Bhashya
नापि अस्य वधेन स हन्यते छायात्मवत् ।न च अस्यस्राम्येण स्रामः स्वप्नात्मा भवति ।यदध्यायादौ आगममा-त्रेणोपन्यस्तम्— ‘नास्य जरयैतज्जीर्यति’ इत्यादि, तदिहन्यायेनोपपादयितुमुपन्यस्तम् ।न तावदयं छायात्मवद्देहदो-षयुक्तः, किं तु घ्नन्ति त्वेव एनम् ।एव-शब्दः इवार्थे ।घ्न-न्तीवैनं केचनेति द्रष्टव्यम्, न तु घ्नन्त्येवेति, उत्तरेषु स-र्वेष्विवशब्ददर्शनात् ।नास्य वधेन हन्यत इति विशेषणात्घ्नन्ति त्वेवेति चेत्, नैवम् ।प्रजापतिं प्रमाणीकुर्वतः अनृत-वादित्वापादनानुपपत्तेः ।‘एतदमृतम्’ इत्येतत्प्रजापतिवचनंकथं मृषा कुर्यादिन्द्रः तं प्रमाणीकुर्वन् ।ननु च्छायापुरुषे प्र-जापतिनोक्ते ‘अस्य शरीरस्य नाशमन्वेष नश्यति’ इति दोष-मभ्यदधात्, तथैहापि स्यात् ।नैवम् ।कस्मात् ? ‘य एषोऽ-क्षिणि पुरुषो दृश्यते’ इति न च्छायात्मा प्रजापतिनोक्त इतिमन्यते मघवान् ।कथम् ? अपहतपाप्मादिलक्षणे पृष्टे यदिच्छायात्मा प्रजापतिनोक्त इति मन्यते, तदा कथं प्रजापतिं प्र-माणीकृत्य पुनः श्रवणाय समित्पाणिर्गच्छेत् ? जगाम च ।तस्मात् न च्छायात्मा प्रजापतिनोक्त इति मन्यते ।तथा च व्याख्यातम्-द्रष्टा अक्षिणि दृश्यत इति ।तथा विच्छादयन्तीव विद्रावयन्तीव, तथा च पुत्रादिमरणनिमित्तमप्रियवेत्तेव भवति ।अपि च स्वयमपि रोदितीव ।ननु अप्रियं वेत्त्येव, कथं वेत्तेवेति, उच्यते-न, अमृताभयत्ववचनानुपपत्तेः, 'ध्यायतीव' इति च श्रुत्यन्तरात् ।ननु प्रत्यक्षविरोध इति चेत्, न, शरीरात्मत्वप्रत्यक्षवद्भ्रान्तिसंभवात् ।तिष्ठतु तावदप्रियवेत्तेव न वेति ।नाहमत्र भोग्यं पश्यामि ।स्वप्नात्मज्ञानेऽपि इष्टं फलं नोपलभे इत्यभिप्रायः ।एवमेवैषः तवाभिप्रायेणेति वाक्यशेषः, आत्मनोऽमृताभयगुणवत्त्वस्याभिप्रेतत्वात् ।द्विरुक्तमपि न्यायतो मया यथावन्नावधारयति; तस्मात्पूर्ववत् अस्य अद्यापि प्रतिबन्धकारणमस्तीति मन्वानः तत्क्षपणाय वस अपराणि द्वात्रिंशतं वर्षाणि ब्रह्मचर्यम् इत्यादिदेश प्रजापतिः ।तथा उषितवते क्षपितकल्मषाय आह ॥
In plain words
The dream-self is not killed when the body is killed, nor does it become lame when the body is lame. What was stated at the beginning of this chapter on scriptural authority alone—that the Self does not age with the body—is now demonstrated through reason. The dream-self does not inherit physical defects like the reflection-self does. When the text says 'they kill him indeed,' the word 'indeed' must be understood as 'as if.' It means 'they seem to strike him,' not that they actually do, as is clear from the use of 'as if' in all the following lines. If you object that 'they kill indeed' must be literal because of the contrast with 'he is not killed by the body's death,' we say no. Indra holds Prajapati as the ultimate authority; he would never try to prove Prajapati's words—'this is the immortal'—to be false. But did not Indra find a flaw in the reflection-self, saying it perishes when the body perishes? Yes, but Indra never believed that Prajapati actually meant the reflection-self when he spoke of 'the person seen in the eye.' If he had believed that, why would he have returned humbly, fuel in hand, to learn more? Yet he did return. Therefore, he knew the reflection-self was not what Prajapati intended. As we explained, the true seer is what is meant by 'seen in the eye.' Thus, 'they chase him, as it were' means they seem to pursue him, and he seems to suffer grief at the death of a child, and even seems to weep. If you ask why we say 'seems to suffer' when the suffering feels real, we reply: because literal suffering would contradict the teaching that the Self is immortal and fearless, and another scripture confirms that the Self only 'seems to think.' If you say this contradicts our direct experience, we say no; direct experience can be mistaken, just as people mistakenly experience the physical body as their very Self. Let us set aside for a moment whether he actually suffers or not. When Indra says, 'I see no good here,' he means: 'I find no ultimate liberation in identifying with the dream-self.' Prajapati agrees, saying, 'It is exactly as you think,' because his true intent is to reveal the immortal, fearless Self. Seeing that Indra still could not fully grasp the truth despite hearing it twice, Prajapati realized an obstacle still remained in his mind. To purify this, he told him to live as a student for another thirty-two years. Finally, when Indra had completed his stay and his mind was fully purified, Prajapati spoke the truth to him.
Close to the Sanskrit
Nor indeed by the killing of this (body) is he (the dream-self) killed, like the shadow-self. And not by its lameness does the dream-self become lame. That which was presented at the beginning of the chapter by scriptural testimony alone—'not by its old age does this decay' etc.—that is presented here to be proved by logic. He is not, like the shadow-self, joined with bodily defects; but rather, 'they kill him indeed'—the word 'indeed' (eva) is in the sense of 'as if' (iva). It must be understood as 'some kill him, as it were,' but not 'they indeed kill,' because of the appearance of the word 'iva' in all subsequent passages. If it is argued that 'they kill indeed' because of the qualification 'he is not killed by the killing of this,' it is not so; because it is impossible to attribute untruthfulness to one who accepts Prajapati as authority. How could Indra, accepting him as authority, make this statement of Prajapati—'this is immortal'—false? But is it not that when the shadow-person was spoken of by Prajapati, (Indra) pointed out the defect, 'following the destruction of this body, this (shadow) perishes,' and the same would be the case here? It is not so. Why? Indra does not think that the shadow-self was spoken of by Prajapati when he said 'this person who is seen in the eye.' How? If he thought the shadow-self was meant when asked about the Self characterized by freedom from sin, etc., then how, accepting Prajapati as authority, would he go again with sacrificial wood in hand to hear him? And he did go. Therefore, he does not think the shadow-self was meant by Prajapati. And so it has been explained: the seer is seen in the eye. Thus 'they chase him, as it were' means they put him to flight, as it were; and also, due to the death of a son etc., he becomes, as it were, an experiencer of the unpleasant. Moreover, he himself even weeps, as it were. If it is objected, 'he indeed experiences the unpleasant, why say as if?'—it is said: No, because of the inconsistency with the statement of immortality and fearlessness, and from another scripture which says 'he meditates, as it were.' If it is objected that this contradicts direct perception, we say: No, because of the possibility of delusion, like the direct perception of the body as the Self. Let it stand for now, whether he is an experiencer of the unpleasant or not. 'I do not see any good here'—the meaning is: 'even in the knowledge of the dream-self, I do not obtain the desired fruit.' 'It is exactly so'—the remainder of the sentence is 'according to your view,' because the Self's possession of the qualities of immortality and fearlessness is intended. Reflecting that 'although spoken twice, he does not grasp it correctly with its logic; therefore, as before, there is still an obstacle in him,' and in order to destroy that, Prajapati commanded: 'Dwell for another thirty-two years in celibacy.' Then, to him who had lived there and whose impurities were destroyed, he spoke.