Bhashya
कथं पुनः नित्यस्वाध्यायादिभिः कर्मभिः आत्मानं विविदिषन्ति ? नैव हि तानि आत्मानं प्रकाशयन्ति, यथा उपनिषदः— नैष दोषः, कर्मणां विशुद्धिहेतुत्वात् ; कर्मभिः संस्कृता हि विशुद्धात्मानः शक्नुवन्ति आत्मानमुपनिषत्प्रकाशितम् अप्रतिबन्धेन वेदितुम् ; तथा ह्याथर्वणे— ‘विशुद्धसत्त्वस्ततस्तु तं पश्यते निष्कलं ध्यायमानः’ इति ; स्मृतिश्च ‘ज्ञानमुत्पद्यते पुंसां क्षयात्पापस्य कर्मणः’ इत्यादिः ।कथं पुनः नित्यानि कर्माणि संस्कारार्थानीत्यवगम्यते ? ‘स ह वा आत्मयाजी यो वेदेदं मेऽनेनाङ्गं संस्क्रियते इदं मेऽनेनाङ्गमुपधीयते’ इत्यादिश्रुतेः ; सर्वेषु च स्मृतिशास्त्रेषु कर्माणि संस्कारार्थान्येव आचक्षते ‘अष्टाचत्वारिंशत्संस्का-राः' इत्यादिषु ।गीतासु च-- 'यज्ञो दानं तपश्चैव पाव-नानि मनीषिणाम् ।सर्वेऽप्येते यज्ञविदो यज्ञक्षपितकल्म-षाः' इति ।यज्ञेनेति-- द्रव्ययज्ञा ज्ञानयज्ञाश्च संस्का-रार्थाः; संस्कृतस्य च विशुद्धसत्त्वस्य ज्ञानोत्पत्तिरप्रतिबन्धेनभविष्यति ; अतो यज्ञेन विविदिषन्ति ।दानेन-- दानमपिपापक्षयहेतुत्वात् धर्मवृद्धिहेतुत्वाच्च ।तपसा, तप इति अवि-शेषेण कृच्छ्रचान्द्रायणादिप्राप्तौ विशेषणम्-- अनाशकेनेति ;कामानशनम् अनाशकम्, न तु भोजननिवृत्तिः; भोजन-निवृत्तौ म्रियत एव, न आत्मवेदनम् ।वेदानुवचनय-ज्ञानतपःशब्देन सर्वमेव नित्यं कर्म उपलक्ष्यते; एवंकाम्यवर्जितं नित्यं कर्मजातं सर्वम् आत्मज्ञानोत्पत्ति-द्वारेण मोक्षसाधनत्वं प्रतिपद्यते ; एवं कर्मकाण्डेन अस्यएकवाक्यतावगतिः ।एवं यथोक्तेन न्यायेन एतमेवआत्मानं विदित्वा यथाप्रकाशितम्, मुनिर्भवति, मननान्मु-निः, योगी भवतीत्यर्थः ; एतमेव विदित्वा मुनिर्भवति, ना-न्यम् ।ननु अन्यवेदनेऽपि मुनित्वं स्यात्; कथमवधार्यते-एतमेवेति-- बाढम्, अन्यवेदनेऽपि मुनिर्भवेत् ; किं तु अ-न्यवेदने न मुनिरेव स्यात्, किं तर्हि कर्म्यपि भवेत् सः; ए-तं तु औपनिषदं पुरुषं विदित्वा, मुनिरेव स्यात्, न तु कर्मी;अतः असाधारणं मुनित्वं विवक्षितमस्येति अवधारयति-एतमेवेति ; एतस्मिन्हि विदिते, केन कं पश्येदित्येवं क्रिया-संभवात् मननमेव स्यात् ।किं च एतमेव आत्मानं स्वं लो-कम् इच्छन्तः प्रार्थयन्तः प्रव्राजिनः प्रव्रजनशीलाः प्रव्रजन्तिप्रकर्षेण व्रजन्ति, सर्वाणि कर्माणि संन्यस्यन्तीत्यर्थः ।'एतमेव लोकमिच्छन्तः' इत्यवधारणात् न बाह्यलोक-त्रयेप्सूनां पारिव्राज्ये अधिकार इति गम्यते ; न हि गङ्गाद्वारंप्रतिपित्सुः काशीदेशनिवासी पूर्वाभिमुखः प्रैति ।तस्मात्बाह्यलोकत्रयार्थिनां पुत्रकर्मपरब्रह्मविद्याः साधनम् , 'पुत्रे-णायं लोको जय्यो नान्येन कर्मणा' इत्यादिश्रुतेः ; अतःतदर्थिभिः पुत्रादिसाधनं प्रत्याख्याय, न पारिव्राज्यं प्रतिपत्तुंयुक्तम् , अतत्साधनत्वात्पारिव्राज्यस्य ।तस्मात् 'एतमेव लो-कमिच्छन्तः प्रव्रजन्ति' इति युक्तमवधारणम् ।आत्मलोक-प्राप्तिर्हि अविद्यानिवृत्तौ स्वात्मन्यवस्थानमेव ।तस्मात् आ-त्मानं चेत् लोकमिच्छति यः, तस्य सर्वक्रियोपरम एवआत्मलोकसाधनं मुख्यम् अन्तरङ्गम् , यथा पुत्रादिरेवबाह्यलोकत्रयस्य, पुत्रादिकर्मण आत्मलोकं प्रति असा-धनत्वात् ।असंभवेन च विरुद्धत्वमवोचाम ।तस्मात्आत्मानं लोकमिच्छन्तः प्रव्रजन्त्येव, सर्वक्रियाभ्यो नि-वर्तेरन्नेवेत्यर्थः ।यथा च बाह्यलोकत्रयार्थिनः प्रतिनिय-तानि पुत्रादीनि साधनानि विहितानि, एवमात्मलोकार्थिनःसर्वैषणानिवृत्तिः पारिव्राज्यं ब्रह्मविदो विधीयत एव ।कुतः पुनः ते आत्मलोकार्थिनः प्रव्रजन्त्येवेत्युच्यते ; तत्र अर्थवादवाक्यरूपेण हेतुं दर्शयति- एतद्ध स्म वै तत् ।तदेतत् पारिव्राज्ये कारणमुच्यते- ह स्म वै किल पूर्वे अतिक्रान्तकालीना विद्वांसः आत्मज्ञाः, प्रजां कर्म अपरब्रह्मविद्यां च ; प्रजोपलक्षितं हि त्रयमेतत् बाह्यलोकत्रयसाधनं निर्दिश्यते 'प्रजाम्' इति ।प्रजां किम् ? न कामयन्ते, पुत्रादिलोकत्रयसाधनं न अनुतिष्ठन्तीत्यर्थः ।ननु अपरब्रह्मदर्शनमनुतिष्ठन्त्येव, तद्वलाद्धि व्युत्थानम्- न अपवादात्, 'ब्रह्म तं परादाद्योऽन्यत्रात्मनो ब्रह्म वेद' 'सर्वं तं परादात्-' इति अपरब्रह्मदर्शनमपि अपवदत्येव, अपरब्रह्मणोऽपि सर्वमध्यान्तर्भावात् ; 'यत्र नान्यत्पश्यति' इति च ; पूर्वापरबाह्यान्तरदर्शनप्रतिषेधाच्च अपूर्वमनपरमनन्तरमबाह्यमिति; 'तत्केन कं पश्येद्विजानीयात्' इति च ; तस्मात् न आत्मदर्शनव्यतिरेकेण अन्यत् व्युत्थानकारणमपेक्षते ।कः पुनः तेषामभिप्राय इत्युच्यते- किं प्रयोजनं फलं साध्यं करिष्यामः प्रजया साधनेन ; प्रजा हि बाह्यलोकसाधनं निर्ज्ञाता ; स च बाह्यलोको नास्ति अस्माकम् आत्मव्यतिरिक्तः ; सर्वं हि अस्माकम् आत्मभूतमेव, सर्वस्य च वयम् आत्मभूताः ; आत्मा च नः आत्मत्वादेव न केनचित् साधनेन उत्पाद्यःआप्यः विकार्यः संस्कार्यो वा ।यदपि आत्मयाजिनः सं-स्कारार्थं कर्मेति, तदपि कार्यकारणात्मदर्शनविषयमेव, इदं मेअनेन अङ्गं संस्क्रियते- इति अङ्गाङ्गित्वादिश्रवणात् ; न हिविज्ञानघनैकरसनैरन्तर्यदर्शिनः अङ्गाङ्गिसंस्कारोपधानदर्शनंसंभवति ।तस्मान्न किंचित् प्रजादिसाधनैः करिष्यामः ;अविदुषां हि तत् प्रजादिसाधनैः कर्तव्यं फलम् ; न हि मृग-तृष्णिकायामुदकपानाय तदुदकदर्शी प्रवृत्त इति, तत्र ऊ-षरमात्रमुदकाभावं पश्यतोऽपि प्रवृत्तिर्युक्ता ; एवम् अ-स्माकमपि परमार्थात्मलोकदर्शिनां प्रजादिसाधनसाध्ये मृगतृ-ष्णिकादिसमे अविद्वद्दर्शनविषये न प्रवृत्तिर्युक्तेत्यभिप्रायः ।तदेतदुच्यते- येषाम् अस्माकं परमार्थदर्शिनां नः, अय-मात्मा अशनायादिविनिर्मुक्तः साध्वसाधुभ्यामविकार्यः अयंलोकः फलमभिप्रेतम् ; न चास्य आत्मनः साध्यसाधनादि-सर्वसंसारधर्मविनिर्मुक्तस्य साधनं किंचित् एषितव्यम् ; सा-ध्यस्य हि साधनान्वेषणा क्रियते ; असाध्यस्य साधनान्वे-षणायां हि, जलबुद्ध्या स्थल इव तरणं कृतं स्यात्, खेवा शाकुनपदान्वेषणम् ।तस्मात् एतमात्मानं विदित्वाप्रव्रजेयुरेव ब्राह्मणाः, न कर्म आरभेरन्नित्यर्थः, यस्मात्पूर्वे ब्राह्मणा एवं विद्वांसः प्रजामकामयमानाः ।तेएवं साध्यसाधनसंव्यवहारं निन्दन्तः अविद्वद्विषयोऽय-मिति कृत्वा, किं कृतवन्त इत्युच्यते-- ते ह स्म किल पुत्रैषणायाश्च वित्तैषणायाश्च लोकैषणायाश्च व्युत्थायाथ भिक्षाचर्यं चरन्तीत्यादि व्याख्यातम् ॥
In plain words
How, again, does someone come to know the Self through the daily recitation of scripture and other such rites? Those rites, after all, do not reveal the Self the way the Upanishads do. But there is no flaw here, because rites purify. Someone refined by rites, whose inner being has been made clean, is finally free to know, without any obstruction, the Self the Upanishad has already illuminated. Scripture itself says it: one whose being is purified then sees him, whole and undivided, while absorbed in meditation. And the tradition agrees: knowledge dawns in a person once sinful action has burned away. How do we know that these daily rites exist for the sake of purification? Because scripture describes the self-sacrificer as one who understands: by this, my limb is being refined; by this, my limb is being built up. Every book of tradition says the same -- that rites exist only to purify, right down to naming forty-eight distinct sacraments. The Gita says it too: sacrifice, giving, and austerity purify the wise; everyone who understands sacrifice burns away their stains through it. So when the text says 'by sacrifice,' it means both the sacrifice of substances and the sacrifice of knowledge -- both exist to purify. Once a person is purified, once their inner being is clean, knowledge simply arises, nothing standing in its way. That is why sacrifice is called a way of seeking to know. 'By gift' works the same way -- giving burns away wrong and builds up merit. 'By austerity' needs a further word, because 'austerity' alone could mean any hard discipline, so scripture adds 'without eating' to narrow it down. But that doesn't mean starving to death -- it means choosing to go without food while the hunger is still there. Stop eating altogether and you simply die; you do not thereby come to know the Self. Vedic recitation, sacrifice, austerity: name any of these permanent, obligatory rites and you are pointing at the whole class of them. Strip away the ones done for private gain, and everything left in that class becomes, by clearing the way for knowledge of the Self, a means to freedom. That is how the ritual portion of the Veda and this teaching turn out to be saying one and the same thing. By this reasoning, once a person has known this very Self as it has just been described, he becomes a muni -- a word that comes from thinking, meaning he becomes a yogi. It is knowing this Self, and nothing else, that makes him a muni. Someone might object: surely knowing anything at all could make a person a muni -- why insist it has to be this one? Fair enough: knowing something else might also produce a muni. But knowing something else never produces only a muni -- the same person could still be someone who acts in the world. Know this Person taught in the Upanishad, though, and you become only a muni, never someone who still acts. That is exactly why the phrase insists on 'this one alone' -- it is marking out a munihood nothing else can produce. Once this is known, there is no longer any 'who sees what' left to ask -- and where there is no room left for action, only thought remains. There is more here. Wanting this very Self as their own world, longing for it, those who are inclined to walk away from everything do walk away -- they go, with everything they have, meaning they let go of every action whatsoever. And because the text says 'desiring this world' and no other, we can tell that anyone still wanting the three ordinary worlds has no business renouncing. A person living in Kashi who wants to reach Haridwar does not set out walking east. So for anyone who still wants those three external worlds, a son, ritual action, and knowledge of the lesser Brahman remain the means -- scripture itself says this world is won through a son and nothing else. Which means it would make no sense for someone still chasing that goal to throw away a son and the rest and take up renunciation instead -- renunciation was never a means to what they want. So the restriction stands: it is only those desiring this world, the Self, who walk away. Reaching the world of the Self is nothing more than resting in your own Self once ignorance has lifted. So for anyone who wants the Self as their world, letting go of every action is itself the direct, essential means -- exactly as a son is the means to the other three worlds. Ritual action and a son simply cannot deliver you to the world of the Self; we have already shown why that is flatly impossible. So anyone who wants the Self as their world does walk away -- must walk away from every action there is. Just as fixed means are prescribed for someone chasing the three ordinary worlds, renunciation, the complete laying-down of every craving, is exactly what is prescribed for the knower of Brahman who wants the world of the Self. Why do we say those who want the Self as their world always renounce? Scripture answers with a story: 'this, indeed, was that.' Here is the reasoning it gives for renunciation. Long ago, so the tradition says, the wise of an earlier age, people who knew the Self, did not want children, ritual, or knowledge of the lesser Brahman -- the word 'progeny' there stands in for all three, since a son represents the whole path to the three outer worlds. What did they do about progeny? They simply did not want it -- meaning they never took up the path that begins with having a son. But wait, someone might say -- surely they kept worshipping the lesser Brahman, since that very practice is what gives renunciation its strength, not its absence! No. Scripture says Brahman turns away from anyone who thinks of Brahman as something apart from the Self -- the All itself turns away from him -- and that includes worship of the lesser Brahman too, since the lesser Brahman is also swallowed up inside the All. Scripture also says: where a person sees nothing else at all. And because scripture forbids any sense of before, after, outside, or inside here, it calls this reality without a before, without an after, without an inside, without an outside. And again: in that state, what would you see, and by what would you see it? So renunciation needs no cause beyond seeing the Self -- nothing else is required. What, then, were they after? Scripture puts the question in their own mouths: what purpose, what fruit, what goal could we possibly reach through a son as our means? A son, after all, is well known as a means to some outer world -- and that outer world is not, for us, anything apart from the Self. Everything really is nothing but our own Self, and we are the Self of everything there is. And the Self, precisely because it is already our own Self, cannot be produced, obtained, changed, or purified by any means at all. As for the claim that a self-sacrificer performs rites in order to be purified -- that claim only makes sense within the view that sees the Self as an effect tied to its cause, because scripture speaks of this limb of mine being refined by that rite, which assumes a relationship between a limb and the one who has it. But someone who sees the unbroken oneness of a single mass of awareness has no room left for any such idea of a limb being refined or overlaid onto its possessor. So we will accomplish nothing at all through a son or any of these means -- that is a fruit worth chasing only for the ignorant. A person who actually sees water in a mirage does not really run to drink it; and no one would think it reasonable to act at all if what they actually saw there was only bare, cracked earth -- no water whatsoever. It is the same for us: we see the world of the Self as it truly is, and reaching for what a son or similar means can deliver -- a mirage, real only to someone who has not yet seen -- is simply not reasonable. That is the whole point. Here, then, is what is actually meant: for those of us who see the ultimate truth, this Self -- free of hunger and every such need, untouched by anything good or bad we do -- this is the world we are actually after. And this Self, already free of every trace of the whole apparatus of goals and means that makes up worldly life, needs no means sought for it at all. A search for means only makes sense for something that still has to be accomplished. Search for a means to something that was never accomplishable in the first place, and you are swimming on dry land because you mistook it for water, or hunting the sky for the footprints birds leave behind. So brahmins, once they have known this Self, should indeed walk away from everything -- not take up ritual action -- that is the meaning here, because the brahmins of an earlier time, wise in just this way, wanted nothing to do with progeny. Having renounced the entire business of goals and means as belonging only to the world of the ignorant, what did they actually do? Scripture answers: they let go of the desire for children, the desire for wealth, and the desire for worlds, and from then on lived by begging for their food -- and everything that follows has already been explained.
Close to the Sanskrit
How again do people seek to know the Self through permanent daily recitation and other such rites? For indeed those rites do not illumine the Self, the way the Upaniṣads do. This is not a flaw, because rites are a cause of purification; for those who have been purified by rites, having a purified inner being, are able to know without obstruction the Self as illumined by the Upaniṣad. Thus indeed it is said in the Atharvan text: 'one of purified being then sees him, the partless one, while meditating.' And smṛti too: 'knowledge arises for men from the destruction of sinful action,' and so on. How again is it understood that permanent rites exist for the purpose of purification? Because of the scriptural passage: 'he indeed is a self-sacrificer who knows: by this my limb is being purified, by this my limb is being furnished,' and so on. And in all the smṛti-treatises rites are declared to be for the purpose of purification only, in passages such as 'the forty-eight sacraments.' And in the Gītā: 'sacrifice, gift and austerity are purifying for the wise; all these, knowers of sacrifice, have their taints destroyed by sacrifice.' 'By sacrifice': material sacrifices and knowledge-sacrifices are both for the purpose of purification; and for one who is purified, of purified being, the arising of knowledge will occur without obstruction; therefore it is said they seek to know through sacrifice. 'By gift': gift too, because it is a cause of the destruction of sin and a cause of the increase of merit. 'By austerity': since the word 'austerity' unqualified would apply indiscriminately to the attaining of penances like kṛcchra and cāndrāyaṇa, there is a further qualifying word, 'by not-eating.' 'Not-eating' means the voluntary abstention from food; it does not mean the total cessation of eating -- in the total cessation of eating one simply dies, not knowledge of the Self. By the terms vedānuvacana, sacrifice and austerity, the entire class of permanent action is indicated; thus the whole body of permanent action, excluding the desire-motivated portion, attains the status of a means to liberation by way of the arising of Self-knowledge. Thus is understood the unity of purport of this teaching with the ritual section. Thus, by the reasoning stated, having known this very Self as it has been illumined, one becomes a muni -- a muni from the root 'to think' -- meaning he becomes a yogi. Having known this very one does one become a muni, not another. But surely, even in knowing something else, munihood could occur -- how is it ascertained that it is 'this very one'? Granted, even in knowing something else one might become a muni; but in knowing something else, one would not become only a muni -- he might also become one who still performs action. But having known this Person taught in the Upaniṣad, one would become only a muni, not one who performs action. Therefore, to indicate that an exclusive munihood is intended here, he fixes the phrase 'this very one.' For when this is known, since activity in the sense of 'by what would one see what' becomes impossible, only thinking remains possible. Moreover, desiring and seeking this very Self as their own world, those inclined to wander forth do wander forth -- that is, they go forth intensely -- meaning, they renounce all actions. From the restrictive phrase 'desiring this very world,' it is understood that those who desire the three external worlds have no entitlement to renunciation; for indeed one wishing to reach Gaṅgādvāra, while residing in the region of Kāśī, does not set out facing east. Therefore, for those who desire the three external worlds, a son, ritual action and the knowledge of the lower Brahman are the means, because of the scriptural statement, 'this world is to be won by a son, not by any other action.' Therefore it is not proper for those who desire that to reject the means beginning with a son and undertake renunciation, since renunciation is not a means to that. Therefore the restriction 'desiring this very world do they wander forth' is a fitting one. For the attainment of the world of the Self is nothing but abiding in one's own self upon the cessation of ignorance. Therefore, for one who desires the Self as his world, the cessation of all activity alone is the principal, direct means to the attainment of the Self's world -- just as a son and the like alone are the means to the three external worlds -- since a son and ritual action are not a means to the world of the Self. And we have already stated the incompatibility of the two in terms of impossibility. Therefore those who desire the Self as their world do indeed renounce -- meaning, they must indeed cease from all activities. And just as, for one who desires the three external worlds, the specifically fixed means -- a son and the rest -- are enjoined, so too for the knower of Brahman who desires the world of the Self, renunciation -- the cessation of all desires -- is indeed enjoined. How again is it said that those who desire the world of the Self do indeed renounce? There, in the form of an explanatory statement, he shows the reason: 'this indeed was that.' That very passage is now stated as the reason for renunciation: indeed, formerly, the wise of a bygone era, knowers of the Self, did not desire progeny, ritual action and the knowledge of the lower Brahman -- for this triad, with progeny standing representatively for it, being the means to the three external worlds, is indicated by the word 'progeny.' 'Progeny' -- what of it? They do not desire it -- meaning, they do not undertake the means to the three worlds beginning with a son. But surely they do practice the vision of the lower Brahman -- for renunciation comes from the strength of that itself, not from its exclusion! No: because scripture says, 'Brahman abandons him who knows Brahman as other than the Self,' 'the All likewise abandons him' -- thus, it does indeed exclude the vision of the lower Brahman as well, since the lower Brahman too is included within the All. And also: 'where one sees nothing else' -- thus; and because of the prohibition of any perception of prior, posterior, outer or inner, as in 'without prior, without posterior, without interior, without exterior.' And also: 'by what would one see or know what, in that state?' Therefore renunciation requires no cause other than the vision of the Self. What again is their intention? It is explained: 'what purpose, what fruit, what goal shall we accomplish through progeny as a means?' For progeny is well known to be a means to an external world; and that external world does not exist for us as anything separate from the Self; for everything indeed is, for us, nothing but the Self, and we are the Self of everything; and the Self, precisely because it is our very Self, cannot be produced, attained, modified or purified by any means whatsoever. And as for the claim that, for the self-sacrificer, ritual action is for the purpose of purification -- that too pertains only to the sphere of the vision of the Self as effect and instrument, because of the scriptural statement 'by this, this limb of mine is purified,' which implies the relation of limb and possessor-of-limb. For indeed, for one who perceives the uninterrupted non-difference of a single mass of consciousness, no notion of the purification or superimposition of limb and possessor-of-limb is possible. Therefore we shall accomplish nothing whatsoever by means of progeny and the rest; for that is a fruit to be accomplished, through means beginning with progeny, only for the ignorant. For it is not that one who sees the water in a mirage actually sets out to drink that water; and it would not be reasonable to act, even for one who sees there only bare, salt-crusted ground -- the very absence of water. Similarly, for us who see the world of the Self in its ultimate truth, engaging in what is achievable only through means like progeny -- comparable to a mirage, and existing only within the field of vision of the ignorant -- is not reasonable: this is the intended point. This very thing is now stated: for us who see the ultimate truth, this Self -- free from hunger and the rest, unmodified by good or bad deeds -- this is the world intended as the fruit; and for this Self, which is free from all the conditions of transmigratory existence beginning with being-a-goal and being-a-means, no means whatsoever is to be sought. For it is only for something accomplishable that a search for a means is undertaken; for in searching for a means to something unaccomplishable, it would be like swimming on dry land, mistaking it for water, or searching in the sky for the footprints of birds. Therefore, having known this Self, brahmins should indeed renounce; they should not undertake ritual action -- that is the meaning -- since formerly brahmins, being wise in this way, did not desire progeny. They, thus condemning the whole transaction of goal-and-means, having concluded 'this belongs to the domain of the ignorant,' did what? It is explained: 'they indeed, having renounced the desire for progeny, the desire for wealth and the desire for worlds, then wander about living on alms' -- and so on, has already been explained.