Bhashya
यत् प्रस्तुतम्-आत्मनैवायं ज्योतिषास्ते इति, तत् प्रत्यक्षतः प्रतिपादितम्- 'अत्रायं पुरुषः स्वयं ज्योतिर्भवति' इति स्वप्ने ।यत्तु उक्तम्- 'स्वप्नो भूत्वेमं लोकमतिक्रामति मृत्यो रूपाणि' इति, तत्र एतत् आशङ्क्यते-मृत्यो रूपाण्येव अतिक्रामति, न मृत्युम्; प्रत्यक्षं ह्येतत् स्वप्ने कार्यकारणव्यावृत्तस्यापि मोदत्रासादिदर्शनम्; तस्मात् नूनं नैवायं मृत्युमतिक्रामति; कर्मणो हि मृत्योः कार्यं मोदत्रासादि दृश्यते; यदि च मृत्युना बद्ध एव अयं स्वभावतः, ततः विमोक्षो नोपपद्यते; न हि स्वभावात्कश्चित् विमुच्यते; अथ स्वभावो न भवति मृत्युः, ततः तस्मात् मोक्ष उपपत्स्यते;
In plain words
What we set out to prove — that the self rests in its own light, needing nothing outside itself — has already been shown directly: 'here this person becomes his own light,' the text says of the dream state. But there's another line: 'having become a dream, he passes beyond this world, beyond the very shapes of death.' And here a doubt creeps in: does he pass beyond only the shapes death wears, not death itself? Because look at what plainly happens — even in dream, cut off from the body and its organs, he still feels delight, still feels fear. So it would seem certain that he hasn't transcended death at all: delight and fear are the fruit of past action, and that fruit is exactly what death produces. And if death were built into this self's own nature, freedom would never be possible — nothing is ever freed from its own nature. But if death is not its nature, then freedom becomes possible after all.
Close to the Sanskrit
What was under discussion — that this self abides in and of itself, by its own light — that has been established directly: 'here this person becomes self-luminous,' thus, in the dream state. But as for what was said — 'having become a dream, he transcends this world, the forms of death' — there this doubt is raised: does he transcend only the forms of death, not death itself? For this is directly evident: in dream, even for one disjoined from body and organs, the experience of delight, fear, and so on is seen; therefore certainly this one does not transcend death at all; for delight, fear, and so on, being effects of action, are seen to be the effect of death. And if this one is by his very nature indeed bound by death, then liberation would not be possible at all; for no one is ever freed from his own nature. But if death is not his nature, then from that, liberation becomes possible.