Bhashya
अत्यन्तनिकृष्टजातिप्रापकेणापि विनिर्मुक्त एव अयम् ; चाण्डालो नाम शूद्रेण ब्राह्मण्यामुत्पन्नः, चण्डाल एव चाण्डालः ; सः जातिनिमित्तेन कर्मणा असं बद्धत्वात् अचाण्डालो भवति ।पौल्कसः, पुल्कस एव पौल्कसः, शूद्रेणैव क्षत्रियायामुत्पन्नः ; सोऽपि अपुल्कसो भवति ।तथा आश्रमलक्षणैश्च कर्मभिः असं बद्धो भवतीत्युच्यते ; श्रमणः परिव्राट् —यत्कर्मनिमित्तो भवति, सः तेन विनिर्मुक्तत्वात् अश्रमणः ; तथा तापसः वानप्रस्थः अतापसः ; सर्वेषां वर्णाश्रमादीनामुपलक्षणार्थम् उभयोर्ग्रहणम् ।किं बहुना ? अनन्वागतम्— न अन्वागतम् अनन्वागतम् असं बद्धमित्येतत् , पुण्येण शास्त्रविहितेन कर्मणा, तथा पापेन विहिताकरणप्रतिषिद्धक्रियालक्षणेन ; रूपपरत्वात् नपुंसकलिङ्गम् ; ‘ अभयं रूपम् ’ इति हि अनुवर्तते ।किं पुनः असं बद्धत्वे कारणमिति तद्धेतुरुच्यते— तीर्णः अतिक्रान्तः, हि यस्मात् , एवंरूपः, तदा तस्मिन्काले, सर्वान् शोकान्—शोकाः कामाः ; इष्टविषयप्रार्थना हि तद्विषयवियोगे शोकत्वमापद्यते ; इष्टं हि विषयम् अप्राप्तं वियुक्तं च उद्दिश्य चिन्तयानस्तद्गुणान् संतप्यते पुरुषः ; अतः शोको रतिः काम इति पर्यायाः ।यस्मात् सर्वकामातीतो हि अत्र अयं भवति—‘ न कंचन कामं कामयते ’ ‘ अतिच्छन्दा ’ इति ह्युक्तम् , तत्प्रक्रियापतितोऽयं शोकशब्दःणात्; न हि हृदयस्य करणमात्रत्वे 'हृदि श्रिताः' इति वचनं समञ्जसम्, 'हृदये ह्येव रूपाणि प्रतिष्ठितानि' इति च ।आत्मविशुद्धेश्च विवक्षितत्वात् हृच्छ्रयणवचनं यथार्थमेव युक्तम्; 'ध्यायतीव लेलायतीव' इति च श्रुतेः अन्यार्थासंभवात् ।'कामा येऽस्य हृदि श्रिताः' इति विशेषणात् आत्माश्रया अपि सन्तीति चेत्, न, अनाश्रितापेक्षत्वात् ।न अत्र आश्रयान्तरमपेक्ष्य 'ये हृदि' इति विशेषणम्, किं तर्हि ये हृदि अनाश्रिताः कामाः तानपेक्ष्य विशेषणम्; ये तु अप्ररूढा भविष्यन्तः, भूताश्च प्रतिपक्षतो निवृत्ताः, ते नैव हृदि श्रिताः; संभाव्यन्ते च ते; अतो युक्तं तानपेक्ष्य विशेषणम्- ये प्ररूढा वर्तमाना विषये ते सर्वे प्रमुच्यन्ते इति ।तथापि विशेषणानर्थक्यमिति चेत्, न, तेषु यत्नाधिक्यात्, हेयार्थत्वात्; इतरथा अश्रुतमनिष्टं च कल्पितं स्यात् आत्माश्रयत्वं कामानाम् ।'न कंचन कामं कामयते' इति प्राप्तप्रतिषेधात् आत्माश्रयत्वं कामानां श्रुतमेवेति चेत्, न, 'सधीः स्वप्नो भूत्वा' इति परनिमित्तत्वात् कामाश्रयत्वप्राप्तेः; असङ्गवचनाच्च; न हि कामाश्रयत्वे असङ्गवचनमुपपद्यते; सङ्गश्च काम इत्यवोचाम ।'आत्मकामः' इति श्रुतेः आत्मविषयोऽस्य कामो भवतीति चेत्, न, व्यतिरिक्तकामाभावार्थत्वात् तस्याः ।वैशेषिकादितन्त्रन्यायोपपन्नम् आ-कथमिह सुषुप्ते न पश्यति ? विप्रतिषिद्धमेतत्- चैतन्यमा-त्मस्वभावः, न जानाति चेति ।न विप्रतिषिद्धम्, उभय-मप्येतत् उपपद्यत एव ; कथम्-
In plain words
He is free of even the lowest label anyone could pin on him. Take the word 'chandala' -- an outcaste, born to a Shudra father and a Brahmin mother. He has no karma tying him to that birth, so the word simply doesn't stick; he isn't one. Take 'paulkasa,' another such low-born label -- the same is true: no bondage, no label. And it isn't only birth. The same goes for the marks of every stage of life: call him a wandering renunciant, an ascetic, a forest-dweller -- whatever duty earns someone that name, he is free of the karma behind it, so none of those names hold either. Chandala and paulkasa stand for every caste; renunciant and ascetic stand for every stage of life -- between them, nothing is left out. And why stop there? Scripture calls him 'unpursued' -- untouched by merit earned through prescribed action, and just as untouched by demerit, whether that means failing to do what's required or doing what's forbidden. The word is neuter because it's naming a nature, not a person -- it's still describing that same 'fearless form' spoken of earlier. And what makes this freedom possible? He has crossed clean over every sorrow. 'Sorrow,' here, really means desire -- because craving something turns into grief the moment you're parted from it; a person who keeps dwelling on the appeal of something he doesn't have, or has lost, ends up burned by it. That's why grief, longing, and desire are really just three names for the same thing. And this person has gone past all of it -- he wants nothing at all, he is beyond every craving, which is exactly why the word 'grief' shows up here doing the work of 'desire' ...[the source breaks off here, resuming on content this record does not contain] ...because if the heart were just a tool the mind uses, it wouldn't make sense for scripture to say desires are 'lodged in the heart,' or that 'forms are established in the heart.' What's really being pointed at is the Self's own purity, so calling the heart their resting-place is exactly right, no stretching required -- and there's no other sensible way to read 'the heart as if it thinks, as if it stirs.' Now, someone might say: doesn't that phrase 'lodged in his heart' imply some desires are lodged in the Self itself instead? No -- it's simply pointing out the ones that haven't settled anywhere else yet. It isn't contrasting the heart with some other home for desire; it's contrasting fresh, unrooted desires with the fully rooted ones. Desires still to come, or ones that already burned out, aren't really 'in the heart' at all -- though they could still arise. So the phrase quietly does real work: it's the rooted, currently active desires that get released, all of them. And that pointed phrasing isn't wasted, either -- rooted desires are exactly the ones that take real effort to let go of, which is precisely the text's aim. Otherwise you'd be forced into a strange, scripturally unheard-of idea: that desire belongs to the Self directly. Someone might push further: doesn't 'he desires no desire at all' already prove that desire can belong to the Self? No -- because scripture elsewhere traces desire back to an outside cause, as when the mind alone conjures a dream, and because scripture also calls the Self entirely unattached -- which wouldn't make sense if desire were the Self's own. Attachment, remember, is simply what desire is. Or someone might say: doesn't the phrase 'one who desires the Self' show the Self as an object of desire? No -- that phrase only means he desires nothing else. The logicians' own methods bear this out as well...[the text breaks off a second time] ...So how is it, then, that in deep dreamless sleep he doesn't see anything? Isn't that a contradiction -- consciousness is supposed to be exactly what the Self is, and yet here it 'doesn't know' anything? It isn't a contradiction at all. Both are true together. Here's how--
Close to the Sanskrit
This one is indeed utterly freed even from that which brings about an extremely degraded birth: one called a chandala is one born of a Shudra father in a Brahmin woman -- a chandala is precisely a caṇḍāla; he, being unconnected with the karma that is the cause of that birth, becomes no chandala. A paulkasa -- a paulkasa is precisely a pulkasa, born of a Shudra father alone in a Kshatriya woman; he too becomes no paulkasa. Likewise it is said that he becomes unconnected even with the karmas that mark the [four] life-stages: a shramana is a wandering renunciant -- whatever karma is its cause, because he is freed from that, he is no shramana; likewise the ascetic, the forest-dweller, is no ascetic. The mention of both pairs is meant, by way of example, to cover every caste and every life-stage. What need is there to say more? 'Not followed after' -- 'not followed after' means precisely this: unconnected, with merit, that is, with action enjoined by scripture, and likewise with demerit, characterized by non-performance of what is enjoined or performance of what is forbidden. Because it refers to that essential nature, it is in the neuter gender; for 'the fearless form' still governs here. Now, as to the cause of this unconnectedness, that very reason is stated: 'crossed over' means transcended; 'for' means because; 'of this nature' [means one who has attained it]; 'then' means at that time; 'all the sorrows' -- 'sorrows' here means desires; for a longing for a desired object turns into grief precisely upon separation from that object; for a person, dwelling on the qualities of a desired object that is unattained or lost, is consumed with grief; hence grief, attachment, and desire are synonyms. Because this one here has gone utterly beyond all desire -- as it has been said, 'he desires no desire at all' and '[he is] beyond all desires' -- this word 'grief' occurs within that same context [meaning 'desire'] ...[the text breaks off here] ...-cause; for if the heart were merely an instrument, the statement 'lodged in the heart' would not be fitting, nor would 'for indeed forms are established in the heart.' And because what is intended is the Self's own purification, the statement of the heart as an abode is entirely proper, exactly as it stands; and also because no other meaning is possible for the scriptural words 'as if it meditates, as if it quivers.' If it be said that, from the qualification 'the desires that are lodged in his heart,' there also exist desires grounded in the Self itself -- no, because that phrase has in view only those not [otherwise] settled. Here the qualification 'which are in the heart' is not made with reference to some other abode; rather, it is made with reference to those desires which, though in the heart, are not yet fully rooted; but those which are unsprouted and still to come, and those which arose in the past but have since ceased through their opposites, are not said to be lodged in the heart at all -- yet they remain conceivable; so the qualification, made with reference to these, is proper -- meaning, those that are rooted and currently active toward their object, all of those are let go. If it be said that even so the qualification serves no purpose -- no, because of the extra effort called for regarding them, since the point is that they are to be abandoned; otherwise, the notion of desires being grounded in the Self -- unheard of and undesirable -- would have to be invented. If it be said that from the implied prohibition in 'he desires no desire at all,' desires being grounded in the Self is indeed attested -- no, because [scripture] shows desire's arising to be due to an outside cause, as in 'having become, by his own mind, a dream,' and also because of the statement of non-attachment; for the statement of non-attachment would not hold together if desire were grounded in the Self; and we have already said that attachment is precisely what desire is. If it be said that from the scriptural word 'one who desires the Self,' his desire has the Self as its object -- no, because the purpose of that statement is only to indicate the absence of any desire other than [for the Self]. This is further borne out by the reasoning of the Vaisheshika and other systems...[the text breaks off again] ...How is it that here, in deep sleep, [the Self] does not see? This is contradictory: consciousness is the Self's very nature, and yet 'it does not know.' It is not contradictory; both of these indeed hold together. How?--