Mantra 15

In plain words

What we set out to prove — that the self rests in its own light, needing nothing outside itself — has already been shown directly: 'here this person becomes his own light,' the text says of the dream state. But there's another line: 'having become a dream, he passes beyond this world, beyond the very shapes of death.' And here a doubt creeps in: does he pass beyond only the shapes death wears, not death itself? Because look at what plainly happens — even in dream, cut off from the body and its organs, he still feels delight, still feels fear. So it would seem certain that he hasn't transcended death at all: delight and fear are the fruit of past action, and that fruit is exactly what death produces. And if death were built into this self's own nature, freedom would never be possible — nothing is ever freed from its own nature. But if death is not its nature, then freedom becomes possible after all.

To show that death is not part of the self's own nature — Yājñavalkya, pressed by Janaka's request, 'From here on, speak only of liberation,' now turns to prove exactly that —

Close to the Sanskrit

What was under discussion — that this self abides in and of itself, by its own light — that has been established directly: 'here this person becomes self-luminous,' thus, in the dream state. But as for what was said — 'having become a dream, he transcends this world, the forms of death' — there this doubt is raised: does he transcend only the forms of death, not death itself? For this is directly evident: in dream, even for one disjoined from body and organs, the experience of delight, fear, and so on is seen; therefore certainly this one does not transcend death at all; for delight, fear, and so on, being effects of action, are seen to be the effect of death. And if this one is by his very nature indeed bound by death, then liberation would not be possible at all; for no one is ever freed from his own nature. But if death is not his nature, then from that, liberation becomes possible.

In order to show how this death is not an inherent property of the self — Yājñavalkya, thus pressed by Janaka with 'From here on speak of liberation,' sets about demonstrating that very point —

In plain words

This, then, is the very self we have been describing — the one shown to us shining in dream, now met again in this deep calm. It is called saṃprasāda, 'perfect settling,' simply because here the self settles completely. In waking life it carries a kind of murkiness stirred up by a hundred restless activities of body and senses; freed from those in dream, it settles a little. But here, in deep sleep, it settles all the way — that is why deep sleep alone earns the name saṃprasāda. 'He has crossed every sorrow then,' the scripture says, and elsewhere: 'the seer becomes a single, undivided expanse' — both describing this same self at rest in deep sleep. So: this self, in this deep calm, settles by stages, coming finally to rest in deep sleep. How does it settle? On its way from dream toward deep sleep, while still within the dream itself, it takes its fill of pleasure — meeting friends, seeing loved ones — and 'having roamed' simply means it has wandered about enough to grow tired of wandering. 'Having only seen,' not having done, is the key: 'the good' means the fruit of merit, 'the evil' the fruit of demerit — we never said he directly witnesses the deeds themselves, only their fruit. So he is not bound by merit or by demerit. It is the one who actually acts who gets bound by merit and demerit; mere seeing binds no one. He is genuinely never bound — because if the dream-deed were truly his, its bond would follow him out of the dream, still clinging when he woke. But that is not how it works in life: no one holds himself guilty of an offense done in a dream, and no one blames or avoids a person for something they merely dreamed. So he really does remain untouched. What looks like acting in a dream is only appearance; no action ever actually occurs there. The verse itself said 'as if delighting with women' — and anyone telling a dream talks the same way: 'I saw elephants, as it were, all yoked together, running.' That little word 'as if' gives it away: there was no real doer here. Why no doer? Because contact with effects and instruments — body and organs — belongs only to something with form, and that contact is the one thing ever seen to cause action. Nothing formless is ever seen to act, and the self has no form at all — so it is untouched by anything. And because this person carries no attachment, he is untouched by anything seen in dream. That is exactly why no kind of agency can ever really belong to him: agency needs contact with effects and instruments, and that contact — that attachment — simply is not there, because this person is, by nature, unattached. And so: he is deathless. 'Exactly so, Yājñavalkya,' said Janaka. 'I give you a thousand cows. Now, from here on, speak to me only of liberation' — because one piece of what liberation truly is, the clean separation of action from the self, has now been shown plainly. 'From here on, speak only of liberation,' he said.

Close to the Sanskrit

He indeed, this aforementioned self-luminous person — this one who was shown in the dream state — in this saṃprasāda: it is called saṃprasāda because one becomes thoroughly tranquil in it. Having abandoned, in the waking state, the turbidity born from the concourse of a hundred activities of body and senses, and released from them, he becomes somewhat tranquil in dream; but here, in deep sleep, he becomes thoroughly tranquil — hence deep sleep is called saṃprasāda. 'For then he has crossed over all sorrows,' and 'the seer becomes one undivided mass' — thus indeed the scripture will describe the self situated in deep sleep. He indeed, this one, in this saṃprasāda, having gradually become tranquil, remains in deep sleep. How is he tranquil? Wishing to pass from dream into deep sleep, while still in the very state of dream, having delighted — having experienced that delight through the sight of friends, kinsfolk, and the like — 'having roamed' means having sported about in many ways: the meaning is that he obtains the fruit of that roaming, namely fatigue. 'Having only seen,' not having done — that is the meaning; 'the good' means the fruit of merit, 'the evil' means the fruit of demerit; but we did not mean to say that there is direct perception of merit and demerit themselves. Therefore he is not bound by merit and demerit; for whoever actually performs merit and demerit is bound by those two; by mere seeing alone, one would not be bound by it. He does not become bound at all; for if it were indeed done by him in the dream, he would be bound by it — even upon rising from the dream he would remain marked by that consequence. But that is not so in ordinary experience: there is no recognized fact of being bound by an action done in a dream. For no one considers himself an offender on account of an offense committed in a dream; nor, on hearing of an offense seen by a dreamer, do people condemn or shun him. Hence he indeed remains untouched by it. Therefore, in dream he is only perceived as though acting, but in reality no action exists at all. 'As if delighting together with women' — thus the verse has already stated; and those who narrate a dream likewise use the word 'as if' — 'today I saw, as it were, elephants harnessed together, running,' a person says. Hence there is no agency belonging to it. How, again, is there this non-agency? — Contact, by means of effect and instrument, belongs to a corporeal being; that contact alone is observed to be the cause of action. For no incorporeal thing whatsoever is ever seen to possess action; and the self is without form, hence it is unattached. And because this person is unattached, therefore he remains untouched by what is seen in dream. For this very reason, agency in action cannot in any way be established for him; for agency would arise only through contact with effect and instrument. And that contact, that is, attachment, does not exist for him at all, since this person is indeed unattached. Therefore he is deathless. 'Just so is this, O Yājñavalkya; I give a thousand to the venerable one; from here onward speak only of liberation' — because a portion of the true nature of liberation, namely the discernment of action from the self, has now been correctly demonstrated: 'from here onward speak only of liberation,' thus he said.