Mantra 16

In plain words

The answer to 'Who was this, then, in deep sleep?' has already been given. And this settling of the question reveals something more: the awareness-self is, by its very nature, pure — untouched by the wheel of birth and death—

Close to the Sanskrit

The reply to the question 'Who was this, then?' has been given; and by this determination of the question, [it is shown that] the vijñānamaya self is, by its own nature, pure — free from transmigra—

In plain words

And this too has been said [that the awareness-self is, by nature, both pure and beyond transmigration]. What follows now is meant to answer a lingering question: 'Where did this come from?' Someone might object: think of a person living in some village or town. When he sets out for somewhere else, he leaves from that very village or town — from nowhere else. So, by that logic, the only real question should have been 'Who was this, then?' Wherever he was, that is obviously where he came from — so asking 'where did this come from?' on top of that is just pointless. Are you accusing scripture of padding its own words? No — I want a different meaning drawn out of that second question, and that's exactly why I'm pushing on it. Fine — then maybe 'where' here doesn't mean 'source' at all? Because if it does, we're back to repeating ourselves; if it means something else, we need to say what. Suppose, then, it's asking about a reason: 'why did this come to be here?' But that doesn't work either — the answer that follows doesn't fit a question about reasons. What we're told is that the self, and the whole world with it, arises the way sparks fly from a fire. And a fire isn't the reason sparks fly off — it's simply where they come from. In exactly the same way, the Supreme Self is named as the source the awareness-self comes from — that's what the phrase 'from this self' means. So the mismatch with the answer rules out reading 'where' as asking for a reason. One objection remains, though: even reading it as asking for a source, aren't we still just repeating the first question?

There is no problem here. Answering those two questions already dissolves the idea that you are your actions, your role as the one who acts, or the fruit you reap … — then, it happened only within your own self. That is exactly what the scriptures say: 'he becomes merged into his own self,' 'then, dear one, he becomes one with Being itself,' 'the wise self holds him in a close embrace,' 'he comes to rest, firmly, in the Supreme Self.' And that is exactly why nothing here comes from somewhere else — scripture says so plainly: everything arises 'from this self,' because apart from the self, nothing else exists. But you might object: isn't there something else, some separate substance — the vital breath and its kind — apart from the self? No. Because even the breath itself arises from nothing but that very self.

Close to the Sanskrit

And it has been stated [that vijñānamaya is by nature both pure and free from transmigration]; the undertaking [that follows] is for the sake of resolving the question 'from where did this come?' Objection: in whatever village or town a person may be, when going elsewhere he goes from that very village or town, not from any other; that being so, let the question be simply this much: 'who was this, then?' — for wherever he was, the coming would be well known to be from that very place, not from elsewhere; so the question 'from where did this come?' is indeed meaningless. Is it scripture you are faulting? No; then what? I wish to hear some other meaning for the second question — that is why I press the charge of meaninglessness. Well then, is the sense of 'from where' as the ablative source not accepted here? For if taken in the ablative sense, there is redundancy; if not taken in that sense, let it then be a question about cause: 'from where did this come' meaning 'for what reason did this coming happen here?' That too cannot be the sense of cause, because the answer given does not match it: for in the answer, the origination of the self and of the whole world is described as being like sparks from a fire; and indeed, in the scattering of sparks, fire is not their cause in that sense — it is only their point of departure. Likewise the Supreme Self is described, with respect to the self called vijñānamaya, as its point of departure — in the sentence 'from this self.' Therefore, because of this mismatch with the answer, the sense of 'cause' cannot be maintained for the question 'from where.' Objection: but even on the ablative reading of the question, the fault of redundancy still stands.

This is not a fault: regarding the self, by [answering] these two questions, the identification [of the self] with action, agent, and result … — then it occurred within one's own self alone — [as scripture says:] 'he becomes merged into his own self,' 'then, O gentle one, he becomes united with Being,' 'he is closely embraced by the wise self,' 'he becomes firmly established in the Supreme Self' — from such scriptural statements. For this very reason, nothing comes from anything else; that very point is shown by scripture itself as 'from this self,' because apart from the self there is no other entity. Objection: is there not another substance, distinct from the self, beginning with the vital breath (prāṇa)? No — because even prāṇa and the rest arise from that very self.