of all'; 'the Self free from evil, free from old age, free from death'; 'That created fire'; 'the Self alone, indeed, was this in the beginning'; 'standing outside, untouched by the world's suffering' — from these and hundreds of such scriptural statements, and from the Smṛti as well, [including] 'I am the source of all; from me [thus the printed text; the parallel verse reads mattaḥ] everything proceeds' — a Supreme exists, free from transmigration, on the grounds of scripture, tradition, and reasoning; and that is the cause of the world. Objection: it has already been said that '[thus] indeed, from this self' shows only the origination of the transmigrating self. No — because '[this] space that is within the heart' refers to what is under discussion, namely the Supreme; hence 'from this self' is properly understood as referring to the Supreme alone. As the answer to the question 'who was this, then,' the Supreme Self, denoted by the word 'space,' has been declared — '[this] space within the heart: in that he lies'; '[and] then, O gentle one, he becomes one with Being.' 'Day by day...' [the source breaks off here and resumes some way further on] — having postulated oneness, and having established, by illustrations and reasons, that the world is a modification, a portion, and so on, of the Supreme Self, [scripture] again concludes with oneness. For example: here, to begin with, having postulated 'all this is what this Self is,' and having established, through the illustrations and reasons concerning origination, continuance, and dissolution, the grounds for the notion of oneness amid modification and its states, [scripture] will conclude with 'nothing within, nothing without' and 'this Self is Brahman.' Therefore, by the agreement of opening and conclusion, this meaning is ascertained: that the sentences teaching origination, continuance, and dissolution exist for the firming-up of the notion of oneness with the Supreme Self — otherwise, a splitting of the sentence would result. For in all the Upaniṣads there is unanimity, among all expounders of the Upaniṣads, that the notion of oneness of the cognitive self with the Supreme Self is enjoined; and this is possible in connection with a single injunctive sentence. Whereas, on the supposition that the sentences about origination and so on refer to something else, there is no proof, and a further, separate result would have to be assumed. Therefore the scriptural statements about origination and so on are devoted to establishing the oneness of the self.