Section 7.10 (tenth khaṇḍa) (four texts)

Upaniṣad text:

‘He who moves about worshipped, in dreams,—that is the Self’; and he said—‘this is the Immortal and the Fearless, this is Brahman.’—He went away, satisfied in his heart.—But therefore he got at the Devas, he saw this difficulty—‘though this is not blind when the body is blind, nor one-eyed when the Body is one-eyed, nor is it affected by the defect of the body,—(yet etc., etc., continued in the next text).—(1)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

‘The Self, marked by such characters as freedom from evil and the rest, which has been explained before as ‘the Person in the Eye’,—this is that Self;—what? —He who moves about in dreams, worshipped—attended upon by women and other;—that is, goes on enjoying many dreams—experiences,—this is the Self’—he said etc. etc.—as before.—

Having heard this, Indra went away, satisfied in his heart;—but before he got at the Devas, he saw,—as before—the difficulty—in this view of Self also.—“How?”—Though when this Body is blind, yet the Dream-Self remains unblind, when the Body is one-eyed, the Dream-Self is not one-eyed,—hor does this Dream-Self become affected by the defect of the body,—yet etc. (next text).—(1)

Upaniṣad text:

‘Nor is It killed by the killing of the Body, nor does It become one-eyed when the body is one-eyed,—yet, they kill It, as it were,—chase It, as it were,—It becomes conscious of pain, as it were,—and weeps as it were;—I do not see any good in this.’—(2)

With fuel in his hand, he came back again.— Prajāpati said to him—‘Indra, you went away satisfied in your heart; for what purpose do you come again?’—He said—‘Though This is not blind when the Body is blind, nor one-Eyed when the Body is one-eyed, nor is It affected by the defects of the body.’—(3)

Nor is It killed when the Body is killed, nor made one-eyed when the Body is one-eyed,—yet, they kill It, as it were,—they chase It as it were,—and It becomes conscious of pain, as it were, and weeps, as it were; 1 do not see any good in this.’—Prajāpati said—‘So it is, O Indra, I shall explain this to you further; dwell here for another thirty-two years’.—He dwelt there for another thirty-two years.—Then he said to him.—(4)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

Nor is the Dream-Self killed by the killing of the Body,—like the Reflection-Self; nor does It become one-eyed when the body is one-eyed;—it was asserted in the beginning of this discourse VIII, on the strength of the scriptures alone,—that ‘the Self does not become decrepit by the decrepitude of the body’; the same idea has been put forward here for the purpose of substantiating it by reason.

It is true that this Dream-Self is not beset with the defects of the body; but they kill It, as it were;—the particle ‘eva’ stands for ‘iva’, ‘as it were’; the sense being that ‘some people kill It, as it were’; it does not mean that they actually kill It; that this interpretation is the right one is clear from the fact that throughout the rest of the text, the particle ‘iva’ has been used.

“But, what is meant is to differentiate it from the statement that ‘It is not killed by the killing of the Body’; and in that sense the right assertion would be that ‘they do actually kill It’”.

Not so; as the speaker relies upon the authority of Prajāpati, it would not be right for him to make an assertion that would indicate that what Prajāpati has said (regarding Its not being killed) is not true. When Indra was relying upon the authority of Prajāpati, how could he falsify His statement to the effect that ‘It is immortal’?

“In reference to the Reflection-Self spoken of by Prajāpati, it has been pointed out as a defect that ‘it perishes when the Body perishes’; now, the same may be said in regard to this (Dream-Self) also.”

Not so.

“Why not?”

When Prajāpati spoke of ‘the person seen in the eye’, he did not mean the Reflection-Self—so thinks Indra.

“How so?”

If Indra had thought that on being questioned regarding the qualities of being free from evil and the like, Prajāpati has mentioned the Reflection-Self,—then how could he still rely upon the authority of Prajāpati and return to him, with fuel in his hands, to learn more from him. And yet he did return to Him. From which it follows that what Indra thinks is that ‘it was not the Reflection-Self that was spoken of by Prajāpati.’ It was for this reason that the explanation was given that ‘it is the Seer that is seen in the Eye’.

Similarly, they chase it as it were,—they.make it run away and about. And it becomes conscious of pain,—due to the death of the son pr other relatives. Further It itself weeps, as it were.

“As a matter of fact, It does really feel the pain; why then should it be said that ‘It becomes conscious of pain, as it were?’”

It is not as you think; as this would not be compatible with the assertion that ‘It is immortal and fearless’; and also because of the other Vedic text which speaks of It ‘as if reflecting’.

“But as it stands, it is contrary to what is actually seen.”

No; the perception that you have in view may itself be wrong,—like the notion that the Body is the Self.

However, let this question rest for the present,—as to whether It is conscious of pain as it were or not.—‘I do not see any good in this’—said Indra; that is, ‘even in the Dream-Self, I do not find what I desire to find.’

(Prajāpati said) ‘So it is’—i.e. ‘according to your idea of the thing’—this is to be understood, at the end of the sentence: because what is meant is that the Self is qualified by Freedom from Evil and Fearlessness.

Thinking that ‘though I have explained the matter to him twice in accordance with reason, yet he does not yet understand it as it should be; so it seems that even now, as before, there is something that is obstructing his understanding hence, for the purpose of removing that obstruction, He instructed Indra to ‘dwell for anthor thirty-two years’, as a religious student. After he had dwelt for another thirty-two years and had his deficiencies removed, Prajāpati said to him (as follows).—(2-4)

End of Section (10) of Discourse VIII.