यत्र नान्यत्पश्यति नान्यच्छृणोति नान्यद्विजानाति स भूमाथ यत्रान्यत्पश्यत्यन्यच्छृणोत्यन्यद्विजानाति तदल्पं यो वै भूमा तदमृतमथ यदल्पं तन्मर्त्य्ं स भगवः कस्मिन्प्रतिष्ठित इति स्वे महिम्नि यदि वा न महिम्नीति ॥ ७.२४.१ ॥
In plain words
"Where a man sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else — that is the boundless. But where he sees something else, hears something else, understands something else — that is the small. The boundless is the immortal, and the small is mortal." "Sir, in what is it founded?" "In its own greatness — or rather not in greatness at all.
The commentators
Chāndogyopaniṣadbhāṣyam
किंलक्षणोऽसौ भूमेति, आह—
यत्र यस्मिन्भूम्नि तत्त्वे न अन्यद्द्रष्टव्यमन्येन करणेन द्रष्टा अन्यो विभक्तो दृश्यात्प- श्यति । तथा नान्यच्छृणोति । नामरूपयोरेवान्तर्भावाद्द्विषय- भेदस्य तद्ग्राहकयोरेवेह दर्शनश्रवणयोर्ग्रहणम् अन्येषां च उपलक्षणार्थत्वेन । मननं तु अत्रोक्तं द्रष्टव्यं नान्यन्मनुत इति, प्रायशो मननपूर्वकत्वाद्विज्ञानस्य । तथा नान्य- द्विजानाति । एवंलक्षणो यः स भूमा । किमत्र प्र- सिद्धान्यदर्शनाभावो भूम्युच्यते नान्यत्पश्यतीत्यादिना, अथ अन्यन्न पश्यति, आत्मानं पश्यतीत्येतत् । किंचातः ? यद्यन्यदर्शनाद्यभावमात्रमित्युच्यते, तदा द्वैतसंव्यवहार- विलक्षणो भूमेत्युक्तं भवति । अथ अन्यदर्शनविशेषप्रतिषेधेन आत्मानं पश्यतीत्युच्यते, तदैकस्मिन्नेव क्रियाकारकफलभेदो- ऽभ्युपगतो भवेत् । यद्येवं को दोषः स्यात् ? नन्वयमेव दोषः— संसारांनिवृत्तिः । क्रियाकारकफलभेदो हि संसार इति । आत्मैकत्वे एव क्रियाकारकफलभेदः संसारविलक्षण इति चेत्, न, आत्मनो निर्विशेषैकत्वाभ्युपगमे दर्शनादि- क्रियाकारकफलभेदाभ्युपगमस्य शब्दमात्रत्वात् । अन्यदर्श- नाद्यभावोक्तिपक्षेऽपि यत्र इति अन्यत्र पश्यति इति च विशे- षणे अनर्थके स्यातामिति चेत्—दृश्यते हि लोके यत्र शून्ये गृहेऽन्यत्र पश्यतीत्युक्ते स्तम्भादीनात्मानं च न न पश्य- तीति गम्यते; एवमिहापीति चेत्, न, तत्त्वमसीत्येकत्वोप- देशादधिकरणाधिकर्तव्यभेदानुपपत्तेः । तथा सद्देकमेवाद्वि- तीयं सत्यमिति षष्ठे निर्धारितत्वात् । ‘अदृश्येऽनात्म्ये’ ‘न संदृशे तिष्ठति रूपमस्य’ ‘विज्ञातारमरे केन विजानी- यात्’ इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः स्वात्मनि दर्शनाद्यनुपपत्तिः । यत्र इति विशेषणमनर्थकं प्राप्तमिति चेत्, न, अविद्याकृतभेदापेक्ष- त्वात्, यथा सत्यैकत्वाद्वितीयत्वबुद्धिं प्रकृतामपेक्ष्य सद्देकमे- वाद्वितीयमिति संख्याद्यनर्हमप्युच्यते, एवं भूम्न्येकस्मिन्नेव यत्र इति विशेषणम् । अविद्यावस्थायामन्यदर्शनानुवादेन च भूम्नस्तदभावत्वलक्षणस्य विवक्षितत्वात् नान्यत्पश्यति इति विशेषणम् । तस्मात्संसारव्यवहारो भूम्नि नास्तीति समुदा- यार्थः । अथ यत्राविद्याविषये अन्योऽन्येनान्यत्पश्यतीति त- दल्पम् अविद्याकालभावीत्यर्थः ; यथा स्वप्नदृश्यं वस्तु प्राक् प्रबोधात्तत्कालभावीति, तद्वत् । तत एव तन्मर्त्यं विनाशि स्वप्नवस्तुवदेव । तद्विपरीतो भूमा यस्तदमृतम् । तच्छब्दः अमृतत्वपरः ; स तर्हि एवंलक्षणो भूमा हे भगवन् कस्मिन्प्रतिष्ठित इति उक्तवन्तं नारदं प्रत्याह सनत्कुमारः- स्वे महिम्नीति स्वे आत्मीये महिम्नि माहात्म्ये विभूतौ प्रतिष्ठितो भूमा । यदि प्रतिष्ठामिच्छसि कश्चित् , यदि वा परमार्थमेव पृच्छसि, न महिम्न्यपि प्रतिष्ठित इति ब्रूमः ; अप्रतिष्ठितः अनाश्रितो भूमा कचिदपीत्यर्थः ॥
In plain words
What is the nature of this Infinite? He explains:
Where, in that reality, the bhūman, the seer does not stand apart from what is seen, as something other, seeing something else to be seen through some other instrument. In the same way, he does not hear anything else. Since every difference of objects falls within name and form, only seeing and hearing, which take hold of these, are named here, and they stand as examples for the rest. But reflection should be taken as included here, as 'he does not think of anything else', since knowing is mostly preceded by reflection. In the same way, he does not know anything else. That which has these marks is the bhūman. Now, do the words 'he does not see anything else' and the rest declare of the bhūman that the familiar seeing of other things is absent, or do they mean that he sees nothing else but sees the self? And what follows from this? If they state only that seeing anything else is absent, then they say the bhūman is unlike every dealing of duality. But if, by ruling out the seeing of anything else in particular, they say that he sees the self, then a difference of action, factors and result would be admitted in what is only one. If so, what harm would there be? Surely this very harm: saṃsāra would never end. For saṃsāra is just this difference of action, factors and result. Suppose it is said that within the oneness of the self the difference of action, factors and result is unlike saṃsāra: no, for once the self is accepted as one, without any particulars, to accept a difference of action, factors and result, such as seeing, is only words. Suppose it is said: even if the words state only the absence of seeing anything else, the qualifiers 'where' and 'sees nothing else' would serve no purpose; for in the world, when someone says 'where, in an empty house, he sees nothing else', we understand that he does still see the pillars and the like, and himself; and so it is here too: no, for the teaching of oneness, 'that you are', leaves no room for a difference between a place and what is in it. It is ruled out also because the sixth chapter settled that the existent, one only, without a second, is the truth. And from śrutis such as 'in the invisible, the bodiless', 'his form does not stand within sight', and 'by what, my dear, should one know the knower?', it follows that seeing and the rest cannot take place within one's own self. Suppose it is said that the qualifier 'where' then serves no purpose: no, because it speaks with a view to the difference avidyā makes; just as 'the existent, one only, without a second' is said with a view to the notion of truth, oneness and non-duality at hand, though the existent does not admit of number and the like, so the qualifier 'where' is used of the bhūman, which is only one. And the qualifier 'sees nothing else' is used because the text restates the seeing of something else that belongs to the state of avidyā, so that the bhūman may be marked by its absence. So the meaning of the whole is that the dealings of saṃsāra do not exist in the bhūman. But where, in the sphere of avidyā, one sees another by means of another, that is small, that is, it lasts only while avidyā lasts; just as a thing seen in a dream lasts only for that time, until one wakes. For that very reason it is mortal, perishable, just like a thing in a dream. The opposite of that is the bhūman, which is immortal. The word 'that' points to immortality. Nārada then asked, 'Lord, in what is this bhūman, with these marks, established?', and Sanatkumāra replied, 'in its own greatness': the bhūman is established in its own greatness, its own majesty and glory. That is, if you want it to have some support; but if you are asking about the highest truth itself, we say it is not established even in greatness: the bhūman is not established, not resting on anything, anywhere at all.
Close to the Sanskrit
What is the characteristic of that Infinite? He says:
Where, in which reality, the bhūman, the seer, [being] another, separate from the seen, does not see another [thing] to be seen, by another instrument. Likewise, he does not hear another. Because difference of objects is included in name and form alone, seeing and hearing, which grasp those, are mentioned here, and [they stand] for the others too, as examples. But reflection should be understood as stated here, 'he does not think of another', since knowing is for the most part preceded by reflection. Likewise, he does not know another. What has such marks is the bhūman. Here, by 'he does not see another' and the rest, is the absence of seeing the well-known other [things] stated of the bhūman, or [is] this [meant]: he does not see another, he sees the self? And what follows from this? If the mere absence of seeing another and the rest is stated, then it is said that the bhūman is unlike the dealings of duality. But if, by denying the seeing of another in particular, it is said that he sees the self, then a difference of action, factors and result would be accepted in what is one alone. If so, what fault would there be? Surely this very fault: no cessation of saṃsāra. For saṃsāra is the difference of action, factors and result. If it is said that in the oneness of the self alone the difference of action, factors and result is unlike saṃsāra: no, because once the oneness of the self without particulars is accepted, the acceptance of a difference of action, factors and result, such as seeing, is mere words. If it is said: even on the side that states the absence of seeing another and the rest, the qualifiers 'where' and 'sees [no] other' would be pointless; for it is seen in the world that when it is said 'where, in an empty house, he sees no other', it is understood that he does not fail to see the pillars and the rest, and himself; so here too: no, because, from the teaching of oneness, 'that you are', a difference of locus and what is located is impossible. Likewise, because in the sixth [chapter] it was settled that the existent, one only, without a second, is the truth. [And] from śrutis such as 'in the invisible, the bodiless', 'his form does not stand within sight', 'by what, my dear, should one know the knower?', seeing and the rest are impossible in one's own self. If it is said that the qualifier 'where' turns out pointless: no, because it refers to difference made by avidyā; just as, with reference to the notion of truth, oneness and non-duality at hand, 'the existent, one only, without a second' is said, though it does not admit of number and the like, so, in the bhūman, which is one alone, the qualifier 'where' [is used]. And the qualifier 'sees no other' [is used] because, by restating the seeing of another in the state of avidyā, the bhūman is meant to be marked by its absence. Therefore the meaning of the whole is that the dealings of saṃsāra do not exist in the bhūman. But where, in the sphere of avidyā, another sees another by another, that is small, [that is,] existing in the time of avidyā: this is the meaning; just as an object seen in a dream exists in that time, before waking, so [is] that. For that very reason it is mortal, perishable, just like a dream object. The opposite of that is the bhūman, which is immortal. The word 'that' refers to immortality. To Nārada, who said, 'Then, Lord, in what is the bhūman with such marks established?', Sanatkumāra replies, 'in its own greatness': in its own, in what is its own, greatness, majesty, glory, the bhūman is established. If you want some support, [that is it]; or if you ask about the highest truth itself, we say it is not established even in greatness: the bhūman is unestablished, without support, anywhere at all; this is the meaning.