Bhashya
स होवाचोषस्तश्चाक्रायणः ; यथा कश्चित् अन्यथा प्र-तिज्ञाय पूर्वम्, पुनर्विप्रतिपन्नो ब्रूयादन्यथा— असौ गौरःअसावश्वः यश्चलति धावतीति वा, पूर्वं प्रत्यक्षं दर्शयामीतिप्रतिज्ञाय, पश्चात् चलनादिलिङ्गैर्व्यपदिशति— एवमेवएतद्ब्रह्म प्राणनादिलिङ्गैर्व्यपदिष्टं भवति त्वया ; किं बहुना ?त्यक्त्वा गोतृष्णानिमित्तं व्याजम्, यदेव साक्षादपरोक्षा-द्ब्रह्म य आत्मा सर्वान्तरः, तं मे व्याचक्ष्वेति ।इतरआह— यथा मया प्रथमं प्रतिज्ञातः तव आत्मा— एवंल-क्षण इति— तां प्रतिज्ञामनुवर्त एव ; तत् तथैव, यथोक्तंमया ।यत्पुनरुक्तम्, तमात्मानं घटादिवत् विषयीकुर्वीति-तत् अशक्यत्वान्न क्रियते ।कस्मात्पुनः तदशक्यमित्याह-वस्तुस्वाभाव्यात् ; किं पुनः तत् वस्तुस्वाभाव्यम् ? द्रष्टृत्वा-दिद्रष्टृत्वम् ; द्रष्टेर्द्रष्टा ह्यात्मा ; दृष्टिरिति द्विविधा भवति-लौकिकी पारमार्थिकी चेति ; तत्र लौकिकी चक्षुःसंयुक्ता-न्तःकरणवृत्तिः ; सा क्रियत इति जायते विनश्यति च ;
In plain words
Uṣasta Cākrāyaṇa answered: Suppose someone first promises to show you a thing directly, and then backs off and instead just describes it -- 'that's the ox, that's the horse, the one that's moving, the one that's running.' He promised to show it to your eyes, and instead he's pointing at clues. That is exactly what you've done with brahman -- you promised it directly, and you've only given us clues, like breathing. So let's drop the whole business about the cow -- that pretext is gone. Just show me, plainly and directly, that brahman which is the self inside everything. Yājñavalkya answers: I stand by exactly what I first told you about your self -- nothing has changed, it is exactly as I said. But you're also asking for something else: that I hand you this self the way I'd hand you a pot, as an object you can turn around and look at. That cannot be done -- not because I'm holding back, but because it is simply impossible. And why impossible? Because of what this self actually is: it is the seer. Seeing itself, nothing beyond it. The seer of any act of seeing is the self -- that is the whole point. Now seeing comes in two kinds: the ordinary, everyday kind, and the kind that is real in the deepest sense. The ordinary kind is just the mind's activity working through the eye -- and because it is something produced, it is born, and it dies.
Close to the Sanskrit
Uṣasta Cākrāyaṇa said: just as someone, having first promised one thing, might then, having changed his stand, say something else instead -- 'that is an ox, that is a horse, the one that moves, that runs' -- having first promised 'I will show it directly,' and afterward indicating it by marks such as moving -- in just this way this brahman has been indicated by you through marks such as breathing; what need of more words? Setting aside the pretext raised for the cow's sake, that very brahman which is directly present, unmediated, the self within all -- that, explain to me. The other one says: as I first promised, your self is characterized thus -- I stand by that very promise; that remains exactly as I said. But as for what was further demanded -- that this self be made an object like a pot and so on -- that is not done, because it is impossible. Asked further why it is impossible, he says: because of the very nature of the thing. Asked further what that nature of the thing is: because of being the seer -- seer-hood itself, precisely; for the seer of seeing is indeed the self. Now 'seeing' is of two kinds -- the empirical and the absolutely real. Of these, the empirical is a modification of the inner organ joined with the eye; being produced, it arises and it perishes.