Mantra 13

In plain words

Speech is a grasper. Through speech — bound to the limits of the individual self, the very seat of clinging to its objects, forever busy with lies, falsehoods, rudeness, and ugly words — a person's whole world gets seized and carried off; that is exactly why speech counts as a grasper. It gets laid over things simply by naming them; and the result follows: 'then a person becomes—' he says—

Close to the Sanskrit

Speech, indeed, is a grasper. By speech — limited with reference to the self, the seat of the domain of attachment, engaged in false, untrue, uncivil, disgusting, and similar utterances — [a person's] world is seized, carried off; for that reason, speech is a grasper. It is superimposed by name; the effect [follows]: then a person becomes—' he says—

In plain words

We have said that bondage takes the shape of the seizer and the over-seizer, and that this is death's own shape. And because that death — its very persisting — is real, liberation follows as its counterpart. That liberation is nothing but the dissolution, right here and now, of the seizer and the over-seizer, the way a lamp simply goes out. So now, to pin down exactly what drives this bondage called 'the seizer and the over-seizer,' which is death's own shape, the discussion begins: 'Yājñavalkya,' he said.

Now, some people claim this: even once the seizer and the over-seizer, along with whatever drives them, are destroyed, that alone — so they say — is not really release. What is supposedly left is a self that survives in name only, a product of nescience, comparable to a barren salt-flat, arising out of its own ignorant self — cut off from the Supreme Self, excluded from the whole world of experience, its desires and actions spent — and this self, they say, simply sits suspended in between the two. For this in-between self, all that is needed, on their view, is the realization of oneness with the Supreme Self to clear away its last trace of a sense of duality — and that, they claim, is exactly why the knowledge of Brahman is taught for the sake of the human goal, resting on the scriptural passage beginning 'that one, whichever, among the gods...' and so on. But this idea is utterly worthless and has no basis in scripture at all. So we set it aside and return to the actual matter at hand.

Close to the Sanskrit

That which has the form of the seizer and the over-seizer was said to be bondage, having the form of death; and, because that death — the [continued] existence of death — [persists], liberation, too, follows [as its counterpart]. And that liberation is precisely the dissolution, right here, of the forms of the seizer and the over-seizer, like the extinguishing of a lamp. As for that bondage called 'the seizer and the over-seizer,' which has the form of death — for the purpose of ascertaining the essential nature of what impels it, this [discussion] is now begun: 'Yājñavalkya,' said [he].

Here some maintain: even the destruction of the seizer and the over-seizer, together with its impelling cause, does not, it is said, [amount to] release; a [residual self,] remaining only in name, [produced] by nescience — comparable to a barren patch of ground, arising from its own [ignorant] self — limited, excluded from the Supreme Self and from the enjoyable world, its desire and action severed, stands established in an interval [between the two]. For that [residual self], by the vision of oneness with the Supreme Self, [only] the perception of duality is to be removed — [so they say]. For this reason, indeed, the knowledge of Brahman is taught for the sake of the human goal, by the scriptural passage beginning 'that one, whichever, among the gods...' and so on. Therefore this conception is utterly base, and simply outside scripture. But we shall pursue the matter actually at hand.

In plain words

Wanting to pin down exactly what drives this bondage marked by the seizer and the over-grasper, he now asks—

'When this person — someone who has never truly seen, who has a head, hands, and the rest — dies: his speech goes into fire, his breath goes into wind, his eye goes into the sun.' That pattern holds everywhere. 'His mind goes into the moon, his ear into the quarters of space, his body into the earth, his self into space' — here 'self' means the inner seat, the space within the heart; and that, too, dissolves into space. His body-hairs go into the plants, his head-hairs into the trees; his blood and semen are deposited in the waters — and this is exactly the sign that he will take up a body again. Wherever we say 'speech' and the rest, we really mean the deities standing behind them; the organs themselves do not actually leave before liberation comes — they simply lie there, no longer occupied by their deities, like a sickle someone has set down and walked away from. And this bodiless agent, the person, now with no power of his own — what does he depend on then? That is the question: does he depend on the body? What does the person depend on then? On what support does he lean, in order to take up once more this whole combination of cause and effect — the very machinery that sets in motion the bondage of the grasper and the over-grasper? That is exactly what is being asked.

Here is the answer: some thinkers have proposed that bondage is simply inherent nature, or mere chance, or time, or action, or fate, or a conscious agent acting on its own — nothing more. But since this is exactly the sort of question people never stop disagreeing about, no amount of mere argument is going to settle what is actually true. So if you really want to get to the bottom of it, Yājñavalkya said: 'Give me your hand, my friend Ārtabhāga — the two of us alone will work out and settle what you're asking.' 'Why?' 'Because this isn't something we can decide out here, among everyone, in a crowd.' 'So let's go off by ourselves to think it through.' 'The two of them...' and so on is how the scripture puts it. And what did the two of them, Yājñavalkya and Ārtabhāga, actually do once they had gone off alone? Here is the answer: they withdrew from the crowd and talked it over privately. At first they took up each of the popular theories, one at a time, and examined it. Once they had thought it all through, here is what the two of them concluded, setting every one of those earlier positions aside — listen: 'It is karma alone' — naming it as the support, the very reason the whole machinery of cause and effect gets taken up again and again — that is what they said, having worked it out. 'And not only that' — among the causes people commonly point to — time, action, fate, and God — whatever the two of them ended up praising, it was karma they were praising. Because they had established this: that the entire mechanism of grasper and over-grasper, taken up life after life, is driven by karma. That is why 'a good person becomes good through the good action scripture prescribes, and the opposite kind of person becomes the opposite through the opposite kind of action — a sinner through sin.' And so, once Yājñavalkya had settled every one of his questions this way, Ārtabhāga, son of Jaratkāru, found him impossible to shake, and simply fell silent.

Close to the Sanskrit

There, with a desire to ascertain firmly by what this bondage, characterized by the seizer and the over-seizer, is impelled, he says—

'When, of this person who does not see rightly, possessed of a head, hands, and so on, [who is now] dead — speech goes into fire, breath goes into wind, the eye goes into the sun' — thus it is connected in every case; 'the mind [goes] into the moon, the ear into the quarters, the body into the earth, the self into space' — here the self is called the substratum, the space of the heart; that, too, goes into space; the body-hairs go into the plants; the head-hairs go into the trees; and blood and semen are deposited in the waters' — this is the sign of a renewed taking-up [of a body]. For everywhere, by the word 'speech' and the rest, the deities are understood; but the organs by themselves do not depart before liberation; there, the organs, unoccupied by the deities, are comparable to a discarded sickle and the like, and the bodiless agent, the person, being without autonomy — on what does he then depend? — thus it is asked: does the person then depend on the body? — on what does the person then depend? — [the full question is:] relying on which support does he take up again the combination of effect and cause, by which the bondage characterized by the seizer and the over-seizer is set in motion — what is that? Such is the question.

Here it is stated: theories that make [bondage] mere nature, chance, time, action, fate, or a conscious agent — devoid [of anything more] — have been postulated by disputants; therefore, since this is a ground of many disagreements, the determination of the real matter is certainly not [reached] by the method of mere wrangling. If you wish for a determination of the matter here, [Yājñavalkya said:] 'Give [me your] hand, my friend Ārtabhāga — we two alone shall know and ascertain what is to be known about this, which you have asked.' 'Why?' 'This matter cannot be determined by us two in an assembly, in a gathering of people.' 'Therefore we two shall go apart, for deliberation.' 'The two of them...' and so on is the wording of scripture. As to what the two, Yājñavalkya and Ārtabhāga, having gone apart, did — this is now explained: the two of them, having withdrawn from the assembled place, conferred. At first, taking up, one by one, the positions of the various worldly disputants, the two of them deliberated. Having deliberated, what the two of them said, having set aside all the prior positions entirely — listen to that: 'It is karma alone' — [naming] the support, the cause of the repeated taking-up of the combination of effect and instrument — this the two of them stated there, having declared it; 'not merely [that]' — among the causes commonly accepted, [namely] time, action, fate, and God, whatever the two of them praised, it was karma alone that they praised; because this has been established: that the taking-up of the combination of effect and instrument — the seizer, the over-seizer, and so on — again and again, is impelled by karma; therefore, 'the virtuous person indeed becomes [virtuous] through virtuous action enjoined by scripture, and through its opposite becomes the opposite: the sinful [one becomes sinful] through sinful [action].' Thus, when the questions had been settled in this way by Yājñavalkya, then, because Yājñavalkya could not be shaken, Ārtabhāga, son of Jaratkāru, fell silent.

In plain words

Bondage, we have said, is marked by the grasping senses and the objects that grasp them in turn. Freedom is release from bondage together with whatever drives it; being bound is simply going round and round, pulled by that same driver. That driver is death. And because there is, in fact, a death that overtakes death itself, liberation follows. For the one who is free, there is no further road at all — everything of the individual dissolves, and only a name is left behind, the way a lamp goes out. That much is settled. Now, both the one still circling and the one being freed start from the same contact between effect and cause, their own root cause. But for the free, that contact is never taken up again — not ever. For the one still circling, it is taken up again and again. Whatever drives that endless taking-up — that is karma, and careful thought has settled this. Once that karma burns out, what is left is only a name, and that total dissolution is liberation. And this karma has a name too: merit and sin. 'One turns good through good deeds, and bad through bad ones' — scripture has fixed that much. Out of this comes the whole wheel of birth and death. Sin drives a person to suffer among plants and animals that already ache by nature, and among hell-beings, animals, and hungry ghosts — born, dying, born again — and everyone knows it, the way everyone knows the king's own road. But the merit scripture actually cares about — 'one turns good through good deeds' — is exactly the merit scripture keeps stressing here. Good action alone, scripture and tradition agree, is the means to every human goal there is. And since liberation counts as a human goal too, it would seem that action can achieve it as well...

Close to the Sanskrit

Bondage characterized by the grahas and the atigrahas has been stated. Because, together with its impeller, the freed one is released — or, by which one is bound and transmigrates — that is death. And therefore liberation is tenable, because there is a death of death. And for the liberated there is no further destination whatsoever — total dissolution, remaining only as a name, like the extinguishing of a lamp — thus it has been ascertained. There, when the contact of effect-and-cause with its own cause is equally present for both those transmigrating and those being liberated, for the liberated there is absolutely no further taking-up of a body again; but for those transmigrating, there is taking-up again and again. That by which this occurs, for those impelled by it, is karma — thus it has been ascertained, on careful inquiry. And upon the destruction of that karma, the total dissolution that remains only as a name is liberation. And that karma is called 'merit and demerit' — 'one becomes meritorious through meritorious action, sinful through sinful action' — because this has been so ascertained; transmigration is caused by this. There, by demerit, one experiences suffering among the immobile and mobile beings that abound in suffering by their own nature, and among hells, animals, ghosts, and so on, being born again and again and dying — this is as well known to the whole world as the king's highway. But as for the scriptural kind — 'one becomes meritorious through meritorious action' — it is precisely there that scripture places its emphasis. And meritorious action alone is the means to all the goals of human life — so say all the declarations of scripture and tradition. And since liberation, too, is a goal of human life, its attainability by that action...