Bhashya
असाधुरुच्यते लोके ।तद्विपरीत सन् य अस्ति ब्रह्मेति चेद्वेद, स तद्ब्रह्मप्रतिपत्तिहेतु सन्मार्गं वर्णाश्रमादिव्यवस्था- लक्षण श्रद्धानतया यथावत्प्रतिपद्यते यस्मात्, तत तस्मात् सन्त साधुमार्गस्थम् एन विदु साधव ।तस्मा दस्तीत्येव ब्रह्म प्रतिपत्तव्यमिति वाक्यार्थ ।तस्य पूर्वस्य विज्ञानमयस्य एष एव शरीरे विज्ञानमये भव शारीर आत्मा ।कोऽसौ ? य एष आनन्दमय ।त प्रति नास्त्या शङ्का नास्तित्वे ।अपोढसर्वविशेषत्वात्तु ब्रह्मणो नास्तित्व प्रत्याशङ्का युक्ता, सर्वसाम्याच्च ब्रह्मण ।यस्मादेवम्, अत तस्मात् अथ अनन्तर श्रोतु शिष्यस्य अनुप्रश्ना आचार्योक्ति मनु एते प्रश्ना ।सामान्य हि ब्रह्म आकाशादिकारणत्वात् विदुष अविदुषश्च, अत अविदुषोऽपि ब्रह्मप्राप्तिराशङ्क्यते — उत अपि अविद्वान् अमु लोक परमात्मानम् इत प्रेत्य कश्चन, चनशब्द अप्यर्थे, अविद्वानपि गच्छति प्राप्नोति ? ‘किं वा न गच्छति ?’ इति द्वितीयोऽपि प्रश्नो द्रष्टव्य, अनुप्रश्ना इति बहुवचनात् ।विद्वास प्रत्यन्यौ प्रश्नौ—यद्यविद्वान्सामान्य कारणमपि ब्रह्म न गच्छति, अतो विदुषोऽपि ब्रह्मागमनमा- शङ्क्यते, अतस्त प्रति प्रश्न — आहो विद्वानिति ।उकार च वक्ष्यमाणमधस्तादपकृष्य तकार च पूर्वस्मादुतशब्दाभ्यात्तरवाक्यानि—'तत्सत्यमित्याचक्षते' 'यदेष आकाश आनन्दो न स्यात्' इत्यादीनि ।तत्र असदेव ब्रह्मेत्याशङ्क्यते ।कस्मात् ? यदस्ति, तद्विशेषतो गृह्यते, यथा घटादि ।यन्नास्ति, तन्नोपलभ्यते, यथा शशविषाणादि ।तथा नोपलभ्यते ब्रह्म, तस्माद्विशेषत अग्रहणान्नास्तीति ।तन्न, आकाशादिकारणत्वाद्वह्मण ।न नास्ति ब्रह्म ।कस्मात् ? आकाशादि हि सर्वं कार्यं ब्रह्मणो जातं गृह्यते, यस्माच्च जायते किंचित्, तदस्तीति दृष्टं लोके, यथा घटाङ्कुरादिकारणं मृद्बीजादि, तस्मादाकाशादिकारणत्वादस्ति ब्रह्म ।न चासतो जातं किंचिद्गृह्यते लोके कार्यम् ।असतश्चेन्नामरूपादि कार्यम्, निरात्मकत्वान्नोपलभ्येत, उपलभ्यते तु, तस्मादस्ति ब्रह्म ।असतश्चेत्कार्यं गृह्यमाणमपि असदन्वितमेव स्यात्, न चैवम्, तस्मादस्ति ब्रह्म ।तत्र 'कथमसतः सज्जायेत' इति श्रुत्यन्तरमसतस्सज्जन्मासभवमन्वाचष्टे न्यायतः ।तस्मात्सदेव ब्रह्मेति युक्तम् ।तद्यदि मृद्बीजादिवत् कारणं स्यात्, अचेतनं तर्हि ।न कामयितृत्वात् ।न हि कामयितृचेतनमस्ति लोके ।सर्वज्ञं हि ब्रह्मेत्यवोचाम, अतः कामयितृत्वोपपत्तिः ।कामयितृत्वादस्मदादिवदनाप्तकाममिति चेत्, न, स्वातन्त्र्यात् ।यथादेशकाल सूक्ष्म व्यवहित विप्रकृष्ट भूत भवद्भविष्यद्वा वस्तु विद्यते ।अत नामरूपे सर्वावस्थे ब्रह्मणैवात्मवती ।न ब्रह्म तदात्मकम् ।ते तत्प्रत्याख्याने न स्त एवेति तदात्मके उच्येते ।ताभ्या च उपाधिभ्या ज्ञातृज्ञेयज्ञानशब्दार्थादिसर्वसव्यवहारभाग्ब्रह्म ।स आत्मा एवकाम सन् तप अतप्यत ।तप इति ज्ञानमुच्यते, 'यस्य ज्ञानमय तप' इति श्रुत्यन्तरात् ।आप्तकामत्वाच्च इतरस्य असभव एव तपस ।तत्तप अतप्यत तप्तवान्, सृज्यमानजगद्रचनादिविषयामालोचनामकरोदात्मेत्यर्थ ।स एवमालोच्य तप तप्त्वा प्राणिकर्मादिनिमित्तानुरूपम् इद सर्व जगत् देशत कालत नाम्ना रूपेण च यथानुभव सर्वै प्राणिभि सर्वावस्थैरनुभूयमानम् असृजत सृष्टवान् ।यदिद किंच यत्किंचेदमविशिष्टम, तन् इद जगत् सृष्ट्वा, किमकरोदिति, उच्यते- तदेव स्रष्टृ जगत् अनुप्राविशदिति ॥
In plain words
An unrighteous person is recognized as such in the world; conversely, the seeker who is free from such flaws and recognizes that Brahman truly exists aligns himself with the righteous path of social and spiritual duties, embracing them with deep faith. Because he truly understands, the wise recognize him as established in virtue. Therefore, the definitive teaching is simply this: Brahman must be understood as existing. Within that previous intellectual sheath, this very embodied Self dwells. Who is He? He is the bliss-filled Self. Regarding this bliss-sheath, there is no valid doubt as to whether it exists or not. Doubting the existence of Brahman is entirely unwarranted, for Brahman transcends all particular attributes and is uniformly present everywhere as the common reality of all. Because this is so, the student naturally raises further questions in response to the teacher's teaching. Since Brahman is the fundamental cause of space and all elements equally for both the wise and the ignorant, the unillumined person's attainment of Brahman becomes a point of doubt—does an ignorant person, upon departing this life, reach that Supreme Self, or do they not? This is the second question, indicated by the plural 'subsequent questions.' Two further questions are directed toward the wise: if even the common cause is not reached by the ignorant, the wise person's attainment is also called into question, prompting the query—does the knower reach Brahman or not? Drawing the letters together from the surrounding text, we encounter scriptural passages such as 'They speak of that as truth' and 'If this space were not bliss.' Here, a doubt might arise: is Brahman perhaps non-existent? Why? Because whatever exists is specifically perceived, like a pot, while non-existent things like a hare's horn are never seen. Since Brahman is not perceived in this specific empirical manner, one might suspect it does not exist. But this objection fails, for Brahman is the ultimate cause of space and all creation. Brahman is certainly not non-existent. Why? Because every created effect, beginning with space, is observed to originate from Brahman. In everyday life, whatever an effect is born from is seen to exist—just as clay and seeds are the real causes of pots and sprouts. Therefore, because Brahman is the cause of space and the universe, Brahman exists. Nothing in this world is ever seen to be born from absolute non-existence. If name and form were products of non-being, they would lack any reality and could never be experienced; yet they are experienced everywhere. Therefore, Brahman exists. Furthermore, if an effect arising from non-being were perceived, it would share the nature of non-being and appear as unreal, which is not the case. Thus, Brahman exists. Scripture itself confirms this logical impossibility through texts like 'How could existence be born from non-existence?' Hence, it is entirely established that Brahman is pure Being. If someone argues that Brahman as a cause might be insentient like clay or seeds, we reply: no, because Brahman possesses the will to create. An insentient object in the world is never seen to possess conscious desire. We have already established that Brahman is omniscient, which fully accounts for His divine will. If you object that having desires makes Brahman subject to unfulfilled mortal longings like us, we say no—for Brahman is absolutely independent and free. Just as objects separated by vast distances of space, time, or subtlety—whether past, present, or future—are fully known, so too do all names and forms in every condition derive their reality from Brahman alone, though Brahman is not bound by them. When name and form are stripped away, they have no independent existence; they merely borrow their reality from the Self. Yet, through these very adjuncts of name and form, Brahman assumes all the empirical roles of knower, knowledge, and the known. That Supreme Self, desiring to manifest, engaged in deep contemplative reflection—for 'tapas' is defined by scripture as knowledge, as the text declares: 'Whose austerity consists of knowledge.' Unlike ordinary beings, whose desires are unfulfilled, the Supreme Lord is eternally fulfilled, making ordinary penance unnecessary; His 'tapas' was pure, luminous deliberation upon the design of the cosmos. Having thus deliberated and focused His divine awareness, He projected this entire universe—manifested across space, time, name, and form, and experienced by all living beings in every state of consciousness. Having created this entire universe without exception, what did He do next? The scripture declares: the Creator Himself entered directly into that very universe.
Close to the Sanskrit
An unrighteous person is spoken of in the world; being opposite to that, if one knows that Brahman exists, he attains that Brahman, the cause of attaining Brahman, following the righteous path characterized by varṇa and āśrama arrangements with faith, as he properly understands. Because of this, the wise know him, being righteous and established on the virtuous path, as a virtuous person. Therefore, the meaning of the sentence is that Brahman must be understood as existing. Of that previous vijñānamaya, this very embodied Self exists within the vijñānamaya body. Which one? This one that is ānandamaya. Regarding him, there is no doubt concerning non-existence. Indeed, doubt regarding the non-existence of Brahman is not appropriate, because Brahman is free from all particular attributes and because of the universal equality of Brahman. Since this is thus, therefore, following that, then subsequently the subsequent questions of the student who listens, directed towards the statement of the teacher, are these questions. For Brahman is common as the cause of space etc., both to the one who knows and the one who does not know; hence, even for the ignorant person, the attainment of Brahman is doubted—'Or does an ignorant person, having departed from here to yonder supreme-self world, anyone—the word cana being in the sense of even—does the ignorant person also go and attain? Or does he not go?' Thus the second question should also be seen, because of the plural form 'subsequent questions'. Two other questions are directed towards the knowers—if the ignorant person does not attain Brahman even though it is the common cause, hence the attainment of Brahman by the knower is also doubted, therefore the question directed towards him is—'Does the knower [attain or not]?' And pulling down the letter 'u' from below and the letter 't' from the previous uta word, the subsequent sentences—'They speak of that as truth', 'If this space were not bliss', and so on. There, it is doubted whether Brahman is non-existent. Why? Whatever exists is perceived specifically, like a pot etc. Whatever does not exist is not perceived, like a hare's horn etc. Brahman is not perceived in that manner, therefore because of not being specifically grasped, [it is doubted] whether it does not exist. That is not so, because Brahman is the cause of space etc. Brahman is not non-existent. Why? All created effects like space are seen to be born from Brahman. And whatever anything is born from, that is seen in the world to exist, like clay, seed, etc., which are the causes of pots, sprouts, etc.; therefore, because it is the cause of space etc., Brahman exists. Nor is any created effect born from the non-existent seen in the world. If name, form, etc., were a created effect from the non-existent, then because of lacking any self-essence it would not be perceived; but it is perceived, therefore Brahman exists. And if a created effect from the non-existent, even while being perceived, were associated only with the non-existent, it would not be so; therefore Brahman exists. In this regard, another Vedic text—'How can existence be born from non-existence?'—explains logically the impossibility of existence being born from non-existent. Therefore it is proper that Brahman is existent. If that were a cause like clay or seed, then it would be insentient. No, because it possesses the quality of desiring. For in the world no insentient entity possesses desire. We have already stated that Brahman is omniscient, hence the appropriateness of possessing desire. If it is argued that due to possessing desire it is like us and has unfulfilled desires, no, because of absolute freedom. Just as an object separated by space, time, and subtlety—past, present, or future—exists, therefore name and form in all states have Brahman alone as their self-essence. Brahman is not [merely] of that nature; upon the rejection of those two, they do not exist at all, hence they are spoken of as having that as their self. And through those two limiting adjuncts, Brahman possesses all empirical transactions designated by knower, knowable, knowledge, word, meaning, etc. That Self, being desirous, performed austerity. 'Tapas' is spoken of as knowledge, from the Vedic text—'Whose austerity consists of knowledge'. And for the other [the mortal], the impossibility of tapas is certain due to already having all desires fulfilled. That Self performed tapas, having performed it, made reflection regarding the creation of the world to be projected. Having reflected thus, having performed tapas, He created this entire universe—distributed across space, time, name, and form, experienced as such by all living beings in all conditions. Whatever this is, without exception, having created this world, what did He do? It is said—that very creator entered into that very universe.