Bhashya
सा होवाच— अत्रैव मा भगवान् एतस्मिन्नेव वस्तुनि प्रज्ञानघन एव, न प्रेत्य संज्ञास्तीति, मोहान्तं मोहमध्येम्, आपीपिपत् आपीपदत् अवगमितवानसि, संमोहितवान- सीत्यर्थः; अतः न वा अहम् इममात्मानम् उक्तलक्षणं वि- जानामि विवेकत इति ।स होवाच— नाहं मोहं ब्रवीमि, अविनाशी वा अरेऽयमात्मा यतः; विननं शीलमस्येति वि- नाशी, न विनाशी अविनाशी, विनाशशब्देन विक्रिया, अ-विनाशीति अविक्रिय आत्मेत्यर्थः ; अरे मैत्रेयि, अयमात्मा प्रकृतः अनुच्छित्तिधर्मा ; उच्छित्तिरुच्छेदः, उच्छेदः अन्तः विनाशः, उच्छित्तिः धर्मः अस्य इति उच्छित्तिधर्मा, न उच्छित्तिधर्मा अनुच्छित्तिधर्मा, नापि विक्रियालक्षणः, नाप्युच्छेदलक्षणः विनाशः अस्य विद्यत इत्यर्थः ॥
In plain words
She said: 'Right here, venerable sir — with this very thing you called 'a single mass of consciousness' with 'no awareness left after death' — you have thrown me into confusion. When you say you have 'plunged' me, you mean you have made me understand, or really, you have simply bewildered me. So I don't grasp this Self you're describing, not through my own discernment.' He said: 'I'm not speaking confusion. This Self, truly, cannot be destroyed. Here is why: something is called perishable when decay is its nature; what isn't perishable is imperishable. And the word destruction really points to change. So calling the Self imperishable simply means it never changes. Maitreyī, this Self we've been discussing never ceases. Cessation just means being cut off, coming to an end, being destroyed — and none of that belongs to this Self. It is not something that ceases; it is exactly the opposite: something that never ceases. It isn't marked by change, and no ending, no cutting-off, touches it at all.'
Close to the Sanskrit
She said: 'Just here, venerable sir, in this very entity — 'a single mass of consciousness, and there is no awareness after death' — you have plunged me into the depth of confusion, that is, into the midst of confusion; āpīpipat, that is āpīpadat, means 'you have caused me to understand', that is, 'you have bewildered me' — such is the meaning. Therefore I do not, through discrimination, understand this Self of the stated characteristic.' He said: 'I do not speak confusion; this Self, O one, is indeed imperishable, because: that whose habitual character is to decay is called perishable; what is not perishable is imperishable; by the word destruction is meant change; imperishable therefore means the Self is unchanging — such is the meaning. O Maitreyī, this Self under discussion is of the nature of non-cessation; cessation is a cutting-off; a cutting-off is an ending, a destruction; cessation being its property, [one would say] 'having-cessation-as-its-nature'; [but the Self is] not having-cessation-as-its-nature, [rather] having-non-cessation-as-its-nature; nor is it characterized by change, nor is there present in it a destruction characterized by cutting-off — such is the meaning.'