Bhashya
यद्यपि व्यतिरिक्तत्वादि सिद्धम्, तथापि समानजाती-यानुग्राहकत्वदर्शननिमित्तभ्रान्त्या करणानामेवान्यतमः व्य-तिरिक्तो वा इत्यविवेकतः पृच्छति — कतम इति ; न्याय-सूक्ष्मतया दुर्विज्ञेयत्वात् उपपद्यते भ्रान्तिः ।अथवा शरी-रव्यतिरिक्ते सिद्धेऽपि करणानि सर्वाणि विज्ञानवन्तीव,विवेकत आत्मनः अनुपलब्धत्वात् ; अतोऽहं पृच्छामि-कतम आत्मेति ; कतमोऽसौ देहेन्द्रियप्राणमनःसु, यः त्व-योक्तः आत्मा, येन ज्योतिषास्त इत्युक्तम् ।अथवा योऽय-मात्मा त्वया अभिप्रेतो विज्ञानमयः, सर्व इमे प्राणाविज्ञानमया इव, एषु प्राणेषु कतमः— यथा समुदितेषुब्राह्मणेषु, सर्व इमे तेजस्विनः कतम एषु षडङ्गविदिति ।पूर्वस्मिन्व्याख्याने कतम आत्मेत्येतावदेव प्रश्नवाक्यम्,योऽयं विज्ञानमय इति प्रतिवचनम् ; द्वितीये तु व्या-ख्याने प्राणेष्वित्येवमन्तं प्रश्नवाक्यम् ।अथवा सर्वमेवप्रश्नवाक्यम्— विज्ञानमयो हृद्यन्तर्ज्योतिः पुरुषः कतमरेकप्रदर्शनार्था सप्तमी- यथा वृक्षेषु पाषाण इति सामीप्यल-क्षणा ; प्राणेषु हि व्यतिरेकाव्यतिरेकता संदिग्धत आत्मनः ;प्राणेषु प्राणेभ्यो व्यतिरिक्त इत्यर्थः ; यो हि येषु भवति,स तद्व्यतिरिक्तो भवत्येव-यथा पाषाणेषु वृक्षः ।हृदि-तत्रै-तत्स्यात् , प्राणेषु प्राणजातीयैव बुद्धिः स्यादिति, अत आह-हृद्यन्तरिति ।हृच्छब्देन पुण्डरीकाकारो मांसपिण्डः, ता-त्स्थ्यात् बुद्धिः हृत् , तस्याम्, हृदि बुद्धौ ।अन्तरितिबुद्धिवृत्तिव्यतिरेकप्रदर्शनार्थम् ।ज्योतिः अवभासात्मकत्वात्आत्मा उच्यते ।तेन हि अवभासकेन आत्मना ज्योतिषाआस्ते पल्ययते कर्म कुरुते, चेतनावानिव हि अयं कार्य-करणपिण्डः- यथा आदित्यप्रकाशस्थो घटः; यथा वा मर-कतादिर्मणिः क्षीरादिद्रव्ये प्रक्षिप्तः परीक्षणाय, आत्मच्छा-यमेव तत् क्षीरादिद्रव्यं करोति, तादृगेतत् आत्मज्योतिःबुद्धेरपि हृदयात् सूक्ष्मत्वात् हृद्यन्तःस्थमपि हृदयादिकं का-र्यकरणसंघातं च एकीकृत्य आत्मज्योतिश्छायं करोति, पार-म्पर्येण सूक्ष्मस्थूलतारतम्यात्, सर्वान्तरतमत्वात् ।बुद्धि-स्तावत् स्वच्छत्वात् आनन्तर्याच्च आत्मचैतन्यज्योतिःप्रति-च्छाया भवति ; तेन हि विवेकिनामपि तत्र आत्माभिमान-बुद्धिः प्रथमा ; ततोऽप्यानन्तर्यात् मनसि चैतन्यावभासता,बुद्धिसंपर्कात् ; तत इन्द्रियेषु, मनःसंयोगात् ; ततोऽनन्तरं
In plain words
Even though it has already been shown that this light stands apart from the body, Janaka is still confused -- because we only ever see one thing helped by another of its own kind, he can't tell whether this light is simply one of his own organs, or something genuinely separate. So he asks: 'Which one is it?' And honestly, the confusion makes sense -- the reasoning here is subtle, and easy to get lost in. Or perhaps this is what is happening: even granting that the Self is distinct from the body, every organ seems to have a mind of its own, because nothing marks the real Self out from the rest by simple discernment. So Janaka is really asking: 'That is exactly why I ask -- which one is the Self?' Which is it, he wants to know -- body, senses, breath, or mind -- the one you spoke of, Yājñavalkya, the one whose light lets a person sit and move and act? Or maybe he means something else: 'The Self you have in mind, the one made of understanding -- well, every one of these vital breaths seems to be made of understanding too. So among all these breaths, which one is it?' It's like asking, in a room full of brilliant scholars, 'all of them are dazzling -- but which one actually knows the six auxiliary sciences?' Read one way, the whole question is simply 'which is the Self,' and the answer is just 'this one, made of understanding.' Read another way, the question keeps going all the way through 'among the vital breaths.' Or perhaps the entire verse is the question: 'this person made of understanding, this light within the heart, among the vital breaths -- which one is he?' ...the seventh case here is doing something special: it is showing distinction, the way 'a stone among the trees' really just means 'near the trees.' Because with the vital breaths, it is genuinely unclear whether the Self is separate from them or not -- so the sense is 'distinct from the breaths, yet among the breaths.' And that has to be right, because anything that exists within a group is, by definition, distinct from that group -- a tree standing among stones is still not a stone. Now, someone might worry: doesn't 'in the heart' suggest the intellect is just another breath, nothing special? That is exactly why the text adds 'within' -- to make the distinction unmistakable. By 'heart' here, Śaṅkara means the literal lotus-shaped lump of flesh; and because the intellect lives there, it borrows that same name -- so 'in the heart' really means 'in the intellect.' And the word 'within' exists specifically to separate the Self from the intellect's own passing states. Light gets called 'the Self' simply because shining is exactly what it does. And it is by that very light -- the Self itself -- that a person sits, moves, and works, so that this whole body-and-organ mass behaves as if it were conscious all on its own -- the way a jar looks lit up in sunlight, or the way a green gem dropped into milk, just to test it, tints the whole bowl with its own colour. In the same way, this light of the Self, finer than the intellect and finer even than the heart, sits within the heart and yet draws the entire body and its organs into a single unit, casting its own reflection across all of it, passed down in stages according to how subtle or coarse each part is, because the Self is the innermost thing there is. The intellect catches this light first, simply because it is so clear and sits closest to the Self -- which is exactly why even wise, discerning people first mistake the intellect for the Self itself. Then, next in line, the mind picks up its own trace of that same awareness, through its contact with the intellect. Then the senses catch it too, through their link with the mind. And immediately after that--
Close to the Sanskrit
Although distinctness of the light from the body has been established, still, out of a confusion caused by seeing that assistance is given only by something of the same class, [Janaka], unable to discriminate whether it is one of the organs itself or something distinct, asks: 'Which one?' The confusion is understandable, given the subtlety of the reasoning that makes it hard to know. Or else: even though it has been established that the Self is distinct from the body, all the organs seem, as it were, to possess understanding, since the Self is not perceived by discrimination among them; so I ask -- 'Which is the Self?' Which one, among body, sense organ, vital breath and mind, is that Self spoken of by you, by whose light, as you said, he sits and acts? Or else: the Self you have in mind, consisting of understanding -- well, all these vital breaths, too, seem to consist of understanding; among these breaths, which one is it? -- just as, among a gathering of brahmins, one might ask: 'All of these are brilliant; which of them knows the six auxiliary sciences?' On the first explanation, 'which is the Self' is, just this much, the whole question-sentence, and 'this one, consisting of understanding' is the answer. But on the second explanation, the question-sentence runs on, ending at 'among the vital breaths.' Or else, the whole remaining verse is the question-sentence: 'the person consisting of understanding, the light within the heart, among the vital breaths -- which one is he?' ...for showing distinction, the seventh case here is used -- as in the phrase 'a stone among the trees,' where the locative has the sense of mere proximity. For, among the vital breaths, whether the Self is distinct or not distinct from them is left in doubt; the meaning intended is 'distinct from the vital breaths, yet among the vital breaths' -- that is the sense. For whatever exists among a group is, by that very fact, distinct from it -- as a tree standing among stones is distinct from the stones. Here, on the point of 'in the heart,' this might be thought: that among the vital breaths the intellect is merely of the same class as the breaths -- so the text says, 'within the heart.' By the word 'heart' is meant the lotus-shaped lump of flesh; because of residing there, the intellect too is called 'heart' -- 'in that,' 'in the heart,' means 'in the intellect.' The word 'within' is meant to show the Self's distinctness from the modifications of the intellect. 'Light' is called 'the Self' because it has the nature of illumination. By that very illuminating Self, as his light, he sits, goes about, does work -- for this body-and-organ mass behaves as though conscious, as a jar appears lit up in the light of the sun; or as an emerald or similar gem, dropped into milk or some such substance for testing, makes that very substance take on the gem's own hue -- just so this light of the Self, being subtler even than the intellect and than the heart, though situated within the heart, unifies the whole aggregate beginning with the heart -- body and organs together -- and casts upon it the reflection of the Self's own light, in a graded succession, on account of the scale of subtlety and grossness running through it, since the Self is the innermost of all. The intellect, first of all, because of its transparency and its immediate proximity to the Self, becomes the reflected image of the light of the Self's consciousness; because of that, indeed, even for discriminating people, the notion 'I am this' arises first with regard to the intellect. Then, next in that same succession, the appearance of consciousness arises in the mind, through its contact with the intellect; then in the sense organs, through their conjunction with the mind; then, immediately after that--