स होवाचोषस्तश्चाक्रायणः यथा वै ब्रूयादसौ गौरसावश्व इत्येवमेवैतद्व्यपदिष्टं भवति ।यदेव साक्षादपरोक्षाद्ब्रह्म य आत्मा सर्वान्तरस्तं मे व्याचक्ष्वेति ।एष त आत्मा सर्वान्तरः ।कतमो याज्ञवल्क्य सर्वान्तरः ।न दृष्टेर्द्रष्टारं पश्येः ।न श्रुतेः श्रोतारं शृणुयाः ।न मतेर्मन्तारं मन्वीथा ।न विज्ञातेर्विज्ञातारं विजानीयाः ।एष त आत्मा सर्वान्तरः ।अतोऽन्यदार्तम् ।ततो होषस्तश्चाक्रायण उपरराम ॥बृह. ३,४.२ ॥
In plain words
Uṣasta Cākrāyaṇa said, "That is spoken of only as one might say, 'This is a cow, this is a horse.' Explain to me that Brahman which is manifest and not hidden, the Self that is within all." "This is thy Self that is within all." "Which one, Yājñavalkya, is within all?" "Thou couldst not see the seer of seeing, nor hear the hearer of hearing, nor think the thinker of thinking, nor know the knower of knowing. This is thy Self that is within all. Anything other than this is subject to suffering." Thereupon Uṣasta Cākrāyaṇa fell silent.
The commentators
Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadbhāṣyam· Leaf 9.70· bhāṣya
स होवाचोषस्तश्चाक्रायणः ; यथा कश्चित् अन्यथा प्र- तिज्ञाय पूर्वम्, पुनर्विप्रतिपन्नो ब्रूयादन्यथा— असौ गौरः असावश्वः यश्चलति धावतीति वा, पूर्वं प्रत्यक्षं दर्शयामीति प्रतिज्ञाय, पश्चात् चलनादिलिङ्गैर्व्यपदिशति— एवमेव एतद्ब्रह्म प्राणनादिलिङ्गैर्व्यपदिष्टं भवति त्वया ; किं बहुना ? त्यक्त्वा गोतृष्णानिमित्तं व्याजम्, यदेव साक्षादपरोक्षा- द्ब्रह्म य आत्मा सर्वान्तरः, तं मे व्याचक्ष्वेति । इतर आह— यथा मया प्रथमं प्रतिज्ञातः तव आत्मा— एवंल- क्षण इति— तां प्रतिज्ञामनुवर्त एव ; तत् तथैव, यथोक्तं मया । यत्पुनरुक्तम्, तमात्मानं घटादिवत् विषयीकुर्वीति- तत् अशक्यत्वान्न क्रियते । कस्मात्पुनः तदशक्यमित्याह- वस्तुस्वाभाव्यात् ; किं पुनः तत् वस्तुस्वाभाव्यम् ? द्रष्टृत्वा- दिद्रष्टृत्वम् ; द्रष्टेर्द्रष्टा ह्यात्मा ; दृष्टिरिति द्विविधा भवति- लौकिकी पारमार्थिकी चेति ; तत्र लौकिकी चक्षुःसंयुक्ता- न्तःकरणवृत्तिः ; सा क्रियत इति जायते विनश्यति च ;
In plain words
Uṣasta Cākrāyaṇa answered: Suppose someone first promises to show you a thing directly, and then backs off and instead just describes it -- 'that's the ox, that's the horse, the one that's moving, the one that's running.' He promised to show it to your eyes, and instead he's pointing at clues. That is exactly what you've done with brahman -- you promised it directly, and you've only given us clues, like breathing. So let's drop the whole business about the cow -- that pretext is gone. Just show me, plainly and directly, that brahman which is the self inside everything. Yājñavalkya answers: I stand by exactly what I first told you about your self -- nothing has changed, it is exactly as I said. But you're also asking for something else: that I hand you this self the way I'd hand you a pot, as an object you can turn around and look at. That cannot be done -- not because I'm holding back, but because it is simply impossible. And why impossible? Because of what this self actually is: it is the seer. Seeing itself, nothing beyond it. The seer of any act of seeing is the self -- that is the whole point. Now seeing comes in two kinds: the ordinary, everyday kind, and the kind that is real in the deepest sense. The ordinary kind is just the mind's activity working through the eye -- and because it is something produced, it is born, and it dies.
Close to the Sanskrit
Uṣasta Cākrāyaṇa said: just as someone, having first promised one thing, might then, having changed his stand, say something else instead -- 'that is an ox, that is a horse, the one that moves, that runs' -- having first promised 'I will show it directly,' and afterward indicating it by marks such as moving -- in just this way this brahman has been indicated by you through marks such as breathing; what need of more words? Setting aside the pretext raised for the cow's sake, that very brahman which is directly present, unmediated, the self within all -- that, explain to me. The other one says: as I first promised, your self is characterized thus -- I stand by that very promise; that remains exactly as I said. But as for what was further demanded -- that this self be made an object like a pot and so on -- that is not done, because it is impossible. Asked further why it is impossible, he says: because of the very nature of the thing. Asked further what that nature of the thing is: because of being the seer -- seer-hood itself, precisely; for the seer of seeing is indeed the self. Now 'seeing' is of two kinds -- the empirical and the absolutely real. Of these, the empirical is a modification of the inner organ joined with the eye; being produced, it arises and it perishes.
Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadbhāṣyam· Leaf 9.71· bhāṣya
या तु आत्मनो दृष्टिः अग्न्युष्णप्रकाशादिवत्, सा च द्रष्टुः स्वरूपत्वात्, न जायते न विनश्यति च; सा क्रियमाणया उपाधिभूतया संसृष्टेवेति, व्यपदिश्यते- द्रष्टेति, भेदवच्च- द्रष्टा दृष्टिरिति च; यासौ लौकिकी दृष्टिः चक्षुर्द्वारा रूपोपरक्ता जायमानैव नित्यया आत्मदृष्ट्या संसृष्टेव, तत्प्रतिच्छाया- तया व्याप्तैव जायते, तथा विनश्यति च; तेन उपचर्यते द्रष्टा सदा पश्यन्नपि- पश्यति न पश्यति चेति; न तु पुनः द्रष्टुर्दृष्टेः कदाचिदप्यन्यथात्वम्; तथा च वक्ष्यति षष्ठे- ‘ध्यायतीव लेलायतीव’, ‘न हि द्रष्टुर्दृष्टेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यते’ इति च । तमिममर्थमाह- लौकिक्या दृष्टेः कर्मभूतायाः, द्रष्टारं स्वकीयया नित्यया दृष्ट्या व्याप्तारम्, न पश्येः; यासौ लौकिकी दृष्टिः कर्मभूता, सा रूपोपरक्ता रूपाभिव्यञ्जिका न आत्मानं स्वात्मनो व्याप्तारं प्रत्यञ्चं व्याप्नोति; तस्मात् तं प्रत्यगात्मानं दृष्टेर्द्रष्टारं न पश्येः । तथा श्रुतेः श्रोतारं न शृणुयाः । तथा मतेः मनोवृत्तेः केवलाया व्यापारं न मन्वीथाः । तथा विज्ञातेः केवलाया बुद्धिवृत्तेः व्यापारं न विजानीयाः । एष वस्तुनः स्वभावः; अतः नैव दर्शयितुं शक्यते गवादिवत् ॥
In plain words
But the self's own seeing is nothing like that. It is like fire's heat, like its light -- simply what the seer is made of, so it is never born and it never dies. When it seems to mix with something that is being produced -- some passing condition -- people start calling it 'the seer,' and, as if a real gap had opened up between them, they speak of 'the seer' on one side and 'the seeing' on the other. That ordinary, everyday seeing comes in through the eye, gets colored by whatever it lands on, and seems, the moment it arises, to fuse with the self's own changeless seeing. Really it is just a reflection of that seeing, and being only a reflection, it arises, and it dies away again. That's exactly why we casually say of the seer -- who is in fact seeing every single moment -- that he 'sees' and then 'doesn't see.' But nothing ever actually happens to the seer's own seeing, not once, not ever. And this is exactly what gets said later, in the sixth section: 'it seems to meditate, it seems to waver' -- and, 'the seer's seeing never lapses.' Here is the point, put directly: don't mistake the everyday seeing -- which is just an object -- for the seer himself, the one who pervades it through his own unchanging vision. That everyday seeing gets colored by shapes, it reveals shapes -- but it cannot reach the self, the one who quietly pervades it from within, facing inward, away from every object. So don't look for that inner self, the seer behind seeing, as if he were something to be seen. In the same way, don't listen for the hearer behind hearing. Don't treat the mind's bare activity as if it were the thinker. Don't treat the intellect's bare activity as if it were the knower. This is simply what that reality is -- and that is exactly why it can never be pointed out the way you'd point out a cow.
Close to the Sanskrit
But that seeing which belongs to the self, like fire's heat and light and so on, being of the very nature of the seer, neither arises nor perishes; joined, as it were, with what is being produced -- what has become a limiting condition -- it is spoken of as 'the seer', and, as if there were a difference, as 'the seer' and 'the seeing' respectively. That empirical seeing which, arising through the eye, tinged with form, appears joined with the eternal seeing of the self -- being pervaded by its reflection, it arises, and likewise it perishes. On that account the seer is spoken of, though always seeing, as 'he sees, he does not see.' But there is never, at any time, any alteration of the seer's own seeing. And so it will be said, in the sixth chapter: 'it seems to meditate, it seems to waver' and 'for there is no lapse of the seer's seeing.' This very point he now states: of the empirical seeing, which has become an object, you should not see the seer -- the one pervading by his own eternal seeing -- as its object. That empirical seeing, having become an object, tinged with form, revealing form, does not reach the self, the inward-facing one who pervades its own self. Therefore you should not see that inner self, the seer of seeing, as an object. Likewise you should not hear the hearer of hearing. Likewise you should not think of the mere functioning of the mind's activity as the thinker. Likewise you should not cognize the mere functioning of the intellect's activity as the knower. This is the very nature of that reality; therefore it simply cannot be shown, the way a cow and so on can be shown.