Bhashya
प्रकृतः स्वयंज्योतिरात्मा अविद्याकामकर्मविनिर्मुक्त इत्यु-क्तम्, असङ्गत्यादात्मनः, आगन्तुकत्वाच्च तेषाम् ।तत्रएवमाशङ्का जायते ; चैतन्यस्वभावत्वे सत्यपि एकीभावात्न जानाति स्त्रीपुंसयोरिव संपरिष्वक्तयोरित्युक्तम् ; तत्रप्रासङ्गिकम् एतत् उक्तम्— कामकर्मादिवत् स्वयंज्योतिष्ट्व-मपि अस्य आत्मनो न स्वभावः, यस्मात् संप्रसादे नोप-लभ्यते-इत्याशङ्कायां प्राप्तायाम्, तन्निराकरणाय, स्त्रीपुंसयो-र्दृष्टान्तोपादानेन, विद्यमानस्यैव स्वयंज्योतिष्ट्वस्य सुषुप्ते अग्र-हणम् एकीभावाद्धेतोः, न तु कामकर्मादिवत् आगन्तुकम्—इत्येतत् प्रासङ्गिकमभिधाय, यत्प्रकृतं तदेवानुप्रवर्तयति ।अत्रच एतत् प्रकृतम्— अविद्याकामकर्मविनिर्मुक्तमेव तद्रूपम्,यत् सुषुप्ते आत्मनो गृह्यते प्रत्यक्षत इति ; तदेतत् यथाभूत-मेवाभिहितम्—सर्वसम्बन्धातीतम् एतद्रूपमिति ; यस्मात् अत्र
In plain words
The Self we have been discussing — self-luminous — has already been shown to be completely free of nescience, desire, and action, because nothing sticks to the Self itself, and because those three are only ever visitors passing through. But right here a doubt naturally arises: even granting that consciousness is its very nature, doesn't it fail to know anything in deep sleep simply because everything has merged into one — the way two people locked in an embrace notice nothing apart from each other? That, after all, is what was said earlier. And there, in fact, something was mentioned only in passing: that self-luminosity too might not really belong to the Self by nature, just like desire and action don't, since it isn't found in deep, dreamless sleep. That doubt had come up, and to answer it, using that very image of the embracing man and woman, it was shown that self-luminosity genuinely exists the whole time in deep sleep — it simply isn't noticed there, and only because everything has merged into one, never because self-luminosity itself comes and goes the way desire or action do. Having cleared up that side point, the text now picks back up the very thread it had actually been on. And here is that original thread: this very form — free of nescience, desire, and action — which is grasped directly as the Self's own in deep sleep, has now been described exactly as it truly is: 'this form stands beyond every relation whatsoever.' Because, here...
Close to the Sanskrit
The Self already under discussion, self-luminous, has been said to be completely freed from nescience, desire, and action, because of the Self's own non-attachment, and because these are adventitious to it. In this connection, a doubt of this kind arises: even granting that it has the nature of consciousness, because of becoming one, it does not know, like a man and a woman locked in embrace — so it was said. There, this was stated incidentally: self-luminosity too, like desire, action, and so on, is not the nature of this Self, since it is not apprehended in deep sleep — when that doubt had arisen, in order to remove it, by taking up the illustration of man and woman, the non-apprehension in deep sleep of self-luminosity, which nevertheless truly exists, is for the reason of becoming one, not because it is adventitious like desire, action, and so on. Having stated this incidental point, it now carries forward exactly the topic that was originally under discussion. And here this is the topic at hand: that very form, free indeed from nescience, desire, and action, which is directly apprehended as the Self's own in deep sleep — that, described exactly as it truly is, has been stated: this form is beyond all relation — since, here...