Bhashya
‘प्राणो वा अन्न शरीरमन्नादम्’ इत्यारभ्य आकाशान्तस्यकार्यस्यैव अन्नान्नादत्वमुक्तम् ।उक्त नाम—कि तेन ? तेनैतत्सिद्ध भवति— कार्यविषय एव भोज्यभोक्तृत्वकृतससार , न त्वात्मनीति ।आत्मनि तु भ्रान्त्या उपचर्यते ।नन्वात्मापि परमात्मन कार्यम् , ततो युक्त तस्य ससार इति , न, अससारिण एव प्रवेशश्रुते ।' तत्सृष्ट्वा तदेवानुप्राविशत् ' इत्याकाशादिकारणस्य हि अससारिण एव परमात्मन कार्येष्वनुप्रवेश श्रूयते ।तस्मात्कार्यानुप्रविष्टो जीव आत्मा पर एव अससारी , सृष्ट्वा अनुप्राविशदिति समानकर्तृत्त्वोपपत्तेश्च ।सर्गप्रवेशक्रिययोश्चैकश्चेत्कर्ता , तत क्त्वाप्रत्ययो युक्त ।प्रविष्टस्य तु भावान्तरापत्तिरिति चेत् , न , प्रवेशस्यान्यार्थत्वेन प्रत्याख्यातत्वात् ।' अनेन जीवेन ' इति विशेषश्रुते धर्मान्तरेणानुप्रवेश इति चेत् , न , ' तत्सत्यम् ' ' स आत्मा ' ' तत्त्वमसि ' इति सामानाधिकरण्यात् ।दृष्ट जीवस्य ससारित्वमिति चेत् , न , उपलब्धुरनुपलभ्यत्वात् ।ससारधर्मविशिष्ट आत्मोपलभ्यत इति चेत् , न , धर्माणा धर्मिणोऽव्यतिरेकात् कर्मत्वानुपपत्ते ।उष्णप्रकाशयोर्दाह्यप्रकाश्यत्वानुपपत्तिवत् त्रासादिदर्शनादु खित्वाद्यनुमीयत इति चेत् , न , त्रासाद्दु खस्य च उपलभ्यमानत्वात् नोपलब्धुधर्मत्वम् ।कापिलकाणादादितर्कशास्त्रविरोध इति चेत् , न , तेषा मूलाभावे वेदविरोधे च भ्रान्तत्वोपपत्ते ।श्रुत्युपपत्तिभ्या च सिद्धम् आत्मनोऽससारित्वम् , एकत्वाच्च ।कथमेकत्वमिति , उ
In plain words
Beginning with the passage 'prāṇa is food and the body is the eater', the text establishes that the dual role of food and consumer belongs exclusively to the manifested universe ending with space. From this, what follows? It proves that transmigratory existence belongs entirely to the realm of effects, never to the true Self. In the Self, it is merely a projection born of ignorance. If an opponent objects that since the ātman is also a product of the Supreme, saṃsāra naturally belongs to it, we answer: No, for scripture declares the entry of the trans-empirical reality alone. The Veda proclaims that the Supreme Self, which is the cause of space and untouched by sorrow, entered right into its creation. Therefore, the soul that entered the product is none other than the Supreme Self itself, completely free from bondage, for the agent of creation and the agent of entry are one and the same. If it is argued that the enterer undergoes a fundamental transformation of state, we say no, for that entry has already been shown to bear a figurative meaning. If it is argued that the entry involves a distinct attribute because of the phrase 'by this living soul', we say no, because the great declaration 'That you are' establishes absolute identity. If someone claims that the jīva's suffering is directly witnessed, we say no, for the ultimate perceiver can never be objectified. If it is claimed that the self is experienced as bound to sorrow, we say no, for an attribute cannot be separated from its underlying reality, just as fire cannot be burned or illuminated by its own heat and light. If suffering is inferred from observable trembling and fear, we say no, because fear and sorrow are themselves perceived as transient objects, and therefore do not belong to the conscious witness as its intrinsic nature. If it is objected that this contradicts dualistic philosophies like those of Kapila and Kaṇāda, we answer that those systems lack scriptural roots and are therefore fundamentally flawed. The freedom of the Self from saṃsāra is established conclusively through both scripture and reason, and because of its radical oneness.
Close to the Sanskrit
Starting from 'prāna is food, the body is the eater of food', it is stated that the state of being food and eater belongs solely to the effect up to space. This having been stated, what follows? By this, it is established that transmigratory life belongs only to the realm of effects, not to the Self. In the Self, however, it is superimposed through delusion. If someone asks: 'Is not the ātman also an effect of the Supreme Self, and therefore its saṃsāra is appropriate?', we reply: No, because the scripture speaks of the entry of the non-transmigrating one alone. The entry into effects of the non-transmigrating Supreme Self, which is the cause of space and others, is heard in the text: 'Having created that, it entered right into it.' Therefore, the jīva soul that has entered the effect is the Supreme itself, which is free from saṃsāra, because of the logical consistency of having the same agent for both creation and entry. If it be claimed that there is a change of state for the one who entered, we say no, because entry has already been explained as having another meaning. If it be claimed that entry takes place with a specific attribute due to the text 'by this living soul', we say no, because of the co-ordinate identification in 'That is truth, that is self, you are that.' If it be claimed that saṃsārihood of the jīva is observed, we say no, because the perceiver cannot be perceived. If it be claimed that the self is perceived as endowed with the attributes of saṃsāra, we say no, because an attribute is non-different from its substratum, making it impossible to be an object, just as heat and light cannot be burnt or illuminated. If it be inferred that the self is sorrowful because trembling and other signs are observed, we say no, because fear and sorrow are themselves perceived as objects, hence they do not belong to the perceiver as its intrinsic nature. If it be claimed that there is a contradiction with logical texts such as those of Kapila and Kaṇāda, we say no, because those systems lack a valid root in scripture and therefore are erroneous. The non-saṃsāra status of the Self is established through both scripture and reason, and also because of its oneness. How is there oneness? Thus...