तदेष श्लोको भवति यदा सर्वे प्रमुच्यन्ते कामा येऽस्य हृदि श्रिताः ।अथ मर्त्योऽमृतो भवत्यत्र ब्रह्म समश्नुत इति ।तद्यथाहिनिर्ल्वयनी वल्मीके मृता प्रत्यस्ता शयीत ।एवमेवेदं शरीरं शेते ।अथायमशरीरोऽमृतः प्राणो ब्रह्मैव तेज एव ।सोऽहं भगवते सहस्रं ददामीति होवाच जनको वैदेहः ॥४,४.७ ॥
In plain words
On this there is this verse: "When all the desires that rest in his heart are let go, then the mortal becomes immortal and here attains Brahman." As the slough of a snake lies dead and cast off upon an ant-hill, so lies this body; and this bodiless, immortal breath is Brahman alone, is light alone. "I give thee a thousand cows, sir," said Janaka of Videha.
The commentators
Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadbhāṣyam· Leaf 9.286· bhāṣya
येऽप्याचक्षते-- मोक्षे ' विज्ञानान्तरम् आनन्दान्तरं च अभिव्यज्यत इति, तैर्वक्तव्यः अभिव्यक्तिशब्दार्थः । यदि तावत् लौकिक्येव उपलब्धिविषयव्याप्तिः अभिव्यक्तिश-ब्दार्थः, ततो वक्तव्यम्--किं विद्यमानमभिव्यज्यते, अविद्य-मानमिति वा । विद्यमानं चेत्, यस्य मुक्तस्य तदभिव्य-ज्यते तस्य आत्मभूतमेव तत् इति, उपलब्धिब्यवधानानुप-पत्तेः नित्याभिव्यक्तत्वात् , मुक्तस्य अभिव्यज्यत इति विशे-षवचनमनर्थकम् । अथ कदाचिदेव अभिव्यज्यते, उपल- न्निधव्यवधानात् अनात्मभूतं तदिति, अन्यतोऽभिव्यक्तिप्रसङ्गः ; तथा च अभिव्यक्तिसाधनापेक्षता । उपलब्धिसमानाश्रयत्वे तु व्यवधानकल्पनानुपपत्तेः सर्वदा अभिव्यक्तिः, अनभिव्यक्तिर्वा ; न तु अन्तरालकल्पनायां प्रमाणमस्ति । न च समानाश्रयाणाम् एकस्य आत्मभूतानां धर्माणाम् इतरेतरविषयविषयित्वं संभवति । विज्ञानसुखयोश्च प्रागभिव्यक्तेः संसारित्वम्, अभिव्यक्त्युत्तरकालं च मुक्तत्वं यस्य- सोऽन्यः परस्मात् नित्याभिव्यक्तज्ञानस्वरूपात् 'अत्यन्तवैलक्षण्यात्, शैत्यमिव औष्ण्यात् ; परमात्मभेदकल्पनायां च वैदिकः कृतान्तः परित्यक्तः स्यात् । मोक्षस्य इदानीमिव निर्विशेषत्वे तदर्थाधिकयत्नानुपपत्तिः शास्त्रवैयर्थ्यं च प्राप्नोतीति चेत्, न, अविद्याभ्रमापोहार्थत्वात् ; न हि वस्तुतो मुक्तामुक्तत्वविशेषोऽस्ति, आत्मनो नित्यैकरूपत्वात् ; किंतु तद्विषया अविद्या अपोह्यते शास्त्रोपदेशजनितविज्ञानेन ; प्राक्तदुपदेशप्राप्तेः तदर्थश्च प्रयत्न उपपद्यत एव । अविद्यावतः अविद्यानिवृत्त्यनिवृत्तिकृतः विशेषः आत्मनः स्यादिति चेत्, न, अविद्याकल्पनाविषयत्वाभ्युपगमात्, रज्जूषरशुक्तिकागगनानां सर्पोदकरजतमलिनत्वादिवत्, अदोष इत्यवोचाम । तिमिरातिमिरदृष्टिवत् अविद्याकर्तृत्वअकर्तृत्वकृत आत्मनो विशेषः स्यादिति चेत्, न, 'ध्यायतीव लेलायतीव' इति च उक्त्वा उपसंहृतं प्रकरणम्- 'इति नु कामयमानः' इति । 'अथाकामयमानः' इत्यारभ्य सुषुप्तदृष्टान्तस्य दार्ष्टान्तिकभूतः सर्वात्मभावो मोक्ष उक्तः । मोक्षकारणं च आत्मकामतया यत् आप्तकामत्युक्तम्, तच्च सामर्थ्यात् न आत्मज्ञानमन्तरेण आत्मकामतया आप्तकामत्वमिति- सामर्थ्यात् ब्रह्मविद्यैव मोक्षकारणमित्युक्तम् । अतः यद्यपि कामो मूलमित्युक्तम्, तथापि मोक्षकारणविपर्ययेण बन्धकारणम् अविद्या इत्येतदपि उक्तमेव भवति । अत्रापि मोक्षः मोक्षसाधनं च ब्राह्मणेनोक्तम्; तस्यैव दृढीकरणाय मन्त्र उदाह्रियते श्लोकशब्दवाच्यः-
In plain words
There are also people who claim that in liberation some brand-new awareness and some brand-new bliss switch on. Fine — but then they owe us an account of what 'switching on' actually means. If it just means the everyday sense of something coming into view, here is the question: is it something that already existed, coming into view, or something that didn't exist at all until then? Say it already existed. Whoever it switches on for is liberated, and for that person it simply is their own self — so there was never anything in the way to obstruct it, and it was always already there to be seen. Saying 'it switches on for the liberated person,' as if that were a special event, says nothing at all. Say instead that it only switches on sometimes, because something was blocking it the rest of the time — which would mean it isn't simply the self after all — then you've opened the door to it switching on from somewhere outside, which means it would need some cause to produce it, just like any ordinary effect. But if it shares its very ground with awareness itself, then there is no way to even picture something blocking it — so it would have to be always on or always off; there is no evidence anywhere for some in-between state. And two things that are really the same one thing cannot turn around and be object and subject to each other. And if being bound means 'before this switches on' and being free means 'after it switches on,' then whatever self that describes is simply a different being from the true Self, whose very nature is knowledge that never needed switching on in the first place, because the two are as different as cold is from heat. Build a Self that different from the Self, and the whole of the Vedic teaching falls apart. Someone might object: if liberation is exactly like the bound state we already know, why make any special effort at all, and why would scripture even bother? No — because that effort and that teaching exist to clear away a mistake, the mistake called ignorance. In truth there was never any actual difference between being bound and being free; the Self is one, unchanging, always the same. What scripture's teaching does is dissolve the ignorance that stands over that Self — and before that teaching arrives, making the effort to reach it is entirely reasonable. Someone might object again: then a person with ignorance would carry an actual difference in the Self, caused by whether the ignorance has ended or not. No — because, as we already said, that supposed difference is nothing but a picture painted by ignorance itself, exactly like the snake on a rope, water on a mirage, silver in mother-of-pearl, or dirt smeared on empty sky. None of that touches what is really there. Or someone might say: like an eye clouded by disease versus a clear one, the Self would carry a real difference depending on whether it 'does' the ignorance or not. No — this was already settled, right where the text said 'it seems to think, it seems to waver,' and closed with 'thus indeed for one who desires.' Starting from 'now, one without desire,' liberation has already been described as simply being the Self of everything — exactly like the picture of deep, dreamless sleep. And the cause of liberation was named: having your only desire be the Self itself, so that your desire is completely fulfilled. And since that can only happen through knowing the Self, it follows, without needing to spell it out, that knowing brahman is the one real cause of liberation. So even though desire was named as the root of bondage, the same logic, simply turned around, has already told us the real cause of bondage too: ignorance. This much — both liberation and the way to it — this passage has already taught. And now, to drive that home, a verse is cited:
Close to the Sanskrit
Those who also say that in liberation another cognition and another bliss become manifest — by them the meaning of the word 'manifestation' must be stated. If, to begin with, the meaning of the word 'manifestation' is simply the everyday coming within the range of perception, then it must be asked: does something already existing become manifest, or something not yet existing? If it is something existing — since, for the liberated person to whom it becomes manifest, that cognition or bliss is indeed identical with his own self — then, because there is no possibility of any obstruction to its perception, on account of its being eternally manifest, the specific statement that 'it becomes manifest for the liberated person' is pointless. But if it becomes manifest only sometimes, because of an obstruction to its perception at other times — implying that it is not identical with the self at those times — then there follows the absurdity that it might become manifest from some other source, and thus would come to depend on the means that produce manifestation. But if it shares the same substrate as perception itself, then, since no obstruction between them can be conceived, there would be either constant manifestation or constant non-manifestation; there is, however, no proof for supposing an intermediate case. And it is not possible for properties sharing a single substrate, themselves identical with that one substrate, to be mutual objects and subjects with respect to one another. And on the view that, for cognition and bliss, being subject to transmigration means the state before their manifestation, and being liberated means the state after their manifestation — that self would be different from the supreme Self whose very nature is eternally manifest knowledge, owing to their utter dissimilarity, just as coldness differs from heat; and, in supposing such a difference from the supreme Self, the entire Vedic doctrine would be abandoned. If it be objected: if liberation is without distinction, just as things now are, then the impossibility of any special effort toward it, and the pointlessness of scripture, would follow — no, because that teaching serves the purpose of dispelling the illusion of ignorance; for indeed, in reality, there is no distinction between being liberated and being bound, because the Self is eternally one and unchanging in form; rather, the ignorance concerning that Self is dispelled by the knowledge produced by scriptural instruction; and, prior to receiving that instruction, effort directed toward that end is indeed reasonable. If it be objected: then, for one who has ignorance, there would be a distinction in the Self caused by the cessation or non-cessation of that ignorance — no, because it is accepted that such things are merely objects constructed by the imagining that is ignorance, just as with a rope, a barren patch of ground, mother-of-pearl, or the sky, and the appearance of a snake, water, silver, or dirt and the like; we have already said this involves no fault. If it be objected: then, as with vision affected or unaffected by an eye-disease, there would be a distinction in the Self produced by its being or not being the agent of ignorance — no; having said 'it seems to think, it seems to waver,' this topic was already brought to its conclusion with the words 'thus indeed for one who desires.' Beginning with 'now, one without desire,' liberation has been described as the state of being the Self of all, corresponding to the illustration of deep sleep. And the cause of liberation was stated as the state of having attained one's desire, through making the Self alone one's desire; and since, by logical force, that state of having-attained-desire through desiring only the Self is not possible apart from knowledge of the Self, it follows, by that same force, that knowledge of brahman alone has been stated to be the cause of liberation. Therefore, although it was said that desire is the root of bondage, nevertheless, by simply reversing the cause of liberation, this too has, in effect, already been stated: that ignorance is the cause of bondage. Here too, both liberation and the means to liberation have been taught by the prose portion of the Upanishad; and, to confirm that very point, a Vedic verse — referred to by the word 'śloka' — is now cited:
Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadbhāṣyam· Leaf 9.290· bhāṣya
तत् तस्मिन्नेवार्थे एष श्लोकः मन्त्रो भवति । यदा यस्मिन्काले सर्वे समस्ताः कामाः तृष्णाप्रभेदाः प्रमुच्यन्ते, आत्मकामस्य ब्रह्मविदः समूलतो विशीर्यन्ते, ये प्रसिद्धा लोके इहामुत्रार्थाः पुत्रवित्तलोकैषणालक्षणाः अस्य प्रसिद्धस्य पुरुषस्य हृदि बुद्धौ श्रिताः आश्रिताः- अथ तदा, मर्त्यः मरणधर्मा सन्, कामवियोगात्समूलतः, अमृतो भवति; अर्थात् अनात्मविषयाः कामा अविद्यालक्षणाः मृत्यवः इत्येतदुक्तं भवति; अतः मृत्युवियोगे विद्वान् जीवन्नेव अमृतो भवति । अत्र अस्मिन्नेव शरीरे वर्तमानः ब्रह्म समश्नुते, ब्रह्मभावं मोक्षं प्रतिपद्यत इत्यर्थः । अतः मोक्षः न देशान्तरगमनादि अपेक्षते । तस्मात् विदुषो नोत्क्रामन्ति प्राणाः, यथावस्थिता एव स्वकारणे पुरुषे समवनीयन्ते; नाममात्रं हि अवशिष्यते- इत्युक्तम् । कथं पुनः समवनीतेषु प्राणेषु, देहे च स्वकारणे प्रलीने, विद्वान् मुक्तः अत्रैव सर्वात्मा सन् वर्तमानः पुनः पूर्ववत् देहित्वं संसारित्वलक्षणं न प्रतिपद्यते- इत्यत्रोच्यते- तत् तत्र अयं दृष्टान्तः; यथा लोके अहिः सर्पः, तस्य निर्ल्वयनी, निर्मोकः, सा अहिनिर्ल्वयनी, वल्मीके सर्पाश्रये वल्मीकादावित्यर्थः, मृता प्रत्यस्ता प्रक्षिप्ता अनात्मभावेन सर्पेण परित्यक्ता, शयीत वर्तेत- एवमेव, यथा अयं दृष्टान्तः, इदं शरीरं सर्पस्थानीयेन मुक्तेन अनात्मभावेन परित्यक्तं मृतमिव शेते । अथ इतरः सर्पस्थानीयो मुक्तः सर्वात्मभूतः सर्पवत् तत्रैव वर्तमानोऽपि अशरीर एव, न पूर्ववत् पुनः सशरीरो भवति । कामकर्मप्रयुक्तशरीरात्मभावेन हि पूर्वं सशरीरः मर्त्यश्च ; तद्वियोगात् अथ इदानीम् अशरीरः, अत एव च अमृतः ; प्राणः, प्राणितीति प्राणः— 'प्राणस्य प्राणम्' इति हि वक्ष्यमाणे श्लोके, 'प्राणबन्धनं हि सोम्य मनः' इति च श्रुत्यन्तरे ; प्रकरणवाक्यसामर्थ्याच्च पर एव आत्मा अत्र प्राणशब्दवाच्यः ; ब्रह्मैव परमात्मैव । किं पुनस्तत् ? तेज एव विज्ञानम् ज्योतिः, येन आत्मज्योतिषा जगत् अवभास्यमानं प्रज्ञानेत्रं विज्ञानज्योतिष्मत् सत् अविभ्रंशत् वर्तते । यः कामप्रश्नो विमोक्षार्थः याज्ञवल्क्येन वरो दत्तो जनकाय, सहेतुकः बन्धमोक्षार्थलक्षणः दृष्टान्तदार्ष्टान्तिकभूतः स एष निर्णीतः सविस्तरः जनकायाज्ञवल्क्याख्यायिकारूपधारिण्या श्रुत्या ; संसारविमोक्षोपाय उक्तः प्राणिभ्यः । इदानीं श्रुतिः स्वयमेवाह— विद्यानिष्क्रयार्थं जनकेनैवमुक्तमिति ; कथम् ? सोऽहम् एवं विमोक्षितस्त्वया भगवते तुभ्यं विद्यानिष्क्रयार्थं सहस्रं ददामि— इति ह एवं किल उवाच उक्तवान् जनको वैदेहः । अत्र कस्माद्विमोक्षपदार्थे निर्णीते, विदेहराज्यम् आत्मानमेव च न निवेदयति, एकदेशोक्ताविव सहस्रमेव ददाति ? तत्र कोऽभिप्राय इति । अत्र केचिद्वर्णयन्ति— अध्यात्मविद्यारसिको जनकः ब्रह्मविद्याफलं मोक्षं स्वर्गं लोकम् ; स्वर्गलोकशब्दः त्रिविष्ट- पवाच्यपि सन् इह प्रकरणात् मोक्षाभिधायकः ; इतः अ- स्माच्छरीरपातात् ऊर्ध्वं जीवन्त एव विमुक्ताः सन्तः ॥
In plain words
On this same point, a verse is now recited: 'When every desire that lives in a man's heart finally lets go' — for the knower of brahman whose one desire is the Self, every craving there is dissolves down to its root: the familiar longings for a child, for wealth, for a place in this world or the next, that had made their home in his heart, in his mind — 'then the mortal, bound by death as he is, becomes immortal' by letting go of desire completely. In other words: desires aimed at anything other than the Self are themselves nothing but forms of ignorance, and each one is a kind of death. So once a person is free of those deaths, he becomes immortal while he is still alive — not later, right now. 'Here he attains brahman' means exactly this: right here, in this body, he becomes brahman; that is what liberation is. So liberation was never about going somewhere else. That is why a knower's vital breath does not leave him at death — it simply settles back, unchanged, into the source it came from, and only his name is left behind, as we already said. But then a question arises: once the breath has settled back and the body has dissolved into the elements it came from, how does this liberated person, who is now simply the Self of everything, right here, avoid ever again taking on a body and getting caught back up in the cycle? Here is how to picture it. In ordinary speech, a snake sheds its skin. That skin is left behind in the anthill — dead, discarded, no longer part of the snake at all — and it simply lies there. In exactly the same way, this body is left behind, abandoned as no longer 'self' by the one who is free, and it lies there like something dead. But the other one — the one who used to wear that body, the one who has become everything — even while standing right where the body was, he, like the snake that has slipped free, has no body at all. He does not put one on again. Before, desire and action had bound him to the idea that he was his body, and that made him mortal; now that this idea is gone, he has no body, and precisely because of that, he cannot die. He is called 'prāṇa' — the breath of life — simply because he lives; you see this same word again in the verse still to come, 'the breath behind the breath,' and elsewhere in scripture: 'mind itself, dear one, is tethered to breath.' Given everything the passage as a whole is building toward, this word 'breath' can only mean the one supreme Self here — nothing less than brahman, nothing less than the highest Self. And what is meant by 'light'? Simply this: awareness itself, luminous in its own right — the very light by which the whole world becomes visible, giving it the eye of understanding, filling it with the glow of consciousness, so that it goes on functioning without ever once failing. So the whole question about desire that made Yājñavalkya offer Janaka a boon — desire and its cause, bondage and the way out of it, the illustration and what it illustrates — all of it has now been worked out in full, through this very story of Janaka and Yājñavalkya. The way out of the whole cycle has been shown, for the sake of every living being. And now scripture tells us, on its own, exactly what Janaka said as payment for what he had learned. What did he say? 'This is who I am — set free, by you. To you, my teacher, I give a thousand cows, as payment for this knowledge.' That, so the story goes, is what King Janaka of Videha said. One might ask: once he understood what liberation really was, why didn't he hand over his entire kingdom, or even himself, instead of just a thousand cows, as if that were merely a token gift? What was he really doing? Some explain it this way: Janaka, who loved learning about the Self, took the 'fruit of knowing brahman' here to mean heaven — the heavenly world. And even though the word for 'heavenly world' can mean the ordinary paradise, here, given everything around it, it actually means liberation: he and those like him are already free while still alive, and stay free even after this body finally falls away.
Close to the Sanskrit
On that very topic, this verse — a mantra — occurs: 'when' — at whatever time — 'all,' every single one of the 'desires,' the various forms of craving, 'are released' — for the knower of brahman whose only desire is the Self, they dissolve down to the root — which are well known in the world, whose objects are this world and the next, characterized by the longing for offspring, wealth, and the heavenly worlds, and which lie lodged in the heart, that is, the intellect, of this well-known person — then, at that time, the mortal, though by nature subject to death, by being separated from desire down to the root, becomes immortal; that is to say, this amounts to saying that desires directed at objects other than the Self, characterized by ignorance, are themselves so many deaths; therefore, upon separation from death, the knower, while still living, becomes immortal. Here, remaining in this very body, he attains brahman — that is, he attains the state of being brahman, liberation; such is the meaning. Therefore liberation does not require going to another place and the like. Hence the vital breaths of the knower do not depart; remaining just as they are, they are merged into the Puruṣa who is their cause; for only the name is left over — as has been said. But how, once the vital breaths have merged and the body has dissolved into its cause, does the liberated knower, remaining right here as the Self of all, not again take on, as before, embodiment characterized by transmigration? — this is now explained: on this point, here is the illustration. Just as, in common usage, 'ahi' means snake; its 'nirvayanī' is its slough, its cast-off skin; that 'snake's cast-off skin' — in the anthill, meaning in an anthill or similar sheltering place — lifeless, discarded, flung aside, abandoned by the snake as no longer its own — would lie there, would remain; just so, as this illustration shows, this body, abandoned as no longer belonging to the self by the liberated one who occupies the snake's place, lies as though dead. But the other one — the liberated self occupying the snake's own place, who has become the Self of all — even while remaining right there, like the snake, is indeed bodiless; he does not, as before, again become embodied. For formerly, through the notion of the body as the self, brought about by desire and action, he was embodied and mortal; but now, by separation from that notion, he is bodiless, and for that very reason immortal. 'Prāṇa' — he is called prāṇa because he lives; this is confirmed in the verse about to be quoted, 'the prāṇa of prāṇa,' and also in another scriptural text, 'for, my dear, the mind is bound to prāṇa'; and, by the force of the context and the sentence as a whole, it is the supreme Self alone that is denoted here by the word 'prāṇa' — brahman itself, the supreme Self itself. What, then, is that tejas? 'Tejas' is simply cognition, light — that self-luminosity by which the world, being illumined, endowed with the eye of intelligence, possessing the light of cognition, continues to exist without ever faltering. The question about desire, aimed at liberation, for which Yājñavalkya granted a boon to Janaka — together with its cause, characterized by the topics of bondage and liberation, comprising both the illustration and the illustrated case — has now been settled at length by this portion of scripture, in the form of the dialogue between Janaka and Yājñavalkya; the means to release from transmigration has thereby been declared for all living beings. Now scripture itself states, of its own accord, that Janaka spoke as follows, as the fee for that knowledge — how? 'I am he, thus set free by you; to you, revered sir, I give a thousand as the fee for this knowledge' — so, indeed, it is said, Janaka of Videha spoke, declared. Here, one may ask: once the meaning of 'liberation' has been settled, why does he not offer his kingdom of Videha, and even his own self, but gives only a thousand, as though that were merely a partial payment? What could his intention be? Here some explain: Janaka, who relished knowledge of the Self, meant by the fruit of brahman-knowledge, liberation, the heavenly world; the term 'heavenly world,' though it can denote the third heaven, here, from the context, denotes liberation — meaning, they are liberated even while living, and remain so beyond, once this body has fallen away.