स वा एष एतस्मिन् संप्रसादे रत्वा चरित्वा दृष्ट्वैव पुण्यं च पापं च पुनः प्रतिन्यायं प्रतियोन्य् आद्रवति स्वप्नायैव । स यत् तत्र किञ्चित् पश्यत्य् अनन्वागतस् तेन भवति । असङ्गो ह्य् अयं पुरुष इति । एवम् एवैतत् याज्ञवल्क्य । सो ऽहं भगवते सहस्रं ददामि । अत ऊर्ध्वं विमोक्षायैव ब्रूहीति
sa vā eṣa etasmin saṃprasāde ratvā caritvā dṛṣṭvaiva puṇyaṃ ca pāpaṃ ca punaḥ pratinyāyaṃ pratiyony ādravati svapnāyaiva | sa yat tatra kiñcit paśyaty ananvāgatas tena bhavati | asaṅgo hy ayaṃ puruṣa iti | evam evaitat yājñavalkya | so 'haṃ bhagavate sahasraṃ dadāmi | ata ūrdhvaṃ vimokṣāyaiva brūhīti
Devanagari rendered by HREEM from the edition's roman (IAST) text; the IAST is the edition's own.
Ya^Savalkya said: * That (person) having enjoyed himself in that state of bliss (samprasada, deep sleep), having moved about and seen both good and evil, hastens back again as he came, to the place from which he started (the place of sleep), to dream \ And whatever he may have seen there, he is not followed (affected) by it, for that person is not attached o anything.’ Ganaka Vaideha said: ‘So it is indeed, Y&t^a- is that others, in order to disprove the self-illumination, say that this sleep is the same as the state of waking, giving as their reason that we see in sleep or in dreams exactly what we see in waking. But this is wrong, because the senses have stopped, and only when the senses have stopped does one see dreams. Therefore there is no necessity for admitting another light in sleep, but only the light inherent in the Self. This has been proved by all that went before.’ Dr. Roer takes the same view in his translation, but Deussen (Vedanta, p. 205) takes an independent view, and translates: ‘ Therefore it is said: It (sleep) is to him a place of waking only, for what he sees waking, the same he sees in sleep. Thus this spirit serves there for his own light.’ Though the interpretations of.Sankara and Dvivedaganga sound artificial, still Dr. Deussen’s version does not remove all difficulties. If the purusha saw in sleep no more than what he had seen before in waking, then the whole argument in favour of the independent action, or the independent light of the purusha, would go; anyhow it would be no argument on Ya^navalkya’s side. See also note to paragraph, before. valkya. I give you, Sir, a thousand. Speak on for the sake of emancipation.’
Translated by F. Max MüllerFrom an unproofread scan of the printed edition; spelling and line breaks may carry OCR errors.