स होवाचाजातशत्रुः, यत्रैष एतत्सुप्तोऽभूद्य एष विज्ञानमयः पुरुषः, क्वैष तदाभूत्, कुत एतदागादिति; तदु ह न मेने गार्ग्यः ॥ १६ ॥
sa hovācājātaśatruḥ, yatraiṣa etatsupto’bhūdya eṣa vijñānamayaḥ puruṣaḥ, kvaiṣa tadābhūt, kuta etadāgāditi; tadu ha na mene gārgyaḥ || 16 ||
16. Ajātaśatru said, ‘When this being full of consciousness (identified with the mind) was thus asleep, where was it, and whence did it thus come?’ Gārgya did not know that.
Having thus proved the existence of the self other than the body, Ajātaśatru said to Gārgya, ‘When this being full of consciousness was thus asleep, before being roused by pushing,’ etc. ‘Conciousness’ here means the instrument of knowledge, i.e. the mind, or more specifically, the intellect. What then does the phrase ‘full of consciousness’ mean? It means: which is perceived in the intellect, which is perceived through it, and which perceives through it.
Objection: When the suffix ‘mayaṭ’ has so many meanings, how do you know that it means ‘full of’?
Reply: Because in such passages as, ‘This self is indeed Brahman, as well as identified with the intellect, the Manas’ (IV. iv. 5), we see the suffix used in the sense of fulness. Besides, the self is never known to be a modification of the consciousness that is the Supreme Self. Again, in the passage, ‘This being full of consciousness,’ etc., the self is mentioned as something already familiar. And lastly, the meanings, ‘made of’ and ‘resembling,’ are here impossible. Hence on the principle of the residuum the meaning is fulness only. Therefore the phrase means, ‘Identified with the mind, which considers the pros and cons of a subject and does other functions.’ ‘Being’ (Puruṣa), because it dwells in the intellect as in a city. The question, ‘Where was it then?’ is intended to teach the nature of the self. By a reference to the absence of effects before awaking, it is intended to show that the self is of a nature opposed to action, its factors and its results. Before awaking (in profound sleep) it perceives nothing whatsoever like pleasure and so forth, which are the effects of past work. Therefore, not being caused by past work, we understand that that is the very nature of the self. In order to teach that the self was then in its nature, and that only when it deviates from it, it becomes—contrary to its nature—subject to transmigration, Ajātaśatru asks Gārgya, who was abashed, with a view to enlightening him on the point. These two questions, ‘Where was it then?’ and ‘Whence did it thus come?’ should have been asked by Gārgya. But simply because he does not ask them, Ajātaśatru does not remain indifferent. He proceeds to explain them, thinking that Gārgya must be instructed, for he himself has promised, ‘I will instruct you.’ Although thus enlightened, Gārgya did not understand where the self was before awaking and whence it came the way it did, either to tell or ask about them. He did not know that.