Bhashya
येऽप्याचक्षते-- मोक्षे ' विज्ञानान्तरम् आनन्दान्तरं च अभिव्यज्यत इति, तैर्वक्तव्यः अभिव्यक्तिशब्दार्थः ।यदि तावत् लौकिक्येव उपलब्धिविषयव्याप्तिः अभिव्यक्तिश-ब्दार्थः, ततो वक्तव्यम्--किं विद्यमानमभिव्यज्यते, अविद्य-मानमिति वा ।विद्यमानं चेत्, यस्य मुक्तस्य तदभिव्य-ज्यते तस्य आत्मभूतमेव तत् इति, उपलब्धिब्यवधानानुप-पत्तेः नित्याभिव्यक्तत्वात् , मुक्तस्य अभिव्यज्यत इति विशे-षवचनमनर्थकम् ।अथ कदाचिदेव अभिव्यज्यते, उपल-न्निधव्यवधानात् अनात्मभूतं तदिति, अन्यतोऽभिव्यक्तिप्रसङ्गः ; तथा च अभिव्यक्तिसाधनापेक्षता ।उपलब्धिसमानाश्रयत्वे तु व्यवधानकल्पनानुपपत्तेः सर्वदा अभिव्यक्तिः, अनभिव्यक्तिर्वा ; न तु अन्तरालकल्पनायां प्रमाणमस्ति ।न च समानाश्रयाणाम् एकस्य आत्मभूतानां धर्माणाम् इतरेतरविषयविषयित्वं संभवति ।विज्ञानसुखयोश्च प्रागभिव्यक्तेः संसारित्वम्, अभिव्यक्त्युत्तरकालं च मुक्तत्वं यस्य- सोऽन्यः परस्मात् नित्याभिव्यक्तज्ञानस्वरूपात् 'अत्यन्तवैलक्षण्यात्, शैत्यमिव औष्ण्यात् ; परमात्मभेदकल्पनायां च वैदिकः कृतान्तः परित्यक्तः स्यात् ।मोक्षस्य इदानीमिव निर्विशेषत्वे तदर्थाधिकयत्नानुपपत्तिः शास्त्रवैयर्थ्यं च प्राप्नोतीति चेत्, न, अविद्याभ्रमापोहार्थत्वात् ; न हि वस्तुतो मुक्तामुक्तत्वविशेषोऽस्ति, आत्मनो नित्यैकरूपत्वात् ; किंतु तद्विषया अविद्या अपोह्यते शास्त्रोपदेशजनितविज्ञानेन ; प्राक्तदुपदेशप्राप्तेः तदर्थश्च प्रयत्न उपपद्यत एव ।अविद्यावतः अविद्यानिवृत्त्यनिवृत्तिकृतः विशेषः आत्मनः स्यादिति चेत्, न, अविद्याकल्पनाविषयत्वाभ्युपगमात्, रज्जूषरशुक्तिकागगनानां सर्पोदकरजतमलिनत्वादिवत्, अदोष इत्यवोचाम ।तिमिरातिमिरदृष्टिवत् अविद्याकर्तृत्वअकर्तृत्वकृत आत्मनो विशेषः स्यादिति चेत्, न, 'ध्यायतीव लेलायतीव' इतिच उक्त्वा उपसंहृतं प्रकरणम्- 'इति नु कामयमानः' इति ।'अथाकामयमानः' इत्यारभ्य सुषुप्तदृष्टान्तस्य दार्ष्टान्तिकभूतः सर्वात्मभावो मोक्ष उक्तः ।मोक्षकारणं च आत्मकामतया यत् आप्तकामत्युक्तम्, तच्च सामर्थ्यात् न आत्मज्ञानमन्तरेण आत्मकामतया आप्तकामत्वमिति- सामर्थ्यात् ब्रह्मविद्यैव मोक्षकारणमित्युक्तम् ।अतः यद्यपि कामो मूलमित्युक्तम्, तथापि मोक्षकारणविपर्ययेण बन्धकारणम् अविद्या इत्येतदपि उक्तमेव भवति ।अत्रापि मोक्षः मोक्षसाधनं च ब्राह्मणेनोक्तम्; तस्यैव दृढीकरणाय मन्त्र उदाह्रियते श्लोकशब्दवाच्यः-
In plain words
There are also people who claim that in liberation some brand-new awareness and some brand-new bliss switch on. Fine — but then they owe us an account of what 'switching on' actually means. If it just means the everyday sense of something coming into view, here is the question: is it something that already existed, coming into view, or something that didn't exist at all until then? Say it already existed. Whoever it switches on for is liberated, and for that person it simply is their own self — so there was never anything in the way to obstruct it, and it was always already there to be seen. Saying 'it switches on for the liberated person,' as if that were a special event, says nothing at all. Say instead that it only switches on sometimes, because something was blocking it the rest of the time — which would mean it isn't simply the self after all — then you've opened the door to it switching on from somewhere outside, which means it would need some cause to produce it, just like any ordinary effect. But if it shares its very ground with awareness itself, then there is no way to even picture something blocking it — so it would have to be always on or always off; there is no evidence anywhere for some in-between state. And two things that are really the same one thing cannot turn around and be object and subject to each other. And if being bound means 'before this switches on' and being free means 'after it switches on,' then whatever self that describes is simply a different being from the true Self, whose very nature is knowledge that never needed switching on in the first place, because the two are as different as cold is from heat. Build a Self that different from the Self, and the whole of the Vedic teaching falls apart. Someone might object: if liberation is exactly like the bound state we already know, why make any special effort at all, and why would scripture even bother? No — because that effort and that teaching exist to clear away a mistake, the mistake called ignorance. In truth there was never any actual difference between being bound and being free; the Self is one, unchanging, always the same. What scripture's teaching does is dissolve the ignorance that stands over that Self — and before that teaching arrives, making the effort to reach it is entirely reasonable. Someone might object again: then a person with ignorance would carry an actual difference in the Self, caused by whether the ignorance has ended or not. No — because, as we already said, that supposed difference is nothing but a picture painted by ignorance itself, exactly like the snake on a rope, water on a mirage, silver in mother-of-pearl, or dirt smeared on empty sky. None of that touches what is really there. Or someone might say: like an eye clouded by disease versus a clear one, the Self would carry a real difference depending on whether it 'does' the ignorance or not. No — this was already settled, right where the text said 'it seems to think, it seems to waver,' and closed with 'thus indeed for one who desires.' Starting from 'now, one without desire,' liberation has already been described as simply being the Self of everything — exactly like the picture of deep, dreamless sleep. And the cause of liberation was named: having your only desire be the Self itself, so that your desire is completely fulfilled. And since that can only happen through knowing the Self, it follows, without needing to spell it out, that knowing brahman is the one real cause of liberation. So even though desire was named as the root of bondage, the same logic, simply turned around, has already told us the real cause of bondage too: ignorance. This much — both liberation and the way to it — this passage has already taught. And now, to drive that home, a verse is cited:
Close to the Sanskrit
Those who also say that in liberation another cognition and another bliss become manifest — by them the meaning of the word 'manifestation' must be stated. If, to begin with, the meaning of the word 'manifestation' is simply the everyday coming within the range of perception, then it must be asked: does something already existing become manifest, or something not yet existing? If it is something existing — since, for the liberated person to whom it becomes manifest, that cognition or bliss is indeed identical with his own self — then, because there is no possibility of any obstruction to its perception, on account of its being eternally manifest, the specific statement that 'it becomes manifest for the liberated person' is pointless. But if it becomes manifest only sometimes, because of an obstruction to its perception at other times — implying that it is not identical with the self at those times — then there follows the absurdity that it might become manifest from some other source, and thus would come to depend on the means that produce manifestation. But if it shares the same substrate as perception itself, then, since no obstruction between them can be conceived, there would be either constant manifestation or constant non-manifestation; there is, however, no proof for supposing an intermediate case. And it is not possible for properties sharing a single substrate, themselves identical with that one substrate, to be mutual objects and subjects with respect to one another. And on the view that, for cognition and bliss, being subject to transmigration means the state before their manifestation, and being liberated means the state after their manifestation — that self would be different from the supreme Self whose very nature is eternally manifest knowledge, owing to their utter dissimilarity, just as coldness differs from heat; and, in supposing such a difference from the supreme Self, the entire Vedic doctrine would be abandoned. If it be objected: if liberation is without distinction, just as things now are, then the impossibility of any special effort toward it, and the pointlessness of scripture, would follow — no, because that teaching serves the purpose of dispelling the illusion of ignorance; for indeed, in reality, there is no distinction between being liberated and being bound, because the Self is eternally one and unchanging in form; rather, the ignorance concerning that Self is dispelled by the knowledge produced by scriptural instruction; and, prior to receiving that instruction, effort directed toward that end is indeed reasonable. If it be objected: then, for one who has ignorance, there would be a distinction in the Self caused by the cessation or non-cessation of that ignorance — no, because it is accepted that such things are merely objects constructed by the imagining that is ignorance, just as with a rope, a barren patch of ground, mother-of-pearl, or the sky, and the appearance of a snake, water, silver, or dirt and the like; we have already said this involves no fault. If it be objected: then, as with vision affected or unaffected by an eye-disease, there would be a distinction in the Self produced by its being or not being the agent of ignorance — no; having said 'it seems to think, it seems to waver,' this topic was already brought to its conclusion with the words 'thus indeed for one who desires.' Beginning with 'now, one without desire,' liberation has been described as the state of being the Self of all, corresponding to the illustration of deep sleep. And the cause of liberation was stated as the state of having attained one's desire, through making the Self alone one's desire; and since, by logical force, that state of having-attained-desire through desiring only the Self is not possible apart from knowledge of the Self, it follows, by that same force, that knowledge of brahman alone has been stated to be the cause of liberation. Therefore, although it was said that desire is the root of bondage, nevertheless, by simply reversing the cause of liberation, this too has, in effect, already been stated: that ignorance is the cause of bondage. Here too, both liberation and the means to liberation have been taught by the prose portion of the Upanishad; and, to confirm that very point, a Vedic verse — referred to by the word 'śloka' — is now cited: