Bhashya
ननु यदि प्रियमप्यशरीरं न स्पृशतीति, यन्मघवतोक्तंसुषुप्तस्थो विनाशमेवापीतो भवतीति, तदेवेहाप्यापन्नम् ।नैष दोषः, धर्माधर्मकार्ययोः शरीरसम्बन्धिनोः प्रिया-प्रिययोः प्रतिषेधस्य विवक्षितत्वात्— अशरीरं न प्रिया-प्रिये स्पृशत इति ।आगमापायिनोर्हि स्पर्शशब्दो दृष्टः—यथा शीतस्पर्श उष्णस्पर्श इति, न त्वग्नेरुष्णप्रकाशयोःस्वभावभूतयोरग्निना स्पर्श इति भवति ; तथा अग्नेः स-वितुर्वा उष्णप्रकाशवत् स्वरूपभूतस्य आनन्दस्य प्रियस्यापिनेह प्रतिषेधः, ‘विज्ञानमानन्दं ब्रह्म’ ‘आनन्दो ब्रह्म’ इत्या-दिश्रुतिभ्यः ।इहापि भूमैव सुखमित्युक्तत्वात् ।ननु भूम्नः प्रि-यस्य एकत्वे असंवेद्यत्वात् स्वरूपेणैव वा नित्यसंवेद्यत्वात् नि-र्विशेषतेति न इन्द्रस्य तदिष्टम्, ‘नाह खल्वयं संप्रत्यात्मानंजानात्ययमहमस्मीति नो एवेमानि भूतानि विनाशमेवापीतोभवति नाहमत्र भोग्यं पश्यामि’ इत्युक्तवान् ।तद्वि इन्द्रस्येष्ट-म्—यद्भूतानि च आत्मानं च जानाति, न च अप्रियं किंचि-द्वेत्ति, स सर्वांश्च लोकानाप्नोति सर्वांश्च कामान् येन ज्ञानेन ।सत्यमेतदिष्टमिन्द्रस्य— इमानि भूतानि मत्तोऽन्यानि, लोकाःकामाश्च सर्वे मत्तो अन्ये, अहमेषां स्वामीति ।न त्वेतदिन्द्रस्य हितम् ।हितं च इन्द्रस्य प्रजापतिना वक्तव्यम् ।व्योमवदशरीरात्मतया सर्वभूतलोककामात्मत्वोपगमेन या प्राप्तिः, तद्धितमिन्द्राय वक्तव्यमिति प्रजापतिना अभिप्रेतम् ।न तु राज्ञो राज्याप्तिवदन्यत्वेन ।तत्रैवं सति कं केन विजानीयादात्मैकत्वे इमानि भूतान्यहमस्मीति ।नन्वस्मिन्पक्षे 'स्त्रीभिर्वा यानैर्वा' 'स यदि पितृलोककामः' 'स एकधा भवति' इत्याद्यैश्वर्यश्रुतयोऽनुपपन्नाः ; न, सर्वात्मनः सर्वफलसंबंधोपपत्तेरविरोधात्- मृद इव सर्वघटकरककुण्डाद्याप्तिः ।ननु सर्वात्मत्वे दुःखसंबंधोऽपि स्यादिति चेत्, न, दुःखस्याप्यात्मत्वोपगमादविरोधः ।आत्मन्यविद्याकल्पनानिमित्तानि दुःखानि- रज्ज्वामिव सर्पादिकल्पनानिमित्तानि ।सा च अविद्या अशरीरात्मैकत्वस्वरूपदर्शनेन दुःखनिमित्ता उच्छिद्येति दुःखसंबंधाशङ्का न संभवति ।शुद्धसत्त्वसंकल्पनिमित्तानां तु कामानाम् ईश्वरदेहसंबन्धः सर्वभूतेषु मानसानाम् ।पर एव सर्वसत्त्वोपाधिद्वारेण भोक्तेति सर्वाविद्याकृतसंव्यवहाराणां पर एव आत्मा आस्पदं नान्योऽस्तीति वेदान्तसिद्धान्तः ॥
In plain words
Here is the objection: if even what is dear cannot touch the bodiless self, then Indra's own worry comes back to haunt us—didn't he say that a person in deep sleep simply dissolves into nothing? If that's true there, it should be true here too. But it isn't a flaw. What is being denied is only the dear and the unpleasant that come from merit and wrongdoing, the pair that belongs to the body. The bodiless self isn't touched by that dear and undear—that's all the passage means. Notice how we actually use the word touch. We speak of the touch of cold, the touch of heat—things that come and go. But we never say fire touches its own heat and light, because those aren't visitors to fire; they are fire being fire. It's the same with bliss. Bliss—which is also the dear—isn't something denied to the self, any more than heat is denied to fire or light to the sun, because it is the self's own nature. That is exactly what scripture means when it says Brahman is consciousness and bliss, and bliss is Brahman. This very passage has already told us the same thing: the Infinite alone is happiness. Someone presses further: if the Infinite and the dear are truly one, then either it can never be known as an object, or it is always self-evident—either way, there is no room left for distinction. Surely that isn't what Indra wanted, since he complained: 'This one, right now, doesn't know the self as "I am this," and doesn't know these beings either—he's dissolved into nothing, and I see nothing worth having in that.' True—that was exactly what Indra wanted: a knowing that lets a person recognize both the world and the self, that leaves nothing unpleasant unknown, and that wins every world and every desire. Yes, that is what Indra desired. He wanted to say: these beings are other than me, these worlds and desires are all other than me, and I am their master. But that isn't actually good for him. What is truly good for Indra is what Prajāpati has to teach: not the gain of a king who rules a kingdom that stays outside him, but the attainment that comes from realizing—bodiless, like space—that he himself is the very self of every being, every world, every desire. That is what Prajāpati means to give him. And once that is seen, the old question collapses: in the oneness of the self, who could know what, by means of what, when 'I am these beings' is simply true? But then, someone asks, don't the scriptures that speak of the liberated self's power—enjoying with women or with chariots, reaching the world of the ancestors at will, becoming many at once—fall apart on this view? No. There's no contradiction in the one self of all being connected to every kind of result, any more than there's a contradiction in one lump of clay being present in every pot, jar, and bowl shaped from it. But then wouldn't the self also be bound up with suffering, since it is the self of everything? No—because suffering, too, is accepted as belonging to the self only in that same borrowed way. Sufferings arise from ignorance imagining them onto the self, exactly as fear arises from imagining a snake onto a rope. And once that ignorance is cut through by seeing the true, bodiless oneness of the self, there is no longer even room to worry about being bound to suffering. Desires of another kind—the ones born of the Lord's own pure will—live in every being's mind, and find their fulfillment through the Lord's own presence. But behind every one of these apparent enjoyers, it is the Supreme alone who enjoys, working through the many masks that beings wear. So every transaction that ignorance has ever staged—every joy, every sorrow, every sense of I and mine—rests finally on one and the same ground: the Supreme Self, and nothing else. This is the settled teaching of Vedānta.
Close to the Sanskrit
Objection: If even the dear does not touch the bodiless [self], then what was stated by Maghavan—that one abiding in deep sleep becomes merged into mere destruction—that same [conclusion] has arrived here too. This is not a fault, because what is intended to be negated is the pair dear-and-undear that are results of merit and demerit, connected with the body—meaning: the bodiless does not touch the dear and undear in that body-bound sense. For the word 'touch' is seen used of what comes and goes, as in 'the touch of cold,' 'the touch of heat'—but it is not that there is a 'touch by fire' with respect to heat and light, which are fire's own nature. Likewise, there is no negation here of bliss—which is also the dear—as the very nature [of the self], just as heat and light are of fire or the sun, on account of scriptures beginning with 'Brahman is consciousness and bliss' and 'bliss is Brahman.' Here too, because it has been said that the Infinite alone is happiness. Objection: In the oneness of the Infinite, which is the dear, since it is unknowable [as an object], or, since by its own nature it is eternally known, there would be a state without distinction—and that was not what Indra desired, for he said: 'Indeed, this one does not now know the self, thinking "I am this," nor does he know these beings; he becomes one merged into mere destruction; I see no enjoyment here.' That indeed was what Indra desired: that by which knowledge one knows both the beings and the self, and knows nothing unpleasant, and by which one obtains all worlds and all desires. True, this is what Indra desired—namely: these beings are other than me, the worlds and desires are all other than me, I am their lord. But this is not beneficial for Indra. What is beneficial for Indra is what is to be taught by Prajāpati. The attainment that comes through arriving at being the self of all beings, worlds, and desires, by being bodiless like space—that is what Prajāpati intended to teach as beneficial for Indra, not [attainment] like a king's attainment of a kingdom, through otherness. There, this being so, in the oneness of the self, who would know what by what, when [one thinks] 'I am these beings'? Objection: On this view, the scriptures of lordship beginning with 'with women or with chariots,' 'if he desires the world of the fathers,' 'he becomes manifold,' become untenable. No—because there is no contradiction, since it is established that the self of all can be connected with every result, just as clay [is present] in all pots, jars, and basins. Objection: If the self is the self of all, then connection with suffering too would follow. No—because it is likewise accepted that suffering too [belongs to the self only in that same apparent way]. Sufferings have their cause in the imagining of ignorance upon the self, just as [fears] have their cause in the imagining of a snake, etc., upon a rope. And that ignorance, the cause of suffering, is destroyed by the vision of the true nature of the bodiless self's oneness; therefore the apprehension of connection with suffering is not possible. But desires whose cause is the resolve of pure being—these, being mental, present in all beings, have their connection through the body of the Lord. It is the Supreme alone who is the enjoyer through the medium of the limiting adjuncts of all beings; therefore, of all the transactions brought about by ignorance, the Supreme alone, the Self, is the substratum; there is no other. This is the settled doctrine of Vedānta.