Bhashya
न, आत्मज्ञानस्य अमृतत्वहेतुत्वाभ्युपगमात् ।यत्तावत्'आत्मेत्येवोपासीत' इत्यारभ्य स एष नेति नेत्येतदन्तेनग्रन्थेन यदुपसंहृतम् आत्मज्ञानम्, तत् अमृतत्वसाधन-मित्यभ्युपगतं भवता; तत्र एतावदेवामृतत्वसाधनम् अ-न्यानिरपेक्ष मित्येतत् न मृष्यते ।तत्र भवन्तं पृच्छामि,किमर्थमात्मज्ञानं मृष्यति भवानिति ।शृणु तत्र कारणम्-यथा स्वर्गकामस्य स्वर्गप्राप्युपायमजानतः अग्निहोत्रादि स्व-र्गप्राप्तिसाधनं ज्ञापयति, तथा इहाप्यमृतत्वप्रतिपित्सोः अमृ-तत्वप्राप्युपायमजानतः 'यदेव भगवान्वेद तदेव मे ब्रूहि'इत्येवमाकाङ्क्षितम् अमृतत्वसाधनम् 'एतावदरे' इत्येवमादौवेदेन ज्ञाप्यत इति ।एवं तर्हि, यथा ज्ञापितमग्निहोत्रा-दि, स्वर्गसाधनमभ्युपगम्यते, तथा इहापि आत्मज्ञानम्-यथा ज्ञाप्यते तथाभूतमेव अमृतत्वसाधनमात्मज्ञानमभ्यु-पगन्तुं युक्तम्; तुल्यप्रामाण्यादुभयत्र ।यद्येवं किंस्यात्? सर्वकर्महेतूपमर्दकत्वादात्मज्ञानस्य विद्योद्भवे कर्म-निवृत्तिः स्यात्; दाराग्निसंबद्धानां तावत् अग्निहोत्रादिक-र्मणां भेदबुद्धिविषयसंप्रदानकारकसाध्यत्वम् ; अन्यबुद्धि-परिच्छेद्यां हि अन्यादिदेवतां संप्रदानकारकभूतामन्तरेण,न हि तत्कर्म निर्वर्त्यते ; यया हि संप्रदानकारकबुद्ध्यासंप्रदानकारकं कर्मसाधनत्वेनोपदिश्यते, सा इह विद्ययानिवर्त्यते-- 'अन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति न स वेद''देवास्तं परादुर्योऽन्यत्रात्मनो देवान्वेद' 'मृत्योः स मृत्यु-माप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति' 'एकधैवानुद्रष्टव्यं सर्वमा-त्मानं पश्यति' इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः ।न च देशकालनिमित्ता-द्यपेक्षत्वम्, व्यवस्थित आत्मवस्तुविषयत्वात् आत्मज्ञानस्य ।क्रियायास्तु पुरुषतन्त्रत्वात् स्यात् देशकालनिमित्ताद्यपेक्ष-त्वम् ; ज्ञानं तु वस्तुतन्त्रत्वात् न देशकालनिमित्तादि अपे-क्षते ; यथा अग्निः उष्णः, आकाशः अमूर्तः- इति, तथाआत्मविज्ञानमपि ।ननु एवं सति प्रमाणभूतस्य कर्मविधेःनिरोधः स्यात् ; न च तुल्यप्रमाणयोः इतरेतरनिरोधोयुक्तः- न, स्वाभाविकभेदबुद्धिमात्रनिरोधकत्वात् ; न हिविध्यन्तरनिरोधकम् आत्मज्ञानम्, स्वाभाविकभेदबुद्धिमात्रंनिरुणद्धि ।तथापि हेत्वपहारात् कर्मानुपपत्तेः विधिनिरोधएव स्यादिति चेत्-- न, कामप्रतिषेधात् काम्यप्रवृत्तिनि-रोधवत् अदोषात् ; यथा 'स्वर्गकामो यजेत' इति स्वर्ग-साधने यागे प्रवृत्तस्य कामप्रतिषेधविधेः कामे विहते काम्ययागानुष्ठानप्रवृत्तिः निरुध्यते ; न च एतावता काम्यविधिनिरुद्धो भवति ।कामप्रतिषेधविधिना काम्यविधेः अनर्थकत्वज्ञानात् प्रवृत्त्यनुपपत्तेः निरुद्ध एव स्यादिति चेत्—भवतु एवं कर्मविधिनिरोधोऽपि ।यथा कामप्रतिषेधे काम्यविधेः, एवं प्रामाण्यानुपपत्तिरिति चेत्—अननुष्ठेयत्वे अनुष्ठातुरभावात् अनुष्ठानविध्यानर्थक्यात् अप्रामाण्यमेव कर्मविधीनामिति चेत्—न, प्रागात्मज्ञानात् प्रवृत्त्युपपत्तेः ; स्वाभाविकस्य क्रियाकारकफलभेदविज्ञानस्य प्रागात्मज्ञानात् कर्महेतुत्वमुपपद्यत एव ; यथा कामविषये दोषविज्ञानोत्पत्तेः प्राक् काम्यकर्मप्रवृत्तिहेतुत्वं स्यादेव स्वर्गादीच्छायाः स्वाभाविक्याः, तद्वत् ।तथा सति अनर्थार्थो वेद इति चेत्— न, अर्थानर्थयोः अभिप्रायतन्त्रत्वात् ; मोक्षमेकं वर्जयित्वा अन्यस्याविद्याविषयत्वात् ; पुरुषाभिप्रायतन्त्रौ हि अर्थानर्थौ, मरणादिकाम्येष्टिदर्शनात् ।तस्मात् यावदात्मज्ञानविधेराभिमुख्यम्, तावदेव कर्मविधयः ; तस्मात् न आत्मज्ञानसहभावित्वं कर्मणामित्यतः सिद्धम् आत्मज्ञानमेव अमृतत्वसाधनम् ‘एतावदरे खल्वमृतत्वम्’ इति, कर्मनिरपेक्षत्वात् ज्ञानस्य ।अतो विदुषस्तावत् पारिव्राज्यं सिद्धम्, सं-प्रदानादिकर्मकारकजात्यादिशून्याविक्रियब्रह्मात्मदृढप्रतिपत्ति-भावेण वचनमन्तरेणापि उक्तन्यायतः ।तथा च व्याख्यात-मेतत्—'येषां नोऽयमात्माऽयं लोकः' इति हेतुवचनेन, पूर्वेविद्वांसः प्रजामकामयमाना व्युत्तिष्ठन्तीति— पारिव्राज्यम्विदुषाम् आत्मलोकावबोधादेव ।तथा च विविदिषोरपिसिद्धं पारिव्राज्यम्, 'एतमेवात्मानं लोकमिच्छन्तः प्रव्रजन्ति'इति वचनात्; कर्मणां च अविद्वद्विषयत्वमवोचाम; अवि-द्याविषये च उत्पत्त्यादिविकारसंस्कारार्थानि कर्माणीयतः—आत्मसंस्कारद्वारेण आत्मज्ञानसाधनत्वमपि कर्मणामवो-चाम— यज्ञादिभिर्विविदिषन्तीति ।अथ एवं सति अविद्व-द्विषयाणाम् आश्रमकर्मणां बलाबलविचारणायाम्, आत्मज्ञा-नोत्पादनं प्रति यमप्रधानानाम् अमानित्वादीनां मानसानांच ध्यानज्ञानवैराग्यादीनाम् संनिपत्योपकारकत्वम्; हिंसारा-गद्वेषादिबाहुल्यात् बहुक्लिष्टकर्मविमिश्रिता इतरे— इति;अतः पारिव्राज्यं मुमुक्षूणां प्रशंसन्ति—'त्याग एव हिसर्वेषामुक्तानामपि कर्मणाम् ।वैराग्यं पुनरेतस्य मोक्षस्यपरमोऽवधिः' 'किं ते धनेन किमु बन्धुभिस्ते किं ते दारै-र्ब्राह्मण यो मरिष्यसि ।आत्मानमन्विच्छ गुहां प्रविष्टं पि-तामहास्ते क्व गताः पिता च' ।एवं सांख्ययोगशास्त्रेषु चमाद्यपेक्षया व्युत्थानविकल्पक्रमपारिव्राज्यप्रतिपत्तिप्रकाराः न विरुध्यन्ते; अनधिकृतानां च पृथग्विधानात् पारिव्राज्यस्य 'स्नातको वास्नातको वोत्सन्नाग्निरनग्निको वा' इत्यादिना; तस्मात् सिद्धानि आश्रमान्तराणि अधिकृतानामेव ॥
In plain words
No -- because you yourself have already granted that knowing the Self is what causes immortality. Think back: the knowledge of the Self summed up in that passage running from 'one should meditate on nothing but the Self' all the way to 'not this, not this' -- you admitted that this is the means to immortality. What I don't accept is the further claim that this, all on its own, with nothing else required, is the means. So let me ask you directly: why won't you accept that knowledge of the Self is enough? Listen, and I'll tell you why. Take someone who wants heaven but doesn't know how to get there: the agnihotra fire-rite and rites like it show him the way. It's the same here. Someone who wants immortality but doesn't know how to reach it says, 'Tell me whatever you know' -- and the Veda answers that longing, in a passage that opens, 'This much, friend...' If that's the pattern, then just as the fire-rite, once shown to be the means, is accepted only as far as it's shown to be -- and no further -- so knowledge of the Self should be accepted only as far as the Veda actually shows it to be the means, no more. Both rest on the same scriptural authority. But if that's so, what follows? Since knowledge of the Self undercuts the very motive behind every ritual act, action would have to stop the moment that knowledge dawns. Consider: rites like the agnihotra, tied as they are to a wife and a sacred fire, can only be carried out through a recipient -- some deity grasped as genuinely other than oneself. Without a deity cognized as distinct in just that way, the rite simply cannot be performed. And it's exactly that cognition of a distinct recipient that Self-knowledge dissolves. As scripture says: thinking 'that one is other, I am other,' a person doesn't really know anything at all; the gods abandon whoever looks for gods somewhere other than his own Self; a person who sees difference here goes from death to death; and one who sees everything as nothing but the one Self, undivided -- that is real seeing. None of this depends on any particular place, time, or occasion, because it concerns a fixed reality, the Self itself, which never changes. Action is different -- it depends on the person doing it, so it can depend on place, time, and occasion. Knowledge doesn't work that way: it's governed by how things actually are, not by anyone's will, so it needs no particular place or time -- fire is simply hot, space is simply formless, and knowledge of the Self is just as unconditional. But wait -- doesn't this mean a valid scriptural command to perform rites would be cancelled out? And surely two equally valid sources of knowledge can't cancel each other. No: because what Self-knowledge cancels is only the ordinary sense of being separate from things -- nothing more. It doesn't cancel any other command; it only dissolves that natural, everyday sense of difference. But still, you might say, if the very motive for action is removed, action becomes impossible, and so the command to act really is cancelled. No -- there's no real problem here, any more than there is when a prohibition against desire blocks someone from acting on that desire. Take the injunction, 'One who desires heaven should sacrifice.' Someone takes up the sacrifice; then a separate command forbidding desire strikes down the desire itself, and so the actual carrying-out of that desire-driven sacrifice is blocked. But the command to sacrifice for heaven isn't itself invalidated just because of that. You might press further: once someone realizes, through the prohibition on desire, that the command to sacrifice has become pointless, doesn't the very impossibility of acting on it mean the command itself is cancelled? Fine -- grant that, and the same would follow for the command to act in general, once knowledge dawns. And if you say the same collapse in validity should follow here as it did there, or that -- since no one can act once action becomes impossible -- the command to act was never really valid at all -- no. Because action remains perfectly workable before Self-knowledge arises. The ordinary sense that action, doer, and result are all separate things is entirely natural, and it's exactly this natural sense, present before Self-knowledge dawns, that makes action possible in the first place -- just as a natural desire for heaven can drive someone to act, before he ever recognizes anything wrong with that desire. It works the same way here. But then, you might object, doesn't this make the Veda teach something harmful alongside what's good? No -- because good and harm are both matters of intention. Apart from liberation, which stands alone, everything else belongs to the domain shaped by ignorance; good and harm both depend on what the person intends, which is why you even find rites prescribed for ends as extreme as one's own death. So: exactly as far as a person is still oriented toward seeking knowledge of the Self, that far -- and no further -- do the commands to perform ritual action apply. Which means action and Self-knowledge simply don't coexist. And that settles it: knowledge of the Self alone is the means to immortality, exactly as scripture says -- 'this much alone, friend, is immortality' -- because knowledge doesn't depend on action at all. So, at the very least, renunciation is already settled for anyone who knows the Self: the firm conviction that one is Brahman, the unchanging Self, free of every ritual category -- recipient, agent, caste, and the rest -- makes renunciation follow by the reasoning already given, with no need for scripture to spell it out. And in fact this has already been shown, in the line 'those for whom this Self, this very world, is all there is' -- the ancient sages, wanting no children, simply rose up and left. For a knower, renunciation follows straight from realizing that the Self is one's whole world. And it holds too for someone still only seeking to know: 'wanting this same Self as their world, they go forth' -- so says scripture. As for rites, we've already said they belong to the domain of those who don't yet know; and within that domain governed by ignorance, they serve to bring about change and to refine the person performing them -- and, we've also said, by refining a person they can even become an indirect means to Self-knowledge itself: people 'seek to know through sacrifice and rites like it.' Given all this, when you weigh which duties of the various stages of life actually help produce Self-knowledge, the disciplines built around restraint -- humility and its kin -- together with the inner disciplines of meditation, reflection, and dispassion, are genuinely helpful. The rest are tangled up with a great deal of difficult action, full of violence, attachment, and aversion. That's why teachers praise renunciation to anyone who wants liberation: 'Relinquishing every rite ever enjoined -- that's what it takes; and dispassion is the very summit of that liberation.' 'What good is wealth to you, what good are kinsmen, what good a wife, brahmin -- you who are going to die? Seek instead the Self hidden deep in the cave of your heart. Where have your grandfathers gone? Where your father?' The Sāṃkhya and Yoga texts, too, when measured against this same view, describe renunciation in various ways -- different options, different sequences -- and none of it conflicts with what has been said here. And scripture even lays down renunciation separately for people who wouldn't otherwise qualify for it: 'whether one has finished studentship or not, whether one's sacred fire has gone out or was never lit at all.' So the further stages of life beyond the ordinary sequence stand established only for those who are actually qualified for them.
Close to the Sanskrit
No, because it is admitted that Self-knowledge is the cause of immortality. As for this: the Self-knowledge which is summed up in the passage beginning 'one should meditate on the Self alone' and ending with 'this Self is not this, not this' -- that has been admitted by you, sir, to be the means to immortality; there, this claim -- that this much alone, independent of anything else, is the means to immortality -- is not accepted. There I ask you, sir: for what reason do you not accept Self-knowledge [as sufficient]? Listen, [I will state] the reason for that: just as, for one who desires heaven but does not know the means of attaining heaven, the agnihotra and other rites make known the means of attaining heaven, so too here, for one who desires to attain immortality but does not know the means of attaining immortality, the means to immortality desired in the words 'whatever the venerable one knows, tell that to me' is made known by the Veda in a passage beginning 'this much, O' -- thus. If that is so, then, just as the agnihotra and the like, once made known, is accepted as the means to heaven, so too here Self-knowledge, exactly as it is made known and no more, is fit to be accepted as the means to immortality; for the authority is equal in both cases. If this is so, what would follow? Because Self-knowledge destroys the cause of all action, when knowledge arises, action would cease; for, in the case of rites like the agnihotra that are bound up with wife and sacred fire, their accomplishment depends on a recipient-factor that is the object of a cognition of difference; for without a deity -- distinct [from oneself], to be known by a distinct cognition, functioning as that recipient-factor -- that rite is indeed not accomplished; and the very cognition by which that recipient-factor is taught as the means of the rite is precisely what is removed here by [Self-]knowledge -- [as the scriptures say:] 'thinking "that one is other, I am other," he does not [truly] know'; 'the gods forsake him who knows the gods as other than his own Self'; 'he goes from death to death who sees difference, as it were, here'; 'all this is to be seen as one alone; he sees [it] as the Self' -- from these and other such scriptural texts. Nor is there any dependence on place, time, occasion, and the like, because Self-knowledge has as its object a fixed, real entity, namely the Self. Action, on the other hand, being governed by the person [who performs it], may depend on place, time, occasion, and the like; knowledge, however, being governed by the actual object, does not depend on place, time, occasion, or the like -- just as fire is hot and space is formless, so too is knowledge of the Self. [Objection:] Well then, this being so, a valid scriptural injunction to perform action would be negated; and it is not proper for two equally valid sources of knowledge to negate one another. [Reply:] No, because [Self-knowledge] negates only the natural cognition of difference; for Self-knowledge is not an obstructer of some other injunction -- it obstructs only the natural cognition of difference. [Objection:] Even so, because the cause is removed, action becomes impossible, so the injunction would indeed be obstructed. [Reply:] No, because there is no fault, just as there is none in the obstruction of engagement in a desire-motivated act by the prohibition of desire; for just as, when a person engaged in a sacrifice that is the means to heaven -- on the injunction 'one who desires heaven should sacrifice' -- has his desire struck down by the injunction prohibiting desire, his engagement in performing the desire-motivated sacrifice is obstructed; yet the desire-motivated injunction itself does not thereby become obstructed. [Objection:] Because of the knowledge, through the injunction prohibiting desire, that the desire-motivated injunction has become purposeless, and because engagement thus becomes impossible, the injunction would indeed become obstructed. [Reply:] Granted -- so too, then, would the obstruction of the injunction to perform action. [Objection:] Just as with the desire-motivated injunction under the prohibition of desire, so too the very validity [of action-injunctions] would become untenable. [Further objection:] Since, once action is unperformable, there is no performer, the injunction to perform becomes purposeless, [so] the action-injunctions would be simply invalid. [Reply:] No, because engagement remains tenable prior to Self-knowledge; for the natural cognition that distinguishes action, agent, and result functions perfectly well as the cause of action prior to Self-knowledge -- just as, in the matter of desire, the desire for heaven and the like, being natural, would indeed be the cause of engagement in desire-motivated action before the cognition of its flaw has arisen; so it is here too. [Objection:] This being so, the Veda would then teach what is not beneficial [alongside what is]. [Reply:] No, because benefit and harm are governed by intention; because, excepting liberation alone, everything else falls within the domain of ignorance; for benefit and harm are both governed by the intention of the person, as is seen in the case of desire-motivated rites that even aim at death and the like. Therefore, to whatever extent there is an orientation toward the injunction to know the Self, to that extent alone do the injunctions to perform action apply; therefore actions do not coexist with Self-knowledge -- hence it is established that Self-knowledge alone is the means to immortality, [as the scripture says] 'this much indeed, O, is immortality' -- because knowledge is independent of action. Hence, for the knower at least, renunciation is established, by virtue of the firm conviction that one is Brahman, the Self, without change, devoid of the recipient-relation and other ritual case-factors, and of caste and the like -- even without an explicit scriptural statement, on the strength of the reasoning already given. And this has indeed been explained: by the statement of reason 'those for whom this is our Self, this is [our] world' -- the ancient knowers, without desire for offspring, rise up [and renounce] -- renunciation for knowers [is established] simply from the realization that the Self is one's world. And so, for the seeker too, renunciation is established, from the statement 'desiring this very Self as their world, they go forth [as renunciants]'; and we have said that actions belong properly to the domain of the non-knower; and, within the domain of ignorance, actions serve the purpose of origination and other such changes and of refinement; hence we have also said that actions serve, by way of refining the person, as a means to Self-knowledge -- '[people] seek to know through sacrifices and the like.' Now, this being so, in weighing the relative strength and weakness of the duties of the various stages of life belonging to non-knowers with respect to producing Self-knowledge, the disciplines centered on restraint -- humility and the like -- and the mental disciplines of meditation, [reflective] knowledge, dispassion, and the like are, taken together, helpful; the others [i.e. the remaining observances] are intermingled with much troublesome action, owing to an abundance of violence, passion, aversion, and the like -- so it is said. Hence teachers praise renunciation for those who seek liberation: 'Relinquishment indeed of all the rites enjoined; dispassion, moreover, is the very highest limit of this liberation.' 'What use is wealth to you, what use kinsmen, what use wives, O brahmin, you who will die? Seek the Self hidden in the cave [of the heart]. Where have your grandfathers gone, and your father?' Thus, in the Sāṃkhya and Yoga treatises too, when measured against my own position, the various described modes of renouncing -- the alternatives and their sequence, and the ways of undertaking renunciation -- are not contradicted; and, further, because scripture separately prescribes renunciation even for those not [otherwise] qualified -- 'whether one who has completed studentship or one who has not, whether one whose sacred fire has gone out or one who never kept one' -- and so on. Therefore the other stages of life [besides the ordinary sequence] are established only for those who are [otherwise] qualified.