तदेष श्लोको भवति तदेव सक्तः सह कर्मणैति लिङ्गं मनो यत्र निषक्तमस्य ।प्राप्यान्तं कर्मणस्तस्य यत्किञ्चेह करोत्ययम् ।तस्माल्लोकात्पुनरैत्यस्मै लोकाय कर्मणे ।इति नु कामयमानः ।अथाकामयमानो योऽकामो निष्काम आप्तकाम आत्मकामो न तस्य प्राणा उत्क्रामन्ति ।ब्रह्मैव सन् ब्रह्माप्येति ॥बृह. ४,४.६ ॥
In plain words
On this there is this verse: "Attached, he goes with his work to that place to which his mind and his subtle body cling. Having come to the end of the work he does here, he returns from that world to this world for fresh work." So it is with the man of desire. But of the man without desire — he who is free of desire, whose desires are fulfilled, whose only desire is the Self — the breaths do not go out. Being Brahman he goes to Brahman.
The commentators
Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadbhāṣyam· Leaf 9.282· bhāṣya
‘तत् तस्मिन्नर्थे एष श्लोकः मन्त्रोऽपि भवति । तदेव एति तदेव गच्छति, सक्त आसक्तः तत्र उद्भूताभिलाषः सन्नित्यर्थः ; कथमेति ? सह कर्मणा — यत् कर्म फलासक्तः सन् अकरोत्, तेन कर्मणा सहैव तत् एति तत्फलमेति ; किं तत् ? लिङ्गं मनः — मनःप्रधानत्वाल्लिङ्गस्य मनो लिङ्गमित्युच्यते ; अथवा लिङ्ग्यते अवगम्यते — अवगच्छति — येन, तत् लिङ्गम्, तत् मनः — यत्र यस्मिन् निषक्तं निश्चयेन सक्तम् उद्भूताभिलाषम् अस्य संसारिणः ; तदभिलाषो हि तत्कर्म कृतवान् ; तस्मान्तन्मनोऽभिषङ्गवशादेव अस्य तेन कर्मणा तत्फलप्राप्तिः । तेन एतत्सिद्धं भवति, कामो मूलं संसारस्येति । अतः उच्छिन्नकामस्य विद्यमानान्यपि कर्माणि ब्रह्मविदः वन्ध्याप्रसवानि भवन्ति, ‘पर्याप्तकामस्य कृतात्मनश्च इहैव सर्वे प्रविलीयन्ति कामाः’ इति श्रुतेः । किंच प्राप्यान्तं कर्मणः — प्राप्य भुक्त्वा अन्तम् अवसानं यावत्, कर्मणः फलपरिसमाप्तिं कृत्वेत्यर्थः ; कस्य कर्मणोऽन्तं प्राप्येत्युच्यते — तस्य, यत्किंच कर्म इह अस्मिन् लोके करोति निर्वर्तयति अयम्, तस्य कर्मणः फलं भुक्त्वा अन्तं प्राप्य, तस्मात् लोकात् पुनः ऐति आगच्छति, अस्मै लोकाय कर्मणे — अयं हि लोकः कर्मप्रधानः, तेनाह ‘कर्मणे’ इति — पुनः कर्मकरणाय ; पुनः कर्म कृत्वा फला-
In plain words
On this point there is a verse — and it's scripture too, not just later teaching. 'He goes to exactly what he was attached to' — 'attached' simply means desire had taken hold of him toward that thing. How does he get there? 'Together with the action' — whatever he did while chasing its result, that very deed carries him to it; he ends up with its fruit. And what carries him? 'The mind is the sign' — mind is called the vehicle because it is the dominant part of the subtle body; or, put another way, it's called that because it is the very thing by which we infer what's going on inside someone — and that vehicle is fixed, firmly and decisively, on whatever this wandering soul desires. It was the wanting itself that drove the deed; so it is purely because the mind clung to that object that the person ends up reaping that fruit through that action. This settles it: desire is the root of the whole wandering existence. That's why, for someone who knows brahman and has cut desire off at the root, even the actions still sitting there go nowhere — they become as fruitless as a barren woman's child, just as scripture says: 'For one whose longing is satisfied, whose self is complete, every desire dissolves away right here.' And there's more: 'having reached the end of the action' means having lived it out completely — used up its fruit down to the last drop. Whose action's end is this? The action of whoever is doing something, anything, here in this world — once he has enjoyed its fruit fully and reached the end of it, he comes back from that other world to this one, in order to act again — because this world runs on action, which is exactly why the text says 'for action': to do it all over again. And having acted again, [taking in] its fruit—
Close to the Sanskrit
On this matter, this verse — which is also a Vedic mantra — occurs. 'He goes to that very thing, he attains that very thing' — 'attached' means 'clinging,' that is, being one in whom desire for it has arisen. How does he go? 'Together with the action' — whatever action he performed while attached to its fruit, together with that very action he goes to it; he attains its fruit. What is that [sign]? 'The sign is the mind' — because the mind is the chief element of the subtle body, the mind is called the 'sign'; or else, that by which one infers or understands is the 'sign,' and that is the mind — that on which this transmigrator's mind, in which desire has arisen, is firmly and decisively fixed. For it was desire for that object which made him perform that action; therefore, precisely because of the mind's attachment to it, he attains that fruit by means of that action. By this it is established that desire is the root of transmigratory existence. Therefore, for the knower of brahman whose desire has been cut off, even the actions that still remain become like the offspring of a barren woman, on the authority of the scriptural text: 'For one whose desires are fulfilled, whose self is accomplished, all desires dissolve away right here.' Further, 'having reached the end of the action' — 'having reached' means having enjoyed it up to its termination, that is, having brought the fruit of the action to completion. Of whose action's end is this said? Of that action which this person performs and carries out here in this world — having enjoyed the fruit of that action and reached its end, he comes back again from that world to this world, for action — for this world is one in which action predominates, and that is why the text says 'for action,' meaning: to perform action again. Having performed action again, [enjoying] its fruit—
Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadbhāṣyam· Leaf 9.283· bhāṣya
सङ्गवशात् पुनरमुं लोकं याति — इत्येवम् । इति नु एवं नु, कामयमानः संसरति । यस्मात् कामयमान एव एवं संसरति, अथ तस्मात्, अकामयमानो न कचित्संसरति । फलासक्तस्य हि गतिरुक्ता ; अकामस्य हि क्रियानुपपत्तेः अकामयमानो मुच्यत एव । कथं पुनः अकामयमानो भवति ? यः अकामो भवति, असौ अकामयमानः । कथमकामतेत्युच्यते — यो निष्कामः यस्मान्निर्गताः कामाः सोऽयं निष्कामः । कथं कामा निर्गच्छन्ति ? य आप्तकामः भवति आप्ताः कामा येन स आप्तकामः । कथमाप्यन्ते कामाः ? आत्मकामत्वेन, यस्य आत्मैव नान्यः कामयितव्यो वस्त्वन्तरभूतः पदार्थो भवति ; आत्मैव अनन्तरोऽबाह्यः कृत्स्नः प्रज्ञानघन एकरसः नोर्ध्वं न तिर्यक् नाधः आत्मनोऽन्यत् कामयितव्यं वस्त्वन्तरम् — यस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्, शृणुयात्, मन्वीत, विजानीयाद्वा — एवं विजानन्कं कामयेत । ज्ञायमानो ह्यन्यत्वेन पदार्थः कामयितव्यो भवति ; न चासावन्यः ब्रह्मविद् आप्तकामस्यास्ति । य एवात्मकामतया आप्तकामः, स निष्कामः अकामः अकामयमानश्चेति मुच्यते । न हि यस्य आत्मैव सर्वं भवति, तस्य अनात्मा कामयितव्योऽस्ति । अनात्मा चान्यः कामयितव्यः, सर्वं च आत्मैवाभूदिति विप्रतिषिद्धम् । सर्वात्मद् र्शिनः कामयितव्याभावात्कर्मानुपपत्तिः । ये तु प्रत्यवायपरिहारार्थं कर्म कल्पयन्ति ब्रह्मविदोऽपि, तेषां न आत्मैव सर्वं भवति, प्रत्यवायस्य जिहासितव्यस्य आत्मनोऽन्यस्य अभिप्रेतत्वात् । येन च अशनायाद्यतीतः नित्यं प्रत्यवायासंबद्धः विदित आत्मा, तं वयं ब्रह्मविदं ब्रूमः ; नित्यमेव अशनायाद्यतीतमात्मानं पश्यति ; यस्माच्च जिहासितव्यमन्यम् उपादेयं वा यो न पश्यति, तस्य कर्म न शक्यत एव संबन्धुम् । यस्तु अब्रह्मवित्, तस्य भवत्येव प्रत्यवायपरिहारार्थं कर्मेति न विरोधः । अतः कामाभावात् अकामयमानो न जायते, मुच्यत एव ॥
In plain words
Because that attachment is still clinging to him, he goes back to that world again — that's how it works. 'Thus, indeed' — that's what those two words in the verse mean: someone who desires keeps wandering, exactly as described. And since it's only the desiring one who wanders like that, it follows that the one without desire doesn't wander anywhere at all. We've already traced the path of someone attached to results; and since action simply can't happen without desire driving it, someone free of desire is, without exception, free. But how does someone actually get there — how does a person become desireless? Simple: whoever has no desire left is exactly that. And what does having no desire mean? It means every desire has left him — that is what 'free of desire' means. How do desires leave? By already having what they were after — that's what 'satisfied' means. And how are desires satisfied, once and for all? By wanting nothing but the Self. For someone like that, the Self is everything, and there simply isn't a second thing left over to want. The Self has no inside and no outside, it is whole, one solid mass of awareness, one single flavor through and through — there is nothing above it, beside it, or beneath it that could ever be a separate object to want. When everything has become nothing but the Self for someone, what could he possibly see, hear, think about, or know as something apart from himself? Knowing that, what would there even be left to want? An object can only be wanted once it's recognized as something other than you — and for someone who knows brahman and already has everything, there is no 'other' left to spot. Whoever's only desire is the Self, and is satisfied in that way, is free of desire, without desire, and not desiring — and that is exactly why he is free. Because for someone whose everything is the Self, there is no not-self left over to want. Saying 'there's a not-self, something other, to be wanted' and saying 'everything has become the Self' can't both be true — they cancel each other out. And once you see everything as the Self, there's nothing left to want, so action itself no longer makes sense for you. But there are people who call themselves knowers of brahman and still prescribe rituals just to keep sin at bay — for them, the Self hasn't actually become everything, because they still take something other than the Self seriously: the sin they're trying to avoid. Whoever, though, knows the Self as forever beyond hunger and its like, forever untouched by sin — that's who we call a real knower of brahman. He sees the Self this way permanently, not just sometimes. And since he sees nothing else at all, nothing to reject and nothing to chase, there's simply no way to hook action onto him. Someone who hasn't realized brahman, though, really does need action to avoid sin — so there's no contradiction here at all. So, in the end: because desire is gone, the desireless person is never born again. He is simply, completely free.
Close to the Sanskrit
Owing to the force of attachment, he goes again to that world — thus, in this way. 'iti nu' [in the verse] means 'thus indeed'; [that is:] one who desires transmigrates. Since it is only the one who desires who transmigrates in this way, therefore the one who does not desire does not transmigrate at all. For the destiny of one attached to the fruit has already been stated; for, since action is not possible for one without desire, the one who does not desire is indeed liberated. But how does one become 'not desiring'? He who is without desire, he is 'the one who does not desire.' How is desirelessness described? He who is 'free of desire' — that is, he from whom desires have departed, he is 'free of desire.' How do desires depart? He who is 'one whose desires are fulfilled' — that is, by whom desires have been attained, he is 'one whose desires are fulfilled.' How are desires attained? By being 'one whose only desire is the Self' — that is, for whom the Self alone exists, and there is no other separate thing to be desired; the Self alone — without an inside, without an outside, entire, a mass of consciousness, of a single essence — there is neither above, nor across, nor below, any thing separate from the Self to be desired; for one to whom everything has become the Self alone, by what would he see anything, hear, think, or know as other? — knowing thus, what would he desire? For it is an object known as something other that becomes desirable; and for the knower of brahman whose desires are fulfilled, no such 'other' exists. He who, by having the Self alone as his desire, is one whose desires are fulfilled — he is free of desire, desireless, and 'not desiring'; and thus he is liberated. For one for whom the Self alone is everything, there is no non-self for him to desire. 'A non-self, something other, is to be desired' and 'everything has become the Self alone' — these contradict each other. For one who sees everything as the Self, because there is nothing to be desired, action is not possible. But those who, even though claiming to be knowers of brahman, prescribe action for the sake of avoiding sin — for them the Self is not everything, because something other than the Self, namely the sin to be abandoned, is still held to be real by them. And he by whom the Self is known as one who has transcended hunger and the like, eternally unconnected with sin — him we call a knower of brahman; he perceives the Self as ever transcending hunger and the like; and since he who sees nothing else, whether to be abandoned or to be taken up, action cannot possibly be connected to him at all. But for one who is not a knower of brahman, action for the sake of avoiding sin does indeed exist — so there is no contradiction. Therefore, because desire is absent, the one who does not desire is not born again; he is indeed liberated.
Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadbhāṣyam· Leaf 9.284· bhāṣya
तस्य एवमकामयमानस्य कर्माभावे गमनकारणाभावात् प्राणा वागादयः, नोत्क्रामन्ति नोर्ध्वं क्रामन्ति देहात् । स च विद्वान् आप्तकामः आत्मकामतया इहैव ब्रह्मभूतः । सर्वात्मनो हि ब्रह्मणः दृष्टान्तत्वेन प्रदर्शितम् एतद्रूपम्— 'तद्वा अस्यैतदाप्तकाममकामं रूपम्' इति ; तस्य हि दार्ष्टान्तिकभूतोऽयमर्थ उपसंह्रियते— अथाकामयमान इत्यादिना । स कथमेवंभूतो मुच्यत इत्युच्यते— यो हि सुषुप्तावस्थमिव निर्विशेषमद्वैतम् अलुप्तचिद्रूपज्योतिःस्वभावम् आत्मानं पश्यति, तस्यैव अकामयमानस्य कर्माभावे गमनकारणाभावात् प्राणा वागादयो नोत्क्रामन्ति । किंतु विद्वान् सः इहैव ब्रह्म, यद्यपि देहवानिव लक्ष्यते ; स ब्रह्मैव सन् ब्रह्म अप्येति । यस्मात् न हि तस्य अब्रह्मत्वपरिच्छेदहेतवः कामाः सन्ति, तस्मात् इहैव ब्रह्मैव सन् ब्रह्म अप्येति न शरीरपातोत्तरकालम् । न हि विदुषो मृतस्य भावान्तरापत्तिः जीवतोऽन्यः भावः, देहान्तरप्रतिसंधानाभावमात्रेणैव तु ब्रह्माप्येतीत्युच्यते । भावान्तरापत्तौ हि मोक्षस्य सर्वोपनिषद्विवक्षितोऽर्थः आत्मैकत्वाख्यः स बाधितो भवेत् ; कर्महेतुकश्च मोक्षः प्राप्नोति, न ज्ञाननिमित्त इति ; 'स चानिष्टः ; अनित्यत्वं च मोक्षस्य प्राप्नोति ; न हि क्रियानिर्वृत्तः अर्थः नित्यो दृष्टः ; नित्यश्च मोक्षोऽभ्युपगम्यते, 'एष नित्यो महिमा' इति मन्त्रवर्णात् । न च स्वाभाविकात् स्वभावात् अन्यत् नित्यं कल्पयितुं शक्यम् । स्वाभाविकश्चेत् अग्न्युष्णवत् आत्मनः स्वभावः, स न शक्यते पुरुषव्यापारानुभावीति वक्तुम् ; न हि अग्नेरौष्ण्यं प्रकाशो वा अग्निव्यापारानन्तरानुभावी ; अग्निव्यापारानुभावी स्वाभाविकश्चेति विप्रतिषिद्धम् । ज्वलनव्यापारानुभावित्वम् उष्णप्रकाशयोरिति चेत्, न, अन्योपलब्धिव्यवधानापगमाभिव्यक्त्यपेक्षत्वात् ; ज्वलनादिपूर्वकम् अग्निः उष्णप्रकाशगुणाभ्यामभिव्यज्यते, तत् न अग्न्यपेक्षया ; किं तर्हि अन्यदृष्टेः अग्नेरौष्ण्यप्रकाशौ धर्मौ व्यवहितौ, कस्यचिद्दृष्ट्या तु असंबंध्यमानौ, ज्वलनापे- क्षया व्यवधानापगमे दृष्टेरभिव्यज्येते ; तदपेक्षया भ्रान्तिरु-पजायते-- ज्वलनपूर्वकौ एतौ उष्णप्रकाशौ धर्मौ जाता-विति । यदि उष्णप्रकाशयोरपि स्वाभाविकत्वं न स्यात्- यः स्वाभाविकोऽग्नेर्धर्मः, तमुदाहरिष्यामः ; न च स्वाभाविको धर्म एव नास्ति पदार्थानामिति शक्यं वक्तुम् ॥
In plain words
For someone who no longer wants anything, there is no action left to drive him anywhere, so nothing carries his breath and his organs — speech and the rest — out and upward through the body. They simply stay. A person who knows this, whose only desire was the Self itself, has already, right here, become brahman. Earlier the text pointed to exactly this as an image of the one Self of everything: 'This is what he looks like, this one whose every desire is fulfilled, who wants for nothing.' Now it draws the actual case together, in the phrase 'one who has stopped desiring.' And how is someone like this set free? Like this: the one who sees the Self as it really is — undivided, without a second, the way it is in deep dreamless sleep, nothing but the unbroken light of awareness itself — that very person, wanting nothing, has no action left and so nothing to drive his breath out of his body. He is brahman right here, even though from the outside he still looks like someone with a body. Already brahman, he simply merges into brahman. He has no desires left that could mark him off as something less than brahman — so he is brahman right now, not at some later moment after his body falls away. When a knower dies, nothing new happens to him that didn't already apply to him living: 'he attains brahman' means nothing more than that he does not pick up another body. If death actually produced some new state, the entire point every Upanishad is making — that the Self is one, without a second — would collapse; liberation would then be the product of action, not of knowledge, and that is unacceptable. It would also make liberation temporary, because nothing an action produces ever lasts, while scripture calls liberation eternal: 'this glory is eternal.' And nothing can be eternal except what already belongs to a thing's own nature. If freedom is simply the Self's own nature — the way heat belongs to fire — then it cannot possibly be something that shows up only after a person makes an effort. Fire's heat and its light are not produced the instant the fire acts; to say they both come right out of the fire's activity and are also natural to it is a plain contradiction. Someone might say: heat and light only 'become evident' once burning happens. Fine — but that is simply because someone else's perception was in the way, and burning removes that obstruction; it is not that burning produces them. Fire, once burning starts, becomes visible through its heat and light — but that visibility isn't what makes the fire what it is. What actually happens is this: heat and light were there all along as fire's own properties, just unconnected to a particular observer's awareness; once burning clears the obstruction, that observer's perception catches up, and only then does it look, mistakenly, as if the burning had produced them. If you insist that even heat and light aren't natural to fire, then show us what is — because you cannot claim that nothing has a nature of its own.
Close to the Sanskrit
Of him who is thus without desire, since there is no action, and therefore no cause for departure, the vital breaths — speech and the rest — do not depart; they do not go upward out of the body. And that knower, having attained all his desires, is, by making the Self alone his desire, brahman itself, right here. For, as an illustration of brahman as the Self of all, this very form was shown earlier: 'That indeed is this form of his, of one whose desire is attained, who is without desire' — thus it was said; and it is the corresponding case for that illustration which is now being summed up, by the passage beginning 'now, one without desire' and so on. How does one who has become such attain release? — this is now explained: he who sees the Self as free of distinction, non-dual, like the state of deep sleep, whose nature is the unceasing light of pure consciousness — of that very one, being without desire, since there is no action and no cause for departure, the vital breaths — speech and the rest — do not depart. Rather, that knower is brahman right here, even though he appears as embodied; being brahman itself, he attains brahman. Because he has no desires that would be causes for limiting him as not-brahman, therefore, right here, being brahman itself, he attains brahman — not at a time after the falling of the body. For the dead knower's attainment of a different state is not a state different from that of the living one; it is said that he 'attains brahman' by the mere absence of taking up another body, and by nothing more. For if there were an attainment of a different state, then the meaning that all the Upanishads intend regarding liberation — namely, the oneness of the Self — would be contradicted; and liberation would come to be caused by action, not brought about by knowledge — and that would be undesirable; and impermanence would then attach to liberation, for a thing produced by an action is never observed to be permanent; yet liberation is accepted as permanent, on the authority of the Vedic wording, 'this glory is eternal.' And it is not possible to conceive of anything permanent other than what is natural, one's own inherent nature. If that freedom, like the heat of fire, is the Self's natural condition, then it cannot be said to be something dependent on, and following, a person's effort; for indeed neither the heat of fire nor its light immediately follows upon the fire's own activity; to say that they follow upon fire's activity and are yet natural is self-contradictory. If it be objected that heat and light 'follow upon the activity of burning' in that sense — no, because that is due only to a dependence on the removal of an obstruction caused by another perception; fire, preceded by burning and the like, becomes manifest through the two qualities heat and light — that does not depend on fire itself; rather, because of another's perception, the two properties heat and light of the fire were kept obscured, unconnected in some perceiver's perception, and, through the agency of burning, they become manifest to that perception only when the obstruction is removed; and, depending on that, the mistaken notion arises that these two properties, heat and light, were produced, preceded by the burning. If it is claimed that even heat and light are not themselves natural — then let them point out to us whatever property of fire is natural; and it cannot be said that no natural property whatsoever exists for things.
Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadbhāṣyam· Leaf 9.286· bhāṣya
न च निगडभङ्ग इव अभावभूतो मोक्षः बन्धननिवृत्ति-रूपपद्यते, परमात्मैकत्वाभ्युपगमात् , ' एकमेवाद्वितीयम् ' इति श्रुतेः ; न चान्यो बद्धोऽस्ति, यस्य निगडनिवृत्तिवत् बन्धननिवृत्तिः मोक्षः स्यात्; परमात्मव्यतिरेकेण अन्यस्या-भावं विस्तरेण अवादिष्म । तस्मात् अविद्यानिवृत्तिमात्रे मोक्षव्यवहार इति च अवोचाम , यथा रज्ज्वादौ सर्पाद्यज्ञा-ननिवृत्तौ सर्पादिविनिवृत्तिः ॥
In plain words
And liberation cannot be some kind of absence, like a chain snapping open — because there is only the one supreme Self, exactly as the scripture says: 'one only, without a second.' There is no separate someone out there in bonds, waiting for that bondage to be undone like a fetter falling away; we have already shown at length that apart from the one Self, nothing else exists at all. So when we speak of liberation, what we actually mean is simply the ending of ignorance — nothing more. It is exactly like the rope you mistook for a snake: the moment you stop seeing the snake, the snake is gone, because it was never there to begin with.
Close to the Sanskrit
And liberation is not tenable as being of the nature of the mere cessation of bondage, an absence-entity like the breaking of a fetter, because oneness with the supreme Self is accepted, on the authority of the scripture 'one only, without a second.' Nor is there any other bound being, of whom liberation could be the cessation of bondage in the manner of the removal of a fetter; we have argued at length that, apart from the supreme Self, nothing else exists. Therefore we have also said that the term 'liberation' applies to the mere cessation of ignorance — just as, when the ignorance of a snake and the like superimposed on a rope ceases, the snake and the rest simply disappear.