Bhashya
स वै एषः एतस्मिन् बुद्धान्ते जागरिते रत्वा चरित्वे-त्यादि पूर्ववत् ।स यत् तत्र बुद्धान्ते किंचित्पश्यति, अन-न्वागतः तेन भवति— असङ्गो ह्ययं पुरुष इति ।ननु दृष्ट्वै-वेति कथमवधार्यते ? करोति च तत्र पुण्यपापे; तत्फलं चपश्यति— न, कारकावभासकत्वेन कर्तृत्वोपपत्तेः ; 'आत्म-नैवायं ज्योतिषास्ते' इत्यादिना आत्मज्योतिषा अवभासितःकार्यकरणसंघातः व्यवहरति ; तेन अस्य कर्तृत्वमुपचर्यते,न स्वतः कर्तृत्वम् ; तथा चोक्तम् 'ध्यायतीव लेलायतीव'इति— बुद्ध्याद्युपाधिकृतमेव न स्वतः ; इह तु परमार्थापे-क्षया उपाधिनिरपेक्ष उच्यते— दृष्ट्वैव पुण्यं च पापं च नकृत्वेति ; तेन न पूर्वापरव्याघाताशङ्का, यस्मात् निरुपाधिकःपरमार्थतो न करोति, न लिप्यते क्रियाफलेने ; तथा चभगवतोक्तम्— 'अनादित्वान्निर्गुणत्वात्परमात्मायमव्ययः ।शरीरस्थोऽपि कौन्तेय न करोति न लिप्यते' इति ।तथा सहस्रदानं तु कामप्रविवेकस्य दर्शितत्वात् ।तथा 'सवा एष एतस्मिन्स्वप्ने' 'स वा एष एतस्मिन्बुद्धान्ते' इत्ये-ताभ्यां कण्डिकाभ्याम् असङ्गतैव प्रतिपादिता; यस्मात्बुद्धान्ते कृतेन स्वप्नान्तं गतः संप्रसन्नः असंबद्धो भवतिस्तैन्यादिकार्यादर्शनात्, तस्मात् त्रिष्वपि स्थानेषु स्वतःअसङ्ग एव अयम्; अतः अमृतः स्थानत्रयधर्मविलक्षणः ।प्रतियोन्याद्रवति स्वप्नान्तायैव, संप्रसादायेत्यर्थः- दर्शनवृत्तेःस्वप्रस्य स्वप्नशब्देन अभिधानदर्शनात्, अन्तशब्देन च विशे-षणोपपत्तेः; 'एतस्मा अन्ताय धावति' इति च सुषुप्तंदर्शयिष्यति ।यदि पुनः एवमुच्यते- 'स्वप्नान्ते रत्वाचरित्वा' 'एतावुभावन्तावनुसंचरति स्वप्नान्तं च बुद्धान्तंच' इति दर्शनात्, 'स्वप्नान्तायैव' इत्यत्रापि दर्शनवृत्तिरेवस्वप्न उच्यत इति- तथापि न किंचिद्दुष्यति; असङ्गताहि सिषाधयिषिता सिद्ध्येव; यस्मात् जागरिते दृष्ट्वैव पुण्यंच पापं च रत्वा चरित्वा च स्वप्नान्तमागतः, न जागरित-दोषेणानुगतो भवति ॥एवम् अयं पुरुष आत्मा स्वयं ज्योतिः कार्यकारणविल-क्षणः तत्प्रयोजकाभ्यां कामकर्मभ्यां विलक्षणः- यस्मात्,असङ्गो ह्ययं पुरुषः, असङ्गत्वात्- इत्ययमर्थः 'स वा एषएतस्मिन्संप्रसादे' इत्याद्याभिस्तिसृभिः कण्डिकाभिः प्रति-पादितः; तत्र असङ्गतैव आत्मनः कुतः- यस्मात्, जाग-रितात् स्वप्नम्, स्वप्नाच्च संप्रसादम्, संप्रसादाच्च पुनः स्व-प्रम्, क्रमेण बुद्धान्तं जागरितम्, बुद्धान्ताच्च पुनः स्वप्ना-न्तम्- इत्येवम् अनुक्रमसंचारेण स्थानत्रयस्य व्यतिरेकःसाधितः ।पूर्वमप्युपन्यस्तोऽयमर्थः 'स्वप्नो भूत्वेमं लोकम-तिक्रामति मृत्यो रूपाणि' इति- तं विस्तरेण प्रतिपाद्य,केवलं दृष्टान्तमात्रमवशिष्टम्, तद्वक्ष्यामीत्यारभ्यते-
In plain words
He, this very one, having enjoyed himself and moved about in the waking state, and so on — exactly as before. Whatever he sees there, in that waking state, none of it clings to him afterward; because this person is simply unattached, that is the point. But someone may ask: how do we know that from the bare word 'having seen'? After all, he also does good and bad deeds there, and he sees their results too, not just sees things. The answer is no — because his being an agent is only a matter of his lighting up the instruments that act, not of acting himself. Statements like 'by his own light alone this one sits' show that it is really the whole complex of body and organs, lit up by the light of the Self, that goes about its business. So being an agent is only loosely attributed to him; on its own account, he is never an agent at all. That is also why it has been said, 'it seems to think, it seems to waver' — that seeming activity comes entirely from the limiting conditions of the intellect and the like, never from the Self itself. But here, speaking from the standpoint of the highest truth, the Self is being described with no limiting condition attached at all — hence 'having merely seen,' and 'not having done' either the good or the bad. So there is no real contradiction between what was said before and what is said now: since the Self, free of every condition, simply does not act in ultimate truth, and is never smeared by the fruit of any action. And this is exactly what the Lord himself has said: 'Because it has no beginning and no qualities, this imperishable Supreme Self, even while dwelling in the body, does not act and is never tainted, Kaunteya.' In the same way, that earlier mention of giving away a thousand cows was only there to show how desire can be discerned. And in the same way, these two passages — 'this one, in this state of dream' and 'this one, in this waking state' — have established nothing but non-attachment: because once he has gone over into dream and become tranquil, he carries nothing over from the waking state, since none of its effects, like theft and so on, ever show up there. So in all three states alike, this Self is, entirely on its own, simply unattached — which is exactly why it is immortal, utterly unlike the three states it seems to inhabit. 'It runs back to its own source, straight to the dream-end' really means straight to deep, dreamless rest — because we can see that the word 'dream' is sometimes used loosely for the very activity of seeing itself, and the word 'end' is rightly used to point to something further still. And the phrase 'it runs to this end' will turn out, later, to describe deep sleep. Now someone might object: since we've seen 'having enjoyed and moved about at the dream-end' and 'it moves along both these ends, the dream-end and the waking-end,' doesn't 'straight to the dream-end' here also just mean the activity of seeing, called 'dream'? Even granting that, nothing is actually wrong with the argument — because all that was ever being proven was non-attachment, and that much stands proven regardless: since, having merely seen good and bad in the waking state, and having enjoyed himself and moved about, once he reaches the dream-end he simply isn't tainted by any flaw from the waking state. So this person, the Self, is self-luminous, distinct from cause and effect, and distinct from the desire and action that drive them — because this person is unattached, precisely on account of that unattachment. This very meaning has been established by these three passages beginning with 'this one, in this state of tranquil sleep.' And how, exactly, is it shown that non-attachment belongs to the Self? Because it moves from waking to dream, from dream to tranquil sleep, and from tranquil sleep back to dream again, then in order to the waking-end called waking, and from the waking-end back to the dream-end again — and it is exactly this cycling through, in sequence, that proves the three states are genuinely distinct from one another. This same point was already raised earlier too: 'having become dream, it goes beyond this world, beyond the very shapes of death' — and having explained that fully, only the illustration itself is left; and with that, thinking 'I will now state it,' the text begins again.
Close to the Sanskrit
He, this one, having enjoyed and roamed in this waking-state, and so on — as before. That which he sees there, in the waking-state, whatever it may be, by that he is not followed; for this person is unattached — thus it is said. But how is this ascertained from the mere word 'having seen'? For he also performs, there, merit and demerit, and he sees the fruit of that too. No — because agency is accounted for by the Self's being the illuminator of the factors of action. By such statements as 'By his own light alone this one sits,' the aggregate of effect and instrument, illumined by the light of the Self, engages in activity. Therefore agency is figuratively ascribed to this Self; agency does not belong to it in its own right. And thus it has been said: 'it seems to think, it seems to waver' — this is brought about by the limiting adjuncts of intellect and so forth alone, not by the Self itself. But here, with reference to the absolute truth, the Self is spoken of independently of any limiting adjunct — namely, 'having only seen,' and 'not having done' merit and demerit. Therefore there is no apprehension of contradiction between the earlier and later statements, because, being free of adjuncts, in ultimate truth it does not act, and it is not tainted by the fruit of action. And so it has been said by the Blessed Lord: 'Because of beginninglessness and because of being without qualities, this imperishable Supreme Self, though dwelling in the body, O Kaunteya, does not act, and is not tainted.' Likewise, the gift of a thousand is because the discernment of desire has been shown there. Likewise, by these two sections — 'This one, in this dream-state' and 'This one, in this waking-state' — non-attachment alone has been established; because, having gone to the dream-state, having become tranquil, one is unconnected with what was done in the waking state, since no effect such as theft and the like is seen carried over. Therefore, in all three states as well, this Self is, of its own accord, unattached indeed; hence it is immortal, distinct in nature from the properties of the three states. 'It runs to its own source, precisely to the dream-end' means to tranquil sleep — since it is observed that the word 'dream' denotes the activity of seeing, and because the word 'end' is properly used as a further qualifier. And 'it runs to this end' will be shown to refer to deep sleep. If, however, it is objected: since it is seen that 'having enjoyed and roamed in the dream-end' and 'it moves along these two ends, the dream-end and the waking-end,' therefore here too, in 'to the dream-end alone,' the very activity of seeing is what is called 'dream' — even so, nothing is at fault; for what is sought to be established is non-attachment alone, and that indeed is established, because, having merely seen, in the waking state, merit and sin, and having enjoyed and roamed, when he has come to the dream-end, he is not tainted by the fault of the waking state. Thus this person, the Self, self-luminous, distinct from cause and effect, distinct from desire and action which set them in motion — because this person is unattached, owing to its unattachedness — this meaning has been established by these three sections beginning with 'This one, in this state of tranquil sleep.' There, how is it that non-attachment alone belongs to the Self? Because, from the waking state to dream, and from dream to tranquil sleep, and from tranquil sleep again to dream, in due order to the waking-end that is the waking state, and from the waking-end again to the dream-end — by this successive movement, the mutual distinctness of the three states has been established. This very point was also propounded earlier: 'having become dream, it goes beyond this world, beyond the forms of death' — having established that at length, only the illustration alone remains; with the thought 'that I shall now state,' the text begins again.