BHAGAVADGITA
English translation of Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary - Swami
Gambhirananda
Chapter 1
RO
1.1 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary
starts from 2.10.
1.47 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The
commentary starts from 2.10.

BHAGAVADGITA
English translation of Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary - Swami
Gambhirananda
Chapter 2
ROMAN
2.1 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The
commentary starts from 2.10.
2.2 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The
commentary starts from 2.10.
2.3 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The
commentary starts from 2.10.
2.4 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The
commentary starts from 2.10.
2.5 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The
commentary starts from 2.10.
2.6 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The
commentary starts from 2.10.
2.7 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The
commentary starts from 2.10.
2.8 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The
commentary starts from 2.10.
2.9 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The
commentary starts from 2.10.
2.10 And here, the text commencing from 'But seeing the army of the
Pandavas' (1.2) and ending with '(he) verily became silent, telling Him
(Govinda), I shall not fight' is to be explained as revealing the cause of
the origin of the defect in the from of sorrow, delusion, etc. [Delusion
means want of discrimination. Etc. stands for the secondary
manifestations of sorrow and delusion, as also ignorance which is the
root cause of all these.] which are the sources of the cycles of births and
deaths of creatures. Thus indeed, Ajuna's own sorrow and delusion,
cuased by the ideas of affection, parting, etc., originating from the
erroneous belief, 'I belong to these; they belong to me', with regard to
kingdom [See note under verse 8.-Tr.], elders, sons, comrades, wellwishers
(1.26), kinsmen (1.37), relatives (1.34) and friends, have been
shown by him with the words, 'How can I (fight)...in battle (against)
Bhisma' (4), etc. It is verily because his discriminating insight was
overwhelmed by sorrow and delusion that, even though he had become
engaged in battle out of his own accord as a duty of the Ksatriyas, he
desisted from that war and chose to undertake other's duties like living
on alms etc. It is thus that in the case of all creatures whose minds come
under the sway of the defects of sorrow, delusion, etc. there verily
follows, as a matter of course, abandoning their own duties and
resorting to prohibited ones. Even when they engage in their own duties
their actions with speech, mind, body, etc., are certainly motivated by
hankering for rewards, and are accompanied by egoism. [Egoism
consists in thinking that one is the agent of some work and the enjoyer
of its reward.] Such being the case, the cycle of births and deaths --
characterized by passing through desireable and undesirable births, and
meeting with happiness, sorrow, etc. [From virtuous deeds follow
attainment of heaven and happiness. From unvirtuous, sinful deeds
follow births as beasts and other lowly beings, and sorrow. From the
performance of both virtuous and sinful deeds follows birth as a human
being, with a mixture of happiness and sorrow.] from the accumulation
of virtue and vice, continues unendingly. Thus, sorrow and delusion are
therefore the sources of the cycles of births and deaths. And their
cessation comes from nothing other than the knowledge of the Self
which is preceded by the renunciation of all duties. Hence, wishing to
impart that (knowledge of the Self) for favouring the whole world, Lord
Vasudeva, making Arjuna the medium, said, 'You grieve for those who
are not to be grieved for,' etc. As to that some (opponents) [According
to A.G. the opponent is the Vrttikara who, in the opinion of A. Mahadeva
Sastri, is none other than Bodhayana referred to in Sankaracarya's
commentary on B.S. 1.1.11-19.-Tr.] say: Certainly, Liberation cannot be
attained merely from continuance in the knowledge of the Self which is
preceded by renunciation of all duties and is independent of any other
factor. What then? The well-ascertained conclusion of the whole of the
Gita is that Liberation is attained through Knowledge associated with
rites and duties like Agnihotra etc. prescribed in the Vedas and the
Smrtis. And as an indication of this point of view they quote (the verses):
'On the other hand, if you will not fight this righteous (battle)' (33); 'Your
right is for action (rites and duties) alone' (47); 'Therefore you undertake
action (rites and duties) itself' (4.15), etc. Even this objection should not
be raised that Vedic rites and duties lead to sin since they involve injury
etc.'. Objection: How? Opponent: The duties of the Ksatriyas,
charaterized by war, do not lead to sin when undertaken as one's duty,
even though they are extremely cruel since they involve violence against
elders, brothers, sons and others. And from the Lord's declaration that
when they are not performed, 'then, forsaking your own duty and fame,
you will incur sin' (33), it stands out as (His) clearly stated foregone
conclusion that one's own duties prescribed in such texts as, '(One shall
perform Agnihotra) as long as one lives' etc., and actions which involve
crutely to animals etc. are not sinful. Vedantin: That is wrong because of
the assertion of the distinction between firm adherence (nistha) to
Knowledge and to action, which are based on two (different) convictions
(buddhi). The nature of the Self, the supreme Reality, determined by the
Lord in the text beginning with 'Those who are not to be grieved for' (11)
and running to the end of the verse, 'Even considering your own duty'
(31), is called Sankhya. Sankhya-buddhi [Sankhya is that correct
(samyak) knowledge of the Vedas which reveals (khyayate) the reality of
the Self, the supreme Goal. The Reality under discussion, which is
related to this sankhya by way of having been revealed by it, is Sankhya.]
(Conviction about the Reality) is the conviction with regard to That
(supreme Reality) arising from the ascertainment of the meaning of the
context [Ascertainment...of the context, i.e., of the meaning of the verses
starting from, 'Never is this One born, and never does It die,' etc. (20).] -
- that the Self is not an agent because of the absence in It of the six
kinds of changes, viz birth etc. [Birth, continuance, growth,
transformation, decay and death.] Sankhyas are those men of
Knowledge to whom that (conviction) becomes natural. Prior to the rise
of this Conviction (Sankhya-buddhi), the ascertained [Ast. and A.G. omit
this word 'ascertainment, nirupana'-Tr.] of the performance of the
disciplines leading to Liberation -- which is based on a discrimination
between virtue and vice, [And adoration of God]. and which
presupposes the Self's difference from the body etc. and Its agentship
and enjoyership -- is called Yoga. The conviction with regard to that
(Yoga) is Yoga-buddhi. The performers of rites and duties, for whom this
(conviction) is appropriate, are called yogis. Accordingly, the two distinct
Convictions have been pointed out by the Lord in the verse, 'This
wisdom (buddhi) has been imparted to you from the standpoint of Selfrealization
(Sankhya). But listen to this (wisdom) from the standpoint of
(Karma-) yoga' (39). And of these two, the Lord will separately speak,
with reference to the Sankhyas, of the firm adherence to the Yoga of
Knowledge. [Here Yoga and Knowledge are identical. Yoga is that
through which one gets connected, identified. with Brahman.] which is
based on Sankya-buddhi, in, 'Two kinds of adherences were spoken of
by Me in the form of the Vedas, in the days of yore.' [This portion is
ascending to G1.Pr. and A.A.; Ast. omits this and quotes exactly the first
line of 3.3. By saying, 'in the form of the Vedas', the Lord indicates that
the Vedas, which are really the knowledge inherent in God and issue out
of Him, are identical with Himself.-Tr.] similarly, in, 'through the Yoga of
Action for the yogis' (3.3), He will separately speak of the firm adherence
to the Yoga [Here also Karma and Yoga are identical, and lead to
Liberation by bringing about purity of heart which is followed by
steadfastness in Knowledge.] of Karma which is based on Yoga-buddhi
(Conviction about Yoga). Thus, the two kinds of steadfastness -- that
based on the conviction about the nature of the Self, and that based on
the conviction about rites and duties -- have been distinctly spoken of by
the Lord Himself, who saw that the coexistence of Knowledge and rites
and duties is not possible in the same person, they being based on the
convictions of non-agentship and agentship, unity and diversity
(respectively). As is this teaching about the distinction (of the two
adherences), just so has it been revealed in the Satapatha Brahmana:
'Desiring this world (the Self) alone monks and Brahmanas renounce
their homes' (cf. Br. 4.4.22). After thus enjoining renunciation of all rites
and duties, it is said in continuation, 'What shall we acheive through
childeren, we who have attained this Self, this world (result).' [The earlier
quotation implies an injuction (vidhi) for renunciation, and the second is
an arthavada, or an emphasis on that injunction. Arthavada: A sentence
which usually recommends a vidhi, or precept, by stating the good
arising from its proper observance, and the evils arising from its
omission; and also by adducing historical instances in its support.-V.S.A]
Again, there itself it is said that, before accepting a wife a man is in his
natural state [The state of ignorance owing to non-realization of Reality.
Such a person is a Brahmacarin, who goes to a teacher for studying the
Vedas]. And (then) after his enquiries into rites and duties, [The
Brahmacarin first studies the Vedas and then enquires into their
meaning. Leaving his teacher's house after completing his course, he
becomes a house holder.] 'he' for the attainment of the three worlds
[This world, the world of manes and heaven.-Tr.] 'desired' (see Br.
1.4.17) as their means a son and the two kinds of wealth consists of
rites and duties that lead to the world of manes, and the divine wealth of
acquisition of vidya (meditation) which leads to heaven. In this way it is
shown that rites and duties enjoined by the Vedas etc. are meant only
for one who is unenlightened and is passessed of desire. And in the text,
'After renouncing they take to mendicancy' (see Br. 4.4.22), the
injunction to renounce is only for one who desires the world that is the
Self, and who is devoid of hankering (for anything else). Now, if the
intention of the Lord were the combination of Knowledge with Vedic rites
and duties, then this utterance (of the Lord) (3.3) about the distinction
would have been illogical. Nor would Arjuna's question, 'If it be Your
opinion that wisdom (Knowledge) is superior to action (rites and
duties)...,' etc. (3.1) be proper. If the Lord had not spoken earlier of the
impossibility of the pursuit of Knowledge and rites and duties by the
same person (at the same time), then how could Arjuna falsely impute to
the Lord -- by saying, 'If it be your opinion that wisdom is superior to
action....' -- (of having spoken) what was not heard by him, viz the higher
status of Knolwedge over rites and duties? Morevoer, if it be that the
combination of Knowledge with rites and duties was spoken of for all,
then it stands enjoined, ipso facto, on Arjuna as well. Therefore, if
instruction had been given for practising both, then how could the
question about 'either of the two' arise as in, 'Tell me for certain one of
these (action and renunciation) by which I may attain the highest Good'
(3.2)? Indeed, when a physician tells a patient who has come for a cure
of his biliousness that he should take things which are sweet and
soothing, there can arise no such request as, 'Tell me which one of
these two is to be taken as a means to cure biliousness'! Again, if it be
imagined that Arjuna put the question because of his noncomprehension
of the distinct meaning of what the Lord had said, even then the Lord
ought to have answered in accordance with the question: 'The
combination of Knowledge with rites and duties was spoken of by Me.
Why are you confused thus?' On the other hand, it was not proper to
have answered, 'Two kinds of steadfastness were spoken of by Me it the
days of yore,' in a way that was inconsistent and at variance with the
question. Nor even do all the statements about distinction etc. become
logical if it were intended that Knowledge was to be combined with rites
and duties enjoined by the Smrtis only. Besides, the accusation in the
sentence, 'Why then do you urge me to horrible action' (3.1) becomes
illogical on the part of Arjuna who knew that fighting was a Ksatriya's
natural duty enjoined by the Smrtis. Therefore, it is not possible for
anyone to show that in the scripture called the Gita there is any
combination, even in the least, of Knowledge of the Self with rites and
duties enjoined by the Srutis or the Smrtis. But in the case of a man who
had engaged himself in rites and duties because of ignorance and
defects like the attachment, and then got his mind purified through
sacrifices, charities or austerities (see Br. 4.4.22), there arises the
knowledge about the supreme Reality -- that all this is but One, and
Brahman is not an agent (of any action). With regard to him, although
there is a cessation of rites and duties as also of the need for them, yet,
what may, appear as his diligent continuance, just as before, in those
rites and duties for setting an example before people -- that is no action
in which case it could have stood combined with Knowledge. Just as the
actions of Lord Vasudeva, in the form of performance of the duty of a
Ksatriya, do not get combined with Knowledge for the sake of achieving
the human goal (Liberation), similar is the case with the man of
Knowledge because of the absence of hankering for results and
agentship. Indeed, a man who has realized the Truth does not thingk 'I
am doing (this)' nor does he hanker after its result. Again, as for
instance, person hankering after such desirable things as heaven etc.
may light up a fire for performing such rites as Agnihotra etc. which are
the mans to attain desirable things; [The Ast. reading is: Agnihotradikarma-
laksana-dharma-anusthanaya, for the performance of duties in
the form of acts like Agnihotra etc.-Tr.] then, while he is still engaged in
the performance of Agnihotra etc. as the means for the desirable things,
the desire may get destroyed when the rite is half-done. He may
nevertheless continue the performance of those very Agnihotra etc.; but
those performance of those very Agnihotra etc.; but those Agnihotra etc.
cannot be held to be for this personal gain. Accordingly does the Lord
also show in various places that, 'even while perfroming actions,' he
does not act, 'he does not become tainted' (5.7). As for the texts, '...as
was performed earlier by the ancient ones' (4.15), 'For Janaka and
others strove to attain Liberation through action itself' (3.20), they are to
be understood analytically. Objection: How so? Vedantin: As to that, if
Janaka and others of old remained engaged in activity even though they
were knowers of Reality, they did so for preventing people from going
astray, while remaining established in realization verily through the
knowledge that 'the organs rest (act) on the objects of the organs'
(3.28). The idea is this that, though the occasion for renunciation of
activity did arise, they remained established in realization along with
actions; they did not give up their rites and duties. On the other hand, if
they were not knowers of Reality, then the explanation should be this;
Through the discipline of dedicating rites and duties to God, Janaka and
others remained established in perfection (samsiddhi) either in the form
of purification of mind or rise of Knowledge. This very idea [The idea that
rites and duties become the cause of Knowledge through the purification
of the mind.] will be expressed by the Lord in, '(the yogis) undertake
action for the purification of oneself (i.e. of the heart, or the mind)' (5.11).
After having said, 'A human being achieves success by adoring Him
through his own duties' [By performing one's own duty as enjoined by
scriptures and dedicating their results to God, one's mind becomes
purified. Then, through Gods grace one becomes fit for steadfastness in
Knowledge. From that steadfatness follows Liberation. Therefore rites
and duites do not directly lead to Liberation. (See Common. under 5.12)
(18.46), He will again speak of the steadfastness in Knowledge of a
person who has attained success, in the text, '(Understand...from
Me...that process by which) one who has achieved success attains
Brahman' (18.50). So, the definite conclusion in the Gita is that
Liberation is attained only from the knowledge of Reality, and not from its
combination with action. And by pointing out in the relevant contexts the
(aforesaid) distinction, we shall show how this conclusion stands. That
being so, Lord Vasudeva found that for Arjuna, whose mind was thus
confused about what ought to be done [The ast. and A.A., have an
additional word -- mithyajnanavatah, meaning 'who had false
ignorance'.-Tr.] and who was sunk in a great ocean of sorrow, there
could be no rescue other than through the knowledge of the Self. And
desiring to rescue Arjuna from that, He said, '(You grieve for) those who
are not to be grieved for,' etc. by way of introducing the knowledge of
the Self. [In this Gita there are three distinct parts, each part consisting
of six chapters. These three parts deal with the three words of the great
Upanisadic saying, 'Tattvamasi, thou art That', with a view to finding out
their real meanings. The first six chapters are concerned with the word
tvam (thou); the following six chapters determine the meaning of the
word tat (that); and the last six reveal the essential identity of tvam and
tat. The disciplines necessary for realization this identity are stated in the
relevant places.]
2.11 Bhisma, Drona and others are not to be grieved for, because they
are of noble character and are eternal in their real nature. With regard to
them, asocyan, who are not to be grieved for; tvam, you; anvasocah,
grieve, (thinking) 'They die because of me; without them what shall I do
with dominion and enjoyment?'; ca, and; bhasase, you speak;
prajnavadan, words of wisdom, words used by men of wisdom, of
intelligence. The idea is, 'Like one mad, you show in yourself this
foolishness and learning which are contradictory.' Because, panditah,
the learned, the knowers of the Self -- panda means wisdon about the
Self; those indeed who have this are panditah, one the authority of the
Upanisadic text, '...the knowers of Brahman, having known all about
scholarship,...' (Br. 3.5.1) ['Therefore the knowers of Brahman, having
known all about scholorship, should try to live upon that strength which
comes of Knowledge; having known all about this strength as well as
scholorship, he becomes meditative; having known all about both
meditativeness and its opposite, he becomes a knower of Brahman.'] --
; na anusocanti, do not grieve for; gatasun, the departed, whose life has
become extinct; agatasun ca, and for those who have not departed,
whose life has not left, the living. The ideas is, 'Your are sorrowing for
those who are eternal in the real sense, and who are not to be grieved
for. Hence your are a fool!.'
2.12 Why are they not to be grieved for? Because they are eternal.
How? Na tu eva, but certainly it is not (a fact); that jatu, at any time;
aham, I ; na asam, did not exist; on the contrary, I did exist. The idea is
that when the bodies were born or died in the past, I existed eternally.
[Here Ast. adds ghatadisu viyadiva, like Space in pot etc.-Tr.] Similarly,
na tvam, nor is it that you did not exist; but you surely existed. Ca, and
so also; na ime, nor is it that these ; jana-adhipah, rulers of men, did not
exist. On the other hand, they did exist. And similarly, na eva, it is surely
not that; vayam, we; sarve, all; na bhavisyamah, shall cease to exist;
atah param, after this, even after the destruction of this body. On the
contrary, we shall exist. The meaning is that even in all the three times
(past, present and future) we are eternal in our nature as the Self. The
plural number (in we) is used following the diversity of the bodies, but not
in the sense of the multiplicity of the Self.
2.13 As to that, to show how the Self is eternal, the Lord cites an
illustration by saying,'...of the embodied,' etc. Yatha, as are, the manner
in which; kaumaram, boyhood; yauvanam, youth, middle age; and jara,
decrepitude, advance of age; dehinah, to an embodied being, to one
who possesses a body (deha), to the Self possessing a body; asmin, in
this, present; dehe, body --. These three states are mutually distinct. On
these, when the first state gets destroyed the Self does not get
destroyed; when the second state comes into being It is not born. What
then? It is seen that the Self, which verily remains unchanged, acquires
the second and third states. Tatha, similar, indeed; is Its, the unchanging
Self's dehantarapraptih, acquisition of another body, a body different
from the present one. This is the meaning. Tatra, this being so; dhirah,
an intelligent person; na, does not; muhyati, get deluded.
2.14 'In the case of a man who knows that the Self is eternal, although
there is no possibility of delusion concerning the destruction of the Self,
still delusion, as of ordinary people, caused by the experience of cold,
heat, happiness and sorrow is noticed in him. Delusion arises from being
deprived of happiness, and sorrow arises from contact with pain etc.'
apprehending this kind of a talk from Arjuna, the Lord said, 'But the
contacts of the organs,' etc. Matra-sparsah, the contacts of the organs
with objects; are sita-usna-sukha-duhkha-dah, producers of cold, heat,
happiness and sorrow. Matrah means those by which are marked off
(measured up) sounds etc., i.e. the organs of hearing etc. The sparsah,
contacts, of the organs with sound etc. are matra-sparsah. Or, sparsah
means those which are contacted, i.e. objects, viz sound etc. Matrasparsah,
the organs and objects, are the producers of cold, heat,
happiness and sorrow. Cold sometimes produces pleasure, and
sometimes pain. Similarly the nature of heat, too, is unpredictable. On
the other hand, happiness and sorrow have definite natures since they
do not change. Hence they are mentioned separately from cold and
heat. Since they, the organs, the contacts, etc., agamapayinah, have a
beginning and an end, are by nature subject to origination and
destruction; therefore, they are anityah, transient. Hence, titiksasva,
bear; tan, them -- cold, heart, etc., i.e. do not be happy or sorry with
regard to them.
2.15 What will happen to one who bears cold and heat? Listen: Verily,
the person...,'etc. (O Arjuna) hi, verily; yam purusam, the person whom;
ete, these, cold and heat mentioned above; na, do not; vyathayanti,
torment, do not perturb; dhiram, the wise man; sama-duhkha-sukham,
to whom sorrow and happiness are the same, who is free from
happiness and sorrow when subjected to pleasure and pain, because of
his realization of the enternal Self; sah, he, who is established in the
realization of the enternal Self, who forbears the opposites; kalpate,
becomes fit; amrtattvaya, for Immortality, for the state of Immortality, i.e.
for Liberation.
2.16 Since 'the unreal has no being,' etc., for this reason also it is
proper to bear cold, heat, etc. without becoming sorrowful or deluded.
Asatah, of the unreal, of cold, heat, etc. together with their causes; na
vidyate, there is no; bhavah, being, existence, reality; because heat,
cold, etc. together with their causes are not substantially real when
tested by means of proof. For they are changeful, and whatever is
changeful is inconstant. As configurations like pot etc. are unreal since
they are not perceived to be different from earth when tested by the
eyes, so also are all changeful things unreal because they are not
perceived to be different from their (material) causes, and also because
they are not perceived before (their) origination and after destruction.
Objection: If it be that [Here Ast. has the additional words 'karyasya
ghatadeh, the effect, viz pot etc. (and)'.-Tr.] such (material) causes as
earth etc. as also their causes are unreal since they are not perceived
differently from their causes, in that case, may it not be urged that owing
to the nonexistence of those (causes) there will arise the contingency of
everything becoming unreal [An entity cannot be said to be unreal merely
because it is non-different from its cause. Were it to be asserted as
being unreal, then the cause also should be unreal, because there is no
entity which is not subject to the law of cuase and effect.]? Vedantin:
No, for in all cases there is the experience of two awarenesses, viz the
awareness of reality, and the awareness of unreality. [In all cases of
perception two awarenesses are involved: one is invariable, and the
other is variable. Since the variable is imagined on the invariable,
therefore it is proved that there is something which is the substratum of
all imagination, and which is neither a cause nor an effect.] That in
relation to which the awareness does not change is real; that in relation
to which it changes is unreal. Thus, since the distinction between the
real and the unreal is dependent on awareness, therefore in all cases (of
empirical experiences) everyone has two kinds of awarenesses with
regard to the same substratum: (As for instance, the experiences) 'The
pot is real', 'The cloth is real', 'The elephant is real' -- (which
experiences) are not like (that of) 'A blue lotus'. [In the empirical
experience, 'A blue lotus', there are two awarenesses concerned with
two entities, viz the substance (lotus) and the quality (blueness). In the
case of the experience, 'The pot is real', etc. the awarenesses are not
concerned with substratum and qualities, but the awareness of pot,of
cloth, etc. are superimposed on the awareness of 'reality', like that of
'water' in a mirage.] This is how it happens everywhere. [The
coexistence of 'reality' and 'pot' etc. are valid only empirically --
according to the non-dualists; whereas the coexistence of 'blueness'
and 'lotus' is real according to the dualists.] Of these two awareness,
the awareness of pot etc. is inconstant; and thus has it been shown
above. But the awareness of reality is not (inconstant). Therefore the
object of the awareness of pot etc. is unreal because of inconstancy; but
not so the object of the awareness of reality, because of its constancy.
Objection: If it be argued that, since the awareness of pot also changes
when the pot is destroyed, therefore the awareness of the pot's reality is
also changeful? Vedantin: No, because in cloth etc. the awareness of
reality is seen to persist. That awareness relates to the odjective (and not
to the noun 'pot'). For this reason also it is not destroyed. [This last
sentence has been cited in the f.n. of A.A.-Tr.] Objection: If it be argued
that like the awareness of reality, the awareness of a pot also persists in
other pots? Vedantin: No, because that (awareness of pot) is not
present in (the awareness of) a cloth etc. Objection: May it not be that
even the awareness of reality is not present in relation to a pot that has
been destroyed? Vedantin: No, because the noun is absent (there).
Since the awareness of reality corresponds to the adjective (i.e. it is used
adjectivelly), therefore, when the noun is missing there is no possibility of
its (that awareness) being an adjective. So, to what should it relate? But,
again, the awareness of reality (does not cease) with the absence of an
object.. [Even when a pot is absent and the awareness of reality does
not arise with regare to it, the awareness of reality persists in the region
where the pot had existed. Some read nanu in place of na tu ('But,
again'). In that case, the first portion (No,...since...adjective. So,...relate?)
is a statement of the Vedantin, and the Objection starts from nanu punah
sadbuddheh, etc. so, the next Objection will run thus: 'May it not be said
that, when nouns like pot etc. are absent, the awareness of existence
has no noun to qualify, and therefore it becomes impossible for it (the
awareness of existence) to exist in the same substratum?'-Tr.]
Objection: May it not be said that, when nouns like pot etc. are absent,
(the awareness of existence has no noun to qualify and therefore) it
becomes impossible for it to exist in the same substratum? [The
relationship of an adjective and a noun is seen between two real entities.
Therefore, if the relationship between 'pot' and 'reality' be the same as
between a noun and an adjective, then both of them will be real entities.
So, the coexistence of reality with a non-pot does not stand to reason.]
Vedantin: No, because in such experiences as, 'This water exists',
(which arises on seeing a mirage etc.) it is observed that there is a
coexistence of two objects though one of them is non-existent.
Therefore, asatah, of the unreal, viz body etc. and the dualities (heat,
cold, etc.), together with their causes; na vidyate, there is no; bhavah,
being. And similarly, satah, of the real, of the Self; na vidyate, there is no;
abhavah, nonexistence, because It is constant everywhere. This is what
we have said. Tu, but; antah, the nature, the conclusion (regarding the
nature of the real and the unreal) that the Real is verily real, and the
unreal is verily unreal; ubhayoh api, of both these indeed, of the Self and
the non-Self, of the Real and the unreal, as explained above; drstah, has
been realized thus; tattva-darsibhih, by the seers of Truth. Tat is a
pronoun (Sarvanama, lit. name of all) which can be used with regard to
all. And all is Brahman. And Its name is tat. The abstraction of tat is
tattva, the true nature of Brahman. Those who are apt to realize this are
tattva-darsinah, seers of Truth. Therefore, you too, by adopting the
vision of the men of realization and giving up sorrow and delusion,
forbear the dualities, heat, cold, etc. -- some of which are definite in their
nature, and others inconstant --, mentally being convinced that this
(phenomenal world) is changeful, verily unreal and appears falsely like
water in a mirage. This is the idea. What, again, is that reality which
remains verily as the Real and surely for ever? This is being answered in,
'But know That', etc.
2.17 Tu, but -- this word is used for distinguishing (reality) from
unreality; tat viddhi, know That; to be avinasi, indestructible, by nature
not subject to destruction; what? (that) yena, by which, by which
Brahman called Reality; sarvam, all; idam, this, the Universe together
with space; is tatam, pervaded, as pot etc. are pervaded by space. Na
kascit, none; arhati, can; kartum, bring about; vinasam, the destruction,
disappearance, nonexistence; asya, of this avyayasya, of the Immutable,
that which does not undergo growth and depletion. By Its very nature
this Brahman called Reality does not suffer mutation, because, unlike
bodies etc., It has no limbs; nor (does It suffer mutation) by (loss of
something) belonging to It, because It has nothing that is Its own.
Brahman surely does not suffer loss like Devadatta suffering from loss of
wealth. Therefore no one can bring about the destruction of this
immutable Brahman. No one, not even God Himself, can destroy his
own Self, because the Self is Brahman. Besides, action with regard to
one's Self is self-contradictory. Which, again, is that 'unreal' that is said
to change its own nature? This is being answered:
2.18 Ime, these; antavantah, destructible; dehah, bodies -- as the idea
of reality which continues with regard to water in a mirage, etc. gets
eliminated when examined with the means of knowledge, and that is its
end, so are these bodies and they have an end like bodies etc. in dream
and magic --; uktah, are said, by discriminating people; to belong
nityasya, to the everlasting; anasinah, the indestructible; aprameyasya,
the indeterminable; sarirnah, embodied One, the Self. This is the
meaning. The two words 'everlasting' and 'indestructible' are not
repetitive, because in common usage everlastingness and destructibility
are of two kinds. As for instance, a body which is reduced to ashes and
has disappeared is said to have been destoryed. (And) even while
existing, when it becomes transfigured by being afflicted with diseases
etc. it is said to be 'destroyed'. [Here the A.A. adds 'tatha dhana-naseapyevam,
similar is the case even with regard to loss of wealth.'-Tr.] That
being so, by the two words 'everlasting' and 'indestructible' it is meant
that It is not subject to both kinds of distruction. Otherwise, the
everlastingness of the Self would be like that of the earth etc. Therefore,
in order that this contingency may not arise, it is said, 'Of the everlasting,
indestructible'. Aprameyasya, of the indeterminable, means 'of that
which cannot be determined by such means of knowledge as direct
perception etc.' Objection: Is it not that the Self is determined by the
scriptures, and before that through direct perception etc.? Vedantin:
No, because the Self is self-evident. For, (only) when the Self stands
predetermined as the knower, there is a search for a means of
knolwedge by the knower. Indeed, it is not that without first determining
oneself as, 'I am such', one takes up the task of determining an object of
knowledge. For what is called the 'self' does not remain unknown to
anyone. But the scripture is the final authority [when the Vedic text
establishes Brahman as the innermost Self, all the distinctions such as
knower, known and the means of knowledge become sublated. Thus it
is reasonable that the Vedic text should be the final authority. Besides,
its authority is derived from its being faultless in as much as it has not
originated from any human being.]: By way of merely negating
superimposition of qualities that do not belong to the Self, it attains
authoritativeness with regard to the Self, but not by virtue of making
some unknown thing known. There is an Upanisadic text in support of
this: '...the Brahman that is immediate and direct, the Self that is within
all' (Br. 3.4.1). Since the Self is thus eternal and unchanging, tasmat,
therefore; yudhyasva, you join the battle, i.e. do not desist from the war.
Here there is no injunction to take up war as a duty, because be (Arjuna),
though he was determined for war, remains silent as a result of being
overpowered by sorrow and delusion. Therefore, all that is being done
by the Lord is the removal of the obstruction to his duty. 'Therefore, join
the battle' is only an approval, not an injunction. The scripture Gita is
intended for eradicating sorrow, delusion, etc. which are the cases of the
cycle of births and deaths; it is not intended to enjoin action. As
evidences of this idea the Lord cites two Vedic verses: [Ka. 1.2.19-20.
There are slight verbal differences.-Tr.]
2.19 But the ideas that you have, 'Bhisma and others are neing killed by
me in war; I am surely their killer' -- this idea of yours is false. How? Yah,
he who; vetti, thinks; of enam, this One, the embodied One under
consideration; as hantaram, the killer, the agent of the act of killing; ca,
and; yah, he who, the other who; manyate, thinks; of enam, this One; as
hatam, the killed -- (who thinks) 'When the body is killed, I am myself
killed; I become the object of the act of killing'; ubhau tau, both of them;
owing to non-discrimination, na, do not; vijanitah, know the Self which is
the subject of the consciousness of 'I'. The meaning is: On the killing of
the body, he who thinks of the Self (-- the content of the consciousness
of 'I' --) [The Ast. omits this phrase from the precedig sentence and
includes it in this place. The A.A. has this phrase in both the places.-Tr.]
as 'I am the killer', and he who thinks, 'I have been killed', both of them
are ignorant of the nature of the Self. For, ayam, this Self; owing to Its
changelessness, na hanti, does not kill, does not become the agent of
the act of killing; na hanyate, nor is It killed, i.e. It does not become the
object (of the act of killing). The second verse is to show how the Self is
changeless:
2.20 Na kadacit, neverl; is ayam, this One; jayate, born i.e. the Self has
no change in the form of being born -- to which matter is subject --; va,
and (-- va is used in the sense of and); na mriyate, It never dies. By this
is denied the final change in the form of destruction. The word (na)
kadacit), never, is connected with the denial of all kinds of changes thus
-- never, is It born never does It die, and so on. Since ayam, this Self;
bhutva, having come to exist, having experienced the process of
origination; na, will not; bhuyah, again; abhavita, cease to be thereafter,
therefore It does not die. For, in common parlance, that which ceases to
exist after coming into being is said to die. From the use of the word va,
nor, and na, it is understood that, unlike the body, this Self does not
again come into existence after having been non-existent. Therefore It is
not born. For, the words, 'It is born', are used with regard to something
which comes into existence after having been non-existent. The Self is
not like this. Therfore It is not born. Since this is so, therefore It is ajah,
birthless; and since It does not die, therefore It is nityah, eternal.
Although all changes become negated by the denial of the first and the
last kinds of changes, still changes occuring in the middle [For the six
kinds of changes see note under verse 2.10.-Tr.] should be denied with
their own respective terms by which they are implied. Therefore the text
says sasvatah, undecaying,. so that all the changes, viz youth etc.,
which have not been mentioned may become negated. The change in
the form of decay is denied by the word sasvata, that which lasts for
ever. In Its own nature It does not decay because It is free from parts.
And again, since it is without qualities, there is no degeneration owing to
the decay of any quality. Change in the form of growth, which is
opposed to decay, is also denied by the word puranah, ancient. A thing
that grows by the addition of some parts is said to increase and is also
said to be new. But this Self was fresh even in the past due to Its
partlessness. Thus It is puranah, i.e. It does not grow. So also, na
hanyate, It is puranah, i.e. It does not grow. So also, na hanyate, It is not
killed, It does not get transformed; even when sarire, the body;
hanyamane, is killed, transformed. The verb 'to kill' has to be understood
here in the sense of transformation, so that a tautology [This verse has
already mentioned 'death' in the first line. If the verb han, to kill, is also
taken in the sense of killing, then a tautology is unavoidable.-Tr.] may be
avoided. In this mantra the six kinds of transformations, the material
changes seen in the world, are denied in the Self. The meaning of the
sentence is that the Self is devoid of all kinds of changes. Since this is
so, therefore 'both of them do not know' -- this is how the present
mantra is connected to the earlier mantra.
2.21 In the mantra, 'He who thinks of this One as the killer,' having
declared that (the Self) does not become the agent or the object of the
actof killing, and then in the mantra, 'Never is this One born,' etc., having
stated the reasons for (Its) changelessness, the Lord sums up the
purport of what was declared above: He who knows this One as
indestructible, etc. Yah, he who; veda, knows -- yah is to be thus
connected with Veda --; enam, this One, possessing the characteristics
stated in the earlier mantra; as avinasinam, indestructible, devoid of the
final change of state; nityam, eternal, devoid of transformation; ajam,
birthless; and avyayam, undecaying; katham, how, in what way; (and
kam, whom;) does sah, that man of realization; purusah, the person who
is himself an authority [i.e. above all injunctions and prohibitions. See
18.16.17.-Tr.]; hanti, kill, undertake the act of killing; or how ghatayati,
does he cause (others) to be killed, (how does he) instigate a killer! The
intention is to deny both (the acts) by saying, 'In no way does he kill any
one, nor does he cause anyone to be killed', because an interrogative
sense is absurd (here). Since the implication of the reason [The reason
for the denial of killing etc. is the changelessness of the Self, and this
reason holds good with regard to all actions of the man of realization.-
Tr.], viz the immutability of the Self, [The A.A. omits 'viz the immutability
of the Self'.-Tr.] is common (with regard to all actions), therefore the
negation of all kinds of actions in the case of a man of realization is what
the Lord conveys as the only purport of this context. But the denial of
(the act of) killing has been cited by way of an example. Objection: By
noticing what special reason for the impossibility of actions in the case of
the man of realization does the Lord deny all actions (in his case) by
saying, 'How can that person,' etc.? Vedantin: Has not the immutability
of the Self been already stated as the reason [Some readings omit this
word.-Tr.] , the specific ground for the impossibility of all actions?
Objection: It is true that it has been stated; but that is not a specific
ground, for the man of realization is different from the immutable Self.
Indeed, may it not be argued that action does not become impossible for
one who has known as unchanging stump of a tree?! Vedantin: No,
because of man of Knowledge is one with the Self. Enlightenment does
not belong to the aggregate of body and senses. Therefore, as the last
laternative, the knower is the Immutable and is the Self which is not a
part of the aggregate. Thus, action being impossible for that man of
Knowledge, the denial in, 'How can that person...,' etc. is reasonable. As
on account of the lack of knowledge of the distinction between the Self
and the modifications of the intellect, the Self, though verily immutable, is
imagined through ignorance to be the perceiver of objects like sound
etc. presented by the intellect etc., in this very way, the Self, which in
reality is immutable, is said to be the 'knower' because of Its association
with the knowledge of the distinction between the Self and non-Self,
which (knowledge) is a modification of the intellect [By buddhi-vrtti,
modification of the intellect, is meant the transformation of the internal
organ into the form of an extension upto an object, along with its past
impressions, the senses concerned, etc., like the extension of the light of
a lamp illuminating an object. Consciousness reflected on this
transformation and remaining indistinguishable from that transformation
revealing the object, is called objective knowledge. Thereby, due to
ignorance, the Self is imagined to be the perceiver because of Its
connection with the vrtti, modification. (-A.G.) The process is elsewhere
described as follows: The vrtti goes out through the sense-organ
concerned, like the flash of a torchlight, and along with it goes the
reflection of Consciousness. Both of them envelop the object, a pot for
instance. The vrtti destroys the ignorance about the pot; and the
reflection of Consciousness, becoming unified with only that portion of it
which has been delimited by the pot, reveals the pot. In the case of
knowledge of Brahman, it is admitted that the vrtti in the form, 'I am
Brahman', does reach Brahman and destroys ignorance about Brahman,
but it is not admitted that Brahman is revealed like a 'pot', for Brahman
is self-effulgent.-Tr.] and is unreal by nature. From the statement that
action is impossible for man of realization it is understood that the
conclusion of the Lord is that, actions enjoined by the scriptures are
prescribed for the unenlightened. Objection: Is not elightenment too
enjoined for the ignorant? For, the injunction about enlightenment to one
who has already achieved realization is useless, like grinding something
that has already been ground! This being so, the distinction that rites
and duties are enjoined for the unenlightened, and not for the
enlightened one, does not stand to reason. Vedantin: No. There can
reasonable be a distinction between the existence or nonexistence of a
thing to be performed. As after the knowledge of the meaning of the
injunction for rites like Agnihotra etc. their performance becomes
bligatory on the unenlightened one who thinks, 'Agnihotra etc. has to be
performed by collecting various accessories; I am the agent, and this is
my duty', -- unlike this, nothing remains later on to be performed as a
duty after knowing the meaning of the injunction about the nature of the
Self from such texts as, 'Never is this One born,' etc. But apart from the
rise of knowledge regarding the unity of the Self, his non-agency, etc., in
the form, 'I am not the agent, I am not the enjoyer', etc., no other idea
arises. Thus, this distinction can be maintained. Again, for anyone who
knows himself as, 'I am the agent', there will necessarily arise the idea,
'This is my duty.' In relation to that he becomes eligible. In this way
duties are (enjoined) [Ast. adds 'sambhavanti, become possible'.-Tr.] for
him. And according to the text, 'both of them do not know' (19), he is an
unenlightened man. And the text, 'How can that person,' etc. concerns
the enlightened person distinguished above, becuase of the negation of
action (in this text). Therefore, the enlightened person distinguished
above, who has realized the immutable Self, and the seeker of Liberation
are qualified only for renunciation of all rites and duties. Therefore,
indeed, the Lord Narayana, making a distinction between the
enlightened man of Knowledge and the unenlightened man of rites and
duties, makes them take up the two kinds of adherences in the text,
'through the Yoga of Knowledge for the men of realization; through the
Yoga of Action for the yogis' (3.3). Similarly also, Vyasa said to his son,
'Now, there are these two paths,' etc. ['Now, there are these two paths
on which the Vedas are based. They are thought of as the dharma
characterized by engagement in duties, and that by renunciation of
them' (Mbh. Sa. 241.6).-Tr.] So also (there is a Vedic text meaning): 'The
path of rites and duties, indeed, is the earlier, and renunciation comes
after that.' [Ast. says that this is not a quotation, but only gives the
purport of Tai, Ar. 10.62.12.-Tr.] The Lord will show again and again this
very division: 'The unenlightened man who is deluded by egoism thinks
thus: I am the doer; but the one who is a knower of the facts (about the
varieties of the gunas) thinks, I do not act' (cf. 3.27,28). So also there is
the text, '(The embodied man of selfcontrol,) having given up all actions
mentally, continues (happily in the town of nine gates)' (5.13) etc. With
regard to this some wiseacres say: In no person does arise the idea, 'I
am the changeless, actionless Self, which is One and devoid of the six
kinds of changes beginning with birth to which all things are subject', on
the occurrence of which (idea alone) can renunciation of all actions be
enjoined. That is not correct, because it will lead to the needlessness of
such scriptural instructions as, 'Never is this One born,' etc. (20). They
should be asked: As on the authority of scripural instructions there arises
the knowledge of the existence of virtue and vice and the knowledge
regarding an agent who gets associated with successive bodies,
similarly, why should not there arise from the scriptures the knowledge of
unchangeability, non-agentship, oneness, etc. of that very Self?
Objection: If it be said that this is due to Its being beyond the scope of
any means (of knowledge)? Vedantin: No, because the Sruti says, 'It is
to be realized through the mind alone, (following the instruction of the
teacher)' (Br. 4.4.19). The mind that is purified by the instructions of the
scriptures and the teacher, control of the body and organs, etc.
becomes the instrument for realizing the Self. Again, since there exist
inference and scriptures for Its realization, it is mere bravado to say that
Knowledge does not arise. And it has to be granted that when
knowledge arises, it surely eliminates ignorance, its opposite. And that
ignorance has been shown in, 'I am the killer', 'I am killed', and 'both of
them do not know' (see 2.19). And here also it is shown that the idea of
the Self being an agent, the object of an action, or an indirect agent, is
the result of ignorance. Also, the Self being changeless, the fact that
such agentship etc. are cuased by ignorance is a common factor in all
actions without exception, because only that agent who is subject to
change instigates someone else who is different from himself and can be
acted on, saying, 'Do this.' Thus, with a view to pointing out the
absence of fitness for rites and duties in the case of an enlightened
person, the Lord [Ast, adds vasudeva after 'Lord'.-Tr.] says, 'He who
knows this One as indestructible,' 'how can that person,' etc. -- thereby
denying this direct and indirect agentship of an enlightened person in
respect of all actions without exception. As regards the question, 'For
what, again, is the man of enlightenment qualified?', the answer has
already been give earlier in, 'through the Yoga of Knowledge for the men
of realization' (3.3). Similarly, the Lord will also speak of renunication of
all actions in, 'having given up all actions mentally,' etc.(5.13).
Objection: May it not be argued that from the expression, 'mentally', (it
follows that) oral and bodily actions are not to be renounced? Vedantin:
No, because of the categoric expression, 'all actions'. Objection: May it
not be argued that 'all actions' relates only to those of the mind?
Vedantin: No, because all oral and bodily actions are preceded by those
of the mind, for those actions are impossible in the absence of mental
activity. Objection: May it not be said that one has to mentally renounce
all other activities except the mental functions which are the causes of
scriptural rites and duties performed through speech and body?
Vedantin: No, because it has been specifically expressed: 'without doing
or causing (others) to do anything at all' (5.13). Objection: May it not be
that this renunciation of all actions, as stated by the Lord, is with regard
to a dying man, not one living? Vedantin: No, because (in that case) the
specific statement, 'The embodied man...continues happily in the town
of nine gates' (ibid.) will become illogical since it is not possible for a
dead person, who neither acts nor makes others act, [The words
'akurvatah akarayatah, (of him) who neither acts nor makes others act',
have been taken as a part of the Commentator's arguement. But A.G.
points out that they can also form a part of the next Objection. In that,
case, the translation of the Objection will be this: Can it not be that the
construction of the sentence (under discussion) is -- Neither doing nor
making others do, he rest by depositing (sannyasya, by renouncing) in
the body', but not 'he rests in the body by renouncing...'?] to rest in that
body after renouncing all actions. Objection: Can it not be that the
construction of the sentence (under discussion) is, '(he rests) by
depositing (sannyasya, by renouncing) in the body', (but) not 'he rests in
the body by renouncing...'? Vedantin: No, because everywhere it is
categorically asserted that the Self is changeless. Besides, the action of
'resting' requires a location, whereas renunciation is independent of this.
The word nyasa preceded by sam here means 'renunciation', not
'depositing'. Therefore, according to this Scripture, viz the Gita, the man
of realization is eligible for renunciation, alone, not for rites and duties.
This we shall show in the relevant texts later on in the cotext of the
knowledge of the Self. And now we shall speak of the matter on hand:
As to that, the indestructibility [Indestructibility suggests unchangeability
as well.] of the Self, has been postulated. What is it like? That is being
said in, 'As after rejecting wornout clothes,' etc.
2.22 Yatha, as in the world; vihaya, after rejecting jirnani, wornout;
vasamsi, clothes; narah, a man grhnati, takes up; aparani, other; navani,
new ones; tatha, likewise, in that very manner; vihaya, after rejecting;
jirnani, wornout; sarirani, bodies; dehi, the embodied one, the Self which
is surely unchanging like the man (in the example); samyati, unites with;
anyani, other; navani, new ones. This is meaning.
2.23 Why does It verily remain unchanged? This is being answered in,
'Weapons do not cut It,' etc. Sastrani, weapons; na, do not; chindanti,
cut; enam, It, the embodied one under discussion. It being partless,
weapons like sword etc. do not cut off Its limbs. So also, even pavakah,
fire; na dahati enam, does not burn, does not reduce It to ashes. Ca,
and similarly; apah, water; na enam kledayanti, does not moisten It. For
water has the power of disintegrating a substance that has parts, by the
process of moistening it. That is not possible in the case of the partless
Self. Similarly, air destroys an oil substance by drying up the oil. Even
marutah, air; na sosayati, does not dry; (enam, It,) one's own Self. [Ast.
reads 'enam tu atmanam, but this Self', in place of enam svatmanam.-
Tr.]
2.24 Since this is so, therefore ayam, It; acchedyah, cannot be cut.
Since the other elements which are the causes of destruction of one ano
ther are not capable of destroying this Self, therefore It is nityah, eternal.
Being eternal, It is sarva-gatah, omnipresent. Being omnipresent, It is
sthanuh, stationary, i.e. fixed like a stump. Being fixed, ayam, this Self; is
acalah, unmoving. Therefore It is sanatanah, changeless, i.e. It is not
produced from any cause, as a new thing. It is not to be argued that
'these verses are repetive since eternality and changelessness of the Self
have been stated in a single verse itself, Never is this One born, and
never does It die, etc. (20). Whatever has been said there (in verse 19)
about the Self does not go beyond the meaning of this verse. Something
is repeated with those very words, and something ideologically.' Since
the object, viz the Self, is inscrutable, therefore Lord Vasudeva raises the
topic again and again, and explains that very object in other words so
that, somehow, the unmanifest Self may come within the comprehension
of the intellect of the transmigrating persons and bring about a cessation
of their cycles of births and deaths.
2.25 Moreover, ucyate, it is said that; ayam, This, the Self; is avyaktah,
unmanifest, since, being beyond the ken of all the organs, It cannot be
objectified. For this very reason, ayam, This; is acintyah, inconceivable.
For anything that comes within the purview of the organs becomes the
object of thought. But this Self is inconceivable becuase It is not an
object of the organs. Hence, indeed, It is avikaryah, unchangeable. This
Self does not change as milk does when mixed with curd, a curdling
medium, etc. And It is chnageless owing to partlessness, for it is not
seen that any non-composite thing is changeful. Not being subject to
transformation, It is said to be changeless. Tasmat, therefore; vidivata,
having known; enam, this one, the Self; evam, thus, as described; na
arhasi, you ought not; anusocitum, to grieve, thinking, 'I am the slayer of
these; these are killed by me.'
2.26 This (verse), 'On the other hand,' etc., is uttered assuming that the
Self is transient. Atha ca, on the other hand, if (-- conveys the sense of
assumption --); following ordinary experience, manyase, you think;
enam, this One, the Self under discussion; is nityajatam, born
continually, becomes born with the birth of each of the numerous
bodies; va, or; nityam, constantly; mrtam, dies, along with the death of
each of these (bodies); tatha api, even then, even if the Self be of that
nature; tvam, you; maha-baho, O mighty-armed one; na arhasi, ought
not; socitum, to grieve; evam, thus, since that which is subject to birth
will die, and that which is subject to death will be born; these two are
inevitable.
2.27 This being so, 'death of anyone born', etc. Hi, for; mrtyuh, death;
jatasya, of anyone born; dhruvah, is certain; is without exception; ca,
and mrtasya, of the dead; janmah, (re-) birth; is dhruvam, a certainly.
Tasmat, therefore, this fact, viz birth and death, is inevitable. With regard
to that (fact), apariharye, over an enevitable; arthe, fact; tvam, you; na
arhasi, ought not; socitum, to grieve.
2.28 It is not reasonable to grieve even for beings which are constituted
by bodies and organs, since 'all beings remain unmanifest' etc. (Bharata,
O descendant of Bharata;) bhutani, all beings, avyaktaduni, remain
unmainfest in the beginning. Those beings, viz sons, friends, and others,
constituted by bodies and organs, [Another reading is karya-karanasanghata,
aggregates formed by material elements acting as causes and
effects.-Tr.] who before their origination have unmanifestedness
(avyakta), invisibility, nonperception, as their beginning (adi) are
avyaktaadini. Ca, and; after origination, before death, they become
vyakta-madhyani, manifest in the middle. Again, they eva, certainly;
become avyakta-nidhanani, unmanifest after death. Those which have
unmanifestness (avyakta), invisibility, as their death (nidhana) are
avyakta-nidhanani. The idea is that even after death they verily attain
unmanifestedness. Accordingly has it been said: 'They emerged from
invisibility, and have gone back to invisibility. They are not yours, nor are
you theirs. What is this fruitless lamentation!' (Mbh. St. 2.13). Ka, what;
paridevana, lamentation, or what prattle, can there be; tatra, with regard
to them, i.e. with regard to beings which are objects of delusion, which
are invisible, (become) visible, (and then) get destroyed!
2.29 'This Self under discussion is inscrutable. Why should I blame you
alone regarding a thing that is a source of delusion to all!' How is this
Self inscrutable? [It may be argued that the Self is the object of egoism.
The answer is: Although the individualized Self is the object of egoism,
the absolute Self is not.] This is being answered in, 'Someone visualizes
It as a wonder,' etc. Kascit, someone; pasyati, visualizes; enam, It, the
Self; ascaryavat, as a wonder, as though It were a wonder -- a wonder is
something not seen before, something strange, something seen all on a
sudden; what is comparable to that is ascarya-vat; ca, and; tatha,
similarly; eva, indeed; kascit, someone; anyah, else; vadati, talks of It as
a wonder. And someone else srnoti, hears of It as a wonder. And
someone, indeed, na, does not; veda, realize It; api, even; srutva, after
hearing, seeing and speaking about It. Or, (the meaning is) he who sees
the Self is like a wonder. He who speaks of It and the who hears of It is
indeed rare among many thousands. Therefore, the idea is that the Self
is difficult to understand. Now, in the course of concluding the topic
under discussion, [viz the needlessness of sorrow and delusion,from the
point of view of the nature of things.] He says, 'O descendant of Bharata,
this embodied Self', etc.
2.30 Because of being partless and eternal, ayam, this dehi, embodied
Self; nityam avadhyah, can never be killed, under any condition. That
being so, although existing sarvasya dehe, in all bodies, in trees etc., this
One cannot be killed on account of Its being allpervasive. Since the
indewelling One cannot be killed although the body of everyone of the
living beings be killed, tasmat, therefore; tvam, you; na arhasi, ought not;
socitum, to grieve; for sarvani bhutani, all (these) beings, for Bhisma and
others. Here [i.e. in the earlier verse.] it has been said that, from the
standpoint of the supreme Reality, there is no occasion for sorrow or
delusion. (This is so) not merely from the standpoint of the supreme
Reality, but --
2.31 Api, even; aveksya, considering; svadharmam, your own duty, the
duty of a Ksatriya, viz battle -- considering even that -- ; na arhasi, you
ought not; vikampitum, to waver, to deviate from the natural duty of the
Ksatriya, i.e. from what is natural to yourself. And hi, since that battle is
not devoid of righteousness, (but) is supremely righteous -- it being
conducive to virtue and meant for protection of subjects through
conquest of the earth --; therefore, na vidyate, there is nothing; anyat,
else; sreyah, better; ksatriyasya, for a ksatriya; than that dharmyat,
righteous; yuddhat, battle.
2.32 Why, again, does that battle become a duty? This is being
answered (as follows) [A specific rule is more authoritative than a general
rule. Non-violence is a general rule enjoined by the scriptures, but the
duty of fighting is a specific rule for a Ksatriya.]: Partha, O son of Partha;
are not those Ksatiryas sukhinah, happy [Happy in this world as also in
the other.] who labhante, come across; a yuddham, battle; idrsam, of
this kind; upapannam, which presents itself; yadrcchaya, unsought for;
and which is an apavrtam, open; svarga-dvaram, gate to heaven? [Rites
and duties like sacrifices etc. yield their results after the lapse of some
time. But the Ksatriyas go to heaven immediatley after dying in battle,
because, unlike the minds of others, their minds remaind fully engaged in
their immediate duty.]
2.33 Atha, on the other hand; cet, if; tvam, you; na karisyasi, will not
fight; even imam, this; dharmyam, righteous; samgramam, battle, which
has presented itself as a duty, which is not opposed to righteousness,
and which is enjoined (by the scriptures); tatah, then, because of not
undertaking that; hitva, forsaking; sva-dharmam, your own duty; ca, and;
kritim, fame, earned from encountering Mahadeva (Lord Siva) and
others; avapsyasi, you will incur; only papam, sin.
2.34 Not only will there be the giving up of your duty and fame, but
bhutani, people; ca api, also; kathayisyanti, will speak; te, of your;
avyayam, unending, perpetual; akrtim, infamy. Ca, and; sambhavitasya,
to an honoured person, to a person honoured with such epithets as
'virtuous', 'heroic', etc.; akirtih, infamy; atiricyate, is worse than;
maranat, death. The meaning is that, to an honoured person death is
perferable to infamy.
2.35 Moreover, maharathah, the great chariot-riders, Duryodhana and
others; mamsyante, will think; tvam, of you; as uparatam, having
desisted; ranat, from the fight; not out of compassion, but bhayat, out of
fear of Karna and others; ca, and ; yasyasi laghavam, you will again fall
into disgrace before them, before Duryodhana and others; yesam, to
whom; tvam, you; bahumato bhutva, had been estimable as endowed
with many qualities.
2.36 Ca, and besieds; tava, your; ahitah, enemies; vadisyanti, will
speak; bahun, many, various kinds of; avacya-vadan, indecent words,
unutterable words; nindantah, while denigrating, scorning; tava, your;
samarthyam, might earned from battles against Nivatakavaca and
others. Therefore, kim nu, what can be; duhkhataram, more painful;
tatah, than that, than the sorrow arising from being scorned? That is to
say, there is no greater pain than it.
2.37 Again, by undertaking the fight with Karna and others, va, either;
hatah, by being killed; prapsyasi, you will attain; svargam, heaven; or
jitva, by winning over Karna and other heroes; bhoksyase, you will enjoy;
mahim, the earth. The purport is that in either case you surely stand to
gain. Since this is so, Kaunteya, O son of Kunti; tasmat, therefore;
uttistha, rise up; krta-niscayah, with determination; yuddhaya, for
fighting, i.e. with the determination, 'I shall either defeat the enemies or
shall die.'
2.38 As regards that, listen to this advice for you then you are engaged
in battle considering it to be your duty: Krtva, treating; sukha-duhkhe,
happiness and sorrow; same, with equanimity, i.e. without having likes
and dislikes; so also treating labha-alabhau, gain and loss; jaya-ajayau,
conquest and defeat, as the same; tatah, then; yuddhaya yujyasva,
engage in battle. Evam, thus by undertaking the fight; na avapsyasi, you
will not incur; papam, sin. This advice is incidental. [The context here is
that of the philosophy of the supreme Reality. If fighting is enjoined in
that context, it will amount to accepting combination of Knowledge and
actions. To avoid this contingency the Commentator says, 'incidental'.
That is to say, although the context is of the supreme Reality, the advice
to fight is incidental. It is not an injunction to combine Knowledge with
actions, since fighting is here the natural duty of Arjuna as a Ksatriya.].
The generally accepted argument for the removal of sorrow and delusion
has been stated in the verses beginning with, 'Even considering your
own duty' (31), etc., but this has not been presented by accepting that
as the real intention (of the Lord). The real context here (in 2.12 etc.),
however, is of the realization of the supreme Reality. Now, in order to
show the distinction between the (two) topics dealt with in this scripture,
the Lord concludes that topic which has been presented above (in 2.20
etc.), by saying, 'This (wisdom) has been imparted,' etc. For, if the
distinction between the topics of the scripute be shown here, then the
instruction relating to the two kinds of adherences -- as stated later on
in, 'through the Yoga of Knowledge for the men of realization; through
the Yoga of Action for the yogis' (3.3) -- will proceed again smoothly,
and the hearer also will easily comprehend it by keeping in view the
distinction between the topics. Hence the Lord says:
2.39 Partha, O son of Prtha (Arjuna); esa, this; buddhih, wisdom, the
Knowledge which directly removes the defect (viz ignorance) that is
responsible for sorrow, delusion, etc. [Mundane existence consists of
attraction and repulsion, agentship and enjoyership, etc. These are the
defects, and they arise from ignorance about one's Self. Enlightenment
is the independent and sole cause that removes this ignorance.]
constituting mundane existence; abhihita, has been imparted; te, to you;
sankhye, from the standpoint of Self-realization, with regard to the
discriminating knowledge of the supreme Reality. Tu, but; srnu, listen;
imam, to this wisdom which will be imparted presently; yoge, from the
spandpoint of Yoga, from the standpoint of the means of attaining it
(Knowledge) -- i.e., in the context of Karma-yoga, the performance of
rites and duties with detachment after destroying the pairs of opposites,
for the sake of adoring God, as also in the context of the practice of
spiritual absorption. As as inducement, He (the Lord) praises that
wisdom: Yuktah, endowed; yaya, with which; buddhya, wisdom
concerning Yoga; O Partha, prahasyasi, you will get rid of; karmabandham,
the bondage of action -- action is itself the bondage
described as righteousness and unrighteousness; you will get rid of that
bondage by the attainment of Knowledge through God's grace. This is
the idea.
2.40 Moreover, iha, here, in the path to Liberation, viz the Yoga of
Action (rites and duties); na, there is no; abhikrama-nasah, waste of an
attempt, of a beginning, unlike as in agriculture etc. The meaning is that
the result of any attempt in the case of Yoga is not uncertain. Besides,
unlike as in medical care, na vidyate, nor is there, nor does there arises;
any pratyavayah, harm. But, svalpam api, even a little; asya, of this;
dharmasya, righteousness in the form of Yoga (of Action); when
pracised, trayate, saves (one); mahato bhayat, from great fear, of
mundance existence characterized by death, birth, etc.
2.41 Kuru-nandana, O scion of the Kuru dynasty; iha, is this path to
Liberation; there is only eka, a single; vyavasayatmika, one-pointed;
buddhih, conviction, which has been spoken of in the Yoga of
Knowledge and which has the characteristics going to be spoken of in
(Karma-) yoga. It is resolute by nature and annuls the numerous
branches of the other opposite thoughts, since it originates from the
right source of knowledge. [The right source of knowledge, viz the Vedic
texts, which are above criticism.] Those again, which are the other
buddhayah, thoughts; they are bahu-sakhah, possessed of numerous
branches, i.e. possessed of numerous variations. Owing to the influence
of their many branches the worldly state becomes endless, limitless,
unceasing, ever-growing and extensive. [Endless, because it does not
cease till the rixe of full enlightenment; limitless, because the worldly
state, which is an effect, springs from an unreal source.] But even the
worldly state ceases with the cessation of the infinite branches of
thoughts, under the influence of discriminating wisdom arising from the
valid source of knowledge. (And those thoughts are) hi, indeed; anantah,
innumerable under every branch. Whose thoughts? Avyavasayinam, of
the irresolute ones, i.e. of those who are devoid of discriminating wisdom
arising from the right source of knowledg.
2.42 Partha, O son of Prtha; those devoid of one-pointed conviction,
who pravadanti, utter; imam, this; yam puspitam vacam, flowery talk,
which is going to be stated, which is beautiful like a tree in bloom,
pleasant to hear, and appears to be (meaningful) sentences [Sentences
that can be called really meaningful are only those that reveal the self.-
Tr.]; -- who are they? they are -- avipascitah, people who are
undiscerning, of poor intellect, i.e. non-discriminating; veda-vada-ratah,
who remain engrossed in the utterances of the Vedas, in the Vedic
sentences which reveal many panegyrics, fruits of action and their
means; and vadinah, who declare, are apt tosay; iti, that; na anyat,
nothing else [God, Liberation, etc.]; asti, exists, apart from the rites and
duties conducive to such results as attainment of heaven etc. And they
are kamatmanah, have their minds full of desires, i.e. they are swayed by
desires, they are, by nature, full of desires; (and) svarga-parah, have
heaven as the goal. Those who accept heaven (svarga) as the supreme
(para) human goal, to whom heaven is the highest, are svarga-parah.
They utter that speech (-- this is supplied to construct the sentence --)
which janma-karma-phala-pradam, promises birth as a result of rites and
duties. The result (phala) of rites and duties (karma) is karma-phala. Birth
(janma) itself is the karma-phala. That (speech) which promises this is
janma-karma-phala-prada. (This speech) is kriya-visesa-bahulam, full of
various special rites; bhoga-aisvarya-gatim-prati, for the attainment of
enjoyment and affluence. Special (visesa) rites (kriya) are kriya-visesah.
The speech that is full (bahula) of these, the speech by which that is full
(bahula) of these, the speech by which these, viz objects such as
heaven, animals and sons, are revealed plentifully, is kriya-visesa-bahula.
Bhoga, enjoyment, and aisvarya, affluence, are bhoga-aisvarya. Their
attainment (gatih) is bhoga-aisvarya-gatih. (They utter a speech) that is
full of the specialized rites, prati, meant for that (attainment). The fools
who utter that speech move in the cycle of transmigration. This is the
idea.
2.43 Partha, O son of Prtha; those devoid of one-pointed conviction,
who pravadanti, utter; imam, this; yam puspitam vacam, flowery talk,
which is going to be stated, which is beautiful like a tree in bloom,
pleasant to hear, and appears to be (meaningful) sentences [Sentences
that can be called really meaningful are only those that reveal the self.-
Tr.]; -- who are they? they are -- avipascitah, people who are
undiscerning, of poor intellect, i.e. non-discriminating; veda-vada-ratah,
who remain engrossed in the utterances of the Vedas, in the Vedic
sentences which reveal many panegyrics, fruits of action and their
means; and vadinah, who declare, are apt tosay; iti, that; na anyat,
nothing else [God, Liberation, etc.]; asti, exists, apart from the rites and
duties conducive to such results as attainment of heaven etc. And they
are kamatmanah, have their minds full of desires, i.e. they are swayed by
desires, they are, by nature, full of desires; (and) svarga-parah, have
heaven as the goal. Those who accept heaven (svarga) as the supreme
(para) human goal, to whom heaven is the highest, are svarga-parah.
They utter that speech (-- this is supplied to construct the sentence --)
which janma-karma-phala-pradam, promises birth as a result of rites and
duties. The result (phala) of rites and duties (karma) is karma-phala. Birth
(janma) itself is the karma-phala. That (speech) which promises this is
janma-karma-phala-prada. (This speech) is kriya-visesa-bahulam, full of
various special rites; bhoga-aisvarya-gatim-prati, for the attainment of
enjoyment and affluence. Special (visesa) rites (kriya) are kriya-visesah.
The speech that is full (bahula) of these, the speech by which that is full
(bahula) of these, the speech by which these, viz objects such as
heaven, animals and sons, are revealed plentifully, is kriya-visesa-bahula.
Bhoga, enjoyment, and aisvarya, affluence, are bhoga-aisvarya. Their
attainment (gatih) is bhoga-aisvarya-gatih. (They utter a speech) that is
full of the specialized rites, prati, meant for that (attainment). The fools
who utter that speech move in the cycle of transmigration. This is the
idea.
2.44 And vyavasayatmika, one-pointed; buddhih, conviction, with
regard to Knowledge or Yoga; na vidhiyate, does not become
established, i.e. does not arise; samadhau, in the minds -- the word
samadhi being derived in the sese of that into which everthing is
gathered together for the enjoyment of a person --; bhoga-aisvaryaprasaktanam,
of those who delight in enjoyment and wealth, of those
who have the hankering that only enjoyment as also wealth is to be
sought for, of those who identify themselves with these; and apahrtacetasam,
of those whose intellects are carried away, whose
discriminating judgement becomes covered; taya, by that speech which
is full of various special rites.
2.45 To those who are thus devoid of discriminating wisdom, who
indulge in pleasure, [Here Ast. adds 'yat phalam tad aha, what result
accrues, that the Lord states:'-Tr.] O Arjuna, vedah, the Vedas;
traigunya-visayah, have the three qualities as their object, have the three
gunas, [Traigunya means the collection of the three qualities, viz sattva
(purity), rajas (energy) and tamas (darkness); i.e. the collection of
virtuous, vicious and mixed activities, as also their results. In this
derivative sense traigunya means the worldly life.] i.e. the worldly life, as
the object to be revealed. But you bhava, become; nistraigunyah, free
from the three qualities, i.e. be free from desires. [There is a seeming
conflict between the advices to be free from the three qualities and to be
ever-poised in the quality of sattva. Hence, the Commentator takes the
phrase nistraigunya to mean niskama, free from desires.] (Be)
nirdvandvah, free from the pairs of duality -- by the word dvandva,
duality, are meant the conflicting pairs [Of heat and cold, etc.] which are
the causes of happiness and sorrow; you become free from them. [From
heat, cold, etc. That is, forbear them.] You become nitya-sattvasthah,
ever-poised in the quality of sattva; (and) so also niryoga-ksemah,
without (desire for) acquisition and protection. Yoga means acquisition of
what one has not, and ksema means the protection of what one has. For
one who as 'acquisition and protection' foremost in his mind, it is difficult
to seek Liberation. Hence, you be free from acquisition and protection.
And also be atmavan, self-collected, vigilant. This is the advice given to
you while you are engaged in your own duty. [And not from the point of
view of seeking Liberation.]
2.46 If there be no need for the infinite results of all the rites and duties
mentioned in the Vedas, then why should they be performed as a
dedication to God? Listen to the answer being given: In the world,
yavan, whatever; arthah, utility, use, like bathing, drinking, etc.; one has
udapane, in a well, pond and other numerous limited reservoirs; all that,
indeed, is achieved, i.e. all those needs are fulfilled to that very extent;
sampluhtodake, when there is a flood; sarvatah, all arount. In a similar
manner, whatever utility, result of action, there is sarvesu, in all; the
vedesu, Vedas, i.e. in the rites and duties mentioned in the Vedas; all
that utility is achieved, i.e. gets fulfilled; tavan, to that very extent; in that
result of realization which comes brahmanasya, to a Brahmana, a
sannyasin; vijanatah, who knows the Reality that is the supreme Goal --
that result being comparable to the flood all around. For there is the
Upanisadic text, '...so all virtuous deeds performed by people get
included in this one...who knows what he (Raikva) knows...' (Ch. 4.1.4).
The Lord also will say, 'all actions in their totality culminate in
Knowledge' (4.33). [The Commentators quotation from the Ch. relates to
meditation on the qualified Brahman. Lest it be concluded that the
present verse relates to knowledge of the qualified Brahman only, he
quotes again from the Gita toshow that the conclusion holds good in the
case of knowledge of the absolute Brahman as well.] Therefore, before
one attains the fitness for steadfastness in Knowledge, rites and duties,
even though they have (limited) utility as that of a well, pond, etc., have
to be undertaken by one who is fit for rites and duties.
2.47 Te, your; adhikarah, right; is karmani eva, for action alone, not for
steadfastness in Knowledge. Even there, when you are engaged in
action, you have ma kadacana, never, i.e. under no condition whatever;
a right phalesu, for the results of action -- may you not have a hankering
for the results of action. Whenever you have a hankering for the fruits of
action, you will become the agent of acquiring the results of action. Ma,
do not; thus bhuh, become; karma-phalahetuh, the agent of acquiring
the results of action. For when one engages in action by being impelled
by thirst for the results of action, then he does become the cause for the
production of the results of action. Ma, may you not; astu, have; sangah,
an inclination; akarmani, for inaction, thinking, 'If the results of work be
not desired, what is the need of work which involves pain?'
2.48 If action is not to be undertaken by one who is under the impulsion
of the fruits of action, how then are they to be undertaken? This is being
stated: Yogasthah, by becoming established in Yoga; O Dhanajaya,
kuru, undertake; karmani, actions, for the sake of God alone; even there,
tyaktva, casting off; sangam, attachment, in the form, 'God will be
pleased with me.' ['Undertake work for pleasing God, but not for
propitiating Him to become favourable towards yourself.'] Undertake
actions bhutva, remaining; samah, equipoised; siddhi-asidhyoh, in
success and failure -- even in the success characterized by the
attainment of Knowledge that arises from the purification of the mind
when one performs actions without hankering for the results, and in the
failure that arises from its opposite. [Ignorance, arising from the impurity
of the mind.] What is that Yoga with regard to being established in which
it is said, 'undertake'? This indeed is that: the samatvam, equanimity in
success and failure; ucyate, is called; yogah, Yoga.
2.49 Then again, O Dhananjaya, as against action performed with
equanimity of mind for adoring God, karma, action undertaken by one
longing for the results; is, hi, indeed; durena, quite, by far; avaram,
inferior, very remote; buddhi-yogat, from the yoga of wisdom, from
actions undertaken with equanimity of mind, because it (the former) is
the cause of birth, death, etc. Since this is so, therefore, saranam
anviccha, take resort to, seek shelter; buddhau, under wisdom, which
relates to Yoga, or to the Conviction about Reality that arises from its
(the former's) maturity and which is the cause of (achieving) fearlessness.
The meaning is that you should resort to the knowledge of the supreme
Goal, because those who under take inferior actions, phala-hetavah,
who thirst for rewards, who are impelled by results; are krpanah, pitiable,
according to the Sruti, 'He, O Gargi, who departs from this world without
knowing this Immutable, is pitiable' (Br. 3.8.10). [See note under 2.7.-Tr.]
2.50 Listen to the result that one possessed of the wisdom of
equanimity attains by performing one's own duties: Buddhi-yuktah,
possessed of wisdom, possessed of the wisdom of equanimity; since
one jahati, rejects; iha, here, in this world; ubhe, both; sukrta-duskrte,
virtue and vice (righteousness and unrighteousness), through the
purification of the mind and acquisition of Knowledge; tasmat, therefore;
yujyasva, devote yourself; yogaya, to (Karma-) yoga, the wisdom of
equanimity. For Yoga is kausalam, skilfulness; karmasu, in action.
Skilfulness means the attitude of the skilful, the wisdom of equanimity
with regard to one's success and failure while engaged in actions
(karma) -- called one's own duties (sva-dharma) -- with the mind
dedicated to God. That indeed is skilfulness which, through equanimity,
makes actions that by their very nature bind give up their nature!
Therefore, be you devoted to the wisdom of equanimity.
2.51 The words 'phalam tyaktva, by giving up the fruits' are connected
with the remote word 'karmajam, produced by actions'. Hi, because;
[Because, when actions are performed with an attitude of equanimity, it
leads to becoming freed from sin etc. Therefore, by stages, it becomes
the cause of Liberation as well.] buddhi-yuktah, those who are devoted
to wisdom, who are imbued with the wisdom of equanimity; (they)
becoming manisinah, men of Enlightenment; tyaktva, by giving up;
phalam, the fruit, the acquisition of desirable and undesriable bodies;
[Desirable: the bodies of gods and others; undesirable: the bodies of
animals etc.] karmajam, produced by actions; gacchanti, reach; padam,
the state, the supreme state of Visnu, called Liberation; anamayam,
beyond evils, i.e. beyond all evils; by having become janma-bandhavinirmuktah,
freed from the bondage of birth -- birth (janma) itself is a
bondage (bandha); becoming freed from that --, even while living. Or: --
Since it (buddhi) has been mentioned as the direct cause of the
elimination of righteousness and unrighteousness, and so on, therefore
what has been presented (in the three verses) beginning with, 'O
Dhananjaya,...to the yoga of wisdom' (49), is enlightenment itself, which
consists in the realization of the supreme Goal, which is comparable to a
flood all around, and which arises from the purification of the mind as a
result of Karma-yoga. [In the first portion of the Commentary buddhi has
been taken to mean samattva buddhi (wisdom of equanimity); the
alternative meaning of buddhi has been taken as 'enlightenment'. So,
action is to be performed by taking the help of the 'wisdom about the
supreme Reality' which has been chosen as one's Goal.]
2.52 When is attained that wisdom which arises from the purification of
the mind brought about by the pursuit of (karma-) yoga? This is being
stated: Yada, when, [Yada: when maturity of discrimination is attained.]
at the time when; te, your; buddhih, mind; vyatitarisyati, will go beyond,
cross over; moha-kalilam, the turbidity of delusion, the dirt in the form of
delusion, in the form of non-discrimination, which, after confounding
one's understanding about the distinction between the Self and the not-
Self, impels the mind towards objects -- that is to say, when your mind
will attain the state of purity; tada, then, [Tada: then, when the mind,
becoming purified, leads to the rise of discrimination, which in turn
matures into detachment.] at that time; gantasi, you will acquire;
nirvedam, despassion; for srotavyasya, what has to be heard; ca, and;
srutasya, what has been heard. The idea implied is that, at that time
what has to be heard and what has been heard [What has to be
heard...has been heard, i.e. the scriptures other than those relating to
Self-knowledge. When discrimination referred to above gets matured,
then the fruitlessness of all things other than Self-knowledge becomes
apparent.] becomes fruitless.
2.53 If it be asked, 'By becoming possessed of the wisdom arising from
the discrimination about the Self after overcoming the turbidity of
delusion, when shall I attain the yoga of the supreme Reality which is the
fruit that results from Karma-yoga?', then listen to that; Yada, when at
the time when; te, your; buddhih, mind; that has become sruti-vipratipanna,
bewildered, tossed about, by hearing (the Vedas) that reveal
the diverse ends, means, and (their) relationship, i.e. are filled with
divergent ideas; sthasyati, will become; niscala, unshakable, free from
the trubulence in the form of distractions; and acala, steadfast, that is to
say, free from doubt even in that (unshakable) state; samadhau, in
samadhi, that is to say, in the Self -- samadhi being derived in the sense
of that in which the mind is fixed; tada, then, at that time; avapsyasi, you
will attain; yogam, Yoga, the enlightenment, Self-absorption, that arises
from discrimination. Having got an occasion for inquiry, Arjuna, with a
view to knowing the characteristics of one who has the realization of the
Self, [By the word samadhi is meant the enlightenment arising from
discrimination, which has been spoken of in the commentary on the
previous verse. The steadfastness which the monks have in that
enlightenment is called steadfastness in Knowledge. Or the phrase may
mean, 'the enlightenment achieved through meditation on the Self', i.e.
the realization of the supreme Goal.] asked:
2.54 O Kesava, ka, what; is the bhasa, description, the language (for
the description) -- how is he described by others --; sthita-prajnasya, of
a man of steady wisdom, of one whose realization, 'I am the supreme
Brahman', remains steady; samadhi-sthasya, of one who is Selfabsorbed?
Or kim, how; does the sthitadhih, dhih, man of steady
wisdom; himself probhaseta, speak? How does he asita, sit? How does
he vrajeta, move about? That is to say, of what kind is his sitting or
moving? Through this verse Arjuna asks for a description of the man of
steady wisdom.
2.55 In the verses beginning from, 'When one fully renounces...', and
ending with the completion the Chapter, instruction about the
characteristics of the man of steady wisdom and the disciplines (he had
to pass through) is being given both for the one who has, indeed,
applied himself to steadfastness in the Yoga of Knowledge after having
renounced rites and duties from the very beginning [Even while he is in
the stage of celibacy.], and for the one who has (applied himself to this
after having passed) through the path of Karma-yoga. For in all the
scriptures without exception, dealing, with spirituality, whatever are the
characteristics of the man of realization are themselves presented as the
disciplines for an aspirant, because these (characteristics) are the result
of effort. And those that are the disciplines requiring effort, they become
the characteristics (of the man of realization). [There are two kinds of
sannyasa -- vidvat (renunciation that naturally follows Realization), and
vividisa, formal renunciation for undertaking the disciplines which lead to
that Realization. According to A.G. the characteristics presented in this
and the following verses describe not only the vidvat-sannyasin, but are
also meant as disciplines for the vividisa-sannyasin.-Tr.] O Partha, yada,
when, at the time when; prajahati, one fully renounces; sarvan, all; the
kaman, desires, varieties of desires; manogatan, that have entered the
mind, entered into the heart --. If all desires are renounced while the
need for maintaining the body persists, then, in the absence of anything
to bring satisfaction, there may arise the possibility of one's behaving like
lunatics or drunkards. [A lunatic is one who has lost his power of
discrimination, and a drunkard is one who has that power but ignores it.]
Hence it is said: Tustah, remains satisfied; atmani eva, in the Self alone,
in the very nature of the inmost Self; atmana, by the Self which is his
own -- indifferent to external gains, and satiated with everything else on
account of having attained the nector of realization of the supreme Goal;
tada, then; ucyate, he is called; sthita-prajnah, a man of steady wisdom,
a man of realization, one whose wisdom, arising from the discrimination
between the Self and the not-Self, is stable. The idea is that the man of
steady wisdom is a monk, who has renounced the desire for progeny,
wealth and the worlds, and who delights in the Self and disports in the
Self.
2.56 Moreover, that munih, monk [Sankaracarya identifies the monk
with the man of realization.] ucyate, is then called; sthita-dhih, a man of
steady wisdom; when anudvignamanah, his mind is unperturbed;
duhkhesu, in sorrow -- when his mind remains unperturbed by the
sorrows that may come on the physical or other planes [Fever,
headache, etc. are physical (adhyatmika) sorrows; sorrows caused by
tigers, snakes, etc. are environmental (adhibhautika) sorrows; those
caused by cyclones, floods, etc. are super-natural (adhidaivika).
Similarly, delights also may be experienced on the three planes.] --; so
also, when he is vigata-sprhah, free from longing; sukhesu, for delights -
- when he, unlike fire which flares up when fed with fuel etc., has no
longing for delights when they come to him --; and vita-raga-bhayakrodhah,
has gone beyond attachment, fear and anger.
2.57 Further, prajna, the wisdom; tasya, of that person, fo that
sannyasin; pratisthita, remains established; yah, who; anabhi-snehah,
has no attachment for; sarvatra, anything anywhere, even for body, life,
etc.; who na abhinanadati, neither welcomes; na dvesti, nor rejects; tat
tat, anything whatever; subha-asubham, good or bad; propya, when he
comes across it, i.e. who does not rejoice on meeting with the good, nor
reject the bad on meeting with it. Of such a person, who is thus free
from elation or dejection, the wisdom arising from discrimination remains
established.
2.58 And besides, yada, when; ayam, this one, the sannyasin practising
steadfastness in Knowledge; samharate, fully withdraws; ['Fully'
suggests absolute firmness in withdrawal, and 'withdraws' suggests full
control over the organs] indriyani, the senses; indriya-arthebhyah, from
all the objects of the senses; iva, as; kurmah, a tortoise; sarvasah, wholly
(withdraws); angani, its limbs, from all sides out of fear; -- when the man
engaged in steadfastness to Knowledge withdraws thus, then tasya, his;
prajna, wisdom; pratisthita, remains established -- (the meaning of this
portion has already been explained). As to that, [That is , so far as the
phenomenal world is concerned.] the organs of a sick person, too,
cease to be active when the refrains from sense-objects; they get fully
withdrawn like the limbs of a tortoise. but not so the hankering for those
objects. How that (hankering) gets completely withdrawn is being stated:
2.59 Although visayah, the objects, (i.e.) the organs, figuratively implied
and expressed by the word 'objects', or, the objects themselves;
vinivartante, recede; niraharasya dehinah, from an abstinent man, from
an embodied being, even from a fool who engages in painful austerity
and abstains from objects; (still, they do so) rasavarjam, with the
exception of the taste (for them), with the exception of the hankering that
one has for objects. The word rasa is well known as referring to the
sense of taste (hankering), as in such expressions as, 'sva-rasena
pravrttah, induced by his own taste (i.e. willingly)', 'rasikah, a man of
tastes', 'rasajnah, a connoisseur (of tastes)', etc. Api, even that; rasah,
taste of the nature of subtle attachment; asya, of this person, of the
sannyasin; nivartate, falls away, i.e. his objective perception becomes
seedless; when drstva, after attaining; param, the Absolute, the Reality
which is the supreme Goal, Brahman, he continues in life with the
realization, 'I verily am That (Brahman).' In the absence of full realization
there can be no eradication of the 'hankering'. The idea conveyed is
that, one should therefore stabilize one's wisdom which is characterized
by full realization. [If it be held that attachment cannot be eliminated
without the knowledge of Brahman, and at the same time that the
knowledge of Brahman cannot arise until attachment is eradicated, then
we get involved in a vicious circle. In answer it is said that gross
attachments are eliminated through discrimination which restrains the
senses from being overpowered by objects. And the full Knowledge
arising thereof eliminates the subtle inclinations as well. Hence there is
no vicious circle involved.] Since the organs have to be first brought
under his own control by one who desires to establish firmly the wisdom
which is characterized by full realization, therefore the Lord speaks of the
evil that arises from not keeping them under control:
2.60 Hi, for; kaunteya, O son of Kunti; pramathini, the turbulent;
indriyani, organs; prasabham, violently; haranti, snatch away; manah, the
mind; vipascitah, of an intelligent; purusasya, person; api, even; yatatah,
while he is striving diligently [Repeatedly being mindful of the evils that
arise from sense-objects.] -- (or,) the words purusasya vipascitah (of an
intelligent person) are to be connected with the remote word api (even).
[The Commentator says that api may be construed either with yatatah or
with vipascitah purusasya.-Tr.] Indeed, the organs confound a person
who is inclined towards objects, and after confounding him, violently
carry away his mind endowed with discriminating knoweldge, even when
he is aware of this. Since this is so, therefore,
2.61 Samyamya, controlling, having subdued; sarvani, all; tani, of them;
asita, one should remain; yuktah, concentrated; mat-parah, on Me as
the supreme -- he to whom I, Vasudeva, the inmost Self of all, am the
supreme (parah) is mat-parah. The idea is, he should remain
(concentrated) thinking, 'I am not different from Him.' Hi, for; the prajna,
wisdom; tasya, of one, of the sannyasin remaining thus concentrated;
yasya, whose; indriyani, organs; are vase, under control, by dint of
practice; [The organs come under control either by constantly thinking of
oneself as non-different from the Self, or by constantly being mindful of
the evils that result from objects.] pratisthita, becomes steadfast. Now,
then, is being stated this [This:what is described in the following two
verses, and is also a matter of common experience.] root, cause of all
the evils that beset one who is the verge of being overwhelmed:
2.62 Pumsah, in the case of a person; dhyayatah, who dwells on, thinks
of; visayan, the objects, the specialities [Specialities: The charms
imagined in them.] of the objects such as sound etc.; upajayate, there
arises; sangah, attachment, fondness, love; tesu, for them, for those
objects. Sangat, from attachment, from love; sanjayate, grows; kamah,
hankering, thirst. When that is obstructed from any quarter, kamat, from
hankering; abhijayate, springs; krodhah, anger. Krodhat, from anger;
bhavati, follows; sammohah, delusion, absence of discrimination with
regard to what should or should not be done. For, an angry man,
becoming deluded, abuses even a teacher. Sammohat, from delusion;
(comes) smrti-vibhramah, failure of memory originating from the
impressions acquired from the instructions of the scriptures and
teachers. When there is an occasion for memory to rise, it does not
occur. Smrti-bhramsat, from that failure of memory; (results) buddhinasah,
loss of understanding. The unfitness of the mind to discriminate
between what should or should not be done is called loss of
understanding. Buddhi-nasat, from the loss of understanding;
pranasyati, he perishes. Indeed, a man continues tobe himself so long as
his mind remains fit to distinguish between what he ought to and ought
not do. When it becomes unfit, a man is verily ruined. Therefore, when
his internal organ, his understanding, is destroyed, a man is ruined, i.e.
he becomes unfit for the human Goal. Thinking of objects has been said
to be the root of all evils. After that, this which is the cause of Liberation
is being now stated: [If even the memory of objects be a source of evil,
then their enjoyment is more so. Hence, a sannyasin seeking Liberation
cannot avoid this evil, since he has to move about for food which is
necessary for the maintenance of his body. The present verse is an
answer to this apprehension.]
2.63 Pumsah, in the case of a person; dhyayatah, who dwells on, thinks
of; visayan, the objects, the specialities [Specialities: The charms
imagined in them.] of the objects such as sound etc.; upajayate, there
arises; sangah, attachment, fondness, love; tesu, for them, for those
objects. Sangat, from attachment, from love; sanjayate, grows; kamah,
hankering, thirst. When that is obstructed from any quarter, kamat, from
hankering; abhijayate, springs; krodhah, anger. Krodhat, from anger;
bhavati, follows; sammohah, delusion, absence of discrimination with
regard to what should or should not be done. For, an angry man,
becoming deluded, abuses even a teacher. Sammohat, from delusion;
(comes) smrti-vibhramah, failure of memory originating from the
impressions acquired from the instructions of the scriptures and
teachers. When there is an occasion for memory to rise, it does not
occur. Smrti-bhramsat, from that failure of memory; (results) buddhinasah,
loss of understanding. The unfitness of the mind to discriminate
between what should or should not be done is called loss of
understanding. Buddhi-nasat, from the loss of understanding;
pranasyati, he perishes. Indeed, a man continues tobe himself so long as
his mind remains fit to distinguish between what he ought to and ought
not do. When it becomes unfit, a man is verily ruined. Therefore, when
his internal organ, his understanding, is destroyed, a man is ruined, i.e.
he becomes unfit for the human Goal. Thinking of objects has been said
to be the root of all evils. After that, this which is the cause of Liberation
is being now stated: [If even the memory of objects be a source of evil,
then their enjoyment is more so. Hence, a sannyasin seeking Liberation
cannot avoid this evil, since he has to move about for food which is
necessary for the maintenance of his body. The present verse is an
answer to this apprehension.]
2.64 Certainly the functions of the organs are naturally preceded by
attraction and repulsion. This being so, caran, by perceiving; visayan,
objects, which are unavoidable; indriyaih, with the organs such as ears
etc.; raga-dvesa-viyuktaih, that are free from those attraction and
repulsion; and are atma-vasyaih, under his own control; vidheya-atma,
[A.G. takes atma-vasyaih in the sense of '(with the organs) under the
control of the mind'. He then argues that it the mind be not under
control, there can be no real control, over the organs. Hence the text
uses the second expression, 'vidheyatma, whose mind can be subdued
at will'. Here atma is used in the sense of the mind, according to the
Commentator himself.] the self-controlled man, whose mind can be
subdued at will, a seeker after Liberation; adhigacchati, attains;
prasadam, serenity, self-poise. What happens when there is serenity?
This is being answered:
2.65 Prasade, when there is serenity; upajayate, there follows; hanih,
eradication; asya sarva-duhkhanam, of all his, the sannyasin's, sorrow
on the physical and other planes. Moreover, (this is so) hi, because;
buddhih, the wisdom; prasanna-cetasah, of one who has a serene mind,
of one whose mind is poised in the Self; asu, soon; pari-avatisthate,
becomes firmly established; remains steady (avatisthate) totally (pari), like
the sky, i.e. it becomes unmoving in its very nature as the Self. The
meaning of the sentence is this: Since a person with such a poised mind
and well-established wisdom attains fulfilment, therefore a man of
concentration [A man who is free whom slavery to objects of the
senses.] ought to deal with the indispensable and scripturally nonforbidden
objects through his senses that are free from love and hatred.
That same serenity is being eulogized:
2.66 Ayuktasya, for the unsteady, for one who does not have a
concentrated mind; na asti, there is no, i.e. there does not arise;
buddhih, wisdom, with regard to the nature of the Self; ca, and; there is
no bhavana, meditation, earnest longing [Longing to have a continuous
remembrance of the knowledge of Brahman which arises in the mind
from hearing the great Upanisadic sayings (maha-vakyas).] for the
knowledge of the Self; ayuktasya, for an unsteady man. And similarly,
abhavayatah, for an unmeditative man, who does not ardently desire the
knowledge of the Self; there is no santih, peace, restraint of the senses.
Kutah, how can there be; sukham, happiness; asantasya, for one
without peace? That indeed is happiness which consists in the freedom
of the senses from the thirst for enjoyment of objects; not the thirst for
objects -- that is misery to be sure. The implication is that, so long as
thirst persists, there is no possibility of even an iota of happiness! It is
being stated why a man without concentration does not possess
wisdom:
2.67 Hi, for; yat manah, the mind which; anu-vidhiyate, follows in the
wake of; caratam, the wandering; indriyani, senses that are tending
towards their respective objects; tat, that, the mind engaged in thinking
[Perceiving objects like sound etc. in their respective varieties.] of the
objects of the senses; harati, carries away, destroys; asya, his, the
sannyasin's; prajnam, wisdom born from the discrimination between the
Self and the not-Self. How? Iva, like; vayuh, the wind; diverting a navam,
boat; ambhasi, on the waters. As wind, by diverting a boat on the waters
from its intended course, drives it along a wrong course, similarly the
mind, by diverting the wisdom from the pursuit of the Self, makes it
engage in objects. After having stated variously the reasons for the idea
conveyed through the verse, 'For, O son of Kunti,' etc. (60), and having
established that very idea, the Lord concludes thus:
2.68 Since the evils arising from the activities of the organs have been
described, tasmat, therefore; mahabaho, O mighty-armed one; tasya,
his, the sannyasin's; prajna, wisdom; pratisthita, becomes established;
yasya, whose; indriyani, organs; sarvasah, in all their varieties,
differentiated as mind etc.; nigrhitani, are withdrawn; indriya-arthebhyah,
from their objects such as sound etc. In the case of a man of steady
wisdom in whom has arisen discriminating knowledge, those which are
these ordinary and Vedic dealings cease on the eradication of ignorance,
they being effects of ignorance. And ignorance ceases because it is
opposed to Knowledge. For clarifying this idea, the Lord says:
2.69 ya, that which; sarva-bhutanam, for all creatures; is nisa, night --
which being darkness (tamah) by nature, obliterates distinctions among
all things; what is that? that is the Reality which is the supreme Goal,
accessible to the man of steady wisdom. As that which verily appears as
day to the nocturnal creatures is night for others, similarly the Reality
wich is the supreme Goal appears to be night, as it were, to all
unenlightened beings who are comparable to the nocturnal creatures,
because It is beyond the range of vision of those who are devoid of that
wisdom. Samyami, the self-restrained man, whose organs are under
control, i.e. the yogi [The man of realization.] who has arisen from the
sleep of ignorance; jagarti, keeps awake; tasyam, in that (night)
characterized as the Reality, the supreme Goal. That night of ignorance,
characterized by the distinctions of subjects and objects, yasyam in
which; bhutani, the creatures, who are really asleep; are said to be
jagrati, keeping awake, in which night they are like dreamers in sleep; sa
nisa, it is night; pasyatah, to the seeing; muneh, sage, who perceives the
Reality that is the supreme Goal, because that (night) is ignorance by
nature. Therefore, rites and duties are enjoined only during the state of
ignorance, not in the state of enlightenment. For, when Knowledge
dawns, ignorance becomes eradicated like the darkness of night after
sun-rise. [It may be argued that even after illumination the phenomenal
world, though it is known to be false, will continue to be perceived
because of the persistence of past impressions; therefore there is scope
for the validity of the scriptural injunctions even in the case of an
illumined soul. The answer is that there will be no scope for the
injunctions, because the man of realization will then have no ardent
leaning towards this differentiated phenomenal world which makes an
injunction relevant.] Before the rise of Knowledge, ignorance, accepted
as a valid means of knowledge and presenting itself in the different forms
of actions, means and results, becomes the cause of all rites and duties.
It cannot reasonably become the source of rites and duties (after
Realization) when it is understood as an invalid means of knowledge. For
an agent becomes engaged in actions when he has the idea, 'Actions
have been enjoined as a duty for me by the Vedas, which are a valid
means of knowledge'; but not when he understands that 'all this is mere
ignorance, like the night'. Again, the man to whom has come the
Knowledge that all these differences in their totality are mere ignorance
like the night, to that man who has realized the Self, there is eligibility
only for renouncing all actions, not for engaging in actions. In
accordance with this the Lord will show in the verse, 'Those who have
their intellect absorbed in That, whose Self is That' (5.17) etc., that he
has competence only for steadfastness in Knowledge. Objection: May it
not be argued that, there will be no reason for being engaged even in
that (steadfastness in Knowledge) if there be no valid means of
knowledge [Vedic injunctions.] to impel one to that. [Because, without an
injunction nobody would engage in a duty, much less in steadfastness to
Knowledge.] Answer: No, since 'knowledge of the Self' relates to one's
own Self. Indeed, by the very fact that It is the Self, and since the validity
of all the means of knowledge culminates in It, [The validity of all the
means of knowledge holds good only so long as the knowledge of the
Self has not arisen.] therefore the Self does not depend on an injunction
to impel It towards Itself. [Does the injunction relate to the knowledge of
the Self. or to the Self Itself? The first alternative is untenable because a
valid means of knowledge reveals its objects even without an injunction.
The second alternative also is untenable because the Self is selfrevealing,
whereas an injunction is possible in the case of something yet
to be achieved. And one's own Self is not an object of that kind.] Surely,
after the realization of the true nature of the Self, there is no scope again
for any means to, or end of, knowledge. The last valid means of (Self-)
knowledge eradicates the possibility of the Self's becoming a perceiver.
And even as it eradicates, it loses its own authoritativeness, in the same
way as the means of knowledge which is valid in dream becomes
unauthoritative during the waking state. In the world, too, after the
preception of an abject, the valid means of that perception is not seen to
be a cause impelling the knower (to any action with regard to that
object). Hence, it is established that, for an knower of the Self, there
remains no eligibility for rites and duties. The attainment of Liberation is
only for the sannyasin [Liberation is attained only by one who, after
acquiring an intellectual knowledge of the Self in a general way, is
endowed with discrimination and detachment, has arisen above all
desires, has become a monk in the primary sense, and has directly
realized the Self by going through the process of sravana (understanding
of Upanisadic texts about the Self), etc.], the man of enlightenment, who
has renounced all desires and is a man of steady wisdom; but not for
him who has not renounced and is desirious of the objects (of the
senses). Such being the case, with a view to establishing this with the
help of an illustration, the Lord says:
2.70 Sah, that man; apnoti, attains; santim, peace Liberation; yam, into
whom, into which person; sarve, all; kamah, desires, all forms of wishes;
pravisanti, enter, from all directions, like waters entering into a sea,
without overwhelming him even in the presence of objects; they vanish in
the Self, they do not bring It under their own influence, tadvat, in the
same way; yadvat, as; apah, waters, coming from all sides; pravisanti,
flow into; samudram, a sea; that remains acala-pratistham, unchanged,
that continues to be its own self, without any change; apuryamanam,
(even) when filled up from all sides with water. Na, not so the other; who
is kama-kami, desirous of objects. Kama means objects which are
sought after. He who is given to desire them is kama-kami. The idea
implied is that he never attains (peace). Since this is so, therefore.
2.71 Sah puman, that man who has become thus, the sannyasin, the
man of steady wisdom, the knower of Brahman; adhi-gacchati, attains;
santim, peace, called Nirvana, consisting in the cessation of all the
sorrows of mundane existence, i.e. he becomes one with Brahman; yah,
who; vihaya, after rejecting; sarvan, all; kaman, desires, without a trace,
fully; carati, moves about, i.e. wanders about, making efforts only for
maintaining the body; nihsprhah, free from hankering, becoming free
from any longing even for the maintenance of the body; nirmamah,
without the idea of ('me' and) 'mine', without the deeprooted idea of
'mine' even when accepting something needed merely for the upkeep of
the body; and nir-ahankarah, devoid of pride, i.e. free from self esteem
owing to learning etc. This steadfastness in Knowledge, which is such,
is being praised:
2.72 O Partha, esa, this, the aforesaid; is brahmisthitih, the state of
being established in Brahman, i.e. continuing (in life) in indentification
with Brahman, after renouncing all actions. Na vimuhyati, one does not
become deluded; prapya, after attaining ; enam, this Rcchati, one
attains; brahma-nirvanam, identification with Brahman, Liberation;
sthitva, by being established; asyam, in this, in the state of Brahmanhood
as described; api, even; anta-kale, in the closing years of one's life.
What need it be said that, one who remains established only in Brahman
during the whole life, after having espoused monasticism even from the
stage of celibacy, attains indetification with Brahman!

BHAGAVADGITA
English translation of Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary - Swami
Gambhirananda
Chapter 3
ROMAN
3.1 O Janardana, cet, if it be; te, Your; mata, opinion, intention; that
buddhih, Wisdom; jyayasi, is superior; karmanah, to action-. If the
combination of Wisdom and action be intended (by the Lord), then the
means to Liberation is only one. [The path combining Wisdom and
action.] In that case, Arjuna would have done something illogical in
separating Wisdom from action by saying that Wisdom is superior to
action. For, that (Wisdom or action, which is a constituent of the
combination) cannot be greater than that (Combination, even) from the
point of view of the result. [Since what is intended is a combination,
therefore, the separation of Knowledge from action, from the point of
view of the result, is not justifiable. When Knowledge and action are
considered to form together a single means to Liberation, in that case
each of them cannot be considered separately as producing its own
distinct result. Arjuna's question can be justified only if this separation
were possible.] Similarly, what Arjuna said by way of censuring the Lord,
as it were, in, 'It has been stated by the Lord that Wisdom is superior to
action, and He exhorts me saying, Undertake action, which is a source
of evil! What may be the reason for this?', and also in, 'Tatkim, why then,
O Kesava; niyojayasi, do You urge; mam, me; to ghore, horrible, cruel;
karmani, action; involving injury?'-that (censure) also does not become
reasonable. On the other hand, [If the opponent's view be that
Knowledge is to be combined with rites and duties sanctioned by the
Vedas and the Smrtis in the case of the householders only, whereas for
others those sanctioned by the Smrtis alone are to be combined with
Knowledge..., then...] if it be supposed that the combination (of
Knowledge) with action sanctioned only by the Smrtis has been enjoined
for all by the Lord, and Arjuna also comprehended (accordingly), then,
how can the statement, 'Why then do you urge me to horrible action', be
rational? Besides,
3.2 'Though the Lord speaks lucidly, still, to me who am of a dull
understanding, the Lord's utterance appears to be conflicting.'
'Mohayasi, You bewilder; me, any; buddhim, understanding; iva, as it
were; vyamisrena iva, by that seemingly conflicting; vakyena, statement!
You have surely undertaken to dispel the confusion of my understanding;
but why do You bewildered (it)? Hence I say, You bewildered my
understanding, as it were.' However, if You [In some readings, 'tvam tu,
however, you', is substituted by 'tatra, as to that'.-Tr.] think that it is
impossible for a single person to pursue both Knowledge and action,
which can be undertaken (only) by different persons then, that being the
case, vada, tell me; niscitya, for certain; tadekam, one of these, either
Knowledge or action: This indeed is fit for Arjuna, according to his
understanding, strength and situation; yena, by which, by one of either
Knowledge or action; aham, I; apnuyam, may attain; sreyah, the highest
Good.' Even if Knowledge had been spoken of at all by the Lord as
being subsidiary to steadfastness in action, how then could there be the
desire in Arjuna to know of only one of them, as expressed in 'Tell me
one of these two?' Certainly the Lord did not say, 'I shall speak of only
one among Knowledge and action, but surely not of both', owing to
which, Arjuna, considering it impossible for himself to acquire both,
should have prayed for one only! The answer was in accordance witht
the question:
3.3 Anagha, O unblemished one, O sinless one; [This word of address
suggests that Arjuna is qualified to receive the Lord's instruction.]
dvividha, two kinds of ; nistha, steadfastness, persistence in what is
undertaken; asmin loke, in this world, for the people of the three castes
who are qualified for following the scriptures; prokta, were spoken of;
maya, by Me, the omniscient God, who had revealed for them the
traditional teachings of the Vedas, which are the means of securing
prosperity and the highest Goal; pura, in the days of yore, in the
beginning the creation, after having brought into being the creatures.
Now then, which is that steadfastness of two kinds? In answer the Lord
says: The steadfastness jnanayogena, through the Yoga of Knowledge-
Knowledge itself being the Yoga [Here jnana, Knowledge, refers to the
knowledge of the supreme Reality, and Yoga is used in the derivative
sense of 'that (Knowledge) through which one gets united with
Brahman'.]-; had been stated sankhyanam, for the men of realizationthose
possessed of the Knowledge arising from the discrimination with
regard to the Self and the not-Self, those who have espoused
monasticism from the stage of Celibacy; itself, those to whom the entity
presented by the Vedantic knowledge has become fully ascertained (see
Mu. 3.2.6)-,the monks who are known as the parama-hamsas, those
who are established in Brahman alone. And the steadfastness karmayogena,
through the Yoga of Action-action itself being the Yoga [Yoga
here means 'that through which one gets united with, comes to have,
prosperity', i.e. such actions as go by the name of righteousness and are
prescribed by the scriptures.] had been stated yoginam, for the yogis,
the men of action (rites and duties). This is the idea. Again, had it been
intended or stated or if it will be stated in the Gita by the Lord-and if it
has also been so stated in the Vedas-that Knowledge and action are to
be practised in combination by one and the same person for attaining
the same human Goal, why then should He here tell His dear supplicant
Arjuna, that steadfastness in either Knowledge or action is to be
practised only by different persons who are respectively qualified? If, on
the other hand, it be supposed that the Lord's idea is, 'After hearing
about both Knowledge and action, Arjuna will himself practise them (in
combination); but, to others, I shall speak of them as being meant to be
pursued by different persons', then the Lord would be imagined to be
unreliable, being possessed of likes and dislikes! And that is untenable.
So, from no point of view whatsoever can there be a combination of
Knowledge and action. And what has been said by Arjuna regarding
superiority of Wisdom over action, that stands confirmed for not having
been refuted; and (it also stands confirmed) that steadfastness in
Knowledge is suitable for being practised by monks alone. And from the
statement that they (Knowledge and action) are to be followed by
different persons, it is understood that this has the Lord's approval.
Noticing that Arjuna had become dejected under the impression, 'You
are urging me to that very action which is a source of bondage', and
was thinking thus, 'I shall not undertake action', the Lord said, 'Na
karmanam anarambhat, not by abstaining from action,' etc. Or:-When
steadfastness in Knowledge and steadfastness in action become
incapable of being pursued simultaneously by one and the same person
owing to mutual contradiction, then, since it may be concluded that they
become the cause of attaining the human Goal independently of each
other, therefore, in order to show-that the steadfastness in action is a
means to the human Goal, not independently, but by virtue of being
instrumental in securing steadfastness in Knowledge; and that, on the
other hand, steadfastness in Knowledge, having come into being
through the means of steadfastness in action, leads to the human Goal
independently without anticipating anything else-,the Lord said:
3.4 Purusah, a person; na does not; asnute, attain; naiskarmyam,
freedom from action, the state of being free from action, steadfastness in
the Yoga of Knowledge, i.e. the state of abiding in one's own Self which
is free from action; anarambhat, by abstaining; karmanam, from actionsby
the non-performance of actions such as sacrifices etc. which are or
were performed in the present or past lives, which are the causes of the
purification of the mind by way of attenuating the sins incurred, and
which, by being the cause of that (purification), become the source of
steadfastness in Knowledge through the generation of Knowledge, as
stated in the Smrti (text), 'Knowledge arises in a person from the
attenuation of sinful acts' [the whole verse is: Jnanam utpadyate
pumsamksayatpapasya karmanah; Yathadarsatalaprakhye
pasyatyatmanamatmani. 'Knowledge arises...acts. One sees the Self in
oneself as does one (see oneself) in a cleaned surface of a mirror'.-Tr.]
(Mbh. Sa. 204.8). This is the import. From the statement that one does
not attain freedom from action by abstaining from actions, it may be
concluded that one attains freedom from action by following the
opposite course of performing actions. What, again, is the reason that
one does not attain freedom from action by abstaining from actions? The
answer is: Because performing actions is itself a means to freedom from
action. Indeed, there can be no attainment of an end without (its) means.
And Karma-yoga is the means to the Yoga of Knowledge characterized
by freedom from action, because it has been so established in the
Upanisads and here as well. As for the Upanisads, it has been shown in
the texts, 'The Brahmanas seek to know It through the study of the
Vedas, sacrifices, (charity, and austerity consisting in a dispassionate
enjoyment of sense-objects)' (Br. 4.4.22), etc. whch deal with the means
of realizing the goal of Knowledge under discussion, viz the Realm of the
Self, that the Yoga of Karma is a means to the Yoga of Knowledge . And
even here (in the Gita), the Lord will established that, 'But, O mightyarmed
one, renunciation is hard to attain without (Karma-)yoga' (5.6); 'By
giving up attachment, the yogis undertake work...for the purification of
themselves' (5.11); 'Sacrifice, charity and austerity are verily the purifiers
of the wise' (18.5), etc. Objection: Is it not that in such texts as-
'Extending to all creatures immunity from fear' (Na. Par. 5.43), (one
should take recourse to freedom from action)-, it is shown that
attainment of freedom from action follows even from the renunciation of
obligatory duties? And in the world, too, it is a better known fact that
freedom from action follows abstention from actions. Hence also arises
the question, 'Why should one who desires freedom from action
undertake action?' Reply: Therefore the Lord said: Na ca, nor; samadhigacchati,
does he attain; siddhim, fulfilment steadfastness in the Yoga of
Knowledge, characterized by freedom from action; sannyasanat eva,
merely through renunciation-even from the mere renunciation of actions
which is devoid of Knowledge. What, again, is the reason that by the
mere giving up of actions which is not accompanied with Knowledge, a
person does not attain fulfulment in the form of freedom from actions?
To this query seeking to know the cause, the Lord says:
3.5 Hi, because; na kascit, no one; jatu, ever; tisthati, remains; api,
even; for so much time as a ksanam, moment; akarma-krt, without doing
work. Why? Hi, for; sarvah, all creatures; karyate karma, are made to
work; verily avasah, under compulsion; gunaih, by the gunas-sattva
(goodness); rajas (activity), and tamas (mental darkness); prakrti-jaih,
born of Nature. The word 'unenlightened' has to be added to the
sentence, since the men of realzation have been spoken of separately in,
'who is not distracted by the three gunas (qualities)' (14.23). For Karmayoga
is meant only for the unenlightened, nor for the men of Knowledge.
Karma-yoga, on the other hand, is not pertinent for the men of
Knowledge who, because of their not moving away from their own Self,
are not shaken by the gunas. This has been explained similarly in, 'he
who has known this One as indestructible' (2.21). But, if one who is not
a knower of the self does not perform prescribed action, then this is
certainly bad. Hence the Lord says:
3.6 Yah, one who; samyamya, after withdrawing; karma-indriyani, the
organs of action-hands etc.; aste, sits; manasa, mentally; smaran,
recollecting, thinking; indriya-arthan, the objects of the senses; sah, that
one; vimudha-atma, of deluded mind; ucyate, is called; mithya-acarah, a
hypocrite, a sinful person.
3.7 Tu, but, on the other hand, O Arjuna; yah, one who is unenlightened
and who is eligible for action; arabhate, engages in;-what does he
engage in? the Lord says in answer-karma yogam, Karma-yoga; karmaindriyaih,
with the organs of action, with speech, hands, etc.; niyamya,
controlling; indriyani, the sense-organs; manasa, with the mind; and
becoming asaktah unattached; [Here Ast; adds 'phalabhisandhi-varjitah,
free from hankering for results'.-Tr.] sah, that one; visisyate, excels the
other one, the hypocrite. This being so, therefore,
3.8 Tvam, you, O Arjuna; kuru, perform; niyatam, the obligatory; karma,
duties, those daily obligatory duties (nitya-karmas) or which one is
competent (according to the scriptures), and which are not heard of
[although no result of daily obligatory duties is mentioned in the
scriptures, still Sankaracarya holds that it is either heaven or purification
of the heart, because something done must have its consequence.-Tr.]
as productive of any result; hi, for, from the point of view of result;
karma, action; is jyayah, superior; akarmanah, to inaction, to nonperformance
(of duties). Why? Ca, and; akarmanah, through inaction;
api, even; te sarira-yatra, the maintenance of your body; na prasiddhyet,
will not be possible. Therefore, the distinction between action and in
action is abvious in this world. 'And as regards your ideea that action
should not be udnertaken because it leads to bondage-that too is
wrong.' How?
3.9 Ayam, this; lokah, man, the one who is eligible for action; karmabandhanah,
becomes bound by actions- the person who has karma as
his bondage (bandhana) is karma-bandhanah-; anyatra, other than; that
karmanah, action; yajnarthat, meant for Got not by that meant for God.
According to the Vedic text, 'Sacrifice is verily Visnu' (Tai. Sam. 1.7.4),
yajnah means God; whatever is done for Him is yajnartham. Therefore,
mukta-sangah, without being attached, being free from attachment to
the results of actions; O son of Kunti, samacara, you perform; karma,
actions; tadartham, for Him, for God. An eligible person should engage
in work for the following reason also:
3.10 Pura, in the days of yore, in the beginning of creation; srstva,
having created; prajah, the beings, the people of the three castes; sahayajnah,
together with the sacrifices; Prajapati, the creator of beings,
uvaca, said; 'Anena, by this sacrifice; prasavisyadhvam, you multiply.'
Prasava means origination, growth. 'You accomplish that. Esah astu, let
this sacrifice be; vah, your; ista-kama-dhuk, yielder of coveted objects of
desire.' That which yields (dhuk) coveted (ista) objects of desire (kama),
particular results, is istakama-dhuk. How?
3.11 'Bhavayata, you nourish; devan, the gods, Indra and others;
anena, with this sarifice. Let te devah, those gods; bhavayantu, nourish;
vah, you-make you contented with rainfall etc. Thus bhavayantah,
nourishing; parasparam, one another; avapsyatha, you shall attain; the
param, supreme; sreyah, Good, called Liberation, through the attainment
of Knowledge;' or, 'you shall attain heaven-which is meant by param
'sreyah.' [The param sreyah (supreme Good) will either mean liberation
or heaven in accordance with aspirant's hankering for Liberation or
enjoyment.] Moreover,
3.12 'Yajna-bhavitah, being nourished, i.e. being satisfied, by sacrifices;
devah, the gods; dasyante hi, will indeed give, will distribute; among vah,
you; the istan, coveted; bhogan, enjoyments, such as wife, childeren and
cattle. Sah, he; is eva, certainly; a stenah, thief, a stealer of the wealth of
gods and others; yah, who; bhunkte, enjoys, gratifies only his own body
and organs; with dattan, what enjoyable things have been given; taih, by
them, by the gods; apradaya, without offering (these); ebhyah, to them,
i.e. without repaying the debt [The three kinds of debt-to the gods, to
the rsis (sage), and to the manes-are repaid by satisfying them through
sacrifices, celibacy (including study of the Vedas, etc.), and procreation,
respectively. Unless one repays these debts, he incurs sin.] to them.'
3.13 Those again, who are yajna-sista-asinah, partakers of the
remnants of sacrifices, who, after making offering to the gods and
others, [The panca-maha-yajnas, five great offerings, which have to be
made by every householder are offerings to gods, manes, humans,
creatures and rsis (sages).] are habituated to eat the remnants (of those
offerings), called nectar; they, santah, by being (so); mucyante, become
freed; sarva-kilbisaih, from all sins-from those sins incurred through the
five things [the five things are; oven, water-pot, cutting instruments,
grinding machines and broom. A householder incurs sin by killing insects
etc. with these things, knowingly or unknowingly. It is atoned by making
the aforesaid five offerings.], viz oven etc., and also from those others
incurred owing to injury etc. caused inadvertently. Tu, but; the papah,
unholy persons, who are selfish; ye, who; pacanti, cook; atma-karanat,
for themselves; te, they, being themselves sinful; bhunjate, incur; agham,
sin. For the following reasons also actions should be undertaken by an
eligible person. Action is definitely the cause of the movement of the
wheel of the world. How? This is being answered:
3.14 It is a matter of direct perception that annat, from food, which is
eaten and is transformed into blood and semen; bhavanti, are born;
bhutani, the creatures. Anna-sambhavah, the origin of food; is parjanyat,
from rainfall. Parjanyah, rainfall; bhavati, originates; from yajnat, from
sacrifice. This accords with the Smrti, 'The oblations properly poured
into fire reaches the sun. From the sun comes rain, from rain comes
food, and from the sun comes rain, from rain comes food, and from that
the creatures' (Ma.Sm.3.76). (Here) sacrifice means its unique [Also
termed as the unseen result (adrsta).-Tr.] result. And that sacrifice, i.e.
the unique result, which arises (samudbhavah) from action (karma)
undertaken by the priest and the sacrificer, is karma-samudbhavah; it
has action for its origin.
3.15 Again, [a different reading in place of this is: 'Tat ca vividham
karma kuto jatamityaha, From where did those various kinds of action
originate? In reply the Lord says...' Still another reading is: 'Tat ca karma
brahmodbhavam iti aha, And the Lord says: That action has the Vedas
as its origin.'-vide A.A., 1936, p. 116). Astekar's reading is: Tat ca evam
vidham karma kuto jatamityaha, And from where has this kind of aciton
originated? The answers this.'-Tr.] viddhi, know; that karma, action; is
brahmodbhavam, it has Brahma, the Veda, as its udbhavam, origin.
[Here Ast. adds 'revealer'-Tr.] Further, Brahma, called the Veda, is
aksara-samudbhavam, it has aksara, the Immutable, Brahman, the
supreme Self, as its source. This is the meaning. Since the Veda came
out, like the breath of a man, from the supreme Self Itself, called the
Immutable, therefore the Veda, being the revealer of everything, is sarvagatam,
all pervading. Even though all-pervading, the Veda is nityam, for
ever; pratisthitam, based; yajne, on sacrifice, because the injunctions
about sacrifices predominate in it.
3.16 O Partha, sah, he; jivati, lives; mogham, in vain; yah, who, though
competent for action; na anuvartayati, does not follow; iha, here, in the
world; cakram, the wheel of the world; evam, thus; pravartitam, set in
motion, by God, on the basis of the Vedas and the sacrifices; aghayuh,
whose life (ayuh) is sinful (agham), i.e. whose life is vile; and indriyaaramah,
who indulges in the senses-who has his arama, sport,
enjoyment, with objects, indriyaih, through the senses. Therefore, the
gist of the topic under discussion is that action must be undertaken by
one who is qualified (for action) but is unenlightened. In the verses
beginning from, '(A person does not attain freedom from action by
adstaining from action' (4) and ending with, 'You perform the obligatory
duties...And, through inaction, even the maintenance of your body will
not be possible' (8), it has been proved that before one attains fitness for
steadfastness in the knowledge of the Self, it is the bounden duty of a
person who is qualified for action, but is not enlightened, to undertake
Karma-yoga for that purpose. And then, also in the verses commencing
from '(This man becomes bound) by actions other than that action
meant for God' (9) and ending with 'O Partha, he lives in vain,' many
reasons [Such as, that it pleases God, secures the affection of the gods,
and so on.] have been incidentally stated as to why a competent person
has to undertake actions; and the evils arising from their nonperformance
have also been emphatically declared. Such being the
conclusion, the question arises whether the wheel thus set in motion
should be followed by all, or only by one who is ignorant of the Self and
has not attained to the steadfastness which is fit to be practised by the
Sankhyas, the knowers of the Self, through the Yoga of Knowledge only,
and which is acquired by one ignorant of the Self through the means of
the practice of Karma-yoga mentioned above? Either anticipating
Arjuna's question to this effect, or in order to make the meaning of the
scripture (Gita) clearly understood, the Lord, revealing out of His own
accord that the following substance of the Upanisads-Becoming freed
from false knowledge by knowing this very Self, the Brahmanas
renounce what is a compulsory duty for those having false knoweldge,
viz, desire for sons, etc., and then lead a mendicant life just for the
purpose of maintaining the body; they have no duty to perform other
than steadfastness in the knowledge of the Self (cf. Br. 3.5.1)-has been
presented here in the Gita, says:
3.17 Tu, but; that manavah, man, the sannyasin, the man of
Knowledge, steadfast in the knowledge of the Self; yah, who; atmaratih
eva syat, rejoices only in the Self-not in the sense objects; and atmatrptah,
who is satisfied only with the Self-not with food and drink; and is
santustah, contented; eva, only; atmani, in the Self; tasya, for him; na
vidyate, there is no; karyam, duty [Duty with a view to securing
Liberation.] to perform. [Rati, trpti and santosa, though synonymous, are
used to indicate various types of pleasures. Or, rati means attachment to
objects; trpti means happiness arising from contact with some particular
object; and santosa means happiness in general, arising from the
acquisition of some coveted object only.] All people surely feel contened
by acquiring an external thing. But this one, without depending on it,
remains contented only with the Self; thta is to say, he remains detached
from everything. The idea it that, for a man who is such a knower of the
Self, there is no duty to undertake.
3.18 Moreover, tasya, for him, who rejoices in the supreme Self; na,
there is no; artham, concern; eva, at all; krtena, with performing action.
Objection: In that case, let there be some evil called sin owing to nonperformance!
Reply: Iha, here, in this world; na, nor is there; for him
kascana, any (concern); akrtena, with nonperfromance. Certainly there is
no evil in the form of incurring sin or in the form of self-destruction. Ca,
moreover; asya, for him; na asti, there is no; kascit artha-vyapasrayah
sarva-bhutesu, dependence on any object, from Brahma to an unmoving
thing, to serve any purpose. Vyapasrayah is the same as
vyapasrayanam, dependence, which is possible of being created by
action promted by necessity. (For him) there is no end to gain by
depending on any praticular object, due to which there can be some
action for that purpose. 'You (Arjuna) are not established in this fullest
realization which is comparable to a flood all around.'
3.19 Since this is so, therefore, asaktah, remaining unattached;
samacara, perform; satatam, always; karyam, the obligatory; daily
karma, duty; hi, for; acaran, by performing; (one's) karma, duty; asaktah,
without attachment, by doing work as a dedication to God; purusah, a
person; apnoti, attains; param, the Highest, Liberation, through the
purification of the mind. This is meaning. And (you should perform your
duty) for the following reason also:
3.20 Hi, for; in the olden days, the leaned Ksatriyas, janakadayah,
Janaka and others such as Asvapati; asthitah, strove to attain;
samsiddim, Liberation; karmana eva, through action itself. If it be that
they were possessed of the fullest realization, then the meaning is that
they remained established in Liberation whlile continuing, because of
past momentum, to be associated with action itself-without renouncing
it-with a veiw to preventing mankind from going astray. Again, if (it be
that) Janaka and others had not attained fullest realization, then, they
gradually became established in Liberation through action which is a
means for the purification of the mind. The verse is to be explained thus.
On the other hand, if you think, 'Obligatory duty was performed even by
Janaka and others of olden days who were surely unenlightened.
[Ajanadbhih: This is also translated as, 'surely because they were
unenlightened'.-Tr.] There by it does not follow that action has to be
undertaken by somebody else who has the fullest enlightenment and has
reached his Goal', nevertheless, tvam, you, who are under the influence
of past actions; arhasi, ought; kartum, to perform (your duties);
sampasyan api, keeping also in view; loka-sangraham, [V.S.A gives the
meanings of the phrase as 'the welfare of the world', and 'propitiation of
mankind'.-Tr. ] the prevention of mankind from going astray; even that
purpose. By whom, and how, is mankind to be prevented from going
astray? That is being stated: [In Ast. this introductory sentence is as
follows:loka-samgrahah kimartham kartavyam iti ucyate.-Tr.]
3.21 Yat yat, [This is according to the Ast. The G1. Pr. reads, yat yat
yesu yesu.-Tr.] whatever action; a sresthah, superior person, a leader;
acarati, does; itarah, another; janah, person, who follows him; does tat
tat eva, that very action. Further, yat, whatever; sah, he, the superior
person; kurute, upholds; as pramanam, authority, be it Vedic or secular;
lokah, an ordinary person; anuvartate, follows; tat, that, i.e. he accepts
that very thing as authoritative. 'If you have a doubt here with regard to
the duty of preventing people from straying, then why do you not
observe Me?'
3.22 O Partha, na asti, there is no; kartavyam, duty; kincana,
whatsoever; me, for Me (to fulfill); even trisu lokesu, in all the three
worlds. Why? There is na anavaptam, nothing (that remains) unachieved;
or avaptavyam, to be achieved. Still varte eva, do I continue; karmani, in
action.
3.23 Again, O Partha, yadi, if; jatu, at any time; aham, I; an, do not;
varteyam, continue; atandritah, vigilantly, untiringly; karmani, in action;
manusyah, men: anuvartante, willl follow; mama, My; vartma, path;
sarvasah, in every way, I being the Highest. And if that be so, what is
the harm? In reply the Lord says: [Ast. omits this sentence completely.-
Tr.]
3.24 Cet, if; aham, I; na kuryam, do not perform; karma, action; all ime,
these; lokah, worlds; utsideyuh, will be ruined, owing to the obsence of
work responsible for the maintenance of the worlds. Ca, and, futher;
syam, I shall become; karta, the agent; sankarasya, of intermingling (of
castes). Consequently, upahanyam, I shall be destroying; imah, these;
prajah, beings. That is to say, I who am engaged in helping the
creatures, shall be destroying them. This would be unbefitting of Me,
who am God. 'On the other, if, like Me, you or some one else possesses
the conviction of having attained Perfection and is a knower of the Self, it
is a duty of such a one, too, to help others even if there be no obligation
on his own part.'
3.25 O scion of the Bharata dynasty, yatha, as; some avidvamsah,
unenlightened poele; kurvanti, act. saktah, with attachment; karmani, to
work, (thinking) 'The reward of this work will accrue to me'; tatha, so;
should vidvan, the enlightened person, the knower of the Self; kuryat,
act; asaktah, without attachment, remaining unattached. [Giving up the
idea of agentship and the hankering for the rewards of actions to
oneself.] Whay does he (the enlightened person) act like him (the
former)? Listen to that: Cikirsuh, being desirous of achieving;
lokasamgraham, prevention of people from going astray. 'Neither for Me
who am a knower of the Self, nor for any other (knower of the Self) who
wants thus prevent people from going astray, is there any duty apart
from working for the welfare of the world. Hence, the following advice is
being given to such a knower of the Self:'
3.26 Vidvan the enlightened man; na janayet, should not create; buddhibhedam,
disturbance in the beliefs-disturbance in the firm belief, 'This
has to be done; and the result of this action is to be reaped by me';
ajnanam, of the ignorant, of the non-discriminating one; karmasanginam,
who are attached to work. But what should he do? Himself
samacaran, working, performing those very activities of the ignorant;
yuktah, while remaining diligent; josayet, he should make them do;
sarva-karmani, all the duties. How does an anillumined, ignorant person
be come attached to actions? In reply the Lord says:
3.27 Karmani kriyamanani, while actions, secular and scriptural, are
being done; sarvasah, in ever way; gunaih, by the gunas, (i.e.) by the
modifications in the form of body and organs; (born) prakrteh, of Nature-
Nature, (otherwise known as) Pradhana [Pradhana, Maya, the Power of
God.], being the state of equilibrium of the three qualities of sattva, rajas
and tamas; ahankara-vimudha-atma, one who is deluded by egoism;
manyate, thinks; iti, thus; 'Aham karta, I am the doer.' Ahankara is selfidentification
with the aggregate of body and organs. He whose atma,
mind, is vimudham, diluded in diverse ways, by that (ahankara) is
ahankara-vimudha-atma. He who imagines the characteristics of the
body and organs to be his own, who has self-identification with the body
and the organs, and who, through ignorance, believes the activities to be
his own-, he thinks, 'I am the doer of those diverse activities.'
3.28 Tu, but, on the other hand; he who is a knower, tattva-vit, a
knower of the facts;-knower of what kinds of facts?-guna-karmavibhagayoh,
about the varieties of the gunas and actions, i.e. a knower
of the diversity of the gunas and the diversity of acitons; [Guna-vibhaga
means the products of Prakrti which consists of the three gunas. They
are the five subtle elements, mind, intellect, ego, five sensory organs, five
motor organs and five objects (sound etc.) of the senses. Karma-vibhaga
means the varieties of inter-actions among these.-Tr.] na sajjate, does
not become attached; iti matva, thinking thus; 'Gunah, the gunas in the
form of organs;-not the Self-vartante, rest (act); gunesu, on the gunus in
the form of objects of the organs.'
3.29 Those again, guna-sammudhah, who are wholly deluded by the
gunas; prakrteh, of Nature; sajjante, become attached; guna karmasu, to
the activities of the gunas, thining, 'We do actions for results.' Krtsna-vit,
the knower of the All, one who is himself a knower of the Self; na
vicalayet, should not disturb; tan, those who are attached to actions;
(who are) mandan, of dull intellect; akrtsnavidah, who do not know the
All, who are all attention on the results of actions. Unsetting of beliefs is
itself the disturbance. That he should not do. This is the idea. Again, in
what manner should duties be under-taken by a seeker after Liberation
who is not enlightened, who is qualified for actions (rites and duties)? As
to this, the answer is being stated:
3.30 Vigata-jvarah, devoid of the fever of the soul, i.e. being free from
repentance, without remorse; yuddhyasva, engage in battle; sannyasya,
by dedicating; sarvani, all; karmani, actions; mayi, to Me, who am
Vasudeva, the omniscient supreme Lord, the Self of all; adhyatmacetasa,
with (your) mind intent on the Self-with discriminating wisdom,
with this idea, 'I am an agent, and I work for God as a servant'; and
further, bhutva, becoming; nirasih, free from expectations ['Free from
expectations of results for yourself']; and nirmamah, free from egoism.
You from whom has vanished the idea, '(this is) mine', are nirmamah.
3.31 Ye, those; manavah, men; who (nityam, ever;) anutisthanti, follow
accordingly; me matam, My teaching- this teaching of Mine, viz that
'duty must be performed', which has been stated with valid reasoning;
sraddhavantah, with faith; and anasuyantah, without cavil, without
detracing Me, Vasudeva, the Teacher [Here Ast. adds 'parama,
supreme'-Tr.]; te api, they also, who are such; mucyante, become freed;
karmabhih, from actions called the righteous and the unrighteous.
3.32 Tu, but; ye, those who are the opposite of them (the former); who
abhyasuyantah, decrying; etat, this instruction of Mine; na, do not;
anutisthanti, follow; me, My; matam, teaching, they are deluded in
various ways with respect to all knowledge. Viddhi, know; tan, them;
sarva-jnana-vimudhan, who are deluded about off knowledge; acetasah,
who are devoid of discrimination; nastan, to have gone to ruin. 'For
what reason, again, do they not follow your teachings, perform duties
that are not theirs and not follow their own duties? How is it that by
remaining opposed to You, they do not fear the evil which will arise from
transgressing Your commandments? As to that, the Lord says:
3.33 Api, even; jnanavan, a man of wisdom-what to speak of a fool!;
cestate, behaves; Sadrsam, according to;-what? svasyah, his own;
prakrteh, nature. Nature means the impressions of virtue, vice, etc. [Also,
knowledge, desires, and so on.] acquired in the past (lives) and which
become manifest at the commencement of the present life. All creatures
(behave) according to that only. Therefore, bhutani, beings; yanti, follow;
(their) prakrtim, nature. Nigrahah kim karisyati, what can restraint do, be
it from Me or anybody else? If all beings behave only according to their
own nature-and there is none without his nature-, then, since there
arises the contingency of the scriptures becoming purposeless owing to
the absence of any scope for personal effort, therefore the following is
being stated:
3.34 Raga-dvesau, attraction and repulsion, in the following mannerattraction
towards desirable things, and repulsion against undesirable
things; (vyavasthitau, are ordained,) are sure to occur, arthe, with regard
to objects such as sound etc.; indriyasya indriyasya, of all the organs,
with regard to each of the organs. As to that, the scope of personal
effort and scriptural purpose are being stated as follows: One who is
engaged in the subject-matter of the scriptures should, in the very
beginning, not come under the influence of love and hatred. For, that
which is the nature of a person impels him to his actions, verily under the
influence eof love and hatred. And then follow the rejection of one's own
duty and the undertaking of somebody else's duty. On the other hand,
when a person controls love and hatred with the help of their opposites
[Ignorance, the cause of love and hatred, has discrimination as its
opposite.], then he becomes mindful only of the scriptural teachings; he
ceases to be led by his nature. Therefore, na agacchet, one should not
come; vasam, under the sway; tayoh, of these two, of love and hatred; hi
because; tau, they; are asya, his, this person's pari-panthinau,
adversaries, who, like robbers, put obstacles on his way to Liberation.
This is the meaning. In this world, one impelled by love and hatred
misinterprets even the teaching of the scriptures, and thinks that
somebody else's duty, too, has to be undertaken just because it is a
duty! That is wrong:
3.35 Svadharmah, one's own duty; being practised even though
vigunah, defective, deficient; is sreyan, superior to, more commendable
than; para-dharmat, another's duty; though svanusthitat, wellperformed,
meritoriously performed. Even nidhanam, death; is sreyah,
better; while engaged svadharme, in one's own duty, as compared with
remaining alive while engaged in somebody else's duty. Why?
Paradharmah, another's duty; is bhayavahah, fraught with fear, since it
invites dangers such as hell etc. Although the root cause of evil was
stated in, 'In the case of a person who dwells on objects' (2.62) and
'.....because they (attraction and repulsion) are his adversaries' (34), that
was presented desultorily and vaguely. Wishing to know it briefly and
definitely as, 'This is thus, to be sure', Arjuna, with the idea, 'When this
indeed becomes known, I shall make effort for its eradication', said:
3.36 Atha, now then; varsneya, O scion of the Vrsni dynasty; being
prayuktah, impelled; kena, by what acting as the cause; as a servant is
by a king, does ayam, this; purusah, man; carati, commit; papam, sin, a
sinful act; api, even; anicchan, against his wish, though not himself
willing; niyojitah, being constrained; balat, by force; iva, as it were-as if
by a king, which illustration has already been given? The Lord (Bhagavan)
said: 'You hear about that enemy, the source of all evil, of which
you ask-.' 'Bhaga is said to consist of all kinds of majesty, virtue, fame,
beauty, detachment as well as Liberation [Liberation stands for its cause,
Illumination.], (V.P.6.5.74). That Vasudeva, in whom reside for ever,
unimpeded and in their fullness, the six qualities of majesty etc. and who
has the knowledge of such subjects as creation etc., is called Bhagavan.
'He is spoken of as Bhaga-van who is aware of creation and
dissolution, gain and loss, [Gain and loss stand for future prosperity and
adversity.] ignorance and Illumination of all beings' (ibid. 78).
3.37 Esah, this; kamah, desire, is the enemy of the whole world,
because of which the creatures incur all evil. This desire when
obstructed in any way turns into anger. Therefore, krodhah, anger, is
also identical with this (desire). It is rajoguna-samudbhavah, born of the
quality of rajas; or, it is the origin of the quality of rajas. For, when desire
comes into being, it instigates a person by arousing rajas. People who
are engaged in service etc., which are effects of rajas, and who are
stricken with sorrow are heard to lament, 'I have been led to act by
desire indeed!' It is mahaasanah, a great devourer, whose food is
enormous. And hence, indeed, it is maha-papma, a great sinner. For a
being commits sin when goaded by desire. Therefore, viddhi, know;
enam, this desire; to be vairinam, the enemy; iha, here in this world.
With the help of examples the Lord explains how it is an enemy:
3.38 Yatha, as; vahnih, fire, which is naturally bright; avriyate, is
enveloped; dhumena, by smoke, which is born concomitantly (with fire)
and is naturally dark; or as adarsah, a mirror; is covered malena, by dirt;
ca, and; garbhah, a foetus; is avrtah, enclosed; ulbena, in the womb by
the amnion; tatha, so; is idam, this; avrtam, shrouded; tena, by that.
Again, what is that which is indicated by the word idam (this), and which
is covered by desire? The answer is:
3.39 Jnanam, Knowledge; is avrtam, covered; etena, by this;
nityavairina, constant enemy; jnaninah, of the wise. For the wise person
knows even earlier, 'I am being induced by this into evil.' And he always
[Both at the time when desire arises in him, and also when he is forced
to act by it.] feels distressed. Therefore, it is the constant enemy of the
wise but not of a fool. For the fool looks upon desire as a friend so long
as hankering lasts. When sorrow comes as a consequence, he realizes,
'I have been driven into sorrow because of longings', but certainly not
earlier. Therefore it is the constant enemy of the wise alone. In what
form? Kama-rupena, in the form of desire-tha which has wish itself as its
expression is kama-rupa; in that form-; (and) duspurena, which is an
insatiable; analena, fire. That which is difficult to satisfy is duspurah; and
(derivatively) that which never has enough (alam) is analam. Again,
having what as its abode does desire, in the form of a viel over
Knowledge, become the enemy of all? Since when the abode of an
enemy is known, it is possible to easily slay the enemy, therefore the
Lord says:
3.40 Indriyani, the organs; manah, mind; and buddhih, the intellect;
ucyate, are said to be; asya, its, desire's; adhisthanam, abode. Esah,
this one, desire; vimohayati, diversely deludes; dehinam, the embodied
being; avrtya, by veiling; jnanam, Knowledg; etaih, with the help of these,
with the organs etc. which are its abodes. [The activities of the organs
etc. are the media for the expression of desire. Desire covers the
Knoweldge of the Self by stimulating these.]
3.41 Since this is so, therefore, O scion of the Bharata dynasty, adau
niyamya, after first controlling; indriyani, the organs; prajahihi, renounce;
enam, this one, the enemy under consideration; which is papmanam,
sinful-which is desire that is accustomed to sinning; and jnana-vijnananasanam,
a destroyer of learning and wisdom, jnana, learning, means
knowledge about the Self etc. from the scripures and a teacher. Vijnana,
wisdom, means the full experience of that. Renounce, i.e. discard, from
yourself the destroyer of those two-learning and wisdom, which are the
means to the achievement Liberation. It has been said, 'After first
controlling the organs, renounce desire the enemy'. As to that, by taking
the support of what should one give up desire? This is being answered:
3.42 The learned ones ahuh, say; that indriyani, the five [Five senseorgans:
of vision, hearning, taste, smell and touch; five motor-organs:
hands, feet, speech, and for excretion and generation-these latter five
are also understood in the present context.] organs-ear etc., are parani,
superior, to the external, gross and limited body, from the point of view
of subtlety, inner position, pervasiveness, etc. So also, manah, the mind,
having the nature of thinking and doubting; [Sankalpa: will, volition,
intention, thought, reflection, imangination, etc. vikalpa:doubt,
uncertainly, indecision, suspicion, error, etc.-V.S.A.] is param, superior;
indriyebhyah, to the organs. Similarly, buddhih, the intellect, having the
nature of determination; is para, superior; manasah, to the mind. And
yah, the one who is innermost as compared with all the objects of
perception ending with the intellect, and with regard to which Dweller in
the body it has been said that desire, in association with its 'abodes'
counting from the organs, deludes It by shrouding Knowledge; sah, that
one; is tu, however; paratah, superior; buddheh, to the intellect- He, the
supreme Self, is the witness of the intellect. [The portion, 'with regard to
which Dweller...the supreme Self,' is translated from Ast. Which has the
same reading here as the A.A. The G1. Pr. Makes the abode'' counting
from the organs' an adjective of 'the Dweller in the body', and omits the
portion, 'is tu, however...buddheh, to the intellect'.-Tr.]
3.43 Buddhva, understanding; atmanam, the Self; evam, thus; as
param, superior; buddheh, to the intellect; and samstabhya, completely
establishing; atmana, with the mind, i.e. establishing (the Self) fully in
spiritual absorption with the help of your own purified mind; O mightyarmed
one, jahi, vanquish; this satrum, enemy; kama-rupam, in the form
of desire; which is durasadam, difficult to subdue-which can be got hold
of with great difficulty, it being possessed of many inscrutable
characteristics.

BHAGAVADGITA
English translation of Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary - Swami
Gambhirananda
Chapter 4
ROMAN
4.1 In the beginning of creation, with a veiw to infusing vigour into the
Ksatriyas who are the protectors of the world, aham, I; proktavan,
imparted; imam, this; avyayam, imperishable; yogam, Yoga, presented in
the (preceding) two chapters; vivasvate, to Vivasvan, the Sun. Being
endowed with this power of Yoga, they would be able to protect the
Brahmana caste. The protection of the world becomes ensured when
the Brahmanas and the Ksatriyas are protected. It (this Yoga) is
avyayam, imperishable, because its result is undecaying. For, the resultcalled
Liberation-of this (Yoga), which is characterized by steadfastness
in perfect Illumination, does not decay. And he, Vivasvan, praha, taught
(this); manave, to Manu. Manu abravit, transmitted (this); iksvakave, to
Iksvaku, his own son who was the first king. [First king of the Iksvaku
dynasty, otherwise known as the Solar dynasty.]
4.2 Rajarsayah, the king-sages, those who were kings and sages (at the
same time); viduh, knew; imam, this Yoga; which was evam paramparapraptam,
received thus through a regular succession of Ksatriyas. Sah,
that; yogah, Yoga; nastah, is lost, has go its traditional line snapped; iha,
now; mahata kalena, owing to a long lapse of time. parantapa, O
destroyer of foes. By para are meant those against oneself. He who, like
the sun, 'scorches' (tapayati) them by the 'rays' of the 'heat' of his
prowess is parantapa, i.e. scorcher of antagonists. Noticing that the
Yoga has got lost by reaching people who are weak and have no control
of their organs, and that the world has become associated with goals
that do not lead to Liberation,
4.3 Sah, that; puratanah, ancient; yogah, Yoga; eva, itself; ayam, which
is this; proktah, has been taught; te, to you; maya, by Me; adya, today;
iti, considering that; asi, you are; me, My; bhaktah, devotee; ca sakha,
and friend. Hi, for; etat, this Yoga, i.e. Knowledge; is a uttamam,
profound; rahasyam, secret. Lest someone should understand that the
Lord has said something contradictory, therefore, in order to prevent
that (doubt), as though raising a question,
4.4 Bhavatah, Your; janma, was aparam, later, in the abode of
Vasudeva; (whereas) the birth vivasvatah, of Visvasvan, the Sun; was
param, earlier, in the beginning of creation. Therefore, katham, how;
vijanyam, am I to understand; etat, this, as not inconsistent; iti, that;
tvam, You, yourself; who proktavan, insturcted this Yoga; adau, in the
beginning, are the same person who are now teaching me? By way of
demolishing the doubt of fools with regard to Vasudeva, that He has no
God-hood and omniscience-to which very purpose was Arjuna's
question-
4.5 O Arjuna, bahuni, many; janmani, lives; me, of Mine; vyatitani, have
passed; tava ca, and so have yours. Aham, I; veda know; tani, them;
sarvani, all; (but) tvam, you; va vetta, know not, due to your power of
understanding being obstructed by righteousness, unrighteousness, etc.
However, parantapa, O scorcher of foes; aham, I know, possessing as I
do unobstructed power of knowledge, because by nature I am enternal,
pure, enlightened and free. 'In that case, how, in spite of the absence of
righteousness and unrighteousness, can there be any birth for You who
are the eternal God?' That is beng answered:
4.6 Api, san ajah, though I am birthless; and avyayatma, undecaying by
nature, though I am naturally possessed of an undiminishing power of
Knowledge; and so also api san, though; isvarah, the Lord, natural Ruler;
bhutanam, of beings, from Brahma to a clump of grass; (still) adhisthaya,
by subjugating; svam, My own; prakrtim, Prakrti, the Maya of Visnu
consisting of the three gunas, under whose; spell the whole world exists,
and deluded by which one does not know one's own Self, Vasudeva;-by
subjugating that Prakrti of Mine, sambhavami, I take birth, appear to
become embodeid, as though born; atma-mayaya, by means of My own
Maya; but not in reality like an ordinary man. It is being stated when and
why that birth occurs:
4.7 O scion of the Bharata dynasty, yada yada hi, whenever; bhavati,
there is; a glanih, decline, decrease; dharmasya, of virtue consisting of
the duties of castes and stages of life of living beings, which are the
means to achieving properity and Liberation; and abhyutthanam,
increase, rise; adharmasya, of vice; tada, then; do aham, I; srjami,
manifest; atmanam, Myself, through Maya. Why?
4.8 Paritranaya, for the protection; sadhunam, of the pious, the
followers of the virtuous path; vinasaya, for the destruction; duskrtam, of
the evil-doers, of the sinful ones; and also dharmasamsthapanarthaya,
for establishing virtue fully;-for that purpose, sambhavami, I manifest
Myself; yuge yuge, in every age.
4.9 Yah, he who; evam, thus, as described; vetti, knows tattvatah, truly,
as they are in reality; that divyam, divine, supernatural; janma, birth,
which is a form of Maya; ca karma, and actions, such as protection of
the pious, etc.; mama, of Mine; na eti, does not get; punarjanma, rebirth;
tyaktva, after casting off; this deham, body. Sah, he; eti, attains, comes
to; mam, Me-he gets Liberated, O Arjuna. This path of Liberation has
not been opened recently. What then? Even in earlier days-
4.10 Bahavah, many; vita-raga-bhaya-krodhah, who were devoid of
attachment, fear and anger; manmayah, who were absorbed in Me, who
were knowers of Brahman, who were seers of (their) identity with God;
mam upasrithah, who had taken refuge only in Me, the supreme God,
i.e. who were steadfast in Knowledge alone; and were putah, purified,
who had become supremely sanctified; jnana-tapasa, by the austerity of
Knowledge-Knowledge itself, about the supreme Reality, being the
austerity; becoming sanctified by that austerity of Knowledge-; agatah,
have attained; madbhavam, My state, Goodhood, Liberation. The
particular mention of 'the austerity of Knowledge' is to indicate that
steadfastness in Knowledge does not depend on any other austerity. 'In
that case, You have love and aversion, because of which You grant the
state of identity with Yourself only to a few but not to others?' The
answer is:
4.11 Yatha, according to the manner in which, the purpose for which,
seeking, whatever fruit; prapadyante, they approach; mam, Me; aham, I;
bhajami, favour; tan, them; tatha eva, in that very manner, by granting
that fruit. This is the idea. For they are not seekers of Liberation. It is
certainly impossible for the same person to be a seeker of Liberation
and, at the same time, a seeker of rewards (of actions). Therefore, by
granting fruits to those who hanker after fruits; by granting Knowledge to
those who follow what has been stated (in the scriptures) and are
seekers of Liberation, but do not hanker after rewards; and by granting
Liberation to those who are men of wisdom and are monks aspiring for
Liberation; and so also by removing the miseries of those who suffer- in
these ways I favour them just according to the manner, in which they
approach Me. This is the meaning. On the other hand, I do not favour
anybody out of love or aversion, or out of delusion. Under all
circumstances, O son of Prtha, manusyah, human beings; anuvartante,
follow; sarvasah, in every way; mama, My; vartma, path, [The paths
characterized by Knowledge and by action (rites and duties).] the path of
God who am omnipresent. By 'human beings' are meant those people
who become engaged in their respective duties to which they are
qualified according to the results they seek. 'If Your wish to be
favourable is the same towards all creatures on account of the absence
of the defects of love and aversion in You who are God, and You are
there with Your capacity to grant all rewards, why then do not all,
becoming desirous of Liberation, take refuge in You alone with the very
knowledge that Vasudeva is everything?' As to that, hear the reason for
this:
4.12 Kanksantah, longing for, praying for; siddim, fruition, fructification
of the results; karmanam, of actions; yajante, they worship; iha, here, in
this world; devatah, the gods, Indra, Fire and others- which accords with
the Upanisadic text, 'While he who worships another god thinking, He is
one, and I am another, does not know. He is like an animal to the gods'
(Br. 1.4.10). [This text points out that the reason for adoring other deties
is the ignorance of the Self, which gives rise to the ideas of difference
between the worshipped and the worshipper. As animals are beneficial
to human beings, so also is the sacrificer to the gods, because through
oblations he works for their pleasure!] Hi, for, in the case of those,
indeed, who sacrifice to other gods and long for results; (siddhih,
success; karmaja, from action;) bhavati, comes; ksiparm, quickly;
manuse-loke, in the human world, because the authority of the
scriptures extends only over the human world. By the specific
statement, 'For, in the human world, success comes quickly,' the Lord
shows that results of actions can accrue even in the other worlds. The
difference lies in this that, in the human world eligibility for [Ast. and A.A.
omit 'adhikara, elegibility for', and read karmani.-Tr.] actions is according
to castes, stages of life, etc. The fruition of the results of those actions of
persons who are eligible according to castes, stages of life, etc. comes
quickly. What is the reason for the rule that the competence for rites
and duties according to castes, stages of life, etc. obtains only in the
human world, but not in the other worlds? Or:-It has been said, 'Human
beings, having such divisions as castes, stages of life, etc., follow My
path in every way.' For what reason, again, do they as a rule follow Your
path alone, but not of others? This is being answered:
4.13 Catur-varnyam-meaning the same as catvarah varnah, the four
castes; srstam, have been created; maya, by Me who am God, which
accords with such Vedic texts as, 'The Brahmanas were His face...' (Rg.
10.90.12); guna-karma-vibhagasah, through a classification of the gunas
and duties. [A.G. writes: guna-vibhagena karma-vibhagah, classification
of the duties, determined by the classification of the gunas.-Tr] By the
gunas are meant sattva, rajas and tamas (see note under 2.45; also see
Chapter 14). As to that, the control of the mind and body, austerity, etc.
are the duties of the Brahmanas, who are sattvika, i.e. have a
predominance of the quality of sattva (purity, goodness, etc.). Courage,
valour, etc. are the duties of the Ksatriyas, in whom sattva becomes
secondary and rajas (passion, attachment, etc.) preponderates.
Agriculture etc. are the duties of the Vaisya, in whom tamas (indolence,
ignorance, etc.) is secondary and rajas is predominant. Service is the
only duty of the Sudra, in whom rajas is secondary and tamas
predominates (see chapters 14, 16,17 and 18). In this way, the four
castes have been created by Me through a classification of the gunas
and duties. This is the idea. And these four castes do not prevail in the
other worlds. Hence the specification, 'in the human world'. 'Well, in
that caste, by virtues of Your being he agent of the acts of creation of
the four castes,etc. You become subject tothe consequence of those
actions? Therefore you are not eternally free and the eternal Lord!' This
is being answered: Api, even though; I am kartaram, the agent; tasya, of
that act, from the empirical standpoint of maya; still, from the highest
standpoint, viddhi, know; mam, Me; to be akartaram, a non-agent; and
therefore, also know Me to be avyayam, changeless, not subject to the
cycle of births and deaths. 'In reality, however, I am not the agent of
those actions of which you think I am the agent.' Because --
4.14 Because of the absence of egoism, those karmani, actions; na
limpanti, do not taint; mam, Me, by becoming the originators of body
etc. And me, for Me; na sprha, there is no hankering for the results of
those actions. But in the case of transmigrating beings, who have selfidentification
in the form, 'I am the agent', and thirst for actions as also
for their results, it is reasonable that actions should taint them. Owing to
the absence of these, actions do not taint Me. Anyone else, too, yah,
who; abhijanati, knows; mam, Me; iti, thus, as his own Self, and (knows),
'I am not an agent; I have no hankering for the results of actions'; sah,
he; na badhyate, does not become bound; karmabhih, by actions. In his
case also actions cease to be the originators of body etc. This is the
import.
4.15 Jnatva, having known; evam, thus, that 'I am not an agent; I have
no desire for the results of actions'; karma, duties; krtam, were
undertaken; api, even; purvaih, by the ancient; mumuksubhih, seekers of
Liberation. Tasmat, therefore; tvam, you; kuru, undertake; karma, action;
eva, itself. You ought not to sit quietly, or even renounce. Therefore, you
(undertake actions) because they were performed by the ancients as
well-if you have no Self-knowledge, then (undertake actions) for selfpurification;
or, if you have Self-knowledge, then (undertake actions) in
order to prevent people from going astray-, as were krtam, performed;
purvataram, earlier; purvaih, by the ancient ones, Janaka and others; not
actions as are undertaken in the present day. [This last portion of the
sentence is translated by some as follows: You should not undertake
actions which are done in the present manner (i.e. do not perform
actions in the manner undertakne by people nowadays, which neither
purifies the mind nor helps people). (See G1. Pr. p. 114.) 'If action has
to be undertaken here, then I shall do so following Your instruction itself.
What is the use of specifying that it was done earlier by the ancient
ones?' 'The answer is: Because there is a great difficult as regards
actions.' How?
4.16 Kavayah api, even the intelligent; mohitah, are confounded in this
subject of action etc.; iti atra, as to; kim karma, what is action; and kim
akarma, what is inaction. Therefore, pravaksyami, I shall tell; te, you; of
karma, action; akarma ca, as also of inaction; jnatva, by knowing; yat,
which-action etc.; moksyase, you will become free: asubhat, from evil,
from transmigration. 'And you should not think thus: What is called
karma is the movement of the body etc. as are well-known in the world;
and akarma, inaction, is not doing those, (i.e.) sitting quietly. What is
there to understand (further) in that regard?' 'Why?' The answer is:
4.17 Hi, for; there is something boddhavyam, to be known; api, even;
karmanah, about action enjoined by the scriptures; and there is certainly
something to be known vikarmanah, about prohibited action; so, also,
there is something to be known akarmanah, about inaction, about sitting
quietly. (The words 'there is' are to be supplied in all the three cases.)
Because gatih, the true nature, i.e. the essential nature; karmanah, of
action-implying karma etc., viz action, prohibited action and inaction; is
gahana, inscrutable, hard to understand. 'What, again, is the essential
nature of action etc. which has to be understood, and about which it
was promised, I shall tell you... (16)?' This is being stated:
4.18 Since engagement and non-engagement (in action) depend on an
agent, therefore, yah, he who; pasyet, ie. pasyati, finds; akarma,
inaction, absence of action; karmani, in action-karma means whatever is
done, action in general; in tha action-; and yah, who; finds karma,
action; akarmani, in inaction, in the absence of action; sah, he; is
buddhiman, a wise one; manusyesu, among men. All dealings involving
an act, accessories, etc. exist certainly on the plane of ignorance, [Both
engagement and non-engagement presuppose agentship and an act of
some kind. This, however, holds good on the plane of ignorance, but not
on that of Self-realization.] only so long as one has not attained to the
Reality. He is a yogi, yuktah, engaged in yoga; and a krtsna-karma-krt,
performer of all actions. One who discriminates between action and
actions. One who discriminates between action and inaction is praised
thus. Objection: Well, what is meant by this contradictory statement,
'He who finds inaction in action', and 'action in inaction'? For action
cannot become inaction, nor inaction action. That being so, how can a
witness have (such) an incongruous perception? Vedantin: Is it not that
[Ast. reads na in place of nanu.-Tr.] to an ordinary foolsih observer, that
which is reality is inaction appears as action, and similarly, action itself as
inaction? That being so, in order to show things as they are the Lord
says, 'He who finds inaction in action', etc. Therefore there is no
incongruity. Besides, the qualifications such as 'intelligent' etc. (thus)
become logical. And by saying, 'there is something to be known', is
implied the perception of things as they are. Moreover, freedom from evil
cannot follow from an erroneous perception; whereas it has been said,
'by knowing which you will become free from evil'. Therefore, one
account of action and inaction being perceived contrarily by the
creatures, the Lord's utterance, 'he who finds inaction in action,' etc. is
for dispelling their contrary perception. Not that in the empirical plane
inaction has action as its receptacle, like a plum in a bowl! Nor even has
action inaction as its receptacle, because inaction is a negation of
action. Therefore, action and inaction are actually perceived contrarily by
the ordinary persons-like seeing water in a mirage, or silver in nacre.
Objection: Is it not that to every one action is action itself? Never is there
an exception to this. Vedantin: That is not so, becuase when a boat is
moving, motionless trees on the bank appear to move in the opposite
direction to a man on the boat; an absence of motion is noticed in
distant moving things which are not near one's eyes. Similarly, here also
occurs the contrary perceptions, viz seeing action in inaction under the
idea, 'I am doing', [Ast. omits 'aham karomi iti, under the idea, I am
doing'.-Tr.] and seeing, inaction in acion,-because of which it is said, 'He
who finds inaction in action,' etc. in order to eliminate them. As such,
although this answer has been given more than once, still a man
becomes repeatedly deluded under the influence of a totally opposite
perception. And forgetting the truth that has been heard again and
again, he repeatedly raises false issues and questions! And therefore,
observing that the subject is difficult to understand, the Lord gives His
answer again and again. The absence of action in the Self-well-known
from the Vedas, Smrtis and logic, as stated in, '(It is said that) This is
unmanifest; This is inconceivable' (2.25), 'Never is this One born, and
never does It die' (2.20; Ka. 1.2.18), etc.-has been and will be spoken
of. The contrary perception of action in that actionless Self, i.e. in
inaction, is very deep-rooted, owing to which 'even the intelligent are
confounded as to what is action and what is inaction.' And as a
consequence of the superimposition of aciton pertaining to the body etc.
on the Self, there arises such ideas as, 'I am an agent; this is my action;
its result is to be enjoyed by me.' Similarly, with the idea, 'I shall remain
quiet, whereby I shall be free from exertion, free from activity, and
happy', and superimposing on the Self the cessation of activities
pertaining to the body and organs and the resulting happiness, a man
imagines, 'I shall not do anything; I shall sit quietly and happily.' That
being so, the Lord says, 'he who finds inaction in action,' etc. with a
view to removing this contrary understanding of man. And here in this
world, though action belonging to the body and organs continues to be
action, still it is superimposed by everyone on the acitonless, unchanging
Self, as a result of which even a learned person things, 'I act.'
Therefore, in action (karmani), which is universally considered by all
people to be inherent in the Self, like the perception of motion in the
(stationary) trees on the bank of a river-(in that action) he who
contrariwise finds the fact of inaction, like perceiving absence of motion
in those trees-. And, in inaction (akarmani) in the cessation of the
activities pertaining to the body and organs and ascribed to the Self in
the same way that actions are ascribed-, in that action, he who sees
action because of egoism being implicit in the idea, 'I am happily seated
quietly, without doing anything'-; he who knows thus the distinction
between action and inaction, is wise, is learned among men; he is
engaged in yoga, he is a yogi, and a performer of all actions. And he,
freed from evil, attains fulfilment. This is the meaning. This verse is
interpreted by some in another way. How? (Thus:) 'Since the daily
obligatory duties (nityakarmas) certainly have no results when performed
as a dedication to God, therefore, in a secondary sense, they are said to
be inaction. Again, the non-performance of these (nitya-karmas) is
inaction; since this produces an evil result, therefore it is called action,
verily in a figurative sense. That being so, he who sees inaction in the
daily obligatory duties (nitya-karmas) owing to the obsence of their
results-in the same way as a cow that does not yield milk is said to be
not a cow, though in reality it is so-so also, in the non-performance of
the daily obligatory duties, i.e. in inaction, he who sees action since that
yields results such as hell etc...' This explanation is not logical, because
freedom from evil as a result of such knowledge is unreasonable, and
the utterance of the Lord in the sentence, '...by knowing which you will
become freed from evil', will be contradicted. How? Even if it be that
liberation from evil follows from the performance of nitya-karmas, it
cannot, however, follow from the knowledge of the absence of their
results. For it has not been enjoined (anywhere) that knowledge of the
nityakarmas (themselves), leads to the result of freedom from evil. Nor
has this been stated here by the Lord Himself. Hereby is refuted the
'seeing of action in inaction' [As explained by others.-Tr.], for (according
to the opponent) 'seeing of action in inaction' has not been enjoined
here [Here, in the present verse.] as a duty, but (what has been enjoined
is) merely that performance of the nityakarmas is obligatory. Moreover,
no result can accrue from the knowledge that evil arises from nonperformance
of nityakramas. Nor even has non-performance of
nityakarmas. been enjoined as something that should be known.
Besides, such results as freedom from evil, wisdom, engagement in
yoga, and being a performer of all actions cannot reasonably follow from
a false perception of action as inaction. Nor is this a eulogy of false
perception. [The stated results accrue from correct knowledge, not from
false perception; and correct knowledge alone is praise-worthy.] Indeed,
false perception is itself an abvious form of evil! How can it bring about
liberation from another evil? Surely, darkness does not become the
remover of darkness! Opponent: Well, the seeing of inaction in action,
or the seeing of action in inaction-that is not a false perception.
Vadantin: What then? Opponent: It is a figurative statement based on
the existence or the non-existence of results. Vedantin: Not so, because
there is no such scriptural statement that something results from
knowing action as inaction and inaction as action, even in a figurative
sense. Besides, nothing particular is gained by rejecting what is heard of
(in the scriptures) and imagining something that is not. Further, it was
possible (for the Lord) to express in His own words that there is no result
from the nityakarmas, and that by their non-performance one would
have to go to hell. Under such circumstances, what was the need of the
ambiguous statement, 'He who sees inaction in action,' etc., which is
misleading to others? This being the case, such an explanation by
anyone will be clearly tantamount to imagining that statement of the Lord
as meant for deluding people. Moreover, this subject-matter
(performance of nityakarmas) is not something to be protected with
mystifying words. It is not even logical to say that the subject-matter will
become easy for comprehension if it is stated again and again through
different words. For, the subject-matter that was stated more clearly in,
'Your right is for action alone' (2.47), does not need any repetition. And
everwhere it is said that whatever is good and ought to be practised
deserves to be understood; anything purposeloss does not deserve to
be known. Besides, neither is false knowledge worth acquiring nor is the
semblance of an object presented by it worth knowing. Nor even can
any evil, which is an entity, arise from the non-performance of
nityakarmas, which is a non-entity, for there is the statement, 'Of the
unreal there is no being' (2.16), and (in the Upanisad) it has been pointed
out, 'How can existence originate from nonexistence?' (Ch. 4.2.2). Since
emergence of the existent from the nonexistent has been denied,
therefore anyone's assertion that the existent originates from the
nonexistent will amount to saying that a non-entity becomes an entity,
and an entity becomes a non-entity! And that is not rational because it
runs counter to all the means of valid knowledge. Further, the scriptures
cannot enjoin fruitless actions, they being naturally painful; and it is
illogical that what is painful should be done intentionally. Also, if it is
admitted that falling into hell results from their non-performance (i.e. of
the nityakarmas), then that too is surely a source of evil. In either case,
whether one undertakes them or not, the scriptures will be imagined to
be useless. And there will be a contradiction with your own standpoint
when, after holding that the nityakarmas are fruitless, you assert that
they lead to Liberation. Therefore, the meaning of 'He who finds inaction
in action,' etc. is just what stands out literally. And the verse has been
explained by us accordingly. The aforesaid perception of 'inaction in
action,' etc. is being praised:
4.19 Budhah, the wise, the knowers of Brahman; ahuh, call; tam, him;
panditam, learned, in the real sense; yasya, whose, of the one who
perceives as stated above; samarambhah, actions-whatever are
undertaken; are sarve, all; kama-sankalpa-varjitah, devoid of desires and
the thoughts which are their (desires') causes (see 2.62)-i.e., (those
actions) are performed as mere movements, without any selfish purpose:
if they are performed by one (already) engaged in actions, then they are
for preventing people from going astray, and if they are done by one who
has withdrawn from actions, then they are merely for the maintenance of
the body-; and jnanagni-dagdha-karmanam, whose actions have been
burnt away by the fire of wisdom. Finding inaction etc. in action etc. is
jnana, wisdom; that itself is agnih, fire. He whose actions, karma,
described as good and bad, have been dagdhani, burnt away by that fire
of wisdom, is jnana-agni-dagdha-karma. However, one who is a
perceiver of 'inaction' etc. [Perceiver of inaction etc.: He who knows the
truth about action and inaction as explained before.-Tr.] is free from
actions owing to the very fact of his seeing 'inaction' etc. He is a monk,
who acts merely for the purpose of maintaining the body. Being so, he
does not engage in actions although he might have done so before the
dawn of discrimination. He again who, having been engaged in actions
under the influence of past tendencies, later on becomes endowed with
the fullest Self-knowledge, he surely renounces (all) [Ast. adds this word
sarva, all.-Tr.] actions along with their accessories as he does nnot find
any purpose in activity. For some reason, if it becomes impossible to
renounce actions and he, for the sake of preventing people from going
astray, even remains engaged as before in actions-without attachment
to those actions and their results because of the absence of any selfish
purpose-, still he surely does nothing at all! His actions verily become
'inaction' because of having been burnt away by the fire of wisdom. By
way of pointing out this idea, the Lord says:
4.20 With the help of the above-mentioned wisdom, tyaktva, having
given up the idea of agentship; and phala-asangam, attachment to the
results of action; he who is nitya-trptah, ever-trptah, ever-contented, i.e.
has no hankering for objects; and nirasrayah, dependent on nothing-.
Asraya means that on which a person leans, desiring to achieve some
human goal. The idea is that he is dependent of any support which may
be a means of attaining some coveted seen or unseen result. In reality,
actions done by a man of Knowledge are certainly inactions, since he is
endowed with the realization of the actionless Self. Actions together with
their accessories must be relinquished by one who has become thus,
because they have no end to serve. This being so, api, even though; he
remains abhi-pravrttah, engaged as before; karmani, in actions-getting
out of those (actions) being impossible-, either with the intention of
preventing people from going astray or with a view to avoiding the
censure of the wise people; sah, he; eva, really; na karoti, does not do;
kincit, anything, because he is endued with the realization of the
actionless Self. [From the subjective standpoint of the enlightened there
are no actions, but ordinary people mistakenly think them to be actions,
which in reality are a mere semblance of it.] On the other hand, one who
is the opposite of the above-mentioned one, (and) in whom, even before
undertaking works, has dawned the realization of his identity with
Brahman, the all-pervasive, inmost, actionless Self; who,being bereft of
solicitation for desirable objects seen or unseen, has renounced actions
along with their accessories, by virtue of seeing no purpose to be served
by undertaking actions meant to secure some seen or unseen result,
and makes effort only for the maintenance of the body, he, the monk
steadfast in Knowledge, becomes free. Hence, in order to express this
idea the Lord says:
4.21 Nirasih, one who is without solicitation-one from whom asisah
[Asih is a kind of desire that can be classed under prayer. (Some
translate it as desire, hope.-Tr.)], solicitations, have departed; yata-cittaatma,
who has the mind and organs under control-one by whom have
been controlled (yatau) both the internal organ (citta) and the external
aggregate of body and organs (atma); (and) is tyakta-sarva-parigrahah, [
Parigraha: receiving, accepting, possessions, belongings.-V.S.A] totally
without possessions- one by whom have been renounced (tyaktah) all
(sarvah) possessions (parigrahah); na apnoti, he does not incur; kilbisam,
sin, in the form of evil as also rigtheousness-to one aspiring for
Liberation, even righteousness is surely an evil because it brings
bondage-; [Here Ast. adds tasmat tabhyam mukto bhavati samsarat
mukto bhavati ityarthah, therefore, he becomes free from both of them,
i.e. he becomes liberated from transmigration.-Tr.] kurvan, by
performing; karma, actions; kevalam, merely; sariram, for the purpose of
maintaining the body-without the idea of agenship even with regard to
these (actions). Further, in the expression, 'kevalam sariram karma', do
the words sariram karma mean 'actions done by the body' or 'actions
merely for the purpose of maintaining the body? Again, what does it
matter if by (the words) sariram karma is meant 'actions done by the
body' or 'actions merely for the purpose of maintaning the body? The
answer is: If by sariram karma is meant actions done by the body, then it
will amount to a contradiction [Contradiction of the scriptures.] when the
Lord says, 'one does not incur sin by doing with his body any action
meant for seen or unseen purposes, even though it be prohibited.' Even
if the Lord were to say that 'one does not incur sin by doing with his
body some scripturally sanctioned action intended to secure a seen or
an unseen end', then there arises the contingency of His denying
something (some evil) that has not come into being! (Further,) from the
specification, sariram karma kurvan (by doing actions with the body), and
from the use of the word kevala (only), it will amount to saying that one
incurs sin by performing actions, called righteous and unrighteous, which
can be accomplished with the mind and speech and which come within
the purview of injunction and prohibition. Even there, the statement that
one incurs sin by performing enjoined actions through the mind and
speech will involve a contradiction; even in the case of doing what is
prohibited, it will amount to a mere purposeless restatement of a known
fact. On the other hand, when the sense conveyed by sariram karma is
taken as acctions merely for the purpose of maintaining the body, then
the implication will be that he does not do any other work as can be
accomplished physically, orally, or mentally, which are known from
injunctions and prohibitions (of the scriptures) and which have in view
seen or unseen results; while he appears to people to be working with
those very body (speech) etc. merely for the purpose of maintaining the
body, yet he does not incur sin by merely making movements of the
body etc., because from the use of the word kevala, (merely) it follows
that he is devoid of the sense of agentship implicit in the idea, 'I do.'
Since there is no possibility of a person who has reached such a state
incurring evil as suggest by the word sin, therefore he does not become
subject to the evil of transmigration. That is to say, he certainly becomes
free without any obstacle since he has all his actions burnt away by the
fire of wisdom. This verse is only a reiteration of the result of full
illumination stated earlier. It becomes faultless by accepting the
interpretation of sariram karma thus. In the case of the monk who has
renounced all possessions, since owning food etc. meant for the bare
sustenance of the body is absent, therefore it becomes imperative to
beg for alms etc. for the upkeep of the body. Under this circumstance,
by way of pointing out the means of obtaining food etc. for the
maintenance of the body of a monk as permitted by the text, 'What
comes unasked for, without forethought and spontaneously...' [Unasked
for: what comes before the monk gets ready for going out for alms;
without forethought: alms that are not given with abuses, and have not
fallen on the ground, but collected from five or seven houses without any
plan; spontaneously: alms brought to one spontaneously by devoted
people.] (Bo. Sm. 21. 8. 12) etc., the Lord says:
4.22 Yadrccha-labha-santustah, remaining satisfied with what comes
unasked for-yadrccha-labha means coming to possess something
without having prayed for it; feeling contented with that-. Dvandvaatitah,
having transcended the dualities-one is said to be beyond dualities
when his mind is not distressed even when afflicted by such opposites
as heat and cold, etc.-. Vimatsarah, being free from spite, from the idea
of enmity; and samah, equipoised; siddhau ca asiddhau, is success and
failure, with regard to things that come unasked for-. The monk who is
such, who is equipoised, not delighted or sorrowful in getting or not
getting food etc. for the sustenance of the body, who sees inaction etc.
in action etc., who is ever poised in the realization of the Self as It is,
who, with regard to the activities accomplished by the body etc. in the
course of going about for alms etc. for the bare maintenance of the
body, is ever clearly conscious of the fact, 'I certainly do not anything;
the organs act on the objects of the organs' (see 5.8; 3.28), he, realizing
the absence of agentship in the Self, certainly does not do any actions
like going about for alms etc. But when, abserving similarly with common
human behaviour, agentship is attributed to him by ordinary poeple, then
he (apparently) becomes an agent with regard to such actions as moving
about for alms etc. However, from the standpoint of his own realization
which has arisen from the valid means of knowledge presented in the
scriptures, he is surely not an agent. He, to whom is thus ascribed
agentship by others, na nibadhyate, is not bound; api, even; krtva, by
performing such actions as moving about for alms merely for the
maintenance of the body, because action which is a source of bondage
has been burnt away along with its cause by the fire of wisdom. Thus,
this is only a restatement of what has been said earilier. When a person
who has already started works becomes endowed with the realization of
the identity of the Self with the actionless Brahman, then it follows that in
the case of that man, who has experienced the absence of agentship,
actions and purposes in the Self, actions become relinquished. But if this
becomes impossible for some reason and he continues to be engaged in
those acitons as before, still he certainly does not do anything. This
absence of action has been shown in the verse, 'Having given up
attachment to the results of action...' (20). Of that very person with
regard to whom has been shown the absence of aciton-
4.23 Muktasya, of the liberated person who has become relieved of
such bondages as righteousness and unrighteousness, etc.;
gatasangasya, who has got rid of attachment, who has become
detached from everything; jnana-avasthita-cetasah, whose mind is fixed
in Knowledge only; his karma, actions; acaratah, undertaken; yajnaya,
for a sacrifice, to accomplish a sacrifice [A.G. takes yajna to mean Visnu.
So, yajnaya will mean 'for Visnu'. Sankaracarya also interprets this word
similarly in 3.9.-Tr.]; praviliyate, gets destroyed; samagram, totally-saha
(together) agrena (with its consequence, result). This is the meaning. For
what reason, again, does an action that is underway get destroyed
totally without producing its result? This is being answered: Because,
4.24 Brahma-arpanam, the ladle is Brahman: The knower of Brahman
perceives the instrument with which he offers oblation in the fire as
Brahman Itself. He perceives it as not existing separately from the Self,
as one sees the non-existence of silver in nacre. In this sense it is that
Brahman Itself is the ladle-just as what appears as silver is only narcre.
(The two words brahma and arpanam are not parts of a compound
word, samasa.) The meaning is that, to a knower of Brahman, what is
perceived in the world as ladle is Brahman Itself. Similarly, brahmahavih,
the oblations is Brahman: To him, what is seen as oblations is
nothing but Brahman. In the same way, brahma-agnau, (-this is a
compound word-) in the fire of Brahman: The fire into which oblation is
hutam, poured; brahmana, by Brahman, by the agent, is Brahman Itself.
The meaning is that Brahman Itself is the agent (of the offering). That he
makes the offering-the act of offering-, that is also Brahman. And the
result that is gantavyam, to be reached by him; that also is brahma eva,
surely Brahman. Brahma-karma-samadhina, by him who has
concentration on Brahman as the objective: Brahman Itself is the
objective (karma); he who has concentration (samadhi) on That is
brahma-karma-samdhih. The goal to be reached by him is Brahman
alone. Thus, even the action undertaken by one who desires to prevent
mankind from going astray is in reality inaction, for it has been sublated
by the realization of Brahman. This being so, in the case of the monk
from whom aciton has dropped off, who has renounced all activity,
viewing his Knowledge as a (kind of) sacrifice, too, becomes all the more
justifiable from the point of view of praising full realization. That is,
whatever is well known as ladle etc. in the context of a sacrifice, all that,
in the context of the Self, is Brahman Itself to one who has realized the
supreme Truth. If not so, then, since all in Brahman, it would have been
uselesss to specifically mention ladle etc. as Brahman. Therefore, all
actions cease to exist for the man of realization who knows that
Brahman Itself is all this. And this follows also from the absence (in him)
of the idea of accessories. [See note on p.211.-Tr.] For the act called
'sacarifice' is not seen to exist without being in association with the idea
of accessories. All such acts as Agnihotra etc. are associated with the
ideas of such accessories as making an offering etc. to the particular
gods who are revealed in the scriptures, and with the idea of agentship
as also desire for results. But they are not found bereft of the ideas of
such distinctions as exist among action, accessories and results, or
unassociated with the ideas of agentship hankering for results. This
(apparent) (activity of the man of Knowledge), however, stands
dissociated from the ideas of differences among the accessories like
ladle etc., actions and results, which get destroyed by the Knowledge of
Brahman. Hence, it is inaction to be sure. And thus has it been shown
in, 'He who finds inaction in action' (18), 'he really does not do anything
even though engaged in action' (20), 'the organs act on the objects of
the organs' (3.28), 'Remaining absorbed in the Self, the knower of
Reality should think, I certainly do not do anything' (5.8), etc. While
pointing out thus, the Lord demolishes in various places the ideas of
differences among actions, accessories and results. And it is also seen
in the case of rites such as Agnihotra undertaken for results (kamya),
that the Agnihotra etc. cease to be (kamya) rites undertaken for selfish
motives when the desire for their results is destroyed. Similarly, it is seen
that actions done intentionally and unintentionally yeild different results.
So, here as well, in the case of one who has his ideas of distinctions
among accessories like ladle etc., actions and results eliminated by the
knowledge of Brahman, even activites which are merely external
movements amount to inaction. Hence it was said, 'gets totally
destroyed.' Here some say: That which is Brahman is the ladle etc. It is
surely Brahman Itself which exists in the five forms [Asscessories that
can be indicated by the five grammatical case-ending, viz Nominative,
Objective, Instrumental, Dative and Locative. (As for instance, the
sacrificer, oblation, ladle, sacrificial fire, and Brahman.-Tr.) of accessories
such as the ladle etc. and it is Itself which undertakes actions. There the
ideas of ladle etc. are not eradicated, but the idea of Brahman is
attributed to the ladle etc. as one does the ideas of Visnu etc. to images
etc., or as one does the idea of Brahman ot name etc. Reply: True, this
could have been so as well if the context were not meant for the praise
of jnanayajna (Knowledge considered as a sacrifice). Here, however,
after presenting full realization as expressed by the word jnana-yajna,
and the varieties of rites as referred to by the word yajna (sacrifice),
Knowledge has been praised by the Lord in, 'Jnana-yajna (Knowledge
considered as a sacrifice) is greater than sacrifices requiring materials'
(33). And in the present context, this statement, 'the ladle is Brahman'
etc., is capable of presenting Knowledge as a sacrifice; otherwise, since
Brahman is everything, it will be purposeless to speak specially only of
ladle etc. as Brahman. But those who maintain that one has to
superimpose the idea of Brahman on the ladle etc., like superimposing
the idea of Visnu and others on images etc. and of Brahman on name
etc., for them the knowledge of Brahma stated (in the verse) cannot be
the intended subject-matter dealt with here, because according to them
ladle etc. are the (primary) objects of knowledge (in the context of the
present verse). Besides, knowledge in the form of superimposition of an
idea cannot lead to Liberation as its result; and what is said here is,
'Brahman alone in to be realized by him'. Also, it is inconsistent to
maintain that the result of Liberation can be achieved without full
realization. And it goes against the context-the context being of full
realization. This is supported by the fact that (the subject of ) full
realization is introduced in the verse, 'He who finds inaction in action,'
and at the end (of this chapter) the conclusion pertains to that very
subject-matter. The chapter comes to a close by eulozing full realization
itself in, 'Jnana-yajna (Knowledge considered as a sacrifice) is greater
than sacrifices requiring materials', 'Achieving Knowledge, one...attains
supreme Peace,' (39) etc. That being so, it is unjustifiable to suddenly
say out of context that one has to superimpose the idea of Brahman on
the ladle etc. like the superimposition of the idea of Visnu on images.
Therefore this verse bears the meaing just as it has been already
explained. As to that, after having presented Knowledge as a sacrifice,
other sacrifices also are being mentioned now in, the verses beginning
with, '(Other yogis undertake) sacrifice to gods alone,' etc., for eulogizing
that Knowledge:
4.25 Apare, other; yoginah, yogis, ritualists; pari-upasate, undertake;
yajnam, sacrifice; daivam, to gods; eva, alone. A sacrifice by which the
gods are adored is daiva-yajna; they perform only that. This is the
meaning. Brahma-agnau, in the fire of Brahman: By the word brahman
is meant That which is referred to in such sentences as, 'Brahman is
Truth, knowledge and infinite' (Tai. 2.1), 'Knowledge, Bliss, Brahman'
(Br. 3.9.28), 'the Brahman that is immediate and direct-the self that is
within all' (Br.3.4.1), which is devoid of all worldly characteristiscs like
hunger etc. and which is beyond all particular qualifications-as stated in,
'Not this, not this' (Br.4.4.22). That which is Brahman is the fire.
[Brahman is called fire because, as reflected in wisdom, It burns away
everything, i.e. ignorance, or because everything merges into It during
dissolution (pralaya).] And it is spoken of as Brahmagni with a view to
referring to It as that into which the offering is made. In that fire of
Brahman, apare, others, other knowers of Brahman; upa-juhvati, offer;
yajnam, the Self, which is referred to by the word yajna (sacrifice), it,
having, been presented as a synonym of the Self;-that Self, which is a
sacrifice, which is reality is verily the supreme Brahman, which is
associated with such limiting adjuncts as the intellect etc., which is
associated with all the qualities of the limiting adjuncts superimposed on
it, and which is the oblation, (they offer) yajnena, by the Self itself as
described above. The offering (of the Self) in that (Brahman) is nothing
but the realization of that Self which is assoicated with the limiting
adjuncts to be the supreme Brahman which is free from adjuncts. The
monks, steadfast in the realization of the identity of Brahman and the
Self, make that offering. This is the meaning. Beginning with, 'The ladle
is Brahman' etc., this sacrifice characterized as full realization is being
included among such sacrifices as daiva-yajna etc. with a view to
eulogizing it in the verses beginning with, 'O destroyer of enemies,
jnana-yajna is greater than the sacrifices involving (sacrificial) materials'.
4.26 Anye, others, other yogis; juhvati, offer; indriyani, the organs; viz
srotradini, car etc.; samyama-agnisu, in the fires of self-control. The
plural (in fires) is used because self-control is possible in respect of each
of the organs. Self-control itself is the fire. In that they make the offering,
i.e. they practise control of the organs. anye, others; juhvati, offer;
visayan, the objects; sabdadin, viz sound etc.; indriyagnisu, in the fires of
the organs. The organs themselves are the fires. They make offerings in
those fires with the organs of hearing etc. They consider the perception
of objects not prohibited by the scriputures to be a sacrifice.
4.27 Further, apare, others; juhvati, offer, i.e. merge; sarvani, all; indriyakarmani,
the activities of the organs; and also the prana-karmani,
activities of the vital force- prana means the air in the body; they offer its
activities such as contraction, expansion, etc; atma-samyama yogaagnau,
into the fire of the yoga of self-control-withdrawal (samyama)
[Samyama consists of concentration, meditation, and Self-absorption.
The idea conveyed by the verse is that by stopping all activities, they
concentrate the mind on the Self.] into the Self (atma) is self-control
(atma-samyama); that itself is the fire of yoga (yoga-agni); (they offer) into
that fire; jnana-dipite, which has been lighted by Knowledge, made to
blaze up by discriminating knowledge, as if lighted up by oil.
4.28 Tatha, similarly; apare, others; are dravya-yajnah, perfomers of
sacrifices through wealth-those sacrificers who spend wealth (dravya) in
holy places under the idea of performing sacrifices; tapo-yajnah,
performers of sacrifices through austerity, men of austerity, to whom
austerity is a sacrifice; [This is according to Ast.-Tr.] yogayajnah,
performers of sacrifice through yoga-those to whom the yoga consisting
in the control of the vital forces, withdrawal of the organs, etc., is a
sacrifice; and svadhyaya-jnana-yajnah, performers of sacrifices through
study and knowledge. Sacrificers through study are those to whom the
study of Rg-veda etc. accroding to rules is a sacrifice. And sacrificers
through knowledge are those to whom proper understanding of the
meaing of the scriptures is a sacrifice. Others are yatayah, ascetics, who
are deligent; samsita-vratah, in following severe vows. Those whose
vows (vratah) have been fully sharpened (samsita), made very rigid, are
samsita-vratah. [Six kinds of sacrifices have been enumerated in this
verse.] Further,
4.29 Pranayama-parayanah, constantly practising control of the vital
forces-i.e. they practise a form of pranayama called Kumbhaka (stopping
the breath either inside or outside) ['Three sorts of motion of Pranayama
(control of the vital forces) are, one by which we draw the breath in,
another by which we throw it out, and the third action is when the breath
is held in the lungs or stopped from entering the lungs.'-C.W., Vol.I,
1962, p. 267. Thus, there are two kinds of Kumbhaka-internal and
external.]-; prana-apana-gati ruddhva, by stopping the movements of the
outgoing and the incoming breaths-the outgoing of breath (exhalation)
through the mouth and the nostrils is the movement of the Prana; as
opposed to that, the movement of Apana is the going down (of breath)
(inhalation); these constitute the prana-apana-gati, movements of Prana
and Apana; by stopping these; some juhvati, offer as a sacrifice;
pranam, the outgoing breath, which is the function of Prana; apane, in
the incoming breath, which is the function of Apana-i.e. they practised a
form of pranayama called Puraka ('filling in'); while tatha apare, still
others; offer apanam, the incoming breath; prane, in the outgoing
breath, i.e. they practise a form of pranayama called Recaka ('emptying
out'). [Constantly practising control of the vital, forces, they perform
Kumbhaka after Recaka and Puraka.]
4.30 Besides, apare, others; niyata-aharah, having their food regulated;
juhvati, offer; pranan, the vital forces, the different kinds of vital forces;
pranesu, in the vital forces themselves. Whichever function of the vital
forces is brought under control, in it they offer the other functions. These
latter become, as it were, merged in the former. Sarve api, all; of ete,
them; yajna-vidah, are knowers of the sacrifice; and yajna-ksapitakamasah,
have their sins destroyed by the sacrifices as mentioned
above. After accomplishing the above-mentioned sacrifices,
4.31 Yajna-sista-amrta-bhujah, those who partake of the nectar left over
after a sacrifice, i.e. those who, after performing the sacrifices described
above, eat, during the leisure after the sacrifice, the food called nectar,
as prescribed by the injunctions; yanti, reach; sanatanam brahma, the
eternal Brahman. For the sake of consistency (with the Upanisads) it is
understood that if they (the sacrificers) are seekers of liberation, (then
they reach Brahman) in due course of time. [The Upanisads describe the
different stages through which those who do good deeds and practise
meditation have to pass before reaching the qualified Brahman after
death. For liberation there is need also of purification of the heart, Thus,
they reach Brahman by stages, and not immediately after death. (See
Ch. 8.5 and subsequent portion; also, Br. 4.3.35 to 4.4.25, etc.)] Even
ayam lokah, this world, common to all beings; na asti, ceases to exist;
ayajnasya, for one who does not perform sacrifices, for him who does
not have to his credit even a single one of the above sacrifices. Kutah
anyah, what to speak of the other world which can be achieved through
special disciplines; kurusattama, O best among the Kurus!
4.32 Evam, thus; bahu-vidha yajnah, various kinds of sacrifices as
described; vitatah, lie spread; mukhe, at the mouth, at the door;
brahmanah, of the Vedas. Those which are known through the Vedasas
for instance, 'We offer the vital force into speech', etc.-are said to be
vitatah, spread, elaborated; mukhe, at the mouth; brahmanah, of the
Vedas. Viddhi, know; tan, them; sarvan, all; to be karmajan, born of
action, accoplished through the activities of body, speech and mind, but
not born of the Self. For the Self is actionless. Hence, jnatva, knowing;
evam, thus; vimoksyase, you will become liberated from evil. By knowing
thus- 'These are not my actions; I am actionless and detached'-You will
be freed from worldly bondage as a result of this full enlightenment. This
is the purport. Through the verse beginning with, 'The ladle is Brahman'
etc., complete Illumination has been represented as a sacrifice. And
sacrifices of various kinds have been taught. With the help of [Some
translate this as: As compared with...-Tr.] those (sacrifices) that are
meant for accomplishing desireable human ends, Knowledge
(considered as a sacrifice) is being extolled: How?
4.33 O destroyer of enemies, jnana-yajnah, Knowledge considered as a
sacrifice; is sreyan, greater; dravyamayat yajnat, than sacrifices requiring
materials [Including study of the Vedas, etc. also.] For, a sacrifice
performed with materials is an originator of results, [Worldly prosperity,
attaining heaven, etc.], but Knowledge considered as a sacrifice is not
productive of results. [It only reveals the state of Liberation that is an
achieved fact. (According to Advaitism, Liberation consists in the
removal of ignorance by Illumination. Nothing new is produced thereby.-
Tr.)]. Hence it is greater, more praiseworthy. How? Because, sarvam,
all; karma-akhilam, actions in their totality, without exception; O son of
Prtha, parisamapyate, culminate, get merged (attain their
consummation); jnane, in Knowledge, which is a means to Liberation
and is comparable to 'a flood all around' (cf.2.46). This is the idea, which
accords with the Upanisadic text, 'As when the (face of a die) bearing
the number 4, called Krta, wins, the other inferior (numbers on the diefaces)
get included in it, so whatever good actions are performed by
beings, all that gets merged in this one (Raikva). (So it happens) to
anyone who knows what he (Raikva) knew' (Ch. 4.1.4). In that case, by
what means is this highly estimable Knowledge acquired? The answer is
being given:
4.34 Viddhi, know; tat, that, the process by which It is acquired; by
approaching teachers pranipatena, through prostration, by lying fully
streched on the ground with face downward, with prolonged salutation;
pariprasnena, through inquiry, as to how bondage and Liberation come,
and what are Knowledge and ignorance; and sevaya, through the
service of the guru. (Know it) through these and other (disciplines) [Other
disciplines such as control of the mind, body, etc. Sankaracarya's own
words in the Commentary are evamadina, after which Ast. puts a full
stop, and agreeing with this, A.G. says that the word viddhi (know) is to
be connected with evamadina. Hence this translation. Alternatively,
those words have to be taken with prasrayena. Then the meaning will
be, 'Being pleased with such and other forms of humility...'-Tr.]. Being
pleased with humility, jnaninah, the wise ones, the teachers; tattvadarsinah,
who have realized the Truth; upadeksyanti, will impart, will tell;
te, you; jnanam, the Knowledge as described above. Although people
may be wise, some of them are apt to know Truth just as it is, while
others may not be so. Hence the qualification, 'who have realized the
Truth'. The considered view of the Lord is that Knowledge imparted by
those who have full enlightenment becomes effective, not any other.
That being so, the next verse also becomes appropriate:
4.35 Jnatva, knowing; yat, which-by acquiring which Knowledge
imparted by them; O Pandava, na vasyasi, you will not come under;
moham, delusion; punah, again; evam, in this way, in the way you have
come under delusion now. Besides, yena, through which Knowledge;
draksyasi, you will see directly; bhutani, all beings; asesena, without
exception, counting from Brahma down to a clump of grass; atmani, in
the Self, in the innermost Self, thus-'These beings exist in me' ; and
atha, also; see that these are mayi. in Me, in Vasudeva, the supreme
Lord. The purport is, 'You will realize the identity of the individual Self
and God, which is well known in the Upanisads.' Moreover, the
greatness of this Knowledge is:
4.36 Api cet asi, even if you be; papa-krt-tamah, the worst sinner,
extremely sinful; sarvebhyah, among all; papebhyah, the sinners (papa,
lit. sin, means here sinner) ; still santarisyasi, you will cross over; sarvam,
all; the vrjinam, wickedness, the ocean of wickedness, sin; [Ast. reads
papa-samudram, (ocean of sin) in place of papam.-Tr.] jnana-plavena
eva, with the raft of Knowledge alone, by using Knowledge alone as a
float. Here [Here, in the scriptures imparting spiritual instructions.],
righteousness (formal religious observance), too, is said to be an evil in
the case of one aspiring for Liberation. How Knowledge destroys sin is
being told with the help of an illustration:
4.37 O Arjuna, yatha, as; a samiddhah, blazing; agnih, fire, a well lighted
fire; kurute, reduces; edhamsi, pieces of wood; bhasmasat, to ashes;
tatha, similarly; jnanagnih, the fire of Knowledge-Knowledge itself being
the fire; kurute, reduces; bhasmasat, to ashes; sarva-karmani, all
actions, i.e. it renders them ineffective, for the fire of Knowledge itself
cannot directly [Knowledge destroys ignorance, and thereby the idea of
agentship is eradicated. This in turn makes actions impossible.] burn
actions to ashes, like pieces of wood. So, the idea implied is that full
enlightenment is the cuase of making all actions impotent. From the
force the context [If the body were to die just with the dawn of
Knowledge, imparting of Knowledge by enlightened persons would be
impossible, and thus there would be no teacher to transmit Knowledge!]
it follows that, since the result of actions owing to which the present
body has been born has already become effective, therefore it gets
eshausted only through experiencing it. Hence, Knowledge reduces to
ashes only all those actions that were done (in this life) prior to the rise of
Knowledge and that have not become effective, as also those performed
along with (i.e. after the dawn of) Knowledge, and those that were done
in the many past lives. Since this is so, therefore,
4.38 Hi, indeed; na vidyate, there is nothing; pavitram, purifying,
sanctifying; iha, here; sadrsam, comparable; jnanena, to Knowledge.
Yoga-samsiddhah, one who has become perfected, who as attained
fitness through yoga-the seeker after Liberation who has become
samsiddhah, purified, qualified; yogena, through the yoga of Karma and
the yoga of concentration-; kalena, after a long time; vindati, realizes, i.e.
attains; tat, That, Knowledge; verily svayam, by himself; atmani, in his
own heart. That means by which Knowledge is invariably attained is
being taught:
4.39 Sraddhavan, the man who has faith; labhate, attains; jnanam,
Knowledge. Even when one has faith, he may be indolent. Therefore the
Lord says, tatparah, who is diligent, steadfast in the service of the
teacher, etc., which are the means of attaining Knowledge. Even when
one has faith and is diligent, one may not have control over the organs.
Hence the Lord says, samyata-indriyah, who has control over the
organs-he whose organs (indriyani) have been withdrawn (samyata) from
objects. He who is such, who is full of faith, diligent, and has control over
the organs, does surely attain Knowledge. However, prostrations etc.,
which are external, are not invariably fruitful, for there is scope for
dissimulation faith etc. But this is not so in the case of one possessing
faith etc. Hence they are the unfailing means of acquiring Knowledge.
What, again, will result from gaining Knowledge? This is being answered:
Labdhva, achieving; jnanam, Knowledge; adhigacchati, one attains;
acirena, soon indeed; param, supreme; santim, Peace, supreme
detachment called Liberation. That Liberation soon follows from full
Knowledge is a fact well ascertained from all the scriptures and
reasoning. One should not entertain any doubt in this matter. For doubt
is the most vicious thing. Why? The answer is being stated:
4.40 Ajnah, one who is ignorant, who has not known the Self; and
asradda-dhanah, who is faithless; [Ast. adds here: guruvakya-sastresu
avisvasavan, who has no faith in the instructions of the teacher and the
scriptures.-Tr.] and samsaya-atma, who has a doubting mind; vinasyati,
perishes. Although the ignorant and the faithless get ruined, yet it is not
to the extent that a man with a doubting mind does. As for one with a
doubting mind, he is the most vicious of them all. How? Na ayam lokah,
neither this world which is familiar; na, nor also; parah, the next world; na
sukham, nor happiness; asti, exist; samsaya-atmanah, for one who has
a doubting mind. For doubt is possible even with regard to them!
Therefore one should not entertain doubt. Why?
4.41 Yoga-sannyasta-karmanam, one who has renounced actions
through yoga: that person who is a knower of the supreme Goal, by
whom actions called righteous or unrighteous have been renounced
through the yoga characterized as the Knowledge of the supreme Goal.
How does one become detached from actions through yoga? The Lord
says: He is jnana-samchinna-samsayah, one whose doubts (samsaya)
have been fully dispelled (samchinna) by Knowledge (jnana)
characterized as the realization of the identity of the individual Self and
God. O Dhananjaya, he who has thus renounced actions through yoga,
atmavantam, who is not inadvertent, not careless; him, karmani, actions,
seen as the activities of the gunas (see 3.28); na nibadhnanti, do not
bind, (i.e.) they do not produce a result in the form of evil etc. Since one
whose doubts have been destroyed by Knowledge-arising from the
destruction of the impurities (of body, mind, etc.) as result of the practise
of Karma-yoga-does not get bound by acitons owing to the mere fact of
his actions having been burnt away by Knowledge; and since one who
has doubts with regard to the practice of the yogas of Knowledge and
actions gets ruined-
4.42 Tasmat, therefore, O scion of the Bharata dynasty; atistha, take
recourse to, i.e. undertake; yogam, yoga -performance of actions, which
is a means to full Illumination; and now, uttistha, rise up for battle;
chittva, cutting asunder; jnanasina, with the sword of Knowledge-
Knowledge is full Illumination, which is a destroyer of such defects as
sorrows, delusion, etc.; that itself is the sword; with that sword of
Knowledge-;enam, this; samsayam, doubt; atmanah, of your own, which
is a source of one's own ruin and is most sinful; hrtstham, in the heart,
residing in the intellect; ajnana-sambhutam, arising from ignorance, born
of non-discrimination. The word atmanah is used because doubt
concerns oneself. Indeed, another's doubt cannot be removed by
someone else. Hence the word 'own' is used. So, although the doubt is
with regard to the Self, it is really one's own.

BHAGAVADGITA
English translation of Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary - Swami
Gambhirananda
Chapter 5
RO
5.1 (O Krsna,) samsasi, You praise, i.e. speak of; sannyasam,
renunciation; karmanam, of actions, of performance of various kinds of
rites enjoined by the scriptures; punah ca, and again; You praise yogam,
yoga, the obligatory performance of those very rites! Therefore I have a
doubt as to which is better-Is the performance of actions better, or their
rejection? And that which is better should be undertaken. And hence,
bruhi, tell; mam, me; suniscitam, for certain, as the one intended by You;
tat ekam, that one-one of the two, since performance of the two
together by the same person is impossible; yat, which; is sreyah, better,
more commendable; etayoh, between these two, between the
renunciation of actions and the performance of actions [Ast. reads
karma-yoga-anusthana (performance of Karma-yoga) in place of karmaanusthana
(performance of actions).-Tr.], by undertaking which you think
I shall acquire what is beneficial. While stating His own opinion in order
to arrive at a conclusion-
5.2 Ubhau, both, to be sure; sannyasah, renunciation of actions; ca,
and; karma-yogah, Karma-yoga-their performance-; nihsreyasa-karau,
lead to Liberation. Though both lead to Liberation by virtue of being the
cause of the rise of Knowledge, even then, tayoh, between the two
which are the causes of Liberation; Karma-yoga, tu, however; visisyate,
excels; karma-sannyasat, over mere renunciation of actions. Thus He
extols Karma-yoga. [Karma-yoga is better than renunciation of actions
that is not based on Knowledge.] Why? In answer the Lord says:
5.3 For, O mighty-armed one, he who is free from duality becomes
easily freed from bondage. That performer of Karma-yoga, yah, who; na
dvesti, does not hate anything; and na kanksati, does not crave; jneyah,
should be known; as nitya-sannyasi, a man of constant [A man of
constant renunciation: He is a man of renunciation ever before the
realization of the actionless Self.] renunciation. The meaning is that he
who continues to be like this in the midst of sorrow, happiness and their
sources should be known as a man of constant renunciation, even
though engaged in actions. Hi, for; mahabaho, O mighty-armed one;
nirdvandvah, one who is free from duality; pramucyate, becomes freed;
sukham, easily, without trouble; bandhat, from bondage. It is reasonable
that in the case of renunciation and Karma-yoga, which are opposed to
each other and can be undertaken by different persons, there should be
opposition even between their results; but it canot be that both of them
surely lead to Liberation. When such a question arises, this is the answer
stated:
5.4 Balah, the fools; na panditah, not the learned ones; pravadanti,
speak of; sankhya-yogau, Sankhya [Sankhya, i.e. monasticism, is that
which is suited for sankhya, Self-inquiry.] (the Path of Knowledge) and
(Karma-)yoga; as prthak, different, having opposite and different results.
The learned ones, the wise, however, admit one, unconflicting result.
How? Any one who samyak, properly; asthitah, resorts to, i.e. follows;
ekam api, even one, between the Path of Knowledge and (Karma-) yoga;
vindate, gets; phalam, the result; ubhayoh, of both. For, the result of
both is that Liberation itself. Therefore there is no conflict with regard to
the result. Objection: After beginning the topic with the words,
'renunciation' and '(Karma-) yoga', how is it that the Lord speaks of the
identity of the results of the path of Knowledge and (Karma-) yoga, which
is beside the point? Reply: This defect does not arise. Although the
question was put by Arjuna merely with regard to renunciation and
Karma-yoga, yet the Lord, without actually avoiding them, and by adding
something special which was intended by Him, gave the answer by
expressing them through other words, 'Sankhya' and '(Karma-) yoga'.
Those very 'renunciation and 'Karma-yoga', when they are (respectively)
associated with Knowledge and such of Its means as equanimity etc.,
are meant by the words 'Sankhya' and 'yoga'. This is the Lord's veiw.
Therefore there is no discussion out of the context. How can the result
of both be attained by the proper performance of only one? The answer
is:
5.5 Sthanam, the State called Liberation; yat prapyate, that is reached;
sankhyaih, by the Sankhyas, by the monks steadfast in Knowledge; tat
prapyate, that is reached; yogaih, by the yogis; api, as well. The yogis
are those who, as a means to the attainment of Knowledge, undertake
actions by dedicating them to God without seeking any result for
themselves. The purport is that, by them also that Stated is reached
through the process of acquiring monasticism which is a result of the
knowledge of the supreme Reality. Therefore, sah, he; pasyati, sees
truly; yah, who; pasyati, sees; Sankhya and yoga as ekam, one, because
of the identity of their results. This is the meaning. Objection: If this be
so, then monasticism itself excels yoga! Why, then, is it said, 'Among the
two, Karma-yoga, however, excels renunciation of actions'? Reply: Hear
the reason for this: Having is veiw the mere giving up of actions and
Karma-yoga, your question was as to which one was better of the two.
My answer was accordingly given that Karma-yoga excels renunciation
of actions (resorted to) without Knowledge is Sankhya. This is what was
meant by me. And that is indeed yoga in the highest sense. However,
that which is the Vedic Karma-yoga is figuratively spoken of as yoga and
renunciation since it leads to it (supreme Knowledge). How does it lead
to that? The answer is:
5.6 Tu, but, O mighty-armed one; sannyasah, renunciation, in the real
sense; duhkham aptum, is hard to attain; ayogatah, without (Karma-)
yoga. Munih, the meditative man-the word muni being derived in the
sense of one who meditates on the real nature of God; yoga-yuktah,
equipped with yoga, with Vedic Karma-yoga in the form of dedication to
God without thought of results (for oneself); adhigacchati, attains;
brahma, Brahman; na cirena, without delay, very quickly. Therefore it
was said by Me, 'Karma-yoga excels'. [Karma-yoga leads to
enlightenment through the stages of attenuation of attachment,
withdrawal of the internal and external organs from their objects, and
their inclination towards the indwelling Self. (Also see Commentary on
5.12).] The monasticism under discussion is called Brahman because it
leads to knowledge of the supreme Self, as stated in the Upanisad,
'Nyasa (monasticism) is Brahman. Brahman is verily the supreme' (Ma.
Na. 21.2) Brahman means monasticism in the real sense, consisting in
steadfastness to the knowledge of the supreme Self.
5.7 When again, as a means to attain full enlightenment, this person
becomes yoga-yuktah, endowed with yoga; visuddhatma, pure in mind;
vijitatma, controlled in body; jitendriyah, a conqueror of the organs; and
sarva-bhutatma-bhutatma, the Self of the selves of all beings-one whose
Self (atma), the inmost consciousness, has become the selves (atma) of
all beings (sarva-bhuta) beginning from Brahma to a clump of grass-,
i.e., fully illumined; (then,) thus continuing in that state, he na lipyate,
does not become tainted; kurvan api, even while performing actions for
preventing mankind from going astray. That is to say, he does not
become bound by actions. And besides, this person does not act in the
real sense. Hence,
5.8 Yuktah, remaining absorbed in the Self; tattva-vit, the knower of
Reality-knower of the real nature of Truth, of the Self, i.e., the seer of the
supreme Reality; manyeta, should think; 'na karomi eva, I certainly do
not do; kincit, anything.' Having realized the Truth, when or how should
he think? This is being answered; Api, even; pasyan, while seeing;
srnvan, hearing; sprsan, touching; jighran, smelling; asnan, eating;
gacchan, moving; svapan, sleeping; svasan, breathing; pralapan,
speaking; visrjan, releasing; grhnan, holding; unmisan, opening; nimisan,
closing the eyes. All these are to be connected with the above manyeta
(should think). For the man who has known the Truth thus, who finds
nothing but inaction in action-in all the movements of the body and
organs-, and who has full realization, there is competence only for giving
up all actions because of his realization of the nonexistence of actions.
Indeed, one who proceeds to drink water in a mirage thinking that water
is there, surely does not go there itself for drinking water even after
knowing that no water exists there!
5.9 Yuktah, remaining absorbed in the Self; tattva-vit, the knower of
Reality-knower of the real nature of Truth, of the Self, i.e., the seer of the
supreme Reality; manyeta, should think; 'na karomi eva, I certainly do
not do; kincit, anything.' Having realized the Truth, when or how should
he think? This is being answered; Api, even; pasyan, while seeing;
srnvan, hearing; sprsan, touching; jighran, smelling; asnan, eating;
gacchan, moving; svapan, sleeping; svasan, breathing; pralapan,
speaking; visrjan, releasing; grhnan, holding; unmisan, opening; nimisan,
closing the eyes. All these are to be connected with the above manyeta
(should think). For the man who has known the Truth thus, who finds
nothing but inaction in action-in all the movements of the body and
organs-, and who has full realization, there is competence only for giving
up all actions because of his realization of the nonexistence of actions.
Indeed, one who proceeds to drink water in a mirage thinking that water
is there, surely does not go there itself for drinking water even after
knowing that no water exists there!
5.10 On the other hand, again, one who is ignorant of the Truth and is
engaged in Karma-yoga, yah, who; karoti, acts; adhaya, by dedicating,
by surrendering; all karmani, actions; brahmani, to Brahman, to God;
with the idea, 'I am working for Him, as a servant does everything for his
master', and tyaktva, by renouncing; sangam, attachment, even with
regard to teh resulting Liberation; sah, he; na lipyate, does not get
polluted, is not affected; papena, by sin; iva, just as; padma-patram, a
lotus leaf; is not ambhasa, by water. The only result that will certainly
accrue from such action will be the purification of the heart.
5.11 Since tyaktva, by giving up sangam, attachment with regard to
results; yoginah, the yogis, men of action; kurvanti, undertake; karma,
work; kevalaih, merely- this word is to be construed with each of the
words, body etc., so as to deny the idea of ownership with regard to all
actions-; kayena, through the body; manasa, through the mind;
buddhya, through the intellect; and api, even; indriyaih, through the
organs, which are devoid of the idea of ownership, which are
unassociated with ownership thus: 'I act only for God, and not for my
gain'; atmasudhaye, for the purification of themselves, i.e., for the
purification of the heart, therefore you have competence only for that. So
you undertake action alone. And also since,
5.12 Tyaktva, giving up; karma-phalam, the result of work; yuktah, by
becoming resolute in faith, by having this conviction thus-'Actions are for
God, not for my gain'; apnoti, attains; santim, Peace, called Liberation;
naisthikim arising from steadfastness. It is to be understood that he
attains this through the stages of purification of the heart, acquisition of
Knowledge, renunciation of all actions, and steadfastness in Knowledge.
On the other hand, however, he who is ayuktah, lacking in resolute faith;
he, phale saktah, being attached to result; thinking, 'I am doing this work
for my gain'; kama-karena, under the impulsion of desire-kara is the
same as karana (action); the action of desire (kama-kara; under that
impulsion of desire, i.e. being prompted by desire; nibadhyate, gets
bound. Therefore you become resolute in faith. This is the idea. But one
who has experienced the supreme Reality-
5.13 Aste, he continues; sukham, happily; sannyasya, having given up;
sarva-karmani, all actions-nitya, naimittika, kamya and nisiddha
(prohibited actions); [See note on p. 128.-Tr.] manasa, mentally, through
discriminating wisdom-i.e. having given up (all actions) by seeing inaction
in action, etc. Freed from the activities of speech, mind and body,
effortles, placid in mind, and devoid of all external wants which are
different from the Self, he continues happily. This is what has been said.
Where and how does the vasi, man of self-control, i.e. one who has his
organs under control, remain? This is being answered: Nava-dvare pure,
in the town with nine gates, of which seven [Two ears, two eyes nostrils,
and mouth.] are in the head for one's own experiences, and two are
below for urination and defecation. As possessed of those gates, it is
called the 'town with nine gates'. Being like a town, the body is called a
town with the Self as its only master. And it is inhabited by the organs,
mind, intellect and objects, like citizens, as it were, which serve its needs
and which are productive of many results and experience. Renouncing
all actions, the dehi, embodied one, resides in that town with nine gates.
Objection: What is the need of this specification? For all embodied
beings, be they monks or not, reside in bodies to be sure! That being so,
the specification is needless. The answer is: The embodied one,
however, who is unenlightened, who perceives merely the aggregate of
the body and organs as the Self, he, in his totality, thinks, 'I am in a
house, on the ground, or on the seat.' For one who experiences the
body alone as the Self, there can certainly be no such conviction as, 'I
am in the body, like one's being in a house.' But, for one who realizes
the Self as distinct from the aggregate of body etc. it becomes
reasonable to have the conviction, 'I am in the bdoy. It is reasonable that
as a result of knowledge in the form of discriminating wisdom, there can
be a mental renunciation of the actions of others, which have been
ignorantly superimposed on the supreme Self. Even in the case of one in
whom has arisen discriminating wisdom and who has renounced all
actions, there can be, like staying in a house, the continuance in the
body itself-the town with nine gates-as a consequence of the
persistence of the remnants of the results of past actions which have
started bearing fruit, because the awareness of being distinct (from the
body) arises while one is in the body itself. Form the point of veiw of the
difference between the convictions of the enlightened and the
unenlightened persons, the qualifying words, 'He continues in the body
itself', do have a purpose to serve. Although it has been stated that one
continues (in the body) by relinquishing actions of the body and organs
ignorantly superimposed on the Self, still there may be the apprehesion
that direct or indirect agentship inheres in the Self. Anticipating this, the
Lord says: na eva kurvan, without himself doing anything at all; and na
karayan, not causing (others) to do, (not) inducing the body and organs
to activity. Objection: Is it that the direct or indirect agentship of the
embodied one inheres in the Self and ceases to be after renunciation, as
the movement of a traveller ceases with the stoppage of his movement?
Or, is it that they do not exist owing to the very nature of the Self? As to
this, the answer is: The Self by Its nature has neither direct nor indirect
agentship. For it was stated, 'It is said that...This (Self) is unchangeable'
(2.25). 'O son of Kunti, although existing in the body, It does not act, nor
is It affected' (13.31). And it is also stated in the Upanisad, 'It seems to
meditate, as it were; It seems to move, as it were' (Br. 4.3.7).
5.14 Prabhuh, the Self; na srjati, does not create; lokasya, for anyone;
kartrtvam, agentship, by saying 'Do this'; or even karmani, any objectssuch
objects as chariot, pot, palace, etc. which are intensely longed for;
nor even karma-phala-samyogam, association with the results of
actions-association of the creator of a chariot etc. with the result of his
work. Objection: If the embodied one does not do anything himself, and
does not make others do, then who is it that engages in work by doing
and making others do? The answer is: Tu, but; it is svabhavah, Natureone's
own (sva) nature (bhava)-characterized as ignorance, Maya, which
will be spoken of in, 'Since this divine Maya' (7.14); pravartate, that acts.
But from the highest standpoint-
5.15 Vibhuh, the Omnipresent; na adatte, neither accetps; kasyacit,
anybody's-even a adevotee's; papam, sin; na ca eva, nor even; does He
accept sukrtam, virtue offered by devotees. Why then are such virtuous
acts as worship etc. as also sacrifices, charity, oblation, etc. worship
etc. as also sacrifices, charity, oblation, etc. offered by devotees? To this
the Lord says: Jnanam, knowledge, discriminating wisdom; remains
avrtam, covered; ajnanena, by ignorance. Tena, thereby; jantavah, the
creatures, the non-discriminating people in the world; muhyanti, become
deluded thus-'I do; I make others do; I eat; I make others eat.'
5.16 Tu, but; yesam, in the case of those creatures; of whom tat
ajnanam, that ignorance; atmanah, of theirs-being covered by which
ignorance creatures get deluded-; nasitam, becomes destroyed;
jnanena, by knowledge, by discriminating knowledge concerning the
Self; tesam, their; jnanam, knowledge; adityavat, like the sun;
prakasayati, reveals, in the same way as the sun reveals all forms
whatever; tat-param, that supreme Reality, the Reality which is the
highest Goal, the totality of whatever is to be known.
5.17 Tat-buddhayah, those who have their intellect absorbed in That,
[Here Ast. reads 'tasmin brahmani, in that Brahman'.-Tr.] in the supreme
Knowledge which has been revealed; tat-atmanah, whose Self is That,
who have That (tat) supreme Brahman Itself as their Self (atma); tatnisthah,
who are steadfast in That-nistha is intentness, exclusive
devotion; they are called tat-nisthah who become steadfast only in
Brahman by renouncing all actions; and tat-parayanah, who have That
as their supreme (para) Goal (ayana), who have That alone as their
supreme Resort, i.e. who are devoted only to the Self; those who have
got their ignorance destroyed by Knowledge-those who are of this kind-,
they gacchanti, attain; apunaravrttim, the state of non-returning, nonassociation
again with a body; jnana-nirdhuta-kalmasah, their dirt having
been removed, destroyed, by Knowledge. Those whose dirt (kalmasa),
the defect in the form of sin etc., which are the cause of transmigration,
have been removed, destryed (nirdhuta), by the aforesaid Knowledge
(jnana) are jnana-nirdhuta-kalmasah, i.e. the monks. How do those
learned ones, whose ignorance regarding the Self has been destroyed
by Knowledge, look upon Reality? That is being stated:
5.18 Panditah, the learned ones; sama-darsinah, look with equanimity;
brahmane, on a Brahmana; vidya-vinayasampanne, endowed with
learning and humility-vidya means knowledge of the Self, and vinaya
means pridelessness-, on a Brahmana who has Self-knowledge and
modesty; gavi, on a cow; hastini, on an elephant; ca eva, and even; suni,
on a dog; ca, as well as; svapake, on an eater of dog's meat. Those
learned ones who are habituated to see (equally) the unchanging, same
and one Brahman, absolutely untouched by the qualities of sattva etc.
and the tendencies created by it, as also by the tendencies born of rajas
and tamas, in a Brahmana, who is endowed with Knowledge and
tranquillity, who is possessed of good tendencies and the quality of
sattva; in a cow, which is possessed of the middling quality of rajas and
is not spiritually refined; and in an elephant etc., which are wholly and
absolutely imbued with the quality of tamas-they are seers of equality.
Objection: On the strength of the text, 'A sacrificer incurs sin by not
adoring equally one who is an equal, and by adoring equally one who is
an equal, to himself' (Gau. Sm. 17.20), are not they sinful, whose food
should not be eaten? Reply: They are not open to the charge.
Objection: How?
5.19 Iha eva, here itself, even while they are living; is sargah, rebirth;
jitah, conquered, overcome; taih, by them, by the learned ones who see
with equanimity; yesam, whose; manah, minds, the internal organs; are
sthitam, established, made steadfast; samye, on sameness, in Brahman
that exists as the same in all beings. It is nirdosam, free from defects.
Because of Its existence in such mean objects as an eater of dog's
meat, etc., though It is supposed by fools to be affected by the defects
of those (objects), still It remains untouched by those blemishes, hi,
because It is free from defects. Nor even is It differentiated by Its
qualities, since Consciousness is free from qualifications. And the Lord
will speak of desires etc. (cf. 13.6 etc.) as the attributes of the aggregate
of body and organs, and will also say, 'Being without beginning and
without qualities' (13.31). Nor even are there the ultimate distinctions
which can create differentiation in the Self, [According to the Vaisesikas,
everything is possessed of not only qualities but also of antya-visesa
(ultimate distinction), which is a category like substance, quality, action,
etc. This distinction makes every entity different from other entities.
Thus, individual souls have their own ultimate distinctions by the very
fact that they are individuals. Vedanta denies such a category. Besides,
the Self is one and omnipresent. Therefore there is nothing else from
which It can be distinguished.-Tr.] because there is nothing to prove that
these ultimate distinctions exist in every body. Hence, samam brahma,
Brahman is the same and one. Tasmat, therefore; te, they; sthitah, are
established; brahmani, in Brahman Itself. As a result, not even a shade of
defect touches them. For they have no self-identification in the form of
perceiving the aggregate of body etc. as the Self. On the other hand,
that statement (Gau. Sm. 17.20) refers to the man who has selfidentification
in the form of perceiving the aggregate of body, (organs)
etc. as the Self, for that statement-'A sacrificer incurs sin by not adoring
equally one who is an equal, and by adoring equally one who is not
equal to himself, pointedly refers to persons who are the objects of
adoration. It is indeed seen that in worship, charity, etc. the determining
factors are the possession of such special qualities as being 'a knower
of Brahman', 'versed in the six auxiliary branches of Vedic learning', and
'versed in the four Vedas'. But Brahman is bereft of association with all
qualities and defects. This being so, it is logical that they are established
in Brahman. And 'adoring an equal, ...an unequal,' etc. has reference to
men of action. [Those engaged in actions with a sense of agentship,
etc.-Tr.] But this subject under consideration, beginning from 'The
embodied man...having given up all actions mentally' (13) to the end of
the chapter, is concerning one who has given up all actions. Since the
Self is Brahman which is without blemish and is the same (in all),
therefore-
5.20 Brahmavit, a knower of Brahman, as described; sthitah, who is
established; brahmani in Brahman- who is not a performer of actions, i.e.
one who has renounced all actions; sthira-buddhih, should have his
intellect steady-the man of steady intellect is one who has the
unwavering, firm conviction of the existence of the one and the same
taintless Self in all beings; and further, asammudhah, he should not be
deluded, he should be free from delusion. Na prahrsyet, he should not
get delighted; prapya, by getting; priyam, what is desirable; na ca
udvijet, and surely, neither should he become dejected; prapya, by
getting; apriyam, what is undesirable-because the acquisition of the
desirable and the undesirable are causes of [Ast.'s reading is 'horsavisadau
kurvate, cause happiness and sorrow' in place of 'harsa-visadasthane,
sources of happiness and sorrow', which (latter) reading occurs
in G1. Pr. and A.A.-Tr.] happiness and sorrow for one who considers the
body as the Self; not for the one who has realized the absolute Self,
since in his case there can be no acquisition of desirable and
undesirable objects. Further, the one who is established in Brahman5.21
Asakta-atma, with his heart, internal organ, unattached, bahyasparsesu,
to external objects-sparsah means objects that are contacted,
viz sound etc.; bahya-sparsah means those things which are external
(bahya) and are objects of contact; that person who thus has his heart
unattached, who derives no happiness from objects; he vindati, gets that
sukham, bliss; yat, which is; atmani, in the Self. Brahma-yoga-yuktaatma,
with his heart absorbed in meditation on Brahman-meditation
(yoga) on Brahman is brahma-yoga; one whose internal organ (atma) is
absorbed in (yukta), engaged in, that meditation on Brahman is brahmayoga-
yukta-atma; he asnute, acquires; aksayam, undecaying; sukham,
Bliss. So, he who cherishes undecaying happiness in the Self should
withdraw the organs from the momentary happiness in external objects.
This is the meaning. For this reason also one should withdraw:
5.22 Hi, since; bhogah, enjoyments; ye samsparsajah, that result from
contact with objects, that arise from contact between the objects and
the organs; are eva, verily; duhkha-yonayah, sources of sorrow, because
they are creations of ignorance. It is certainly a matter of experience that
physical and other sorrows are created by that itself. By the use of the
word eva (verily), it is understood that, as it happens here in this world,
so does it even in the other world. Realizing that there is not the least
trace of happiness in the world, one should withdraw the organs from
the objects which are comparable to a mirage. Not only are they
sources of sorrow, they also adi-antavantah, have a beginning and an
end. Adi (beginning) of enjoyments consists in the contact between
objects and senses, and their end (anta), indeed, is the loss of that
contact. Hence, they have a beginning and an end, they are
impermanent, being present in the intervening moment. This is the
meaning. (Therefore) O son of Kunti, budhah, the wise one, the
discriminating person who has realized the Reality which is the supreme
Goal; na ramate, does not delight; tesu, in them, in enjoyments. For
delight in objects is seen only in very foolish beings, as for instance in
animals etc. This extremely painful evil, which is opposed to the path of
Bliss and is the source of getting all miseries, is difficult to resist.
Therefore one must make the utmost effort to avoid it. Hence the Lord
says:;
5.23 Yah saknoti, one who can, is able to; sodhum, withstand; iha eva,
here itself, while alive; prak, before; sarira-vimoksanat, departing from
the body, till death-. Death is put as a limit because the impulse of desire
and anger is certanily inevitable for a living person. For this impulse has
got infinite sources. One should not relax until his death. That is the idea.
Kama, desire, is the hankering, thirst, with regard to a coveted object-of
an earlier experience, and which is a source of pleasure-when it comes
within the range of the senses, or is heard of or remembered. And
krodha, anger, is that repulsion one has against what are adverse to
oneself and are sources of sorrow, when they are seen, heard of or
remembered. That impulse (veda) which has those desire and anger as
its source (udbhava) is kama-krodha-udbhava-vegah. The impulse
arising from desire is a kind of mental agitation, and has the signs of
horripilation, joyful eyes, face, etc. The impulse of anger has the signs of
trembling of body, perspiration, bitting of lips, red eyes, etc. He who is
able to withstand that impulse arising from desire and anger, sah narah,
that man; is yuktah, a yogi; and sukhi, is happy, in this world. What kind
of a person, being established in Brahman, attains Brahman? The Lord
says:
5.24 Yah antah-sukhah, one who is happy within, in the indwelling Self;
and so also antar-aramah, has pleasure within-he disports only in the
Self within; similarly, antar-jyotih eva, has his light only within, has the
indwelling Self alone as his light; [He has not to depend on the organs
like ear etc. for acquiring knowledge.] sah yogi, that yogi; yah, who is of
this kind; brahma-bhutah, having become Brahman, even while he is still
living; adhigacchati, attains; brahma-nirvanam, absorption in Brahmangets
Liberation. Besides,
5.25 Rsayah, the seers, those who have full realization, the monks;
ksina-kalmasah, whose sins, defects like sin etc., have been attenuated;
chinna-dvaidhah, who are freed from doubt; yata-atmanah, whose
organs are under control; ratah, who are engaged; sarvabhutahite, in
doing good to all beings-favourably disposed towards all, i.e. harmless;
labhante, attain; brahma-nirvanam, absorption in Brahman, Liberation.
Further,
5.26 Yatinam, to the monks; yata-cetasam, who have control over their
internal organ; kama-krodha-viyuktanam, who are free from desire and
anger; vidita-atmanam, who have known the Self, i.e. who have full
realization; vartate, there is; brahma-nir-vanam, absorption in Brahman,
Liberation; abhitah, either way, whether living or dead. Immediate
Liberation of the monks who are steadfast in full realization has been
stated. And the Lord has said, and will say, at every stage that Karmayoga,
undertaken as a dedication to Brahman, to God, by surrendering
all activities [The activities of body, mind and organs] to God, leads to
Liberation through the stages of purification of the heart, attainment of
Knowledge, and renunciation of all actions. Thereafter, now, with the
idea, 'I shall speak elaborately of the yoga of meditation which is the
proximate discipline for full realization,' the Lord gave instruction through
some verses in the form of aphorisms:
5.27 Krtva, keeping; bahyan, the external; sparsan, objects-sound etc.;
bahih, outside: To one who does not pay attention to the external
objects like sound etc., brought to the intellect through the ear etc., the
objects become verily kept outside. Having kept them out in this way,
and (keeping) the caksuh, eyes; antare, at the juncture; bhruvoh, of the
eye-brows (-the word 'keeping' has to be supplied-); and similarly,
samau krtva, making equal; prana-apanau, the outgoing and the
incoming breaths; nasa-abhyantara-carinau, that move through the
nostrils; munih, the contemplative-derived (from the root man) in the
sense of contemplating-, the monk; yata-indriya-mano-buddhih, who
has control over his organs, mind and intellect; should be moksa-parayanah,
fully intent on Liberation-keeping his body is such a posture, the
contemplative should have Liberation itself as the supreme Goal. He
should be vigata-iccha-bhaya-krodhah, free from desire, fear and anger.
The monk yah, who; sada, ever remains thus; sah, he; is muktah yah,
who;sada, ever remains thus; sah, he; is muktah, ever, verily free. He
has no other Liberation to seek after. What is there to be realized by
one who has his mind thus concentrated? The answer this is beig
stated:
5.28 Krtva, keeping; bahyan, the external; sparsan, objects-sound etc.;
bahih, outside: To one who does not pay attention to the external
objects like sound etc., brought to the intellect through the ear etc., the
objects become verily kept outside. Having kept them out in this way,
and (keeping) the caksuh, eyes; antare, at the juncture; bhruvoh, of the
eye-brows (-the word 'keeping' has to be supplied-); and similarly,
samau krtva, making equal; prana-apanau, the outgoing and the
incoming breaths; nasa-abhyantara-carinau, that move through the
nostrils; munih, the contemplative-derived (from the root man) in the
sense of contemplating-, the monk; yata-indriya-mano-buddhih, who
has control over his organs, mind and intellect; should be moksa-parayanah,
fully intent on Liberation-keeping his body is such a posture, the
contemplative should have Liberation itself as the supreme Goal. He
should be vigata-iccha-bhaya-krodhah, free from desire, fear and anger.
The monk yah, who; sada, ever remains thus; sah, he; is muktah yah,
who;sada, ever remains thus; sah, he; is muktah, ever, verily free. He
has no other Liberation to seek after. What is there to be realized by
one who has his mind thus concentrated? The answer this is beig
stated:
5.29 Rcchati, one attains; santim, Peace, complete cessation of
transmigration; jnatva, by knowing; mam, Me who am Narayana; who, as
the sarva-loka-mahesvaram, great Lord of all the worlds; am the
bhoktaram, enjoyer (of the fruits); yajna-tapasam, of sacrifices and
austerities, as the performer and the Deity of the sacrifices and
austerities (respectively); (and) who am the suhrdam, friend; sarvabhutanam,
of all creatures-who am the Benefactor of all without
consideration of return, who exist in the heart of all beings, who am the
dispenser of the results of all works, who am the Witness of all
perceptions.
..¿r¢madbhagavadg¢t¡rthasaÆgraha¶ippa¸¢..
¿l°. 6 ( vy¡ ) 'saÆny¡sam¡ptuÆ duÅkham®v®ti'. atr®daÆ vic¡ryat® --
saÆny¡sastviti pratham¡ntasaÆny¡sapadaka ®va s¡rvatrik°
m£lap¡¶haÅ. parantu saÆny¡sam¡ptumiti vilikhat¡ ¡c¡ry®¸a api n¡ma
dvit¢y¡rth® pratham¡ ch¡ndas¢ iti s£citam? atha sy¡dv¡
¡c¡ryasam¡d¤t° m£lap¡¶haÅ 'saÆny¡saÆ tu mah¡b¡h°' ity®va?
sy¡dv¡ saÆny¡sa ¡ptuÆ duÅkham®v®ty®va lil®khiÀitam¡c¡ry®¸a, ya¿ca
m¡rg° vy¡khy¡trantar¡¸¡mapi bah£n¡m? sarvatr¡pi pakÀ®
¿r¢bh¡skar¡c¡ry°padar¿itaÅ saÆny¡sapadasya yath¡¿rut¡rthakatv®
pratham¡ntatvasya s¡dhutv¡nupapatt®Å tadbhiy¡ tatpadasya ar¿a
¡dyajantatvaÆ parikalpya saÆny¡syarthakatvamaÆ´ag¢k¡ryamiti m¡rg°
na tath¡ h¤daya´agama iti s£cyata iv¡c¡ry®¸a.
'pr¡´an¢ty¡' , pr¡guktayukty¡..
¿l°. 7-11 ( vy¡ ) 'akara¸apratiÀ®dh¡r£·hatv¡t' iti. kriyat® adhikriyat®
an®na iti kara¸aÆ vidhiÅ; pratiÀidhyat® an®n®ti pratiÀ®dhaÅ; t¡v¡r£·haÅ,
tay°radhik¤taÅ ajµ¡n¢; sa na bhavat¢ti akara¸apratiÀ®dh¡r£·haÅ; tasya
bh¡vastasm¡dityarth°'bhimata iva bh¡ti. m¡t¤k¡su sarv¡su na lipyat®
'kara¸apratiÀ®dh¡r£·hatv¡diti' vartat®. tatra kara¸®tyataÅ p£rvam
ak¡raÅ pra¿liÀ¶a iva. atha v¡ na pra¿liÀ¶aÅ. kara¸® pratiÀ®dh® ca
ar£·hatv¡t asthiratv¡t an¡grah¡t ityarthaÅ..
¿l°. 14 ( vy¡ ) 'n¡ny®ti'. gha¶¡dir£pak¡ry¡diti ¿®ÀaÅ. 'na ca s¡
gha¶aniÀpad¡dit®ti'. 'na c¡sau gha¶aniÀp¡dayit¡ iti vivakÀitamiva'.
'any° gha¶¡dir£pak¡ry¡t ' ityanuÀajyat®..
athav¡, na vaidikaÆ sm¡rta v¡, agnih°tr¡dikarmam¡traÆ vivakÀitam,
parantu kriy¡s¡m¡nyam®va. gha¶¡di niÀp¡dayit¡ kul¡l¡diÅ tad¢y¡Å
kriy¡Å da¸·acakrabhrama¸¡dayaÅ, tatphalaÆ gha¶¡di ity®tat sarvaÆ
prak¤t® vivakÀitam. sarvasy¡pi saÆvidantargatatv¡t ityabhipr¡yaÅ..
¿l°. 16 ( vy¡ ) 'svayam®va kar°ti' iti. ®t®n®daÆ s£citamiva yat pr¡ya¿a
¡c¡ryaÅ prak¤tag¢t¡¿l°kacaturthap¡daÆ 'prak¡¿ayati tat svayam ' iti
pap¡¶ha iti. parantu 'prak¡¿ayati tat param' ity®va s¡rvatrikaÅ p¡¶haÅ.
atha v¡ paramityasyaiva svayamityarthavar¸anamiti vaktavyam.
'svayam®va kar°t¢tyasya' svaparaprak¡¿akatvamityan®na
p£rvatan®n¡pyanvayaÅ..
¿l°. 18 ( vy¡ ) 'samaÆ pa¿yanti iti na tu vyavaharanti iti'. 'an®na m£l®
samadar¿ina' ityatra samamiti dar¿anakriy¡vi¿®Àa¸amiti s£citam..
¿l°. 21 ( vy¡ ) '®vaÆ bh¡vayat¢ti'. tath¡ ca m£l® ¡dyap¡datrayaÆ
budhasya jµ¡n¡k¡r¡bhil¡pakamiti bh¡vaÅ.
'tath¡vidh¡' ap¢ti. 'atath¡vidh¡ api' ity®va vivakÀitamiva.
aduÅkhak¡ra¸ar£p¡ ap¢ti tadarthaÅ. atha v¡ yadi sthitasya gatiÅ
kalpan¢y¡ tad¡ -- 'tath¡vidhatvaÆ ca saÆspar¿ajanyatvam; tad®va
duÅkhak¡ra¸atv®na nirdiÀ¶am. api, api c®tyarthaÅ' ity®vaÆ r¢ty¡
kathaÆcit n®yam..
¿l°. 22 ( vy¡ ) 'na caitadduÅ¿akamity¡di'. atra pa´aktayastru¶it¡ iva.
na hi kÀa¸am¡tras¡dhy°'tisu¿akaÅ panth¡ upadi¿yat® bhagavat¡.
at°'tr®daÆ vivakÀitamiva -- 'na caitat su¿akam; duÅ¿ak°'yaÆ
k¡makr°dh¡dij° v®gaÅ ¿ar¢r¡ntak¡laÆ y¡vat -- na kÀa¸am¡tram --
sahyat® yadi, tad¡ ¡tyantik¢ sukhapr¡ptiÅ.' iti. atra ca saÆdarbh®
'na kÀa¸am¡tram, kintu pr¡k ¿ar¢ravim°can¡t, ¡ d®hap¡t¡t '
iti ¿r¢bh¡skar¡c¡ryavy¡kh¡yanam; tath¡ --
'ayaÆ ca -- kaÀ¶atam° d°ÀaÅ -- -durniv¡ra¿c®ti tatparih¡r®
yatn¡dhikyaÆ kartavyamity¡ha -- ¡ mara¸¡t -- -'
iti ¿r¢¿a´akar¡c¡ryavy¡khy¡naÆ c¡nusaÆdh®yam..
¿l°. 25 ( vy¡ ) 'sarv¡svavasth¡su brahmasatt¡ brahmasatt¡
p¡ram¡rthik¢' ity¡di. an®na sarvat° brahma nirv¡¸aÆ vartat® iti m£laÆ
vy¡khy¡tamiva. tath¡ hi -- sarvataÅ, sarvad¡ ityarthaÅ;
s¡rvavibhaktikastasiÅ. vartat® iti dh¡tvarth° vartanaÆ satt¡, s¡ brahm®ti
pratham¡ntapad¡rthabrahmakart¤k¡. satt¡y¡Æ brahmakart¤katvaÆ ca
brahm¡tmakatvam®va. nirv¡¸amiti kriy¡vi¿®Àa¸asy¡rthaÅ
satt¡yamabh®d®n¡nv®ti; nirv¡¸atvaÆ ca p¡ram¡rthikatvam. katham?
v¡ gatigandhanay°rityad¡d®rdh¡t°rbh¡v® ktapratyay® niÀpannasya
v¡ta¿abdasya gatyarthakatay¡, nirgataÆ v¡t¡t -- 'nirv¡¸°'v¡t®
( PA, VIII, ii, 50 ) iti tak¡rasya ¸atv® -- iti vyutpatty¡ niÀpannasya
nirv¡¸a¿abdasya sarvagati¿£ny¡rthakatv¡t. ®vaÆ ca
sarvagaman¡gamana¿£ny¡ an¡gam¡p¡yin¢ p¡ram¡rthik¡parapary¡y¡
brahm¡tmik¡ satt¡ ityarthal¡bhaÅ iti..
vartat® iti la¶pray°gasv¡rasyaÆ dar¿ayati -- 'na nir°dhak¡lamap®kÀat®
iti'. cittav¤ttinir°dhak¡laÆ n¡p®kÀat® ityarthaÅ. aÀ¶¡Ægay°gin° yad¡
cittav¤ttinir°dhaÅ tad¡, tadaiva draÀ¶uÅ svar£p®'vasth¡nam. yat®stu
vartat® sarv¡svavasth¡su brahmasatt¡ iti vi¿®ÀaÅ. atha v¡ nir°dh°
n¡¿am¡ha. sa ca ¿ar¢rasy®ty¡diÅ. tath¡ ca ¿ar¢ran¡¿ak¡laÆ
mara¸ak¡laÆ n¡p®kÀat® ityarthaÅ. t¡rkik¡dimat®
'duÅkhajanmaprav¤ttid°Àamithy¡jµ¡n¡n¡muttar°ttar¡p¡y®
tadanantar¡p¡y¡dapavargaÅ' ( ny¡. s£. II, i, 2 ) iti r¢ty¡
duÅkh¡tmaka¿ar¢r¡p¡yak¡lamap®kÀat®'pavargaÅ. yatistu atra brahma
sama¿nut® iti h¤dayam..
¿l°. 26-27 ( vy¡ ) '®tad®va b¡hy®' iti. ®tat vyutpattipradar¿anaÆ
b¡hy¡n¡Æ bhautik¡n¡Æ. bhr£pr¡¸¡p¡nav¡yun¡s¡n¡Æ viÀay®'pi
saÆbhavat¢tyarthaÅ. athav¡ ®t® ®va b¡hy® ity®va lil®khiÀitam.
kr°dhar¡g° dharm¡dharmau iti dvikadvay® ®t® ®va b¡hy®, na tu
spar¿¡d¢ni, yataÅ t¡ni bhagavaty¡Å saÆvida ¡bh¡sar£p¡¸i. t®À¡Æ
kr°dh¡disaÆbandh¡d®va, na vastugaty¡, b¡hyatvamiti t¡tparyam..
¿l°. 28 ( vy¡ ) 'yajµaphal®Àu bh°kt¡ iti'. yajµ®Àu phalabh°kt®ti y¡vat.
'yat° vakÀyatyanupadam®va' '®vaÆ tapassu ' iti. bh°kt¡, p¡layit¡.
kathamity¡ha -- 'tyaktaphalatv¡t' iti. tyaktaÆ, dattaÆ, vit¢r¸aÆ phalaÆ,
karmaphalaÆ y®na tasya bh¡vastasm¡diti vigrahaÅ.
phalad¡t¤tv¡dityarthaÅ. yadv¡ bh°kt¡, anubhavit¡, anubhavit¤tv®na
mataÅ. kutaÅ? tyaktaphalatv¡t, tyaktaÆ samarpitaÆ phalaÆ yasmai
tasya bh¡vastasm¡t. 'yat kar°Ài -- yajjuh°Ài -- yattapasyasi -- tat
kuruÀva madarpa¸am' iti ( IX, 29 ) vakÀyam¡¸°pad®¿¡nus¡r®¸a
saÆny¡sin¡ bhagav®ta sarvasamarpa¸¡t iti bh¡vaÅ. atha v¡
tyaktaphalatv¡t ityasya viduÀa ity¡diÅ. tasyaiva prakara¸¡t. uktadi¿¡
viduÀ¡ phalasya tyaktatv¡t bh°kt¡ param¡tmaiva mata iti bh¡vaÅ.
'®vaÆ tapassu' iti. tapaÅphalaviÀay®'py®vam®v¡rth° b°dhya
ityarthaÅ..
'saÆgraha¿l°k® -- m°kÀ¡yaiv¡vakalpat® ityatra' 'bhaktirjµ¡n¡ya
kalpat®' ity¡d¡viva, 'kl¤pi saÆpadyam¡n® ca'
( PA, II, iii, 13, varttika 2 ) iti caturth¢..
..iti ¿r¢madbhagavadg¢t¡rthasaÆgraha¶ippa¸y¡Æ paµcam°'dhy¡yaÅ..

BHAGAVADGITA
English translation of Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary - Swami
Gambhirananda
Chapter 6
RO
6.1 Anasritah, without depending on;-on what?-on that which is karmaphalam,
the result of action- i.e. without craving for the result of action-.
He who craves for the results of actions becomes dependent on the
results of actions. But this person is the opposite of such a one. Hence
(it is said), 'wihtout depending on the result of action. Having become
so, yah he who; karoti, performs accomplishes; (karma, an action;)
which is his karyam, duty, the nityakarmas such as Agnihotra etc. which
are opposed to the kamya-karmas-. Whoever is a man of action of this
kind is distinguished from the other men of action. In order to express
this idea the Lord says, sah, he ; is a sannyasi, monk, and a yogi.
Sanyyasa, means renunciation. he who is possessed of this is a
sannyasi, a monk. And he is also a yogi. Yoga means concentration of
mind. He who has that is a yogi. It is to be understood that this man is
possessed of these qualities. It is not to be understood that, only that
person who does not keep a fire (niragnih) and who is actionless
(akriyah) is a monk and a yogi. Niragnih is one from whom the fires [viz
Garhapatya, Ahavaniya, Anvaharya-pacana, etc.], which are the
accessories of rites, have bocome dissociated. By kriya are mean
austerity, charity, etc. which are performed wityout fire. Akriyah,
actionless, is he who does not have even such kriyas. Objection: Is it
not only with regard to one who does not keep a fire and is acitonless
that monasticsm and meditativeness are well known in the Vedas, Smrtis
and scriptures dealing with meditation? Why are monasticism and
meditativeness spoken of here with regard to one who keeps a fire and
is a man of action-which is not accepted as a fact? Reply: This defect
does not arise, because both are sought to be asserted in some
secondary sense. Objection: How is that? Reply: His being monk is by
virtue of his having given up hankering for the results of actions; and his
being a man of meditation is from the fact of his doing actions as
accesories to meditation or from his rejection of thoughts for the results
of actions which cause disturbances in the mind. Thus both are used in
a figurative sense. On the contrary, it is not that monasticism and
meditativeness are meant in the primary sense. With a veiw to pointing
out this idea, the Lord says:
6.2 Yam, that which is characterized by the giving up of all actions and
their results; which prahuh, they, the knowers of the Vedas and the
Smrtis, call; sannyasam iti, monasticism, in the real sense; viddhi,
known; tam, that monasticism in the real sense; to be yogam, Yoga,
consisting in the performance of actions, O Pandava. Accepting what
kind of similarity between Karma-yoga, which is characterized by
engagement (in actions), and its opposite, renunciation in the real sense,
which is characterized by cessation from work, has their equation been
stated? When such an apprehension arises, the answer is this; From the
point of view of the agent, there does exist a simialrity of Karma-yoga
with real renunciation. For he who is a monk in the real sense, from the
very fact of his having given up all the means needed for accomplishing
actions, gives up the thought of all actions and their results-the source of
desire that leads to engagement in work. [Thoughts about an object lead
to the desire for it, which in turn leads to actions for getting it. (Also see
note under 4.19)] also, even while performing actions, gives up the
thought for results. Pointing out this idea, the Lord says: Hi, for; kascit,
nobody, no man of action whosoever; asannyasta-sankalpah, who has
not given up expactaions-one by whom has not been renounced
expectation, anticipation, of results;bhavati, becomes, i.e. can become;
yogi, a yogi, a man of concentration, because thought of results is the
cause of the disturbance of mind. Therefore, any man of action who
gives up the thought of results would become a yogi, a man of
concentration with an unperturbed mind, because of his having given up
thought of results which is the cause of mental distractions. This is the
purport. Thus, because of the similarity of real monasticism with Karmayoga
from the point of veiw of giving up by the agent, Karma-yoga is
extolled as monasticism in, 'That which they call monasticism, know that
to be Yoga, O Pandava.' Since Karma-yoga, which is independent of
results, is the remote help to Dhyana-yoga, therefore it has been praised
as monasticism. Thereafter, now the Lord shows how Karma-yoga is
helpful to Dhyana-yoga:
6.3 Aruruksoh, for one who wishes to ascend, who has not ascended,
i.e. for that very person who is unable to remain established in Dhyanayoga;-
for which person who is desirous to ascend?-munch, for the sage,
i.e. for one who has renounced the results of actions;-trying to ascend to
what?-yogam, to (Dhyana-) yoga; karma, action; ucyate, is said to be;
the karanam, means. Tasya, for that person, again; yoga-arudhasya,
when he has ascended to (Dhyana-) yoga; samah, inaction, withdrawl
from all actions; eva, alone; ucyate, is said to be; karanam, the means
for remaining poised in the state of meditation. This is the meaning. To
the extent that one withdraws from actions, the mind of that man who is
at cease and self-controlled becomes concentrated. When this occurs,
he at once becomes established in Yoga. And accordingly has it been
said by Vyasa: 'For a Brahmana there is no wealth conparable to (the
knowledge of) oneness, sameness, truthfulness, character, equipoise,
harmlessness, straightforwardness and withdrawal from various actions'
(Mbh. Sa. 175.37). After that, now is being stated when one becomes
established in Yoga:
6.4 Hi, verily; yada, when; a yogi who is concentrating his mind, sarvasankalpa-
sannyasi, who has given up thought about everything-who is
apt to give up (sannyasa) all (sarva) thoughts (sankalpa) which are the
causes of desire, for things here and hereafter; na anusajjate, does not
become attached, i.e. does not hold the idea that they have to be done
by him; indriya-arthesu, with regard to sense-objects like sound etc.;
and karmasu, with regard to actions-nitya, naimittika, kamya and
nisiddha (prohibited) because of the absence of the idea of their utility;
tada, then, at that time; ucyate, he is said to be; yoga-arudhah,
established in Yoga, i.e. he is said to have attained to Yoga. From the
expression, 'one who has given up thought about eveything', it follows
that one has to renounce all desires and all actions, for all desires have
thoughts as their source. This accords with such Smrti texts as: 'Verily,
desire has thought as its source. Sacrifices arise from thoughts' (Ma.
Sm. 2.3); 'O Desire, I know your source. You surely spring from thought.
I shall not think of you. So you will not arise in me' (Mbh. Sa. 177.25).
And when one gives up all desires, renunciation of all actions becomes
accomplished. This agrees with such Upanisadic texts as, '(This self is
identified with desire alone.) What it desires, it resolves; what it resolves,
it works out' (Br. 4.4.5); and also such Smrti texts as, 'Whatever actions
a man does, all that is the effect of desire itself' (Ma. Sm. 2.4). It accords
with reason also. For, when all thoughts are renounced, no one can even
move a little. So, by the expression, 'one who has given up thought
about everything', the Lord makes one renounced all desires and all
actions. When one is thus established in Yoga, then by that very fact
one's self becomes uplifted by oneself from the worldly state which is
replete with evils. Hence,
6.5 Uddharet, one should save; atmanam, oneself sunk in the sea of the
world; atmana, by oneself; one should save, ut-haret, should uplift
(oneself) from that, i.e. make it attain the state of being established in
Yoga. Na avasadayet, one should not lower, debase; atmanam, oneself.
Hi, for; atma eva, oneself is verily; atmanah one's own; bandhuh, friend.
Centainly there is no other friend who can bring about liberation from this
world. In fact, even a friend is an obstacle to Liberation, he being the
source of such bondages as love etc. Therefore the emphatic statement,
'For one is one's own friend, is justifiable. Atma eva, oneself verily; is
atmanah, one's own: ripuh, enemy. Anyone else who is an external
harmful enemy, even he is of one's own making! Therefore the firm
conclusion, 'oneself verily is one's own enemy's is reasonable. It has
been said that 'oneself is verily one's own friend, oneself verily is one's
own enemy.' As to that, (the self) [Ast. has this additional word, atma,
self.-Tr.] of what kind is one's own friend, or (the self) of what kind is
one's own enemy? This is being answered:
6.6 Tasya, of him; yena, by whom; jitah, has been conquered, subdued;
his eva atma, very self, the aggregate of body and organs; that atma,
self; is bandhuh, the friend; atmanah, of his self. The idea is that he is a
conqueror of his senses. Tu, but; anatmanah, for one who has not
conquered his self, who has no self-control; atma eva, his self itself;
varteta, acts; satruvat, like an enemy; satrutve, inimically, with the
attitude of an enemy. As an enemy, who is different from oneself, does
harm to oneself, similarly one's self behaves like an enemy to oneself.
This is the meaning. [If the body and organs are under control, they are
helpful in concentrating one's mind on the Self; but, if they are not under
control, they oppose this concentration.]
6.7 Parama-atma, the supreme Self; jita-atmanah, of one who has
control over the aggregate of his body and organs; prasantasya, who is
tranquil, who is a monk with his internal organ placid; samahitah,
becomes manifest, i.e. becomes directly manifest as his own Self.
Moreover, (he should be equipoised) sita-usna-sukha-duhkhesu, in the
midst of cold and heat, happiness and sorrow; tatha, as also; manaapamanayoh
in honour and dishonour, adoration and despise.
6.8 A yogi, jnana-vijnana-trpta-atma, whose mind is satisfied with
knowledge and realization-jnana is thorough knowledge of things
presented by the scriptures, but vijnana is making those things known
from the scriptures a subject of one's own realization just as they have
been presented; he whose mind (atma) has become contented (trpta)
with those jnana and vijnana is jnana-vijnana-trpta-atma-; kutasthah,
who is unmoved, i.e. who becomes unshakable; and vijita-indriyah, who
has his organs under control;- he who is of this kind, ucyate, is said to
be; yuktah, Self-absorbed. That yogi sama-losta-asma-kancanah, treats
equally a lump of earth, a stone and gold. Further,
6.9 The first line of the verse beginning with 'benefactor,' etc. is a single
compound word. Visisyate, he excels, i.e. he is the best among all those
who are established in Yoga-(a different reading is vimucyate, he
becomes free); sama-buddhih, who has sameness of view, i.e. whose
mind is not engaged with the question of who one is and what he does;
with regard to a suhrd, benefactor-one who does some good without
consideration of return; mitram, a friend, one who is affectionate; arih, a
foe; udasinah, a neutral, who sides with nobody; madhyasthah, an
arbiter, who is a well-wisher of two conflicting parties; dvesyah, the
hateful, who is repulsive to oneself; bandhuh, a relative;- to all these as
also sadhusu, with regard to good people, who follow the scriptures; api
ca, and even; papesu, sinners, who perform prohibited actions-with
regard to all of them. Therefore, to acquire this excellent result-
6.10 A yogi, a man of meditation; satatam yunjita, should constantly
concentrate; atmanam, his mind; sthitah, by staying; rahasi, in a solitary
place, in mountain caves etc.; ekaki, alone, without any companion;
yata-citta-atma, with mind and body controlled; nirasih, without
expectations, free from hankering; and aparigrahah, free from
acquisition. From the uise of the qualifying words, 'in a solitary place'
and 'alone', it follows that (he has to undertake all these) after espousing
monasticism. And even after renunciation, he should concentrate his
mind by desisting from all acquisition. This is the meaning. Now then
have to be stated the rules regarding seat, food, movements, etc. as
disciplines for yoga in the case of one practising concentration; as also
the signs of one who has succeeded in Yoga, and the consequent result
etc. Hence this is begun. Among these, the seat is being first spoken of:
6.11 See Commentary under 6.12
6.12 Pratisthapya, having established; sthiram, firmly; sucau, in a clean;
dese, place, which is solitary, either naturally or through improvement;
atmanah, his own; asanam, seat; na ati ucchritam, neither too high; na
ati nicam, nor even too low; and that made of caila-ajina-kusa-uttram,
cloth, skin, and kusa-grass, placed successively one below the other-the
successive arrangement of cloth etc. here is in a reverse order to that of
the textual reading-. What follows after thus establishing the seat?
Upavisya, sitting; tatra, on that; asane, seat; yogam yunjyat, he should
concentrate his mind. To what purpose should he concentrate his mind?
In answer the Lord says: atma-visuddhaye, for the purification of the
internal organ. How? Krtva, making; manah, the mind; ekagram, onepointed,
by withdrawing it from all objects; and yata-citta-indriya-kriyah,
keeping the actions (kriyah) of the mind (citta) and senses (indriya) under
control (yata). The external seat has been spoken of. Now is being
stated how the posture of the body should be:
6.13 See Commentary under 6.14
6.14 Dharayan, holding; kaya-siro-girvam, the body (torso), head and
neck; samam, erect; and acalam, still-movement is possible for one
(even while) holding these erect; therefore it is specified, 'still'-; sthirah,
being steady, i.e. remaining steady; sampreksya, looking svam
nasikagram, at tip of his own nose -looking at it intently, as it were; ca,
and; anavalokayan, not looking; disah, around, i.e. not glancing now and
then in various directions-. The words 'as it were' are to be understood
because what is intended here is not an injunction for looking at the tip
of one's own nose! What then? It is the fixing the gaze of the eyes by
withdrawing it from external objects; and that is enjoined with a veiw to
concentrating the mind. [What is sought to be presented here as the
primary objective is the concentration of mind. If the gaze be directed
outward, then it will result in interrupting that concentration. Therefore
the purpose is to first fix the gaze of the eyes within.] If the intention were
merely the looking at the tip of the nose, then the mind would remain
fixed there itself, not on the Self! In, 'Making the mind fixed in the Self'
(25), the Lord will speak of concentrating the mind verily on the Self.
Therefore, owing to the missing word iva (as it were), it is merely the
withdrawl of the gaze that is implied by sampreksya (looking). Further,
prasantatma, with a placid mind, with a mind completely at peace;
vigata-bhih, free from fear sthitah, firm; brahmacari-vrate, in the vow of a
celibate, the vow cosisting in serivce of the teacher, eating food got by
beggin, etc.-firm in that, i.e. he should follow these; besides, mat-cittah,
with the mind fixed on Me who am the supreme God; samyamya, by
controlling; manah, the mind, i.e. by stopping the modifications of the
mind; yuktah, through concentration, i.e. by becoming concentrated;
asita, he should remain seated; matparah, with Me as the supreme Goal.
Some passionate person may have his mind on a woman, but he does
not accept the woman as his supreme Goal. What then? He accepts the
king or Sive as his goal. But this one (the yogi) not only has his mind on
Me but has Me as his Goal. After that, now is being stated the result of
Yoga:
6.15 Yunjan, concentrating; atmanam, the mind; evam, thus, according
to the methods shown above; sada, for ever; the yogi, niyata-manasah,
of controlled mind; adhi-gacchati, achieves; santim, the Peace, the
indifference to worldly attachments and possessions; nirvana-paramam,
which culminates in Liberation; and mat-samstham, which abides in Me.
Now are bieng mentioned the rules about the yogi's food etc.:
6.16 (Tu, but) O Arjuna, Yoga na asti, is not; atiasnatah, for one who
eats too much, for one who eats food more than his capacity; na ca, nor
is Yoga; anasnatah, for one who does not eat; ekantam, at all. This
accords with the Vedic text, 'As is well known, if one eats that much
food which is within one's capacity, then it sustains him, it does not hurt
him; that which is more, it harms him; that which is less, it does not
sustain him' (Sa. Br.; Bo. Sm. 2.7.22). Therefore, a yogi should not eat
food more or less than what is suitable for him. Or the meaning is that
Yoga is not for one who eats more food than what is prescribed for a
yogi in the scriptures on Yoga. Indeed, the quantity has been mentioned
in, 'One half of the stomach is to be filled with food including curries; the
third quarter is to be filled with water; but the fourth quarter is to be left
for the movement of air,' etc. Similarly, Yoga is not for ati svapnasilasya,
one who habitually sleeps too long; and Yoga is na eva, surely
not; jagratah, for one who keeps awake too long. How, again, does
Yoga become possibel? This is being stated:
6.17 Yogah bhavati, Yoga becomes; duhkha-ha, a destroyer of sorrowthat
which destroys (hanti) all sorrows (duhkhani)-, i.e., Yoga destroys all
worldly sorrows; yukta-ahara-viharasya, of one whose eating and
movements are regulated- ahara (lit. food) means all that is gathered in,
[According to the Commentator, ahara, which also means food, includes
mental 'food as well. See Ch. 7.26.2.-Tr.] and vihara means moving
about, walking; one for whom these two are regulated (yukta) is yuktaahara-
vihara-; and also yukta-cestasya, of one whose effort (cesta) is
moderate (yukta); karmasu, in works; similarly, yukta-svapnaavabodhasya,
of one whose sleep (svapna) and wakefulness (avabodha)
are temperate (yukta), have regulated periods. To him whose eating and
movements are regulated, whose effort in work is moderate, whose
sleep and wakefulness are temperate, Yoga becomes a destroyer of
sorrows. When does a man become concentrated? That is being
presently stated:
6.18 A yogi, nihsprhah, who has become free from hankering, thirst;
sarva-kamebhyah, for all desirable objects, seen and unseen; is tada,
then; ucyate, said to be; yuktah, Self-absorbed; yada, when; the
viniyatam, controlled; cittam, mind, the mind that has been made fully
one-pointed by giving up thought of external objects; avatisthate, rests;
atmani eva, in the non-dual Self alone, i.e. he gets established in his own
Self. An illustration in being given for the mind of that yogi which has
become Self-absorbed:
6.19 Yatha, as; a dipah, lamp; nivata-sthah, kept in a windless place; na
ingate, does not flicker; sa upama, such is the simile-that with which
something is compared is an upama (smile)-; smrta, thought of, by the
knowers of Yoga who understand the movements of the mind; yoginah,
for the yogi; yata-citasya, whose mind is under control; and yunjatah,
who is engaged in; yogam, concentration; atmanah, on the Self, i.e. who
is practising Self-absorption. By dint of practising Yoga thus, when the
mind, comparable to a lamp in a windless place, becomes concentrated,
then-
6.20 Yatra, at the time when; cittam, the mind; niruddham, restrained,
entirely prevented from wandering; uparamate, gets withdrawn; yogasevaya,
through the practice of Yoga; ca, and; yatra eva, just when, at
the very moment when; pasyan, by seeing, by experiencing; atmanam,
the Self, which by nature is the supreme light of Consciousness; atmana,
by the self, by the mind purified by concentration; tusyati, one remains
contented, gets delighted; atmani eva, in one's own Self alone-.
[Samadhi is of two kinds, Samprajnata and Asamprajnata. The
concentration called right knowledge (Samprajnata) is that which is
followed by reasoning, discrimination, blisss and unqualified egoism.
Asamprajnata is that which is attained by the constant practice of
cessation of all mental activity, in which the citta retains only the
unmanifested impressions.-Cf. C. W., Vol. I, 1962, pp. 210, 212.
According to A.G. the verses upto 6.20 state in a general way the
characteristics of samadhi. From the present verse to the 25th,
Asamprajnata-samadhi is introduced and defined.-Tr.] Besides,
6.21 Yatra, when, at the time when; vetti, one experiences; tat, that;
atyantikam, absolute-which is verily limitless, i.e. infinite; sukham, Bliss;
yat, which; buddhi-grahyam, can be intuited by the intellect, intuited by
the intellect alone, without the help of the senses; and which is
atindriyam, beyond the senses, i.e. not objective; (-when one
experieneces this kind of Bliss) and sthitah, being established in the
nature of the Self; ayam, this person, the illumined one; eva, surely; na
calati, does not swerve; tattvatah, from that Reality-i.e. does not deviate
from the nature of Reality-. Further,
6.22 Labdhva, obtaining; yam, which-by acquiring which Selfattainment;
na manyate, one does not think; that there is aparam, any
other; labham, acquisition; tatah adhikam, superior to that; and also,
sthitah,being established; yasmin, in which Reality of the Self; na
vicalyate, one is not perturbed; api, even; guruna, by great; duhkhena,
sorrow, as may be caused by being struck with weapons, etc.-. The
yoga that has been spoken of as a particular state of the Self,
distinguished by its characterisics in the verses beginning with 'At the
time when the mind gets withdrawn,' (20) etc.-
6.23 Vidyat, one should know; tat, that; duhkha-samyoga-viyogam,
severance (viyoga) of contact (samyoga) with sorrow (duhkha); to be
verily yoga-sanjnitam, what is called Yoga-i.e. oen should know it
through a negative definition. After concluding the topic of the result of
Yoga, the need for pursuing Yoga is again being spoken of in another
way in order to enjoin 'preservance' and 'freedom from depression' as
the disciplines for Yoga: Sah, that; yogah, Yoga, which has the results
as stated above; yoktavyah, has to be practised; niscayena, with
perservance; and anirvinnacetasa, with an undepressed heart. That
which is not (a) depressed (nirvinnam) is anirvinnam. What is that? The
heart. (One has to practise Yoga) with that heart which is free from
depression. This is the meaning. Again,
6.24 See Commentary under 6.25
6.25 Tyaktva, by eschewing; asesatah, totally, without a trace; sarvan,
all; the kamam, desires; sankalpa-prabhavan, which arise from thoughts;
and further, viniyamya, restraining; manasa eva, with the mind itself, with
the mind endued with discrimination; indriya-gramam, all the organs;
samantatah, from every side; uparamet, one should withdraw, abstain;
sanaih sanaih, gradually, not suddenly;-with what?-buddhya, with the
intellect;- possessed of what distinction?-dhrti-grhitaya, endowed with
steadiness, i.e. with fortitude. Krtva, making manah, the mind; atmasamstham,
fixed in the Self, with the idea, 'The Self alone is all; there is
nothing apart from It'-thus fixing the mind on the Self; na cintayet, one
should not think of; kincit api, anything whatsoever. Thisis the highest
instruction about Yoga.
6.26 In the beginning, the yogi who is thus engaged in making the mind
established in the Self, etat vasamnayet, should bring this (mind) under
the subjugation; atmani eva, of the Self Itself; niyamya, by restraining;
etat. it; tatah tatah, from all those causes whatever, viz sound etc.; yatah
yatah, due to which, doe to whatever objects like sound etc.; the
cancalam, restless, very restless; and therefore asthiram, unsteady;
manah, mind; niscarati, wanders away, goes out due to its inherent
defects. (It should be restrained) by ascertaining through discrimination
those causes to be mere appearances, and with an attitude of
detachment. Thus, through the power of practice of Yoga, the mind of
the yogi merges in the Self Itself.
6.27 Uttamam, supreme, unsurpassable; sukham, Blisss; upaiti, comes;
hi enam yoginam, to this yogi alone; prasanta-manasam, whose mind
has become perfectly tranquil; santa-rejasam, whose (quality of) rajas
has been eliminated, i.e. whose rajas, viz defects such as delusion etc.
['The five klesas, pain-bearing obstructions, are: ignorance, egoism,
attachment, aversion, and clinging to life' (P.Y.Su.2.3).] have been
destroyed; brahma-bhutam, who has become identified with Brahman,
who is free even while living, who has got the certitude that Bramhman is
all; and akalmasam, who is taintless, free from vice etc.
6.28 Sada yunjan, by constantly concentrating; atmanam, his mind;
evam, thus, in the process stated; vigata-kalmasah, the taintles, sinless
yogi, free from the obstacles to Yoga; sukhena, easily; asnute, attains;
atayantam, absolute-that which exists by transcending limits-, supreme,
unsurpassable; sukham, Bliss; of brahma-samsparsam, contact with
Brahman-the Bliss that is in touch [In touch with, i.e. identified with,
homogeneous with, in essential oneness with.] with the supreme
Brahman. Now is being shown that result of Yoga which is the
realization of identity with Brahman and which is the cause of the
extinction of the whole mundane existence . [Liberation is conceived of
in two ways-total cessation of sorrows, and attainment of unsurpassable
Bliss.]
6.29 Yoga-yukta-atma, one who has his mind Self-absorbed through
Yoga, whose mind is merged in samadhi; and sarvatra-sama-darsanah,
who has the vision of sameness everywhere-who has the vision
(darsana) of sameness (sama-tva), the knowledge of identity of the Self
and Brahman everywhere (sarvatra) without exception, in all divergent
objects beginning from Brahma to immovable things; iksate, sees;
atmanam, the Self, his own Self; sarva-bhuta-stham, existing in
everything; and sarva-bhutani, everything from Brahma to a clump of
grass; unified atmani, in his Self. The fruit of this realization of the unity
of the Self is being stated:
6.30 Yah, one who; pasyati, sees; mam, Me, Vasudeva, who am the
Self of all; sarvatra, in all things; ca, and; sees sarvam, all things, all
created things, beginning from Brahma; mayi, in Me who am the Self of
all;-aham, I who am God; na pranasyami, do not go out; tasya,of his
vision-of one who has thus realized the unity of the Self; ca sah, and he
also; na pranasyati, is not lost; me, to My vision. That man of realization
does not get lost to Me, to Vasudeva, because of the indentity between
him and Me, for that which is called one's own Self is surely dear to one,
and since it is I alone who am the seer of the unity of the Self in all.
6.31 This being so, i.e. after reiterating (in the first line of the present
verse) the idea of full realization contained in the previous verse, the
result of that (realization), viz Liberation, is being spoken of (in the
second line): The yogi, the man of full realization; vartate, exists; mayi, in
Me, in the supreme state of Visnu; sarvatha api, in whatever condition;
vartamanah, he may be. He is verily ever-free. The idea is that he is not
obstructed from Liberation by anything. Furthermore,
6.32 Atma-aupamyena: Atma means the self, i.e. oneself. That by which
a comparison is made is an upama. The abstract from of that is
aupamya. Atma-aupamya means a standard as would be applicable to
oneself. O Arjuna, yah, he who; pasyati, judges; sarvatra, in all beings;
samam, by the same standard, in the same manner; atma-aupamyena,
as he would apply to himself-. And what does he view with sameness?
That is being stated: As sukham, happiness, is dear to me, so also is
happiness agreeable to all creatures. Va, and-the word va is (used) in
the sense of and; just as yadi, whatever; duhkham, sorrow is
unfavourable, unwelcome to me, so also is sorrow unwelcome and
unfavourable to all creatures. In this way, he looks upon happiness and
sorrow as pleasant and unpleasant to all bengs, by the same standard
as he would apply to himself. He does not act against anyone. That is ,
he is non-injurious. He who is thus non-injurious and steadfast in full
Illumination, sah, that yogi; paramah matah, is considered as the best
among all the yogis. Noticing that his Yoga-as spoken of and consisting
in full Illumination- is hard to acquire, Arjuna, with a view to hearing the
sure means to its attainment, said:
6.33 O Madhusudana, ayam, this; yogah, Yoga; yah proktah, that has
been spoken of; tvaya, by You; samyena, as sameness; na pasyami, I do
not see, I cannot conceive;-what?-etasya, its; sthiram, steady,
undisturbed; sthitim, continuance; cancalatvat, owing to the
unsteadiness of the mind, which is well known.
6.34 Hi, for, O Krsna-the word krsna is derived from the root krs
[Another derivative meaning may be-'the capacity to draw towards
Himself all glorious things of this and the other world'.], in the sense of
'uprooting'; He is Krsna because He uproots the defects such as sin etc.
of devotees-; manah, the mind; is cancalam, unsteady. Not only is it very
unsteady, it is also pramathi, turbulent. It torments, agitates, the body
and the organs. It brings them under extraneous control. Besides, it is
balavat, strong, not amenable ot anybody's restraint. Again, it is drdham,
obstinate, hard as the (large shark called) Tantu-naga (also known as
Varjuna-pasa). Aham, I; manye, consider; tasya, its-of the mind which is
of this kind; nigrahah, control, restraint; to be (suduskaram, greatly
difficult;) vayoh iva, as of the wind. Control of the wind is difficult. I
consider the control of the mind to be even more difficult than that. This
is the idea. 'This is just as you say.'
6.35 Mahabaho, O mighty-armed one; asamsayam, undoubtedly-there
is no doubt with regard to this; that the manah, mind; is durnigraham,
untractable; and calm, restless. Tu, but; it-the modifications of the mind
in the form of distractions-grhyate, is brought under control; abhyasena,
through practice- abhyasa means repetition of some idea or thought of
the mind one some mental plane ['Some mental plane' suggests some
object of concentration.]-; and vairagyena, through detachment-vairagya
means absence of hankering for enjoyment of desirable things, seen or
unseen, as a result of the practice of discerning their defect. That mind
is thus brought undr control, restrained, i.e. completely subdued. By
him, however, who has not controlled his mind-
6.36 Me, My; matih, conviction; is iti, that; Yoga is dusprapah, difficult
to be attained; asamyata-atmana, by one of uncontrolled mind, by one
who has not controlled his mind, the internal organ, by practice and
detachment. Tu, but, on the other hand; sakyah, Yoga is possible;
avaptum, to be attained; yatata, by one who strives, who repeatedly
makes effort; upayatah, through the means described above; and
vasyatmany, by one of controlled mind, by him whose mind has been
brought under control through practice and detachment. As to that, by
accepting the practice of Yoga, actions leading to the attainment of this
or the next world may be renounced by a yogi, and yet he may not attain
the result of perfection in Yoga, i.e. full Illumination, which is the means
to Liberation. Consequently, at the time of death his mind may waver
from the path of Yoga. Apprehending that he may be thereby ruined.
6.37 O krsna, aprapya, failing to achieve; yoga-sam-siddhim, perfection
in Yoga, the result of Yoga, i.e. full Illumination; kam gatim, what goal;
gacchati, does one attain; who, though upetah sraddhaya, possessed of
faith, belief in God and in the other world; is ayatih, not diligent, devoid
of effort on the path of Yoga; and, at the time of death, too, calitamanasah,
whose mind becomes deflected; yogat, from Yoga, (i.e.)
whose memory has been lost?
6.38 Mahabaho, O Mighty-armed one; ubhaya-vibhrastah, fallen from
both, having fallen from the Path of Action and the Path of Yoga;
apratisthah, without support; vimudhah, deluded-having become
deluded; brahmanah pathi, on the path of Brahman, on the path leading
to Brahman; kaccit na, does he not; nasyati, get ruined; iva, like; a
chinna-abhram, scattered cloud? Or is it that he does not?
6.39 O krsna, arhasi, You should; asesatah, totally; chettum, eradicate,
remove; etat, this; samsayam, doubt; me, of mine. Hi, for; na tvad
anyah, none other than You, be he a sage or a god; upapadyate, can
be; chetta, the despeller, the destroyer; asya, of this; samsayasya,
doubt. Therefore you Yourself should dispel (the doubt). This is the
meaning.
6.40 O Partha, eva vidyate, there is certainly; na vinasah, no ruin; tasya,
for him; iha, here, in this world; or amutra, hereafter, in the other world.
Ruin means a birth inferior to the previous one; that is not there for one
who has fallen from Yoga. Hi, for; na kascit, no one; kalyana-krt,
engaged in good; gacchati, meets with; durgatim, a deplorable end;
tata, My son! A father is called tata because he perpetuates himself
(tanoti) through the son. Since the father himself becomes the son,
therefore the son also is called tata. A disciple is called putra (son). [Sri
krsna addressed Arjuna thus because the latter was his disciple.] But
what happens to him?
6.41 Prapya, attaining, reaching, lokan, the worlds; punya-krtam, of the
righteous, of the performers of the Horse-sacrifice, etc.; and usitva,
residing there, enjoying the stay; for sasvatih, eternal; samah, years;
(then,) when the period of enjoyment is over, the yoga-bhrastah, man
fallen from Yoga, the one who had set out on the path Yoga, i.e. a
monk-as understood from the force of the context [From Arjuna's
question it minght appear that he was asking about the fate of people
who fall from both the paths, viz that of Karma and of Meditation. But
the possibility of getting ruined by performing actios (rites and duties)
according to Vedic instructions does not arise, since their results are
inevitable. However, the question of ruin is relevant in the case of a
monk, for on the one hand he has renounced actions, and on the other
he may fail to attain perfection in Yoga in the present life. Hence, the
Lord's answer relates to the fall and ruin of a monk alone.]; abhijayate, is
born; gehe, in the house; sucinam, of the pious, who perform actions
according to scriptural instructions; and srimatam, who are prosperous.
6.42 Athava, or; bhavati, he is born; kule, in the family; dhimatam, of
wise; yoginam, yogis; eva, only, who are poor-which is different from the
family of the prosperous. Etat janma, such a birth; yat idrsam, as is of
this kind-a birth that is in the family of poor yogis, in a family as
described; is hi, surely; durlabha-taram, more difficult to get, as
compared with the earlier one; loke, in the world. Becuase,
6.43 Tatra, there, in the family of yogis; labhate, tam buddhisamyogam,
he becomes endowed with that wisdom; paurva-dehikam, acquired in
the previous body. And yatate, he strives; bhuyah, more intensely; tatah,
than before, more intensely than that tendency acquired in the previous
birth; samsiddau, for, for the sake of, perfection; kuru-nandana, O scion
of the Kuru dynasty. How does he become endowed with the wisdom
acquired in the previous body? That is being answered:
6.44 Hi, for; tena eva, by that very; purva-abhyasena, past practice-the
powerful habit formed in the past life; hiryate, he, the yogi who had fallen
from Yoga, is carried forward; avasah api, even inspite of himself. If he
had not committed any act which could be characterized as unrigtheous
etc. and more powerful than the tendency created by the practice of
Yoga, then he is carried forward by the tendency created by the practice
of Yoga. If he had committed any unrighteous act which was more
powerful, then, even the tendency born of Yoga gets surely
overpowered. But when that is exhausted, the tendency born of Yoga
begins to take effect by itself. The idea is that it does not get destroyed,
even though it may lie in abeyance over a long period. Jijnasuh api, even
a seeker; yogasya, of Yoga from the force of the context, the person
implied is a monk who had engaged in the path of Yoga with a desire to
known his true nature, but had falled from Yoga-; ;even he, ativartate,
trascends-will free himself from; sabda-brahma, the result of the
performance of Vedic ritual. What to speak of him who after
understanding Yoga, may undertake it with steadfastness! And why is
the state of Yoga higher?
6.45 The yogi, the man of Knowledge; yatamanah, applying himself;
prayatnat, assiduously, i.e. striving more intensely; and as a result,
samsuddha-kilbisah, becoming purified from sin; and aneka-janmasamsiddhah,
attaining perfection through many births- gathering
together tendencies little by little in many births, and attaining perfection
through that totality of impressions acquired in many births; tatah,
thereby coming to have full Illumination; yati, achieves; the param,
highest, most perfect; ;gatim, Goal. Since this is so, therefore.
6.46 A yogi is adhikah, higher; tapasvibhyah, than men of austerity; he
is matah, considered; adhikah, higher than, superior to; api, even;
jnanibhyah, men of knowledge. Jnana here means scriptural learning. (A
yogi is superior) to even those who possess that (learning). The yogi is
adhikah, higher, greater; karmibhyah, than men of action-karma means
Agnihotra etc.; (greater) than those who adhere to them. Since this is so,
tasmat, therefore; O Arjuna, bhava, do you become a yogi.
6.47 Api, even; sarvesam yoginam, among all the yogis, among those
who are immersed in meditation on Rudra, Aditya, and others; yah, he
who; bhajate, adores; mam, Me; antaratmana,with his mind; madgatena,
fixed on Me, concentrated on Me who am Vasudeva; and sraddhavan,
with faith, becoming filled with faith; sah, he; is matah, considered; me,
by Me; to be yukta-tamah, the best of the yogis, engaged in Yoga most
intensely. [It has been shown thus far that Karma-yoga has monasticism
as its ultimate culmination. And in the course of expounding Dhyanayoga
together with its ausxiliaries, and instructing about the means to
control the mind, the Lord rules out the possibility of absolute ruin for a
person fallen from Yoga. He has also stated that steadfastness in
Knowledge is for a man who knows the meaning of the word tvam (thou)
(in 'Thou are That'). All these instructions amount to declaring that
Liberation comes from the knowledge of the great Upanisadic saying,
'Thou art That.']

BHAGAVADGITA
English translation of Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary - Swami
Gambhirananda
Chapter 7
RO
7.1 O Partha, mayi asaktamanah, having the mind fixed on Me- one
whose mind (manah) is fixed (asakta) on Me (mayi) who am the supreme
God possessed on the qualification going to be spoken of-. Yogam
yunjan, practising the Yoga of Meditation, concentrating the mind-.
Madasrayah, taking refuge in Me-one to whom I Myself, the supreme
Lord, am the refuge (asraya) is madasrayah-. Anyone who hankers after
some human objective resorts to some rite such as the Agnihotra etc.,
austerity or charity, which is the means to its attainment. This yogi,
however, accepts only Me as his refuge; rejecting any other means, he
keeps his mind fixed on Me alone. Srnu, hear; tat, that, which is being
spoken of by Me; as to yatha, how, the process by which; you who,
having become thus, jnasyasi, will know; mam, Me; asamsayam, with
certainty, without doubt, that the Lord is such indeed; and samagram, in
fullness, possessed of such qualities as greatness, strength, power,
majesty, etc. [Strength-physical; power-mental; etc. refers to
omniscience and will.] in their fullness.
7.2 Aham, I; vaksyami, shall tell; te, you; asesatah, in detail, fully; of that
(Knowledge) about Myself, which is idam, this; jnanam, Knowlege; which
is savijnanam, combined with realization, associated with personal
enlightenment; yat jnatva, after experiencing which Knowledge;
avasisyate, there remains; na anyat, nothing else, anything that can be a
means to human ends; jnatavyam, to be known; bhuyah, again; iha,
here. (In this way) the Lord praises that Knowledge which is intended to
be spoken, in order ot draw the attention of the hearer. Thus, 'he who
knows Me in reality becomes omniscient.' This is the idea. Therefore
Knowledge is difficult to attain because of its superexcellent result. How
so? This is being answered:
7.3 Sahasresu manusyanam, among thousands, among a multitude of
men; kascit, a rare one; yatati, endeavours; siddhaye, for perfection. [For
perfection: for the rise of Knowledge through the purification of the
mind.] Siddhanam api, even of the perfected one; yatatam, who are
diligent-they (those diligent ones themselves) being (considered to be)
verily perfect because they are striving for Liberation; of them-; kascit,
one perchance, indeed; vetti, knows; mam, Me; tattvatah, in truth.
Having drawn the attention of the hearer by arousing interest, the Lord
says:
7.4 Iyam, this; prakrtih, Prakrti, [Prakrti here does not mean the
Pradhana of the Sankhyas.] the divine power called Maya; me, of Mine,
as described; bhinna, is divided; astadha, eight-forl; iti, thus: bhumih,
earth-not the gross earth but the subtle element called earth, this being
understood from the statement, 'Prakrti (of Mine) is divided eight-fold'.
Similarly, the subtle elements alone are referred to even by the words
water etc. Apah, water; analah, fire; vayuh, air; kham, space; manah,
mind. By 'mind' is meant its source, egoism. By buddhih, intellect, is
meant the principle called mahat [Mahat means Hiranyagarbha, or
Cosmic Intelligence.] which is the source of egoism. By ahankarah,
egoism, is meant the Unmanifest, associated [Associated, i.e. of the
nature of.] with (Cosmic) ignorance. As food mixed with position is called
poison, similarly the Unmainfest, which is the primordial Cause, is called
egoism since it is imbued with the impressions resulting from egoism;
and egoism is the impelling force (of all). It is indeed seen in the world
that egoism is the impelling cause behind all endeavour.
7.5 O mighty-armed one, iyam, this; is apara, the inferior (Prakrti)-not
the higher, (but)-the impure, the source of evil and having the nature of
worldly bondage. Viddhi, know; anyam, the other, pure; prakrtim, Prakrti;
me, of Mine, which is essentially Myself; which, tu, however;is param,
higher, more exalted; itah, than this (Prakrti) already spoken of; Jivabhutam,
which has taken the form of the individual souls, which is
characterized as 'the Knower of the body (field)', and which is the cause
of sustenance of life; and yaya, by which Prakriti; idam, this; jagat, world;
dharyate, is upheld, by permeating it.
7.6 Upadharaya, understand; iti, thus; that sarvani, all; bhutani, things;
etat-yonini, have these (etat) as their source (yoni)-things that have these
lower and higher Prakrtis, charcterized as the 'field' and the 'Knower of
the field (body)', as their source are etat-yonini. Since My two Prakrtis
are the source, the cause of all things, therefore, aham, I; am the
prabhavah, origin; tatha, as also; the pralayah, end, the termination;
krtsnasya, of the whole; jagatah, Universe. The maning is this: I, who am
the ominscient God, am the source of the Univese through My two
Prakrtis. Since this is so, therefore-
7.7 O Dhananjaya, asti, there is; na anyat kincit, nothing else
whatsoever, no other cause; parataram, higher; mattah, than Me, the
supreme God; i.e. I Myself am the source of the world. Since this is so,
therefore, sarvam, all; idam, this, all things, the Universe; protam,is
strung, woven, connected, i.e. transfixed; mayi, on Me, the supreme
God; like cloth in the warp, [Like cloth formed by threads constituting its
warp and woof.] and iva, like; maniganah, peals; sutre,on a string. 'What
qualities are You endowed with, by virtue of which all this is strung on
You? This is being answered:
7.8 Kaunteya, O son of Kunti, aham, I; am rasah, the taste, which is the
essence of water. The idea is that water is depedent on Me who am its
essence. This is how it is to be understood in every case. Just as I am
the essence of water, similarly, asmi, I am; the prabha, effulgence; sasisuryayoh,
of the moon and the sun; pranavah, (the letter) Om; sarvavedesu,
in all the Vedas. All the Vedas are established on Me who am
that Om. So also (I am) sabdah, the sound; khe, in space, as the
essence. Space is established on Me who am that (sound). In the same
way, nrsu, in men; (I am) paurusam, manhood- the quality of being man,
from which arises the idea of manhood. Men are established on Me who
am such.
7.9 I am also the punyah, sweet; gandhah, fragrance; prthivyam, in the
earth. The earth is dependent on Me who am its fragrance. The natural
sweetness of smell in the earth is cited by way of suggesting sweetness
of taste of water etc. as well. But foulness of smell etc. is due to contact
with particular things, resulting from nescience, unholiness, etc. of
worldly people. Ca, and ; asmi, I am; the tejah, brilliance; vibhavasau, in
fire; so also (I am) the jivanam, life-that by which all creatures live; sarvabhutesu,
in all beings. And I am the tapah, austerity; tapasvisu, of
ascetics. Ascetics are established in Me who am that austerity.
7.10 O Partha, viddhi, know, mam, Me; to be the sanatanam, eternal;
bijam, seed, the source of growth; sarva-bhutanam, of all beings.
Besides, I am the buddhih, intellect, the power of discrimination of the
mind; buddhimatam, of the intelligent, of people having the power of
discrimination. I am the tejah, courage; tejasvinam, of the courageous, of
those possessed of that.
7.11 I am the balam, strength, ability, virility; balavatam, of the strong.
That strength, again, is kama-raga-vivarjitam, devoid of passion and
attachment. Kamah is passion, hankering for things not at hand. Ragah
is attachment, fondness for things acquired. I am the strength that is
devoid of them and is necessary merely for the maintenance of the body
etc., but not that strength of the worldly which causes hankering and
attachment. Further, bhutesu, among creatures; I am that kamah,
desire-such desires as for eating, drinking, etc. which are for the mere
maintenance of the body and so on; which is dharma-aviruddhah, not
contrary to righteousness, not opposed to scriptural injunctions;
bharatarsabha, O scion of the Bharata dynasty. Moreover,
7.12 Ye bhavah, those things; sattvikah eva, that indeed are made of
(the quality of) sattva; and ye rajasah, those that are made (of the quality)
of rajas; and tamasah, those that are made of (the quality of) tamaswhatever
things are made (of sattva, rajas and tamas) according to the
creatures's own actions: viddhi, know; tan, them, all without exception;
mattah eva iti, to have sprung from Me alone when they come into
being. Although they originate from Me, still, tu, however; aham, I; am na
tesu, not in them-I am not subject to them, not under their control, as
are the transmigrating bengs. Te, they, again; mayi, are in Me, subject to
Me, under My control. [For sattva, rajas, and tamas see note under 2.45
as also Chapters 14, 17 and 18.-Tr.] 'The world does not know Me, the
supreme Lord, even though I am of this kind, and am eternal, pure,
intelligent and free by nature, [See note on p.4.-Tr.] the Self of all beings,
free from all qualities, the cause of burning away the seed of the evil of
transmigration!'-in this way the Lord expresses regret. And what is the
source of that ignorance in the world? That is being stated:
7.13 Sarvam, all; idam, this; jagat, world, the aggregate of creatures;
mohitam, deluded as it is-made to have indiscrimination; ebhih, by
these; aforesaid tribhih, three; bhavaih, things, in the forms of
attachment, repulsion, delusion, etc; and gunamayaih, made of the
gunas, of the transformations of the gunas; na abhijanati, does not
know; mam, Me; who am param, transcendental to, distinct, different;
ebhyah, from these gunas as referred to above; and am avyayam,
undecaying, i.e. free from all (the six kinds of) changes in things, viz birth
etc. [See note on p.38.-Tr.] How, again, do they cross over this divine
Maya of Visnu, constituted by the three gunas? That is being stated:
7.14 Hi, since; esa, this, aforesaid; daivi, divine; Maya mama, of Mine, of
God, of Visnu, which (Maya) is My own; and which is guna-mayi,
constituted by the gunas; is duratyaya, difficult to cross over; therefore,
this being so, ye, those who; wholeheartedly prapadyante, take refuge;
mam eva, in Me alone, in Me who am the Master of Maya and who am
their own Self, by giving up all forms of rites and duties; te, they; taranti,
cross over; etam, this; mayam, Maya, which deludes all beings. That is
to say, they become freed from the bondage of the world. 'If it is that
those who resort to You cross over this Maya, why then do not all take
refuge in You alone?' This is being answered:
7.15 Mudhah, the foolish; duskrtinah, evildoers, sinners; who are naraadhamah,
the most depraved among men; who are also apa-hrtajnanah,
deprived of, despoiled of (their) wisdom; mayaya, by Maya; and
asritah, who resort to; asuram bhavam, demoniacal, ways, such as
cruelty, untruthfulness, etc.; na, do not; prapadyante, take refuge; man,
in Me, the supreme God.
7.16 Again, O Arjuna, foremost of the Bharata dynasty, caturvidhah,
four classes; of janah, people; who are eminent among human beings
and are pious in actions, and are sukrtinah, of virtuous deeds; bhajante,
adore; mam, Me; artah, the afflicted-one who is overcome by sorrow,
who is in distress, ['One who, being in distress and seeking to be saved
from it, takes refuge (in Me).'] being over-whelmed by thieves, tigers,
disease, etc.; jijnasuh, the seeker of Knowledge, who wants to know the
reality of the Lord; artharthi, the seeker of wealth; and jnani, the man of
Knowledge, [i.e. one who, already having intellectual knowledge, aspires
for Liberation.] who knows the reality of Visnu.
7.17 Tesam, of them, among the four; jnani, the man of Knowledge, the
knower of Reality, is nitya-yuktah, endowed with constant steadfastness
as a result of being a knower of Reality; and he also becomes ekabhaktih,
endowed with one-pointed devotion, because he finds no one
else whom he can adore. Consequently, that person of one-pointed
devotion visisyate, excels, becomes superior, i.e. he surpasses (the
others). Hi, since; I, the Self, am priyah, dear; jnaninah, to the man of
Knowledge; therefore aham, I; am atyartham, very much; priyah, dear to
him. It is indeed a well known fact in the world that the Self is dear. The
meaning, therefore, is that Vasudeva, being the Self of the man of
Knowledge, is dear to him. And sah, he, the man of Knowledge, being
the very Self of Me who am Vasudeva; is very much priyah, dear; mama,
to Me. 'If that be so, then the other three-the afflicted and the othersare
not dear to Vasudeva?' 'This is not so!' 'What then?'
7.18 Sarve, ete, all of these three, without exception; are eva, indeed,
udarah, noble, i.e.; they are verily dear to Me. For, no devotee of Mine
can become disagreeable to Me who am Vasudeva. But the man of
Knowledge becomes very much dear. This is the difference. Why is this
so? In answer the Lord says: Tu but; jnani, the man of Knowledge; is
atma eva, the very Self, not different from Me. This is me, My; matam,
opinion, conviction. Hi, for; yuktatma, with a steadfast mind-having his
mind absorbed in the idea, 'I am verily Vasudeva, the Lord, and none
else', that man of Knowledge asthitah, is set on the path leading to, he is
engaged in ascending to, going to; mam eva, Me alone, to the supreme
Brahman; who am the anuttamam gatim, super-excellent Goal to be
reached. The man of Knowledge is being eulogized again:
7.19 Ante, at the end, after the completion; bahunam, of many;
janmanam, births, which becme the repository for accumulating [Ast.
omits this word.-Tr.] the tendencies leading to Knowledge; jnanavan, the
man of Knowledge, who has got hiis Knowledge matured; directly
prapadyate, attains; mam, Me, Vasudeva, who am the inmost Self;
(realizing)-in what way?-iti, that; Vasudeva is sarvam, all. Sah, such a
one, who realizes Me [Here Ast. adds the word Narayana.-Tr.] thus as
the Self of all; is mahatma, a high-souled one. There is none else who
can equal or excel him. Therefore he is su-durlabhah, very rare among
thousands of men, as it has been said (in verse 3). The reason why one
does not realize that all this is verily Vasudeva, the Self, is being stated:
7.20 People, hrta-jnanah, deprived of their wisdom, deprived of their
discriminating knowledge; taih taih kamaih, by desires for various
objects, such as progeny, cattle, heaven, etc.; and niyatah, guided,
compelled; svaya prakrtya, by their own nature, by particular tendencies
gathered in the past lives; prapadyante, resort; anya-devatah, to other
deities, who are different from Vasudeva, the Self; asthaya, following
taking the help of; tam tam niyamam,the relevant methods-those
processes that are well known for the adoration of the concerned
deities.
7.21 Yam yam, whichever; tanum, form of a deity; yah, any covetous
person- among these people with desires; who, being endowed
sraddhaya, with faith; and being a bhaktah, devotee; icchati, wants;
arcitum, to worship; tam eva, that very; acalam, firm, steady; sraddham,
faith; tasya, of his, of that particular covetous person-that very faith with
which he desires to worship whatever form of a deity, in which (worship)
he was earlier engaged under the impulsion of his own nature-; [Ast.
takes the portion 'svabhavatah yo yam devata-tanum sraddhaya arcitum
icchati' with the next verse.-Tr.] vidadhami, I strengthen.
7.22 Yuktah,being endued; taya, with that; sraddhaya, faith, as granted
by Me; sah, that person; ihate, engages in; radhanam, i.e. aradhanam,
worshipping; tasyah, that form of the deity. And labhate, he gets; tan hi,
those very; kaman, desired results; tatah, there-from, from that form of
the deity which was worshipped; as vihitan, they are dispensed, meted
out; maya eva, by Me alone, who am the omniscient, supreme God,
because I am possessed of the knowledge of the apportionment of the
results of actions. The meaning his that he surely gets those desired
results since they are ordained by God. If the reading be hitan (instead
of hi tan), then the beneficence (-hita means beneficent-) of the desired
result should be interpreted in a figurative sense, for desires cannot be
beneficial to anyone!
7.23 Since those non-discriminating men with desires are engaged in
disciplines for limited results, therefore, tat phalam, that result; tesam, of
theirs; alpamedhasam, who are of poor intellect, of poor wisdom;
antavat tu bhavati, is limited, ephemeral, indeed. Deva-yajah, the
worshippers of gods; yanti, go; devan, to the gods. Madbhaktah, My
devotees; yanti, to; mam api, to Me alone. 'Thus, though the effort
needed is the same, they do not resort to me alone for the unlimited
result. Alas! they are surely in a pitiable condition.' In this manner the
Lord expresses his compassion. 'Why do they not take refuge in Me
alone?' The answer is:
7.24 Abuddhayah, the unintelligent, the non-discriminating ones;
ajanantah, unaware; mama, of My; param, supreme; bhavam, state, My
reality as the supreme Self; which is avyayam, immutable, undecaying;
and anuttanam, unsurpassable; manyante, think; mam, of Me; as
avyaktam, the unmanifest, the invisible; apannam, that has become;
vyaktim, manifest, visible, at present [At present, after being embodied
as an Incarnation.]-though I am the ever well-known God. They think so
because they are unaware of My reality. This is the idea. What is the
reason for their ignorance? This is being stated:
7.25 Yoga-maya-samavrtah, being enveloped by yoga-maya-Yoga
means the combination, the coming together, of the (three) gunas; that
(combination) is itself maya, yoga-maya; being enveloped, i.e. veiled, by
that yoga-maya; aham, I; na prakasah, do not become manifest;
sarvasya, to all, to the world. The idea is that I become manifest only to
some devotees of Mine. For this very reason, ayam, this; mudhah,
deluded; lokah, world; na abhijanati, does not know; mam, Me; who am
ajam, birthless; and avyayam, undecaying. [In verse 13 the reason for the
non-realization of the supreme, unqualified Brahman was stated. The
present verse states the reason for the non-realization of the qualified
Brahman.] 'That yoga-maya, because of My being covered by which the
world does not know Me- that yoga-maya, since it belongs to Me, does
not obstruct the knowlege of Me who am God, the possessor of maya,
just as the magic of any other magician does not cover his knowledge.'
Since this is so, therefore7.26
O Arjuna, aham, I, however; veda, know; samatitani, the past
beings; and vartamanani, the present. I know ca, also; bhavisyani, the
future; bhutani, beings. Tu, but; na kascana, no one; veda, knows; mam,
Me. Except the one person who is My devotee and has taken refuge in
Me, no one adores Me, jus because he does not know My reality.
'What, again,is the obstruction to knowing Your reality, being prevented
by which the creatures that are born do not know You?' In anticipation
of such a question, the Lord says this:
7.27 Iccha-dvesa-samutthena, by what arises from likes and dislikes:
iccha, likes, and dvesa, dislikes, are iccha-dvesau; anything arising from
them is icchadvesa-samutthah. (Creatures are duluded) by that. By
what? When that is thus sought to be known in particular, the Lord
answers: dvandva-mohena, by the delusion of duality. Delusion (moha)
that originates from duality (advandva) is dvandva-moha. Those very
likes and dislikes, which are mutually opposed like heat and cold, which
relate to happiness and sorrow and their causes, and which come into
association with all beings in due course, are termed as duality (and this
deludes all creatures). As regards them, when likes and dislikes arise
from the experience of happiness, sorrow and their causes, then, by
bringing the wisdom of all beings under their control, they create
bewilderment which is the cause of the impediment to the rise of
knowledg about the reality of Self, the suprem Truth. Indeed, exact
knowledg about objects even in the external world does not arise in one
whose mind is overpowered by the defects, viz likes and dislikes. It goes
without saying that knowledge of the indwelling Self, beset with many
obstacles as it is, does not arise in a completely bewildered person
whose intelligence has been overcome by them. Therefore, bharata, O
scion of the Bharata dynasty; owing to that delusion of duality arising
from likes and dislikes, sarvabhutani, all creatures become deluded.
Parantapa, O destroyer of foes; they yanti sammoham, become
bewildered, come under delusion; sarge, at the time of their birth, i.e. at
the time of their origination. The idea is that all creatures that come into
being do so prepossessed by delusion. 'Since this is so, therefore all
creatures, being deluded and having their wisdom obstructed by that
delusion of duality, do not know Me who am their Self. Hence, they do
not adore Me as their Self.' 'Who, again, are those that, becoming free
from the delusion of duality, come to know You, and adore You as the
Self in accordance with the scriptures?' In order to elaborate the subject
enquired about, it is being said:
7.28 Yesam jananam, those persons; tu, on the other hand; punyakarmanam,
who are of virtuous deeds, in whom exist virtuous deeds that
are the cause of purification of the mind; whose papam, sin; antagatam,
has come to an end, is almost eradicated, attenuated; te, they; dvandvamoha-
nirmuktah, being free from the delusion of duality as described;
and drdhavratah, firm in their convictions-those who [Here Ast. adds,
'sarva-parityaga-vratena, through the vow of relinquishing everything'.-
Tr.] have the firm knowledge that the supreme Reality is such alone and
not otherwise are called drdhavratah-; bhajante, adore; mam, Me, the
supreme Self. Why do they worship? This is being answered:
7.29 Ye, those who; yatanti, strive; asritya, by resorting; mam, to Me,
the supreme God, by having their minds absorbed in Me; jara-maranamoksaya,
for becoming free from old age and death; te, they; viduh,
know; tat, that; brahma, Brahman, which is the Supreme; they know
krtsnam, everything; about adhyatmam, the individual Self, that
indwelling intity; ca, and; they know akhiliam, all; about karma, actions.
7.30 Ye, those who; viduh, know; mam, Me; sa-adhi-bhuta-adhidaivam,
as existing in the physical and the divine planes; ca, and also; saadhiyajnam,
as existing in the context of the sacrifice; te, they; yuktacetasah,
of concentrated minds-those who have their minds absorbed in
God; viduh, know; mam, Me; api ca, even; prayanakale, at the time of
death. [For those who are devoted to God, there is not only the
knowledge of Brahman as identified with all individuals and all actions
(see previous verse), but also the knowledge of It as existing in all things
on the physical, the divine and the sacrificial planes. Those who realize
Brhaman as existing in the context of all the five, viz of the individual, of
actions, of the physical,of the divine, and of the sacrifices-for them with
such a realization there is no forgetting, loss of awareness, of Brahman
even at the critical moment of death.]
**¸ÉÒ¨ÉnÂù¦ÉMÉ´ÉnÂùMÉÒiÉÉlÉÇºÉÆOÉ½þÊ]õ{{ÉhÉÒ**
¶±ÉÉä. 2 (¨ÉÚ) 'YÉÉi´ÉäÊiÉ'* ÎºlÉiÉºªÉäÊiÉ ¶Éä¹É&*
¶±ÉÉä. 4-5 (´ªÉÉ) 'ºÉè´É VÉÒ´Éi´ÉÆ {ÉÖ¯û¹Éi´ÉÆ |ÉÉ{iÉÉ' <ÊiÉ* +jÉänÆù
{ÉÊ®úÊSÉxiÉxÉÒªÉ¨ÉÂ -- 'ºÉÉ' <ÊiÉ iÉSUô¤nù& |ÉEòÉ®úÉ¹]õEò¦ÉänäùxÉ Ê¦Ét¨ÉÉxÉÉÆ
|ÉEÞòËiÉ {ÉÚ´ÉÇ´ÉÉCªÉÉlÉÇ¨ÉÖJªÉÊ´É¶Éä¹ªÉ¦ÉÚiÉÉÆ {É®úÉ¨ÉÞ¶ÉÊiÉ <iªÉjÉ xÉ
EòÉä%Ê{É ºÉxnäù½þÉä ¦ÉÊ´ÉiÉÖ¨É½ÇþÊiÉ* iÉlÉÉ SÉ +ÉSÉÉªÉÇºªÉ <Çoù¶ÉÒ
ºÉè´É <iªÉÉÊnù´ªÉÉJªÉÉ®úÒÊiÉ& <nÆù ºÉÆºÉÚSÉªÉiÉÒ´É -- +{É®äúªÉÊ¨ÉÊiÉ
{Étä +ÉSÉÉªÉÉÇÊ¦É¨ÉiÉ& {ÉÉ`ö& '+{É®äúªÉÊ¨ÉiÉÉä%xÉxªÉÉ¨ÉÂ' <ÊiÉ, +lÉ
´ÉÉ iÉiºÉ¨ÉÉxÉªÉÉäMÉIÉä¨ÉÉä%xªÉ& <ÊiÉSÉ xÉ iÉÖ
'+{É®äúªÉÊ¨ÉiÉºi´ÉxªÉÉ¨ÉÂ' <ÊiÉ ºÉÉ´ÉÇÊjÉEò& ®úÉ¨ÉEòh`äöxÉÉÊ{É
ºÉ¨ÉÉoùiÉ& {ÉÉ`ö +ÉSÉÉªÉÉÇÊ¦É|ÉäiÉ <ÊiÉ*
+ÊvÉEò¨ÉÉRÂó±É¦ÉÉ¹ÉÉxÉÖ´ÉÉnùÊ´ÉSÉÉ®äú* ´ÉÆ SÉ
¨ÉÉä½þ¨ÉÉªÉÉ´É¶ÉÆMÉiÉè& +{É®äúÊiÉ VÉbä÷ÊiÉ SÉ YÉÉªÉ¨ÉÉxÉÉ
{ÉÞÊlÉ´ªÉÉÊnùVÉMÉnùÉEòÉ®äúhÉ ¦ÉÉºÉ¨ÉÉxÉÉ ªÉäªÉÆ |ÉEÞòÊiÉ&
iÉiÉÉä%xÉxªÉè´É +Ê¦ÉzÉè´É VÉÒ´É°ü{ÉÉ +½ÆþÊ´É¨É¶ÉÉÇÎi¨ÉEòÉ {É®úÉ
ÊSÉnùÉJªÉÉ ¨Éä |ÉEÞòÊiÉ&; iÉªÉÉ {É®úªÉÉ |ÉEÞòiªÉè´ÉänÆù
¦ÉÚ¨ªÉÉÊnùVÉMÉiÉÂ vÉÉªÉÇiÉä <ÊiÉ Ê´ÉÊrù <ÊiÉ ´ÉÉCªÉÉlÉÇ&* ´ÉIªÉÊiÉ
SÉÉSÉÉªÉÇ& jÉªÉÉänù¶ÉÉvªÉÉªÉä uùÉË´É¶É ¶±ÉÉäEò´ªÉÉJªÉÉxÉÉ´ÉºÉ®äú
-- '|ÉEÞòÊiÉ&, iÉÊuùEòÉ®úÉ PÉ]õ{É]õÉnùªÉ&, SÉiÉÖnÇù¶ÉÊ´ÉvÉ& ºÉMÉÇ&, iÉlÉÉ {ÉÖ¯û¹É&
iÉiºÉ´ÉÇ¨ÉÂ +xÉÉÊnù ÊxÉiªÉÆ SÉ ¥ÉÀiÉk´ÉÉSUÖôÊ®úiÉi´Éä ºÉÊiÉ
iÉnùxÉxªÉi´ÉÉiÉÂ' <ÊiÉ* |ÉEÞòiÉä SÉ, iÉÉoù¶É{É®ú|ÉEÞòÊiÉvÉÞiªÉ¦ÉÉ´Éä
VÉMÉÊnùnù¨ÉxvÉ¨ÉvÉÞiÉ¨ÉÖiºÉÒnäùiÉÂ <ÊiÉ iÉÉi{ÉªÉÇ¨ÉÂ**
¶±ÉÉä. 6-7 (´ªÉÉ) '´ÉÉºÉÖnäù´ÉÉä ¦ÉÚiÉ& ºÉ´ÉÇºªÉ |É¦É´É&'
|É±ÉªÉ¶SÉäiªÉxÉäxÉ xÉ Eäò´É±ÉÆ 'EÞòiºxÉºªÉ VÉMÉiÉ&'
<iªÉÉÊnù¨ÉÚ±É¦ÉÉMÉÉä ´ªÉÉJªÉÉiÉ&, +Ê{É iÉÖ ´ÉÉºÉÖnäù´É¶É¤nùÉlÉÉæ%Ê{É*
´ÉÆ SÉ ¨ÉÚ±Éä +½Æþ¶É¤nù´ÉÉSªÉÉä ´ÉÉºÉÖnäù´É& {É®Æú ¥ÉÀäÊiÉ
ÊºÉrùÊ¨ÉÊiÉ ¾þnùªÉ¨ÉÂ**
¶±ÉÉä. 8 (´ªÉÉ) 'ªÉ& ¶É¤nù <ÊiÉ <ÊiÉ'* +xÉäxÉ |ÉiÉÒEòvÉÉ®úhÉäxÉ
YÉÉªÉiÉä '|ÉhÉ´É& ºÉ´ÉÇ´Éänäù ªÉ& ¶É¤nù&' <iªÉÉSÉÉªÉÉÇÊ¦É¨ÉiÉ& {ÉÉ`ö
<´É <ÊiÉ* ºÉÉ´ÉÇÊjÉEòºiÉÖ {ÉÉ`ö& ®úÉ¨ÉEòh`öÒªÉ¶SÉ 'ºÉ´ÉÇ´Éänäù¹ÉÖ ¶É¤nù&'
<iªÉä´É*
+lÉ´ÉäiªÉÉÊnùÊuùiÉÒªÉ´ªÉÉJªÉÉxÉÉxÉÖºÉÉ®äúhÉ JÉä ªÉ& ¶É¤nù&
ºÉ´ÉÇ´Éänäù SÉ |ÉhÉ´É& ºÉÉä%½þÊ¨ÉiªÉlÉÇ&* |ÉEÞò¹]õÉä xÉ´É& |ÉhÉ´É&
+iªÉxiÉÆ xÉÚixÉ&* ºÉ SÉ ¶É¤nùÊ´É¶Éä¹ÉhÉ¨ÉÂ* ¶É¤nùºªÉ ºÉÉ¨ÉÉxªÉiÉ&
ºÉÆªÉÉäMÉÉÊnùVÉxªÉiÉªÉÉ iÉnùVÉxªÉi´É¨Éä´É
iÉºªÉÉiªÉxiÉxÉÚixÉi´É¨ÉÂ* iÉnùÉ½þ --
ºÉÆªÉÉäMÉÊ´É¦ÉÉMÉÉÊnùºÉÉ¨ÉOªÉxiÉ®ú®úÊ½þiÉ& <ÊiÉ
iÉlÉÉ +xÉÉ½þiÉÉJªÉ <ÊiÉ SÉ Ê´É¶Éä¹ÉhÉuùªÉäxÉ* 'MÉMÉxÉMÉÖhÉiÉªÉÉ' iÉlÉÉ
'¥ÉÀMÉÖ½þÉMÉMÉxÉMÉÉ¨ÉÒ <ÊiÉ SÉ JÉä <ÊiÉ ¨ÉÚ±ÉºªÉ ´ªÉÉJªÉÉ'*
'ºÉEò±É¸ÉÖÊiÉOÉÉ¨ÉÉxÉÖMÉÉ¨ÉÒ' <ÊiÉ ºÉ´ÉÇ´Éänäù¹ÉÖ <iªÉºªÉ
´ªÉÉJªÉÉ* ¸ÉÖÊiÉOÉÉ¨ÉÉxÉÖMÉÉÊ¨ÉxÉ& ¶É¤nùºªÉ
ºÉÆªÉÉäMÉÉtVÉxªÉi´ÉÉäCiªÉÉ +xÉÉiÉi´ÉÉäCiªÉÉ SÉ,
Eòh`öiÉÉ±´ÉÊ¦ÉPÉÉiÉVÉxªÉi´É½äþiÉÖEò´Éänù{ÉIÉEò{ÉÉè¯û¹ÉäªÉi´ÉÉxÉÖ¨ÉÉxÉÆ
´ÉºiÉÖiÉÉä%xÉÖ¨ÉÉxÉÉ¦ÉÉºÉ <ÊiÉ v´ÉÊxÉ&**
¶±ÉÉä. 10-11 (´ªÉÉ) '<iªÉÉ¶ÉªÉäxÉäÊiÉ'* <ÊiÉ ¨ÉÚ±ÉºªÉÉ¶ÉªÉÆ
|Énù¶ÉÇÊªÉiÉÖÊ¨ÉiªÉlÉÇ&**
¶±ÉÉä. 12-13 (´ªÉÉ) 'ºÉk´ÉÉnùÒxÉÒÊiÉ'* +Ê{É
xÉÉ¨Éänù¨ÉÉSÉÉªÉÇ´ªÉÉJªÉÉxÉÆ YÉÉ{ÉªÉÊiÉ ªÉiÉÂ ¨ÉÚ±Éä
ºÉÉÎk´ÉEòÉÊnù¶É¤nùÉ& º´ÉÉÌlÉEò|ÉiªÉªÉÉxiÉÉ +Ê¦É¨ÉiÉÉ +ÉSÉÉªÉæhÉ <ÊiÉ? +Ê{É
´ÉÉ ºÉk´ÉÉnùÒxÉÉÆ ¦ÉMÉ´Éx¨ÉªÉi´ÉÉiÉÂ ºÉÉÎk´ÉEòÉÊnù¦ÉÉ´ÉÉxÉÉÆ ¦ÉMÉ´ÉiÉ&
ºÉEòÉ¶ÉÉnÖùi{ÉÊkÉ¯ûSªÉiÉä <ÊiÉ nù¶ÉÇxÉ{É®úÉä%ªÉÆ OÉxlÉ&*
ºÉÆ´ÉänùªÉiÉä <ÊiÉ* ÊhÉVÉjÉ º´ÉÉlÉæ*
'´ÉÉºÉÖnäù´É& ºÉ´ÉÇ¨ÉÂ' <ÊiÉ YÉÉxÉäxÉäÊiÉ* +ºªÉ SÉ +ÊOÉ¨ÉähÉ
'<ÊiÉ ¤ÉÖnÂùvªÉÉ' <iªÉxÉäxÉ ºÉÉ¨ÉÉxÉÉÊvÉEò®úhªÉäxÉÉx´ÉªÉ&* +lÉ ´ÉÉ
'YÉÉxÉäxÉ' <ÊiÉ ºÉÆ{ÉÉiÉÉªÉÉiÉ¨ÉÂ* '´ÉÉºÉÖnäù´É& ºÉ´ÉÇ¨ÉÂ '
<iªÉºªÉ '|ÉÊiÉ{ÉtiÉä' <iªÉxÉäxÉÉx´ÉªÉ&*
'´ÉÉºÉÖnäù´É& ºÉ´ÉÇÊ¨ÉiªÉºªÉÉlÉÇ´ÉhÉÇxÉ{É®ú&' 'ªÉÉä ¤É½Öþ -- -ºÉ SÉ
nÖù±ÉÇ¦É&' <ÊiÉ OÉxlÉ&* iÉjÉ SÉ ªÉÉä%ºÉÉÊ´ÉiªÉx´ÉªÉ&*
'¤É½ÖþVÉx¨ÉÉä{É¦ÉÉäMÉäiªÉÉÊnùxÉÉ |ÉÊiÉ{ÉtiÉä ¦ÉMÉ´ÉkÉk´ÉÊ¦ÉiªÉxiÉäxÉ
¤É½ÚþxÉÉÆ VÉx¨ÉxÉÉ¨ÉxiÉä YÉÉxÉ´ÉÉxÉÂ ¨ÉÉÆ |É{ÉtiÉä <iªÉºªÉ
´ªÉÉJªÉÉxÉ¨ÉÂ'*
B´ÉÊ¨ÉiªÉÉÊnù ÊjÉÊ¦ÉMÉÖÇhÉ¨ÉªÉèÊ®úÊiÉ{Ét´ªÉÉJªÉÉ* ®úÊ´ÉhÉÉ
VªÉÉäÊiÉ¨ÉÇªÉäxÉ |ÉEòÉÊ¶ÉiÉ <iªÉjÉ ªÉlÉÉ VªÉÉäÊiÉ¹É ´É ´ÉºiÉÖiÉ&
|ÉEòÉ¶ÉEòi´É¨ÉÖHÆò ¦É´ÉÊiÉ, iÉlÉè´É MÉÖhÉ¨ÉªÉè¦ÉÉÇ´Éè¨ÉÉæÊ½þiÉÊ¨ÉiªÉjÉÉÊ{É
¨ÉÉä½þEòi´ÉÆ MÉÖhÉÉxÉÉ¨Éä´ÉäÊiÉ {ÉªÉÇ´ÉºªÉÊiÉ <ÊiÉ EÞòi´ÉÉ%%½þ --
'MÉÖhÉè¨ÉÉæÊ½þiÉÊ¨ÉnùÊ¨ÉÊiÉ'**
¶±ÉÉä. 14 (´ªÉÉ) 'näù´É& GòÒb÷ÉEò®ú <ÊiÉ* näù´É¶É¤nùºªÉ Ênù´ÉÖ
GòÒb÷ÉªÉÉÊ¨ÉÊiÉ vÉÉiÉÉäÌxÉ¹{ÉzÉi´ÉÉÊnùÊiÉ ¦ÉÉ´É&'**
¶±ÉÉä. 16-19 (´ªÉÉ) '+Ê¦É±É¹ªÉÉ¨ÉÒÊiÉ'* +Ê¦É{ÉÚ´ÉÇEòÉiÉÂ ¦´ÉÉnäù±ÉÇ¹É& '´ÉÉ
§ÉÉ¶É -- -±É¹É&' (1PA,1 III, i, 70 ) <ÊiÉ ´ÉèEòÎ±{ÉEò& ¶ªÉxÉÂ;
+Ê¦É±ÉÉ¹ÉÉ¨ÉÒiªÉlÉÇ&**
¶±ÉÉä. 20-23 (´ªÉÉ) ¨ÉÚ±Éä 'EòÉ¨ÉèºiÉèºiÉè¾ÇþiÉYÉÉxÉÉ&
|É{ÉtxiÉä%xªÉnäù´ÉiÉÉ&' (¶±ÉÉä. 20) <iªÉÖCi´ÉÉ
'¸ÉrùªÉÉÌSÉiÉÖÊ¨ÉSUôÊiÉ' (21) <iªÉÖHò¨ÉÂ* iÉlÉÉ SÉ +jÉ EòÉ¨É¨ÉªÉÒ
¸Érèù´É |ÉEÞòiÉÉ* 'iÉÉ¨Éä´É' <iªÉºªÉ
(21) 'ªÉÉÆ ªÉÉÆ iÉxÉÖ¨ÉÂ' <ÊiÉ {ÉÚ´ÉÉÇvÉæ ÊxÉÌnù¹]õÉÆ iÉÉÆ
iÉxÉÖÊ¨ÉiªÉlÉÇ&* Ê´ÉnùvÉÉÊ¨É, Ê´É¶ÉähÉ
+xªÉ´ªÉÉ´ÉÞkÉÊ´É¶Éä¹É´Ék´ÉäxÉ nùvÉÉÊ¨É vÉÉ®úªÉÉÊ¨É*
iÉÉoù¶ªÉÉºiÉxÉÉä& ¦ÉHòÊxÉ¹`ö{ÉÚ´ÉÉæHò¸ÉrùÉ¨ÉªÉi´ÉÉiÉÂ ¸ÉrùÉ¨ÉÂ
<iªÉ¦ÉänùÉäÊHò&* iÉlÉÉ SÉ {ÉÚ´ÉÉÇvÉæ ¸ÉrùªÉäÊiÉ
iÉÞiÉÒªÉÉlÉÉæ%¦Éänù&, ºÉ SÉ iÉx´ÉÉ¨Éx´ÉäÊiÉ* iÉiÉÂ ºÉ´ÉÈ ¨ÉxÉÊºÉ
ÊxÉvÉÉªÉ iÉÉi{ÉªÉÉÇlÉÇ¨ÉÉ½þ ´ªÉÉJªÉÉªÉÉ¨ÉÂ --
'iÉiºÉ¨ÉÖÊSÉiÉÉ¨Éä´É ¨É¨Éè´ÉÉ´ÉÉxiÉ®úiÉxÉÖÊ¨ÉÊiÉ'**
'<xpùÉÊnù¦ÉÉ´ÉxÉÉiÉÉi{ÉªÉæhÉäÊiÉ'* ¦ÉÉ´ÉxÉÉ, ¦ÉÉ´É&* iÉlÉÉ SÉ '<xpùÉä
¦ÉÊ´É¹ªÉÉÊ¨É' <ÊiÉ iÉÉi{ÉªÉæhÉäiªÉlÉÇ&* +lÉ´ÉÉ <xpùÉÊnù¦É´ÉxÉiÉÉi{ÉªÉæhÉ
<iªÉlÉÇ&* +lÉ´ÉÉ <xpùÉÊnù¦É´ÉxÉiÉÉi{ÉªÉæhÉ <iªÉä´É ´ÉÉ Ê´É´ÉÊIÉiÉ¨ÉÂ*
<xpùÉnùÒxÉÉÆ ªÉÉÊxÉ ¦É´ÉxÉÉÊxÉ ´ÉèVÉªÉxiÉÉnùÒÊxÉ
iÉi|ÉÉ{iªÉÖqäù¶ÉäxÉäÊiÉ iÉnùlÉÇ&**
¶±ÉÉä. 24 (´ªÉÉ) '{ÉÊ®ú½þÉ®äúhÉäÊiÉ'* ¡ò±Éä ½äþiÉÉè iÉÞiÉÒªÉÉ*
{ÉÊ®ú½þÉ®úÉlÉÇÊ¨ÉiªÉlÉÇ&* +lÉ ´ÉÉ ºÉ½þÉlÉÇªÉÉäMÉä iÉÞiÉÒªÉÉ*
{ÉÊ®ú½þÉ®ú{ÉÚ´ÉÇEòÊ¨ÉiªÉlÉÇ&* iÉºªÉ, ºÉÉvÉEòºªÉ, iÉiÉÂ +É±É¨¤ÉxÉ¨ÉÂ*
'¨ÉÖHò¦ÉÉ´ÉäxÉ' <ÊiÉ {ÉÖxÉ®úÊ{É ¡ò±Éä ½äþiÉÉè iÉÞiÉÒªÉÉ; ¨ÉÖHò¦ÉÉ´ÉÉªÉ
¨ÉÖHòªÉä <iªÉlÉÇ&* +lÉ´ÉÉ iÉÞiÉÒªÉÉlÉÉæ%¦Éänù&* ºÉ SÉ vÉÉi´ÉlÉæ
{ÉªÉÇ´ÉºÉÉxÉä ¡ò±É°ü{Éä%x´ÉäÊiÉ* ¨ÉÖCiªÉÉi¨ÉEò¡ò±ÉÆ ¦É´ÉiÉÒiªÉlÉÇ&**
¶±ÉÉä. 27 (´ªÉÉ) '¨ÉÉä½þÉxÉÖ¦É´ÉºÉ¨ÉÉ{iÉÉè' <ÊiÉ*
|É±ÉªÉEòÉ±ÉÒxÉäiªÉÉÊnù&* +xÉäxÉ SÉ 'ºÉMÉæ' <ÊiÉ ¨ÉÚ±ÉÆ
´ªÉÉJªÉÉiÉ¨ÉÂ* +lÉ´ÉÉ ¨ÉÉä½þÉxÉÖ¦É´ÉÉºÉ¨ÉÉ{iÉÉÊ´ÉÊiÉ Ê´É´ÉÊIÉiÉ¨ÉÂ*
´ÉÆ SÉ uùxuù¨ÉÉä½þºªÉ ºÉ´ÉÉºÉxÉºªÉÉºÉ¨ÉÉ{iÉÉè ºÉiªÉÉÆ, {ÉÖxÉ&
ºÉMÉæ <iªÉlÉÇ&**
¶±ÉÉä. 28-30 (´ªÉÉ) 'ªÉiÉÉä ªÉä¹ÉÉÊ¨ÉiªÉÉÊnù'* +jÉänÆù
Ê´É´ÉÊIÉiÉÊ¨É´É -- 'ªÉiÉÉä ªÉä¹ÉÉ¨ÉÂ +ÉVÉx¨É VÉx¨ÉxÉ& |É¦ÉÞÊiÉ
{ÉÚ´ÉÇ¨Éä´É |ÉªÉÉhÉÉiÉÂ {ÉÚ´ÉÇEòÉ±Éä%Ê{É ¦ÉMÉ´ÉkÉk´Éº¨É®úhÉÆ, iÉä
+xiÉEòÉ±Éä {É®ú¨Éä¶´É®Æú ºÉÆº¨É®äúªÉÖ&' <ÊiÉ*
'ÊEò¨ÉÂ VÉx¨ÉÉºÉä´ÉxÉªÉäÊiÉ'* VÉx¨É|É¦ÉÞÊiÉ +ÉºÉä´ÉxÉªÉÉ
ÊxÉ®úxiÉ®Æú ºÉä´ÉxÉªÉÉ <iªÉiÉÇ&* ªÉlÉÉ%%½Öþ& --
'ºÉ iÉÖ nùÒPÉÇEòÉ±ÉxÉè®úxiÉªÉÇºÉiEòÉ®úÉ%%ºÉäÊ´ÉiÉÉä oùfø¦ÉÚÊ¨É&' ( YS, I,
14) <ÊiÉ**
ºÉÆOÉ½þ¶±ÉÉäEäò-ªÉäxÉäÊiÉ* ªÉº¨ÉÉiÉÂ EòÉ®úhÉÉiÉÂ <iªÉlÉÇ&*
ªÉº¨ÉÉiÉÂ EòÉ®úhÉÉiÉÂ ¦ÉÊHò& ºÉÉvÉxÉäSUôÉºÉ¨ÉÖÊSÉiÉÉÆ
¨ÉÉäIÉºÉÉvÉxÉÊ´É¹ÉªÉEäòSUôÉªÉÉ& +lÉÉÇiÉÂ iÉi{ÉÊ®ú{ÉÚiÉæ&
+xÉÖMÉÖhÉÉ¨ÉÂ +É¶ÉÉÆ {ÉÊ®ú{ÉÚ®úªÉäiÉÂ, iÉº¨ÉÉiÉÂ EòÉ®úhÉÉiÉÂ <ªÉÆ
Eò±{É¨É\VÉ®úÒ <iªÉx´ÉªÉ&**
**<ÊiÉ ¸ÉÒ¨ÉnÂù¦ÉMÉ´ÉnÂùMÉÒiÉÉlÉÇºÉÆOÉ½þÊ]õ{{ÉhªÉÉÆ
ºÉ{iÉ¨ÉÉä%vªÉÉªÉ&**

BHAGAVADGITA
English translation of Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary - Swami
Gambhirananda
Chapter 8
ROMAN
8.1 See Commentary under 8.2.
8.2 In order to settle these questions seriatim -
8.3 Aksaram means that which does not perish (na ksarati), the
supreme Self. This agrees with the Upanisadic text, 'Under the mighty
rule of this Immutable, O Gargi...' (Br. 3.8.9). And (the letter) Om is not
accept here [as the meaning of aksara (lit. letter)], because of its being
mentioned (as a letter) later on in, 'The single letter Om, which is
Brahman' (13). Besides, the adjective 'supreme' is more apporpriate with
regard to the absolute, immutable Brahman. By svabhava, self-hood, is
meant the eixtence of that very supreme Brahman in every body as the
indwelling Self. Svabhavah ucyate, self-hood is said to be, is referred to
by the word; adhyatmam, the entity which, as the indwelling Self, exists
in the body (atma) by making it its habitat (adhikrtya), and which in the
ultimate analysis is the supreme Brahman. Visargah, the offerings, the
giving away to gods of things like porridge [Caru: An oblations of rice,
barley and pulse boiled-together to be offered to gods.], cake, etc.;
bhuta-bhava-udbhava-karah, which bring about the origin of the
existence of things; is karma-sanjnitah, meant by action. This sacrifice
consisting in pouring of oblations is called action. The existence (bhava)
of (moving and nonmoving) things (bhuta) is bhuta-bhava. The coming
into being (udbhava) of that (existence) is bhuta-bhava-udbhavah. That
which causes (karoti) this is bhuta-bhava-udbhava-karah, i.e. the
originator of existing things. It is needed from this source that all bengs,
moving and non-moving, originate thorugh the successive processes of
railfall etc. (see 3.14-15).
8.4 Adhibhutam, that which exists in the physical plane, i.e. that which
exists by comprising all creatures;-what is it?-it consists of the ksarah
bhavah, mutable entity. Ksarah is that which is mutable, which is
destructible; bhavah means anything whatsoever that has orgination.
This is meaning. Purusah means the Person, derived in the sense of he
by whom all things are pervaded; or, he who lies in every heart. He is
Hiranyagarbha, who resides in the Sun and sustains the organs of all
creatures. He is adhi-daivatam, the entity existing in the divine plane.
Deha-bhrtam-vara, O best among the embodied beings; adhiyajnah, the
entity existing in sacrifices, is the Deity, called Visnu, presiding over all
sacrifices-which agrees with the Vedic text, 'Sacrifice is indeed Vishu'
(Tai, Sam. 1.7.4). Aham eva, I Myself, who am that very Visnu; am
adhiyajnah, the entity existing in the sacrifice; which is going on atra
dehe, in this body. Since a sacrfice is performed with body, therefore it is
closely associated with the body. In this sense it is said to be going on in
the body.
8.5 Ca, and ; anta-kale, at the time of death; yah, anyone who; prayati,
departs; muktva, by giving up; the kalevaram, body; smaran, while
thinking; mam eva, of Me alone, who am the supreme Lord Visnu; sah,
he; yati, attains; madhavam, My state, the Reality that is Vishu, Asti,
there is; na, no; samsayah, doubt; atra, about this, in this regard, as to
whether he attains (Me) or not. 'This rule does not apply in relation to
me alone.' 'What then?'
8.6 O Son of Kunti, smaran, thinking of; bhavam, any entity, any
particular deity; yam yam va api, which ever it may be; tyajati, one gives
up; the kalevaram, body; ante, at the end, at the time of the departure of
life; eti, he attains; tam tam eva, that very one, that very entity which is
remembered-none else; having been sada, always; tadbhava-bhavitah,
engrossed in its thought. Engrossment in it is tad-bhavah; one by whom
that is remembered as a matter of habitual recollection is tadbhavabhavitah.
Since the last thought is thus the cause of acquiring the next
body-
8.7 Tasmat, therefore; anusmara, think of; mam, Me, in the way
prescribed by the scriptures; sarvesu kalesu, at all times; and yudhya,
fight, engage your-self in war, which is your own (caste) duty.
Asamsayah, there is no doubt in this matter; that arpita-mano-buddhih,
by dedicating your mind and intellect; mayi; to Me; esyasi, you-you who
have thus dedicated our mind and intellect to Me, Vasudeva-will attain;
mam eva, Me alone, as I shall be remembered. [When the Lord instructs
Arjuna to think of Him, and at the same time engage in war, it may seem
that He envisages a combination of Knowledge and action. But this is
not so, because when one thinks of all actions, accessories and results
that come within the purview of the mind and the intellect as Brahman, it
is denied that actions etc. have any separate reality apart from Brahman.
Therefore no combination is involved here.] Besides,
8.8 Partha, O son of Prtha; anu-cintayan, by meditating, i.e.
contemplating in accordance with (anu) the instruction of teachers and
scriptures; cestasa, with a mind; abhyasa-yogayuktena, engaged in the
yoga of practice-abhyasa, practice, consists in the repetition of the same
kind of thought, uninterupted by any contrary idea, with regard to Me
who am the object of concentration of the mind; that practice itself is
yoga; the mind of a yogi is engrossed (yuktam) in that itself; with a mind
that is such, and na anya-gamina, which does not stray away to
anything else which is not inclined to go away to any other object; yati,
one reaches; the paramam, supreme, unsurpassed; purusam, Person;
divyam, existing in the effulgent region (divi), in the Solar Orb. And, to
what kind of a Person does he go? This is being stated:
8.9 Yah, he who, anyone who; anusmaret, meditates on; kavim, the
Omniscient, the Knower of things past, present and future; puranam, the
Ancient, the Eternal; anusasitaram, the Ruler, the Lord of the whole
Universe; aniyamsam, subtler; anoh, than the subtle; dhataram, the
Ordainer; sarvasya, of every-thing-one who grants the fruits of actions, in
all their varieties, individually to all creatures; acintya-rupam, who is of
inconceivable form-His form, though always existing, defies being
conceived of by anybody; aditya-varnam, who is effulgent like the sun,
who is manifest as eternal Consciousness like the effulgence of the sun;
and parastat, beyond; tamasah, darkness-beyond the darkness of
delusion in the form of ignorance-(he attains the supreme Person). This
verse is to be connected with the earlier itself thus: 'by meditating (on
Him)...he attains Him.' Further,
8.10 Prayana-kale, at the time of death; after first brining the mind under
control in the lotus of the heart, and then lifting up the vital force-through
the nerve going upward-by gradually gaining control over (the rudiments
of nature such as) earth etc. [Space, air, fire, water and earth.] and after
that, samyak, avesya, having fully fixed; pranam, the Prana (vital force);
madhye, between; the bhruvoh, eye-brows, without losing attention;
acalena manasa, with an unwavering mind; he, the yogi possessed of
such wisdom, yuktah, imbued; bhaktya, with devotion, deep love; ca
eva, as also; yoga-balena, [Yoga means spiritual absorption, the fixing of
the mind on Reality alone, to the exclusion of any other object.] with the
strength of concentration-i.e; imbued with that (strength) also, consisting
in steadfastness of the mind arising from accumulation of impressions
resulting from spiritual absorption; upaiti, reaches; tam, that; div yam,
resplendent; param, supreme; purusam, Person, described as 'the
Omniscient, the Ancient,' etc. The Lord again speaks of Brahman which
is sought to be attained by the process going to be stated, and which is
described through such characteristics as, 'What is declared by the
knowers of the Vedas,'etc.:
8.11 Pravaksye, I shall speak; te, to you; samgrahena, briefly; tat, of
that; which is called the aksaram, immutable-that whch does not get
exhausted, which is indestructible; padam, Goal to be reached; yat,
which; veda-vidah, the knowers of the Vedas, the knowers of the purport
of the Vedas; vedanti, declare, speak of It as opposed to all
qualifications-'It is neither gross nor minute' (Br. 3.8.8) etc.-, in
accordance with the Upanisadic text, 'O Gargi, the knowers of Brahman
say this Immutable (Brahman) is that' (ibid); and further, yat, into which,
after the attainment of complete realization; visanti, enter; yatayah, the
diligent ones, the monks; who have become vita-ragah, free from
attachment; and icchantah, aspiring to know (-to know being supplied to
complete the sense-); yat, which Immutable; people caranti, practise;
brahmacaryam, celibacy-at the teacher's house. Commencing with, 'O
venerable sir, which world does he really win thereby who, among men,
intently meditates on Om in that wonerful way till death? To him he said,
O Satyakama, this very Brahman that is (known as) the inferior and
superior is but this Om' (pr.5.1-2), it has been stated, 'Again, anyone
who meditates on the supreme Purusa with the help of this very syllable
Om, as possessed of three letters,...he is lifted up to the world of
Brahma (Hiranyagarbha) by the Sama-mantras,' (op.cit.5) etc. Again,
beginning with '(Tell me of that thing which you see as) different from
virtue, different from vice,' it has been stated, 'I tell you briefly of that
goal which all the Vedas with one voice propound, which all the
austerities speak of, and wishing for which people practise
Brahmacarya: it is this, viz Om' (Ka.1.2.14-15), etc. In the above
quotations, Om which is going to be spoken of is presented as a name
of this supreme Brahman, and also as Its symbol like an image. This has
been done as a means to meditation on it (Om) for the attainment of the
supreme Brahman by poeple of low and mediocre intellect, in as much
as this leads to Liberation in course of time. Here also that very
meditation on Om in the manner stated above-which is the means of
attaining the supreme Brahman introduced in, '(He who meditates on)
the Omniscient, the Ancient,' and in, '(I shall speak to you birefly of that
immutable Goal) which the knowers of the Vedas declare,' and which
(meditation) leads to Liberation in due course [Realization of Brahman
leads to immediate Liberation (sadyomukti, whereas meditation
(contemplation, upasana) leads to gradual Liberation (krama-mukti).-Tr.]-
has to be spoken of along with 'adherence to yoga' as also whatever is
connected directly or indirectly with it. For this purpose the following text
is begun:
8.12 Samyamya, having controlled; sarva-dvarani, all the passages, the
doors of perception; niruddhya, having confined; the manah, mind; hrdi,
in the heart-not allowing it to spread out; and after that, with the help of
the mind controlled therein, rising up through the nerve running upward
from the heart, adhaya, having fixed; atmanah, his own; pranam, vital
force; murdhni, in the lead; (and then) asthitah, continuing in;
yogadharanam, the firmness in yoga-in order to make it steady-. And
while fixing it there itself,
8.13 Yah, he who; prayati, departs, dies; tyajan, by leaving; deham, the
body-the phrase 'leaving the body' is meant for qualifying departure;
thereby it is implied that the soul's departure occurs by abandoning the
body, and not through the destruction of its own reality, having
abandoned thus-; vyaharan, while uttering; the eka-adsaram, single
syllable; om iti brahma, viz Om, which is Brahman, Om which is the
name of Brahman; and anusmaran, thinking; mam, of Me, of God who is
implied by that (syllable); sah, he; yati, attains; the paramam, supreme,
best; gatim, Goal. Further,
8.14 Partha, O son of Prtha, tasya yoginah, to that yogi; nitya-yuktasya,
of constant concentration, who is ever absorbed (in God); and ananyacetah,
of single-minded attention, a yogi whose mind is not drawn to any
other object; yah, who; smarati, remembers; mam, Me, the supreme
God; satatam, uninteruptedly; and nityasah, for long-. By satatam,
uninterrupteldy, is meant 'without any break'. By niryasah, is meant
along duration. Not six months, nor even a year! What then? The
meaning is: He who remembers Me for his whole life, continuously. To
that yogi aham, I; am sulabhah, easy of attainment. Since this is so,
therefore one should remain ever absorbed in Me, with mind given to
nothing else. 'What follows from Your being easy of attainment?' This is
being answered: 'Hear what follows from My being easy of attainment.'
8.15 Upetya mam, as a result of reaching Me who am God-as a result
of realizing My nature; mahatmanah, the exalted ones, the monks; gatah,
who have attained; the paramam, highest; samsiddhim, perfection,
called Liberation; na, do not; apnuvanti, get; this kind of punarjanama,
rebirth. As to what kind of rebirth they do not get, the Lord states its
characteristics-duhkhalayam, which is an abode of sorrows, a resort of
physical and other sorrows, i.e. a birth to which sorrows adhere. It is not
merely an abode of sorrows, but also asavatam, impermanent, having no
fixity of nature. On the other hand, those who do not reach Me, they
come again. Again, 'Is it that those who attain someone other than You
return?' This is being answered:
8.16 O Arjuna, all the lokah, worlds; abrahma-bhuvanat, together with
the world of Brahma-bhuvana is that (place) in which creatures are born,
and brahma-bhuvana means the world of Brahma; punah avartinah, are
subject to return, are by nature liable to come again; Tu, but; kaunteya,
O son of Kunti, na vidyate, there is no; punarjanma, rebirth; upetya, after
reaching; mam, Me alone. Why are all the worlds together with the
realm of Brahma subject to return? Becuase they are limited by time.
How?
8.17 Viduh, they know; that ahah, day; brahmanah, of Brahma, of
Prajapati, of Virat; yat, which; sahasra-yuga-paryantam, ends in a
thousand yugas; and also the ratirm, night; yuga-sahasra-antam, which
ends in a thousand yugas, having the same duration as the day. Who
knows (these)? In reply the Lord says: Te, they; janah, poeple; ahoratravidah,
who are the knowers of what day and night are, i.e. the people
who know the measurement of time. Since the worlds are thus delimited
by time, therefore they are subject to return. What happens during the
day and the night of Prajapati is being stated:
8.18 Ahar-agame, with the coming of day, at the time when Brahma
wakes; sarvah vyaktayah, all manifested things, all things that get
manifested, all creatures characterized as moving and non-moving;
prabhavanti, emerge, become manifested; avyaktat, from the
Unmanifested-avyakta (Unmanifested) is the state of sleep of Prajapati;
from that avyakta. Similarly, ratri-agame, when night comes, at the time
when Brahma sleeps; praliyante, they, all the manifested things, merge;
tatra eva, in that itself; avyakta-sanjnake, which is called the
Unmanifested referred to above. In order to obviate the defect of the
emergence of some unmerited result and the destruction of merited
results; [The following verse says that the very same multitude of beings
continues in the different cycles of creation, and there-fore these two
defects do not arise.] for pointing out the meaningfulness of the
scriptures [For the earlier reason the scriptures do not lose their validity.]
dealing with bondage and Liberation; and with a view to propounding
detachment from the world on the ground that the helpless multitude of
beings perishes after being born again and again under the influence of
accumulated results of actions that have for their origin such evils as
ignorance etc. [The five evils are: ignorance, egoism, attachment,
aversion and clinging to life. (See P. Y. Su. 2.3)], the Lord says this:
8.19 O son of Prtha, bhutva, after being born again and again at the
approach of day; sah eva, that very-not any other; bhutagramah,
multitude of beings, consisting of the moving and the non-moving
objects that existed in the earlier cycle of creation; praliyate, disappears
repeatedly; avasah, in spinte of itself, [For they are impelled by their own
defects] without any independence whatever; ratri-agame, at the
approach of night, at the close of the day. Prabhavati, it comes to life,
verily in spite of itself; ahar-agame, at the approach of day. The means
for the attainment of that Immutable which was introduced has been
pointed out in, 'He who departs by leaving the body while uttering the
single syllable, viz Om, which is Brahman, ' etc. (13). Now, with a vies to
indicating the real nature of that very Immutable, this is being said-that It
is to be reached through this path of yoga:
8.20 He is parah, distinct, different;-From what?-tasmat, from that
aforesaid (Unmanifested). The word tu, but, is meant for showing the
distinction of the Immutable that is going to be spoken of from the
Unmanifested. He is bhavah, the Reality, the supreme Brahman called
the Immutable. Even though different, there is the possibility of
similarlity of characteristics. Hence, for obviating this the Lord says:
anyah, the other, of a different characteristic, and He is the Immutable
which is beyond the range of the organs. It has been said that He is
distinct from that. From what, again is He distinct? Avyaktat, from the
Unmaifested spoken of earlier, which is the seed of the multitude of
beings, and which is characterized as ignorance (avidya) [Ast. adds,
'anyah vilaksanah, bhavah ityabhiprayah: The meaning is that the Reality
is different and distinct (form that Unmanifested).-Tr.] He is sanatnah,
eternal. Bhavah, the Reality; yah sah, who is such; na, does not;
vinasyati, get destroyed; when sarvesu bhutesu, all beings, beginning
from Brahma; nasyatsu, get destroyed.
8.21 He Himself who has been uktah, meantioned; as avyaktah,
Unmanifest; the aksarah, Immutable; ahuh, they call; tam, Him-that very
unmanifest Reality which is termed as the Immutable; the paramam,
supreme; gatim, Goal. Tat, That; is the paramam, supreme; dhama,
abode, i.e. the supreme State; mama, of Mine, of Visnu; yam prapya,
reaching which Reality; na nivartante, they do not return to the worldly
state. The means for gaining That is being stated:
8.22 O son of Prtha, sah, that; parah purusah, supreme, unsurpassable
Person-(the word purusa) derived in the sense of 'residing in the heart'
or 'all-pervasiveness'; that Person, compared to whom there is nothing
superior-; yasya, in whom, in which Person; antahsthani, are included;
bhutani, (all) the beings which are Its products-for a product remains
inherent in its cause; and yena, by whom, by which Person; tatam, is
pervaded; sarvam, all; idam, this, the Universe, as pot etc. are by space;
is tu, indeed; labhyah, reached; through ananyaya, one-pointed;
bhaktya, through devotion, characterized as Knowledge; ananyaya,
which is one pointed, which relates to the Self. The Northern Path
meant for the attainment of Braman by the yogis under discussion, who
have superimposed the idea of Brahman on the syllable Om and who are
destined to get Liberation in due course, has to be stated. Hence, in
order to present the intended idea the verse, '(O best of the Bharata
dynasty) of that time...at which,' etc. is being recited. The description of
the Path of Return (in verse 25) is by way of praising the other Path (of
Departure, in verse 24):
8.23 Bharatarsabha, O best of the Bharata dynasty; vaksyami, I shall
speak; tu, now; tam, of that; kalam, time; prayatah, by departing, by
dying; (-these words are to be which time; yoginah, the yogis; yanti,
attain; anavrttim, the State of Non-return, of nonrebirth; ca eva, and also;
of the time by departing at which they attain its opposite, avrttim, the
State of Return. By 'Yogis' are implied both the yogis (men of
meditation) and the men of acitons (rites and duties). But the men of
action are yogis by courtesy, in accordance with the description,
'through the Yoga of Action for the yogis' (3.3). The Lord speaks of that
time: [This is Ast.'s reading.-Tr.]
8.24 Agnih, fire-is a deity presiding over a period of time; similarly,
jyotih, light-also is a deity presiding over a period of time. Or fire and light
are the well-known Vedic deities. As the expression 'mango grove' is
used with regard to a place where mango trees are more numerous,
similarly, the expressions 'at which time' and 'that time' (in the earlier
verse) are used in view of the predominance (of the deities presiding over
time). [If the first two (fire and light) are taken as Vedic deities, then the
remaining three are the only deities of time. Still, the latter being
numerically greater, all the five deities are referred to as deities of time.
The deities of both the Paths-of gods and manes, or of the Northern and
the Southern Paths as they are called-who are gods of time, are referred
to here as 'time' by such words as day, fortnight, six months, etc.] So
also, ahah, daytime, means the deity of daytime. Suklah, the bright
fortnight, implies the deity presiding over the bright fortnight. Sanmasah
uttarayanam, the six months of the Northern solstice-here, too, is
understood the deity presiding over the Path. This is the principle (of
interpretation followed elsewhere (in the Upanisads also). Tatra,
following this Path; janah, persons; who are brahma-vidah, knowers of
Brahman, those engaged in meditation on (the qualified) Brahman;
gacchanti, attain; brahma, Brahman; prayatah, when they die. It is
understood that they attain Brahman through stages. Indeed, according
to the Upanisadic text, 'His vital forces do not depart' (Br. 4.4.46), there
is neither going nor coming back for those established in full realization,
who are fit for immediate Liberation. Having their organs merged in
Brahman, they are suffused with Brahman, they are verily identified with
Brahman.
8.25 Dhuman, smoke; and ratrih night, are the deities presiding over
smoke and night. Similarly, krsnah, the dark fornight, means the deity of
the dark fortnight. Just as before, by sanmasah daksinayanam the six
months of the Southern solstice, also is verily meant a deity. Tatra,
following this Path; yogi, the yogi who performs sacrifices etc., the man
of actions; prapya, having reached; candramasam jyotih, the lunar lighthaving
enjoyed the results (of his actions); nivartate, returns, on their
exhaustion.
8.26 Ete, these two; gati, courses; jagatah, of the world; which are
sukla-krsne, white and black [The Northern Path (the path of the Gods),
and the Southern Path (the Path of the Manes) respectively.]-white
because it is a revealer of Knowlege, and black because there is
absence of that (revelation); are hi, verily; mate, considered; sasvate,
eternal, because the world is eternal. These two courses are possible for
those who are qualified for Knowledge and for rites and duties; not for
everybody. This being so, ekaya, by the one, by the white one; yati, a
man goes; anavrttim, to the State of Non-return; anyaya, by the other;
avartate, he returns; punah, again.
8.27 O son of Prtha, na kascana yogi, no yogi whosoever; janan, has
known; ete srti, these two courses as described-that one leads to
worldly life, and the other to Liberation; muhyati, becomes deluded.
Tasmat, therefore; O Arjuna, bhava, be you; yoga-yuktah, steadfast in
Yoga; sarvesu kalesu, at all times. Here about the greatness of that
yoga:
8.28 Viditva, having known; idam, this-having fully ascertained and
practised what was spoken in the course of determining the answers to
the seven questions (put by Arjuna in verse 1 and 2); the yogi atyeti,
transcends, goes beyond; tat sarvam, all those; punya-phalam, results of
righteous deeds, aggregate of rewards; yat, that are; pradistam,
declared by the scriptures; with regard to these,viz vedesu, with regard
to teh Vedas which have been properly [Sitting facing eastward after
having washed one's hands, face, etc.] studied; yajnesu, with regard to
sacrifices performed together with their accessories; tapahsu, with
regard to austerities practised correctly [With concentrated mind,
intellect, etc.]; ca eva, and also; danesu, with regard to charities rightly
[Taking into consideration place, time and fitness of the recipient.] given;
and upaiti, he reaches; the param, supreme; sthanam, State of God;
adyam, which is primordial, the Cause that existed in the beginning, i.e.
Brahman.

BHAGAVADGITA
English translation of Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary - Swami
Gambhirananda
Chapter 9
RO
9.1 Te, to you; anasuyave, who are not given to cavilling, who are free
from carping; pravaksyami, I shall speak of; idam, this. The Lord uttered
the word 'this' by bearing in mind as an immediately present fact the
knowledge of Brahman that will be and was spoken of in the earlier
chapters. The word tu (however) is used for pointing out a distinction
[The distinction of Knowledge from meditation that was being
discussed.]. (I shall speak) of this itself-what is that?-(it is) guhyatamam,
the highest secret; and is jnanam, Knowledge, complete Knowledgenothing
else-, the direct means to Liberation, as stated in the Upanisads
and the Smrtis, 'Vasudeva is all' (7.19), 'the Self verily is all this' (Ch.
7.25.2), 'One only, without a second' (op. cit. 6.2.1), etc., and also as
stated in such Upanisadic texts as, 'On the other hand, those who
understand otherwise than this come under a different ruler, and belong
to the worlds that are subject to decay' (op. cit. 7.25.2). (Knowledge) of
what kind? It is vijnana-sahitam, combined with experience; jnatva, by
realizing, by attaining; yat, which Knowledge; moksyase, you shall be
free; asubhat, from evil, from worldly bondage.
9.2 And that is raja-vidya, the Sovereign Knowledge, the kind among
sciences because of the abundance of its radiance. Indeed, this
knowledge of Brahman shines most brilliantly among all kiinds of learning
[The word raja means a king, or figuratively, the greatest; or, derived
from the root raj, to shine, it may mean shining.-Tr.] So also, idam, this;
is raja-guhyam, the Sovereign Profundity, the kind among profundities;
uttamam, the best; pavitram, sanctifier. This knowledge of Brahman,
which sanctifies all things that purify, is the greatest. Shine it reduces to
ashes in a moment (the results of) all actions-righteous, unrighteous and
others-together with their roots, accumulated over many thousands of
births, therefore, what to speak of its sanctifying power! Besides, it is
pratyaksavagamam, directly realizable, directly perceivable like
happiness etc. Even though possessed of many qualities, a thing may
be noticed to be contrary to righteousness. The knowledge of the Self is
not opposed to righteousness, in that way, but it is dharmyam,
righteous, not divorced from righteousness. Eeve so, it may be difficult
to practice. Hence the Lord says it is susukham, very easy; kartum to
practise, like the knowledge of the distinction among jewels. It is seen (in
the world) that, actions which require little effort and are accomplished
easily yield meagre results, whereas those that are difficult to accomplish
yield great results. Thus the contingency arises that this (knowledge of
Brahman), however. which is easily attained, perishes when its result
gets exhausted. Therefore the Lord says it is avyayam, imperishable.
From the point of view of its result, it is not perishable like (the results of)
actions. Hence the knowledge of the Self should be highly regarded.
9.3 Parantapa, O destroyer of foes; those purusah, persons, again; who
are asraddadhanah, regardless of, devoid of faith in; asya dharmasya,
this Dharma, this knowledge of the Self-those who are faithless as
regards its true nature as well as its result, who are sinful, who have
taken recourse to the 'upanisad' (mystical teaching) of demoniacal
people, consisting in consideration the body alone as the Self, and who
delight in life (sense enjoyments); nivartante, certainly go round and
round;-where?-mrtyu-samsara-vartmani, along the path (vartma) of
transmigration (samsara) fraught with death (mrtyu), the path leading to
hell, birth as low creatures, etc., i.e., they go round and round along that
very path; aprapya, without reaching; mam, Me, the supreme God.
Certainly there is no question of their attaining Me. Hence, the
implication is that (they go round and round) without even acquiring a
little devotion, which is one of the disciplines [Ast. omits the word
sadhana, disciplines.-Tr.] constituting the path for reaching Me. Having
drawn Arjuna's attention through the (above) eulogy, the Lord says:
9.4 Idam, this; sarvam, whole; jagat, world; is tatam, pervaded; maya,
by Me; through the supreme nature, that I have, avyakta-murtina, in My
unmanifest form, in that form in which My nature is not manifest, i.e. in
My form which is beyond the range of the organs. Sarva-bhutani, all
beings, from Brahma to a clump of grass; matsthani, exist in Me, are
established in Me in that unmanifest form. For, no created thing that is
bereft of the Self (i.e. of Reality) can be conceived of as an object of
practical use. Therefore, being possessed of their reality through Me who
am their Self, they exist in Me. Hence they are said to be established in
Me. I Myself am the Self of those created things. Consequently, it
appears to people of little understanding that I dwell in them. Hence I
say: Na ca aham, but I am not; avasthitah, contained; tesu, in them, in
the created things. Since unlike gross objects I am not in contact with
anything, therefore I am certainly the inmost core even of space. For, a
thing that has no contact with anything cannot exist like something
contained in a receptacle. For this very reason that I am not in contact
with anyting-
9.5 Na ca bhutani, nor do the beings, beginning from Brahma;
matsthani, dwell in Me. Pasya, behold; me, My; aisvaram, divine; yogam,
Yoga, action, performance, i.e. this real nature of Myself. The Upanisadic
text, too, similarly shows the absence of association (of the Self) due to
Its being free from contact: '...unattached, for It is never attached' (Br.
3.9.26). Behold this other wonder: I am the bhuta-bhrt, sustainer of
beings, though I am unattached. Ca, but; mama atma, My Self; na
bhutasthah, is not contained in the bengs. As it has been explained
according to the logic stated above, there is no possibility of Its
remaining contained in beings. How, again, is it said, 'It is My Self?
Following human understanding, having separated the aggregate of
body etc. (from the Self) and superimposing eoism of them, the Lord
calls It 'My Self'. But not that He has said so by ignorantly thinking like
ordinary mortals that the Self is different from Himself. So also, I am the
bhuta-bhavanah, originator of beings, one who gives birth to or
nourishes the beings. By way of establishing with the help of an
illustration the subject-matter [Subject-matter-that the Self, which has no
contact with anything, is the substratum of creation, continuance and
dissolution.] dealt with in the aforesaid two verses, the Lord says:
9.6 Upadharaya, understand; iti, thus; that yatha, just as; in the world,
the mahan, voluminous-in dimension; vayuh, wind; sarvatragah, moving
everywhere; is nityam, ever; [During creation, continuance and
dissolution] akasa-sthitah, present in space; tatha, similarly; (sarvani, all;
bhutani, beings; matsthani,) abide in Me who am omnipresent like
space-abide certainly without any contact.
9.7 Kaunteya, O son of Kunti; sarva-bhutani, all the beings-all the
beings which, like wind abiding in space, abide thus in Me during their
period of existence; yanti, go back; kalpa-ksaye, at the end of a cycle, at
the time of dissolution; mamikam prakrtim, to My Prakrti which consists
of the three gunas (qualities; see 7.13) and is (called My) lower Nature.
Punah, again; aham, I; visrjami, project forth, create; tani, them, the
beings, as before [As before: as in previous cycles of creation.];
kalpadau, at the beginning of a cycle, at the time of creation.
9.8 Thus avastabhya, keeping under control; svam, My own; prakrtim,
Prakrti, which is charcterized as nescience; visrjami, I project forth;
punah, punah, again and again; the krtsnam, whole of; imam, this;
existing bhuta-gramam, multitude of beings which are born of Prakrti;
which, being under another's sub-jugation due to such defects [See
under 8.19, introductory Commentary.-Tr.] as ignorance etc., are
avasam, powerless, not independent; prakrteh vasat, under the influence
of their own nature. 'In that case, You, who are the supreme God and
who ordain this multitude of beings unequally, will become associated
with virtue and vice as a result of that act?' In aswer the Lord says this
9.9 O Dhananjaya, na ca, nor do; tani, those; karmani, actions-which
are the sources of the creation of the multitude of beings unequally;
nibadhnanti, bind; mam, Me, who am God. As to that, the Lord states
the reason for His not becoming associated with the actions: Asinam,
remaining (as I do); udasinavat, like one unconcerned, like some
indifferent spectator- for the Self is not subject to any change; and
asaktam, unattached; tesu karmasu, to those actions-free from
attachment to results, free from the egoism that 'I do.' Hence, even int
he case of any other person also, the absence of the idea of agentship
and the absence of attachment to results are the causes of not getting
bound. Otherwise, like the silkworm, a foolish man becomes bound by
acitons. This is the idea. There (in th previous two verses) it involves a
contradiction to say, 'Remaining like one unconcerned, I project forth
this multitude of beings.' In order to dispel this doubt the Lord says:
9.10 Maya, under Me; adhyaksena, as the supervisor, remaining
changeless as a mere witness under all circumstances; prakrtih, the
Prakrti, My maya consisting of the three gunas and characterized as
ignorance; suyate, produces; the world sa-cara-acaram. of the moving
and the none-moving things. Thus there is the Vedic text, 'The one
divine Being is hidden in all beings; He is amnipresent, the indwelling Self
of all bengs, the Supervisor of actions, the refuge of all beings, the
witness, the one who imparts consceiousness, unconditioned [This is
according to Sankaracarya's commentary on this verse. A.G. interprets
kevala as non-dual.-Tr.] and without qualities' (Sv. 6.11). Anena hetuna,
owing to this reason-because of this presiding over; O son of Kunti, the
jagat, world, with the moving and the non-moving things, consisting of
the manifest and the unmanifest; viparivartate, revolves, under all
conditions [During creation, continuance and dissolution.] All the
activities of the world in the form, 'I eat this; I see; I hear this; I
experience this happiness, suffer this sorrow; I shall do this for that
purpose, [Ast. omits this portion.-Tr] I shall do this for this purpose; I
shall know this,' etc. indeed arise owing to their being the objects of the
conscious witness. They verily exist in consciousness, and end in
consciousness. And such mantras as, 'He who is the witness of this is in
the supreme heaven' [Supreme heaven, the heart; i.e. He is inscrutable.]
(Rg., Na. Su. 10.129.7; Tai. Br.2.8.9), reveal this fact. Since it follows
from this that there is no other conscious being part from the one Deitywho
is the witness of all as the absolute Consciousness, and who in
reality has no contact with any kind of enjoyment-, therefore there is no
other enjoyer. Hence, in this context, the question, 'For what purpose is
this creation?', and its answer are baseless-in accordance with the
Vedic text, 'Who know (It) truly, who can fully speak about this here?
From where has this come? From where is this variegated creation?'
(Rg. 3.54.5; 10.129.6). And it has been pointed out by the Lord also:
'Knowledge remains covered by ignorance. Thereby the creatures
become deluded' (5.15).
9.11 Ajanatah, not knowing; mama, My; param, supreme; bhavam,
nature-My supreme Reality, which is like space, nay, which is subtler and
more pervasive than space; as bhuta-maheswaram, the Lord of all
beings, the great Lord of all beings who is their Self; mudhah, foolish
people, the non-discriminating ones; avajananti, disregard, belittle; mam,
Me, although I am by nature thus eternal, pure, intelligent, free and the
Self of all beings; and asritam, who have taken; manusim tanum, a
human body common to men, i.e... when I act with the help of a human
body. As a result of that, as a result of continously disrespecting Me,
those wretches get ruined. How?
9.12 Moghasah, of vain hopes. So also, mogha-karmanah, of vain
actions: their rites, such as Agnihotra etc. which are undertaken by
them, verily become vain, fruitless actions, because of dishonouring the
Lord, disregarding Him who is their own Self. In this way they are of vain
actions. Similarly, mogha-jnanah, of vain knowledge: of fruitless
knowledge; even their knowledge verily becomes useless. And
vicetasah, senseless: i.e., they lose their power of discrimination.
Besides, [Besides, in the next birth...] they become sritah, possessed of;
the mohinim, self-deceptive, self-delusive; prakritim, disposition;
raksasim, of fiends; and asurim, of demons-according to which the body
is the Self; i.e., they become habitually inclined to act cruelly, saying,
'cut, break, drink, eat, steal others' wealth,' etc. [The habit to cut, break,
drink, eat, etc. is characteristic of fiends. The habit of stealing others'
wealth, etc. is characteristic of demons.] This is stated in the Sruti,
'Those worlds of devils (are covered by blinding darkness)' (Is. 3).
9.13 On the other hand, O son of Prtha, those mahat-manah, noble
ones-who are not small-mined, who are imbued with faith, and who have
set out on the path of Liberation, which is characerized by devotion to
God; being asritah, possessed of; daivim, divine; prakrtim, naturedistinguished
by mental and physical control, kindness, faith, etc.; tu,
surely; bhajante, adore; mam, Me, God; ananya-manasah, with singlemindedness;
jnatva, knowing Me; as the avyayam, immutable; bhutadim,
source of all objects, of space etc. (i.e. th five elements) as well as of
living beings. How?
9.14 Satatam, always; kirtayantah, glorifying; mam, Me, God, who am
Brahman in reaility; ca, and; yatantah, striving, endeavouring with the
help of such virtues as withdrawal of the organs, control of mind and
body, kindness, non-injury, etc.; drdha-vratah, the men of firm vows
those whose vows [Vows such as celibacy], those whosevows are
unshakable; upasate, worship Me; namasyantah, by paying obeisance;
mam, to Me, to the Self residing in the heart, ca, and; nitya-yuktah,
being ever endowed; bhaktya, with devotion. The various ways in which
they adore are being stated:
9.15 Anye, others, giving up others forms of adoration; ca, verily;
upasate, worship; mam, Me, God; yajantah, by adoring, glorifying; api,
exclusively; jnana-yajnene ekatvena, through the sacrifice of the
knowledge of oneness-knowledge of God itself being the sacrifice; and
that knowledge consists in the realization of the highest truth that the
supreme Brahman is verily one. Adoring with that (knowledge) they
worship Me. And some others Me prthaktvena, multifariously-in different
forms as the sun, moon, etc. They worship (Me) by thinking that, Visnu
who is God Himself exists in different forms as the sun etc. Still others
worship Me thinking that, that very God who is visvatomukhah,
mulitiformed, who has His facr everywhere, i.e., who is the Cosmic
Person; exists bahudha, variously. In numerous ways they worship Him,
the Cosmic Person, who has His face everywhere. 'If they worship in
numerous ways, how is it that they worship You alone?' Hence the Lord
says:
9.16 Aham, I; am the kratuh, a kind of Vedic sacrifice; I Myself am the
yajnah, sacrifice as prescribed by the Smrtis; further, I am svadha, the
food that is offered to the manes; I am ausadham-by which word is
meant the food that is eaten by all creatures. Or, svadha means food in
general of all creatures, and ausadha means medicine for curing
diseases. I am the mantra with which offering is made to manes and
gods. I Myself am the ajyam, oblations; and I am agnih, the fire-I Myself
am the fire into which the oblation is poured. And I am the hutam, act of
offering. Besides,
9.17 Asya, of this; jagatah, world; aham, I; am pita, the father; mata, the
mother; dhata, ordainer, dispenser of the results of their actions to the
creatures; (and the) pirtamahah, grand-father. I am the vedayam,
knowable-that which has to be known; the pavitram, sanctifier; [Virtuous
actions.] and the onkarah, syllable Om; eva ca, as also Rk, Sama and
Yajus. [Brahman, which has to be known, is realizable through Om,
regarding which fact the three Vedas are the authority. The ca (as also) is
suggestive of the Atharva-veda.] Moreover,
9.18 (I am) the gatih, fruit of actions; the bharta, nourisher; [The giver of
the fruits of actions.] the prabhuh, Lord; the saksi, witness of all tha is
done or not done by creatures; the nivasah, abode, where creatures live;
the saranam, refuge, remover of sufferings of the afflicted who take
shelter; the suhrt, friend, one who does a good turn without thought of
reward; the prabhavah, origin of the world; the pralayah, end, the place
into which the world merges. So also, (I am) the sthanam, foundation on
which the world rests; the nidhanam, store, which is for future enjoyment
of creatures; and the avyayam, imperishable; bijam, seed, the cause of
growth of all things which germinate. The seed is imperishable because
it continues so long as the world lasts. Indeed, nothing springs up
without a seed. And since creation is noticed to be continuous, it is
understood that the continuity of the seed never ends. Further,
9.19 O Arjuna, aham, I, in the form of the sun; tapami, give heat through
some intense rays. Through some rays utsrjami, I pour down; varsam,
rain. Having poured down, again nigrhnami, I withdraw it through some
rays-for eight months. Again I pour it down in the rainy season. I am eva
ca, verily; the amrtam, nectar of the gods; and mrtyuh, death of the
mortals. I Myself am sat, existence-the effect which has come into
bneing in relation to its cause; and its opposite, asat, nonexistence.
[Nonexistence: the cause which has not become manifest as the effect
possessing name and form, It cannot be admitted that the effect has
absolute existence, for the Upanisad says, 'All transformation has
speech as it basis, and it is name only' (Ch.6. 1. 4). Nor can it be said
that the cause has absolute non-existence, for there is the text,'...by
what logic can the existent come verily out of nonexistence? But
surely,...all this was Existence, one without a second' (op. cit. 6.2.2).] It
is not that the Lord is Himself absolutely nonexistence; nor are effect and
cause (absolutely) existence and nonexistent (respectively). Those men
of Knowledge who meditate of Me while worshpping Me according to
the respective forms of sacrifices mentioned above-regardomg Me as
one or multifirious, etc.-, they attain Me alone according to their
conceptions.
9.20 Those, again, who are ignorant and desirous of pleasures, traividyah,
who are versed in the three Vedas, who know the Rk, Yajus and
Sama Vedas; somapah, who are drinkers of Soma; and who, as a result
of that very drinking of Soma, are puta-papah, purified of sin;
prarthayante, pray for; the svargatim, heavenly goal, the attainment of
heaven-heaven itself being the goal [Ast. adds this portion-svareva gatih,
heaven itself being the goal.-Tr.]-; istva, by worshipping; mam, Me,
existing in the forms of gods such as the Vasus and others; yajnaih,
through sacrifices such as the Agnistoma etc. And asadya, having
reached; surendra-lokam, the place (world) of the kind of gods, of Indra;
(which is) punyam, the result of righteousness; te, they; asnanti, enjoy;
divi, in heaven; the devyan, divine, heavenly, supernatural;; devabhogan,
pleasures of gods.
9.21 Bhuktva, after having enjoyed; tam, that: visalam, vast;
svargalokam, heavenly world; te, they; visanti, enter into; this
martyalokam, human world; ksine, on the exhaustion; of their punye,
merit. Evam, thus, indeed; anuprapannah, those who follow in the
manner described; trai-dharmyam, [A variant reading is trayi-dharmam.-
Tr.] the rites and duties prescribed in the three Vedas-merely the Vedic
rites and duties; and are kama-kamah, desirous of pleasures; labhante,
attain; only gata-agatam, the state of going and returning, but never that
of independence. This is the meaning.
9.22 On the other hand, ye janah, those persons, the monks, who are
desireless and fully illumined; who ananyah, becoming non-different
(from Me), having realized the supreme Deity, Narayana, as their own
Self; and cintayantah, becoming meditative; ['Having known that I,
Vasudeva, am the Self of all, and there is nothing else besides Me'.]
paryu-pasate mam, worship Me everywhere; ['They see Me the one, allpervading,
infinite Reality.'] tesam, for them; who have realized the
supreme Truth, nitya-abhiyuktanam, who are ever attached (to Me);
aham, I; vahami, arrange for; both yoga-kesamam, securing what they
lack and preserving what they have. Yoga means making available what
one does not have, and ksema means the protection of what one has
got. Since 'but the man of Knowledge is the very Self. (This is) My
opinion' and 'he too is dear to Me' (7.17,18), therefore they have
become My own Self as also dear. Does not the Lord surely arrange for
securing what they lack and protecting what they have even in the case
of other devotees? This is true. He does arrange for it. But the difference
lies in this: Others who are devotees make their own efforts as well for
their own sake, to arrange for securing what they lack and protecting
what they have. On the contrary, those who have realized non-duality do
not make any effrot to arrange for themselves the acquisition of what
they do not have and the preservation of what they have. Indeed, they
desire nothing for themselves, in life or in death. They have taken refuge
only in the Lord. Therefore the Lord Himself arranges to procure what
they do not have and protect what they have got. 'If you Yourself are
the other gods even, then do not their devotees too worship You alone?'
'Quite so!'
9.23 Api, even; ye, those who; anya-devata-bhaktah, being devoted to
tother deities; and anvitah sraddhaya, endowed with faith; yajante,
worship (them), te api, they also; O son of Kunti, yajanti, worship; mam,
Me; eva, alone; (though) avidhi-purvakam, following the wrong method.
Avidhi implies ignorance. So the idea is that they worship (Me) ignorantly.
'How it is that they worship (Me) ignorantly?' [i.e. the worshippers of
other deities worship them knowingly, and hence, how can the question
of their ignorance arise?] This is being answered: Because-
9.24 As the Self of the deities (of the sacrifices), aham, I; hi, indeed; am
the bhokta, enjoyer; ca eva, as also; the prabhuh, Lord; [The Lord: 'I
being the indwelling Ruler of all.'] sarva-yajnanam, of all sacrifices
enjoined by the Vedas and the Smrtis. A sacrifice is verily presided over
by Me, for it has been said earlier, 'I Myself am the entity (called Visnu)
that exists in the sacrifice in this body' (8.4). Tu, but; na abhi-jananti,
they do not know; mam, Me as such; tattvena, in reality. And atah,
therefore, by worshipping ignorantly; te, they; cyavanti, fall from the
result of the sacrifice. ['Although they perform sacrifices with great
diligence, still just because they do not know Me real nature and do not
offer the fruits of their sacrifices to Me, they proceed to the worlds of the
respective deities through the Southern Path (beginning with smoke; see
8.25). Then, after the exhaustion of the results of those sacrifices and
the falling of the respective bodies (assumed in those worlds) they return
to the human world for rembodiment.'-M.S. (See also 9.20-1.)] The
result of a sacrifice is inevitable even for those who worship ignorantly
out of their devotion to other deities. How?
9.25 Deva-vratah, votaries of the gods, those whose religious
observances [Making offerings and presents, circumambulation, bowing
down, etc.] and devotion are directed to the gods; yanti, reach, go to;
devan, the gods. Pitr-vratah, the votaries of the manes, those who are
occupied with such rites as obsequies etc., who are devoted to the
manes; go pitrn, to the manes such as Agnisvatta and others. Bhutejyah,
the Beings such as Vinayaka, the group of Sixteen (divine) Mothers, the
Four Sisters, and others. And madyajinah, those who worship Me, those
who are given to worshipping Me, the devotees of Visnu; reach mam,
Me alone. Although the effort (involved) is the same, still owing to
ingorance they do not worship Me exclusively. Thereby they attain lesser
results. This is the meaning. 'Not only do My devotees get the
everlasting result in the form of non-return (to this world), but My worship
also is easy.' How?
9.26 Yah, whoever; prayaccati, offers; me, Me; bhaktya, with devotion;
patram, a leaf; puspam, a flower phalam, a fruit; or toyam, water;
asnami, I accept; tat, that (gift)-leaf etc.; prayata-atmanah, of the purehearted
man; which has been bhakti-upahrtam devotionally presented.
Since this is so, therefore-
9.27 O son of Kunti, yat-karosi, whatever you do, what comes
spontaneously; [Actions such as walking etc. that are spontaneous,not
injunctions of the scriptures.] yad-asnasi, whatever you eat; and yatjuhosi,
whatever you offer as a sacrifice, whatever sacrifices you
perform-be it prescribed by the Vedas or by the Smrtis; yatadadasi,
whatever you give-gold, food, clarified butter, etc. to Brahmanas and
others; and yat-tapasyasi, whatever austerties you undertake; (all) tat,
that; kurusva madarpanam, you offer to Me. 'Hear what happens to you
when you act thus.'
9.28 By dedicating to Me evam, thus; maksyase, you will become free;
karma-bandhanaih, from bondage in the form of actions-actions
themselves being the bonds; subha-asubha-phalaih, which are
productive of good and bad results-i.e. from actions that have desirable
(subha) and undesireable (asubha) results (phala). Sannyasa,
renunciation, is that which results from dedication (of actions) to Me, and
that is also yoga since it involves actions. He who has his mind (atma)
endowed (yukta) with that yoga of renunciation (sannyasa-yoga) is
sannyasa-yoga-yukta-atma. You, being such, having your mind
endowed with the yoga of renunciation, and vimuktah, becoming free
from the bonds of actions evern while living; upaisyasi, will attain, come;
mam, to Me, when this body falls. In that case the Lord is possessed of
love and hatred inasmuch as He favours the devotees, and not others?
That is not so:
9.29 Aham, I; am samah, impartial, equal; sarva-bhutesu, towards all
beings; me, to Me; na asti, there is none; dvesyah, detestable; na, none;
priyah, dear. I am like fire: As fire does not ward off cold from those who
are afar, but removes it from those who apporach, near, similarly I favour
the devotees, not others. Tu, but; ye, those who approach near, similarly
I favour the devotees, not others. Tu, but; ye, those who; bhajanti,
worship Me, God; bhaktya, with devotion; te they; exist mayi, in Me-by
their very nature; ['Their mind becomes fit for My manifestation, as it has
been purified by following the virtuous path.'] they do not exist in Me
because of My love, Ca, and; aham, I; api, too; naturally exist tesu, in
them, not in others. Thus there is no hatred towards them (the latter).
'Listen to the greatness of devotion to Me:'
9.30 Api cet, even if; su-duracarah, a man of very bad conduct, of
extremely vile behaviour, of very condemnable character; bhajate,
worships; mam, Me; ananyabhak, with one-pointed devotion, with his
mind not given to anybody else; he; mantavyah, is to be considered,
deemed; eva, verily; sadhuh, good, as well behaved; hi, for; sah, he;
samyakvyavasitah, has resolved rightly, has virtuous intentions.
9.31 Having given up his external evil behaviour due to the strength of
his internal proper resolves, ksipram bhavati, he soon becomes; verily
dharma-atma, possessed of a virtuous mind; and nigaccahti, he attains;
sasvat, everlasting; santim, peace, quietude [Cessation of evil acts.]. O
son of Kunti, listen to the supreme Truth: Pratijanihi, do you proclaim
boldly, make a firm declaration; that me, My; bhaktah, devotee, who has
dedicated his inner being to Me; na, does not; pranasyati, get ruined.
Moreover,
9.32 Hi, for; O son of Prtha, ye api, even those; papayonayah syuh, who
are born of sin;-as to who they are, the Lord says-striyah, women;
vaisyah, Vaisyas, tatha, as also; sudrah, Sudras; te api, even they; yanti,
reach, go to; the param, highest; gatim, Goal vyapasritya, by taking
shelter; mam, under Me-by accepting Me as their refuge.
9.33 Kim punah, what to speak of; the punyah brahmanah, holy
Bramanas, of sacred birth; tatha, as also; of the bhaktah, devout;
rajarsayah, kind-sages-those who are kings and, at the same time,
sages! Since this is so, therefore, prapya, having come; imam, to this;
anityam, ephemeral, ever changeful; and asukham, miserable, unhappy;
lokam, world, the human world-having attained this human life which is a
means to Liberation; bhajasva, do you worship, devoted yourself; mam
to Me. How?
9.34 Manmana bhava, have your mind fixed on Me; [Here Ast. adds the
word vasudeva.-Tr] and also be madbhakah, devoted to Me. Madyaji,
sacrifice to Me, be engaged in sacrificing to Me. And namaskuru, bow
down; only mam, to Me. Yuktva, by concentrating your mind; and matparayanah,
by accepting Me as the supreme Goal; esyasi eva, you shall
surely attain; mam, Me who am God. You shall attain Me evam
atmanam, who am thus the Self: I indeed am the Self of all the beings,
and am also the supreme Goal. You shall attain Me who am such. In this
way, the word atmanam (Self) is to be connected with the preceding
word mam (Me). This is the purport.
..¿r¢madbhagavadg¢t¡rthasaÆgraha¶ippa¸¢..
¿l°. 3 (m£) 'nivartant®'. nitar¡Æ vartanta ityarthaÅ. tad®v¡ha
vy¡khy¡n® punaÅpunarity¡din¡..
¿l°. 4 (vy¡) 'gatv®ti'. sthitasya k¤t® iti ¿®ÀaÅ.
bh£tar£p®ty¡di. 'bh£tasvar£p¡¸¡Æ p¤thivy¡d¢n¡Æ b°dhy¡tmak¡n'
b°dhyat¡vi¿iÀ¶¡n¡Æ yat 'trigu¸amaviv®ki viÀayaÅ s¡m¡nyamac®tanaÆ
prasavadharmi' (s¡Ækhyak¡rik¡ 11) iti prasiddhaÆ
b°dhyat¡samaniyataÆ tad¢yaÆ bh£tagr¡m¢yaÆ ja·atvasvar£paÆ
tad®va purask¤ty®tyarthaÅ.
ity®tad¡h®ti. na c¡haÆ t®Àv®vasthita iti m£lasya na c¡haÆ
t®Àvavasthitatv®na pr¡k¤taiÅ d¤À¶a ityabhipr¡ya iti bh¡vaÅ..
¿l°. 5 (m£) 'mam¡tm®ti'. ¿aiÀik¢ ÀaÀ¶h¢ saÆbandhas¡m¡ny®.
'nirvi¿®ÀaÆ na s¡m¡nyam ' iti ny¡y®na s¡m¡nyasya vi¿®ÀaniÀ¶hatath¡,
prakara¸¡t, aucity¡t, sambandh¡ntar¡sammabh¡vacca prak¤t®
s¡m¡nyaÅ saÆbandhaÅ
't¡d¡tmyam, abh®daÅ' iti ¿abd¡bhy¡Æ nirdiÀ¶® saÆbandhavi¿®À®
paryavasyati. tath¡ ca ahaÆvimar¿ar£pa ¡tm®tyarthaÅ.
bh£tabh¡vana iti. 'mad¡tman¡ gha¶° v®tti' ityuktar¢ty¡ bh£t¡ni sarv¡¸i
bh¡vayant®. tatra h®tuÅ mam¡tm¡ iti. bh£tabh¡vanaÅ. ¸ijant¡t ¸ic..
¿l°. 7 (m£) '®vaÆ h¢ti'. ¡c¡ry®¸¡vy¡khy¡tasy¡sya padyasya
¿iv¡dvaitav¡daj¢v¡tusamasya k¡¿m¢r¢yam£lak°¿®À£palabhyam¡nasya
k¡¿m¢r¢yaÆ r¡maka¸¶h¡dibhirvy¡khy¡tasy¡yamarthaÅ -- sarv®Àvapi
bh£tabh¡v®Àu ac®tanatay¡ c®tanatay¡ ca prasiddh®Àu caitanyaÆ
'bh£mir¡p°'nala' iti, 'apar®yamitaÅ' iti ca (g¢t¡ VII, 4-5 )
p£rv°padar¿itar¢ty¡ sarvabh£taprak¤tibh£taÆ sat vartata ®va iti. car¡mi
tath¡pi anabhilakÀita iti sahaiva ca vinaiva ca iti na vipratiÀiddham.
laukikap¡ram¡rthikad¤À¶y¡ tadupapatt®Å. tath¡hi --
param¡rthadar¿inaÆ prati uktabh£taprak¤titv®na saha caitanyaÆ
sarvatra carati upalabhat®. laukikam uktatattv¡dar¿inaÆ prati tu vinaiva
t®na carati ityanabhilakÀitaÅ iti t¡tpary¡rthaÅ.
¿l°. 10-11 (vy¡) 'na ca m®'sti karmabandhaÅ aud¡s¢ny®na
vartam¡n°'haÆ yata iti'. yath¡huÅ --
'gu¸akart¤tv®'pi tath¡ kart®va bhavatyud¡s¢naÅ'.
(s¡Ækhyak¡rik¡-20)
an¡¿ritavy¡p¡ratv¡t h®turiti. taduktaÆ 'h®tau' iti s£tr® (PA, III, iii, 23)
kaiya¶® --
'y°gat¡m¡traprayukt°'n¡¿ritavy¡p¡r°'rth° -- -h®tuÅ' -- iti.
atra y°gyat¡ bhramapram¡s¡dhara¸¢ b°dhy¡. itthaÆ ca prak¤t®
g¢t¡¿l°k® may¡dhyakÀ®¸®ti h®tau t¤t¢y¡, h®tun¡n®n®tyasya an®na
mad¢y¡dhyakÀatv®na h®tun®tyartha ity¡c¡ry¡bhipr¡yaÅ..
¿l°. 13 (m£) 'caiv®ti. v¡ api ityarthaÅ'..
¿l°. 16 (m£) 'jµ¡n®ty¡di'. jµ¡nayajµ®n®tyasya nityayukt¡ up¡sat® iti
p£rvatan®n¡nvayaÅ. tath¡ c¡tr¡yamarthaÅ -- mah¡tm¡naÅ
jµ¡nayajµ®na s¡dhan®na m¡m®katv®na advaitabh¡vanay¡ up¡sat®.
any® c¡pi laukik¢Æ ¿rautaÆd¤À¶im¡¿rit¡Å bahudh¡ bahuprak¡r®¸a
karmay°g¡t karmasaÆbandh¡t b¡hyadravyas¡dyaiÅ yajantaÅ
vi¿vat°mukhaÆ vi¿var£paÆ m¡m®va p¤thaktv®na an®katay¡
bh®dabh¡vanay¡ up¡sat® iti..
¿l°. 17-20 (a) 'k¡rak®ty¡di'. k¡rak¡¸¡Æ kal¡p®Àu vy¡pt° y° bh®daÅ
paraspar¡bh¡vaÅ tadbh£yiÀ¶hamityarthaÅ..
¿l°. 17 (m£) 'aham®v¡jyamiti'. aham¡jyamap¢tyarthaÅ..
¿l°. 17-20 (vy¡) '®kasyaiv®ty¡di. svata ®vaikasya advaitasya
brahmatattvasya nirbh¡gasya niraÆ¿asya akha¸·asya punarapi
®katvam®va karma nirvartayati ' , s¡dhayati, tattvavidaÅ k¤t® ni¿c¡yayati
ityarthaÅ. ®vaÆ nirvartan® h®tuÅ parikalpitabh®davats¡dhan¡dh¢nataiva
karma¸aÅ iti. uktaÆ p£rvamapi 'brahm¡rpa¸aÆ brahma haviÅ' ity¡di.
sarvak¡rak®ty¡di. sarv®Àvapi k¡rak®Àu ¡tmanaÅ, caitanyasya
s¡kÀ¡tk¡r®¸a, sarvak¡rak¡¸¡Æ saÆvidr£p®¸¡tman¡
abh®das¡kÀ¡tk¡r®¸a saha karturavasth¡n® sati, tasya bhagavatpr¡ptiÆ
prati uddi¿ya avid£rasthatv¡t sam¢pasthatv¡t ityarthaÅ.
upakram® ity¡di. asmiÆ¿ca pady® p£rv¡rdh® bh¡v¡bh¡v¡nuy¡yin¢
ityasya im® bh¡v¡Å sacchabdav¡cy¡Å, im® abh¡v¡Å asacchabdav¡cy¡Å
iti bh®damanus¤tya y¡yin¢ ityarthaÅ. athav¡ atra caitanyasya bh¡vaÅ,
atra tu tasy¡bh¡va iti caitanyabh¡v¡bh¡v¡vanus¤tya y¡yin¢ ityarthaÅ.
athav¡ bh¡va iti p£rv°padar¿itadi¿¡ (p 147) caitanyaÆ vakita. tath¡ ca
d¤¿y®Àu bh¡vasya caitanyasya abh¡vamanuy¡ti j¡n¡t¢ti
bh¡v¡bh¡v¡nuy¡yin¢ ityarthaÅ. ®vaÆ ca upakram® s¤À¶yupakram®,
saÆs¡rada¿¡y¡miti y¡vat, y¡ buddhiÅ adhyavas¡yalakÀa¸¡
bh¡v¡bh¡v¡dhyavas¡yin¢ iti p£rv¡rdh¡rthaÅ. uttar¡rdh® s¡
abh¡v¡bh¡v¡nuy¡yin¢ iti cch®daÅ. tath¡ca upasaÆh¤tik¡l®
saÆs¡ravyuparamada¿¡y¡Æ saiva buddhiÅ bh¡v¡bh¡vanuy¡yin¢ -- asya
ca p£rvavad®v¡rthaÅ -- na bhavati iti abh¡v¡bh¡v¡nuy¡yin¢, arth¡t
sarvatra caitanyam¡tm¡naÆ pratyabhij¡n¡t¢tyarthaÅ. atha v¡
bh¡v¡bh¡v¡nuy¡yin¢ ity®va padacch®daÅ. bh¡v®Àu satpadav¡cy®Àu
abh¡v®Àu asatpadav¡cy®Àu aÆ v¡sud®vaÆ param¡tm¡nam anuy¡ti
pratyabhij¡n¡t¢ti bh¡v¡bh¡v¡nuy¡yin¢ ityarthaÅ. 'a-¿abdaÅ
sy¡dabh¡v®'pi svalp¡rthapratiÀ®dhay°Å. anukamp¡y¡Æ ca tath¡
v¡sud®v® tvanavyayaÅ..' iti m®din¢. bh¡v¡bh¡va+a+anuy¡yin¢ iti
savar¸ad¢rghaÅ. asya padyasy¡´alabh¡À¡nuv¡dastu
arth¡ntaramanusarati.
atr®daÆ tattvam -- yaÅ param®¿var° jagatpatiÅ, tasya
paraunmukhyaty¡g®na sv¡tmavi¿r¡ntir£patv®na y¡ sphuratt¡ mah¡satt¡
saiva ¡nanda iti, bhagavata¿cid¡tmatayaiva satt¡dir£pat¡. pa¿°stu
satt¡ tadabh¡va¿ca, ¡nanda¿ca tadabh¡va¿ca; tasya
saÆkucitar£patv¡t. ataÅ ayaÆ dvay¡tm¡ iti. adhikaÆ tu
tattvasaÆgrah¡dhik¡r® 'satt¡nandaÅ kriy¡ patyustadabh¡v°'pi s¡
pa¿°Å' iti pratyabhijµ¡k¡rik¡vimar¿iny¡Æ draÀ¶avyamiti.
prak¤t® ca 'upakram®' ity¡dipady® abhinnasamap¡d° n¡ma
p¡d¡bhy¡s¡tmakaÅ ¿abd¡la´ak¡raÅ. uktaÆ ca tallakÀa¸aÆ
k¡vyaprak¡¿® 'arth® satyarthabhinn¡n¡Æ var¸¡n¡Æ s¡ punaÅ ¿rutiÅ' iti
(IX, 117). vistarastu tadvy¡khy¡n®Àu draÀ¶avyaÅ..
¿l°. 21-22 (vy¡Æ) 'mitaÆ karm®ti'. atra karma iti dvit¢y¡ntaÆ padam.
dvit¢y¡rtha¿ca karmatvam avap£rvakacchidadh¡tvarth® avacch®d®
anv®ti. mitaÆ pramitaÆ, pram¡¸at° viditaÆ svargam¡trapr¡rthanay¡.
t¡d¤¿apr¡rthanay¡ pramitatvam®va karma¸°'vacch®dan® h®turiti
bh¡vaÅ. athav¡ mitaÆ parimitamityarthaÅ. athav¡ amitamiti cch®daÅ.
itthaÆ ca svataÅ amitamapi anavacchinnamapi
niravacchinn¡nant¡nandabrahmapr¡pakamapi karma yajµ¡dikaÆ
svargam¡trapr¡rthanay¡
avacchindanti, paricchinnaphalad¡yakaÆ k¡mak¡m¡Å kurvant¢ti
v¡ky¡nvayaÅ. svargatiÆ pr¡rthayant® iti m£lasy¡bhipr¡yapradar¿akaÆ
svargam¡trapr¡rthanay®ti. tasy°pavy¡khy¡nam amitaÆ karma
svarg¡dim¡tr®¸aiva phal®n®ti. aparimitasya parimit¢kara¸® h®tuÅ
nijasattvadurbalat¡..
¿l°. 23 (vy¡) 'apratilabdhamatsvar£pal¡bha' iti.
saÆs¡r¡vasth¡y¡mavidy¡pratibandh¡t alabdhamiva sthitaÆ yat
¡tmasvar£paÆ tasya l¡bha ityarthaÅ. athav¡ apratibaddh®ti vivakÀitam.
apratibaddha ¡tmasvar£pal¡bha ityarthaÅ..
¿l°. 24-27 (vy¡) 'nanu anyad®vat¡bhakt¡Å' iti vy¡gh¡tavacanam,
v¡sud®vatattv¡danyad®vat¡y¡ abh¡v¡t ityataÅ abhipr¡yam¡ha --
'n¡madh®y¡ntarairup¡sat®' iti. ®vaÆ ca indr¡d¢n¡Æ
n¡madh®y¡ntaratvam®va, arth¡t v¡sud®v°p¡san® kara¸¡ntaratvam®va,
na tu d®vat¡ntaratvamiti bh¡vaÅ. tad¡ha 'm¡m®v°p¡sat®' iti. tath¡ ca
m£l® anya¿abd° n¡madh®y¡ntarayuktapara iti ¡c¡ry¡bhipr¡ya ivi.
'avidhiÅ any° vidhiriti. vidhiriti j¡t¡v®kavacanam. ata ®va
vidhibhirity¡ha'. atra any° vidhirityarthavar¸anam¡traÆ, na tu
vigrahapradar¿anam; vidhyantaramity¡patt®Å. vigrahastu na vidhirity®va.
naµarth° bh®d° bh®dav¡n v¡; any° vidhirityarthapradar¿anasv¡rasy¡t.
atra vidhibhinn¡rthakatv® avidhi¿abdasya,
uttarapad¡rthapradh¡nastatpuÀa iti mah¡bh¡Àyavacanavir°dhaÅ.
naµaryasya bh®dasya anuy°gitay¡ pratiy°gitay¡ v¡, bh®davat° v¡
abh®d®na vidhipad¡rth®'nvay® pray°jan¡bh¡vaÅ; vyavah¡rada¿¡y¡Æ
bh®dapratiy°gitv¡nuy°gitvay°Å, bh®dasya ca k®val¡nvayitv¡t.
'y¡vadvik¡raÆ vibh¡gaÅ' iti ny¡y¡cca. tath¡ ca naµa
yatkiµcidvastupratiy°gikabh®d®, t¡d¤¿abh®davati v¡ lakÀa¸¡y¡
vaktavyatay¡, t¡d¤¿avastuvi¿®À¡k¡ÆkÀ¡y¡Æ
samabhivy¡h¤tavidhi¿abd¡rtha ®va aucity¡t s¡m¢py¡cca h®t°rupasthita
iti vidhipratiy°gikabh®davant° vidhaya ityarth® avidhi¿abdaÅ
paryavasyati. na caitaÅd¤¿¡nvayab°dh°'vyutpannaÅ. 'bhinnarucirhi
l°kaÅ ' ity¡dau uktar¢tyaiv¡nvayab°dhasya sarv¡nubhavasiddhatv¡t.
bhinna¿abd¡rth° bh®dav¡n, sa naµartha ®v®tyatra na viv¡daÅ. ®vaÆ ca
n¡n¡vidhyarthakatvab°dhaÅ avidhi¿abd¡llabhyat®. athav¡ na vidhiÅ
(paraÅ, anyaÅ) y®bhyast® avidhayaÅ' iti paµcam¢bahuvr¢hy¡¿raya¸®na
avidhi¿abd¡t 'sarv® vidhayaÅ' ityarthal¡bhasaÆbhavaÅ iti manasi
k¤tv®v¡rthaÆ var¸ayati -- n¡n¡prak¡rairvidhibhiriti.
avidhin¡ duÀ¶avidhin®ti. atra prakara¸apari¿¢lan®na, tath¡
mitam¤dubh¡Ài¸a ¡c¡ryasya t¢kÀ¸akha¸·an®na c®daÆ pratibh¡ti --
atr¡c¡ry®¸a par¡m¤¿yam¡n¡n¡Æ vy¡khy¡t¤¸¡Æ d¤À¶y¡
tad¢ya¿¡str®tara¿¡str®Àu d¤¿yant® y® vidhayaÅ t® duÀ¶avidhayaÅ;
niÀpakÀap¡tin° bhagavat° v¡kyasya avidhip£rvakam ityasya
t¡d¤¿¡r°pitaduÀ¶atvavadvidhipurassaramityartha iti.
t®'pi vastut° m¡m®va sv¡tmar£paÆ yajant® iti. atra yajant¢ti
parasmaipad®na bh¡vyam, bh£lasv¡rasy¡t.
spaÀ¶¢bhaviÀyat¢damanupadam®va.
ata¿calanti t® ityukt®rabhipr¡yaÆ jµ¡tuÆ p¤cchati -- kimiti.
kathamityarthaÅ.
upasaÆhariÀyat¢ti. ®t¡vat¡ prabandh®na ¡c¡ryaiÅ 'avidhip£rvakam'
ityasya 'n¡n¡vidhip£rvakam' ityarthaÅ sv¡bhipr¡y®¸°pavar¸itaÅ;
parak¤tavy¡khy¡yam as¡maµjasyaÆ pradar¿itam;
svaguruk¤tavy¡khy¡naman£ditam, tatra ca vy¡khy¡n® aucityam 'ata
®v¡ha' ity¡din¡ ¡viÀk¤tam.
atr®daÆ cintyat® -- 'bhinnaruciÅ' ityatra bhinna¿abd° n¡mapadam; naµ
tu nip¡taÅ. ®vaÆ sthit® kathaÆ tay°Å sam¡nay°gakÀ®mat¡
anvayab°dh®? anyath¡ 'bhinnarucirhi l°kaÅ'ityasminn®v¡rth® 'arucirhi
l°kaÅ' iti pray°gasy¡pi pr¡m¡¸ikatv¡patt®Å. ®vam avidhiÅ ityatra
uktabahuvr¢hy¡¿raya¸aÆ tath¡ nirukt¡rthavar¸anaÆ ca na vyutpannam.
na hi bhavati agha¶apad¡t sarvagha¶ab°dhaÅ pr¡m¡¸ikaÅ. ity®vaÆ
vicintay®va 'avidhi-p£rvakam' ityasya vidhip£rvakaÆ na
bhavat¢ti artha var¸ayituÆ bh£mik¡m¡racayann¡kÀipati -- nanu
dravyaty¡g¡rthamity¡din¡.
vastutastu 'na vidhiÅ avidhiÅ' ityanuktv¡ any° vidhiÅ avidhiÅ,
n¡n¡prak¡rairvidhibhiÅ iti r¢ty¡ vilikhata ¡c¡ryasy¡bhipr®tamidamiva --
'n¡tra naµtatpuruÀaÅ, uktad°À¡t, api tu a ityavyay®na sam¡saÅ.
any®tyasy¡yam ak¡raÅ, na tu naµaÅ. yath°ktaÆ vy¡khy¡sudh¡y¡m
(AK, III, iv, 10), 'a vipra iva bh¡Àas®, ity¡dau 'vipravanna br£À® '
vakt¤bub°dhayiÀit¡rthapratyay¡nupapatt®Å. kiÆ ca anyaditi bhinnamiti
c¡narth¡ntaraÆ prasiddham. 'bhinnarucirhi l°ka' ity¡diÀu
bhinna¿abdasya n¡n¡ ityarth® v¤ttird¤À¶acar¡. itthaÆ ca
tadabhinn¡bhinnasya tadabhinnatvam iti r¢ty¡ a-iti n¡n¡ iti ca
sam¡n¡rthaka¿abdau bhavitumarhati iti. parantu ®t¡d¤¿¡rthakatvam a-
¿abdasya prayatnataÅ s¡dhan¢yaÆ bhavati, prasiddh®Àu nigha¸¶uÀu
tatra tasya ¿aktyapradar¿an¡t. kiÆ ca p£rv°ktar¢ty¡ 'bhinnarucirhi
l°kaÅ' ityarth® 'arucirhi l°kaÅ' iti pr¡m¡¸ikapray°g¡patti¿ca. ata
®v¡svaras¡t 'a ¿abdaÅ sy¡dabh¡v®'pi' iti haimak°¿¡t abh¡v¡rthak®na a
ityavyay®na naµ¡ v¡ sam¡sama´ag¢k¤tya vy¡khy¡n¡ntaram¡racayituÆ
tadbh£mik¡tv®na ¡kÀ®pam utth¡payati -- nanviti, ityatra sudhiyaÅ
pram¡¸am.
kathamanuddi¿y®ty¡din¡ atraty®na granth®na ®vaÆ vivakÀitamiva --
kathamanudd®¿yasya sv¡tmatattvasya y¡jyatvam?
'¡dityaÅ pr¡ya¸¢yaÅ payasi caruÅ' iti vidhi¿®Àabh£t¡ hi d®vat¡
udd®¿y¡tman¡ vidhyantarbh¡vit¡ hyasau udd®¿yabh£t¡ aditiriti. '
'¡dityaÅ pr¡ya¸¢ya¿caruÅ' iti. saÆp£r¸avidhisvar£paÆ tu ' ¡dityaÅ
pr¡ya¸¢yaÅ payasi caruÅ ' iti m¢m¡Æs¡granth®À£palabhyat®. jy°tiÀ¶°m®
pr¡ya¸¢y®À¶isaÆbaddhaÅ payasi saÆsk¤ta¿caruÅ h°madravyavi¿®ÀaÅ
aditid®vat¡kaÅ iti tadarthaÅ.
t¡n prati kartrabhipr¡yatvaÆ n¡st¢ti. pratiratra karmapravacan¢yaÅ
itthaÆbh£t¡khy¡n® viÀayatvavati vartat®. tath¡ ca p£rv°kt¡n¡m
alp®cch¡vatkart¤¸¡Æ viÀay® ¢¿varapr¡ptir£pasya mah¡phalasya n¡sti
kart¤g¡mitv®n¡bhipr®tatvam yacc¡tman®padapray°jakam ityarthaÅ.
atr®daÆ sv¡rasyam -- y®'pyany®ti g¢t¡¿l°k® yajant® ¿raddhay¡'nvit¡Å
ityatr¡tman®padaÆ vivakÀitam, anyad®vat¡kay¡gajanyasya
svarg¡d®ralpaphalasya kart¤g¡mitv®n¡bhipr®tatv¡t. tath¡ tatraiva ¿l°k®
yajantyavidhip£rvakam ityatra parasmaipad®naiva bh¡vyam;
v¡sud®vatattv°dd®¿yakay¡janyamah¡phalasya
sv¡tmabh£t®¿varapr¡pt®Å kart¤g¡mitv®n¡nabhipr®tatv¡t iti..
¿l°. 33-35 (vy¡) 'yatp£rvaiva vy¡khy®ti'. yat yasm¡t k¡ra¸¡t
p£rvamasm¡bhiÅ pradar¿itaiva vy¡khy¡ iti tadarthaÅ..
..iti ¿r¢madbhagavadg¢t¡rthasaÆgraha¶ippa¸y¡Æ navam°'dhy¡yaÅ..

BHAGAVADGITA
English translation of Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary - Swami
Gambhirananda
Chapter 10
RO
10.1 O mighty-armed one, srnu, listen; bhuyah eva, over agiain; me, to
My; paramam, supreme; vacah, utterance, which is expressive of the
transcendental Reality; yat, which supreme Truth; aham, I; vaksyami,
shall speak; te, to you; priyamanaya, who take delight (in it). You
become greatly pleased by My utterance, like one drinking ambrosia.
Hence, I shall speak to you hita-kamyaya, wishing your welfare. 'Why
shall I speak?' In answer to this the Lord says:
10.2 Na sura-sanah, neither the gods-Brahma and others; viduh,
know;-what do they not know?-me, My; prabhavam (prabhavam),
majesty, abundance of lordly power-or, derived in the sense of 'coming
into being', it means origin. Nor even the maharsayah, great sages,
Bhrgu and others [Bhrgu, Marici, Atri, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu and
Vasistha.-Tr.] devanam, of the gods; ca, and; maharsinam, of the great
sages. Besides,
10.3 Yah, he who; vetti, knows; mam, Me; ajam, the birthless; and
anadim, the beginningless: Since I am the source of the gods and the
great sages, and nothing else exists as My origin, therefore I am birthless
and beginningless. Being without an origin is the cause of being
birthless. He who knows Me who am thus birthless and beginningless,
and loka-maheswaram, the great Lord of the worlds, the transcendental
One devoid of ignorance and its effects; sah, he; the asammudhah,
undeluded one; martyesu, among mortals, among human beings;
pramucyate, becomes freed; sarva-papaih, from all sins-committed
knowingly or unknowingly. 'For the following reason also I am the great
Lord of the worlds:'
10.4 See Commentary under 10.5.
10.5 Buddhih, intelligence-the power of the internal organ to know of
things which are subtle etc. Indeed, people talk of a man possessed of
this (power) as intelligent. Jnanam, wisdom-knowledge of entities such
as the Self etc. Asammohah, non-delusion-proceeding with
discrimination with regard to things that are to be known as they present
them-selves. Ksama, forgiveness-unperturbability of the mind of one
who is abused or assulted. Satyam, truth-an utterance regarding what
one has seen, heard, and felt oneself, communicated as such to others
for their understanding, is said to be truth. Damah, control of the external
organs. Samah, control of the internal organs. Sukham, happiness.
Duhkham, sorrow. Bhavah, birth; and its opposite abhavah, death. And
bhayam, fear; as also its opposite abhayam, fearlessness. Ahimsa, noninjury-
non-cruely towards creatures. Samata, equanimity. Tustih,
satisfaction-the idea of sufficiency with regard to things acquired. Tapah,
austerity-disciplining the body through control of the organs. Danam,
charity-distribution (of wealth) according to one's capacity. Yasah, famerenown
arising from righteousness. On the contrary, ayasah is infamy
due to unrighteousness. (These) prthak-vidhah, different; bhavah,
dispositions-intelligence etc. as described; bhuanam, of beings, of living
bengs. bhavanti, spring; mattah, eva, from Me alone, [This is said in the
sesne that none of these dispositions can exist without the Self.] from
God, in accordanced with their actions. Moreover,
10.6 Sapta, the seven; maharsayah, great sages-Bhrgu and others;
tatha, as also; catvarah, the four; manavah, Manus [Savarni, Dharmasavarini,
Daksa-savarni, and Savarna.-Tr.]- well known as Savarnas;
purve, of ancient days; yesam, of whom, of which Manus and the great
sages; imah, these; prajah, creatures, moving and non-moving; loke in
the world, are the creation; madbhavah, had their thoughts fixed on Methey
had their minds fixed on Me, (and hence) they were endowed with
the power of Visnu; and they jatah, were born; manasa; from My mindthey
were created by Me through My mind itself.
10.7 Yah, one who; vetti, knows; tattvatah, truly, i.e. just as it is; etam,
this, aforesaid; vibhutim. majesty, (divine) manifestations;
[Omnipresence.] and yogam, yoga, action, My own ability to achieve
[God's omnipotence. (God's power of accomplishing the impossible.-
M.S.)]-or, the capacity for mystic powers, the omniscience resulting from
yoga (meditation), is called yoga; sah, he; yujyate, becomes imbued
with; avikampena, unwavering; yogena, Yoga, consisting in
steadfastness in perfect knowledge. [After realizing the personal God, he
attains the transcendental Reality; the earlier knowledge leads to the
latter.] There is no samsayah, doubt; atra, about this. With what kind of
unwavering Yoga does he become endued? This is being answered:
10.8 Aham, I, the supreme Brahman called Vasudeva; am the
prabhavah, origin; sarvasya, of all, of the whole world; sarvam,
everything, the whole world of changes, consisting of continuance,
destruction, action and enjoyment of the fruits of action; pravartate,
moves on; mattah, owing to Me alone. Matva, realizing; iti, thus; the
budhah, wise ones, the knowers of the supreme Reality; bhavasamanvitah,
filled with fervour-bhava is the same as bhavana, meaning
ardent longing for the supreme Reality; filled (samanvitah) with that, i.e.
imbued with that; bhajante, adore; mam, Me. Besides,
10.9 Maccittah, with minds fixed on Me; mad-gata-pranah, with lives
(pranas) dedicated to Me, or having their organs, eyes etc. absorbed in
Me, i.e. having their organs withdrawn into Me; bodhayantah,
enlightening; parasparam, each other; and nityam, always; kathayantah,
speaking of; mam, Me, as possessed of qualities like knowledge,
strength, valour, etc; tusyanti, they derive satisfaction; and ramanti,
rejoice, get happiness, as by coming in contact with a dear one.
10.10 Tesam, to them, who, becoming devotees, adore Me in the
manner described earlier; satata-yuktanam, who are ever devoted, ever
attached, who have become free from all external desires; and bhajatam,
who worship-. Is it because of hankering for possessions? The Lord
says: No, (they worship) priti-purvakam, with love. To them who worship
Me with that (love), dadami, I grant; tam, that; buddhi-yogam,
possession of wisdom-buddhi means full enlightenment with regard to
My real nature; coming in possession (yoga) of that is buddhi-yoga;
yena, by which possession of wisdom consisting in full enlightenment;
upayanti, they reach, realize as their own Self; mam, Me, the supreme
God who is the Self. Who do so? Te, they, who adore Me through such
disciplines as fixing their minds on Me, etc. 'For what purpose, or as the
destroyer of what cause standing as an obstacle on the way of reaching
You, do You bestow that possession of wisdom to those devotees of
Yours?' In reply to such a query the Lord says:
10.11 Anukampartham, out of compassion; tesam eva, for them alone,
anxious as to how they may have bliss; aham, I; atmabhavasthah,
residing in their hearts-atmabhavah means the seat that is the heart;
being seated there itself; nasayami, destroy; tamah, the darkness;
ajnanajam, born of ignorance, originating from non-discrimination, the
darkness of delusion known as false comprehension; jnana-dipena, with
the lamp of Knowledge, in the form of discriminating comprehension; i.e.
bhasvata, with the luminous lamp of Knowledge-fed by the oil of divine
grace resulting from devotion, fanned by the wind of intensity of
meditation on Me, having the wick of the intellect imbued with the
impressions arising from such disciplines as celibacy etc., in the
receptacle of the detached mind, placed in the windless shelter of the
mind withdrawn from objects and untainted by likes and dislikes, and
made luminous by full Illumination resulting from the practice of constant
concentration and meditation. After hearing the above-described
majesty and yoga of the Lord,
10.12 Bhavan, You; are the param brahma, supreme Brahman, the
supreme Self; the param dhama, supreme Light; the paramam pavitram,
supreme Sanctifier. Sarve, all; rsayah, the sages-Vasistha and others;
tatha, as also; the devarisih, divine sage; naradah, Narada; Asita and
Devala ahuh, call; tvam, You; thus: Sasvatam, the eternal; divyam,
divine; purusam, Person; adi-devam, the Primal God, the God who
preceded all the gods; ajam, the birthless; vibhum, the Omnipresentcapable
of assuming diverse forms. And even Vyasa also speaks in this
very way. Ca, and; svayam, You Yourself; eva, verily; bravisi, tell; me, me
(so).
10.13 Bhavan, You; are the param brahma, supreme Brahman, the
supreme Self; the param dhama, supreme Light; the paramam pavitram,
supreme Sanctifier. Sarve, all; rsayah, the sages-Vasistha and others;
tatha, as also; the devarisih, divine sage; naradah, Narada; Asita and
Devala ahuh, call; tvam, You; thus: Sasvatam, the eternal; divyam,
divine; purusam, Person; adi-devam, the Primal God, the God who
preceded all the gods; ajam, the birthless; vibhum, the Omnipresentcapable
of assuming diverse forms. And even Vyasa also speaks in this
very way. Ca, and; svayam, You Yourself; eva, verily; bravisi, tell; me, me
(so).
10.14 O Kesava, manye, I accept; to be rtam, true indeed; sarvam, all;
etat, this that has been said by sages and You; yat, which; vadasi, You
tell, speak; mam, to Me. Hi, certainly; bhagavan, O Lord; na devah,
neither the gods; na danavah, nor the demons; viduh, comprehend; te,
Your; vyaktim, glory [Prabhavam in the Commentary is the same as
prabhavam, glory, the unqualified State.]. Since You are the origin of the
gods and others, therefore,
10.15 Purusottama, O supreme Person; bhuta-bhavana, O Creator of
beings, one who brings the creatures into being; bhutesa, the Lord of
beings; deva-deva, O God of gods; jagat-pate, the Lord of the worlds;
tvam, You; svayam, Yourself; eva, alone; vettha, know; atmanam,
Yourself, as God possessed of unsurpassable powers of knowledge,
sovereignty, strength, etc.; atmana, by Yourself.
10.16 Arhasi, be pleased; vaktum, to speak; asesena, in full;
atmavibhutayah, of Your own manifestations; divyah hi, which are indeed
divine; yabhih, through which; vibhutibhih, manifestations, manifestations
of Your glory; tisthasi, You exist; vyapya, pervading; iman, these; lokan,
worlds.
10.17 O Yogi, katham, how; aham vidyam, shall I know tvam, You; sada
pari-cintayan, by remaining ever-engaged in meditation? Ca, and; kesu
kesu bhavesu, through what objects; bhagvan, O Lord; cintah asi, are
You to be meditated on; maya, by me?
10.18 O Janardana: ardana is derived from ard, in the sense of the act
of going; by virtue of making the janas, the demons who are opposed to
the gods, go to hell etc. He is called Jana-ardana. Or, He is called so
because He is prayed to [The verbal root ard has got a second meaning,
'to pray'.] by all beings for the sake of human goals, viz prosperity and
Liberation. Kathaya, narrate to me; bhuyah, again, though spoken of
earlier; atmanah, Your own; yogam, yoga-the special ability in the form
of mystic powers; and vibhutaim, the (divine) manifestations-the variety
of the objects of meditation; vistarena, elaborately. Hi, for; srnvatah,
while hearing; (Your) amrtam, nectar-like speech issuing out of Your
mouth; na asti, there is no; trptih, satiety; me, in me.
10.19 Kuru-srestha, O best of the Kurus; hanta, now; since, on the
other hand, it is not possible to speak exhaustively of them even in a
hundred years, (there-fore) pradhanyatah, according to their importance,
according as those manifestations are pre-eminent in their respective
spheres; kathayisyami, I shall described; te, to you; atma-vibhutayah, My
own glories; which are (hi, indeed) divyah, divine, heavenly. Na asti there
is no; antah, end; me, to My; vistarasya, manifestations. 'Of those, now
listen to the foremost:'
10.20 Gudakesa, O Gudakesa-gudaka means sleep, and isa means
master; master of that (sleep) is gudakesa, i.e. one who has conquered
sleep; [See also under 1.24.-Tr.] or, one who has got thick hair; aham, I;
am the atma, Self, the indwelling Self; who is to be ever-meditated on as
sarva-bhuta-asaya [Asaya-that in which are contained the impressions of
meditations (upasanas), actions and past experiences.]-sthitah, residing
in the hearts of all beings. And, by one who is unable to do so, I am to
be meditated on through the following aspects. I am capable of being
meditated on (through them) becasue aham, I; am verily the adih,
beginning, the origin; and the madhyam, middle, continuance; ca, as
also; the antah, end, dissolution; bhutanam, of (all) beings. 'I am to be
meditated upon thus also:'
10.21 Adityanam, among the twelve Adityas; aham, I; am the Aditya
called Visnu. Jyotisam, among the luminaries; amsuman, the radiant;
ravih, sun. Marutam, among the different gods called Maruts; asmi, I am;
the one called Marici. Naksatranam, among the stars; I am sasi, the
moon.
10.22 Vedanam, among the Vedas; I am the Sama-veda. Devanam,
among the gods-such as Rudras, Adityas and others; I am vasavah,
Indra. Indriyanam, among the eleven organs, viz eye etc.; I am the
manah, mind. I am the mind which is of the nature of reflection and
doubt. And I am the cetana, intelligence [It is the medium for the
manifestation of Consciousness.], the function of the intellect ever
manifest in the aggregate of body and organs; bhtanam, in creatures.
10.23 Rudranam, among the eleven Rudras, I am Sankara; and
yaksaraksasam, among the Yaksas and goblins; I am vittesah, Kubera.
Vasunam, among the eight Vasus; I am pavakah, Fire; and sikharinam,
among the peaked mountains, I am Meru.
10.24 O son of Prtha viddhi, know; mam, Me; to be Brahaspati,
mukhyam, the foremost; purodhasam, among the priests of kings. Being
as he is the priest of Indra, he should be the foremost. Senaninam,
among commaners of armies; I am Skanda, the commander of the
armies of gods. Sarasam, among large expanses of water, among
reservoirs dug by gods (i.e. among nature reservoirs); I am sagarah, the
sea.
10.25 Maharsinam, among the great sages, I am Bhrgu, Giram, of
words, of utterances, in the form of words; I am the ekam, single;
aksaram, syllable Om. Yajnanam, among rituals; I am the japa-yajnah,
rituals of Japa. Sthavaranam, of the immovables, I am the Himalaya.
10.26 Sarva-vrksanam, among all trees, (I am) the Asvatta; and Narada
devarsinam, among the divine sages-those who were gods and became
sages by virtue of visualizing Vedic mantras; among them I am Narada.
Gandharvanam, among the gandharvas, I am the gandharva called
Citraratha. Siddhanam, among the perfected ones, among those who,
from their very birth, were endowed with an abundance of the wealth of
virtue, knowledge and renunciation; (I am) munih, the sage Kapila.
10.27 Asvanam, among horses; viddhi, know; mam, Me; to be the
horse named Uccaihsravas; amrta-udbhavam, born of nectar-born when
(the sea was) churned (by the gods) for nectar. Airavata, the son of
Iravati, gajendranam, among the Lordly elephants; 'know Me to be so'
remains understood. And naranam, among men; know Me as the
naradhipam, King of men.
10.28 Ayudhanam, among weapons; I am the vajram, thunderbolt,
made of the bones of (the sage) Dadhici. Dhenunam, among milch cows;
I am kama-dhuk, Kamadhenu, which was the yielder of all desires of (the
sage) Vasistha; or it means a cow in general which gives milk at all times.
I am Kandarpa, prajanah, the Progenitor, (the god) Kama (Cupid).
Sarpanam, among serpents, among the various serpents, I am Vasuki,
the kind of serpents.
10.29 Naganam, among snakes, of a particular species of snakes; asmi,
I am Ananta, the King of snakes. And Varuna, the King yadasam, of the
gods of the waters. Pitrnam, among the manes; I am the King of the
manes, named Aryama. And samyamatam, among the maintainers of
law and order I am Yama.
10.30 Daityanam, among demons, the descendants of Diti, I am the one
called Prahlada. And I am kalah, Time; kalayatam, among reckoners of
time, of those who calculate. And mrganam, among animals; I am
mrgendrah, the loin, or the tiger. And paksinam, among birds; (I am)
vainateyah, Garuda, the son of Vinata.
10.31 Pavatam, of the purifiers; I am pavanah, air. Sastra-bhrtam,
among weilders of weapons, I am Rama, son of Dasaratha. Jhasanam,
among fishes etc; I am the particular species of fish called makarah
shark. I am jahnavi, Ganga; srotasam, among rivers, among streams of
water.
10.32 O Arjuna sarganam, of creations; I am the adih, beginning; ca,
and ; he antah, end; ca eva, as also; the madhyam, middle-I am the
origin, continuance and dissolution. At the commencement (verse 20)
origin, end, etc. only of things possessed of souls were spoken of, but
here the mention is of all creations in general. This is the difference.
Vidyanam, among knowledges; I am the adhyatma-vidya, knowledge of
the Self, it being the foremost because of its leading to liberation.
Pravadatam, of those who debate; aham, I; am vadah, Vada, which is
preeminent since it is a means to determining true purport. Hence I am
that . By the word pravadatam are here meant the different kinds of
debate held by debators, viz Vada, Jalpa, and Vitanda. [Vada: discussion
with open-mindedness, with a veiw to determining true purport; jalpa:
pointless debate; Vitanda: wrangling discussion. [Jalpa is that mode of
debate by which both parties establish their own viewpoint through
direct and indirect proofs, and refute the view of the opponent through
circumvention (Chala) and false generalization (Jati) and by pointing out
unfitness (of the opponent) tobe argued with (Nigraha-sthana). But
where one party establishes his viewpoint, and the other refutes it
through circumvention, false generalization and showing the unfitness of
the opponent to be argued with, without establishing his own views, that
is termed Vitanda. Jalpa and Vitanda result only in a trial of streangth
between the opponents, who are both desirous of victory, But the result
of Vada is the ascertainment of truth between the teacher and the
disciple or between others, both unbiased.-Gloss of Sridhara Swami on
this verse.]-Tr.]
10.33 Aksaranam, of the letters; I am the akarah, letter a. Samasikasya,
of the group of compound words, I am the compund (called) Dvandva.
Besieds, aham eva, I Myself; am the aksayah, infinite, endless; kalah,
time, well known as 'moment' etc.; or, I am the supreme God who is
Kala (Time, the measurer) even of time. I am the dhata, Dispenser, the
dispenser of the fruits of actions of the whole world; visvatomukhah, with
faces everwhere.
10.34 Death which is of two kinds-one destroying wealth, and the other
destroying life-, [Here Ast. adds: tatra yah prana-harah sah (sarva-harah
ucyate)-Among them, that which destroys life (is called sarva-harah).-Tr.]
is called sarva-harah, the destroyer of all. I am that. This is the meaning.
Or, the supreme God is the all-destroyer because He destroys
everything during dissolution. I am He. And I am udbhavah, prosperity,
eminence, and the means to it. Of whom? Bhavisyatam, of those
destined to be prosperous, i.e. of those who are fit for attaining
eminence. Narinam, of the feminine qualities; I am kirtih, fame; srih,
beauty; vak, speech; smrtih, memory; medha, intelligence dhrtih,
fortitude; and ksama, forbearance. I am these excellent feminine
quialities, by coming to possess even a trace of which one considers
himself successful.
10.35 I am tatha, also; the Brhat-sama, the foremost samnam, of the
Sama-mantras. Chandasam, of the metres, of the Rk-mantras having the
metres Gayatri etc.; I am the Rk called Gayatri. This is meaning.
Masanam, of the months, I am Marga-sirsa (Agrahayana, November-
December). Rtunam, of the seasons; kusumakarah, spring.
10.36 Chalayatam, of the fraudulent, of the deceitful; I am the dyutam,
gambling, such as playing with dice. I am the tejah, irresistible
command; tejasvinam, of the mighty. [Some translate this as 'the
splendour of the splendid'.-Tr.] I am the jayah, excellence of the
excellent. [Some translate this as 'the victory of the victorious'.-Tr.] I am
the vyavasayah, effort of the persevering. I am the sattvam, sattva
quality; [The result of sattva, viz virtue, knowledge, detachment, etc.]
sattvavatam, of those possessed of sattva.
10.37 Vrsninam, of the Vrsnis, [Here Ast. adds yadavanam, of the
Yadavas.-Tr.] I am Vasudeva- I who am this person, your friend.
Pandavanam, of the Pandavas, (I am) Dhananjaya, you yourself. Api,
and; muninam, of the wise, of the thoughtful, of those who know of all
things, I am Vyasa. kavinam, of the omniscient (i.e. of the those who
know the past, present and future), I am the omniscient Usanas
(Sukracarya).
10.38 Damayatam, of the punishers; I am dandah, the rod, which is the
means of controlling the lawless. I am the nitih, righteous policy;
jagisatam, of those who desire to conquer. And guhyanam, of things
secret; I am verily maunam, silence. I am jnanam, knowledge;
jnanavatam, of the men of knowledge.
10.39 Ca, moreover; O Arjuna, yat api, whatsoever; is the bijam, seed,
the source of growth ; sarva-bhutanam, of all beings; tat, that I am. As
a conclusion of the topic the Lord states in brief His divine
manifestations: Na tat asti bhutam, there is no thing; cara-acaram,
moving or non-moving; yat, which; syat, can exist; vina maya, without
Me. For whatever is rejected by Me, from whatever I withdraw Myself will
have no substance, and will become a non-entity. Hence the meaning is
that everything has Me as its essence.
10.40 Parantapa, O destroyer of enemies; asti, there is; na, no; antah,
limit; to mama, My; divyanam, divine; vibhutinam, manifestations.
Indeed, it is not possible for anyone to speak or know of the limit of the
divine manifestations of the of the all-pervading God. Esah, this; vistarah,
description; vibhuteh, of (My) manifestations; tu, however; prokatah, has
been stated; maya, by Me; uddesatah, by way of illustration, partially.
10.41 Yat yat, whatever; sattvam, object in the world; is eva, verily;
vibhutimat, endowed with majesty; srimad, possessed of prosperity; va,
or; is urjitam, energetic, possessed of vigour; tvam, you; avagaccha,
know; eva, for certain; tat tat, each of them; as mama tejomsasambhavam,
having a part (amsa) of My (mama), of God's, power (teja)
as its source (sambhavam).
10.42 Athava, or, on the other hand; kim, what is the need; of tava
jnatena, your knowing; etena bahuna, this extensively-but imcompletelyin
the above manner, O Arjuna? You listen to this subject that is going to
be stated in its fullness: Aham, I; sthitah, remain; vistabhya, sustaining,
supporting, holding firmly, in a special way; idam, this; krtsnam, whole;
jagat, creation; ekamsena, by a part, by a foot [The Universe is called a
foot of His by virtue of His having the limiting adjunct of being its efficient
and material cause.] (of Myself), i.e. as the Self of all things [As the
material and the efficient cause of all things]. The Vedic text, 'All beings
form a foot of His' (Rg., Pu. Su. 10.90.3; Tai. Ar. 3.12.3) support this. [A
Form constituted by the whole of creation has been presented in this
chapter for meditation. Thereby the unqualified transcendental Reality,
implied by the word tat (in tattva-masi) and referred to by the latter
portion of the Commentator's quotation (viz tripadasyamrtam divi: The
immortal three-footed One is established in His own effulgence),
becomes established.]
..¿r¢madbhagavadg¢t¡rthasaÆgraha¶ippa¸¢..
¿l°. 1-5 (vy¡) uts¡ha iti. uts¡hayati pr°ts¡hayati ityuts¡haÅ
saÆm°havir°dh¢ asaÆm°haÅ.
¿l°. 9 (m£) ramanti iti parasmaipadaÆ ch¡ndasam..
¿l°. 28 (m£) prajana iti. prap£rvak¡t jan¢ pradurbh¡v® iti dh¡t°Å
antarbh¡vita¸yarth¡t kartari kvipi, ´aasi r£paÆ prajana iti.
j¡t¡v®kavacanam. prajanayit¤¸¡mityarthaÅ. r¡maka¸¶h°'py¡ha
'prajanaÅ prajananakriy¡kart¡, tasya; j¡t¡v®kavacanam' iti.
'prajanasy¡smi' 'prajan®Àvapi' ityapi p¡¶h¡vupalabhy®t® m¡t¤k¡su..
¿l°. 29 (m£) saÆyamat¡miti. 'ch¡ndas° yacch¡d®¿¡bh¡vaÅ.
k®cinnipu¸¡Å saÆyacchat¡miti pa¶hanti' iti r¡maka¸¶haÅ..
¿l°. 42 (m£) jµ¡n®n®ti r¡maka¸¶hap¡¶haÅ sam¡v¤taÅ. jµ¡yat® an®n®ti
jµ¡nam upad®¿aÅ, t®n®tyarthaÅ..
..iti ¿r¢madbhagavadg¢t¡rthasaÆgraha¶ippa¸y¡Æ da¿am°'dhy¡yaÅ..

BHAGAVADGITA
English translation of Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary - Swami
Gambhirananda
Chapter 11
RO
11.1 Ayam, this; mahah, delusion; mama, of mine; vigatah, has
departed, i.e., my non-discriminating idea has been removed; tena, as a
result of that; vacah, speech of Yours; which is paramam, most,
supremely; guhyam, secret; and adhyatma-sanjnitam, known as
pertaining to the Self-dealing with discrimination between the Self and
the non-Self; and yat, which; was uktam, uttered; tvaya, by You;
madanugrahaya, for my benefit, out of favour for me. Further,
11.2 Kamala-partraksa, O You with eyes like lotus leaves; bhavaapyayau,
the origin and dissolution- these two; bhutanam, of beings;
srutau, have been heard; maya, by me; vistarasah, in detail-not in brief;
tvattah, from You. Ca, and; (Your) avyayam, undecaying; mahatmyam,
glory, too;-has been heard-(these last words) remain understood.
11.3 Parama-isvara, O supreme Lord; evam, so; etat, it is-not
otherwise; yatha, as; tvam, You; attha, speak; atmanam, about Yourself.
Still, purusottama, O supreme Person; iccahmi, I wish; drastum, to see;
the aisvaram, divine; rupam, form; te, of Yours, of Visnu, endowed with
Knowledge, Sovereignty, Power, Strength, Valour and Formidability.
11.4 Prabho, O Lord, Master; yadi, if; manyase, You think; iti, that; tat
sakyam, it is possible; drastum, to be see; maya, by me, by Arjuna;
tatah, then, since I am very eager to see, therefore; yogeswara, O Lord
of Yoga, of yogis-Yoga stands for yogis; their Lord is yogeswara; tvam,
You; darsaya, show; me, me, for my sake; atmanam avyayam, Your
eternal Self. Being thus implored by Arjuna,
11.5 O son of Prtha, pasya, behold; me, My; rupani, forms; satasah, in
(their) hundreds; atha, and; sahasrasah, in thousands, i.e. in large
numbers. And they are nana-vidhani, of different kinds; divyani, celestial,
supernatural; and nana-varna-akrtini, of various colours and shapesforms
which have different (nana) colours (varna) such as blue, yellow,
etc. as also (different) shapes (akrtayah), having their parts differently
arranged.
11.6 Pasya, see; adityan, the twelve Adityas; vasun, the eight Vasus;
rudran, the eleven Rudras; asvinau, the two Asvins; and amarutah, the
Maruts, who are divided into seven groups of seven each. Bharata, O
scion of the Bharata dynasty; pasya, behold; tatha, also; bahuni, the
many other; ascaryani, wonders; adrstapurvani, not seen before-by you
or anyone else in the human world. Not only this much,-
11.7 Pasya, see; adya, now; O Gudakesa, the krtsnam, entire; jagat,
Universe; sa-cara-acaram, existing together with the moving and the
non-moving; ekastham, concentrated at the same place; iha, here;
mama dehe, in My body; ca, as also; yat anyat, whatever else-even
those victory, defeat, etc. with regard to which you expressed doubt in,
'whether we shall win, or whether they shall conquer us' (2.6); if icchasi,
you would like; drastum, to see them.
11.8 Tu, but; na sakyase, you are not able; drastum, to see; mam, Me,
who have assumed the Cosmic form; eva, merely; anena, with this
natural; sva-caksusa, eye of yours. However, dadami, I grant; te, you;
the divyam, supernatural; caksuh, eye, by which supernatural eye you
shall be able to see Pasya, behold with that; me, My, God's aisvaram,
divine; yogam, Yoga, i.e. the superabundance of the power of Yoga [The
power of accomplishing the impossible.-M.S.].
11.9 Rajan, O King, Dhrtarastra; uktva, having spoken evam, thus, in
the manner stated above; tatah, thereafter; harih, Hari, Narayana; mahayogeswarah,
the great Master of Yoga-who is great (mahan) and also the
master (isvara) of Yoga; darasyamasa showed; parthaya, to the son of
Prtha; the paramam, supreme; aisvaram, divine; rupam, form, the
Cosmic form:
11.10 A form aneka-vaktra-nayanam, having many faces and eyes;
aneka-adbhuta-darsanam, possessing many wonderful sights; as also
aneka-divya-abharanam, adorned with numerous celestial ornaments;
and divya-aneka-udyata-ayudham, holding many uplifted heavenly
weapons. This whole portion is connected with the verb '(He) showed' in
the earlier verse. Moreover,
11.11 Divya-malya-ambara-dharam, wearing heavenly garlands and
apparel-the God wearing celestial flowers and clothings; divya-gandhaanulepanam,
anointed with heavenly scents; sarva-ascaryamayam,
abounding in all kinds of wonder; devam, resplendent; anantam, infinite,
boundless; and visvato-mukham, with faces everywhere-He being the
Self of all beings. 'He showed (to Arjuna)', or 'Arjuna saw', is to be
supplied. An illustration is once more being given of the effulgence of
the Cosmic form of the Lord:
11.12 Should the bhah, effulgence; surya-sahasrasya, of a thousand
suns; utthita bhavet, blaze forth; yugapat, simultaneously; divi, in the
sky, or in heaven which is the third as counted (from this earth);sa, that;
yadi syat, might be-or it might not be-; sadrsi, similar; to the bhasah,
radiance; tasya, of that; mahat-manah, exalted One, the Cosmic Person
Himself. The idea is that the brillinace of the Cosmic Person surely excels
even this! Further,
11.13 Tada, at that time; pandavah, Pandava, Arjuna; apasyat, saw;
tatra, there, in that Cosmic form; sarire, in the body; devadevasya, of the
God of gods, of Hari; krtsnam, the whole; jagat, Universe; anekadha,
deversely; pravibhaktam, differentiated-into groups of gods, manes,
human beings, and others; ekastham, united in the one (Consmic form).
11.14 Tatah, then, having seen Him; sah, he, Dhananjaya; became
vismaya-avistah, filled with wonder; and hrsta-roma, had his hairs
standing on end. Becoming filled with humility, pranamya, bowing down,
bowing down fully; [With abundant respect and devotion.] sirasa, with his
head; devam, to the Lord, who had assumed the Cosmic form;
abhasata, he said; krta-anjalih, with folded hands, with palms joined in
salutation: How? 'I am seeing the Cosmic form that has been revealed
by You'-thus expressing his own experience,
11.15 Deva, O God; pasyami, I see, perceive; tava dehe, in Your body;
sarvan, all; the devan, gods; tatha, as also; bhuta-visesa-sanghan, hosts
of (various) classes of beings, groups of moving and non-moving living
things having different shapes; and besides, brahmanam, Brahma, with
four faces; isam, the Ruler of creatures; kamalasana-stham, sitting on a
lotus seat, i.e. sitting on Mount Meru which forms the pericarp of the
lotus that is the earth; and sarvan, all; the divyan, heavenly; rsin, sages-
Vasistha and others; and (the heavenly) uragan, serpents-Vasuki and
others.
11.16 Pasyami, I see; tvam, You; aneka-bahu-udara-vaktra-netram, as
possessed of numerous arms, bellies, mouths and eyes; ananta-rupam,
having infinite forms; sarvatah, all around. Visveswara, O Lord of the
Universe; visva-rupa, O Cosmic Person; na pasyami, I see not; ['I do not
see-because of Your all-pervasiveness.'] tava, Your; antam, end; na
madhyam, nor the middle-what lies between two extremities; na punah,
nor again; the adim, beginning-I see not the limit (end) nor the middle,
nor again the beginning, of You who are God! Furthermore,
11.17 Pasyami, I see; tvam, You; as kiritinam, wearing a diadem-kirita is
a kind of decoration for the head; one having it is kiriti; gadinam, wielding
a mace; and also cakrinam, holding a disc; tejorasim, a mass of
brilliance; sarvatah diptimantam, glowing all around; durniriksyam,
difficult to look at; samantat, from all sides, at every point; as though
dipta-analarka-dyutim, possessed of the radiance (dyuti) of the blazing
(dipta) fire (anala) and sun (arka); and aprameyam, immeasurable, i.e.
beyond limitation. 'For this reason also, i.e., by seeing Your power of
Yoga, I infer' that-
11.18 Tvam, You; are the aksaram, Immutable; the paramam, supreme
One, Brahman; veditavyam, to be known-by those aspiring for
Liberation. You are the param, most perfect; nidhanam, repositorywhere
things are deposited, i.e. the ultimate resort; asya visvasya, of this
Universe, of the entire creation. Further. You are the avyayah,
Imperishable-there is no decay in You; the sasvata-dharma-gopta,
Protector (gopta) of the ever-existing (sasvata) religion (dharma). You are
the sanatanah, eternal; transcendental purusah, Person. This is me, my;
matah, belief-what is meant by me. Moreover,
11.19 Pasyami, I see; tvam, You; as anadi-madhya-antam, without
beginning, middle and end; ananta-viryam, possessed of infinite valour;
and also ananta-bahum, having innumerable arms; sasi-surya-netram,
having the sun and the moon as the eyes; dipta-hutasavakram, having a
mouth like a blazing fire; tapantam, heating up; idam, this; visvam,
Universe; sva-tejasa, by Your own birlliance.
11.20 Hi, indeed; idam, this; antaram, intermediate space;
dyavaprthivyoh, between heaven and earth; ca, as also; sarvah, all; the
disah, direction; vyaptam, are pervaded; tvaya, by You; ekena, alone,
who have assumed the Cosmic form. Mahatman, O exalted One, who by
nature are high-minded; the lokatrayam, three worlds; pravyathitam, are
struck with fear, or are perturbed; drstva, by seeing; idam, this;
abdhutam, strange, astonishing; ugram, fearful, terrible; rupam, form;
tava, of Yours. Therefore, now, in order to clear that doubt which Arjuna
earlier had-as in, 'whether we shall win, or whether they shall conquer'
(2.6)-, the Lord proceeds with the idea, 'I shall show the inevitable
victory of the Pandavas.' Visualizing that, Arjuna said: 'Moreover-'.
11.21 Ami hi, those very; sura-sanghah, groups of gods, the soldiers
engaged in battle-groups of gods such as the Vasus who have
descended here in the form of human beings for eliminating the burden
of the earth; visanti, enter-are seen to be entering; tvam, You. Bhitah,
struck with fear, and unable to flee; kecit, some among them; grnanti,
extol You; pranjalayah, with their palms joined. Maharsi-siddha [Siddha:
A semi-divine being supposed to be of great purity and holiness, and
said to be particularly characterized by eight supernatural faculties called
siddhis.-V.S.A.]-sanghah, groups of great sages and perfected beings;
seeing protents foreboding evil, etc. as the battle became imminent;
stuvanti, praise; tvam, You; puskalabhih, with elaborate, full; stutibhih,
hymns; uktva, saying; 'svasti iti, May it be well!' And further,
11.22 Ye, those who are; the rudra-adityah, Rudras and Adityas;
vasavah, the Vasus; and sadhyah, the Sadhyas-the groups of Rudras
and other gods; the gods visve, Visve-devas; and asvinau, the two
Asvins; marutah, the Maruts; and usmapah, the Usmapas, (a class of)
manes; and gandharva-yaksa-asura-siddha-sanghah, hosts of
Gandharvas-viz Haha, Huhu and others-, Yaksas-viz Kubera and others-
, demons-Virocana and others-, and Siddhas-Kapila and others; sarve
eva, all of those very ones; viksante, gaze; tva, (i.e.) tvam, at You;
vismitah eva, being indeed struck with wonder. For,
11.23 Mahabaho, O mighty-armed One; drstva, seeing; te, Your; mahat,
immence, very vast; upam, form of this kind; bahu-vaktra-netram, with
many mouths and eyes; bahu-bahu-uru-padam, having many arms,
thighs and feet; and further, bahu-udaram, with many bellies; and bahudamstra-
karalam, fearful with many teeth; lokah, the creatures in the
world; are pravya-thitah, struck with terror; tatha, and so also; am even
aham, I. The reason of that is this:
11.24 O Visnu, hi, verily; drstva, seeing; tvam, You; nabhah-sprsam,
touching heaven; diptam, blazing; aneka-varnam, with many colours,
(i.e.) possessed of many frightening forms; vyatta-ananam, openmouthed;
dipta-visala-netram, with firey large eyes; I, pravyathita-antaraatma,
becoming terrified in my mind; na vindami, do not find; dhrtim,
steadiness; ca, and; samam, peace, calmness of mind. Why?
11.25 Drstva eva, having merely seen; te, Your; mukhani, mouths;
damstra-karalani, made terrible with (their) teeth; and kala-analasannibhani,
resembling the fire of Dissolution is kalanala; similar to that;
na jane, I have lost; the sense of disah, direction-I do not know the
directions as to which is East or which is West; and hence, na labhe, find
no; sarma, comfort. Therefore, prasida, be gracious; devesa, O Lord of
gods; jagannivasa, O Abode of the Universe! 'The apprehension which
was there of my getting defeated by those offers, that too has cleared
away, since-'
11.26 Ca, and; tvam, into You-this is to be connected with 'rapidly
enter' in the next verse; sarve, all; ami, those; putrah, sons-Duryodhana
and others; dhrtarastrasya, of Dhrtarastra; saha, along with; avanipalasanghaih,
multitudes of the rulers (pala) of the earth (avani); also Bhisma,
Drona, tatha, and; asau, that; suta-putrah, son of a Suta, Karna; saha,
together with; api, even; asmadiyaih, our; yodha-mukhyaih, prominent
warriors, the commanders-Dhrstadyumna and others. Moreover,
11.27 Visanti, they enter; tvarmanah, rapidly, in great haste; into te,
Your; vaktrani, mouths;-what kind of mouths?-bhayanakani, terrible;
damstra-karalani, with cruel teeth. Besides, among these who have
entered the mouths, kecit, some; samdrsyante, are see; vilagna,
sticking, like meat eaten; dasanantaresu, in the gaps between the teeth;
uttamangaih, with their heads; curnitaih, crushed. As to how they enter,
he says:
11.28 Yatha, as; the bahavah, numerous; ambu-vegah, currents of the
waters, particularly the swift ones; nadinam, of flowing rivers; dravanti
abhimukhah, rush towards, enter into; the samudram, sea; eva, alone;
tatha, so also; do ami, those; nara-loka-virah, heroes of the human
world-Bhisma and others; visanti, enter into; tava, Your; abhi-vijvalanti,
blazing, glowing; vaktrani, mouths. Why do they enter, and how? In
answer Arjuna says:
11.29 Yatha, as; patangah, moths, flying insects; visanti, enter;
samrddha-vegah, with increased haste; into a pradiptam, glowing;
jvalanam, fire; nasaya, for destruction; tatha eva, in that very way; do the
lokah, creatures; visanti, enter into; tava, Your; vaktrani, mouths; api,
too; samrddha-vegah, with increased hurry; nasaya, for destruction.
You, again-
11.30 O Visnu, Your fierce rays are acorching. [M.S., S., and S.S.
construe 'completely...heat' to qualify 'fierce rays' in the second
sentence. However, the use of kim ca (moreover) in the Comm. suggests
the translation as above.-Tr.] Lelihyase, You lick Your lips, You taste;
grasamanah, while devouring, while taking in; samagran, all; lokan, the
creatures; samantat, from all sides; jvaladbhih, with flaming; vadanaih,
mouths; which are apurya, completely filling; samagram, the wholetogether
(saha) with the foremost (agrena); jagat, world; tejobhih, with
heat. Moreover, O Visnu, the all-pervading One, tava, Your; ugrah, fierce;
bhasah, rays; are pratapanti, scorching. Since You are of such a terrible
nature, therefore-
11.31 Akhyahi, tell; me; kah, who; bhavan, You are; ugrarupah, fierce in
form. Namah, salutation; astu, be; te, to You; deva-vara, O supreme
God, foremost among the gods. Prasida, be gracious. Icchami, I desire;
vijnatum, to fully know; bhavantam, You; adyam, who are the Primal
One, who exist in the beginning. Hi, for; na prajanami, I do not
understand; tava, Your; pravrttim, actions!
11.32 Asmi, I am; the loka-ksaya-krt, world-destroying; kalah, Time;
pravrddhah, grown in stature. Hear the purpose for which I have grown
in stature: I am iha, now; pravrttah, engaged; samahartum, in
annihilating; lokan, the creatures. Api, even; rte tva, without you; sarve,
all-from whom your apprehension had arisen; the yodhah, warriors-
Bhisma, Drona, Karna and others; ye, who are; avasthitah, arrayed;
pratyanikesu, in the connfronting armies-in every unit of the army
confronting the other; na bhavisyanti, will cease to exist. Since this is
so-
11.33 Tasmat, therefore; tvam, you; uttistha, rise up; (and) labhasva,
gain; the yasah, fame, that Arjuna has conquered the Atirathas [Atirathasee
note under 1.4.6.-Tr.], Bhisma, Drona and others, who are
unconquerable even by the gods. Such fame can be acquired only by
virtuous actions. Jitva, by defeating; satrun, the enemies, Duryodhana
and others; bhunksva, enjoy; a rajyam, kingdom; that is samrddham,
propersous, free from enemies and obstacles. Ete, these; nihatah, have
been definitely killed, made lifeless; eva maya, verily by Me; eva purvam,
even earlier. Bhava, be you; nimitta-matram, merely an instrument, O
Savyasachin. Arjuna was called so because he could shoot arrows even
with his left hand.
11.34 By saying, 'who have been killed by Me,' the Lord names Drona
and those very warriors with regard to whom Arjuna had (his) doubts.
Now then, uncertainty with regard to Drona and Bhisma is well-founded.
Drona was the teacher of the science of archery, and was equipped with
heavenly weapons; and particularly, he was his (Arjuna's) own teacher
and most respected. Bhisma was destined to die at will, and possessed
heavenly weapons. He fought a duel with Parasurama and remained
unvanquished. So also Jayadratha-whose father was performing an
austerity with the idea that anyone who made his son's head fall on the
ground would have even his own head fall. Since Karna also was
equipped with an unerring spear given by Indra, and was a son of the
Sun, born of a maiden (Kunti), therefore he is referred to by his own
name itself. As a mere instrument, tvam, you; jahi, destory them; who
have been hatan, killed; maya, by Me. Ma, do not; vyathisthah, be afraid
of them. Yuddhyasva, fight. Jetasi, you shall conquer; the sapatnan,
enemies-Duryodhana and others; rane, in battle.
11.35 Srutva, hearing; etat, this, aforesaid; vacanam, utterance;
kesavasya, of Kesava; Kiriti, krtanjalih, with joined palms; and
vepamanah, trembling; nama-skrtva, prostrating himself; aha, said;
bhuyah eva, again; krsnam, to Krsna; sa-gadgadam, with a faltering
voice-. A person's throat becomes choked with phlegm and his eyes full
of tears when, on being struck with fear, he is overcome by sorrow, and
when, on being overwhelmed with affection, he is filled with joy. The
indistinctness and feebleness of sound in speech that follows as a result
is what is called faltering (gadgada). A speech that is accompanied with
(saha) this is sa-gadgadam. It is used adverbially to the act of utterance.
Pranamya, bowing down with humility; bhita-bhitah, overcome by fits of
fear, with his mind struck again and again with fear-this is to be
connected with the remote word aha (said). At this juncture the words
of Sanjaya have a purpose in view. How? It is thus: Thinking that the
helpless Duryodhana will be as good as dead when the four
unconquerable ones, viz Drona and others, are killed, Dhrtarastra, losing
hope of victory, would conclude a treaty. From that will follow peace on
either side. Under the influence of fate, Dhrtarastra did not even listen to
that!
11.36 Sthane, it is proper; -what is that?-that the jagat, world;
prahrsyati, becomes delighted; tava prakirtya, by Your praise, by reciting
Your greatness and hearing it. This is befitting. This is the idea. Or, the
word sthane may be taken as qualifying the word 'subject' (understood) :
It is proper that the Lord is the subject of joy etc. since the Lord is the
Self of all beings and the Friend of all. So also it (the world) anurajyate,
becomes attracted, becomes drawn (by that praise). That also is with
regard to a proper subject. This is how it is to be explained. Further,
that the raksamsi, Raksasas; bhitani, stricken with fear; dravanti, run;
disah, in all directions-that also is with regard to a proper subject. And
that sarve, all; the siddha-sanghah, groups of the Siddhas-Kapila and
others; namasyanti, bow down-that also is befitting. He points out the
reason for the Lord's being the object of delight etc.:
11.37 Ca, and; since You are the Primal Creator, the Cause, api, even;
brahmanah, of Brahma, of Hiranyagarbha; therefore, kasmat, why, for
what reason; should they na nameran, not bow down; te, to You;
mahatman, O exalted One; gariyase, who are greater (than all)! Hence,
why should these not bow down adi-karte, to the first Creator?
Therefore You are fit for, i.e. the fit object of, delight etc. and salutation
as well. Ananta, O infinite One; devesa, supreme God; jagannivasa,
Abode of the Universe; tvam, You; are the aksaram, Immutable; tat
param yat, that which is Transcendental, which is heard of in the
Upanisads;-what is that?-sad-asat, being and nonbeing. Being is that
which exists, and non-being is that with regard to which the idea of
nonexistence arises. (You are) that Immutable of which these two-being
and non-being-become the limiting adjuncts; which (Immutable), as a
result, is metaphorically referred to as being and non-being. But in reality
that Immutable is transcendental to being and non-being. 'That
Immutable which the knowers of the Vedas declare' (8.11; cf. Ka.
1.2.15)-that is You Yourself, nothing else. This is the idea. He praises
again:
11.38 You are the adi-devah, primal Deity, because of being the creator
of the Universe; the puranah, ancient, eternal; purusah, Person-(derived)
in the sense of 'staying in the town (pura) that is the body'. You verily are
the param, suprem; nidhanam, Resort, in which this entire Universe
comes to rest at the time of final dissolution etc. Besides, You are the
vetta, knower of all things to be known. You are also the vedyam, object
of knowledge-that which is fit to be known; and the param, supreme;
dhama, Abode, the supreme State of Visnu. Anantarupa, O You of
infinite forms, who have no limit to Your own forms; the entire visvam,
Universe; tatam, is pervaded; tvaya, by You. Further,
11.39 You are vayuh, Air; yamah, Death; and agnih, Fire; varunah, the
god of the waters; sasankah, the moon; prajapatih, the Lord of the
creatures- Kasyapa and others [See note on p.2.-Tr.]; and prapitamahah,
the Great-grandfather, i.e. the Father ever of Brahma
(Hiranyagarbha). Namo, salutations; namah, salutation; astu, be; te, to
You; sahasra-krtvah, a thousand times. Punah ca bhuyah api namo te,
salutation to You again and again; namah, salutation! The suffix krtvasuc
(after sahasra) indicates performance and repetition of the act of
salutation a number of times. The words punah ca bhuyah api (again and
again) indicate his own dissatisfaction [Dissatisfaction with only a few
salutations.] owing to abundance of reverence and devotion. So also,
11.40 Namah, salutation to You; purastat, in the East; atha, and; even
prsthatah, behind. Salutation be sarvatah, on all sides; eva, indeed; te,
to You who exist everywhere; sarva, O All! Tvam, You; are ananta-viryaamita-
vikramah, possessed of infinite strength and infinite heroism. virya
is strength, and vikramah is heroism. Someone though possessing
strength for the use of weapons etc. [Ast. reads 'satru-vadha-visaye, in
the matter of killing an enemy'.-Tr.] may lack heroism or have little
heroism. But You are possessed of infinite strength and infinite heroism.
Samapnosi, You pervade, interpenetrate; sarvam, everything, the whole
Universe, by Your single Self. Tatah, hence; asi, You are; sarvah, All, i.e.,
no entity exists without You. 'Since I am guilty of not knowing Your
greatness, therefore,'-
11.41 Like a fool, ajanata, without knowing-. Not knowing what? In
answer he says: idam, this; mahimanam, greatness-the Cosmic form;
tava, of Yours, of God; yat, whatever; uktam, was said; maya, by me (to
You); prasabham, rashly, slightingly; pramadat, through inadvertence,
being in a distracted state of mind; va api, or even; pranayena, out of
intimacy-itimacy is the familiarity arising out of love; whatever I have said
because of that reason; erroneously matva, thinking (You); sakha iti, to
be a friend, of the same age; iti, addressing You as, 'O Krsna,' 'O
Yadava,' 'O friend,'-. In the clause, 'tava idam mahimanam, ajanata,
without knowing this greatness of Yours,' idam (this) (in the neutor
gender) is connected with mahimanam (greatness) (in masculine gender)
by a change of gender. If the reading be tava imam, then both the words
would be in the same gender.
11.42 And, yat, that; asi, You have been; asatkrtah, discourteously
treated, slighted; avahasa-artham, out of fun, with a veiw to mocking;-
where?-in these, Acyuta, viz vihara-sayya-asana-bhojanesu, while
walking [Walking, i.e. sports or exercise], while on a bed, while on a seat,
and while eating;-that You have been insulted ekah, in privacy, in the
absence of others; adhava, or; that You have been insulted api, even;
tat-samaksam, in public, in the very presence of others-(-tat being used
as an adverb); tat, for that, for all those offences; O Acyuta, aham, I;
ksamaye, beg pardon; tvam, of You; aprameyam, the incomprehensible
One, who are beyond the means of knowledge. (I beg Your pardon)
because,
11.43 Asi, You are; pita, the Father, the Progenitor; lokasya, off all
beings; cara-acarasya, moving and nonmoving. Not only are Yur are
Father of this world, You are also pujyah, worthy of worship; since You
are the guruh, Teacher; [He is the Teacher since He introduce the line of
teachers of what is virtue and vice, and of the knowledge of the Self.
And He is greater than a teacher because He is the teacher even of
Hiranyagarbha and others.] gariyan, greater (than a teacher). How are
You greater? In answer he says: Asti, there is; na, none other; tvatsamah,
equal to You; for there is no possibility of two Gods. Because all
dealings will come to naught if there be many Gods! When there is no
possibility of another being equal toYou, kutah eva, how at all; can there
be anyah, anyone; abhyadhikah, greater; api, even; loka-traye, in all the
three worlds; apratima-prabhavah, O you of unrivalled power? That by
which something is measured is pratima. You who have no measure for
Your power (prabhava) are a pratima-prabhavah. Apratima-prabhava
means 'O You of limitless power!' Since this is so,
11.44 Tasmat, therefore; pranamya, by bowing down; and pranidhaya
kayam, prostrating, laying, the body completely down; prasadaye, I seek
to propitiate; tvam, You; who are isam, God, the Lord; and are idyam,
adorable. Deva, O God; You are Your part, arhasi, should; sodhum, bear
with, i.e. forgive (my faults); iva, as would; a pita, father; forgive all the
faults putrasya, of a son; and as a sakha, friend; the fautls sakhyuh, of a
friend; or as a priyah, lover; forgives the faults priyayah, of a beloved.
11.45 Asmi, I am; hrsitah, delighted; drstva, by seeing; adrsta-purvam,
something not seen heretofore-by seeing this Cosmic form of Yours
which has never been seen before by me or others. And me, my; manah,
mind; is pravyathitam, stricken; bhayena, with fear. Therefore, deva, O
Lord; darsaya, show; me, to me; tat eva, that very; rupam, form, which is
of my friend. Devesa, O supreme God; jagan-nivasa, Abode of the
Universe; prasida, be gracious!
11.46 Aham, I; icchami, want; drastum, to see; tvam, You; kiritinam,
wearing a crown; as also gadinam, wielding a mace; and cakra-hastam,
holding a disc in hand; i.e., tatha eva, just as before. Since this is so,
therefore, sahasra-baho, O You with a thousand arms-in Your present
Cosmic form; visva-murte, O you of Cosmic form; bhava, apeear; tena
eva rupena, with that very form-with the form of the son of Vasudeva;
caturbhujena, with four hands. The idea is: withdrawing the Cosmic
form, appear in that very form as the son of Vasudeva. Noticing Arjuna
to have become afraid, and withdrawing the Cosmic form, reassuring
him with sweet words-
11.47 Prasannena, out of grace-grace means the intention of favouring
you; O Arjuna, idam, this; param, supreme; tejomayam, abundantly
radiant; visvam, Cosmic, all-comprehensive; anantam, infinite, limitless;
adyam, primeval-that which existed in the beginning; rupam, form, the
Cosmic form; yat which form; me, of Mine; na drsta-purvam, has not
been seen before; tvat-anyena, by anyone other than you; daristam, has
been shown; tava, to you; maya, by Me-who am racious, being
possessed of that (intention of favouring you); atma-yogat, through the
power of My own Yoga, through the power of My own Godhood. 'You
have certainly got all your ends accomplished by the vision of the form of
Mine who am the Self [The word atmanah (who am the Self) does not
occur in some editions.-Tr.] .' Saying so, He eulogizes that (vision):
11.48 Na veda-yajna-adhyayanaih, not by the study of the Vedas and
sacrifices, (i.e.) not by the methodical study of even the four Vedas and
the study of the sacrifices-since the study of the sacrifices is achieved by
the very study of the Vedas, the separate mention of the study of
sacrifices is for suggesting detailed knowledge of sacrifices; [This
separate mention of the study of sacrifices is necessary because the
ancients understood the study of Vedas to mean learing them by rote.]
so also, na danaih, not by gifts-in such forms as distributing wealth equal
to the weight of the giver; na ca kriyabhih, not even by rituals-by Vedic
and other rituals like Agnihotra etc.; nor even ugraih tapobhih, by severe
austerities such a Candrayana [A religious observance or expiatory
penance regulated by the moon's phases. In it the daily quantity of food,
which consists of fifteen mouthfuls at the full-moon, is curtailed by one
mouthful during the dark fornight till it is reduced to nothing at the new
moon; and it is increased in a like manner during the bright fortnight.-
V.S.A.] etc. which are frightful; sakyah aham, can I; evam rupam, in this
form-possessing the Cosmic form as was shown; drastum, be
perceived; nrloke, in the human world; tvad-anyena, by anyone other
than you; kuru-pravira, O most valiant among the Kurus.
11.49 Ma te vyatha, may you have no fear; and ma vimudha-bhavah,
may not there be bewilderment of the mind; drstva, by seeing,
perceiving; idam, this rupam, form; mama, of Mine; idrk ghoram, so
terrible, as was revealed. Vyapetabhih, becoming free from fear; and
becoming prita-manah, gladdened in mind; punah, again; prapasya, see;
idam, this; eva, very; tat, earlier; rupam, form; me, of Mine, with four
hands, holding a conch, a discus and a mace, which is dear to you.
11.50 Iti, thus; uktva, having spoken; arjunam, to Arjuna; tatha, in that
manner, the words as stated above; Vasudeva darsayamasa, showed;
svakam, His own; rupam, form, as was born in the house of Vasudeva;
bhuyah, again. And the mahatma, exalted One; asvasayamasa,
reassured; enam, this; bhitam, terrified one; bhutva, by becoming;
punah, again; saumya-vapuh, serene in form, graceful in body.
11.51 O Janardana, drstva, having seen; idam, this; saumyam, serene;
manusam, human; rupam, form; tava, of Yours-gracious, as of my friend;
asmi, I have; idanim, now; samvrttah, become;-what?-sacetah, calm in
mind; and gatah, restored; prakrtim, to my own nature.
11.52 Idam, this; rupam, form; mama, of Mine; yat, which; drstavan, asi,
you have seen is; sudur-darsam, very difficult to see. Api, even; the
devah, gods; are nityam, ever; darsana-kanksinah, desirous of a vision;
asya, of this; rupasya, form of Mine. The idea is that though they want to
see, they have not seen in the way you have, nor will they see! Why so?
11.53 Na vedaih, not through the Vedas, not even through the four
Vedas-Rk, Yajus, Sama and Atharvan; na tapasa, not by austerity, not
by severe austerities like the Candrayana; not danena, by gifts, by gifts
of cattle, land, gold, etc.; na ca, nor even; ijyaya, by sacrifices or
worship; sakyah aham, can I; drastum, be seen evamvidhah, in this
form, in the manner as was shown; yatha, as; drstavan asi, you have
seen mam, Me. 'How again, can You be seen? This is being answered:
11.54 Tu, but, O Arjuna; bhaktya, by devotion-. Of what kind? To this
the Lord says: Ananyaya, by (that devotion which is ) single-minded.
That is called single-minded devotion which does not turn to anything
else other than the Lord, and owing to which nothing else but Vasudeva
is perceived by all the organs. With that devotion, aham sakyah, am I
able; evamvidhah, in this form-in the aspect of the Cosmic form; jnatum,
to to known-from the scriptures; not merely to be known from the
scriptures, but also drastum, to be seen , to be realized directly;
tattvena, in reality; and also pravestum, to be entered into-for attaining
Liberation; parantapa, O destroyer of foes. Now the essential purport of
the whole scripture, the Gita, which is meant for Liberation, is being
stated by summing it up so that it may be practised:
11.55 Pandava, O son of Pandu; yah, he who; mat-karma-krt, works for
Me: work for Me is mat-karma; one who does it is mat-karma-krt-. Matparamah,
who accepts Me as the supreme Goal: A servant does work
for his master, but does not accept the master as his own supreme Goal
to be attained after death; his one, however, who does work for Me,
accepts Me alone as the supreme Goal. Thus he is matparamah-one to
whom I am the supreme Goal-. So also he who is madbhaktah, devoted
to me: He adores Me alone in all ways, with his whole being and full
enthusiasm. Thus he is madbhaktah-. Sanga-varjitah, who is devoid of
attachment for wealth, sons, friends, wife and relatives, Sanga means
fondness, love; devoid of them-. Nirvairah, who is free from enmity;
sarva-bhutesu, towards all beings-berefit of the idea of enmity even
towards those engaged in doing unmost harm to him-. Sah, he who is
such a devotee of Mine; eti, attains; mam, Me. I alone am his supreme
Goal; he does not attain any other goal. This is the advice for you, given
by Me as desired by you.
¿l°. 18 (vy¡) m®d¡pratibh¡s¡tmakamiti. idaÆ ca
tattvajµ¡n¡rthakatattvapad®n¡nv®ti.
sat satyamity¡di. taduktam --
'sattvaÆ (cca) sattv¡¿rayaÆ sattvagu¸aÆ s®vata k®¿avam.
y°'nanyatv®na manas¡ s¡ttvataÅ samu (u) d¡h¤taÅ..
vih¡ya k¡my¡ [ n ] karm¡d¢n bhaj®d®k¡kinaÆ harim.
satyaÆ sattvagu¸°p®t° bhakty¡ taÆ s¡ttvataÆ viduÅ..'
-- p¡dm°ttarakha¸·® 99 adhy¡y®,
(¿abdakalpadrum® uddh¤tam)
's¡tvat¡' iti. satvantaÅ, ta ®v®ty¡diÅ. adhikamanyatra.
'g°p¡yat®' iti. gup£ rakÀa¸® bhv¡diÅ parasmaipad® pa¶hitaÅ..
¿l°. 34-35 (vy¡) '¿uddh¡¿uddh®ty¡di' --
¿uddh¡¿uddhami¿r¡tmakasaÆvid¡ bal®na gr¡s¢k¡r¡diti vigrahaÅ.
'samarth®bhy°'stu'. samarth®bhyastu ity®va v¡ vivakÀitamiva..
¿l°. 38 (vy¡) 'na parabrahmasatt¡vyatiriktaÅ iti'. na
parabrahmasatt¡vyatiriktasatt¡ka ityarthaÅ..
¿l°. 41 (vy¡) 'ityan®na paunaÅpunyamiti'. t¤t¢y¡rth°'bh®daÅ.
ity®tad¡tmakaÆ paunaÅpunyamityarthaÅ..
¿l°. 44 (m£) 'satsamakÀamiti r¡maka¸¶h¢yaÅ p¡¶haÅ sam¡d¤taÅ'.
sat¡Æ saÆnidh¡niti tadarthaÅ..
¿l°. 47 (m£) vibhuÅ. vividhaÆ ¿iv¡dip¤thivyantabh®d®na bhavat¢ti
vibhuÅ. ata ®va bhavati sarvar£p®¸®ti bhavaÅ.
¿l°. 52 (m£) '¡tmay°g¡t'. tvatkart¤kaÅ ¡tmaviÀayakaÅ
madanugrahajany° y° y°gaÅ tasm¡ddh®t°rityarthaÅ.
pait¤Àvasr®yatv¡diÅ yaÅ ¡tman° 'v¡sud®vasya' k¤À¸asya kaunt®y®
arjun® y°gaÅ bandhutvaÆ tasm¡ddh®t°riti v¡.
'vibh¡À¡ gu¸®'striy¡m' (PA, II, iii, 25) iti paµcam¢..
¿l°. 53 (m£) 'ahamiti napuÆsakam ahaÆpratyayav®dyamabhidadh¡ti'..
¿l°. 55 (m£) 'svakaÆ r£pamiti. alp¡rth® kaÅ'..
¿l°. 56 (vy¡) 'dad¡t¢ti. dadh¡t¢ti v¡ vivakÀitamiva'..
¿l°. 59-60 (vy¡) 't®À¡m'ityasya b°dhapadav¢mityuttaratr¡nvayaÅ..
..iti ¿r¢madbhagavadg¢t¡rthasaÆgraha¶ippa¸y¡m ®k¡da¿°'dhy¡yaÅ..
..¿r¢madbhagavadg¢t¡rthasaÆgraha¶ippa¸¢..

BHAGAVADGITA
English translation of Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary - Swami
Gambhirananda
Chapter 12
ROMAN
12.1 The subject-matter stated in the immediately preceding verse,
'...he who works for Me,' etc. is referred to by the word evam (thus). Ye
bhaktah, those devotees who, seeking no other refuge; evam, thus;
satata-yuktah, being ever-devoted, i.e., remaining unceasingly engaged
in the works of the Lord, etc., intent on the aforesaid purpose;
paryupasate, meditate; tvam, on You, in the Cosmic form as revealed
earlier; ye ca api, and those others, again, who have renounced all
desires, who have given up all actions; who meditate on Brahman as
described (below), aksaram, on the Immutable; avyaktam, on the
Unmanifested, which is so on account of being bereft of all limiting
adjuncts, (and) which is beyond the comprehension of the organs-in the
world, whatever comes within the range of the organs is said to be
manifest, for the root anj conveys that sense; but this Immutable is the
opposite of that and is endowed with qualifications that are spoken of by
the great ones; those again, who meditate on that-; tesam, of them,
among the two (groups); ke, who; are the yoga-vit-tamah, best
experiencers of yoga, i.e., who are those that are surpassingly versed in
yoga? But leave alone those who meditate on the Immutable, who are
fully enlightened and are free from desires. Whatever has to be said with
regard to them, we shall say later on. As for those others12.2
Ye, those who, being devotees; upasate, meditate; mam, on Me,
the supreme Lord of all the masters of yoga, the Omniscient One whose
vision is free from purblindness caused by such defects as attachment
etc.; avesya,by fixing, concentrating; their manah, minds; mayi, on Me,
on God in His Cosmic form; nitya-yuktah, with steadfast devotion, by
being ever-dedicated in accordance with the idea expressed in the last
verse of the preceding chapter; and being upetah, endowed; paraya,
with supreme; sraddhaya faith;-te, they; matah, are considered; to be
yukta-tamah, most perfect yogis; me, according to Me, for they spend
days and nights with their minds constantly fixed on Me. Therefore, it is
proper to say with regard to them that they are the best yogis. 'Is it that
the others do not become the best yogis?' No, but listen to what has to
be said as regards them:'
12.3 Ye, those; tu, however; who, pari-upasate, meditate in every way;
aksaram, on the Immutable; anirdesyam, the Indefinable-being
unmanifest, It is beyond the range of words and hence cannot be
defined; avyaktam, the Unmanifest-It is not comprehensible thrugh any
means of knowledge-. Upasana, meditation, means approaching an
object of meditation as presented by the scriptures, and making it an
object of one's own thought and dwelling on it uniterruptedly for long by
continuing the same current of thought with regard to it-like a line of
pouring oil. This is what is called upasana. The Lord states the
characteristics of the Immutable [Here Ast. adds 'upasyasya, which is
the object of meditation'.-Tr.] : Sarvatragam, all-pervading, pervasive like
space; and acintyam, incomprehensible-becuase of Its being
unmanifest. For, whatever comes within the range of the organs can be
thought of by the mind also. Being opposed to that, the Immutable is
inconceivable. It is kutastham, changeless. Kuta means something
apparently good, but evil inside. The word kuta (deceptive) is well known
in the world in such phrases as, 'kuta-rupam, deceptive in appearance,'
'kuta-saksyam, false evidence', etc. Thus, kuta is that which, as
ignorance etc., is the seed of many births, full of evil within, referred to
by such words as maya, the undifferentiated, etc., and well known from
such texts as, 'One should know Maya to be Nature, but the Lord of
Maya to be the supreme God' (Sv. 4.10), 'The divine Maya of Mine is
difficult to cross over' (7.14), etc. That which exists on that kuta as its
controller (or witness) is the kuta-stha. Or, kutastha may mean that
which exists like a heap [That is, motionless.]. Hence it is acalam,
immovable. Since It is immovable, therefore It is dhruvam, constant, i.e.
eternal.
12.4 Samniyamya, by fully controlling, withdrawing; indriya-gramam, all
the organs; and sarvatra, always at all times; sama-buddhayah, being
even-minded-the even-minded are those whose minds remain
equipoised in getting anything desirable or undesirable; te, they, those
who are of this kind; ratah, engaged; sarva-bhuta-hite, in the welfare of
all beings prapnuvanti, attain; mam, Me; eva, alone. As regards them it
needs no saying that they attain Me, for it has been said, '...but the man
of Knowledge is the very Self. (This is) My opinion' (7.18). It is certainly
not proper to speak of being or not being the best among the yogis with
regard to those who have attained identity with the Lord. But,
12.5 Tesam, for them; avyakta-asakta-cetasam, who have their minds
attached to the Unmanifest; klesah,the struggle; is adhika-tarah, greater.
Although the trouble is certainly great for those who are engaged in
works etc. for Me, still owing to the need of giving up self-identification
with the body, it is greater in the case of those who accept the
Immutable as the Self and who kept in view the supreme Reality. Hi, for;
avyakta gatih, the Goal which is the Unmanifest-(the goal) which stands
in the form of the Immutable; that is avapyate, attained; duhkham, with
difficulty; dehavadbhih, by the embodied ones, by those who identify
themselves with the body. Hence the struggle is greater. We shall speak
later of the conduct of those who meditate on the Unmanifest.
12.6 Tu, as for; ye, those who; sannyasya, having dedicated; sarvani,
all; karmani, actions; mayi, to Me who am God; and matparah, having
accepted Me as the supreme; upasate, meditate; dhyayantah, by
thinking; mam, of Me; ananyena, with single-minded; yogena,
concentration; eva, only-. That (yoga) is single-minded which has no
other object than the Cosmic Deity, the Self. By thinking exclusively with
that single-minded [The Ast. and the A.A. read 'kena, what?' in place of
'kevalena, exclusively'.-Tr.] (yoga)-. What comes to them?
12.7 O son of Prtha, tesam, for them who are solely devoted to
meditating on Me; avesita-cetasam mayi, who have their minds
absorbed in, fixed on, merged in, Me who am the Cosmic Person;
aham, I, God; bhavami, become; na cirat, without delay;-what then?
soon indeed-the samuddharta, Deliverer-. Wherefrom? In answer the
Lord says, mrtyu-samsara-sagarat, from the sea of the world which is
fraught with death. Samsara (world) fraught with mrtyu (death) is mrtyusamsara.
That itself is like a sea, being difficult to cross. I become their
deliverer from that sea of transmigration which is fraught with death.
Since this is so, therefore,
12.8 Adhatsva, fix manah, the mind-possessed of the power of thinking
and doubting; mayi, on Me, on God as the Cosmic Person; eva, alone.
Mayi, in Me; eva, alone; nivesaya, rest; the buddhim, intellect, which
engages in determining (things). Listen to what will happen to you
thereby: Na samsayah, there is no doubt-no doubt should be
entertained with regard to this; that atah urdhvam, hereafter, after the fall
of the body; nivasisyasi, you will dwell; mayi, in Me, live in identity
withMe; eva, alone.
12.9 Atha, if, however; na saknosi, you are unable; samadhatum, to
establish, in this way as I have described; cittam, the mind; sthiram,
steadily, unwaveringly; mayi, on Me; tatah, then; O Dhananjaya, iccha,
seek, pray; aptum, to attain; mam, Me, as the Cosmic person; abhyasayogena,
through the Yoga of Practice. Practice consists in repeatedly
fixing the mind on a single object by withdrawing it from everything else.
The yoga following from this, and consisting in concentration of the
mind, is abhyasa-yoga.
12.10 If asamarthah asi, you are unable; api, even; abhyase, to practise;
then, bhava, be; mat-karma-paramah, intent on works for Me-works
(karma) meant for Me (mat) are mat-karma-i.e., you be such that works
meant for Me become most important to you. In the absence of Practice,
api, even; kurvan, by undertaking; karmani, works alone; madartham, for
Me; avapsyasi, you will attain; siddhim, perfection-by gradually acquiring
purification of mind, concentration and Knowledge.
12.11 Atha, if, again; asaktah asi, you are unable; kartum, to do; etat
api, even this-what was stated as being 'intent on doing works for Me';
in that case, mad-yogam-asritah, having resorted to the Yoga for Me-the
performance of those works that are being done by dedicating them to
Me is madyogah; by resorting to that Yoga for Me; tatah, thereafter;
sarva-karma-phala-tyagam kuru, renounce, give up, the results of all
works; by becoming yata-atmavan, controlled in mind. [In the earlier
verse it was enjoined that all works, be they Vedic or secular, are to be
considered as belonging to God and should be done for Him-not for
oneself-, as a soldier would do for his king. In the present verse it is
stated that the attitude should be, 'May this work of mine please God.'
This very attitude involves dedicating of results to God. See S.
According to M.S., mat-karma in the earlier verse means bhagavatadharma,
i.e. hearing, singing, etc. about God. In the present verse,
sarva-karma means all works in general.-Tr.] Now the Lord praises the
renunciation of the results of all works:
12.12 Jnanam, knowledge; [Firm conviction about the Self arrived at
through Vedic texts and reasoning.] is hi, surely; sreyah, superior; -to
what?-abhyasat, to practice [Practice-repeated effort to ascertain the
true meaning of Vedic texts, in order to acquire knowledge.] which is not
preceded by discrimination. Dhyanam, meditation, undertaken along
with knowledge; visisyate, surpasses even jnanat, that knowledge.
Karma-phala-tyagah, renunciation of the results of works; excels even
dhyanat, meditation associated with knowledge. ('Excels' has to be
supplied.) Tyagat, from this renunciation of the results of actions, in the
way described before; [By dedicating all actions to God with the idea,
'May God be pleased.'] santih, Peace, the cessation of transmigratory
existence together with its cause; follows anantaram, immediately; not
that it awaits another accasion. Should the unenlightened person
engaged in works be unable to practise the disciplines enjoined earlier,
then, for him has been enjoined renunciation of the results of all works
as a means to Liberation. But this has not been done at the very
beginning. And for this reason renunciation of the results of all works has
been praised in, 'Knowledge is surely superior to practice,' etc. by
teaching about the successive excellence. For it has been taught as
being fit to be adopted by one in case he is unable to practise the
disciplines already presented [Presented from verse 3 onwards.]
Objection: From what similarly does the eulogy follow? Reply: In the
verse, 'When all desires clinging to one's heart fall off' (Ka, 2.3.14), it has
been stated that Immortality results from the rejection of all desires. That
is well known. And 'all desires' means the 'result of all rites and duties
enjoined in the Vedas and Smrtis'. From the renunciation of these, Peace
surely comes immediately to the enlightened man who is steadfast in
Knowledge. There is a similarity between renunciation of all desires and
renunciation of the results of actions by an unenlightened person.
Hence, on account of that similarity this eulogy of renunciation of the
results of all actions is meant for rousing interest. As for instance, by
saying that the sea was drunk up by the Brahmana Agastya, the
Brahmanas of the present day are also praised owing to the similarity of
Brahminhood. In this way it was been said that Karma-yoga becomes a
means for Liberation,since it involves renunciaton of the rewards of
works. Here, again, the Yoga consisting in the concentration of mind on
God as the Cosmic Person, as also the performance of actions etc. for
God, have been spoken of by assuming a difference between God and
Self. In, 'If you are unable to do even this' (11) since it has been hinted
that it (Karma-yoga) is an effect of ignorance, therefore the Lord is
pointing out that Karma-yoga is not suitable for the meditator on the
Immutable, who is aware of idenity (of the Self with God). The Lord is
similarly pointing out the impossibility of a karma-yogin's meditation on
the Immutable. In (the verse), 'they...attain Me alone' (4), having
declared that those who meditate on the Immutable are independent so
far as the attainment of Liberation is concerned, the Lord has shown in,
'...I become the Deliverer' (7), that others have no independence; they
are dependent on God. For, if they (the former) be considered to have
become identified with God, they would be the same as the Immutable
on account of (their) having realized non-difference. Consequently,
speaking of them as objects of the act of deliverance will become
inappropriate! And, since the Lord in surely the greatest well-wisher of
Arjuna, He imparts instructions only about Karma-yoga, which involves
perception of duality and is not associated with full Illumination. Also, no
one who has realized his Self as God through valid means of knowledge
would like subordination to another, since it involves a contradiction.
Therefore, with the idea, 'I shall speak of the group of virtues (as stated
in), He hwo is not hateful towards any creature, etc. which are the direct
means to Immortality, to those monks who meditate on the
Immutable,who are steadfast in full enlightenment and have given up all
desires,' the Lord proceeds:
12.13 Advesta, he who is not hateful; sarva-bhutanam, towards any
creature: He does not feel repulsion for anything, even for what may be
the cause of sorrow to himself, for he sees all beings as his own Self.
Maitrah, he who is friendly-behaving like a friend; karunah eva ca, and
compassionate: karuna is kindness, compassion towards sorrowstricken
creatures; one possessing that is karunah, i.e. a monk, who
grants safety to all creatures. Nirmamah, he who has no idea of 'mine';
nirahankarah, who has no idea of egoism; sama-duhkha-sukhah, who is
the same under sorrow and happiness, he in whom sorrow and
happiness do not arouse any repulsion or attraction; ksami, who is
forgiving, who remains unperturbed even when abused or assaulted;
12.14 Santustah satatam, he who is ever content: who has the sense of
contentment irrespective of getting or not getting what is needed for the
maintenance of the body; who is similarly ever-satisfied whether he gets
or not a good thing. Yogi, who is a yogi, a man of concentrated mind;
yata-atma, who has self-control, whose body and organs are under
control; drdha-niscayah, who has firm conviction-with regard to the
reality of the Self; arpita-mano-buddhih, who has dedicated his mind and
intellect; mayi, to Me-(i.e.) a monk whose mind (having hte
characteristics of reflection) and intellect (possessed of the faculty of
taking decisions) are dedicated to, fixed on, Me alone; sah yah, he who
is; such a modbhaktah, devotee of Mine; is priyah, dear; me, to Me. It
was hinted in the Seventh Chapter, 'For I am very much dear to the man
of Knowledge, and he too is dear to Me' (7.17). That is being elaborated
here.
12.15 Sah ca, he too; yasmat, owing to whom owing to which monk;
lokah, the world; na udvijate, is not disturbed, not afflicted, not agitated;
so also, yah na udvijate, he who is not disturbed; lokat, by the world;
muktah, who is free; harsa-amarsa-bhaya-udvegaih, from joy,
impatience, fear and anxiety;-harsa is elation of the mind on acquiring a
thing dear to oneself, and is manifested as horripillation, shedding of
tears, etc.; amarsa is non-forbearance; bhaya is fright; udvega is
distress; he who is free from them-, is priyah, dear; me, to Me.
12.16 Anapeksah, he who has no desires with regard to covetable
things like body, organs, objects, (their inter-) relationship, etc.; sucih,
who is pure, endowed with external and internal purity; daksah, who is
dextrous, who is able to promptly understand in the right way the duties
that present themselves; udasinah, who is impartial, the monk who does
not side with anybody-friends and others; gatavyathah, who is free from
fear; sarva-arambha-parityagi, who has renounced every undertakingworks
under-taken are arambhah; sarva-arambhah means works
undertaken out of desire for results to be enjoyed here or hereafter; he
who is apt to give them up (pari-tyaga) is sarva-arambha-parityahi; he
who is such a madbhaktah, devotee of Mine; he is priyah, dear; me, to
Me. Further,
12.17 Yah, he who; na hrsyati, does not rejoice on getting a coveted
object; na dvesti, does not fret on getting an undesirable object; na
socati, does not lament on the loss of a dear one; and na kanksati, does
not hanker after an object not acquired; subha-asubha-parityogi, who
gives up good and bad, who is apt to give up good and bad actions;
bhaktiman, who is full of devotion-he is dear to Me.
12.18 Samah, who is the same; satrau ca mitre, towards friend and foe;
ca tatha, and so also; mana-apamanayoh, in honour and dishonour, in
adoration and humiliation; who is the same sita-usna-sukha-duhkhesu,
under cold, heat, happiness and sorrow; and sanga-vivar-jitah, free from
attachment to everything; Moreover,
12.19 Narah, the person; tulya-ninda-stutih, to whom denunciation and
praise are the same; mauni, who is silent, restrained in speech;
santustah, content; yena-kenacit, with anything-for the mere
maintenance of the body, as has been said in, 'The gods know him to be
a Brahmana who is clad by anyone whosoever' (Mbh. Sa. 245.12);
further, aniketah, he who is homeless, who has no fixed place of
residence-'without a home' [ The whole verse is 'He,however is certainly
the knower of Liberation who has attachment neither for a hut, nor for
water, nor cloth, nor the three places of pilgrimage, nor a home, nor a
seat, nor food.'], as said in another Smrti; sthira-matih, steady-minded,
whose thought is steady with regard to the Reality which is the supreme
Goal; and bhaktiman, who is full of devotion-(he) is dear to Me. [There is
a repeated mention of Bhakti in this Chapter because it is means to the
Knowledge which leads to the supreme Goal.] The group of qualities
of the monks who meditate on the Immutable, who have renounced all
desires, who are steadfast in the knowledge of the supreme Goal-which
(qualities) are under discussion beginning from 'He who is not hateful
towards any creature' (13), is being concluded:
12.20 Tu, but; ye bhaktah, those devotees of Mine, the monks who
have resorted to the highest devotion consisting in the knowledge of the
supreme Reality; mat-paramah, who accept Me as the supreme Goal, to
whom I, as mentioned above, who am identical with the Immutable, am
the highest (parama), unsurpassable Goal; and sraddadhanah, with faith;
paryupasate, seek for, practise; idam, this; dharmyamrtam, ambrosia
that is indistinguishable from the virtues-that which is indistinguishable
from dharma (virtue) is dharmya, and this is called amrta (ambrosia) since
it leads to Immortality-; yatha-uktam, as stated above in, 'He who is not
hateful towards any creature,' etc.; te, they; are ativa, very; priyah, dear;
me, to Me. After having explained what was hinted in, 'For I am very
much dear to the man of Knowledge...'(7.17), that has been concluded
here in, 'Those devotees are very dear to Me.' Since by seeking for this
ambrosia which is indistinguishable from the virtues as stated above one
becomes very dear to Me, who am theLord Vishnu, the supreme God,
therefore this nectar which is indistinguishable from the virtues has to be
diligently sought for by one who is a seeker of Liberation, who wants to
attain the coveted Abode of Visnu. This is the purport of the sentence.
[Thus, after the consummation of meditation on the qualified Brahman,
one who aspires after the unqualified Brahman, who has the
qualifications mentioned in, 'He who is not hateful towards any creature,'
etc., who is pre-eminently fit for this purpose, and who practises sravana
etc. has the possibility of realizing the Truth from which his Liberation
logically follows. Hence, the conclusion is that the meaning of the word
tat (in the sentence tattvamasi) has to be sought for, since his has the
power to arouse the comprehension of the meaning of that sentence,
which is the means to Liberation.]

BHAGAVADGITA
English translation of Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary - Swami
Gambhirananda
Chapter 13
ROMAN
13.1 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka.
Many editions of the Bhagavadgita do not contain this
sloka.. If this sloka is included, the total number of slokas
in the Bhagavadgita is 701.
13.2 The Lord specifies the body as the object referred to by the
pronoun idam (this). O son of Kunti, (this body) abhidhiyate, is referred
to; ksetram iti, as the field-because it is protected (tra) against injury
(ksata), or because it perishes (ksi), wastes away (ksar), or because the
results of actions get fulfilled in the body as in a field (ksetra). The word
iti is used in the sense of 'as'. They-who?-tadvidah, who are versed in
this, who know the 'field' and the 'knower of the field'; ahuh, call; tam,
him, the knower; yah, who; vetti etat, is concious of, knows, it, the body,
the field-makes it, from head to foot, an abject of his knowledge; makes
it an object of perception as a separate entity, through knowledg which
is spontaneous or is acquired through instruction; ksetrajna iti, as the
knower of the field. As before, the word iti is used in the sense of 'as'.
They call him as the knower of the field. Is it that the field and the
knower of the field thus mentioned are to be understood through this
much knowledge only? The answer is, no.
13.3 Ca api, and; viddhi, understand; mam, Me, the supreme God who
is transcendental; to be the ksetrajnam, 'Knower of the field' with the
characterisitics noted above; sarva-ksetresu, in all the fields. The idea is
this: Know the 'Knower of the field'- who has become diversified by
limiting adjuncts in the form of numerous 'fields' ranging from Brahma to
a clump of grass-as free from differentiations resulting from all the
limiting adjuncts, and as beyond the range of such words and ideas as
existece, nonexistence, etc. O scion of the Bharata dynasty, since there
remains nothing to be known apart from the true nature of the field, the
knower of the field and God, therefore; tat, that; is jnanam, Knowledge,
right knowledge; yat, which; is the jnanam, knowledge; ksetraksetrajnayoh,
of the field and the knower of the field-which are the two
knowables-, and by which Knowledge the field and the knower of the
field are made objects of knowledge. This is mama, My, God Vishu's;
matam, opinion. Objection: Well, if it be that in all the field there exists
God alone, and none else other than Him, as the enjoyer, then God will
become a mundane being; or, due to the absence of any mundane
creature other than God, there will arise the contingency of the negation
of mundance existence. And both these are undesirable, since the
scriptures dealing with bondage, Liberation and their causes will become
useless, and also becuase they contradict such valid means of
knowledge as direct perception. In the first place, mundane existence
which is characterized by happiness, sorrow and their cause is
apprehended through direct perception. Besides, from the perception of
variety in the world it can be inferred that mundane existence results
from virtue and vice. All this becomes illogical if God and the individual
soul be one. Reply: No, because this becomes justifiable owing to the
difference between Knowledge and ignorance. 'These two, viz that
which is know as Knowledge and that which is known as ignorance are
widely contradictory, and they follow divergent courses' (Ka. 1.2.4.); and
similarly, the different results, viz Liberation and enjoyment, belonging
(respectively) to those Knowledge and ignorance, have also been
pointed out to be contrary by saying that Liberation is the goal of
Knowledge, and enjoyment is the result of ignorance (see Ka. 1.2.2).
Vyasa, also has said so: 'Now, there are these two paths' (Mbh Sa.
241.6) etc. and, 'There are only these two paths,' etc. Here (in the Gita)
also, two kinds of steadfastness have been stated. And it is understood
from the Vedas, the Smrtis and reason that ignorance together with its
effects has to be destroyed by Knowledge. As for the Vedic texts, they
are: 'If one has realized here, then there is truth; if he has not realized
here, then there is great destruction' (Ke. 2.5); 'Knowing Him in this
way, one becomes Immortal here' (Nr. Pu. 6); 'There is no other path to
go by' (Sv. 3.8); 'The enlightened man is not afraid of anything' (Tai.
2.9.1). On the other hand, (the texts) with regard to the unenlightened
person are: 'Then, he is smitten with fear' (Tai. 2.7.1); 'Living in the
midst of ognorance' (Ka. 1.2.5); One who knows Brahman becomes
Brahman indeed. In his line is not born anyone who does not know
Brahman' (Mu. 3.2.9); '(While he who worships another god thinking,)
He is one, and I am another, does not know. He is like an animal to the
gods' (Br. 1.4.10). He who is a knower of the Self, 'He becomes all this
(Universe)' (Br. 1.4.10); 'When men will fold up space like (folding)
leather, (then) there will be cessation of sorrow, without knowing the
Deity' (Sv. 6.9). There are thousands of texts like these. And the Smrti
texts (from the Gita) are: 'Knowledge remains covered by ignorance.
Thereby the creatures become deluded' (5.15); 'Here itself is rebirth
conquered by them whose minds are established on sameness' (5.19);
'Since by seeing equally the God who is present alike everywhere (he
does not injure the Self by the Self, therefore he attains the supreme
Goal)' (13.28), etc. And as for reason, there is the text, 'Men avoid
snakes, tips of kusa-grass as also well when they are aware of them.
Some fall into them owing to ignorance. Thus, see the special result
arising from knowledge' (Mbh. Sa. 201.17). Similarly, it is known that an
unelightened person, who identifies himself with the body etc. and who
practises righteousness and unrighteousness under the impulsion of
attachment and aversion, takes birth and dies. It cannot be reasonably
denied by anyone that, those who see the Self as different from the body
etc. become liberated as a result of the cessation of righteous and
unrighteous conduct, which depends on the destruction of attachment
and aversion. The being so, the Knower of the field, who is reality is
God Himself, appears to have become a mundane soul owing to the
various adjuncts which are products of ignorance; as for instance the
individual soul becomes identified with the body etc. For it is a wellknown
fact in the case of all creatures that their self-identify with the
body etc. which are not-Self is definitely caused by ignorance. Just as,
when a stump, of a tree is firmly regarded as a man, the qualities of a
man do not thereby come to exist in the stump, nor do the qualities of
the stump come to the person, similarly the property ofconsciousness
does not come to the body, nor those of the body to consciousness. It is
not proper that the Self should be identified with happiness, sorrow,
delusion, etc., since they, like decrepitude and death, are equally the
products of ignorance. Objection: May it not be said that this is not so,
becuase of dissimilarity? The stump and the man, which are verily
objects of perception, are superimposed on each other through
ignorance by their perceiver. On the other hand, in the case of the body
and the Self,, the mutual superimposition occurs verily between a
knower and an object of perception. Thus, the illustration is not equally
applicable. Therefore, may it not be that the properties of the body,
though objects of knowledge, belong to the Self which is the knower?
Reply: No, since there arises the contingency of (the Self) becoming
devoid of consciousness! If qualities such as happiness, sorrow,
delusion, desire, etc. of the body etc., which are the field and are objects
of knowledge, indeed belong to the knower, then it will be necessary to
explain the particular reason why some of the qualities of the object of
knowledge-the field-superimposed through ignorance belong to the Self,
while decrepitude, death, etc. do not. (On the contrary) it is possible to
infer that they (happiness etc.) do not pertain to the Self, since, like
decrepitude etc., they are superimposed on the Self through ignorance,
and because they are either avoidable or acceptable. This being so, the
mundane state, consisting of agentship and enjoyership pertaining to the
objects of knowledge, is superimposed on the knower through
ignorance. Hence, nothing of the knower is affected thereby-in the same
way as nothing of the sky is affected by the superimposition of surface,
diret, etc. (on it) by fools. Such being the case, not the least touch of the
mundane state is to be apprehended with regard to the almighty [see
footnote on p.5, and p.168.] God, the Knower of the field, even though
He exists in all the fields. For it is nowhere seen in the world that
anybody is benefitted or harmed by a quality attributed to him through
ignorance. As for the statement that the illustration is not equally
applicable-that is wrong. Objection: How? Reply: Because what is
intended as common between the illustration and the thing illustrated is
merely the superimposition through ignorance. There is no disagreement
as to that. However, as for your contention that the illustration fails with
regard to the Knower, that too has been shown to be inapt by citing the
example of decrepitude etc. [If it be held that objects of experience may
be superimposed on one another, but they cannot be superimposed on
the experiencer, the answer is that this cannot be a universal
proposition. For decrepitude and death, which are matters of
experience, are superimposed on the Self, the experiencer.] Objection:
May it not be that the Knower of the field becomes a mundane being
owing to his having ignorance? Reply: No, because ignorance is of the
nature of tamas. Since ignorance has the nature of covering, it is indeed
a notion born of tamas; it makes one perceive contrarily, or it arouses
doubt, or it leads to non-perception. For it disappears with the dawn of
discrimination. And the three kind of ignorance, viz non-perception etc.
[Etc: false perception and doubt.], are experienced when there are such
defects as blindness etc. which are forms of tamas and have the nature
of veiling. [It is known through the process of agreement and difference
that false perception etc. arise from some defects,and they are not the
qualities of the Self.] Objection: Here it is asserted that if this be the
case, then ignorance is a quality of the knower? Reply: No, for the
defects such as blindness are seen to belong to the eye which is an
organ. As for your notion that 'ignorance is a quality of the experiencer,
and the very fact of being possessed of the quality of ignorance is what
constitutes the mundane state of the Knower of the field; the assertion
which was made (by the Vedantin) in that connection, that the Knower of
th field is God Himself and not a mundane being, is improper,'-this is
not so. As for example: Since such defects as false perception etc. are
seen to belong to the organ eye, therefore false perception etc. or their
causes, viz defects like blindness etc., do not belong to the perceiver.
Just as blindness of the eyes does not pertain to the perceiver since on
being curved through treatment it is not seen in the perceiver, similarly
notions like non-perception, false perception, doubt, and their causes
should, in all cases, pertain to some organ; not to the perceiver, the
Knower of the field. And since they are objects of perception, they are
not qualities of the Knower in the same way that light is of a lamp. Just
because they are objects of perception, they are cognized as different
from one's own Self. Besides, it is denied by all schools of thought that
in Liberation, when all the organs depart, there is any association with
such defects as ignorance etc. If they (the defects) be the qualities of the
Self Itself, the Knower of the field, as heat is of fire, then there can never
be a dissociation from them. Again, since there can be no association
with or dissociation from anything for the immutable, formless Self which
is all-pervading like space, therefore it is established that the Knower of
the field is ever identical with God. This follows alos from the utternance
of the Lord, 'Being without beginning and without qualities' (31), etc.
Objection: Well, if this be so, then, owing to the nonexistence of the
world and the mundane creatures, there will arise the defect of the
uselessness of the scriptures, etc. Reply: No, since this (defect) is
admitted by all. A defect that is admitted by all who believe in the Self is
not to be explained by one alone! Objection: How has this been
admitted by all? Reply: People of all schools of thought who believe in
the Self admit that there is no worldly behaviour or the behaviour of a
worldling in the liberated ones. Yet, in their case (i.e. in those various
schools), it is not admitted that there is any possibility of such a defect
as the scriptures becoming useless, etc. Similarly, in our case let the
scriptures be useless when the knowers of the field become identified
with God; and purposeful within the sphere of ignorance. This is just as
in the case of all the dualists, where it is admitted that the scriptures etc.
become useful in the state of bondage, not in the state of Liberation.
Objection: Well, for us all dualists, bondage and Liberation of the Self are
real in the truest sense. So, when things to be renounced or accepted
as also the means thereto are real, the scriptures etc. become
meaningful. On the other hand, may it not be that for the non-dualists,
since duality deos not exist in truest sense, it being the creation of
ignorance, therefore the state of bondage of the Self is not ultimately
real, and hence the scriptures etc. become purposeless as they remain
shorn of a subject-matter? Reply: No, since it is not logical that the Self
should have different states. If this were possible at all, then the states of
bondage and freedom of the Self should be simultaneous, or successive.
As to that, they cannot occur simultaneously, since they are
contradictory-like rest and motion in the same object. Should they occur
successively and without being caused, then there will arise the
contingency of there being no Liberation; if they occur through some
cause, then, since they do not exist inherently, there arises the
contingency of their being ultimately unreal. In this case also the
assumption becomes falsified. Moreover, when ascertaining the
precedence and succession of the states of bondage and Liberation, the
state of bondage will have to be considered as being the earlier and
having no beginning, but an end. And that is contrary to valid means of
knowledge. Similarly it will have to be admitted that the state of
Liberation has a beginning, but no end- which is certainly opposed to
valid means of knowledge. And it is not possible to established eternality
for something that has states nd undergoes a change from one state to
another. On the other hand, if for avoiding the defect of non-eternality
the different states of bondage and Liberation be not assumed, then,
even for the dualists such defects as the purposelessness of the
scriptures become certainly unavoidable. Thus, the situation being
similar (for both), it is not for the Advaitin (alone) to refute the objection.
Nor do the scriptures become purposeless, because the scriptures are
applicable to the commonly known unenlightened person. It is indeed in
the case of the ignorant person-not in the case of the enlightened onethat
there occurs the perception of identity of the Self with the effect (i.e.
enjoyership) and the cause (i.e. agentship) which are not-Self. For, in the
case of the enlightened persons, it is impossible that, after the dawn of
the realization of non-identity of the Self with effect and cause, they can
have Self identification with these as 'I'. Surely, not even a downright
fool, or a lunatic and such others, see water and fire or shade and light
as identical; what to speak of a discriminating person! Therefore, such
being the case, the scriptures dealing with injunction and prohibition do
not concern a person who sees the distinction of the Self from effect and
cause. For, when Devadatta is ordered to do som work with the words,
'You do this,' Visnumitra who happens to be there does not, even on
hearing the command, conclude, 'I have been ordered.' But this
conclusion is reasonable when the person for whom the order is meant
is not understood. So also with regard to cause and effect. Objection:
Can it not be that, even after having realized the Self as different from
effect and cuase, it is quite reasonable from the standpoint of natural
relationship, [Natural relationship-Self-identification with the body
through ignorance.] that with regard to the scriptures one should have
the understanding, 'I am enjoined to adotp the means that yields a
desired result, and am porhibited from adopting the means that leads to
an undesirable result'? As for instance, in the case of a father and son,
or between others, even though there exists the awareness of the
distinction between each other, still there is the comprehension of the
implication of the injunctions and prohibitions meant for one as being
also meant for the other. [In the (Br. (1.5.17) we read, 'Now therefore the
entrusting: When a man thinks he will die, he says to his son, You are
Brahman, you are the sacrifice, and you are the world,' etc. It has been
enjoined here in this manner that the son should accept as his own all
the duties thus entrusted to him by the father. Similarly, it is understood
that when a son in unable to perform his own duties, the father has to
accept them. So also in the case of brothers and others. Thus, in the
case of the enlightened person also, though there is a comprehension of
his own distinction from effect and cause, still, owing to his earlier
relationship with ignorance, body, etc., there is no contradiction in his
understanding that the injunctions and prohibitions are meant for him.]
Reply: No, since identification of the Self with effect and cause is
possible only before attaining the knowledge of the Self as distinct (from
them). It is only after one has followed (or eschewed) what is enjoined or
prohibited by the scriptures that he comprehends his own distinction
from the effect and cause; not before. [In B.S. (3.4.26-7) it is said that
the merit earned by the performance of scriptural duties helps to
generate knowledge of Brahman. Therefore these duties are not meant
for the enlightened. (By following what is enjoined, and avoiding what is
prohibited, one's mind becomes purified, and then only one understands
he is different from cause and effect-agentship and enjoyership.-Tr.)]
Therefore it is established that the scriptures dealing with injunctions and
prohibitions are meant for the ignorant. Objection: Well, if (injunctions
and prohibitions) such as, 'One who desires heaven shall perform
sacrifices', 'One should not eat poisoned meat,' etc. be not observed by
those who have realized the Self as distinct and by those who view only
the body as the Self, then, from the absence of any observer of those
(injunctions etc.) there would follow the uselessness of the scriptures.
Reply: No, because engagement in or abstention from actions follows
from what is ordained by the scriptures. As for one who has realized the
identity of the Lord and the knower of the field, one who has realized
Brahman-he does not engage in action. Similarly, even the person who
does not believe in the Self does not engage in action, under the idea
that the other world does not exist. However, one who has inferred the
existence of the Self on the ground of the wellknown fact that study of
the scriptures dealing with injunctions and prohibitions becomes
otherwise purposeless, who has no knowledge of the essential nature of
the Self, and in whom has arisen hankering for the results of actions-he
faithfully engages in action. This is a matter of direct perception to all to
us. Hence, the scriptures are not purposeless. Objection: May it not be
that the scriptures will become meaningless when, by noticing
abstention from action in the case of men with discrimination, their
followers too will abstain? Reply: No, because discrimination arises in
some rare person only. For, as at present, some rare one among many
people comes to possess discrimination. Besides, fools do not follow
one who has discrimination, because (their) engagement in action is
impelled by defects such as attachment etc. And they are seen to get
engaged in such acts as black magic. Moreover, engagement in action
is natural. Verily has it been said (by the Lord), 'But it is Nature that acts'
(5.14). Therefore, the mundane state consists of nothing but ignorance,
and is an object of perception (to the ignorant man who sees it) just as it
appears to him. Ignorance and its effects do not belong to the Knower of
the feild, the Absolute. Moreover, false knowledge cannot taint the
supreme Reality. For, water in a mirage cannot taint the supreme Reality.
For, water in a mirage cannot make a desert muddy with its moisture.
Similarly, ignorance cannot act in any way on the Knower of the field.
Hence has this been said, 'And understand Me to be knower of the
field,' as also, 'Knowledge remains covered by ignorance' (5.15).
Objection: Then, what is this that even the learned say like the worldly
people, 'Thus [Possessed of aristorcracy etc.] am I,' 'This [Body, wife,
etc.] verily belongs to Me'? Reply: Listen. This is that learnedness which
consists in seeing the field as the Self! On the contrary, should they
realize the unchanging Knower of the field, then they will not crave for
enjoyment or action with the idea, 'May this be mine.' Enjoyment and
action are mere perversions. This being so, the ignorant man engages in
action owing to his desire for results. On the other hand, in the case of
an enlightened person who has realized the changeless Self,
engagement in aciton in impossible because of the absence of desire for
results. Hence, when the activities of the aggregate of body and organs
cease, his withdrawal from action is spoken of in a figurative sense.
Some may have this other kind of learnedness: 'The Knower of the field
is God Himself; and the field is something different and an object of
knowledge to the Knower of the field. But I am a mundane being, happy
and sorrowful. And it is my duty to bring about the cessation of worldly
existence through the knowledge of the field and the Knower of the field,
and by continuing to dwell in His true nature after directly perceiving
through meditation God, the Knower of the field,' and he who,
understands thus, and he who teaches that 'he (the taught) is not the
Knower of the field,' and he who, being under such an idea, thinks, 'I
shall render meaningful the scriptures dealing with the worldly state and
Liberation'-is the meanest among the learned. That Self-immolator,
being devoid of any link with the traditional interpreters of the purport of
the scriptures, misinterprets what is enjoined in the scriptures and
imagines what is not spoken there, and thereby himself becoming
deluded, befools others too. Hence, one who is not a knower of the
traditional interpretation is to be ignored like a fool, though he may be
versed in all the scriptures. As for the objection that, if God be one with
the knower of the field, He will then become a mundane being, and that,
if the knowers of the fields are one with God, then from the nonexistence
of mundane beings will follow the absence of the mundane state, -these
two objections have been refuted by admitting Knowledge and
ignorance as having different characteristics. Objection: How? Reply:
By saying that any defect imagined through ignorance does not affect
the supreme Reality which is the substratum of that (imagination). In
accordance with this an illustration was cited that a desert is not made
muddy by water in a mirage. Even the defect of the possibility of
nonexistence of the mundange state, consequent on the nonexistence of
individual souls, stands refuted by the explanation that the mundane
state and the individual souls are imagined through ignorance.
Objection: The defect of mundane existence in the knower of the field
consists in his being possessed of ignorance. And sorrowfulness etc.
which are its products are matters of direct experience. Reply: No, since
whatever is known is an attribute of the field, therefore the knower-the
knower of the field-cannot reasonably be tainted by the defects arising
from it. Whatsoever blemish-not existing in the knower of the field-you
attribute to It is logically an object of experience, and hence it is verily a
quality of the field; not the quality of the knower of the field. Nor does the
knower of the field become tainted thereby, because of knower cannot
possibly have any conjunction with an object of knowledge. Should there
be a conjunction, then there will be no possibility at all of its (the latter's)
becoming a knowable. Oh! Sir, if being ignorant, sorrowful, etc. be
qualities of the Self, how is it that they are directly perceived? Or how
can they be qualities of the Knower of the field? If the conclusion be that
all that is known consititutes the field, and that the one who knows is
verily the knower of the field, then, to say that being ignorant, sorrowful,
etc.are the qualities of the knower of the field and that they are directly
perceived is a contradictory statement having only ignorance as its
basis. Here, (the opponent) asks: To whom does ignorance belong?
(The answer is that) it belongs verily to him by whom it is experienced!
Objection: In whom is it perceived? Reply: Here the answer is: It is
pointless to ask, 'In whom is ignorance experienced?' Objection: How?
Reply: If ignorance be perceived (by you), then you perceive its
possessor as well. Moreover, when that possessor of ignorance is
perceived it is not reasonable to ask, 'In whom is it perceived?' For,
when an owner of cattle is seen, the question, 'To whom do the cattle
belong', does not become meaningful. Objection: Well, is not the
illustration dissimilar? Since, the cattle and their owner are directly
perceived, their relation also is directly perceived. Hence the question is
meaningless. Ignorance and its possessor are not directly perceived in
that manner, in which case the question would have been meaningless.
Reply: What will it matter to you if you know the relation of ignorance
with a person who is not directly perceived as possessed of ignorance?
Opponent: Since ignorance is a source of evil, therefore it should be got
rid of. Reply: He to whom ignorance belongs will get rid of it!
Opponent: Indeed, ignorance belongs to myself. Reply: In that case,
you know ignorance as also yourself who possess it? Opponent: I
know, but not through direct perception. Reply: If you know through
inference, then how is the connection (between yourself and ignorance)
known? Surely it is not possible for you the knower to have at that time
['When you are knowing your own ignorance.'] the knowledge of the
relation (of the Self) with ignorance which is an object of knowledge;
['After having perceived ignorance as an object of your knowledge, how
can you who continue to be the knower cognize yourself as the knower
of that ignorance? For this would lead to the contradiction of the same
person becoming the subject and the object of cognition.'] because the
cognizer is then engaged in cognizing ignorance as an object. Besides,
there cannot be someone who is a (separate) cognizer of the relation
between the knower and ignorance, and a separate cognition of that
(relation), for this would lead to infinite regress. If the knower and the
relation between the knower and the thing known be cognizable, then a
separate cognizer has to be imagined. Of him, again, another knower
has to be imagined; of him again a separate cognizer would have to be
imagined! Thus, an infinite regress be comes unavoidable. Again,
whether the knowable be ignorance or anything else, a knowable is verily
a knowable; similarly, even a knower is surely a knower; he does not
become a knowable. And when this is so, [Since the knower cannot be
known, therefore his relation with ignorance also cannot be known by
himself or by anybody else] nothing of the cognizer-the knower of the
field-is tainted by such defects as ignorance, sorrowfulness, etc.
Objection: May it not be said that the (Self's) defect is surely this, that
the field, which is full of defects, is cognized (by It)? Reply: No, because
it is the Immutable, which is consciousness, by nature, that is figuratively
spoken of as the cognizer. It is just like figuratively attributing the act of
heating to fire merely because of its (natural) heat. Just as it has been
shown here by the Lord Himself that identification with action, cause and
effect are absent in the Self, and that action, cause, etc. are figuratively
attributed to the Self owing to their having been superimposed (on It)
through ignorance, so has it been shown by Him in various places: 'He
who thinks of this One as the killer...' (2.19), 'While actions are being
done in ever way by the gunas of Nature' (3.27), 'The Omnipresent
neither accepts anybody's sin...' (5.15), etc. It has been explained by us,
too, in that very way, and in the following contexts also we shall explain
accordingly. Objection: Well, in that case, if identification with action,
cause and effect be naturally absent in the Self, and it they be
superimpositions through ignorance, then it amounts to this that actions
are meant for being undertaken only by the ignorant, not by the
enlightened. Reply: It is true that is comes to this. This very fact we
shall explain under the verse, 'Since it is not possible for one who holds
on to a body...' (18.11). And, in the context dealing with the conclusion
of the purport of the whole Scripture, we shall explain this elaborately
under the verse, '...in brief indeed, O son of Kunti,...which is the
supreme consummation of Knowledge' (ibid. 50) It is needless here to
expatiate further, Hence we conclude. The next verse, '(Hear
about)...what that field is,' etc., summarizing the purport of the chapter
dealing with the 'field' taught in the verses begining from 'This
body...'etc., is being presented. For it is proper to introduce briefly the
subject-matter that is sought to be explained.
13.4 Srnu, hear, i.e., having heard, understand; me, from Me, from My
utterance; samasena, in brief; about (all) tat, that-the true nature of the
field and the Knower of the field, as they have been described; as to yat,
what; tat, that-tat stands for that which has been indicated as 'This
body' (in verse 1); ksetram, field is, which has been referred to as 'this';
ca, and; yadrk, how it is along with its own qualities; yadvikari, what its
changes are; ca, and; yatah, from what cause; arises yat, what effect (-
arises is understood-); sah ca yah, and who He, the Knower of the field
indicated above, is; ca, and; yat-prabhavah, what His powers are. Yatprobhavah
is He who is possessed of the powers arising from the
adjuncts. The word ca has been used (throughout) in the sense of and.
For making the intellect of the hearer interested the Lord praises that
true nature of the field and the Knower of the field which is intended to
be taught:
13.5 Gitam, It has been sung of, spoken of; bahudha, in various ways;
rsibhih, by the Rsis, by Vasistha and others; sung prthak, separately;
vividhaih, by the different kinds of; chandobhih, Vedic texts-chandas
mean the Rg-veda etc; by them; ca, and; besides, hetumadbhih, by the
rational; and viniscitaih, by the convincing, i.e. by those which are
productive of certain knowledge-not by those which are in an ambiguous
form; brahma-sutra-padaih eva, sentences themselves which are
indicative of and lead to Brahman. Brahma-sutras are the sentences
indicative of Brahman. They are called padani since Brahman is reached,
known, through them. By them indeed has been sung the true nature of
the field and the Knower of the field (-this is understood). The Self is
verily known through such sentences as, 'The Self alone is to be
meditated upon' (Br. 1.4.7), which are indicative of and lead to Brahman.
To Arjuna who had become interested as a result of the eulogy, the
Lord says:
13.6 Mahabhutani, the great elements: Those elements which are great
owing to their pervasion of all midifications, and which are subtle. As for
the gross elements, they will be spoken of by the word indriya-gocarah,
objects of the senses. Ahankarah, egoism, which is the source of the
great elements and consists of the idea of 'I'. Buddhih, intellect, the
source of egoism and consisting of the faculty of judgement; ca, and; its
cause, the avyaktam eva, Unmanifest itself, the Undifferentiated, the
power of God spoken of in, 'Maya of Mine...difficult to cross' (7.14). The
word eva (itself) is used for singling out Prakrti (Nature). The Prakrti
divided eightfold [The undifferentiated (avyakta), mahat, egoism and the
five uncompunded subtle elements] is this much alone. The word ca
(and) is used for joining the various categories. The dasa, ten; indriyani,
organs : The five, organs ear etc., which are called sense-organs since
they produce perception, and the (other) five organs-organ of speech,
hands, etc.-which are called motor-organs since they accomplish
actions. They are ten. Ekam ca, and the one-which is that?-the mind, the
eleventh, possessed of the power of thinking etc. (see fn. on p. 173). Ca,
and; the panca, five; indriya-gacarah, objects of the senses-such objects
as sound etc. The followers of the Sankhya call these which are such the
twenty-four categories. Thereafter, the Lord now says that even those
qualities which the Vaisesikas speak of as the attributes of the sould are
certainly the attributes of the field, but not of the Knower of the field:
13.7 Iccha, desire: Having experienced again an object of that kind
which had given him the feeling of pleasure earlier, a man wants to have
it under the idea that it is a source of pleasure. That is this desire which
is an attribute of the internal organ, and is the 'field' since it is an object
of knowledge. So also dvesah, repulsion: Having experienced again an
object of that kind which he had earlier felt as a cause of sorrow, he
hates it. That is this repulsion, and it is surely the 'field' since it is an
object of knowledge. Similarly, sukham, happiness- which is favourable,
tranquil, having the quality of sattva-is the 'field' since it is an object of
knowledge. Duhkham, sorrow-which is by nature adverse-, that, too, is
the 'field' since it is a knowable. Sanghatah is the aggregate, the
combination, of body and organs. Cetana, sentience, is a state of the
internal organ, manifest in that aggregate like fire in a heated lump of
iron, and pervaded by an essence in the form of a semblance of
Consciousness of the Self. That too is the 'field' because it is an object
of knowledge. Dhrtih, fortitude, by which are sustained the body and
organs when they get exhausted-that too is the 'field' becuase it is an
object of knowledge. Desire etc. have been selected as suggestive of all
the qualities of the internal organ. The Lord concludes what has been
said: Etat, this; ksetram, field; savikaram, together with its modifications
beginning from mahat (buddhi); has been samasena, briefly; udahrtam,
spoken of. That 'field' which was referred to as, 'This body is called the
field' (1), and is constituted by the aggregate of the constituents of the
field has been explained in its different forms beginning from the great
elements etc. ending with fortitude. The Knower of the field whose
qualities are going to be described, and by realizing which Knower of the
field along with His majesty Immortality follows-of Him, togehter with His
attributes, the Lord Himself will narrate in the verse, 'I shall speak of that
which is to be known' (12). But, for the present, the Lord enjoins the
group of disciplines characterized as humility etc. which lead one to the
knowledge of That (Knower of the field)-that group of humility etc. which
are referred to by the word Knowledge since they lead to Knowledge,
and owing to the existence of which one becomes appropriately
competent for the realization of that Knowable, and being endued with
which a monk is said to be steadfast in Knowledge:
13.8 Amanitvam, humility-the quality of a vain person is manitvam,
boasting about oneself; the absence of that is amanitvam.
Adambhitvam, unpretentiousness- proclaming one's own virtues is
dambhitvam; the absence of that is adambhitvam. Ahimsa, non-injury,
absence of cruely towards creatures; ksantih, for-bearance, remaining
undisturbed when offened by others; arjavam, sincerity, uprightness,
absence of crookedness; acarya-upasanam, service of the teacher,
attending on the teacher who instructs in the disciplines for Liberation,
through acts of service etc.; saucam, cleanliness-washing away the dirt
from the body with earth and water, and internally, removing the 'dirt' of
the mind such as attachment etc. by thinking of their opposites;
sthairyam, steadiness, perseverance in the path to Liberation alone;
atma-vinigrahah, control of the aggregate of body and organs which is
referred to by the word 'self', but which is inimical to the Self; restricting
only to the right path that (aggregate) which naturally strays away in all
directions. Further,
13.9 Vairagyam, non-attachment, the attitude of dispassion; indriyaarthesu,
with regard to objects of the senses, viz sound etc., with regard
to seen or unseen objects of enjoyment; eva ca, and also; anahankarah,
absence of egotism, absence of pride; janma-mrtyu-jara-vyadhi-duhkhadosa-
anudarsanam, seeing the evil in birth, death, old age, diseases and
miseries-seeing the evil in each one of them from 'birth' to 'miseries'.
The evil in birth consists in lying in the womb and coming out of it;
seeing, i.e. thinking, of it. Similarly, thinking of the evil in death; so also,
seeing in old age the evil in the form of deprivation of intelligence,
strength and vigour, and becoming an object of contempt. In the same
way, thinking of the evil in diseases like headtache etc.; so also with
regard to miseries arising from causes physical, natural and
supernatural. Or, duhkha-dosa may mean the miseries themselves
which are evil. Seeing, as before, that (evil in the form of miseries) in birth
etc.-birth is miserable, death is miserable, old age is miserable, diseases
are miserable. Birth etc. are miserable because they cause misery; not
that they are miseries in themselves. [Birth etc. are perceivable events,
and as such are not miseries in themselves.] Thus, when one thinks of
the evil in the form of miseries in birth etc. dispassion arises with regard
to the pleasures in the body, organs and objects. From that follows the
tendency of the organs towards the indwelling Self for the realization of
the Self. The seeing of the evil in the form of misery in birth etc. is called
Knowledge because it thus becomes a cuase of the rise of Knowledge.
Moreover,
13.10 Asaktih, non-attachment-attachment means merely the kind for
things arising from association; the absence of that is asaktih; and
anabhisvangah, absence of fondness-abhisvangah, is in fact a special
kind of attachment consisting of the idea of self-identification; as for
instance, thinking 'I myself am happy,' or, 'I am sorrowful,' when
somebody else is happy or unhappy, and thinking 'I live', or, 'I shall die,'
when some- body else lives or dies-With regard to what? In answer the
Lord says: putra-dara-grhadisu, with regard to sons, wives, homes, etc.
From the use of 'etc.' (it is understood that this fondness is) even with
regard to others who are liked very much-retinue of sevants and so on.
And since both these (absence of attachment and fondness) lead to
Knowledge, therefore they are called Knowledge. And nityam, constant;
sama-cittatvam, equanimity of mind, mental equipoise;-with regard to
what?-ista-anista-upapattisu, the attainment of the desirable and the
undesirable; mental equipoise with regard to them, always, without
exception. One does not become happy on the attainment of the
desirable, nor does he become angry on the attainment of the
undesirable. And that constant equanimity of mind which is of this kind is
Knowledge Further,
13.11 Ca, and; avyabhicarini, unwavering-not having any tendency to
deviate; bhaktih, devotion; mayi, to Me, to God; ananya-yogena, with
single-minded concentration, with undivided concentration-ananyayogah
is the decisive, unswerving conviction of this kind: 'There is none
superior to Lord Vasudeva, and hence He alone is our Goal'; adoration
with that. That too is Knowledge. Vivikta-desa-sevitvam, inclination to
repair into a clean place-a place (desa) naturally free (vivikta) or made
free from impurity etc. and snakes, tigers, etc.; or, place made solitary
(vivikta) by being situated in a forest, on a bank of a river, or in a temple;
one who is inclined to seek such a place is vivikta-desa-sevi, and the
abstract form of that is vivikta-desa-sevitvam. Since the mind becomes
calm in places that are indeed pure (or solitary), therefore meditation on
the Self etc. occurs in pure (or solitary) places. Hence the inclination to
retire into clean (or solitary) places is called Knowledge. Aratih, lack of
delight, not being happy; jana-samadi, in crowd of people-an
assemblage, a multitude of people without culture, lacking in purity and
immodest-, (but) not (so) in a gathering of pure and modest persons
since that is conducive to Knowledge. Hence, lack of delight in an
assembly of common people is Knowledge since it leads to Knowledge.
Besides,
13.12 Adhyatma-jnana-nityatvam, steadfastness in the knowledge of
the Self: adhyatma-jnanam is the knowledge of the Self, etc.; constant
dwelling in that is nityatvam. Tattva-jnanartha-darsanam, contemplating
on the Goal of the knowledge of Reality: Tattva-jnanam is that (realization
of Truth) which arises from the fruition of application to the disciplines
like humility etc. which are the means to knowledge. Its Goal (artha) is
Liberation, the cessation of mundane existence. Contemplation (darsana)
on that is tattva-jnana-artha-darsanam. For, when one engages in
contemplation on the result of the knowledge of Reality, one gets the
urge to undertake the disciplines which are its means. Etat, this-those
that have been stated from 'humility' etc. to 'contemplation on the Goal
of the knowledge of Reality'; proktam, is spoken of; iti, as; jnanam,
Knowledge, because they are meant to lead one to Knowledge.
Ajnanam, ignorance; is yat, that which is; anyatha, other; atah, than thiswhat
has been stated above. Contrarily, arrogance, pretentiousness,
cruelty, revenge, insincerity, etc. are to be known as ignorance so that,
since they are the cause of the origination of worldly existence, they can
be avoided. To the question as to what is to be known through the
aforesaid Knowledge, the Lord says, 'I shall speak of that which is to be
known,' etc. Objection: Do not humility etc. constitute yama and niyama
[See fn. on p. 239.-Tr.]? The Knowable is not known through them. For
humility etc. are not seen to determine the nature of anything. Moreover,
everywhere it is observed that whatever knowledge reveals its own
object, that itself ascertains the nature of that object of knowledge (the
knowable). Indeed, nothing else is known through a knowledge
concerning some other object. As for instance, fire is not known through
the knowledge of a pot. Reply: This is not a defect, for we have said
that they are called 'Knowledge' because they lead one to Knowledge,
and because they are auxiliary causes of Knowledge.
13.13 Pravaksyami, I shall speak of, fully describe just as it is; tat, that;
yat, which; is jenyam, to be known. In order to interest the hearer
through inducement, the Lord speaks of what its result is: Jnatva, by
realizing; yat, which Knowable; asnute, one attains; amrtam, Immortality,
i.e.; he does not die again. Anadimat, without beginning-one having a
beginning (adi) is adimat; one not having a beginning is anadimat. What
is that? The param, supreme, unsurpassable; brahma, Brahman, which
is under discussion as the Knowable. Here, some split up the phrase
anadimatparam as anadi and matparam because, if the word anadimat
is taken as a Bahuvrihi compound, ['That which has no (a), beginning
(adi) is anadi.' Matup is used to denote possession. Since the idea of
possession is a already implied in anadi, therefore matup, if added after
it, becomes redundant.] then the suffix mat (matup) becomes redundant,
which is undesirable. And they show a distintive meaning: (Brahman is
anadi, beginningless, and is) matparam, that of which I am the supreme
(para) power called Vasudeva. Trully, the redundance could be avoided
in this way if that meanig were possible. But that meaning is not
possible, because what is intended is to make Brahman known only
through a negation of all attributes by saying, 'It is called neither being
nor non-being.' It is contradictory to show a possession of a distinctive
power and to negate attributes. Therefore, although matup and a
bahuvrihi compound convey the same meaning of 'possession', its
(matup's) use is for completing the verse. [The Commentator accepts
anadimat as a nan-tatpurusa compund. If, however, the Bahuvrihi is
insisted on, then the mat after anadi should be taken as completing the
number of syllables needed for versification. So, nat need not be
compounded with param.] Having aroused an interest through
inducement by saying, 'The Knowable which has Immortality as its result
is beeing spoken of by Me,' the Lord says: Tat, that Knowable; ucyate, is
called; na sat, neither being; nor is it called asat, non-being. Objection:
After strongly girding up the loins and declaring with a loud voice, 'I shall
speak of the Knowable,' is it not incongruous to say, 'That is called
neither being nor non-being'? Reply: No. What has been said is surely
consistent. Objection: How? Reply: For in all the Upanisads, the
Knowable, i.e. Brahman, has been indicated only by negation of all
attributes-'Not this, not this' (Br. 4.4.22), 'Not gross, not subtle' (op. cit.
3.3.8), etc.; but not as 'That is this', for It is beyond speech. Objection:
Is it not that a thing which cannot be expressed by the word 'being'
does not exist? Like-wise, if the Knowable cannot be expressed by the
word 'being', It does not exist. And it is contradictory to say, 'It is the
Knowable', and 'It cannot be expressed by the word being.' Counterobjection:
As to that, no that It does not exist, because It is not the
object of the idea, 'It is non-being.' Objection: Do not all cognitions
verily involve the idea of being or non-being? This being so, the
Knowable should either be an object of a cognition involving the idea of
existence, or it should be an object of a cognition involving the idea of
non-existence. Reply: No, because, by virtue of Its being supersensuous,
It is not an object of cognition involving either, of the two
ideas. Indeed, any object perceivable by the senses, such as pot etc.,
can be either an object of cognition involving the idea of existence, or it
can be an object of cognition involving the idea of non-existence. But
this Knowable, being supersensuous and known from the scriptures,
which are the sole means of (Its) knowledge, is not, like pot etc., an
object of cognition involving either of the two ideas. Therefore It is called
neither being nor non-being. As for your objection that it is contradictory
to say, 'It is the Knowable, but it is neither called being nor non-being,'-it
is not contradictory; for the Upanisad says, 'That (Brahman) is surely
different from the known and, again, It is above the unknown' (Ke. 1.4).
Objection: May it not be that even the Upanisad is contradictory in its
meaning? May it not be (contradictory) as it is when, after beginning with
the topic of a shed for a sacrifice, [Cf. 'Pracinavamsam karoti, he
constructs (i.e. shall construct) (the sacrificial shed) with its supporting
beam turned east-ward' (Tai, Sam.; also see Sanskrit-English Dictionary,
Monier Williams).-Tr.] it is said, 'Who indeed knows whether there exists
anything in the other world or not!' (Tai. Sam. 6.1.1)? Reply: No, since
the Upanisad speaking of something that is different from the known and
the unknown is meant for establishing an entity that must be realized.
[The Upanisadic text is not to be rejected on the ground that it is
paradoxical, for it is meant to present Brahman as indentical with one's
own inmost Self.] But, '...whether there exists anything in the other
world,' etc. is merely an arthavada [See note on p. 40. Here, the
passage, '...whether there exists...,' etc. is to be interpreted as an
arthavada emphasizing, the need of raising a shed, irrespective of any
other consideration.-Tr.] connected with an injunction. From reason who
it follows that Brahman cannot be expressed by such words as being,
non-being, etc. For, every word used for expressing an object, when
heard by listeners, makes them understand its meaning through the
comprehension of its significance with the help of genus, action, quality
and relation; not in any other way, because that is not a matter of
experience. To illustrate this: a cow, or a horse, etc. (is comprehended)
through genus; cooking or reading, through action; white or black,
through quality; a rich person or an owner of cows, through relation. But
Brahman does not belong to any genus. Hence it is not expressible by
words like 'being' etc.; neither is It possessed of any qualitity with the
help of which It could be expressed through qualifying words, for It is
free from qualities; nor can It be expressed by a word implying action, It
being free from actions-which accords with the Upanisadic text,
'Partless, actionless, calm' (Sv. 6.19). Nor has It any relation, since It is
one, non-dual, not an object of the senses, and It is the Self. Therefore
it is logical that It cannot be expressed by any word. And this follows
from such Upanisadic texts as, 'From which, words trun back' (Tai.
2.4.1), etc. Therefore it is logical that It cannot be expressed by any
word. And this follows from such Upanisadic texts as, 'From which,
words turn back' (Tai. 2.4.1), etc. Since the Knowable (Brahman) is not
an object of the word or thought of 'being', there arises the
apprehension of Its nonexistence. Hence, for dispelling that
apprehension by establishing Its existence with the help of the adjuncts
in the form of the organs of all creatures, the Lord says:
13.14 Tat, That-the Knowable; sarvatah-pani-padam, which has hands
and feet everywhere-. The existence of the Knower of the field is
revealed through th adjuncts in the form of the organs of all creatures.
And the Knower of the field is spoken of as such because of the limiting
adjuncts of the field. The field, too, is diversely differentiated as hands,
feet, etc. All diversity in the Knower of the field, caused by the
differences in the adjunct-the field-, is certainly unreal. Hence, by
denying it, the nature of the Knowable has been stated, in, 'That is called
neither being nor non-being.' Although the unreal form is caused by the
limiting adjuncts, still, for the comprehension of Its existence it is said,
'(It) has hands and feet everywhere, etc., by assuming this as a quality of
the Knowable. Thus, as is well known, there is saying of the people
versed in tradition, 'The Transcendental is described with the help of
superimposition and its refutation'. Everywhere the hands, feet, etc.,
which are perceived as limbs of all bodies, perform, their duties due to
the presence of the power of the Knowable (Brahman). Thus the
grounds for the inference of the existence of the Knowable are
metaphorically spoken of as belonging to the Knowable. The others have
to be explained similarly. That Knowable has hands and feet everwhere.
That which has eyes, heads, and mouths everywhere is sarvatoksi-siromukham.
That which has ears every-where is sarvatah-srutimat: sruti
means the organs of hearing; that which has it is sruti-mat. Tisthati, It
exists, remains established; loke, in the multititude of creatures; avrtya,
by pervading; sarvam, them all. With this purpose is view, that as a
result of the superimposition of the organs like hands, feet, etc., which
are adjuncts, there may not be the misconception that the Knowable is
possessed of them (adjuncts), the (next) verse is begun:
13.15 Sarvendriya-guna-abhasam, shining through the functions of all
the organs: By the use of the words all the organs are understood ears
etc., known as the sense-organs and motor-organs, as also the internal
organs-the intellect and the mind, for they are equally the limiting
adjuncts of the Knowable. Besides, the organs of hearing etc. become
the limiting adjuncts from the very fact of the internal organ becoming
so. Hence, the Knowable gets expressed through determination,
thinking, hearing, speaking, etc. that are the functions of all the organs,
internal and external, which are the limiting adjuncts. In this way, It is
manifest through the functions of all the organs. The idea is that, that
Knowable appears to be as though active owing to the functions of all
the organs, as it is said in the Upanisadic text, 'It thinks, as it were, and
shakes, as it were' (Br. 4.3.7). For that reason, again, is It not perceived
as being actually active? In answer the Lord says: It is sarva-indriyavaritam,
devoid of all the organs, i.e. bereft of all the instruments of
action. Hence the Knowable is not active through the functioning of the
instruments of action. As for the Upanisadic verse, 'Without hands and
feet He moves swiftly and grasps; without eyes He sees, without ears He
hears' (Sv. 3.19), etc.-that is meant for showing that that Knowable has
the power of adapting Itself to the functions of all the organs which are
Its limiting adjuncts; but it is not meant to show that It really has such
activity as moving fast etc. The meaning of that verse is like that of the
Vedic text, 'The blind one discoverd a gem' (Tai, Ar. 1.11). [This is an
artha-veda (see note on p.530), which is not to be taken literally but
interpreted in accordance with the context.] Since the Knowable is
devoid of all the instruments of actions, therefore It is asaktam,
unattached, devoid of all associations. Although It is of this kind, yet it is
ca eva, also verily; the sarva-bhrt, supporter of all. Indeed, everything
has existence as its basis, because the idea of 'existence' is present
everywhere. Verily, even mirage etc. do not occur without some basis.
Therefore, It is sarva-bhrt, the supporter of all-It upholds everything.
There can be this other organs as well for the realization of the existence
of the Knowable: Nirgunam, without quality-the qualities are sattva, rajas
and tamas; that Knowable is free from them; and yet It is the gunabhoktr,
perceiver of qualities; i.e., that Knowable is the enjoyer and
experiencer of the qualities, sattva, rajas and tamas, which, assuming
the forms of sound etc., transform them-selves into happiness, sorrow,
delusion, etc. Further,
13.16 Existing, bahih, outside- the word bahih is used with reference to
the body including the skin, which is misconceived through ignorance to
be the Self, and which is itself taken as the boundary. Similarly, the word
antah, inside, is used with reference to the indwelling Self, making the
body itself as the boundary. When 'outside' and 'inside' are used, there
may arise the contingency of the nonexistence of That in the middle.
Hence this is said: acaram caram eva ca, moving as well as not movingeven
that which appears as the body, moving or not moving, is nothing
but the Knowable, in the same way as the appearance of a snake on a
rope (is nothing but the rope). In all empirical things, moving as also
non-moving, be the Knowable, why should It not be known by all as
such? In answer it is said: It is true that It shines through everything; still
it is subtle like space. Therefore, although It is the Knowable, tat, It; is
avijneyam, incomprehensible to the ignorant people; suksmatvat, due to
Its intrinsic subtleness. But to the enlightened It is ever known from the
valid means of knowledge such as (the texts), 'All this is verily the Self'
(Ch. 7.25.2), 'Brahman alone is all this' (Nr. Ut.7), etc. It is durastham, far
away, since, to the unenlightened, It is unattainable even in millions of
years. And tat, That; is antike, near, since It is the Self of the
enlightened.
13.17 And further, tat, that; jneyam, Knowable; though avibhaktam,
undivided, remaining the same in all beings like space; iva sthitam,
appears to be existing; as vibhaktam, divided; bhutesu, in all beings,
because It is perceived as existing in the bodies themselves. And just as
a rope etc. are with regard to a snake etc. That are falsely imagined,
similarly that Knowable is bhutabhartr, the sustainer of all beings, sinced
It sustains all during the period of their existence; grasisnu, the devourer,
at the time of dissolution; and prabhavisnu, the originator, at the time of
creation. Further, it the Knowable is not perceived though existing
everywhere, then It is darkness? Not! What then?
13.18 Tat, that Knowable; is the jyotih, Light; api, even; jyotisam, of the
lights-of the sun etc. For the lights like the sun etc. shine because they
are enkindled by the light of consciousness of the Self, as is known from
Upanisadic texts like, 'Illumined by whose light the sun shines' (Tai. Br.
3.12.9.7), 'By Its light all this shines variously' (Sv. 6.14), and from the
Smrti also, as here (in the Gita) itself: 'That light in the sun...' (15.12), etc.
It is ucyate, spoken of as; param, beyond, untouched by; tamasah,
darkness; ignorance. For cheering up anyone who may become
disheartened by thinking that Knowledge etc. is difficult to attain, the
Lord says: It is jnanam, Knowledge-humility etc. (verse 7, etc.); jneyam,
the Knowable, which has been spoken of in, 'I shall speak of that which
is to be known' (12); and jnana-gamyam, the Known. The Knowable
itself is referred to as jnanagamyam, when after being known, It
becomes the result of Knowledge. But when It is an object to be known,
It is called jneyam. All these three which are such, visthitam, specially
exist; hrdi, in the hearts, in the intellects; sarvasya, of all, of all creatures.
For these three are, indeed, perceived there. This verse is begun for
concluding the topic under discussion:
13.19 Iti, thus; uktam, has been spoken-commencing from 'I shall
speak of that which is to be known' (12) and ending with 'It is spoken of
as beyond darkness' (17); samasatah, in brief; the ksetram, field -
beginning with the 'great elements' and ending with 'for titude' (5,6);
tatha, as also; jnanam, Knowledge-beginning from 'humility' (7) and
ending with 'contemplation on the Goal of the knowledge of Reality' (11);
and the jneyam, Knowable. All this has been stated by way of
summarizing the purport of the Vedas and the Gita. Who is fit for this
true knowledge? The answer is: madbhaktah, My devotee, who
attributes the fact of being the Self of all to Me who am God, Vasudeva,
the Omniscient, the supreme Teacher, (and) whose conviction has been
saturated with the idea that whatever he sees, hears or touches, all that
verily is Lord Vasudeva. Vijnaya, by understanding; etat, this, the
aforesaid true knowledge; he upa-padyate, becomes qualified; madbhavaya,
for My State (bhava) -the State of being the supreme Self; for
that State of Mine. He attains Liberation. There in the Seventh Chapter
have been presented the two aspects [Cf. 15.16-18.] of God, viz the
higher and the lower, characterized as the field and the Knower of the
field. And it has also been said, '(Understand thus) that all things have
these as their source' (7.6). The explanation as to how creatures have
the two aspects, the field and the Knower of the field, as their source is
now being stated:
13.20 Viddhi, know; ubhau, both; prakrtim Nature; and also the
purusam, individual soul;-these two; Nature and the soul. the aspects of
God-to be api, verily; anadi, without beginning. Those two that have no
beginning (adi), are anadi. Since the godhood of God is eternal, therefore
it is logical that even His aspects also should have eternality. For God's
god-hood consists verily in having the two aspects. Those two aspects
through which God becomes the cause of creation, continuance and
dissolution of the Universe, and which are beginningless, are the sources
of mundane existence. Some interpret the phrase anadi in the tatpurusa
[Tatpurusa: Name of a class of compounds in which the first member
determines the sense of the other members, or in which the last member
is defined or qualified by the first, without losing its original
independence.-V.S.A.] sense of na adi, not primeval (not cause).
(According to them) thereby indeed is established the causality of God.
Again, if Nature and soul themselves be eternal, the mundane existence
would surely be their creation, and the causality of the mundane
existence would not be God's. That is wrong because, there being
nothing to rule over before the emergence of Nature and soul, there will
arise the contingency of God ceasing to be God! And if the mundane
state be uncaused [Uncaused, i.e. not caused by Nature and soul, but
by God independently of those two aspects.] there arises the
contingency of the absence of Liberation, [If God were. Himself the sole
cause of mundane existence, independently of His two aspects, then it
would be endless because there would be nothing to prevent liberated
souls from being put under bondage again.] the scriptures becoming
useless, and the absence of bondage and freedom. On the other hand,
all these become justifiable if God and the two aspects be eternal.
How? Viddhi, know; the vikaran, modifications that will be spoken of-the
intellect etc., the body and the organs; ca eva, as also; gunan, the
qualities (sattva etc.)-manifest in the form of the mental states of
happiness, sorrow and attachment; as prakriti-sambhavan, born of
Nature. Nature, Maya, is the power of God, which is the cause of the
modifications and which consists of the three qualities. Those
modifications and qualities, which have that Nature as their source,-
know those modifications and qualities as 'born of Nature', as
transformations of Nature. Which again, are those modifications and
qualities born of Nature?
13.21 Karya-karana-kartrtve, with regard to the source of body and
organs: Karya is the body, and karana are the thirteen [Five sense
organs, five motor organs, mind, intellect and ego.] organs existing in it.
Here, by the word karya are understood the aforesaid elements that
produce the body as also the objects which are modifications born of
Nature. And since the qualities-which are born of Nature and manifest
themselves as happiness, sorrow and delusion-are dependent on the
organs, (therefore) they are implied by the word karana, organs. The
kartrtvam, (lit) agentship, with regard to these body and organs consists
in being the source of the body and organs. With regard to this source of
the body and organs, prakrtih, Nature; ucyate, is said to be; the hetuh,
cause, in the sense of being the originator. Thus, by virtue of being the
source of body and organs, Nature is the cause of mundane existence.
Even if the reading be karya-karana-kartrtva, karya (effect, modification)
will mean anything that is the transformation of something; and karana
(cause) will be that which becomes transformed. So the meaning of the
compund will be: 'with regard to the source of the effect and the cause'.
Or, karya means the sixteen [The eleven organs (five sensory, five motor,
and mind) and the five objects (sound etc.).] modificaitons, and karana
means the seven [Mahat, egoism, and the five subtle elements.]
transformations of Nature. They themselves are called effect and cuase.
So far as the agentship with regard to these is concerned Nature is said
to be the cause, because of the same reason of being their originator.
As to how the soul can be the cause of mundane existence is being
stated: Purusah, the soul, the empirical being, the knower of the field-all
these are synonymous; is the hetuh, cause; bhoktrtve, so far as
enjoyership, the fact of being the perceiver; sukha-duhkhanam, of
happiness and sorrow-which are objects of experience, is concerned.
How, again, is it asserted with respect to Nature and soul that, they are
the causes of mundane existence by virtue of this fact of their
(respectively) being the source of body and organs, and the perceiver of
happiness and sorrow? As to this the answer is being stated: How can
there be any mundane existence if there be no modification of Nature in
the form of body and organs, happiness and sorrow, and cause and
effect, and there be no soul, the conscious being, to experience them?
On the other hand, there can be mundane existence when there is a
contact, in the form of ignorance, between Nature-modified in the form
of body and organs, and cause and effect as an object of experience
and the soul opposed to it as the experiencer. Therefore it was
reasonable to have said that, Nature and soul become the cause of
mundane existence by (respectively) becoming the originators of the
body and organs, and the perceiver of happiness and sorrow. What
again is this that is called worldly existence? Worldly existence consists
in the experience of happiness and sorrow; and the state of mundane
existence of the soul consists in its being the experiencer of happiness
and sorrow. It has been asserted that the state of mundane existence of
the soul consists in its being the experiencer of happiness and sorrow.
How does it come about? This is being answered:
13.22 Hi, since; purusah, the soul, the experiencer; is prakrtisthah,
seated in Nature, which is characterized as ignorance and gets
transformed into body and organs, i.e., (since the soul) has become
identified with Nature; therefore, bhunkte, [Bhunkte, lit. enjoys, here
means 'experiences'.-Tr.] it enjoys, i.e. experiences; gunan, the qualitiesmanifest
as happiness, sorrow and delusion; prakrtijan, born of Nature,
thinking thus, 'I am happy, sorrowful, deluded, learned.' Even though
ignorance continues as a cause, still the main cause of worldly
existence, of birth, is the contact, the self-identification, with the
qualities-happiness,sorrow, and delusion-when they are experienced, as
is affirmed by the Upanisadic text, 'What it desires, it resolves' (Br. 4.4.5)
[See Sankaracarya's Comm. on this.-Tr.]. That very fact is stated here:
Gunasangah, contact with the qualities; is karanam, the cause; asya, of
its, the soul's, the experiencer's; sad-asad-yoni-janmasu, births in good
and evil wombs. Self-identification with the qualities is the cause of the
experience of births in good and evil wombs. Or the meaning is, 'Selfidentification
with the qualities is the cause or its worldly existence
through birth in good and evil wombs,' where the words 'of worldly
existence' have to be supplied. The good wombs are he wombs of gods
and others; evil wombs are the wombs of gods and others; evil wombs
are the wombs of beasts etc. From the force of the context it is to be
understood that there is no contradiction in including even human
wombs among 'good and evil wombs'. It amounts to saying that
ignorance-called 'being seated in Nature'-and the contact with. i.e. the
desire for, the qualities are the causes of worldly existence. And this is
said so that they can be avoided. And in the scripture Gita it is a wellknown
fact that knowledge and dispassion, accompanied with
renunciation, are the causes of removing this (ignorance and selfidentification
with the qualities). That knowledge about the field and the
Knower of the field, too, has been presented earlier. This has also been
said in, '...by realizing which one attains Immortality' (12), etc., through
the process of refutation of elements alien (to the Self) and
superimposition of qualities belonging to others (that are not the Self).
[Verse 12 deals with the refutation of alien elements, and vere 13 with
the superimposition of qualities belonging to others.] A direct
presentation is again being made of that (knowledge) itself:
13.23 He who is the upadrasta, Witness, who while staying nearby does
not Himself become involved: As when the priests and the performer of a
sacrifice remain engaged in duties connected with the sacrifice, there is
another (called Brahma) remaining nearby who is unengaged, is versed
in the science of sacrifices and witnesses the merit or demerit of the
activities of the priest and the performer of the sacrifice, similarly, He
who is not engaged in the activities of and is different from the body and
organs, who has characteristics other than theirs, and is the proximate
(upa) observer (drasta) of the body and organs engaged in their duties, is
the upa-drasta. Or: The observers are the body, eyes, mind, intellect
and the soul. Of them the body is the external observer. Proceeding
inwards from that (body), the Self is the inmost as also the proximate
observer, compared with which there is no other higher and inner
observer. The Self, because of being the most proximate observer, is the
upadrasta. Or, It is the upadrasta since, like the non-looker of a sarifice,
It witness everything. And He is the anu-manta, Permitter:
Anumananam, approval, means satisfaction with those performers (viz
body and organs) as also their perfomances. The agent of that (approval)
is the anumanta. Or, He is the anumanta since, even though Himself not
engaged in the activities of the body and organs, He appears to be
favourably disposed towards and engaged in them. Or, He is the
anumanta because, when the body and organs are engaged in their own
functions, He remains as a witness and never dissuades them. It is the
bharta, Sustainer: Bharanam means the continuance in their own state
of the body, organs, mind and intellect, which reflect consciousness and
have become aggregated owing to the need of serving the purpose [Viz
enjoyment, or Liberation.-Tr.] of some other entity, viz the conscious
Self. And that (continuance) is verily due to the consciousness that is the
Self. In this sense the Self is said to be the Sustainer. It is the bhokta,
Experiencer: As heat is by fire, similarly, the experiences of the intellectin
the form of happiness, sorrow and delusion in relation to all objects-,
when born as though permeated by the consciousness that is the Self,
are manifested differently by the Self which is of the nature of eternal
Consciousness. In this sense the Self is said to be the Experiencer. He
is maheswarah, the great God, because, as the Self of all and
independent, He is the great Ruler. He is paramatma, the
transcendental Self, because He is the Self which has the characteristics
of being the supreme Witness etc. of (all) those-beginning from the body
and ending with the intellect-which are imagined through ignorance to
be the indwelling Self. He is api ca, also; uktah, spoken of, referred to, in
the Upanisads; iti, as, with the words; 'He is the indwelling One, the
paramatma, the transcendental Self.' [Ast reads atah in place of antah.
So the translation of the sentence will be: Therefore He is also referred to
as the transcendental Self in the Upanisads.-Tr.] Where is He? The
parah, suprem; purusah, Person, who is higher than the Unmanifest and
who will be spoken of in, 'But different is the supreme Person who is
spoken of as the transcendental Self' (15.17); is asmin, in this; dehe,
body. What has been presented in, '...also understand Me to be the
Knower of the field' (2), has been explained and conclude.
13.24 Sah yah, he who; vetti, knows, in the manner described; the
purusam, Person, that Self possessed of the characteristics stated
above, as 'I myself (am That)'; and knows prakrtim, Nature as described
above, which is characterized as ignorance; to have been eradicated by
Knowledge, saha, along with; gunaih, the qualities which are its
modifications; na abhijayate, will not be born; bhuyah, again-after the fall
of this body of the man of realization, he does not become born again for
(taking) another body, i.e. he does not take up another body; sarvatha
api, in whatever way; vartamanah, he may live. From the word api it is
understood that, it goes without saying that one who is firm in his own
duty is not reborn. Objection: Though it has been said that there is
absence of rebirth after the dawn of Knowledge, still is not illogical that
actions done (in the present life) before the rise of Knowledge and those
done subsequently, as also those done in the many past lives, should be
destroyed without yielding their results? Hence there should be three
births! For destruction of acquired merit is not logical, to the same extent
as actions that have produced the present birth and are yielding their
proper results (cannot be destroyed). Besides, it is not understood that
actions have distinctions [Since all actions arise from ignorance, they are
on the same level so far so they are opposed to Knowledge; i.e., there
can be no such distinction among actions as 'those which have started
yielding results' and 'those that have not'.]. Therefore, the actions of the
three kinds, without exception, will produce three births or they all
collectively will produce one birth. Otherwise, if the acquired merits
become destroyed, it will lead to loss of faith everywhere as well as to
the purposelessness of scriptures. Therefore it has been illogical to say,
'he will not be born again.' Reply: No, for the burning away of all the
actions of the man of knowledge has been stated in hundreds of
Upanisadic texts such as: 'And all one's actions become dissipated'
(Mu. 2.2.8); 'Anyone who knows (that supreme) Brahman, becomes
Brahman' (op. cit. 3.2.9); 'For him the delay is for so long only (as he
does not become freed)' (Ch. 6.14.2); 'As the fibres at the tip of a blade
of reed (become completely burnt...,' so) all actions 'get completely
burnt' (op. cit. 5.24.3). Here too the burning of all actions has been
stated in, 'as a blazing fire reduces pieces of wood to ashes,...'etc.
(4.37), and He will also say so (later) [See 18.66: 'I shall free you from all
sins,' etc.-Tr.]. This accords with reason also. Verily, actions, which
arise from the seed of evils [Klesas, evils-see note under 8.19-Tr.] like
ignorance and desires, germinate the sprout of rebirth. Here also it has
been said by the Lord in various places that actions which are
associated with egoism and desire for results bear fruits, not the others.
And there is also the verse: 'As seeds burnt by fire do not germinate, so
also the Self does not acquire another body due to evils that have been
burnt by Knowledge (cf. Mbh. Va. 199. 107). Objection: It may be
granted for the present that actions performed after the rise of
Knowledge are burnt by Knowledge, since they coexist with Knowledge.
But the burning away of actions done in this life prior to the rise of
Knowledge and those done in the many past lives is not reasonable.
Reply: No, because of the qualification, 'all actions' (4.37). Objection:
May it not be that 'all actions' means those that are undertaken after
Illumination? Reply: No, for there is no reason for the restriction (of the
meaning). On the other hand, as for the statement, 'just as actions that
have produced the present birth and are already active in producing their
results do not get dissipated even after Illumination, similarly it is not
reasonable that actions which have not commenced producing their
results should get dissipated,'-that is wrong. Objection: Why? Reply:
Since they have already begun producing results, like an arrow that has
been shot: As an arrow, freed earlier from a bow for hitting a target, even
after piercing through the target comes to a stop only after falling down
as a result of the dissipation of its initial momentum, similarly, actions
that produced the (present) body verily continue, even after fulfilling the
purpose of maintaining the body, to exist as before until the dissipation
of their inherent tendencies. But, as that very arrow, when it has not
acquired the momentum, needed for action, when it has not been shot
even though fixed on the bow, can be withdrawn, similarly, actions
which have not begun yielding their results may be rendered
unproductive by Knowledge, even while existing in their receptacle. [The
internal organ bearing the reflection of Consciousness.] Hence, it is
established that , it has been reasonable to state that on the fall of the
present body of an enlightened person, 'He is not born again.' Here are
being presented these meditation etc. which are the alternative means
for the realization of the Self:
13.25 Dhyanena, through meditation: Meditation means contemplation
(on the Self) after withdrawing into the mind with concentration the
organs of hearing etc. from the objects like sound etc., and then
withdrawing the mind into the indwelling conscious Self. Thus, from the
citation of such illustrations as, 'the crane meditates, as it were, 'the
earth meditates, as it were; the mountains meditate, as it were' (Ch.
7.6.1), it follows that meditation is a constant and uninterrupted current
of thought like a line of pouring oil. Through that meditation, kecit, some
yogis; pasyanti, realize; the indwelling conscious atmanam, Self; atmani,
in (their) intellect; atmana, with the help of the internal organ that has
been purified by meditation. Anye, others; sankhyena yogena, through
Sankhya-yoga: Sankhya means thinking, 'These qualities, viz sattva,
rajas and tamas, are objects of my perception; I am the Self, distinct
from them, a witness of their functions, eternal and different from the
qualities.' This Sankhya is Yoga. [By Sankhya is meant that knowledge
which arises from the foregoing reflection. This knowledge is itself called
Yoga (concentration of mind) inasmuch as it is similar to Yoga in leading
to the realization of the Self.] Through that they realize the Self with the
help of the internal organ. This is how it is to be construed. And anye,
others; karma-yogena, through Karma-yoga-action itself being the Yoga:
Action performed with the idea of dedication to God is figuratively called
Yoga since it leads to Yoga. (others realize) with the help of that (action),
through purification of the mind and rise of Knowledge. [The best among
the yogis are competent for meditation (dhyana); the modiocre for
reflection (Sankhya); and the lowest for Karma-yoga.]
13.26 Anye tu, others again; ajanantah, who do not know the Self as
described above; evam, thus, even in one of these alternative ways;
upasate, take to thinking, take to reflection, being imbued with faith;
srutva, after hearing; anyebhyah, from others, from the teachers, having
been told, 'Think only of this.' Te api ca, they, too; sruti-parayanah, who
are devoted to hearing, to whom hearing is the supreme course, the
best discipline for starting on the path to Liberation, i.e., those who,
themselves lacking in discrimination, accept only others' advice as most
authoritative; eva, certainly; ati-taranti, overcome; mrtyum, death, i.e. the
mundane existence which is fraught with death. The implication is; It
goes without saying that those discriminating people who are
idenpendent in the application of the valid means of knowledge, cross
over death. That the knowledge of the identity of the Knower of the field
and God leads to Liberation has been stated in, '...by realizing which one
attains Immortality' (12). For what reason is it so? To point out that
reason the (next) verse is begun:
13.27 Bharatarsabha, O scion of the Bharata dynasty; yavat kincit,
whatever; sattvam, object;-as to whether they are without exception the
Lord says-sthavara-jangamam, moving or non-moving; sanjayate, comes
into being; viddhi, know; tat, that; as originating ksetra-ksetrajnasamyogat,
from the association of the field and the Knower of the field.
Objection: What, again, is meant by this 'association of the field and the
Knower of the field'? Since the Knower of the field is partless like space,
therefore Its conjunction with the field cannot be a kind of relationship
like coming together of a rope and a pot through the contact of their
parts. Nor can it be an intimate and inseparable relation as between a
thread and a cloth, since it is not admitted that the field and the Knower
of the field are mutually related by way of being cause and effect. Reply:
The answer is: The association of the field and the Knower of the fieldwhich
are the object and the subject, respectively, and are of different
natures-is in the form of superimposition of each on the other an also of
their qualities, as a consequence of the absence of discrimination
between the real natures of the field and the Knower of the field. This is
like the association of a rope, nacre, etc. with the superimposed snake,
silver, etc. owing to the absence of discrimination between them. This
association of the field and the Knower of the field in the form of
superimposition is described as false knowledge. After having known the
distinction between and the characteristics of the field and the Knower
of the field according to the scriptures, and having separated, like a stalk
from the Munjagrass, the above-described Knower of the field from the
field whose characteristics have been shown earlier, he who realizes the
Knowable (i.e. the Knower of the field)-which, in accordance with 'That is
neither called being nor non-being' (12), is devoid of all distinctions
created by adjuncts- as identical with Brahman; and he who has the firm
realization that the field is surely unreal like an elephant created by
magic, a thing seen in a dream, an imaginary city seen in the sky, etc.,
and it appears as though real-for him false knowledge becomes
eradicated, since it is opposed to the right knowledge described above.
Since the cause of his rebirth has been eliminated. therefore what was
said in, 'He who knows thus the Person and Nature along with the
qualities...', that the man of realization is not born again (23), has been a
reasonable statement. In 'He...will not be born again' (23) has been
stated the result of right knowledge, which is the absence of birth owing
to the destruction of ignorance etc., the seeds of worldly existence. The
cause of birth, viz the association of the field and the Knower of the field
brought about by ignorance, has also been stated. Hence, although right
knowledge, which is the remover of that ignorance, has been spoken of,
still it is being stated over again in other words:
13.28 Sah, he; pasyati, sees; yah, who; pasyati, sees;-whom?-
parameswaram, the supreme Lord-the Lord who is supreme as
compared with the body, organs, mind, intellect, the Unmanifest and the
individual soul; as tisthantam, existing, having His presence; samam,
equally, without distinction;-where?-sarvesu, in all; bhutesu, beings, all
living things from Brahma to the non-moving;-he who sees Him existing
equally in all living things. The Lord specifies them by the word
vinasyatsu, among the perishable; and He also specifies Him, the
supreme Lord, by the word avinasyantam, the Imperishable. This is
meant for showing the absolute difference between the living things and
God. How? For, all the modifications [See note 3 on p.38.-Tr.] of an
existing thing have as their root that modification of an existing thing
described as birth. All other modifications of existing things that follow
birth end with destruction. After destruction there is no modification of
an existing thing, because the object itself becomes nonexistent. Indeed,
qualities can exist so long as the thing qualified exists. Therefore, by the
reiteration of the absence of the last modification of an existing thing, all
its preceding modifications become negated along with their effects.
Hence it is established that the supreme Lord is very greatly different
from all beings, and is also Unconditioned [Free from all modifications
that things are subject to.] and One. He sees who thus sees the
supreme Lord as described. Objection: Is it not that all poeple see?
What is the need of specification? Reply: True, they see; but they see
contrarily! Hence the Lord specifies, 'He alone sees'. As in comparison
with one who, suffering from the (eye) disease called Timira, sees many
moons, the person who sees one moon is distingusihed by saying, 'He
alone sees,' similarly, here as well, the man who sees the one undivided
Self as described above is distinguished from those who contrarily see
many and differentiated selves, by saying 'He alone sees'. Others,
though seeing, do not see because they see contrarily like the person
who sees many moons. This is the meaning. The obove-described true
knowledge has to be praised by stating its result. Hence the verse
begins:
13.29 Hi, since; pasyan, by seeing, by realizing; samam, equally;
isvaram, God, i.e., (by realizing Him) as described in the immediately
preceding verse; who is samavasthitam, present alike; sarvatra,
everywhere, in all beings;-what follows from seeing equally?-he na, does
not; hinasti, injure; his own atmanam, Self; atmana, by the Self, by his
own Self; tatah, therefore, as a result of that non-injuring; yati, he attains;
the param, supreme; gatim, Goal, called Liberation. Objection: Is it not
that no creature whatsoever injures himself by himself? Why do you refer
to an irrelevant thing by saying, 'He does not injure...,which is like
saying, 'Fire should neither be lit on the earth nor in the sky,' etc.?
Reply: This defect does not arise, because it is logical with reference to
an unenlightened person's ignoring the Self. For, all unillumined people
ignore the very wellknown Self which is manifest and directly perceptible,
and regard the non-Self as the Self. By performing righteous and
unrighteous acts they destroy even that self which has been accepted,
and adopt another new self. And destroying even that, they take up
another. Similarly, destroying even that, they adopt another. In this way
they destroy the self that had been accepted successively. Thus, all
unillumined persons are destroyers of the Self. But that which is the Self
in reality, even that remains as though destroyed for ever by ignorance,
because of the absence of any benefit from Its presence. So, all
unenlightened persons are, verily, destroyers of the Self. On the
contrary, the other person who has realized the Self as described does
not injure in either way [i.e. either through superimposition or through
non-super-imposition.] the Self by his own Self. Therefore he attains the
supreme Goal, i.e., the result stated above comes to him. Lest it be
doubted that what was said in, 'seeing equally God who is present in all
beings, he does not injure the Self by the Self, is improper with regard to
the selves which are diverse according to the differences created by the
variety in their own qualities and actions, the Lord says:
13.30 And yah, he who; pasyati, sees, realizes; karmani, actions, those
performed through speech, mind and body; as kriyamanani, being done,
being accomplished; sarvasah, in various ways; prakrtya, by Nature-
Nature is God's Maya consisting of the three qualities, as is said in the
Upanisadic text, 'However, know Maya as Nature' (Sv. 4.10); by that
Nature; eva, itself-not by the other [Not by the Pradhana of the
Sankhyas, known otherwise as prakrti.] which transforms itself in the
form of cause and effects such as Mahat etc.; tatha, and also; atmanam,
the Self, the Knower of the field; as akartaram, the non-agent, devoid of
all adjuncts; sah, he; pasyati, sees-he is the one who has realized the
supreme Reality. This is the idea. What is implied is that there is no valid
proof about differences in the Non-agent who is devoid of qualities and
is unconditioned like space. The Lord elaborates again in other words
that very true knowledge:
13.31 Yada, when, at the time when; anupasyati, one realizes-having
reflected in accordance with the instructions of the scriptures and the
teachers, one realizes as a matter of one's own direct experience that
'All this is but the Self' (Ch. 7.25.2); that bhuta-prthak-bhavam, the state
of diversity of living things; is ekastham, rooted in the One, existing in the
one Self; and their vistaram, manifestation, origination; tatah, eva, is also
from That-when he realizes that origination in such diverse ways as, 'the
vital force is from the Self, hope is from the Self, memory [Smara,
memory; see Sankaracarya's Comm. on Ch. 7.13.1.-Tr.] is from the Self,
space is from the Self, fire is from the Self, water is from the Self, coming
into being and withdrawal are owing to the Self, food is from the Self'
(op. cit. 7.26.1); tada, then, at that time; brahma sampadyate, one
becomes identified with Brahman Itself. This is the import. If the same
Self be the Self in all the bodies, then there arises the possiblity of Its
association with their defects. Hence this is said:
13.32 Anadivat, being without beginning: Adih means cause; that which
has no cause is anadih. That which has a cause undergoes loss of its
own characteristics. But this One, being causeless, has no parts. This
being so, It does not suffer loss. So also, nirgunatvat, being without
qualities: indeed, It si only something possessing qualities that perishes
owing to the losss of its qualities. But this One, being without qualities,
does not perish. Hence, ayam, this; paramatma, supreme Self; is
avyayah, immutable. It suffers no depletion. Therefore It is immutable.
Since this is so, therefore, api, although; sarira-sthah, existing in the
body-since the perception of the Self occurs in the bodies, It is said to
be 'existing in the body'; even then, It na, does not; karoti, act. From the
very fact that It does not act, It na, is not; lipyate, affected by the result
of any action. For, one who is an agent of action becomes affected by its
result. But this One is not an agent. Hence It is not affected by any
result. This is the meaning. Objection: Who is it, again, that acts in the
body and becomes affected? On the one hand, if there be some
embodied being other than the supreme Self who acts and becomes
affected, then it has been improper to say in, 'And also understand Me
to be the Knower of the field,' etc., that the Knower of the field and God
are one. Again, if there be no embodied being who is different from God,
then it has to be stated who is it that acts and gets affected. Or it has to
be asserted that the supreme One does not exist. [If the supreme One
also acts like us, then He is no God.] Thus, since the Upanisadic
philosophy as stated by the Lord is in every way difficult to understand
and difficult to explain, it has therefore been abandoned by the
Vaisesikas, the Sankhyas, the Jainas and the Buddhists. Reply: As to
that, the following refutation has been stated by the Lord Himself in, 'But
it is Nature that acts' (5.14). Indeed, Nature, which is nothing but
ignorance, acts and becomes affected. In this way empirical dealing
becomes possible; but in reality it does not occur in the one supreme
Self. It has been accordingly shown by the Lord in various places that
there is no duty to be performed by those who adhere to this philosophy
of discriminating knowledge of the supreme Reality, who are steadfast in
Knowledge, who have spurned actions arising out of ignorance, and who
are mendicants belonging to the highest Order of monks. The Lord cites
an illustration to show like what It does not act and is not affected:
13.33 Yatha, as; sarva-gatam, the all-pervading; akasam, space;-
though pervasive, still, na upalipyate, is not defiled, does not come into
contact; saukmyat, because of its subtlety; tatha, similarly; atma, the
Self; avasthitah, present, sarvatra, everywhere; dehe, in the body; na, is
not; upalipyate, defiled. Further,
13.34 Yatha, as; ekam, the one; ravih, sun; prakasayati, illumines;
imam, this; krtsnam, whole; lokam, world tatha, similarly;-who?-ksetri,
the Knower of the field, i.e. the supreme Self, though one; prakasayati,
illumines; krtsnam, the whole; ksetram, field, from the 'great elements' to
'fortitude' (cf. 5-6). Here the illustration of the sun serves to highlight
two aspects of the Self, viz that, like the sun, the Self is one in all the
fields, and that It remains unaffected. This verse is meant for
summarizing the idea of the whole of this chapter:
13.35 Ye, those who; viduh, know; evam, thus, in the manner described
above; jnana-caksusa, through the eye of wisdom-the eye is the
realization in the form of the knowledge of the Self, which arises from
following the instructions of the scriptures and teachers; through that
eye of wisdom; antaram, the distinction, the particular mutual distinction;
ksetra-ksetrajnayoh, beween the field and the Knower of the field as they
have been explained; and bhuta-prakrti-moksam, the annihilation of the
Matrix of beings-the Matrix of beings is that which is described as
ignorance and is called the Unmanifest; (those who know) the
annihilation (moksanam) of that Matrix of beings; te, they; yanti, reach,
go to; param, the Supreme, to Brahman, the Reality which is the suprme
Goal. The idea is that they do not take up a body again.

BHAGAVADGITA
English translation of Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary - Swami
Gambhirananda
Chapter 14
ROMAN
14.1 The word param should be connected with the remote word
jnanam. Pravaksyami, I shall speak; bhuyah, again-even though spoken
of more than once in all the preceding chapters; of the param, supremeit
is supreme because it is concerned with the supreme Reality;-which is
that?-jnanam, Knowledge; uttamam, the best-since it has the best
result; jnananam, of all knowledges-. 'Of all knowledges' does not mean
'of humility' etc. (13.7-11). What then? It means 'among knowledges of
all knowable things like sacrifice etc.' They do not lead to Liberation, but
this (Knowledge) leads to Liberation. Hence the Lord praises it with the
words 'supreme' and 'best', so as to arouse interest in the intellect of
the listener. Yat jnatva, by realizing which, by attaining which
Knowledge; sarve, all; munayah, the contemplatives, the monks [But not
those who espoused monasticsim as a formality in in the fourth stage of
life.] gatah, reached, attained; itah, from here-when this bondage of the
body had ceased; param, the highest; siddhim, Perfection, called
Liberation. And the Lord shows the infallibility of this Perfection:
14.2 Agatah, those who attain; mama sadharmyam, identity with Me the
supreme God, unity with My real nature-sadharmyam, however, does
not mean similarity of attributes, for, in the scripture Gita, distinction
between the Knower of the field and God is not admitted; and this
statement of the result is by way of eulogy-; upasritya, by resorting to i.e.
by following; idam, this; jnanam, Knowledge as described, i.e., by
following the means to Knowledge; na, are not; upajayante, born,
produced; api, even; sarge, during creation; nor do they vyathanti, suffer
pain, i.e. they do not perish; pralaye, during dissolution, when even
Brahma perishes. The Lord says that association of this kind between
the field and the Knower of the field is the origin of all beings:
14.3 Mama, My own Maya, i.e. Prakrti consisting of the three qualities,
which belongs to Me; is the yonih, womb [Here Ast. adds 'karanam,
cause' (-off all the creatures).-Tr.] for all the creatures. Since it (Prakrti) is
great (mahat) as compared with all its effects, and it is the sustainer
(brahma) [Prakrti is brahma since it permeates all of its own products.-
A.G.] of all its own transformations, therefore the womb itself is qualified
as mahat brahma. Tasmin, in that, in the womb which is the greatsustainer;
aham, I, God, possessed of the power in the form of the two
aspects, viz the field and the Knower of the field; dadhami, place,
deposit; garbham, the seed-the seed of the birth of Hiranayagarbha, te
seed which is the cause of the birth of all things-; i.e., I bring the field
into association with the Knower of the field who conforms to the nature
of the limiting adjuncts, viz ignorance, desire and activity. Tatah, from
that, from that deposition of the seed; O scion of the Bharata dynasty,
bhavati, occurs; sambhavah, the birth, origination; sarva-bhutanam, of all
things, following the birth of Hiranyagarbha.
14.4 O son of Kunti, yah, whatever; murtayah, forms-that have their
parts and limbs integrated, which is characteristic of the formation of
bodies; sambhavanti, are born; sarva-yonisu, from all wombs-from the
wombs of gods, manes, humans, cattle, beasts, etc.; tasam, of them, of
those forms; mahat brahma, the great-sustainer, which exists as all the
(various) forms; is the yonih, womb, source. Aham, I, God; am the pita,
father; bija-pradah, who desposits the seed, the agent of impregnation.
(Now) is being stated which are the qualities and how they bind:
14.5 O mighty-armed one-who are possessed of hands which are great
and mighty, and extend upto the knees, gunah, the qualities are named
sattva, rajas and tamas. And they, prakrti-sambhavah, born of Nature,
born of Maya which belongs to God; nibadhnanti, bind, as it were; the
avyayam, immutable-the immutability has been spoken of in the verse,
'Being without beginning...,' etc. (13.31); dehinam, embodied being;
dehe, to the body. The word guna is a technical term, and is not a
quality like colour etc. which inhere in some substance. Nor is it meant
here that quality and substance are different. Therefore they are ever
dependent on the Knower of the field, just as qualities are dependent (on
some substance). Being of the nature of ignorance, they bind the
Knower of the field, as it were. They come into being, making That
(Knower) their sustainer. In this sense it is said that they bind. Objection;
Was it not said that the embodied one does not become defiled (see
13.31-2)? So, why as it contrarily said here that 'they bind'? Reply: We
have rebutted this objection by using the word iva (as it were) in 'they
bind, as it were'.
14.6 Tatra, among them, among sattva etc.;-the characteristics of
sattva itself is being stated first-sattva, nirmalatvat, being pure like a
crystal stone;is prakasakam, an illuminator; and anamayam, harmless.
Anagha, O sinless one; badhnati, it binds. How? Sukhasangena, through
attachment to happiness. Bringing about the association of happiness,
which is the object, with the Self, which is the subject, in the form of the
idea, 'I am happy', is certainly an unreal contact with happiness. This as
such is nescience, for the quality of an object cannot belong to a
subject. And it has been said by the Lord that all the qualities, from
'desire' to 'fortitude' (see 13.6), are, indeed, of the field, which is the
object. Therefore, it is certainly through nescience, which is an attribute
[In reality, though nescience has no connection with the Self, yet, since
there is none other with which it can become associated and since it has
no independence, therefore the Commentator imagines it as an attribute
of the Self.] of the Self and has the characteristics of non-discrimination
between object and subject, that sattva apparently brings about the
association with happiness, which is not the Self. It makes (the Self)
attached, as it were; [Here Ast. adds 'asangam saktam iva, (makes) the
Unattached attached, as it were'.-Tr.] makes one not possessed of
happiness as though possessed of it! Similarly, it binds also jnanasangena,
through attachment to knowledge. [Jnana, derived in the sense
of 'that through which one knows,' means an instrument of knowledge,
and not Consciousness. (S.: Knowledge arising from the study of the
import of various scriptures; or, jnanam, means the scriptures, through
which the supreme God is known and which leads to devotional
practices, but not to steadfastness in (the absolute) Brahman.] Because
of its concomitance with happiness, knowledge here is an attribute of
the internal organ, the field, but not of the Self. Were it an attribute [If
knowledge were a natural attribute of the Self, then there can be no
question of the latter again becoming bound through association with
the former.] of the Self, there could be no contact (between it and the
Self), and 'bondage' would become illogical. Association with knowledge
etc. should be understood in the same sense as with happiness.
14.7 Viddhi, know; rajas to be ragatmakam, of the nature of passion (-
raga is derived in the sense of that which colours-), having the property
of colouring, like the ochre pigment etc.; trsna-asanga-samud-bhavam,
born of hankering and attachment-hankering is the longing for things not
acquired; attachment is the clining-of the nature of fondness-of the mind
to things in possession. O son of Kunti, tat, that, that rajas; nibadhnati,
binds; dehinam, the embodied one; karma-sangena, through attachment
to actions. Deep involvement in actions related to seen or unseen
objects is karmasangah. Rajas binds through that.
14.8 Viddhi, know; tamas, the third qualitty; mahanam, which deludes,
which is a cause of indiscrimination; sarva-dehinam, of all embodied
beings; to be ajnanajam, born of ignorance. O scion of the Bharata
dynasty, tat, that tamas; nibadhnati, binds; pramada-alasya-nidrabhih,
through inadvertence, laziness and sleep. The activities of the qualities
are again being briefly stated:
14.9 O scion of the Bharata dynasty, sattva, sanjayati, attaches one;
sukhe, to happiness; rajas (-attaches is understood-) karmani, to action;
tu, while; tamas, avrtya, covering up, veiling; jnanam, knowledge, the
discrimination produced by sattva; sanjayati, leads pramade, to
inadvertence; uta, also. Pramada means non-performance of a duty on
hand. When do the qualities produce the effects stated above? That is
being answered:
14.10 O scion of the Bharata dynasty, sattva bhavati, increases, comes
into being; abhibhuya, by subduing both rajas and tamas. When sattva
increases, then, coming to its own, it produces its own effectsknowledge,
happiness, etc. Similarly, when the quality of rajas increases
by overpowering both sattva and tamas, then it produces its own
effects-activity and hankering. When the quality called tamas increases
by similarly dominating over sattva and rajas, it then produces its own
effects-obscuring of knowledge, etc. When any quality preponderates,
then what is its indication? This is being answered:
14.11 Yada, when; prakasah, the illumination-prakasa, illumination, is a
function of the internal organ, intelligence; that itself is jnanam,
knowledge; when this illumination called knowledge upajayate, radiates;
asmin, in this; dehe, body; sarva-dvaresu, through all the doors-all the
sense organs, (viz) ear etc., are the Self's doors of perception; through
all those doors; tada, then; through this indication, viz the illumination
that is knowledge, vidyat, one should know; iti, that; sattva has
vivrddham, increased; uta, greatly [See A.G.-Tr.]. This is the
characteristics of rajas when it has become prominent:
14.12 O best of the Bharata dynasty, when the quality of rajas vivrddhe,
becomes predominant; etani, these indications; jayante, come into
being; lobhah, avarice, the desire to appropriate other's possessions;
pravrtih, movement in general; arambhah, undertaking;-of what?-
karmanam, of actions; asamah, unrest, lack of tranquillity-(i.e.)
manifestation of joy, attachment, etc.; and sprha, hankering, desire in
general for all things.
14.13 Kuru-nandana, O descendant of the Kuru dynasty; when the
quality of tamas vivrddhe, predominates; etani, these indications; eva,
surely; jayante, come into being; extreme aprakasah, non-discrimination;
and apravrttih, inactivity; its [i.e. of non-discrimination.] effects,
pramadah, in-advertence; and mohah, delusion, i.e. stupidity, which is a
from of non-discrimination. Whatever result is achieved even after
death, that is also owing to attachment and desire; every-thing is
certainly caused by the qualities. By way of showing this the Lord says:
14.14 Yada, when; deha-bhrt, an embodied one, the soul; yati,
undergoes; pralayam, death; sattve pravrddhe, while sattva is
predominant; tu, exclusively; [Tu is used to exclude rajas and tamas.-S.]
tada, then; pratipadyate, he attains, i.e. gains; the amalan, tainless,
stainless; lokan, worlds; [The worlds of Brahma, etc., which are free from
the impurity of predominance either of rajas or tamas.] uttamavidam, of
those who know the highest, i.e. of those who have known the
principles-mahat and the rest.
14.15 Pralayam gatva, when one does; rajasi, while the quality of rajas
predominates; jayate, he is born; karma-sangisu, among people
attached to activity, among human beings having attachment to work.
Tatha, similarly, in that very way; pralinah, when one dies; tamasi, while
tamas predominates; jayate, he takes birth; mudha-yonisu, among the
stupid species, such as animals etc. A summary of the idea of the
preceding (three) verses is being stated:
14.16 Ahuh, they, the wise persons, say; that phalam, the result;
sukrtasya, of good; karmanah, work, i.e. acts having the sattva quality; is
verily nirmalam, pure; and is sattvikam, born of sattva. Tu, but; phalam,
the result; rajasah, of rajas, i.e. of acts that have the qualitty of rajas-for
the topic relates to actions; is duhkham, sorrow. In accordance with its
cause, the result too is indeed sorrow, a product of rajas. So also
ajnanam, ignorance; is, as before, (the result) tamasah, of tamas, of
unrighteous acts that have the quality of tamas. What else results from
the qualities?
14.17 Sattvat, from sattva, when it predominates; sanjayate, is born;
jnanam, knowledge; and rajasah, from rajas; is verily born lobhah,
avarice. Tamasah, from tamas; bhavatah, are born; both pramadamohau,
in-advertence and delusion; as also ajnanam, ignorance
[Absence of discrimination.]; eva ca, to be sure. Further,
14.18 Sattvasthah, people who conform to sattva, to the actions of
sattva quality; gacchanti, go, are born; undhavam, higher up, in the
worlds of gods and others. Rajasah, those who conform to rajas; [Those
who are endowed with sense-knowledge and actions consequent on the
preponderance of rajas.] tisthanti, stay, are born; madhye, in the middle,
among human beings. Tamasah, those who conform to tamas,
jaghanya-gunavrttasthah [A variant reading is vrttisthah.-Tr.], who
conform to actions of the lowest quality of tamas, those who are
attached to its actions-sleep, laziness, etc.-, the foolish; gacchanti, go;
adhah, down, (i.e.) they are born among cattle etc. The association,
owing to the false ignorance in the form of 'being seated in Nature', that
an individual soul has with the gunas-in the form of happiness, sorrow
and delusion, and which are matters of experience in such ways as, 'I
am happy,' 'I am sorrowful,' 'I am ignorant,'-that (association) is the
cause of the individual soul's mundane existence characterized by
coming to have births in good and bad species. This was stated briefly in
the earlier chapter. Elaborating that here in the text beginning with, 'the
qualities, viz sattva, rajas and tamas, born of Nature' (5), the Lord has
said that the nature of the qualities, the conduct conforming to the
qualities, and the power to bind that the qualities have through actions
conforming to them, and also the course of a person under the
bondage, of behaviour conforming to the qualities,-all this is false
knowledge; it has ignorance as its root and is the cause of bondage.
Now, it is necessary to state that Liberation follows from right
knowledge. Hence the Lord says:
14.19 Yada, when; drasta, the witness, after becoming illumined;
anupasyati, sees; na anyam, none other; gunebhyah, than the qualities
that have transformed into the shape of body, orgnas and objects;
kartaram,as the agent-(i.e.) he sees thus that the qualities themselves, in
all their modes, are the agents of all activities; ca, and; vetti, knows; that
which, standing as the witness of the activities of the qualities, is param,
superior; gunebhyah, to the qualities; sah, he, the witness; adhigacchati,
attains; madbhavam, My nature. How does he attain? That is being
stated:
14.20 Atitya, having transcended, having gone beyond-even while living;
etan, these; trin, three; gunan, qualities as have been described, which
constitute the limiting adjunct Maya; and dehasamudbhavan, which are
the origin of the body, which are the seed of the birth of the body; dehi,
the embodied one, the enlightened one; vimuktah, becoming free-even
in this life; janma-mrtyu-jara-duhkhaih, from birth death, old age and
sorrow; asnute, experiences; [Some translate this as 'attains'.-Tr.]
amrtam, Immortality. In this way he attains My nature. This is the idea.
Getting a clue to a question from the statement that one experiences
Immortality, even in this life, by going beyond the qualities-
14.21 Prabho, O Lord; kaih, by what; lingaih, signs; bhavati, is one
(known); atitah, who has gone beyond; etan, these; trin, three; gunan,
qualities that have been explained? Kim, what; is his acarah, behaviour;
ca, and; katham, how, in what way; ativartate, does he transcend; [Ast.
adds here, 'atitya vartate, (in what way) does he exist after transcending
(the three qualities)?'-Tr.] etan, these; trin, three; gunan, qualities? In
this verse the signs of one who has gone beyond the qualities, and the
means of transcending them have been asked by Arjuna. By way of
replying to the two questions, the Lord said: 'As for the question, 'With
what sings does one who has gone beyond the qualities become
endowed with?, listen to them:'
14.22 Na dvesti, he neither dislikes these; prakasam, illumination
(knowledge), an effect of sattva; pravrttim, activity, an effect of rajas; and
moham, delusion, an effect of tamas; sampravrttani, when they appear,
when they fully emerge in the form of objects (of experience)-. 'In me
has arisen a perception which is a result of tamas; thereby I have
become deluded'; so also, 'In me has risen (the inclination to) action
which is painful and is born of rajas. By that rajas I have been actuated,
carried away from my own nature. This is a matter of sorrow to me that
there has been a deviation from my own nature'; similarly, 'The quality of
sattva, in the form of illumination that is knowledge, binds me by
attributing discrimination to me and making me attached to happiness'-
(by thinking) in these ways one dislikes them because of his being not
fully enlightened. The person who has transcended the qualities does
not dislike them in this manner. Unlike a person having sattva etc., who
longs for the effects of sattva etc. which withdraw themselves after
becoming manifest to him, the person who has gone beyond the
qualities na kanksati, does not long for them in that way; nivrttani, when
they disappear. This is the idea. This is not an indication that can be
perceived by others. What then? Since this characteristic is perceivable
to oneself, it is merely subjective. For dislike or longing, which is a
subjective experience of a person, is not seen by another. Now, then,
the Lord gives the reply to the question, 'What is the behaviour of one
who has gone beyond the qualities?':
14.23 He, the Self-realized monk, yah, who; asinah, sitting; udasinavat,
like one indifferent-as an indifferent man sides with nobody, similarly, this
one, set on the path leading to the transcendence of the qualities; na, is
not; vicalyate, distracted from the state of Knowledge arising out of
discrimination; gunaih, by the qualities. This point is being clarified as
such: Yah, he who; thinking iti, that; gunah, the qualities, which have
trasnformed into body, organs and objects; vartante, act on one
another; avatisthati, remains firm-avatisthati (instead of avatisthate) is
used in the Parasmaipada to avoid a break in the metre, or there is
different reading, 'yah anutisthati, who acts'-;[His apparent activity
consists in the mere continuance of actions which have been
subjectively sublated through enlightenment.] and an, does not; ingate,
move; i.e., becomes eva, surely settled in his own nature-.
14.24 Moreover, sama-duhkha-sukhah, he to whom sorrow and
happiness are alike;svasthah, who is established in his own Self, tranquil;
sama-losta-asma-kancanah, to whom a lump of earth, iron and gold are
the same; tulya-priya-apriyah, to whom the agreeable and the
disagreeable are the same; dhirah, who is wise; tulya-ninda-atmasamstutih,
to whom, to which monk, censure and his own praise are the
same-.
14.25 Further, tulyah, he who is the same, unperturbed; manaapamanayoh,
under honour and dishonour; tulyah, who is equally
disposed; mitra-ari-paksayoh, both towards the side of the friend and of
the foe-although from their own standpoint some may be unattached,
still, in others' view they may appear to be siding either with friends or
foes; hence it is said, 'equally disposed both towards the side of the
friend and of the foe'; sarva-arambha-parityagi, who has renounced all
enterprise (-those which are undertaken are arambhah, actions intended
for seen or unseen results-), i.e. who is apt to give up all undertakings,
who has given up all actions other than those needed merely for the
maintenance of the body; sah, he; ucyate, is said to have; gunatitah,
gone beyond the qualities. The disciplines leading to the state of
transcendence of the qualities, which have been stated (in the verses)
beginning from 'he who, sitting like one indifferent,' and ending with 'he
is said to have gone beyond the qualities,' have to be practised by a
monk, a seeker of Liberation, so long as they are to be achieved through
effort. But when they become firmly ingrained, they become the
indications, perceivable to himself, of a monk who has transcended the
qualities. Now the Lord gives the reply to the question, 'And how does
he transcend the qualties?'
14.26 And he-be he a monk or a man of action (rites and duties)-, yah,
who; sevate, serves; mam, Me, God, Narayana residing in the hearts of
all beings; avyabhicarena, through the unswerving-that which never
wavers-; bhakti-yogena, Yoga of Devotion-devotion [Bhakti (devotion),
supreme Love, through which one becomes united (with God) is yoga.]
itself being the Yoga-; sah, he; samatitya, having transcended; etan,
these; gunan, qualities as described; kalpate, qualifies, i.e. becomes fit;
brahma-bhuyaya,-bhuyah is the same as bhavanam-, for becoming
Brahman, for Liberation. How this is so is being stated:
14.27 Hi, for; aham, I, the inmost Self; am the pratistha brahmanah,
Abode-that in which something abides is pratistha-of Brahman which is
the supreme Self. Of Brahman of what kind? Amrtasya, of that which is
indestructible; avyayasya, of that which is immutable; and sasvatasya, of
that which is eternal; dharmasya, of that which is the Dharma, realizable
through the Yoga of Jnana which is called dharma (virtue); and
aikantikasya sukhasya, of that which is the absolute, unfailing Bliss by
nature. Since the inmost Self is the abode of the supreme Self-which by
nature is immortal etc.-, therefore, through perfect Knowledge it (the
former) is realized with certainty to be the supreme Self. This has been
stated in, 'he qualifies for becoming Brahman'. The purport is this:
Indeed, that power of God through which Brahman sets out, comes
forth, for the purpose of favouring the devotees, etc., that power which
is Brahman Itself, am I. For, a power and the possesser of that power
are non-different. Or, brahman means the conditioned Brahman, since It
(too,) is referred to by that word. 'Of that Brahman, I Myself, the
unconditioned Brahman-and none else-am the Abode.' (The abode of
Brahman) of what qualities? Of that which is immortal; of that which has
the quality of deathlessness; of that which is immutable; so also, of that
which is the eternal; which is the dharma having the characteristics of
steadfastness in Knowledge; of that which is the absolute,
unquestionably certain Bliss born of that (steadfastness);-'I am the
Abode' is understood.

BHAGAVADGITA
English translation of Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary - Swami
Gambhirananda
Chapter 15
RO
15.1 Urdhva-mulam, that which has its roots upwards:- Brahman,
possessed of the unmanifest power in the form of Maya, is referred to by
the word 'upward' because of Its subtleness in point of time by virtue of
Its being the Cause, and also because of Its eternality and vastness; and
That is the root (mulam) of this world. The Tree of the World which is
such, is urdhva-mulam. This accords with the Upanisadic text, 'This has
its roots above and branches below' (Ka. 2.6.1). In the Purana also we
have: It sprouts from the Root in the form of the Unmanifest; it grows
through the sturdiness of that very One. And it has abundance of
intelligence as its trunk, and the appertures of the organs as the hollows.
The great elements are its boughs [A.G. takes the word visakha
(boughs) in the sense of stambha, perhaps meaning the aerial roots.-Tr.];
so also, it has the objects of perception as its leaves. It has virtue and
vice as its beautiful flowers, and happiness and sorrow are the fruits it
bears. This eternal Tree presided over by Brahman is a means of
livelihood to all creatures. And this verily is the resort of Brahman [Or,
etat brahma-vanam means: This Tree has Brahman as its object of
adoration, its support. For, the world has nothing but Brahman as its
support.] in it Brahman dwells for ever. Having felled and split this Tree
with the great sword of Knowledge, and then attaining the bliss of the
Self, one does not return from that (bliss).' (Cf. Mbh. As. 47.12-15.) That
Tree which has its roots upwards and is constituted by the enchantment
of mundane existence, and adhah-sakham, which has the branches
downwards-mahat, [See under 7.4.-Tr.] egoism, subtle elements, etc.
are its branches (sakhah), as it were, extending downwards (adhah); so,
it has its branches downwards-; that Tree with its branches downwards,
which does not (a) last (stha) even for the morrow (svah), is asvatthah (lit.
Peepul tree). Ahuh, they say; that the asvatthah, Peepul Tree,
undergoing destruction every moment; is avyayam, imperishable, and
constituted by the enchantments of mundane existence. Having been in
existence from time without beginning, that Tree of the World is
imperishable. It is, indeed, will known as the sustainer of the
beginningless and ceaseless series of bodies etc. They call that the
imperishable. Of that very Tree of the World here is another qualification:
Yasya, that Tree of the World of which; chandamsi-chandas being
derived in the sense of covering (protecting)-, the Vedas in the form of
Rk, Yajus and Sama; are the parnani, leaves, as it were. As leaves
serve as protectors of a tree, so the Vedas serve as the protectors of the
world; for they reveal what are virtue and vice as also their causes and
results. Yah, he who; veda, knows; tam, that-the Tree of the World
along with its root, as has been explained; sah, he; is a vedavit, knower
of the Vedas, i.e. versed in the meaning of the Vedas. Since, apart from
this Tree of the World along with its root, not even an iota of any other
thing remains to be known, therefore he who knows the purport of the
Vedas is omniscient. In this way the Lord euligizes the knowledge of the
Tree together with its root. An imagery of the other parts of that very
Tree of the World is being presented:
15.2 Sakhah, the branches, as it were; tasya, of that Tree; prasrtah,
extending; adhah, downwards, from the human beings to the immobile
(trees etc.); ca, and; urdhvam, upwards, upto Brahma-beginning from
the Creator of the Cusmos to Dharma (Death) [According to A.G. 'human
beings' stands for the world of human beings, and 'Brahma ' for the
'world of Brahma' (Satva-loka). So Dharma may mean the 'world of
Death' (pitr-loka).-Tr.], which, 'in accordance with their work and in
conformity with their knowledge' (Ka. 2.2.7), are the results of
knowledge and actions; are guna-pravrddhah, strengthened, made
stout, by the qualities sattva, rajas and tamas, which are their materials;
and visaya-pravalah, have the sense-objects as their shoots. The senseobjects
(sound etc.) sprout, as it were, like new leaves from the
branches (bodies etc.) which are the results of actions. Thereby the
branches are said to have sense-objects as their shoots. The supreme
Root, the material cause of the Tree of the World, has been stated
earlier. And now, the latent impressions of attraction, repulsion, etc. born
of the results of action are the subsidiary roots, as it were, which grow
later on and become the cause of involvement in righteousness and and
unrighteousness. And those mulani, roots; karma-anubandhini, which
are followed by actions; anu-santatani, spread, enter; adhah,
downwards, as compared with the world of gods; manusya-loke, into
the world of human beings particularly-for it is well known that (only) here
men have competence for rites and duties. They (these roots) are said to
be karma-anubandhini since actions (karma) that are characterized as
righteous and unrighteous follow as their product (anubandha), (i.e.)
succeed the rise of those (attraction, repulsion, etc.).
15.3 But, asya, its-of this Tree of the World which has been described;
rupam, form, as it has been presented; na, is not at all; upalabhyate,
perceived; iha, here; tatha, in that way. For, being like a dream, water in
a mirage, jugglery, an imaginary city seen in the sky, it is by nature
destroyed no sooner than it is seen. Therefore, na, there exists neither;
its antah, end, limit, termination; so also, neither; its beginning. It is not
comprehended by anyone that it comes into existence beginning from
any definite point. Its sampratistha, continuance, the middle state, too, is
not perceived by anyone. Chittva, after felling, uprooting, together with
its seeds; enam, this, above described; asvattham, Peepul, the Tree of
the World; suvirudha-mulam, whose roots (mula) are well (su) developed
(virudham); drdhena, with the strong-hardened by a resolute mind
directed towards the supreme Self, and sharpened on the stone of
repeated practice of discrimination; asanga-sastrena, sword of
detachment-detachment means turn ing away from the desire for
progeny, wealth and the worlds; with that sword of detachment-.
15.4 Tatah, thereafter; tat, that; padam, State of Visnu;
parimargitavyam, has to be sought for, i.e. realized; gatah, going,
entering; yasmin, where, into which State; they na, do not; nivartanti,
return; bhuyah, again, for worldly life. As to how It is to be sought for,
the Lord says: Prapadye, I take refuge; tam, in that; adyam, Primevalexisting
from the beginning; purusam, Person, who has been mentioned
by the word State; eva, Himself. The search has to be carried on thus,
i.e., by taking refuge in Him. Who is that Person? That is being stated:
Yatah, from whom, from which Person; prasrta, has ensued, like jugglery
from a magician; purani, the eternal; pravrttih, Manifestation, the magic
Tree of the World. What kind of persons reach that State? This is being
answered:
15.5 Amudhah, the wise ones, who are devoid of delusion; who are
nirmana-mohah, free from (nir) pride (mana) and non-discrimination
(moha); jita-sanga-dosah, who have conquered (jita) the evil (dosa) of
association (sanga)-association itself being the evil; those who have
conquered that; adhyatma-nityah, who are ever devoted to spirituality,
ever engaged in reflecting on the nature of the supreme Self; engrossed
in that; [Engrossed in hearing, reflecting and meditating on the Self.]
vinivrtta-kamah, who are completely (vi) free from (nivrtta) desires
(kamah), whose desires have completely gone away without trace (ni),
the men of self-control, the monks; vimuktah, who are free from, have
got rid of; dvandvaih, the dualities-likes, dislikes, etc.; sukha-duhkhasanjnaih,
called happiness and sorrow; gacchanti, reach; tat, that;
avyayam, undecaying; padam, State, as has been described above. The
very State is being elaborated again:
15.6 Na suryah, niether the sun-though possessed of the power of
illumining everything; so also, na sasankah, nor the moon; na pavakah,
nor even fire; bhasayate, illumines; tat, That [-this (word) refers to the
remote word dhama (Abode) at the end of the verse-], that Abode which
is of the nature of light. That abode, the State of Visnu, gatva, reaching,
attaining; yat, which; they na, do not; nivartante, return, and which the
sun etc. do not illumine; tat, that; is mama, My, Visnu's; paramam,
supreme; dhama, Abode, State. Objection: It has been said, 'reaching
which they do not return'. Is it not well known that all goings end, verily,
in returning, and unions are followed by separations? How is it said that
there is no return for those who come to that Abode? Reply: As to that,
listen to the reason:
15.7 It is eva, verily amsah, a part, portion, limb, fragment-these are all
synonymous; mama, of mine, of the supreme Self; [Here Ast. adds
'narayanasya, of Narayana':-Tr.] which, jiva-bhutah sanatanah,
becoming the eternal individual soul, will known as the enjoyer and
agent; jiva-loke, in the region of living beings, (i.e.) in the world-. As the
sun (reflected) in water is a part of the (actual) sun, and goes to the sun
itself and does not return when the water, the cause of the reflection, is
removed, so also even this part becomes similarly united with that very
Self; or, as space enclosed in a pot etc., delimited by such adjuncts as
the pot etc., being a part of Space does not return after being united
with Space when the cause (of limitation), viz pot etc., is destroyed. This
being so, it has been rightly stated, 'by reaching which they do not
return.' Objection: How can the partless supreme Self have any limb,
fragment or part? If it has limbs, then there arises the contingency of Its
becoming destroyed through the dismemberment of the limbs! Reply:
This fault does not arise, since Its fragment, which is delimited by an
adjunct arising out of ignorance, is imagined to be a part, as it were. And
this idea has been fully explained in the chapter (13) dealing with the
'field'. How that individual soul, imagined as a part of Mine, enters into
the world and leaves the body are being stated: Karsati, it draws to itself;
indriyani, the (sense-) organs-ear etc.; manah-sasthani, which have the
mind as their sixth; and prakrti-sthani, which abide in Nature, which are
located in their respective spheres such as the orifice of the ear etc.
When (does it draw the organs)?
15.8 Yat, when; isvarah, the master of the aggregate of the body etc.,
the individual soul; utkramati, leaves the body, then he draws. Thus, the
second quarter of the verse is treated first for the sake of consistency.
[When the soul leaves the body, then it draws the organs (see previous
verses) from that body. In this way, the second quarter of the present
verse is treated first, because going to another body follows the leaving
of the earlier one.-M.S.] Ca api, and even; yat, when; it avapnoti,
assumes a body other than the earlier one; then, grahitva, taking; etani,
these, the organs with the mind as their sixth; samyati, he leaves, goes
away totally [Samyak, totally-without returning in any way to the earlier
body.-M.S.] Like what? In reply the Lord says: iva, as; vayuh, the wind
(carries away); gandhan, odours; asayat, from their receptacles-flowers
etc. Which, again, are those (organs)?
15.9 Seated in the body, it upasevate, enjoys; visayan, the objectssound
etc.; adhisthaya, by presiding over; srotram, the ear; caksuh,
eyes; sparsanam, skin, the organ of touch; rasanam, tongue; eva ca, as
also; the ghranam, nose; and manah, the mind, the sixth-(presiding over)
each one of them along with its (corresponding) organ.
15.10 Thus, the embodied soul, utkarmantam, when it is leaving the
body-the body that was assumed earlier; or sthitam, while residing in the
(present) body; or bhunjanam, experiencing sound etc.; or gunaanvitam,
in association with, i.e. identified with, the qualities called
happiness, sorrow and delusion-even when, under such conditions, this
one comes very much within the range of cognition; vimudhah, the
persons who are diversely deluded as a result of their hearts being
forcibly attracted by the enjoyments of seen and unseen objects; na, do
not; anu-pasyanti, see. And the Lord regrets this saying, 'Alas! How
sorrowful this is!' Those others, again, jnana-caksusah, who have the
eye of knowledge, [Jnana-caksuh means the scriptures supported by
reasoning, which are the means of knowledge.] who have the insight of
under-standing which has arisen from the valid means of knowledge,
i.e., those having a clear vision; pasyanti, see this one.
15.11 And some, however, yoginah, the yogis of concentrated minds;
yatantah, who are diligent; pasyanti, see; evam, this one, the Self under
discussion; as avasthitam, existing; atmani, in themselves, in their own
intelligence. They realize, 'I am This.' Acetasah, the non-discriminating
ones; akrta-atmanah, who lack self-control, who have not purified
themselves through austerity and control of the organs, who have not
desisted from bad conduct, who are not tranquil and are proud by
nature; na, do not; pasyanti, see; enam, this one; api, though; (they be)
yatantah, diligent-even though they be striving with the help of the valid
means of knowledge such as the scriptures. With a view to speaking of
the all-pervasiveness of the State and the fact of Its being the
substratum of all empirical dealings, the Lord speaks in brief through the
following four verses of the divine manifestations of that State which the
light of fire, sun, etc. do not illumine though they are the illuminators of
everything; and reaching which the aspirants of Liberation do not return
again towards mundane existence; and of which State the individual
souls, owing to their conformity with the diversity of limiting adjuncts, are
parts, just as spaces enclosed in pot etc. are 'parts' of Space:
15.12 Yat, that which is; aditya-gatam, in the sun, which abides in the
sun;-what is that-the tejah, light, brilliance, radiance; which bhasayate,
illumines, reveals; akhilam, the whole, entire; jagat, world; yat, that
ulluminating light which is; candramasi, in the moon; ca, and yat, which
is; agnau, in fire, the carrier of oblations; viddhi, know; tat, that; tejah,
light; to be mamakam, Mine. That light belong to Me who am Visnu. Or:
The light that is Consciousness, which is in the sun, which is in the
moon, and which is in fire, know that light to be Mine. That light belongs
to Me who am Visnu. Objection; Is it not that the light that is
Consciousness exists equally in the moving and the non-moving? Such
being the case, why is this particular mention, 'That light in the sun
which...,'etc? Reply: This defect does not arise, because, owing to the
abundance of the sattva quality, there can be an abundane [Ast. reads
avistaratva (amplitude) in place of adhikya.-Tr.] (of Consciousness). Since
in the sun etc. the sattva is very much in evidence, is greatly brilliant,
therefore there is an abundance of the light (of Consciousness) in them
alone. And so it (sun etc.) is specially mentioned. But it is not that it
(Consciousness) is abundant only there. Indeed, as in the world, a face,
though in the same position, is not reflected in wood, a wall, etc., but in
a mirror etc. it is reflected according to the degree in which they are
more and more transparent, so is it here. Further,
15.13 Ca, and; avisya, entering; gam, the earth; aham, I; dharayami,
sustain; bhutani, the beings, the world; ojasa, through (My) power, the
power that belongs to God and is free from passing and attachment,
(and) which has penetrated the earth to support it, and owing to which
the heavy earth does not fall and does not crumble. There is a similar
mantra: 'By which the heaven is made mighty, and the earth firm' (Tai.
Sam. 4.1.8.5), and also, 'He supported the earth' (op.cit., 4.1.8.3), etc.
Hence, it has rightly been said, 'Entering the earth I sustain the moving
and non-moving beings.' Moreover, pusnami, I nourish, I make healthy
and full of the sweet flavour of juices; sarvah, all; osadhih, the plantspaddy,
barley, etc.; bhutva, by becoming; somah, Soma; rasatmakah,
which is of the nature of sap. Soma consists of all the juices; it is the
source of all juices. Indeed, it nourishes all plants by infusing its own
juice into everything. Besides,
15.14 Bhutva, taking the form of; vaisvanarah, Vaisvanara, the fire in the
stomach, mentioned in such Upanisadic texts as, 'This fire that is within
man and digests the food (that is eaten) is Vaisvanara' (Br. 5.9.1);
becoming that Vaisvanara, and asritah, residing in, entering; deham, the
bodies; praninam, of creatures, of living beings; aham, I Myself; pranaapana-
samayuktah, in association [i.e. kindled, inflamed, by Prana and
Apana.] with Prana and Apana; [Prana-that vital force which goes
upward and has its seat really in the heart (cf. Tai. Br. 3.10.8.5), but it
said to be located at the tip of the nose since its presence is directly felt
there. Apana-that vital force which goes downward, below the navel,
and has its seat in the organs of excertion.-Tr.] pacami, digest; the
caturvidham, four kinds of; annam, food-those that are eaten by
masticating, swallowing, sucking and licking. The eater is the fire called
Vaisvanara, and the eaten is the food Soma. One who looks upon all that
there is as being these two, fire and Soma, is not affected by the
impurity of food. Further,
15.15 And aham, I, as the Self; san-nivistah, am seated; hrdi, in the
hearts, in the intellects; sarvasya, of all creatures. Therefore, with regard
to all the creatures, mattah, from Me, from the Self; are Smrtih, memory;
jnanam, knowledge; and their apohanam, loss. The knowledge and
memory of these creatures who perform good deeds come from Me in
accordance with the good deeds; similarly, the loss, deterioration, of
memory and knowledge of those who perform evil deeds comes from
Me in accordance with the evil deeds. Aham eva, I alone, the supreme
Self; am the vedyah, object to be known; sarvaih, through all; vedaih, the
Vedas. I am also the vedanta-krt, the originator of the Vedanta, i.e., the
source of the traditional school of the teachings of Vedanta; and aham
eva, I Myself; am the veda-vit, knower of the Vedas, the knower of the
teachings of the Vedas. In the verses beginning with, 'That light in the
sun which...' (12), etc. have been stated briefly the majesty of God, the
Lord called Naravana, which arise from special limiting adjuncts. Now
then, the succeeding verses are begun with a view to determining the
real nature of that very Lord as the Unconditioned and Absolute, by
distinguishing Him from the limiting adjuncts, (viz) the mutable and the
immutable. In that connection, after dividing into three parts [The two
limiting adjuncts-the mutable and the immutable-, and the supreme Self.]
all the teachings of the preceding and the immediately succeeding
chapters, the Lord says:
15.16 There are imau, these; dvau, two-grouped separately; purusau,
persons, so called [Persons-so called only figuratively, since they are the
limiting adjuncts of the supreme Person.]; loke in the world; the ksarah,
mutable-one group consists of the perishable; the other person is the
aksarah, immutable, opposite of the former, the power of God called
Maya, which is the seed of the origin of the person called the mutable.
That which is the receptacle of the impressions of desires, actions, etc.
of countless transmigrating creatures is called the immutable person.
Who are those persons? The Lord Himself gives the answer: Ksarah, the
mutable; consists of sarvani, all; bhutani, things, i.e. the totality of all
mutable things. Kutasthah is the one existing as Maya: Kuta means a
heap; kutasthah, is that which exists like a heap. Or, kuta is maya,
deception, falsehood, crookedness, which are synonymous; that which
exists in the diverse forms of maya etc. is the kutasthah. It is ucyate,
called; the aksarah, immutable, because, owing to the countless seeds
of worldly existence, it does not perish.
15.17 Tu, but; anyah, different, entirely contrary in characteristics from
these; is the uttamah, supreme, most excellent; purusah, Person, who is
different in characteristics from these-the mutable and the immutable-,
untouched by the mutable and the immutable limiting adjuncts, and is by
nature eternal, pure, conscious and free; udahrtah, spoken of in the
Upanisads; iti, as; the paramatma, supreme Self; He is paramah,
supreme, as compared with the selves like body etc. created by
ignorance, and is the atma, Self, the inmost Consciousness of all beings.
Hence He is the supreme Self. He Himself is being specially described:
yah, who, by dint of His own active power inhering in the energy that is
Maya; [Caitanya, consciousness, itself is the bala (energy); the sakti
(active power) therein is Maya. Through that He upholds.] avisya,
permeating; loka-trayam, the three worlds-called Bhuh (Earth), Bhuvah,
(Intermediate Space) and Svah (Heaven); bibharti, upholds (them) by
merely being present in His own nature. (And He) is the avyayah,
imperishable; isvarah, God, the Omniscient One called Narayana, who is
the Lord by nature. This name-the supreme Person-of God as
described is well known. Showing that the name is apt by virtue of its
etymological significance, the Lord reveals Himself saying, 'I am the
unsurpassable God':
15.18 Yasmat, since; aham, I; am atitah, transcendental; ksaram, to the
mutable-I am beyond the Tree of Maya, called the Peepul Tree, which
this worldly existence is; and uttamah, above, most excellent or the
highest; as compared with api, even; the akasarat, immutable, which is
the seed of the Tree of worldly existence; atah, hence, by virtue of being
the most excellent as compared with the mutable and the immutable;
aham, I; am prathitah, well known; loke, in the world; and vede, in the
Vedas; as purusottamah, the supreme Person. Devoted persons know
Me thus, and poets also use this name 'Purusottama' in their poetry etc.;
they extol Me with this name. Thereafter, now is stated this result
attained by one who knows the Self as described:
15.19 Bharata, O scion of the Bharata dynasty; yah, he who;
asammudhah, being free from delusion; janati, knows; mam, Me, God,
having the aforesaid qualifications; purusottamam, the supreme Person;
evam, thus, in the way described, as 'I am this One'; sah, he; is sarvavit,
all-knowing- he knows everything through self-identification with all-,
i.e. (he becomes) omniscient; and bhajati, adores; mam, Me, existing in
all things; sarva-bhavena, with his whole being, i.e. with his mind fixed
on Me as the Self of all. Now then, having stated in this chapter the
knowledge of the real nature of the Lord, which has Liberation as its
fruit, it is being euligized:
15.20 This guhyatamam, most secret, i.e. most mystical;- what is that?-
sastram, scripture-. Although the Gita as a whole is spoken of as the
scripture, still this chapter itself is here referred to as such, and this for
eulogy as is evident from the context. For, not only has the entire
meaning of the scripture Gita been stated here in brief, but the whole
purport of the Vedas also has been comprehended here. And it has
been said, 'He who realizes it is a knower of the Vedas' (1), 'I alone am
the object to be known through all the Vedas' (15). (Thus, this most
secret scripture) iti uktam, has thus been uttered; maya, by Me; anagha,
O sinless one. O scion of the Bharata dynasty, buddhva, understanding;
etat, this, the scripture which has the purport as has been
revealed; syat, one becomes; buddhiman, wise; and krta-krtyah, has his
duties fulfilled; but not otherwise. The meaning is that what-ever a
Brahmana has to do as a consequence of his special birth (as a
Brahmana), all that becomes accomplished when the reality of the Lord
is known. The idea is that nobody's duties become fulfilled in any other
way. And it has been said, 'O son of Prtha, all actions in their totality
culminate in Knowledge' (4.33). There is also a saying from Manu: 'This,
verily, is the fulfilment of a Brahmana in particular. For, by getting this, a
twice-born has his duties fulfilled; not otherwise' (Ma. Sm. 12.93). Since
you have heard from Me this truth about the supreme Reality, therefore,
O scion of the Bharata dynasty, you have achieved your Goal!

BHAGAVADGITA
English translation of Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary - Swami
Gambhirananda
Chapter 16
RO
16.1 Abhayam, fearlessness; sattva-samsuddhih, purtiy of the mind
(sattva), mentally avoiding fraud, trickery, falsehood, etc. in dealings, i.e.,
honest behaviour; jnana-yoga-vyavasthitih, persistence in knowledge
and yoga-jnana means knowledge of such subjects as the Self, learnt
from scriptures and teachers; yoga means making those things that have
been learnt matters of one's own personal experience through
concentration by means of withdrawl of the organs etc.; persistence,
steadfastness, in those two, knowledge and yoga;-this [This-refers to all
the three from 'fearlessness' to 'persistence in knowledge and yoga'.] is
the principal divine characteristic which is sattvika (born of the sattva
quality). That nature which may occur in persons competent in their
respective spheres, [Persons treading the path of Jnana-yoga or Karmayoga
have sattvika qualities. Some of the qualities mentioned in the first
three verses occur only in the former, whereas the others are found in
both or only in the latter.-Tr.]-that is said to be their sattvika attribute.
Danam, charity, distribution of food etc. according to one's ability; and
damah, control of the external organs-the control of the internal organ,
santih, will be referred to later; yajnah, sacrifices-Agnihotra etc.
sanctioned by the Vedas, and sacrifices in honour of gods and others
[Others: Those in honour of the manes, humans and other beings.
Brahma-yajna, the fifth sacrifice, is referred to separately by svadhyaya.]
sanctioned by the Smrtis: svadhyayah, study of the Rg-veda etc. for
unseen results; tapah, austerity, those concerning the body, etc., which
will be stated (17.14-16); arjavam, rectitude, straigthforwardness at all
times-.
Further,
16.2 Ahimsa, non-injury, abstaining from giving pain to creatures;
satyam, truthfulness, speaking of things as they are, without
unpleasantness and prevarication; akrodhah, absence of anger, control
of anger that might result when offened or assulatd by others; tyagah,
renunciation, monasticism-for, charity has been mentioned earlier;
santih, control of the internal organ; apaisunam, absence of vilificationpaisunam
means backbiting; its absence is apaisunam; daya, kindness;
bhutesu, to creatures in distress; aloluptvam, non-conveteousness,
absence of excitement of the organs in the presence of objects;
mardavam, gentleness, absence of hard-heartedness; hrih, modesty;;
acapalam, freedom from restlessness, absence of unnecessary use of
organs such as speech, hands and feet-.
Besides,
16.3 Tajah, vigour, not the brightness of the skin; ksama, forgiveness,
absence of internal perturbation when offened or assulated-absence of
anger has been explained by us as the calming down of a perturbed
mind; thus, forgiveness and absence of anger are distinguished; dhrtih,
fortitude, a particular function of the mind which removes the tedium of
the body and organs when they become exhausted, and being
rejuvenated by which the body and organs do not feel any fatigue;
saucam, purity-is of two kinds: external, with the help of earth and water;
and internal, the cleanliness of mind and intellect, the absence of such
impurities as trickery, attachment, etc.; purity of these two kinds;
adrohah, freedom from malice, absence of the desire to injure others,
absence of hatred; na-atimanita, absence of haughtiness-too much selfesteem
(mana) is atimanah; one having that is atimani; its abstract form
is atimanita; absence of that, na-atimanita, i.e., absence of the feeling of
one's being too honourable. These (qualities) beginning with fearlessness
and ending with this, O scion of the Bharata dynasty, bhavanti, are; (the
qualities) abhijatasya, of one destined to have;-what kind of nature?-the
daivim, divine; sampadam, nature-of one destined to have divine
attributes, of one who is worthy of the excellence of the gods, i.e., of
one who would be illustrations in future.
Thereafter, the demoniacal nature is now being stated:
16.4 O son of Prtha, dambhah, religious ostentation; darpah, pride
arising from wealth, relatives, etc.; atimanah, haughtiness, as explained
earlier; and krodhah, anger; eva ca, as also; parusyam, redeness, using
unkind words, e.g. to speak of a blind person as having eyes, an ugly
person as handsome, a lowly born man as born of aristocracy, and so
on; and ajnanam, ignorance, non-discriminating knowledge, false
conception regarding what ought to be and ought not to be done; are
(the attributes) abhijatasya, of one destined to have;-destined for what?
in answer the Lord says-asurim, demoniacal; sampadam, nature.
The consequences of these natures are being stated:
16.5 That which is daivi, divine; sampad, nature; is vimoksaya, for
Liberation from the bondage of the world. The asuri, demoniacal nature;
mata, is considered to be; nibandhaya, for inevitable bondage. So also is
the fiendish nature.
Now, when such a statement was made, the Lord, noticing Arjuna
having this kind of inner cogitation-'Am I endowed with the demoniacal
nature, or am I endowed with the divine nature?'-, says: ma, do not;
sacah, grieve, O son of Pandu! Asi, you are; abhijatah, destined to have,
born with the good fortune of having; daivim, the divine; sampadam,
nature; i.e., you are destined for an illustrious future.
16.6 Dvau, two, in number; are the (kinds of) bhuta-sargau, creation of
beings, of men. Sarga is derived from srj in the sense of that which is
created. The persons themselves, who are created with the natures of
gods and demons, are being spoken of as 'two creations of beings',
which accords with the Upanisadic text, 'There were two classes of
Prajapati's sons, the gods and the demons' (Br. 1.3.1). For, asmin, in
this; loke, world, all (persons) can rationally be divided into two classes.
Which are those two creations of beings? The answer is, the two are the
daiva, divine; eva ca, and; the asura, the demoniacal which are being
discussed.
The Lord speaks of the need of restating the two that have been
already referred to: Daivah, the divine creation of beings; proktah, has
been spoken of; vistarasah, elaborately-in, 'Fearlessness, purity of mind,'
etc. (1-3). But the demoniacal has not been spoken of in extenso.
Hence, O son of Prtha, srnu, hear of, understand; the asuram,
demoniacal; me, from Me, from My speech which is being uttered in
detail, so that this may be avoided.
Upto the end of the chapter the demoniacal nature is being presented
as the qualities of creatures; for, when this is directly perceived, it
becomes possible to eschew it:
16.7 Na, niether; do the asurah, demoniacal; janah, persons; viduh,
understand; pravritim, what is to be done with regard to that which is a
means to the human ends; and nivirttim, what is not to be done, the
opposite of that (former) and from which source of evil one should
desist. Nor only do they not know what is to be done and what is not to
be done, na, nor; does saucam, purity; na api, or even; acarah, good
conduct; or satyam, truthfulness; vidyate, exist; tesu, in them. The
demons are verily bereft of purity and good conduct; they are deceitful
and given to speaking lies.
Further,
16.8 Te, they, the domoniacal persons; ahuh, say; that the jagat, world;
is asatyam, unreal-as we ourselves are prone to falsehood, so is this
whole world unreal; apratistham, it has no basis, it does not have
righteousness and unrighteousness as its basis; it is anisvaram, without
a God-nor is there a God who rules this (world) according to
rigtheousness and unrighteousness (of beings). Hence they say that the
world is godless. Moreover, it is aparaspara-sambhutam, born of mutual
union. The whole world is born of the union of the male and female
impelled by passion. (That union is) kama-haitukam, brought about by
passion. Kama-haitukam and kama-hetukam are the same. Kim anyat,
what other (cause can there be)? There exists to other unseen cause
such as righteousness, unrigtheousness, etc. Certainly, the passion of
living beings is the cause of the world. This is the view of the materialists.
16.9 Avastabhya, holding on to; etam, this; drstim, view; (these people)
who are nasta-atmanah, of depraved character, who have deviated from
the disciplines leading to the other world; alpa-budhayah, of poor
intellect, whose intellect is indeed limited, engrossed with material
things; ugra-kamanah, given to fearful actions-who are cruel by nature;
and ahitah, harmful; i.e. inimical to the world; prabhavanti, wax strong;
ksayaya, for the ruin; jagatah, of the world. This is the construction.
16.10 And asirtya, giving themselves upto; duspuram, insatiable;
kamam, passion-a kind of desire; dambha-mana-mada-anvitah, filled
with vanity, pride and arrogance; grhitva, adopting; asad-grahan, bad
objectives, evil intentions; mohat, due to delusion, owing to nondiscrimination;
and asuci-vratah, having impure resolves; they
pravartante, engage in actions in the world.
Further,
16.11 Upasritah, beset with; aparimeyam, innumerable; cintam, caresworries
that defy estimation of their limits!, i.e., constantly burdened with
cares; pralayantam, which end (only) with death; kama-upabhogaparamah,
holding that the enjoyment of desirable objects is the highest
goal-kama is derived in the sense of 'that which is desired for', viz sound
etc.; considered their enjoyment to be the highest; having their minds
convinced thus that this alone, viz the enjoyment of desirable objects, is
the highest human goal; niscitah, feeling sure; iti, that; etavat, this is all-
16.12 Baddhah, bound, being impelled, being lured from all sides; asapasa-
sataih, by hundreds of shackles in the from of hope-the hopes
themselves are the shackles; by hundreds of these; kama-krodhaparayanah,
giving themselves wholly to passion and anger, having
passion and anger as their highest resort; ihante, they endeavour; arthasancayan,
to amass wealth; anyayena, through foul means, i.e. by
stealing others' wealth, etc.; kama-bhoga-artham, for the enjoyment of
desirable objects-in order to enjoy desirable objects, not for righteous
acts.
Their intentions, too, are of this kind:
16.13 Idam, this thing; labham, has been gained; maya, by me; adya,
today; prapsye, I shall acquire; idam, this other; manoratham, desired
object which is delectable to the mind. And idam, this; asti, is in hand;
punah, again; idam, this; dhanam, wealth; api, also; bhavisyati, will
come; me, to me, in the next year. Thereby I shall become rich and
famous.
16.14 Asau, that; unconquerable satruh, enemy, named Devadatta;
hatah, has been killed; naya, by me; and hanisye, I shall kill; aparan, the
other wretched ones. What will these pitiable persons do? There is none
equal to me at all. Aham, I; am the isvarah, lord; I am the bhogi, enjoyer;
and I am siddhah, well-established in every respect-I am blessed with
sons, and grandsons born of sons and daughters. Not only am I a man,
but I am also balavan, mighty; and I myself am sukhi, happpy; others are
born to be but a burden to the earth!
16.15 Adhyah, I am rich in wealth; abhi-janavan, high-born in respect of
my lineage; my seven generations are endowed with Vedic learnig etc.
From that point of view also there is none equal to me. Kah anyah, who
else; asti, is there; sadrsah, similar; maya, to me? Besides, yaksye, I
shall perform sacrifices; in respect of sacrifices also I shall defeat others.
Dasyami, I shall give-to actors and others; modisye, I shall rejoice, and I
shall derive intense joy. Iti, thus; are they ajnana-vimohitah, diversely
deluded by non-discrimination, subject to various indiscrimination.
16.16 Aneka-citta-vibhrantah, bewildered by numerous thoughts,
confounded variously by thoughts of the kind stated above; moha-jalasamavrtah,
caught in the net of delusion-moha is non-discrimination,
lack of understanding; that itself is like a net because of its nature of
covering; enshrouded by that; prasaktah, engrossed; kama-bhogesu, in
the enjoyment of desirable objects, being immersed in that itself; they
patanti, fall, owing to the sins accumulated thereby; asucau, into a foul;
narake, hell, such as Vaitarani. [Vaitarani: It is the most terrible place of
punishment; a river filled with all kinds of filth-blood, hair, bones etc., and
running with great impetuosity, hot and fetid. The other hells are
Tamisra, Andhatamisra, Raurava, Kumbhipaka, and so on.]
16.17 Atma-sambhavitah, self-conceited, considering themselves by
themselves to be possessed of good qualities-not considered to be so
by holy men; stabdhah, haughty, having minds that are not humble;
dhana-mana-mada-anvitah, filled with (anvita) the pride (mana) and
intoxication (mada) of wealth (dhana); te, they; yajnate, perform
sacrifices; namayajnaih, which are so in name only; dambhena, with
ostentation, with religious hypocricy; avidhi-purvakam, regardless of the
injunctions-without subsidiary rites and proper methods of performance
as enjoined.
16.18 Ahankaram, egotism-that which considers the Self to which have
been imputed actual and imaginary qualities as 'I am this', which is
called ignorance and is most painful, and is the source of all ills as also
of all evil deeds; so also balam, power, which seeds to defear others and
is associated with passion and desire; darpam, arrogance, a particular
defect abiding in the mind, on the upsurge of which one transgresses
righteousness; kamam, passion with regard to women and others;
krodham, anger at things tha are undesirable;-samsritah, resorting to
these and other great evils; and further, pradvisantah, hating; mam, Me,
God-transgression of My commands is hatred (towards Me); indulging in
that, atma-para-dehesu, in their own and others' bodies as the witness
of their intellects and actions; (they become) abhyasuyakah, envious by
nature, intolerant of the qualities of those who tread the right path.
16.19 Because of their defect of unrighteousness, aham, I; ksipami,
cast, hurl; ajasram, for ever; all tan, those; who are dvisatah, hateful of
Me; kruran, cruel; and asubhan, who are evil doers; samsaresu, in the
worlds-who are on the paths leading to hell; who are the nara-adhaman,
vilest of human beings, who are opposed to the right path, who are
hostile to the pious people; eva, verily; asurisu, into the demoniacal;
yonisu, classes-tigers, loins, etc., which are full of evil deeds. The verb
cast is to be connected with 'into the classes'.
16.20 Apannah, being born, having acquired; (births) asurim, among the
demoniacal; yonim, species; janmani janmani, in births after births; the
mudhah, fools, non-discriminating ones; being born in every birth into
species in which tamas prevails, and going downwards, aprapya eva,
without ever reaching, approaching; mam, Me, who am God; O son of
Kunti, yanti, they attain; gatim, conditions; tatah adhamam, lower even
than that.
Since there is not the least possibility of attaining Me, what is implied
by saying, 'without ever reachin Me', is, 'by not attaining the virtuous
path enjoined by Me.'
This is being stated as a summary of all the demoniacal qualities. The
triplet-under which are comprehended all the different demoniacal
qualities though they are infinite in number, (and) by the avoidance of
which (three) they (all the demaniacal qualities) become rejected, and
which is the root of all evils- is being stated:
16.21 Idam, this; dvaram, door; narakasya, of hell-for entering it; which
is the nasanam, destroyer; atmanah, of the soul; is trividham of three
kinds. It is that by the mere entry into which the soul perishes, i.e., it
ceases to be fit for attaining any human goal. hence it is said that it is the
door which is the destroyer of the soul. Which is that? Kamah, passion;
krodhah, anger; and also lobhah, greed. Tasmat, therefore; tyajet, one
shoud forsake; etat trayam, these three. Since this door is the destroyer
of the soul, therefore one should renounce this group of three-passion
etc. This is a eulogy of renunciation.
16.22 O son of Kunti, narah, a person; who is vimuktah, free; etaih,
from these; tribhih, three; tamo-dvaraih, doors to darkness, i.e., passion
etc. which are doors to the darkness of hell consisting of sorrow and
delusion; freed from three three which are such, acarati, strives for;-for
what?-sreyah, the good; atmanah, of the soul: debarred by which
(doors) he could not strive earlier, and on the dispelling of which he
strives. Tatah, thereby, as a result of that striving; yati, he attains; the
param, suprme; gatim, Goal, i.e. Liberation, as well. [Not only does he
attain Liberation by renouncing the demoniacal qualities, but he also
secures happiness in this world.]
The scripture is instrumental in this complete renunciation of the
demoniacal qualities and striving for what is good. Both can be
undertaken on the authority of the scriptures, not otherwise. Hence,
16.23 Utsrjiya, ignoring, setting aside; sastra-vidhim, the precept of the
scriptures, which is th source of the knoweldge of what is duty and what
is not-called injunction and prohibition; yah, he who; vartate, acts; kamakaratah,
under the impulsion of passion; sah, he; na, does not; avapnoti,
attain; siddhim, perfection, fitness for Liberation; nor even sukham,
happiness in this world; nor even the param, supreme best; gatim, Goalheaven
or Liberation.
16.24 Tasmat, therefore; sastram, the scripure; is te, your; pramanam,
authority, the means of knowledge; karya-akarya-vyavasthitau, as
regards the determination of what is to be done and what is not to be
done. Therefore, jnatva, after understanding; that which is your own
karma, duty; sastra-vidhana-uktam, as presented by scriptural
injunction-vidhana is the same as vidhi, precept, in the form, 'you should
do', 'you should not do'; as presented by that; arhasi, you ought;
kartum, to perform; it iha, here. 'Here' is used for pointing out the sphere
in which one is intitled to perform his duties.

BHAGAVADGITA
English translation of Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary - Swami
Gambhirananda
Chapter 17
RO
17.1 Tu, but; of Krsna, ka, what; is the nistha, state; tesam, of thosewhosoever
they may be; ye, who; being anvitah, endued; sraddhaya,
with faith, with the idea that there is something hereafter; yajante, adore
gods and others; utsriya, by ignoring, setting aside; sastra-vidhim, the
unjunctions of the scriptures, the injunctions of the Vedas and the
Smrtis? Is the state of those who are such sattvam, sattva; aho, or;
rajah, rajas; or tamah, tamas? This is what is meant: Does the adoration
of gods and others that they undertake come under the category of
sattva or rajas or tamas? By 'those who, endued with faith, adore by
ignoring the injunctions of the scriptures' are here meant those who, not
finding any injunction which can be characterized as 'enjoined by the
Vedas' 'or enjoined by the Smrtis', worship gods and others by merely
observing the conduct of their elders. But, on the other hand, those
who, though aware of some scriptural injunction, discard them and
worship the gods and others in ways contrary to the injunctions, are not
meant here by 'those who, ignoring scriptural injunctions, adore...'
Why? Because of the qualifying phrase, 'being endued with faith'. For, it
cannot be imagined that even when they are aware of some scriptural
injunction about worship of gods and others, they discard this out of
their faithlessness, and yet they engage in the worship of gods and
others enjoined by those scriptures by becoming imbued with faith!
Therefore, by 'those who, endued with faith, adore by ignoring the
injunctions of the scriptures' are here meant those very ones mentioned
earlier. An answer to this question relating to a general topic cannot be
given without splitting it up. Hence,-
17.2 Sa, that; sraddha, faith, the state about which you ask; dehinam,
of the embodied beings; svabhavaja, born of their own nature-by
svabhava (nature) is meant that latent impression of virtuous acts etc.
acquired in the past lives, which becomes manifest at the time of death;
what arises out of that is svabhavaja-; is trividha, threefold, of three
kinds; sattviki, born of sattva, and related to worship of gods, etc.; rajasi,
born of rajas, concerning worship of Yaksas (a class of demi-gods,
Kubera and others), Raksas (ogres, Nairrti and others); and tamasi, born
of tamas, concerning worship of ghosts, goblins and others. Thus it is of
three kinds. Srnu, hear; tam, about it, that faith, as it is being stated.
That (faith) is threefold as follows:
17.3 O scion of the Bharata dynasty, the sraddha, faith; sarvasya, of all
beings; bhavati, is; sattva-anurupa, in accordance with their minds, in
accordance with the internal organ which is imbued with particular
impression. If this is so, what follows? The answer is: Ayam, this;
purusah, person, the transmigrating soul; is sraddhamayah, made up of
faith as the dominating factor. How? Sah, he, the individual soul; is eva,
verily; sah, that; yah yat-sraddhah,which is the faith of that individual-he
surely conforms to his faith. And, as a consequence, a person's
steadfastness in sattva etc. is to be inferred from the grounds of his
actions such as worship of gods etc. Hence the Lord says:
17.4 Sattvikah, those having the sattva quality, those steadfast in
sattva; yajante, worship; devan, the gods; rajasah, those having rajas;
(worship) yaksa-raksamsi, the demi-gods and ogres; and anye, other;
janah, people; tamasah, possessed of tamas; yajante, worship; pretan,
ghosts; and bhuta-ganan, the hosts of spirits-Sapta-matrkas (the Seven
Mothers) and others. Thus, in the context of abandonment of scriptural
injunctions, the states of sattva etc. have been determined through their
effects. As regards that, it is only one in thousands who, being
established in sattva, becomes devoted to the adoration of gods. But,
to be sure, creatures are mostly rooted deeply in rajas or tamas. How?
17.5 Ye, those; janah, persons; who tapyante, undertake, perform;
ghoram, severe; tapah, austerity, productive of pain to oneself as also to
creatures; asastra-vihitam, not sanctioned by the scriptures; they, being
dambh-ahankara-samyuktah, given to ostentation and pride; and kamaraga-
bala-anvitah, impelled by the strength of passion and attachment,
or possessed of passion, attachment and strength [Kama-raga can also
mean desirable objects and the desire to enjoy them.]-.
17.6 (And who,) acetasah, being non-discriminating; karsayantah,
torture; bhuta-gramam, all the organs; sarirastham, in the body, ca, as
also; torture eva, even; mam, Me; antah-sarira-stham, who reside in the
body as the witness of its actions and intellect-non-adherence to My
injunctions itself is 'torturing Me'; viddhi, know; tan, them; asuraniscayan,
as possessed of demoniacal convictions. Know them so that
they may be avoided. This is an instruction. The liking of persons
possessing the qualities of sattva, rajas and tamas for foods that are
divided into three groups, viz succulent, oleaginous, etc., is respectively
being shown here so that, by knowing the presence of the qualities of
sattva, rajas and tamas (in oneself) from the indications of the degree of
one's preference for particular foods as are succulent, oleaginous, etc.,
one may avoid foods having the characteristics of rajas and tamas, and
accept food with the characteristics of sattva. Similarly, sacrifices etc.
also are being explained here under three categories according to the
distinguishing quality of sattva etc. So that one may reject those known
to be born of rajas and tamas, and undertake only those born of sattva.
17.7 Aharah, food; api tu, also; which is priyah, dear; sarvasya, to all
[Here Ast. adds praninah (creatures).-Tr.] who eat it; bhavati, is;
trividhah, of three kinds; so also yajnah, sacrifices; similarly, tapah,
austerity; tatha, so also; danam, charity. Srnu, listen; to imam, this;
bhedam, classification; tesam, of them, of food etc., which is going to be
stated.
17.8 Aharah, foods; ayuh-sattva-bala-arogya-sukha-priti-vivardhanah,
that augment life, firmneess of mind, strength, health delight; [Life-a
brilliant life; firmness of mind or vigour; strength-ability of body and
organs; happiness-pleasure of mind; delight-great joy even at seeing
other persons prosperous.] and which are rasyah, succulent; snigdhah,
oleaginous; sthirah, substantial, lasing in the body for long; [Beneficial to
the body for long.] and hrdyah, agreeable, to one's liking; are sattvikapriyah,
dear to one endowed with sattva.
17.9 Foods that are katu-amla-lavana-atyusna-tiksna-ruksa-vidahinah,
bitter, sour, salty, very hot (-'very' is to be connected with all, viz bitter
etc.; that is very bitter, very sour, and so on-), pungent, dry [Without fat.]
and burning; and duhkha-soka-amaya-pradah, which produce pain,
sorrow and disease; [Pain, immediate suffering; sorrow, grief arising from
not having that desired food.] are rajasasyaistah, dear to one having
rajas.
17.10 Bhojanam, food; which is yata-yamam, not properly cooked
[Yata-yamam lit. means 'crooked three hours ago', that which has lost
its essence; but here it is translated as 'not properly cooked to avoid
tautology, for the next word gata-rasam, too, means lacking in essence.-
Tr.] (-because food that has lost its essence is referred to by the word
gatarasam-); gata-rasam, lacking in essence; puti, putrid; and
paryusitam, stale, cooked on the previous day and kept over-night; and
even ucchistam, ort, remnants of a meal; and amedhyam, that which is
unfit for sacrifice;- this kind of food is tamasa-priyam, dear to one
possessed of tamas. Now then, sacrifices of three kinds are being
stated:
17.11 Sah, that; yajnah, sacrifice; vidhi-drstah, which is in accordance
with the injunctions, which is known through scriptural unjunctions; (and)
yah, which; is ijyate, performed; a-phala-akanksibhih, by persons who
do not hanker after results; manah samadhaya, with the mental
conviction; iti, that; yastavyam, eva, it is surely obligatory, their duty is to
accomplish the sacrifice just as it should be-with the firm idea, 'I have no
human goal to achieve through this'-; is said to be a sacrifice which is
sattvikah, done through sattva.
17.12 Tu, but; yat, that which; is ijyate, performed; abhisandhaya,
having in view; a phalam, result; api ca, as also; dambhartham, for
ostentation; viddhi, know; tam, that; yajnam, sacrifice; to be rajasam,
done through rajas; bharatasrestha, O greatest among the descendants
of Bharata.
17.13 Paricaksate, they delclare; that yajnam, sacrifice; as tamasam,
done through tamas; which is vidhi-hinam, contrary to injunction,
opposed to what is enjoined; asrstannam, in which food is not
distributed-a sacrifice in which food (annam) is not distributed (asrstam)
to Brahmanas; mantra-hinam, in which mantras are not used, which is
bereft of mantras, intonation and distinct pronunciation; adaksinam, in
which offerings are not made to priests as prescribed; and which is
sraddha-virahitam, devoid of faith. After that, now is being stated the
three kinds of austerity:
17.14 Deva-dvija-guru-pujanam, the worship of gods, twice-borns,
venerable persons and the wise; saucam, purity; arjavam,
straightforwardness; brahmacarayam, celibacy; and ahimsa, non-injury;
ucyate, are said to be; sariram, bodily; tapah, austerity, austerity
accomplished through the body: that which can be performed by the
agent, etc. [See 18. 13-15.-Tr.], (i.e.) with the whole group of body and
organs, in which the body predominates; for the Lord will say, 'these five
are its causes' (18.15).
17.15 Yat, that; vakyam, speech; anudvegakaram, which causes no
pain, which is not hurtful to creatures which is satyam, true; priya-hitam,
agreeable and beneficial with regard to facts seen or unseen-. 'Speech'
is qualified by characteristics such as being not hurtful, etc. The ca (and)
is used for grouping together the qualifying characteristics. When a
sentence is used in order to make another understand, if it happens to
be avoid of one or two or three among the qualities-truthfulness,
agreeability, beneficialness, and non-hurtfulness-, then it is not austerity
of speech. As in the case of a truthful utterance there would occur a
want of austerity of speech if it be lacking in one or two or three of the
others, so also in the case of an agreeable utterance there would be no
austerity of speech were it ot be without one or two or three of the
others; and similarly, there would be no austerity of speech even in a
beneficial utterance which is without one or two or three of the others.
What, again, is that austerity (of speech)? That utterance which is true as
also not hurtful, and is agreeable and beneficial, is the highest austerity
of speech: As for example, the utterance, 'Be calm, my boy. Practise
study and yoga. Thereby you will gain the highest.' Svadhyayaabhyasanam,
the practice of the study of scriptures, as is enjoined; ca
eva, as well; ucyate, in said to be; tapah, austerity; vanmayam, of
speech.
17.16 Manah-prasadah, tranquillity of mind, making the mind free from
anxiety; saumyatvam, gentleness-that which is called kindliness of spirit,
[Kindliness towards all, and also not entertaining any evil thought
towards anybody.] a certain condition of the mind resulting in calmness
of the face, etc.; maunam, reticence-since even the control of speech
follows from the control of mind, therefore the cause is implied by the
effect; so maunam means control of the mind; [Or, maunam may mean
thinking of the Self, the attitude of a meditator. The context being of
'mental austerity', reticence is explained as control of the mind with
regard to speech.] atma-vinigrahah, withdrawal of the mind-withdrawal
of the mind in a general way, from everything; maunam (control of the
mind) is the mind's withdrawal with regard to speech alone; this is the
distinction-; bhava-samsuddhih, purity of heart, absence of trickery while
dealing with others; iti etat, these are; what is ucyate, called; manasam,
mental; tapah, austerity. How the above-described bodily, verbal and
mental austerities undertaken by poeple are divided into three classes-of
sattva etc.-is being stated:
17.17 When tat, that; trividham, threefold-based on three factors; tapah,
austerity, which is being discussed; is taptam, undertaken, practised;
paraya, with supreme, with the highest; sraddhaya, faith, belief in God
and the other world; naraih, by people, by its performers; aphalaakanksibhih,
who do not hanker after results,who are devoid of desire for
results; and yuktaih, who are self-controlled;-that austerity which is of
this kind, the noble people paricaksate, speak of it; as sattvikam, born of
sattva.
17.18 Yat, that; tapah, austerity; which is kriyate, undertaken; satkaramana-
pujartham, for earning a name, being honoured and worshippedfor
earning a name, (i.e.) for being spoken of thus: 'This Brahmana, who
is given to austerity, is pious'; for being honoured by (others') standing
up respectfully, salutation, etc.; for being worshipped with washing of
feet, adoration, feeding, etc.; for these-; ca eva, and also, (that) austerity
which is performed dambhena, ostentatiously; tat, that; proktam, is
spoken of; as rajasam, born of rajas; iha, belonging to this world; [i.e.
yielding fruits only in this world.] calam, uncertain-its result being
unpredictable; and adhruvam, transitory.
17.19 Yat, that; tapah, austerity; which is kriyate, under-taken; mudhagrahena,
with a foolish intent, with a conviction arising out of nondiscriminating;
pidaya, causing pain; atmanah, to oneself (to one's body
etc.); va, or; utsadanartham, for the destruction; parasya, of another; tat,
that; is udahrtam, said to be; an austerity tamasam, born of tamas. Now
the classification of charity is being spoken of:
17.20 Tat, that; danam, gift; is smrtam, referred to; as sattvikam, born
of sattva; yat, which gift; is diyate, given; with the idea in mind datavyam
iti, that it ought to be given without consideration; anupakarine, to one
who will not serve in return, and even to oen who can; and dese, at the
(proper) place-in holy places like Kuruksetra etc. ; kale, at the (proper)
time-during Sankranti [During the passage of the sun or any planetary
body from one zodiacal sign into another.-V.S.A.] etc.; and patre, to a
(proper) person-to one who is versed in the Vedas together with their six
branches, and such others.
17.21 Tu, but; the danam, gift; yat, which; diyate, is made; pratiupakara-
artham, expecting reciprocation-with this purpose in view: 'In
time, he will render service in return'-; va punah, or again; uddisya, with
a desire for; its phalam, result-that, 'To me will accrue some unseen
reward of this gift'-; and which is diyate, given; pariklistam, grudgingly,
with reluctance; tat, that; is smrtam, considered to be; rajasam, born of
rajas.
17.22 Tat, that; danam, gift; yat, which; diyate, is given; adesakale, at
an improper place and time-in an unholy place full of barbarians and
impure things, etc.; at an improper time: which is not well known as
productive of merit; without such specially as Sankranti etc.-; and
apatrebhyah, to undeserving persons, to fools, thieves and others;-and
even when the place etc. are proper-asatkrtam, without proper
treatment, without sweet words, washing of feet, worship, etc.; and
avajnatam, with disdain, with insults to the recipient; is udahrtam,
declared to be; tamasam, born of tamas. This advice is being imparted
for making sacrifices, gifts, austerities, etc. perfect:
17.23 Om, tat, sat-iti, this; is smrtah, considered, regarded, in the
Vedanta, by the knowers of Brahman; to be the trividhah, threefold;
nirdesah, designation, mention by name-nirdesa is that by which a thing
is specified; brahmanah, of Brahman. The Brahmanas and the Vedas
and the sacrifices were vihitah, ordainded, [When some defect arises in
sacrifice etc., then this is corrected by uttering one of these words-Om,
tat, sat.] created; tena, by that threefold designation; pura, in the days of
yore [In the beginning of creation by Prajapati.]-this is said by way of
eulogizing the designation.
17.24 Tasmat, therefore; yajna-dana-tapah, kriyah, acts of sacrifice,
charity and austerity-acts in the form of sacrifice etc.; vidhana-uktah, as
prescribed through injunctions, as ordained by the scriptures; brahmavadinam,
of those who study and expound the Vedas; satatam, always;
pravartante, commence; udahrtya, after uttering; om iti, the syllable Om.
17.25 After uttering the word tat, which is a name of Brahman, yajnatapah-
kriyah, acts of sacrifice and austerity; ca, as also; vividhah, the
various; dana-kriyah, acts of charity, such as gift of land, gold, etc.;
kriyante, are performed; anabhisandhaya, without regard for; phalam,
results of actions; moksa-kanksibhih, by persons aspiring for Liberation.
The use of the words Om and tat has been stated. Thereafter, the use of
the word sat is bieng presently stated:
17.26 Etat, this; sat iti, word sat, a name of Brahman; prayujyate, is
used, is uttered; sad-bhave, with regard to (something) coming into
being-with regard to coming into existence of something that was not
there, as for instance the birth of a son who was not there before; so
also sadhu-bhave, with regard to (someone) becoming good-sadhubhava
means coming to possess good conduct by an evil person who
had bad behaviour; with regard to that. Tatha, so also, O Son of Prtha;
the sat-sabdah, word sat; yujyate (-which is the same as prayujyate-), is
used; prasaste karmani, with regard to an auspicious rite, such as
mirage etc.
17.27 And sthitih, steadfastness; that is yajne, in sacrifice, in the act of
sacrifice; the steadfastness that is tapasi, in austerity; and the
steadfastness that is dane, in charity; that ucyate, is spoken of; sat iti, as
sat, by learned persons. And eva, even; the karma, action; tad-arthiyam,
meant for these-for sacrifice, charity and austerity, or for Him whose
names are under discussion, i.e. for God; is eva, verily; abhidhiyate,
called; sat iti, as sat (good). Thus, in this way, the acts of sacrifice,
austerity, etc., even when they are devoid of sattva and goodness,
become good and endued with sattva by he use of the three names of
Brahman with faith. And as regards those (sacrifice etc.), since in all
cases everything is performed with a predominance of faith, therefore-
17.28 O son of Prtha, whatever is hutam, offered in sacrifice, poured as
oblation; and dattam, given in charity to Brahmanas,without faith;
whatever tapah, austerity; is taptam, performed without faith; so also,
whatever is krtam, done without faith, e.g. praise, salutation, etc.; all that
ucyate, is said to be; asat iti, of no avail, since it is outside th course of
discipline leading to Me. Ca, and, although involving great effort; na ca
tat, it is of no consequence; pretya, after death, for producing (some)
result; na, nor even for any result; iha, because it is condemned by the
wise. [Thus it is established in this chapter that, among persons who are
not at all versed in the scriptures, but are possessed of (either of the)
three characterisitcs of sattva, (rajas) etc., only those shall attain to
Liberation who steadfastly resort to sattva alone by partaking of sattvika
food, (performing sattvika) sacrifices) etc. to te exclusion of rajasika and
tamasika food etc., who destroy any defect that might arise in sacrifice
etc. by uttering the names of Brahman, who have fully purified their
intellect, and who have attained to the realization of Truth arising from
one's being endowed with such disciplines as hearing and and thinking
(sravana, manana) of, and meditation (nididhyasana) on Brahman.]

BHAGAVADGITA
English translation of Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary - Swami
Gambhirananda
Chapter 18
ROMAN
18.1 O mighty-armed Hrsikesa, kesi-nisudana, O slayer of (the demon)
Kesi; icchami, I want; veditum, to know; prthak, severally, through their
mutual distinctions; tattvam, the truth, the intrinsic nature, i.e. the real
meaning; sannyasasya, of sannyasa, i.e. the meaning of the word
sannyasa, ca, as also; tyagasya, of tyaga, i.e. the meaning of the word
tyaga. Kesi was a demon who had assumed the form of a horse, and
Lord Vasudeva had killed him. Hence He is addressed by that name
(Kesi-nisudana) by Arjuna. The word sannyasa and tyaga, used in
various places in the preceding chapters, are not explicit in their
implications. Therefore, in order to determine them for Arjuna who had
put the question,-
18.2 Some kavayah, learned ones; viduh, know; sannyasam, sannyasa,
the meaning of the word sannyasa, the non-performance of what comes
as a duty; to be the nyasam, giving up; karmanam, of actions;
kamyanam, done with a desire for reward, e.g. Horse-sacrifice etc.
Sarva-karma-phala-tyagah, abandonment of the results of all actions,
means the giving up of the results accruing to oneself from all actionsthe
daily obligatory and the occasional (nitya and naimittika) that are
performed. Vicaksanah, the adepts, the learned ones; prahuh, call,
speak of that; as tyagam, tyaga, as the meaning of the word tyaga.
Even if 'the giving up of actions for desired results' or 'the abandonment
of results' be the intended meaning, in either case the one meaning of
the words sannyasa and tyaga amounts only to tyaga (giving up); they
do not imply distinct categories as do the words 'pot' and 'cloth'.
Objection: Well, is it not that they say the daily obligatory (nitya) and the
occasional (naimittika) rites and duties have no results at all? How is the
giving up of their results spoken of-like the abandoning of a son of a
barren woman?! Reply: This defect does not desire. It is the intention of
the Lord that the nitya-karmas (daily obligatory duties) also have results;
for the Lord will say, 'The threefold results of actions-the undesirable, the
desirable and the mixed-accrue after death to those who do not resort
to tyaga', and also, 'but never to those who resort to sannyasa (monks)'
(12). Indeed, by showing that, it is only in the case of sannyasins (monks)
alone that there is no connection with the results of actions, the Lord
asserts in, '...accrue after death to those who do not resort to tyaga
(renunciation)' (abid.), that the result of daily obligatory (nitya) duties
accrue to those who are not sannyasins (monks).
18.3 Eke, some; manisinah, learned ones, subscribing to the views of
the Sankhyas and others; prahuh, say; that dosavat, beset with evil (as it
is);-What is it?- karma, action, all actions, becuase they are the cause of
bondage; tyajyam, should be given up even by those who are eligible for
actions (rites and duties). Or, it (action) is to be given up dosavat, just as
defects such as attachment etc. are renounced. Ca and, in that very
context; apare, others; (say) that yajana-dana-tapah-karma, the practice
of sacrifice, charity and auterity; na tyajyam, should not be given up.
These alternatives are with regard to only those who are qualified for
action, but not with regard to the monks who are steadfast in
Knowledge and have gone beyond the stages of life. This discussion is
not concerned with those who are held to be outside the scope of
eligibility for action in the assertion (by the Lord), 'The steadfastness in
the Yoga of Knowledge by men of realization was spoken of by Me in the
days of yore' (see 3.3). Objection: Well, just as those who are qualified
for rites and duties and who have their distinct steadfastness are being
considered here in the chapter summarizing the entire scripture, though
they have been dealt with earlier in '...through the Yoga of Action for the
yogis' (3.3), similarly, let even the men of realization who are steadfast in
Knowledge be considered here. Reply: No, because it is not logical that
their renunciation should result from delusion and sorrow (cf. 7 and 8).
The men of realization do not perceive in the Self the sorrows arising
from physical torment; for it has been shown that desire etc. are
attributes only of the field (body) (see 13.6). Therefore, they do not
renounce action but of fear for physical trouble and pain. Nor do they
perceive actions in the Self, on account of which they should give up
obligatory duties out of delusion. In fact, they renounce with the
conviction that 'action belongs to the organs' (see 3.28); 'I certainly do
not do anything' (see 5.8); for, the mode of renunciation of an
enlightened person was shown in, '...having given up all actions
mentally' (5.13). Therefore, those others who are qualified for rites and
duties, who are unelightened about the Self, and for whom renunciation
is possible out of delusion and from fear of physical trouble, are alone
condemned as persons who, being possessed of tamas and rajas,
resort to renunciation. And this is done with a veiw to eulogizing the
renunciation of the results of rites and duties by the unenlightened men
of action. Besides, the men of renunciation in the real sense have been
particularly pointed out in, 'who has renounced ever undertaking,' 'who
is silent, content with anything, homeless, steadyminded' (12.16, 19),
and also (while determining) the characteristics of one who has
transcended the gunas (Chapter 14). The Lord will further say, '...which
is the supreme consummation of Knowledge' (50). Therefore the monks
steadfast in Knowledge are not intended to be spoken of here. It is only
the abandoning of the results of action which, by virtue of its being
imbued with the quality of sattva, is spoken of as sannyasa in contrast to
the renunciation of actions which is possessed of tamas etc.; it is not
sannyasa in the primary-sense-the renunciation of all actions. Objection:
According to the reason shown in the text, 'Since it is not possible for
one who holds on to a body to give up actions entirely' (11), may it not
be argued that the actions entirely' (11), may it not be argued that the
word sannyasa is certainly used in the primary sense because it is
impossible to abandon all works? Reply: No, for the next adducing the
reason is meant for eulogy. Just as, 'From renunciation immediately
(follows) Peace' (12.12), is a mere eulogy of renunciation of the fruits of
action, it having been enjoined on Arjuna who was unenlightened and
incapable of undertaking the various alternatives (paths) as stated earlier,
so also is this sentence, 'Since it is not possible for one who holds on to
a body to give up actions entirely' (11), meant for eulogizing the
renunciation of the resorts of all actions. No one can point an exception
to the proposition that 'having given up all actions mentally, (the
embodied man of self-control) continues happily...without doing or
causing (others) to do anything at all' (see 5.13). Therefore these
alternative veiws regarding sannyasa and tyaga are concerned only with
those who are qualified for rites and duties. But the enlightened ones
who have realized the supreme Truth are competent only for
steadfastness in Knowledge, which is characterized by renunciation of all
actions; not for anything else. Hence, they do not come within the
purview of the alternative veiws. Thus has this been pointed out by us in
connection with the text, '...he who knows this One as indestructible...'
(2.21) as also in the beginning of the third chapter.
18.4 Bharata-sattama, O the most excellent among the descendants of
Bharata; srnu, hear, understand; me, from Me, from My statement;
niscayam, the firm conclusion; tatra tyage, regarding that tyaga,
regarding these alternative veiws on tyaga and sannyasa as they have
been shown. Hi, for; purusavyaghra, O greatest among men; tyagah,
tyaga; samprakirtitah, has been clearly declared, has been distinctly
spoken of in the scriptures; to be trividhah, of three kinds, threefold,
under the classes of tamasa (those based on tamas [Tamas: darkness,
mental darkness, ignorance; one of the three qualities of everything in
Nature. Also see 14.8, and note under 2.45.-Tr.], etc. The Lord has used
the word tyaga with the idea that the (primary) meanings of tyaga and
sannyasa are verily the same. Since it is difficult to comprehend this
idea, that the primary meanings of the words tyaga and sannyasa can be
threefold under the classification based on tamas etc. in the case of one
who is unenlightened and who is qualified for rites and duties-but not in
the case of one who has realized the supreme Goal-,therefore no one
else is capable of speaking the truth in this connection. Hence, listen to
the firm conclusion of the Lord with regard to the supreme Truth as
revealved by the scriptures. Which, again, is this firm conclusion? In
reply the Lord says:
18.5 Yajna-dana-tapah-karma, the practice of sacrifice, charity and
austerity-this threefold practice; na tyajyam, is not to be abandoned; tat,
it; is eva, surely; karyam, to be undertaken. Why? Yajnah, sacrifice;
danam, charity; and tapah, austerity; are eva, verily; pavanani, the
purifiers, the causes of sanctification; manisinam, of the wise, i.e. of
those who do not seek results for themselves.
18.6 Tu, but; api, even; etani, these; karmani, actions, viz sacrifice,
charity and austerity, which have been spoken of as purifiers; kartavyani,
have to be undertaken; tyaktva, by renouncing; sangam, attachment to
them; and by giving up (hankering for) their phalani, results. Iti, this; is
me, My; niscitam, firm; and uttamam, best; matam, conculsion. Having
promised, 'hear from Me the firm conclusion regarding that (tyaga)' (4)
and also adduced the reason that they are purifiers, the utterance, 'Even
these actions have to be performed. This is the firm and best
conclusion', is only by way of concluding the promised subject-matter;
this sentence does not introduce a fresh topic. For it stands to reason
that the phrase 'even these' refers to some immediate topic under
discussion. The implication of the word api (even) is: 'Even these acts,
which are causes of bondage to one who has attachment and who
hankers after their results, have to be undertaken by a seeker of
Liberation.' But the phrase 'even these' is not used in relation to other
acts. Others explain (thus): Since the nityakarmas have no results,
therefore (in their case) it is illogical to say, 'by giving up attachment and
(hankering for their) results'. The meaning of the phrase etani api (even
these) is that, 'even these rites and duties, which are undertaken for
desired results and are different from the nityakarmas, have to be
undertaken. What to speak of the nityakarmas like sacrifice, charity and
austerity!' (Reply:) This is wrong since it has been established by the
text, 'sacrifice, charity and austerity are verily the purifiers,' that even the
nityakarmas have results. For a seeker of Liberation who wants to give
up even the nityakarmas from fear of their being causes of bondage,
how can there be any association with actions done for desired results?
Moreover, the phrase etani api cannot apply to actions done for desired
results (kamyakarmas), since they have been denigrated in, '...indeed,
actions is quite inferior' (2.49), and in, '...by actions other than that
action meant for God' (3.9), and since, on the strength of the texts
[Which support the two earlier arguments.], 'the Vedas have the three
qualities as their object' (2.45), 'Those who are versed in the Vedas, who
are drinkers of Soma,...(pray for the heavenly goal by worshipping) Me'
(9.20), and 'they enter into the human world on the exhaustion of their
merit' (9.21), it has been definitely stated that actions done for desired
results are causes of bondage; and also because they are far removed
from the context.
18.7 Therefore, sannyasah, the abandoning; niyatasya tu karmanah, of
the daily obligatory acts, by the seeker of Liberation who is as yet
unenlightened and is fit for rites and duites; na apapadyate, is not
justifiable, because what is desired is the purification of unenlightened
persons. Parityagah, giving up; tasya, of that, of the daily obligatory duty;
mohat, through delusion, through ignorance; parikirtitah, is declared; to
be tamasah, based on tamas. Niyata is that duty which must be
performed. That an act is niyata (obligatory) and it is relinquished is
contradictory. Therefore the giving up of that through delusion is
declared to be based on tamas, for delusion is tamas. Besides,
18.8 Yat, whatever; karma, action; tyajet, one may relinquish, eva,
merely; iti, as being; kuhkham, painful; [As being impossible to
accomplish.] kaya-klesa-bhayat, from fear of physical suffering, out of
fear of bodily pain; sah, he; krtva, having resorted; tyagam, to
renunciation; rajasam, based on rajas, arising from rajas; will eva, surely;
na labhet (shuld rather be labhate), not acquire; tyaga-phalam, fruits of
renunciation, the result called Liberation, which follows from renunciation
of all actions as a consequence of Illumination. Which, again, is the
renunciation based on sattva?
18.9 Yat, whatever; niyatam karma, daily obligatory duty; kriyate, is
performed, accomplished; iti eva, just because; it is karyam, a bounden
duty; O Arjuna, tyaktva, by giving up; sangam, attachment; and phalam,
the result; ca eva, as well; sah, that; tyagah, renunciation, giving up of
attachment and (hankering for) the resutls of daily obligatory duties;
matah, is considered; to be sattvikah, based on sattva, arising from
sattva. We said that the Lord's utterance is proof of the fruitfulness of
daily obligatory duties. Or, even if the niyakarmas be understood (from
the Lord's worlds) to be fruitless, still the ignorant man does certainly
imagine that the nityakarmas (daily obligatory duites) when performed
produce for oneself a result either in the form of purification of the mind
or avoidance of evil. As to this, the Lord aborts even that imagination by
saying, 'by giving up the result'. Hence it has been well said, 'by giving
up attachment and the result'. Objection: Well, is not the threefold
relinquishment of actions, also called sannyasa, under discussion? As
regards this, the renunciation based on tamas and rajas have been
stated. Why is the relinquishment of attachment and (desire for their)
results spoken of here as the third? This is like somebody saying, 'Three
Brahmanas have come. Of them two are versed in the six auxiliaries [The
six auxiliaries are: Siksa (Phonetics), Kalpa (Code of Rituals and
Sacrifices), Vyakarana (Grammar), Nirukta (Etymology), Chandas (Meter,
Prosody), and Jyotisa (Astronomy).-Tr.] of the Vedas; the third is a
Ksatirya!' Reply: This is not wrong, for this is meant as a eulogy on the
basis of the common factor of renunciation. Between renunciation of
actions and renunciation. of hankering for results, there is, indeed, the
similarity of the fact of renunciation. While on this subject, by
condemning 'renunciation of actions' on account of its being based on
rajas and tamas, the 'renunciation of desire for results of actions' is
being praised on account of its being based on sattva, by saying, 'that
renunciation is considered to be based on sattva.' The internal organ of
a person who is qualified for rites and duties, who performs the
nityakarmas by giving up attachment and hankering for results, becomes
pure on account of its being untainted by attachment to results etc. and
refined by the nitya-karmas. When it is pure and tranquil, it becomes
capable of contemplating on the Self. Since, for that very person whose
internal organ has become purified by performing the nityakarmas and
who has become ready for the knowledge of the Self, the process by
which he can become steadfast in it has to be stated, therefore the Lord
says:
18.10 Na devesti, he does not hate; akusalam, unbefitting; karma,
action, rites and duties meant for desired results-with the idea, 'What is
the usefulness of this which is a cause of transmigration through fresh
embodiment?' Na anusajjate, he does not become attached to; kusale,
befitting activity, daily obligatory duties, by thinking that this is the cause
of Liberation by virtue of its being the cause of purification of the mind,
rise of Knowledge and steadfastness in it. That is to say, he does not
entertain any liking even for it, because he finds no purpose in it. Who,
again, is he? Tyagi, the man of renunciation, who has become so by
having given up attachment and rewards of action in the manner stated
above. He is a tyagi who performs nityakarmas by relinquishing
attachment to those acts and (their) results. Again, it is being stated as
to when that person does not hate an unbefitting act and does not
become attached to a befitting activity: When he has become sattvasamavistah,
imbued with sattva, i.e., when he is filled with, possessed
of, sattva, which is the means to the knowledge that discriminates
between the Self and the not-Self; and hence medhavi, wise-endowed
with intelligence (medha), intuitive experience, characterized as
knowledge of the Self; one possessed of that is medhavai (wise)-; and
owing to the very fact of being wise, chinnasamsayah, freed from
doubts-one whose doubts created by ignorance have been sundered,
one who is freed from doubts by his firm conviction that nothing but
abiding in the ture nature of the Self is the supreme means to the highest
Good. The person competent (for rites and duties) who, having
gradually become purified in mind through the practice of Karma-yoga in
the way described above, has realized as his own Self the actionless
Self, which is devoid of modifications like birth etc., he, '...having given
up all actions mentally, remaining at without doing or causing (others) to
do anything at all' (cf. 5.13), attains steadfastness in Knowledge, which
is characterized as 'actionless-ness'. In this way, the purpose of the
aforesaid Karma-yoga has been stated through the present verse. On
the other hand, since, for the unenlightened person-who, while being
qualified (for rites and duties), holds on to the body owing to the
erroneous conception that the body is the Self, and who has the firm
conviction, 'I am the agent,' because of the persistence of his idea that
the Self is the agent-it is not possible to renounce actions totally,
therefore he has competence only for performing enjoined duties by
giving up fruits of actions. But he is not to renounce them (actions). In
order to point out this idea the Lord says:
18.11 Deha-bhrta, for one who holds on to a body-one who maintains
(bibharti) a body (deha) is called a deha-bhrt. One who has selfindentification
with the body is called a deha-bhrt, but not a so a man of
discrimination; for he has been excluded from the eligibility for agentship
by such texts as, 'He who knows this One is indestructible...' etc.
Hence, for that unenlightened person who holds on to the body, he,
since; it is na, not; sakyam, possible; tyaktum, to give up, renounce;
karmani, actions; asesatah, entirely, totally; therefore the ignorant person
who is competent (for rites and duties), yah, who; tu, on the other hand;
karma-phala-tyagi, renounces results of actions, relinquishes only the
hankering for the results of actions while performing the nityakarmas;
sah, he; is abhidhiyate, called; tyagi iti, a man of renunciation-even
though he continues to be a man of rites and duties. This is said by way
of eulogy. Therefore total renunciation of actions is possible only for one
who has realized the supreme Truth, who does not hold on to the body,
and who is devoid of the idea that the body is the Self. Again, what is
that purpose which is accomplished through renunciation of all actions?
This is being stated:
18.12 These trividham, threefold-of three kinds; phalam, results;
karmanah, of actions characterized as the righteous and the unritheous;
anistam, the undesirable, consisting in (birth in) hell, (among) animals,
etc.; istam, the desirable, consisting in (birth as) gods and others; and
misram, the mixed, having a mixture of the desirable and the
undesirable, consisting in (birht as) human beings;-these results that are
of these kinds, bhavati, accrues; pretya, after death, after the fall of the
body; atyaginam, to those who do not resort to renunciation, to the
unilllumined, the men with rites and duties, who are not men of
renunciation in the truest sense. The derivative sense of the word phala
(pha-la) is this: On accunt of being accomplished through the operation
of diverse external accessories, and a result of ignorance, comparable to
the charm cast by jugglery, a source of great delusion and appearing as
though close to the indwelling Self, it is phalgu (unsubstantial), and as a
consequence it undergoes layam (disappearance). (The result that is of
this kind accrues to those who do not resort to renunciation). Tu, but; na
kvacit, never; sannyasinam, to those who resort tomonasticism for the
sake of the highest Reality, to the class of monks called paramahamsas
who remain steadfast in Knowledge alone. For, it cannot be that those
who are devoted wholly to steadfastness in complete enlightenment do
not dig out the seed of transmigration. This is the meaning. Therefore it
is only for those who have realized the supreme Truth that it is possible
to become a monk who renounces actions totally, because action,
accessories and results are superimmpositions on the Self through
ignorance. But the renunciation of all actions is not possible for an
unenlightened person who perceives the locus (the body etc.), action,
agentship and accessories as the Self. This the Lord shows in the
following verses:
18.13 O mighty-armed one, nibodha, learn; me, from Me; imani, these;
panca, five; karanani, factors, accessories, which are going to be statedfor
drawing the attention of his (Arjuna's) mind and for showing the
difference among these categories [Categories: locus (body) etc], the
Lord praises those accessories in the succeeding verses as fit for being
known-; siddhaye, for the accomplishment; sarva-karmanam, of all
actions; proktani, which have been spoken of; sankhye, in Vedantasankhya
is that scripture where the subject-matters [In the sentence,
'Thou art That', the word Thou means the individual Self, and That
means Brahman. The comprehension of their unity, and also 'hearing,
reflection and meditation' are referred to as the subject-matters.] to be
known are fully (samyak) stated (khyayante)-; krtante, in which actions
terminate. Krtante qualifies that very word (Vedanta). Krtam mean
action. That in which occurs the culmination (anta) of that krtam is
krtantam, i.e. the termination of actions. In the texts, '...as much utility as
a man has in a well' (2.46), and 'O son of Prtha, all actions in their
totality culminate in Knowledge' (4.33), the Lord shows the cessation of
all actions when the knowledge of the Self dawns. Hence (it is said):
'...which have been spoken of in that Vedanta where actions culminate
and which is meant for the knowledge of the Self.' Which are they? This
is being answered:
18.14 Adhisthanam, the locus, the body, which is the seat, the basis, of
the manifestation of desire, hatred, happiness, sorrow, knowledge, etc.;
tatha, as also karta, the agent, the enjoyer [The individual Self which has
intelligence etc. as its limiting adjuncts, due to which it appears to
possess their characteristics and become identified with them.] who has
assumed the characteristics of the limiting adjuncts; prthak vidham, the
different kinds of; karanam, organs, the ears etc. which, twelve [The five
organs of knowledge (eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin), the five organs
of actions (hands, feet, speech, organ of excertion and that of
generation), the mind and the intellect.] in number, are of different kinds
for the experience of sound etc.; the vividhah, many; and prthak,
distinct; cesta, activities connected with air-exhalation, inhalation, etc.;
ca eva, and; daivam, the divine, i.e. the Sun and the others who are the
presiding deities of the eye etc.; is atra, here, in relation to these four;
pancamam, the fifth-completing the five.
18.15 Yat, whatever; karma, action; narah, a man; prarabhate,
performs; with these three-sarira-van-manobhih, with the body, speech
and mind; be it nyayyam, just, rigtheous, conforming to the scriptures;
va, or; viparitam, its reverse, not conforming to the scriptures,
unrighteous; and even such activities like closing the eyes etc. whch are
consequent on the fact of living (i.e. instinctive acts)-they also are
certainly the result of righteous and unrighteous acts done in earlier lives,
and hence they are understood by the very, use of the words 'just and
its reverse'-; tasya, of it, of all activities without exception; ete, these;
panca, five, as mentioned; are the hetavah, causes. Objection: Well, are
not the locus etc. the cause of all actions? Why is it said, '...performs
with the body, speech and mind'? Reply: This fault does not arise. All
actions described as 'enjoined' or 'prohibited' are mainly based on the
three, body etc. Seeing, hearing, etc., which are characteristics of life
and are subsidiaries to these (body etc.) [Seeing etc. are accomplished
by the eye etc., which are part and parcel of the body etc.] , are divided
into three groups and spoken of in, 'performs with the body,' etc. Even
at the time of reaping the fruits (of actions), they are experienced mainly
through these (three). Hence, there is no contradiction with the assertion
that the five are the causes.
18.16 Tatra is used for connecting with the topic under discussion.
Tatra evam sati, this being the case, when actions are thus
accomplished by the five causes mentioned above;-this portion has to
be connected with 'perverted intellect' by way of causality [Actions are
done by the body etc., but since a person thinks that the Self is the
agent, therefore he is said to have a perverted intellect.]-yah, tu, anyone,
an unenlightened person, who; pasyati, perceives; kevalam, the
absolute, pure; atmanam, Self; as the kartaram, agent-thinking, 'I myself
am the agent of the actions being done by them', as a consequence of
imagining the Self as identified with them; why?-akrta-buddhitvat, owing
to the imperfection of his intellect, owing to his intellect not having been
refined by the instructions of Vedanta and the teachers, and by
reasoning-. Even the person who, believing in the Self as distinct from
the body etc., looks upon the distinct [Ast. omits anyam (distinct).-Tr.],
absolute Self as the agent, he, too, is surely of imperfect intellect.
Hence, owing to his having an imperfect intellect, sah, that man; na,
does not; pasyati, perceive (properly) either the truth about the Self or
about actions. This is the meaning. Therefore he is a durmatih, man of
perverted intellect, in the sense that his intellect is contemptible,
perverse, corrupted, and the cause of repeatedly undergoing births and
deaths. He does not perceive even while seeing-like the man suffering
from Timira seeing many moons, or like one thinking the moon to be
moving when (actually) the clouds are moving, or like the one seated on
some conveyance (e.g. palanquin), thinking oneself to be moving when
others (the bearers) are moving. Who, again, is the man of right intellect
who perceives correctly? This is being answered:
18.17 Yasya, he who, the person whose intellect is refined by the
instructions of the scriptures and the teachers, and reason; who has na,
not; ahankrtah bhavah, the feeling of egoism, in whom does not occur
the notion in the form, 'I am the agent'; i.e., he who sees thus: 'These
five, viz locus etc. (14), imagined in the Self through ignorance, are verily
the agents of all actions; not I. But I am the absolute, unchanging
witness of their functions, 'Without vita force, without mind, pure,
superior to the (other) superior immutable (Maya) (Mu. 2.1.1)'; yasya,
whose; buddhih, intellect, the internal organ, which is the limiting adunct
of the Self; is na, not; lipyate, tainted, does not become regretful
thinking, 'I have done this; as a result, I shall enter into hell'; whose
intellect does not become thus tainted, he has a good intellect and he
perceives (rightly). Api, even; hatva, by killing; iman, these; lokan,
creatures, i.e. all living beings; sah he; does not hanti, kill-he does not
perform the act of killing; nor does he nibadhyate, become bound, nor
even does he become connected with its result, the fruit of an
unrighteous action. Objection: Even if this be a eulogy, is it not
contradictory to say, 'even by killing he does not kill'? Reply: This defect
does not arise; for this becomes logical from the ordinary and the
enlightened points of view. By adopting the empirical point of view
(which consists in thinking), 'I am the slayer', by identifying the body with
the Self, the Lord says, 'even by killing'; and, by taking His stand on the
supreme Truth as explained above (the Lord says), 'he does not kill, nor
does he become bound'. Thus both these surely become reasonable.
Objection; Is it not that the Self certainly does act in combination with
the locus etc., which conclusion follows from the use of the word kevala
(absolute) in the text, 'the absolute Self as the agent' (16)? Reply: There
is not such fault, because, the Self being changeless by nature, there is
no possiblity of Its becoming united with the locus etc. For it is only a
changeful entity that can possibly be united with another, or come to
have agentship through combination. But, for the changeless Self there
can be no combination with anything whatsoever. Hence, agentship
through combination is not logical. Therefore, the absoluteness of the
Self being natural, the word kevalam is merely a reiteration of an
established fact. And the changelessness of the Self is well known from
the Upanisads, the Smrtis and logic. As to that, in the Gita itself this has
been established more than once in such texts as, 'It is said that...This is
unchangeable' (2.25), 'Actions are being done by the gunas themselves'
(see 3.27), 'this ...supreme Self does not act...although existing in the
body' (13.31), and in the Upanisads also in such texts as, 'It thinks, as it
were, and shakes, as it were' (Br. 4.3.7). And from the standpoint of
reason also, the royal path is to hold that the true nature of the Self is
that It is partless, independent of others and changeless. Even if
mutability (of the Self) be accepted, It should have a change that is Its
own. The functions of the locus etc. cannot be attributed to the agency
of the Self. Indeed, an action done by someone else cannot be imputed
to another by whom it has not been done! As for what is imputed (on
somebody) through ignorance, that is not his. As the quality of silver is
not of nacre, or as surface or dirt attributed through ignorance to the sky
by foolish people is not of the sky, similarly, the changes in the locus etc.
also are verily their own, and not of the Self. Hence it has been well said
that the enlightened person 'does not kill, nor is he bound', becuase of
the absence of his being tainted by the idea that actions are done by
himself. [Some translate this portion thus: '...because of the absence of
the thought 'I am doing', and also due to the taintlessness of the mind';
or, '...in the absence of egotism and of all taint in the mind'.-Tr.] After
having declared, 'This One does not kill, nor is It killed' (2.19); having
stated the immutability of the Self through such texts as, 'Never is this
One born' (2.20) , etc., which adduce the reason for this; having briefly
stated at the commencement of the Scripture-in, 'he who knows this
One as indestructible' (2.21)-that the enlightened man has no eligibility
for rites and duties; and having deliberated in various places on that
(cessation) which has been mooted in the middle (of the Scripture), the
Lord, by way of summarizing the purport of the Scripture, concludes
here by saying that the enlightened person 'does not kill, nor does he
become bound.' If this be so, then it becomes established that the three
kinds of results of actions, viz the undesirable etc., do not accrue to the
monks, since it is reasonable that, because of the illogicality of their
entertaining the idea of being embodied, all actions resulting from
ignorance become abandoned (by them). And hence, as a consequence
of a reversal of this, it becomes inevitable that the results do accrue to
others. Thus, this is how the purport of the scripture Gita has been
summed up. In order that this which is the essence of the teachings of
all the Vedas should be. understood after deliberation by the learned
ones possessing a sharp intellect, it has been explained by us in
accordance with the scriptures and reasoning, in various places by
dealing with it topically. Thereafter, now is being stated what promts
actions:
18.18 Jnanam, knowledge (-being derived in the sense of 'that through
which something is known', jnana means knowledge concerning all
things in general-): so also jneyam, the object of knowledge (-that also is
a reference to all objects in general-); similarly, parijnata, the knower, the
experiencer, a product of ignorance, who partakes of the nature of the
limiting adjuncts;-thus, this tripartite group formed by these is the
trividha, threefold; karma-codana, inducement ot action, inducer of all
actions in general. For, it is when the three, viz knowledge etc., combine
that commencement of all actions meant either for acceptance or
rejection [Acceptance, rejection or indifference.] are possible. After that,
what are initiated by the five, viz locus etc., and are grouped in three
ways according to the differences of their being based on speech, mind
and body become comprehended under the three, viz instrument etc.
This is what is being stated: Karma-sangrahah, the comprehension [It is
well know that actions are based on the three-instrument etc.] of
actions; iti, comes under; trividhah, three heads, three classes; viz
karanam, the instrument (-derived in the sense of that through which
anything is done-), i.e. the external (organs) (ear etc.) and the internal
(organs) (intellect etc.); karma, the object (-derivatively meaning that
which is most cherished by the subject and is achieved through an act-);
and karta, the subject (agent), who employs the instrument etc., who
partakes of the nature of the limiting adjuncts. Sangrahah is derived
thus: that in which something is comprehended. The comprehension of
action (karma) is karma-sangrahah. Indeed, action becomes included in
these three. Hence is this 'threefold comprehension of action'. Now
then, since action, instrument and result are all constituted by the gunas,
it becomes necessary to state the three fold variety in them based on the
differences among the gunas, viz sattva, rajas and tamas. Hence it is
begun:
18.19 Jnanam, knowledge; karma, action-not the objective case in the
technical sense, which is defined as 'that which is most cheirshed by the
subject'; and karta, agent, the accomplisher of actions; procyate, are
stated; guna-sankhyane, in the teaching about the gunas, in the
philosophy of Kapila; to be eva, only (-only is used for emphasis, by way
of showing that they have no classification other than that based on the
gunas-); tridha, of three kinds; guna-bhedatah, according to the
differences of the gunas, i.e. according to the differences of sattva etc.
Even that philosophy teaching about the gunas is certainly vaild so far as
it concerns the experiencer of the gunas, though it is contradictory so far
as the non-duality of the supreme Reality, Brahman, is concerned. Those
followers of Kapila are acknoweldge authorities in the ascertainment of
the functions of the gunas and their derivatives. Hence, that scripture,
too, is being referred to by way of eulogy of the subject-matter going to
be spoken of. Therefore there is no contradiction. Srnu, hear; tani,
about them; api, also; yathavat, as they are, as established by reason
and as propounded in the scriptures. Hear about knowledge etc. and all
their diversities created by the differences of the gunas. The idea is ,
'Concentrate your mind on the subject going to be taught.' And now the
threefold classification of knowledge is being stated:
18.20 Viddhi, know; tat, that; jnanam, knowledge, realization of the Self
as non-dual, complete realization; to be sattvikam, originating from
sattva; yena, through which knowledge; iksate, one sees; ekam, a single;
avyayam, undecaying-that which does not undergo mutation either in
itself or by the mutation of its qualities-' i.e. eternal and immutable;
bhavam, Entity-the word bhava is used to imply an entity-, i.e. the single
Reality which is the Self; sarvabhutesu, in all things, in all things begining
from the Unmanifest to the unmoving things; and through which
knowledge one sees that Entity to be avibhaktam, undivided; in every
body, vibhaktesu, in all the deversified things, in the different bodies. The
idea is: that Reality which is the Self remains, like Space, undivided.
Being based on rajas and tamas, those that are the dualistic
philosophies are incomplete, and hence are not by themselves adequate
for the eradication of worldly existence.
18.21 Tu, but; viddhi, know; tat, that; jnanam, knowledge; to be
rajasam, originating from rajas; yat, which; sarvesu bhutesu, amidst all
things; vetti, apprehends-since knowledge cannot be an agent of hendssince
knowledge cannot be an agent of action, therefore the meaning
implied is, 'that, knowledge...through which one apprehends...'-; nanabhavan,
the different entities; prthagvidhan, of various kinds, i.e., those
possessing diverse characteristics and different from oneself;
prthakrvena, as distinct, as separate in each body.
18.22 But tat, that knowledge; is udahrtam, said to be; tamasam, born
of tamas; yat, which is; saktam, confined; ekasmin, to one; karye, from,
to one body or to an external image etc., krtsnavat, as though it were all,
as though it comprehended everything, thinking, 'The Self, or God, is
only this much; there is nothing beyond it,'-as the naked Jainas hold that
the soul conforms to and has the size of the body, or (as others hold)
that God is merely a stone or wood-, remaining confined thus to one
form; ahaitukam, which is irrational, bereft of logic; a-tattvarthavat, not
concerned with truth-tattvartha, truth, means some-thing just as it is;
that (knowledge) which has this (truth) as its object of comprehension is
tattvarthavat; that without this is ; a-tattvarthavat-; and which, on
account of the very fact of its being irrational, is alpam, trivial, because it
is concerned with trifles or is productive of little result. This kind of
knowledge is indeed found in non-discriminating creatures in whom
tamas predominates. Now is being stated the threehold division of
action:
18.23 Niyatam, the daily obligatory; karma, action; yat, which; is krtam,
performed; sanga-rahitam, without attachment; araga-dvesatah, without
likes or dislikes; aphala-prepsuna, by one who does not hanker for
rewards, by an agent who is the opposite of one who is desirous of the
fruits of action; tat, that (action); ucyate, is said to be; sattvikam, born of
sattva.
18.24 But tat, that; karma, action; udahrtam, is said to be; rajasam,
born of rajas; yat, which; is kriyate, done; kamepsuna by one desirous of
results; va, or; saahankarena, by one who is egotistic; and
bahulaayasam, which is highly strenuous, accomplished by the agent
with great effort. 'Egotistic' is not used in contrast to knowledge of
Truth. What then? It is used in contrast to the absence of egotism in an
ordinary person versed in the Vedic path. For in the case of the knower
of the Self, who is not egotistic in the real sense, there is no question of
his being desirous of results or of being an agent of actions requiring
great effort. Even of actions born of sattva, the agent is one who has not
realized the Self and is possessed of egoism; what to speak of actions
born of rajas and tamas! In common parlance, a person versed in the
Vedic path, even though not possessing knowledge of the Self, is
spoken of as being free from egotism thus-'This Brahmana is free from
egotism'. Therefore, 'sahan-karena va' is said in contrast to him only.
Punah (again) is used to complete the meter.
18.25 Tat, that; karma, action; yat, which; is arabhyate, undertaken;
mohat, out of delusion, non-discrimination; anapeksya, without
consideration of; its anubandham, consequence, the result which
accrues later; ksayam, loss-that losss which is incurred in the form of
loss of energy or loss of wealth in the course of any action; himsam,
harm, suffering to creatures; and paurusam, ability, prowess-one's own
ability fest as, 'I shall be able to complete this task';-without
consideration of these, from 'consequence' to 'ability', ucyate, is said to
be; tamasam, born of tamas.
18.26 Karta, the agent; who is mukta-sangah, free from attachment-one
by whom attachment has been given up; anahamvadi, not egotisic, not
given to asserting his ego; dhrti-utsaha-samanvitah, endowed with
fortitude and diligenc; and nirvikarah, unperturbed; siddhi-asiddhyoh, by
success and failure, in the fruition and non-fruition of any action undertaken-
led only by the authority of the scriptures, not by attachment to
results etc. [Etc. stands for attachment to work.];-the agent who is such,
he is ucyate, said to be; sattvikah, possessed of sattva.
18.27 Karta, the agent; ragi, who has attachment; karma-phalaprepsuh,
who is desirous of the results of actions; lubdhah, covetous,
greedy for other's property, and does not part with his own (when) at
holy places; himsatmakah, cruel by nature, having a nature that cuases
pain to others; asucih, unclean, devoid of internal and external
cleanliness; and harsa-soka-anvitah, subject to joy and sorrow, affected
by these two, joy and sorrow-joy at the acquisition of desired objects,
sorrow at getting undesired objects and losing coverted objects; and
elation and dejection may occur to that very person from his actions
being aided or hindered; one who is subject to those-; parikirtitah, is
declared to be; rajasah, possessed of rajas.
18.28 The agent who is ayuktah, unsteady; prakrtah, naive, of very
unrefined intelligence, like a child; stabdhah, unbending like a staff-he
does not bend down to anyone; sathah, deceitful, cunning, hiding his
own powers; naiskrtikah, wicked, given to destroying the livelihood of
others; alasah, lazy, not inclined even to his own duties; visadi, morose,
ever in a mood of dejection; and dirghasutri, procrastinating, postponing
duties for long, [Ast. adds here, 'sarvada mandasvabhavah, always slow
by nature'.-Tr.] not accomplishing even in a month what is to be done
today or tomorrow;-one who is such, he ucyate, is said to be; tamasah,
possessed of tamas.
18.29 O Dhananjaya, srnu, listen; bhedam, to the classification;
buddheh, of the intellect; ca eva, as also; the classification dhrteh, of
fortitude; trividham, which is threefold; gunatah, according to the gunas,
sattva etc. -this much is an apporistic statement-; procyamanam, while it
is being stated; asesena, elaborately, just as it is, without omitting
anything; and prthaktvena, severally. Arjuna is called Dhananjaya
because, in the course of his expedition to conquer all the qaurters. he
won immense human and divine wealth (dhana).
18.30 O Partha, sa, that; buddhih, intellect; is sattviki, born of sattva;
ya, which; vetti, understands; pravrttim, action, the path of rites and
duties, which is the cause of bondage; and nivrttim, withdrawal, the path
of renunciation, which is the cause of Liberation-since action and
withdrawal are mentioned in the same sentence along with bondage and
freedom, therefore they mean 'the path of rites and duties and of
renunciation'-; karya-akarye, duty and what is not duty, i.e. what is
enjoined or prohibited, [Ast. adds laukike vaidike va (ordinary or Vedic
injunctions and prohibitions) after vihita-pratisiddhe; and it adds
sastrabuddheh before kartavya-akartavye-what ougth to be done or
ought not to be done by one who relies on the scriptures.-Tr.] what
ought to be done or ought not to be done, action and inaction. With
regard to what? With regard to action leading to seen or unseen, results,
undertaken according to place, time, etc. Bhaya-adhaye, the sources of
fear and fearlessness, i.e. the cuases of fear and fearlessness, with
regard to seen or unseen objects; bandham, bondage, along with its
cause; and moksam, freedom, along with its cause. In this context,
knowing is a function of the intellect; but the intellect is the possesser of
the function. Fortitude also is only a particular function of the intellect.
18.31 O Partha, sa, that; buddhih, intellect; is rajasi, born of rajas; yaya,
with which; prajanati, one understands; ayathavat, wrongly, not truly, not
by discerning it from all points of view; dharmam, virtue, as prescribed
by the scritpures; and adharmam, vice, what is prohibited by them; [By
dharma and adharma are implied the seen and the unseen results of
actions as revealed by the scriptures; karya and akarya respectively refer
to the actual doing of what ought to be done and the not doing of what
ought not to be done.] ca eva, as also; karyam, what ought to be done;
and akaryam, what ought not to be done-those very 'duty' and 'what is
not duty' as stated earlier.
18.32 O Partha, sa, that; buddhih, intellect; tamasi, is born of tamas; ya,
which; tamasavrta, being covered by darkness; manyate, considers,
understands; adharmam, vice, what is prohibited; iti, as; dharmam,
virtue, what is prescribed; and ca, verily; perceives sarvarthan, all things,
all objects of knowledge without exception; viparitan, contrary to what
they are.
18.33 O Partha, dhrtya, the firmness; (-is connected with the remote
word) avyabhicarinya, that is unfailing; yogena, through concentration,
i.e. (the firmness that is) ever associated with samadhi (absorption in
Brahman); yaya, with which; dharayate, one restrains;-what?-manahprana-
indriya-kriyah, the functions of the mind, vital forces and organsrestrains
them from tending towards the path opposed to the scriptures.
Indeed, when restrained with firmness, they do not incline towards
objects prohibited by the scriptures. Sa, that; dhrtih, firmness, which is
of this kind; is sattviki, born of sattva. What is mean is that when one
restrains the functions of the mind, vital forces and organs with unfailing
firmness, one does so through yoga, concentration.
18.34 Tu, but, O Partha; the dhrtya, firmness; yaya, with which; a
person dharayate, holds on to; dharma-kama-arthan, righteousness,
covetable things and wealth-entertains the conviction in the mind that
these ought to be pursued always; and becomes phala-akanksi,
desirous of their fruits; prasangena, as the occasion for each arises,
according as the situation arises for holding on to any one of dharma
etc.; sa, that; dhrtih, firmness; is rajasi, born of rajas.
18.35 That firmness is mata, considered to be; tamasi, born of tamas;
yaya, due to which; durmedha, a person with a corrupt intellect; na
vimuncati, does not give up-indeed, holds fast to; svapnam, sleep;
bhayam, fear; sokam, sorrow; visadam, despondency; eva ca, as also;
madam, sensuality, enjoyment of objects-mentally holding these as
things that must always be resorted to, considering them to be greatly
important to himself, like a drunkard thinking of wine. The threefold
division of action as also of agents according to the differences of the
gunas has been stated. After that, now is being stated the threefold
division of results and happiness:
18.36 Idanim, now; srnu, hear; me, from Me i.e. be attentive to what I
say; tu, as regards; the trividham, three kinds of; sukham, joy, O scion of
the Bharata dynasty. Yatra, that in which; ramate, one delights, derives
pleasure; abhyasat, owing to habit, due to frequent repetition; and in the
experinece of which joy one nigacchati, certainly attains; duhkhantam,
the cessation of sorrow-.
18.37 Yat, that joy which is; iva, like; visam, poison, a source of pain;
agre, in the beginning-when it first comes in the early stages of
(acquisition) of knowledge, detachment, meditation and absorption,
since they involve great struggle; but amrtopamam, comparable to
nectar; pariname, in the end, when it arises from the maturity of
knowledge, detachment, etc.; and which atma-buddhi-prasadajam,
arises from the purity (prasada), trasparence like water, of one's intellect
(atma-buddhi); tat, that; sukham, joy; is proktam, spoken of, by the
learned ones ;as sattvikam, born of sattva. Or, the phrase atma-buddhiprasadajam
may mean 'arising from the high degree of clearness of that
atma-buddhi (knowledge of or connected with the Self)'; therefore it is
born of sattva.
18.38 Tat, that; sukham, joy; is smrtam, referred to; as rajasam, born of
rajas; yat, which; visaya-indriya-samyogat, arising from the contact of
the organs and (their) objects; is amrtopamam, like nectar; agre, in the
beginning, in the intial moments; but iva, like; visam, poison; pariname,
at the end-at the end of full enjoyment of the objects (of the senses),
because it causes loss of strength, vigour, beauty, wisdom, [Prajna, the
capacity to understand whatever is heard.] retentive faculty, wealth and
diligence, and because it is the cause of vice and its consequent hell etc.
18.39 That joy is udahrtam, said to be; tamasam, born of tamas; yat,
which; both agre, in the beginning; ca, and; anubandhe, in the sequel,
after the end (of enjoyment); is mohanam, delusive; atmanah, to oneself;
and nidra-alasya-pramada-uttham, arises from sleep, laziness and
inadvertence. Therefore, now is begun a verse in order to conclude this
section [The section showing that all things in the whole of creation are
under the influence of the three gunas.].
18.40 Na asti, there is no; tat, such; sattvam, entity, living creatures like
men and others, or non-living things; prthivyam, in the world; va punah,
or, again; an entity devesu, among the gods; divi, in heaven; yat, which;
syat, can be [-this is connected with the preceding portion 'na tat, there
is no such (entity)'-]; muktam, free; ebhih, from these; trubhih, three;
gunaih, gunas, sattva etc.; prakrti-jaih, born of Nature. It has been said
that the entire transmigratory state together with its roots, characterized
by action, agent and resuls-consisting of the gunas, sattva, rajas and
tamas-, and projected by ignorance, is an evil. And this also has been
said through the imagery of the Tree in the verse, '...which has its roots
upward' etc. (15.1). It has been further said that, 'after felling that (Tree),
with the strong sword of detachment, thereafter, that State has to be
sought for' (15.3-4). And, as to that, since all things consist of the three
gunas, there arises the impossibility of the eradication of the cause of
worldly existence. Hence, it has to be shown how it can be eradicated.
Besides, the purport of the scripture Gita has to be summed up, and it
has also to be shown that the import of all the Vedas and the Smrtis,
which must be put into practice by those who long for the Goal of
human life, is verily this much. Hence begin the verses, 'The duties of the
Brahmanas, the Ksatriyas and the Vaisyas...', etc.
18.41 Parantapa, O scorcher of enemies; karmani, the duties;
brahmana-ksatriya-visam, of the Brahmanas, the Ksatriyas and the
Vaisyas; ca, as also; sudranam, of the Surdras-the Sudras have not
been included with the others (in the compund word) because, owing to
their having a single birth, [Sudras have no right to be invested with the
sacred thread which, in the case of the other three castes, symbolizes a
second birth.] they have no right to (the study of) the Vedas;
pravibhaktani, have been fully classified, have been prescribed by
making distinctions among them;-according to what?-gunahi, according
to the gunas; svabhava-prabhavaih, born from Nature. Nature means
the Praktrti of God, His Maya consisting of the three gunas. 'Born from
Nature' means 'born of these three gunas. In accordnace with these the
duties such as control of the internal organs, etc. of the Brahmanas and
others have been classified. Or (the meaning is): The source of the
nature of the Brahmanas is the quality of sattva. Similarly, the source of
the nature of the Ksatriyas is rajas, with sattva as a subordinate (quality);
the source of the nature of the Vaisyas is rajas, with tamas as the
subordinate (quality); the source of the nature of the Sudras is tamas,
with rajas as the subordinate (quality); for the natures of the four are
seen to be tranquillity. lordliness, industriousness and dullness
respectively. Or, svabhava (nature) means the (individual) tendencies of
creatures earned in their past lives, which have become manifest in the
present life for yielding their own results. The gunas which have that
svabhava as their source (prabhava) are svabhava-prabhavah gunah.
Since the manifestation of the gunas cannot logically be uncaused,
therefore a specific cause [i.e. the tendencies are the efficient cause, and
Nature is the material cause.] has been posited by saying that Nature is
the cause. Thus, the duties such as control of the internal organs etc.
have been classified in keeping with the effects of the gunas, sattva,
rajas and tamas, which are born of Nature, born of Prakrti. Objection:
Well, are not the duties like controlling the internal organs etc. of the
Brahmanas and others classified and enjoined by the scriptures? Why is
it said that they are classified according to the gunas sattva etc.? Reply:
This objection is not valid. For, the duties like controlling the internal
organs etc. of the Brahmanas and others have been classified even by
the scriptures verily in keeping with the specific qualities sattva etc.;
certainly, not without reference to the gunas. Hence, though the duties
have been divided by the scriputres, they are said to have been
classified according to the gunas. Which, again, are those duties? They
are being spoken of:
18.42 Svabhavajam brahma-karma, the natural duties of the
Brhamanas, of the Brahmana caste; are samah, control of the internal
organs; damah, control of the external organs-these bear the meanings
as explained earlier (see 6.3, 10.4, 16.1); tapah, austerity-bodily
austerity, as explained before (17.14); saucam, purity, as already
explained (in 13.7, 16.3); ksantih, forgiveness; arjavam,
straightforwardness, simplicity; jnanam, knowledge; eva ca, as also
vijnanam, wisdom; astikyam, faith, the idea of truth [Truth of the
scritpures, existence of God, etc. In place of asti-bhavah Ast reads
astika-bhavah, the feeling of conviction with regard to the existence of
God and the other world. Tr.] respect for the teaching of the scriptures.
By svabhavajam (natural) is conveyed the very same idea as was
expressed in 'classified according to the gunas born from Nature' (41).
18.43 Svabhavajam, the natural; ksatra-karma, [A variant reading is
ksatram karma.-Tr.] enjoined duties of the Ksatriyas, of the Ksatriya
caste; are sauryam, heroism; tejah, boldness; dhrtih, fortitude, as is seen
in the case of one who is not depressed under all circumstances, being
sustained by doggedness; daksyam, capability engagement without
confusion in duties which suddenly present them-selves; api ca, and
also; apalayanam, not retreating; yuddhe, from battle, not fleeing from
enemies; danam, generosity, being free in the distribution of gifts;
isvarabhavah, lordliness, manifesting (exercising) rulership over those
who have to be ruled.
18.44 Svabyavajam, the natural; vaisya-karma, duties of the Vaisyas, of
the Vaisya caste; are krsi-gauraksyavanijyam, agriculture, cattle rearing
and trade: Krsi is tilling of land. Orre who rears cattle (go) is goraksa; the
abstract form of that word is gauraksyam, animal-husbandry. Vanijyam
means the occupation of a trader, consisting of buying and selling.
Sudrasya, of the Sudra; api, too; svabhavajam, the natural; karma, duty;
is paricaryatmakam, in the form of service. When rightly pursued, the
natural result of these duties enjoined for the castes is the attainment of
heaven-which act is evident from such Smrti texts as, 'People belonging
to the castes and stages of life, who are true to their own duties,
experience after death the fruit of their actions. And after that, as a result
of the remnants of their merits they are born in some excellent region,
caste and family, with greater piety, longevity, learning, conduct, wealth,
happiness and intelligence' (Ap. Dh. Su. 2.2.2.3), etc. And in the
Puranas also it is particularly mentioned that poeple belonging to the
(different) castes and stages of life come to have specific results in the
form of different worlds. But this result that is going to be stated follows
from a different cause:
18.45 Sve sve karmani abhiratah, being devoted to his own duty, which
has different characteristics as stated above; narah, man, the person
qualified therefor; labhate, attains; samsiddhim, complete success,
characterized as the ability for steadfastness in Knowledge, which
follows from the elimination of the impurities of body and mind as a
result of fulfilling his own duty. Does the complete success follow merely
from the fulfilment of one's own duty? No. How then? Srnu, hear; tat,
that; yatha, as to how, through what means; sva-karma-niratah, one
devoted to his own duty; vindati, acheives; siddim, success.
18.46 Manavah, a human being; vindati, achieves; siddhim, success,
merely in the form of the ability for steadfastness in Knowledge;
abhyarcya, by adoring, worshipping; svakarmana, with his own duties
stated above, as allotted to each caste; tam, Him, God; yatah, from
whom, from which God; comes pravrttih, origin,-or, from which internal
Ruler comes the activities; ;bhutanam, of creatures, of living beings; and
yena, by whom, by which God; is tatam, pervaded; sarvam, all; idam,
this world. Since this is so, therefore,
18.47 Svadharmah, one's own duty; though vigunah, defective-the
word though has to be supplied-; is sreyan, superior to, more
praiseworthy than; paradharmat, another's duty; su-anusthitat, well
performed. Kurvan, by performing; karma, a duty; svabhavaniyatam, as
dictated by one's own nature-this phrase means the same as
svabhavajam (born from Nature) which has been stated earlier-; na
apnoti, one does not incur; kilbisam, sin. As poison is not harmful to a
worm born it it, so one does not incur sin by performing a duty dictated
by one's own nature. It has been siad that, as in the case of a worm
born in poison, a person does not incur sin while performing his duties
which have been dictated by his own nature; and that someone else's
duty is fraught with fear; also that, one who does not have the
knoweldge of the Self, (he) surely cannot remain even for a moment
without doing work (cf. 3.5). Hence-
18.48 Kaunteya, O son of Kunti; na tyajet, one should not give up;-
what?-the karma, duty; sahajam, to which one is born, which devolves
from the very birth; api, even though; it be sadosam, faulty, consisting as
it is of the three gunas. Hi, for; sarva-arambhah, all undertakings (-
whatever are begun are arambhah, i.e. 'all actions', according to the
context-), being constituted by the three gunas (-here, the fact of being
constituted by the three gunas is the cause-); are avrtah, surrounded;
dosena, with evil; iva, as;; agnih, fire; is dhumena, with smoke, which
comes into being concurrently. One does not get freed from evil by
giving up the duty to which one is born-called one's own duty-, even
though (he may be) fulfilling somebody else's duty. Another's duty, too,
is fraught with fear. The meaning is: Since action cannot be totally given
up by an unelightened person, therefore he should not relinquish it.
Opponent: Well, is it that one should not abandon action because it
cannot be given up completely, or is it because evil [Evil resulting from
discarding daily obligatory duties.] follows from the giving up of the duty
to which one is born? Counter-objection: What follows from this?
Opponent: If it be that the duty to which one is born should not be
renounced because it is impossible to relinquish it totally, then the
conclusion that can be arrived at is that complete renunciation (of duty)
is surely meritorious! Counter-objection: Truly so. But, may it not be that
total relinquishment is itself an impossibility? Is a person ever-changeful
like the gunas of the Sankhyas, or is it that action itself is the agent, as it
is in the case of the momentary five [Rupa (from), vedana (feeling),
vijnana (momentary consciousness), sanjna (notion), samskara (mental
impressions)-these have only momentary existence. In their case there
can be no distinction between action and agent, simply due to the fact
of their being momentary.] forms of mundane consciousness
propounded by the Buddhists? In either case there can be no complete
renunciation of action. Then there is also a third standpoint (as held by
the Vaisesikas): When a thing acts it is active, and inactive when that
very thing does not act. If this be the case here, it is possible to entirely
give up actions. But the speciality of the third point of view is that a thing
is not ever-changing, nor is action itself the agent. What then? A
nonexistent action originates in an existing thing, and an existing action
gets destroyed. The thing-in-itself continues to exist along with its power
(to act), and that itself is the agent. This is what the followers of Kanada
say. [Their view is that agentship consists in 'possessing the power to
act', not in being the substratum of action.] What is wrong with this point
of view. Vedantin: The defect indeed lies in this that, this veiw is not in
accord with the Lord's view. Objection: How is this known? Vedantin:
Since the Lord as said, 'Of the unreal there is no being...,' etc. (2.16).
The view of the followers of Kanada is, indeed, this that the non-existent
becomes existent, and the existent becomes nonexistent. Objection:
What defect can there be if it be that this view, even though not the view
of the Lord, yet conforms to reason? Vedantin: The answer is: This is
surely faulty since it contradicts all valid evidence. Objection: How?
Vedantin: As to this, if things like a dvyanuka (dyad of two anus, atoms)
be absolutely nonexistent before origination, and after origination
continue for a little while, and again become absolutely non-existent,
then, in that acase, the existent which was verily nonexistent comes into
being, [Here Ast. adds, 'sadeva asattvam apadyate, that which is verily
existent becomes nonexistent'.-Tr.] a non-entity becomes an entity, and
an entity becomes a non-entity! If this be the view, then the non-enity
that is to take birth is comparable to the horns of a hare before it is born,
and it comes into being with the help of what are called material
(inherent), non-mateial (non-inherent) and efficient causes. But it cannot
be said that nonexistence has origination in this way, or that it depends
on some cause, since this is not seen in the case of nonexistent things
like horns of a hare, etc. If such things as pot etc. which are being
produced be of the nature of (potentially) existing things, then it can be
accepted that they originate by depending on some cause which merely
manifests them. [According to Vedanta, before origination a thing, e.g. a
pot, remains latent in its material cause, clay for instance, with its name
and form unexpressed, and it depends on other causes for the
manifestation of name and form.] Moreover, if the nonexistent becomes
existent, and the existent becomes non-existent, then nobody will have
any faith while dealing with any of the means of valid knowledge objects
of such knowledge, because the conviction will be lacking that the
existent is existent and the nonexistent is nonexistent! Further, when
they speak of origination, they (the Viasesikas) hold that such a thing as
a dvyanuka (dyad) comes to have relationship with its own (material)
causes (the two atoms) and existence, and that it is nonexistent before
origination; but later on, depending on the operation of its own causes, it
becomes connected with its own causes, viz the atoms, as also with
existence, through the inherent (or inseparable) relationship called
samavaya. After becoming connected, it becomes an existent thing by
its inherent relationship with its causes. [The effect (dyad) has inherent
relationship with existence after its material causes (the two atoms)
come into association.] It has to be stated in this regard as to how the
nonexistent can have an existent as its cuase, or have relationship with
anything. For nobody can establish through any valid means of
knowledge that a son of a barren woman can have any existence or
relationship or cause. Vaisesika: Is it not that relationship of a nonexistent
thing is not at all established by the Vaisesikas? Indeed, what is
said by them is that only existent entities like dvyanuka etc. have the
relationship in the form of samavaya with their own causes. Vedantin:
No, for it is not admitted (by them) that anything has existence before the
(samavaya) relationship (occurs). It is surely not held by the Vaisesikas
that a pot etc. have any existence before the potter, (his) stick, wheel,
etc. start functioning. Nor do they admit that clay itself takes the shape
of a pot etc. As a result, it has to be admitted (by them) as the last
aternative that nonexistence itself has some relationship! Vaisesika:
Well, it is not contradictory even for a nonexistent thing to have the
relationship in the form of inherence. Vedantin: No, because this is not
seen in the case of a son of a barren woman etc. If the antecedent
nonexistence (prag-abhava) of the pot etc. alone comes into a
relationship with its own (material) cause, but not so the nonexistence of
the son of a barren woman etc. though as nonexistence both are the
same, then the distinction between the (two) nonexistences has to be
explained. Through such descriptions ( of abhava, nonexistence) as
nonexistence of one, nonexistence of two, nonexistence of all,
antecedent nonexistence, nonexistence after destruction, mutual
nonexistence and absolute non-existence, nobody can show any
distinction (as regards nonexistence itself)! There being no distinction,
(therefore, to say that:) 'it is only the antecedent nonexistence of the pot
which takes the form of the pot through the (action of) the potter and
others, and comes into a relationship with the existing pot-halves which
are its own (material) causes and becomes fit for all empirical processes
[Such as production, destruction, etc.] but the nonexistence after
destruction of that very pot does not do so, though it, too, is
nonexistence. Hence, the nonexistence after destruction, etc. [Etc.
stands for 'mutual nonexistence (anyonya-abhava)' and 'absolute
nonexistence (atyanta-abhava)'.] are not fit for any empirical processes,
whereas only the antecedent nonexistence of things called dvyanuka
etc. is fit for such empirical processes as origination etc.'-all this is
incongruous, since as nonexistence it is indistinguishable, as are
'absolute nonexistence' and 'nonexistence after destruction'. Vaisesika:
Well, it is not at all said by us that the 'antecedent nonexistence'
becomes existent. Vedantin: In that case, the existent itself becomes
existent , as for instance, a pot's becoming a pot, or a cloth's becoming
a cloth. This, too, like nonexistence becoming existent, goes against
valid evidence. Even the theory of transformation held by the Sankhyas
does not differ from the standpoint of the Vaisesikas, since they believe
in the origination of some new attribute [i.e. in the origination of a
transformation that did not exist before.] and its destruction. Even if
manifestation and disappearance of anything be accepted, yet there will
be contradiction with valid means of knowledge as before in the
explanation of existence or nonexistence of manifestation and
disappearance. Hereby is also refuted the idea that origination etc. (of an
effect) are merely particular states of its cuase. As thelast alternative, it is
only the one entity called Existence that is imagined variously through
ignorance to be possessed of the states of origination, destruction, etc.
like an actor (on a stage). This veiw of the Lord has been stated in the
verse, 'Of the unreal there is no being...' (2.16). For, the idea of
existence is constant, while the others are inconstant. Objection: If the
Self be immutable, then how does the 'renunciation of all actions'
become illogical? Vedantin: If the adjuncts (i.e. body and organs) be real
or imagined through ignorance, in either case, action, which is their
attribute, is surely superimposed on the Self through ignorance. From
this point of view it has been said that an unenlightened person is
incapable of totally renouncing actions even for a moment (cf. 3.5). The
enlightened person, on the other hand, can indeed totally renounce
actions when ignorance has been dispelled through Illumination; for it is
illogical that there can (then) remain any trace of what has been
superimposed through ignorance. Indeed, no trace remains of the two
moons, etc. superimposed by the vision affected by (the disease called)
Timira when the desease is cured. This being so, the utterance, 'having
given up all actions mentally' (5.13), etc. as also, 'Being devoted to his
own duty' (45) and 'A human being achieves 'success by adoring Him
through his own duties (46), becomes justifiable. What was verily
spoken of as the success arising from Karma (-yoga), characterized as
the fitness for steadfastness in Knowledge,-the fruit of that (fitness),
characterized as 'steadfastness in Knowledge' consisting in the
perfection in the form of the state of one (i.e. a monk) free from duties,
has to be stated. Hence the (following) verse is begun:
18.49 Asakta-buddhih, he whose intellect, the internal organ, remains
unattached; sarvatra, to everything, with regard to son, wife and others
who are the cuases of attachment; jitatma, who has conquered his
internal organs; and vigata-sprhah, who is desireless, whose thirst for his
body, life and objects of enjoyment have been eradicated;-he who is
such a knower of the Self, adhigaccahti, attains; sannyasena, through
monasticism, through perfect knowledge or through renunciation of all
actions preceded by this knowledge; the paramam, supreme, most
excellent; naiskarmya-siddhim, perfection consisting in the state of one
free from duties. One is said to be free from duties from whom duties
have daparted as a result of realizing that the actionless Brahman is his
Self; his state is naiskarmyam. That siddhi (perfection) which is this
naiskarmya is naiskarmya-siddhi. Or, this phrase means 'achievement of
naiskarmya', i.e., achievement of the state of remaining established in
one's own real nature as the actionless Self-which is different from the
success arising from Karma (-yoga), and is of the form of being
established in the state of immediate Liberation. Accordingly has it been
said, '...having given up all actions mentally,...without doing or causing
(others) to do anything at all' (5.13). The stages through which one who
has attained success-which has the aforesaid characteristics and which
arises from the performance of one's own duties mentioned earlier as
worship of God-, and in whom has arisen discriminative knowledge,
achieves perfection-in the form of exclusive adherence to Knowledge of
the Self and consisting in the state of one free from duties-have to be
stated. With this is view the Lord says:
18.50 Nibodha, understand for certain; me, from Me, from My
utterance-. Is it elaborately? The Lord says, no, samasena, in brief; eva,
indeed, O son of Kunti, how siddhim praptah, one who has achieved
success, one who, by worshipping God through one's duties, has
achieved success in the form of fitness of the body and organs for
steadfastness in Knowledge, which comes from His grace; (-the
reiteration of the phrase siddhim praptah is meant for introducing what
follows; what is that succeeding subject for which this reiteration stands
is being answered:) yatha tatha, that process by which, that process in
the form of steadfastness in Knowledge, by which that process of
acquiring steadfastness in Knowledge by which; apnoti, attains; brahma,
Brahman, th supreme Self-. In order to point out-as 'It is this'-the
realization of Brahman which was promised in, 'that process by which
one...attains Brahman,' the Lord says; ya, which; is the para, supreme;
nistha, consummation, i.e. the supreme culmination; jnanasya, of
Knowledge. Of what? Of the knowledge of Brahman. Of what kind is it?
It is of the same kind as the realization of the Self. Of what kind is that?
As is the Self. Of what nature is It? As has been described by the Lord
and the Upanisadic texts, and established through reason. Objection: Is
it not that knowledge takes the form of its object? But it is not admitted
anywhere that the Self is an object, or even that It has form. Pseudo-
Vedantin: Is it not heard of in such texts as, 'radiant like the sun' (Sv.
3.8), 'Of the nature of effulgence' (Ch. 3.14.2) and 'Self-effulgent' (Br.
4.3.9), that the Self has form? Objection: No, because those sentences
are meant for refuting the idea that the Self is of the nature of darkness.
When the Self is denied of possessing forms of substance, quality, etc.,
the contingency arises of the Self's being of the nature of darkness. The
sentences, 'radiant like the sun,' etc. are meant for rebuting this. And
this follows from the specific denial of from by saying, 'Formless' (Ka.
1.3.15), and from such texts as, 'His form does not exist within the range
of vision; nobody sees Him with the eye' (Ka. 2.3.9: Sv. 4.20),
'soundless, touchless' (ka. 1.3.15), etc. which show that the Self is not
an object of perception. Therefore it remains unproved that there can be
any knowledge which takes the form of the Self. How, then, can there be
the knowledge of the Self? For, all knowledge that there can be with
regard to objects assumes their respective forms. And it has been said
that the Self has no form. Moreover, if both knowledge and the Self be
formless, then how can there be the consummation [Firmness in Selfrealization.]
of the (repeated) contemplation on that (knowledge of the
Self)? Vedantin: No. Since it can be established that the Self is
supremely taintless, pure and subtle, and it can also be established that
the intellect can have taintlessness etc. like the Self, therefore it stands
to reason that the intellect can take a form resembling the
consciousness of the Self. The mind becomes impressed with the
semblance of the intellect; the organs become impressed with the
semblance of the mind; and the body becomes impressed with the
semblance of hte organs. Hence it is that the idea of the body itself
being the Self is held by ordinary people. The Lokayatikas (materialists),
who hold that the body is identical with consciousness, say that a
person is a body endowed with consciousness; so also there are others
who say that the organs are identical with consciousness; there are
others who say that the mind is identical with consciousness, and still
others who say that the intellect is identical with consciousness. Some
accept as the Self the Unmanifest [The inmost Ruler (antaryamin),
possessing a semblance of Consciousness.], called the Undifferentiated,
which is more internal than that (intellect) and is within the domain of
(primordial) ignorance. Indeed, in every case, beginning from the intellect
to the body, the cause of mis-conceived Selfhood is the semblance of
the Consciousness that is the Self. Hence, knowledge about the Self is
not a subject for injunction. What then? Only the eradication of the
superimposition of name, form, etc., which are not the Self, is what has
to be undertaken, but not the knowledge of the Self that is
Consciousness. For it is the Self which is experienced as possessed of
the forms of all the various objects that are superimposed (on It) through
ignorance. It is evidently because of this that the Buddhists who uphold
the view of (momentary) consciousness have concluded that there is no
substance at all apart from (momentary) consciousness, and that it is not
in need of any other valid proof since they hold that it is self-cognized.
Therefore, what is to be undertaken is only the elimination of the
superimposition on Brahman through ignorance, but no effort is needed
for knowing Brahman (Consciousness), for It is quite self-evident! It is
because the intellect is distracted by particular appearances of name
and form imagined through ignorance that Brahman, even though selfevident,
easily realizable, nearer than all else and identical with oneself,
appears to be concealed, difficult to realize, very far and different, But to
those whose intellect has become free from external appearances and
who have obtained the grace of a teacher and serenity of mind, there is
nothing more blissful, manifest, well known, easily realized and nearer to
oneself than this Self. And thus it has been declared, 'directly realizable,
righteous,' etc. (9.2). However, some wiseacres assert that the intellect
cannot comprehend the entity called the Self since It is formless; hence,
complete steadfastness in Knowledge is impossible. This is truly so for
those who have not associated with a traditional line of teachers; who
have not heard the Upanisads; whose intellects are too much engrossed
with external objects; and who have not applied themselves diligently to
the perfect means of knowledge. For those, on the other hand, who are
the opposite of these, it is absolutely impossible to have the idea of
reality with regard to empirical objects, which are within the realm of
duality involving the knower and the known, because in their case there
is no perception of any other thing apart from the Consciousness that is
the Self. We have already said how this is certainly so and not otherwise.
It has been stated by the Lord also, 'That during which creatures keep
awake, it is night to the seeing sage' (2.69). Therefore, the cessation of
the perception of differences in the form of external things is alone the
cause of resting in the reality of the Self. For, that which is called the Self
is never an object which is not well known, attainable, rejectable or
acceptable to anyone at any time. Were that Self to be indeed not selfevident,
all activities would become meaningless. [According to Ast. the
latter portion of this sentence is: svarthah sarvah pravrttayah vyarthah
prasajyeran, all activities meant for one's own benefit would become
meaningless.-Tr.]. For it cannot be imagined that they could be
undertaken for unconscious objects like the body etc. Besides, it cannot
be that pleasure is for pleasure's sake, or that sorrow is for sorrow's
sake. Moreover, all empirical dealings are meant for culminating in the
realization of the Self. [According to B.S. 3.4.26, 'On the strength of the
Upanisadic sanction of sacrifices etc. all religious activities as well are
necessary...', sacrifices etc. are meant for leading to the realization of
the Self, without which they would become meaningless.] Therefore, just
as for knowing one's own body there is no need of any other (external)
means of knowledge so also there is no need of any other means of
knowledge, for the realization of the Self which is innermost (in relation to
the body etc.). Hence it is established that steadfastness in the
knowledge of the Self is a fact very well known to the discriminating
people. Even to those who hold that knowledge is formless and not
cognized by direct perception, cognition of an object is dependent on
knowledge. Hence it has to be admitted that knowledge is as immediate
as pleasure etc. And this follows also from the impossibility of a desire to
know (knowledge). Had knowledge been not self-evident, it could have
been sought for like any object of knowledge. And in that case, as [This
is Ast.'s reading; others read tatha.-Tr.] a knower seeks to perceive
through knowledge such objects of knowledge as pot etc., similarly the
knower would have sought to perceive knowledge through another
knowledge! But this is not the case. Therefore knowledge is quite selfrevealing,
and for the very same reason the knower also is self-revealed.
Hence, effort is not needed for knowledge, but only for the removal of
the notion of what is not-Self. [In place of anatma-buddhi-nivrttau, Ast.
has 'anatmani atma-buddhi-nivrttau, for the termination of thinking what
is not the Self as the Self'.-Tr.] Consequently, steadfastness in
Knowledge is easy of accomplishment. It is being stated how this
supreme consummation of Knowledge is to be attained:
18.51 Yuktah, being endowed; buddhya, with an intellect-which is
identical with the faculty of determination; visuddhaya, pure, free from
maya (delusion); and niyamya, controlling, subduing; atmanam, oneself,
the aggregate of body and organs; dhrtya, with fortitude, with steadlines;
tyaktva, rejecting; visayan, the objects; sabdadin, beginning from sound
-from the context it follows that 'rejecting the objects' means rejecting all
things which are meant for pleasure and are in excess of those meant
only for the mere maintenance of the body; and vyudasya, eliminating;
raga-dvesau, attachment and hatred with regard to things which come
to hand for the maintenance of the body-. Therefore,
18.52 Vivikta-sevi, one who resorts to solitude, is habituated to repairing
into such solitary places as a forest, bank of a river, mountain caves,
etc.; laghuasi, eats sparingly, is habituated to eating a little-repairing to
solitary places and eating sparingly are nentioned here since they are the
causes of tranquillity of mind through the elimination of defects like sleep
etc.-; the person steadfast in Knowledge, yata-vak-kaya-manasah, who
has speech, body and mind under control. Having all his organs
withdrawn thus, dhyana-yoga-parah nityam, one to whom meditation
and concentration are ever the highest (duty)-meditation is thinking of
the real nature of the Self, and concentration is making the mind onepointed
with regard to the Self itself; one to whom these meditation and
concentration are the highest (duty) is dhyana-yoga-parah-. Nityam,
(ever) is used to indicate the absence of other duties like repetition of
mantra [A formula of prayer sacred to any deity.-V.S.A.] etc.
Samupasritah, one who is fully possessed, i.e. ever possessed; of
vairagyam, dispassion, absence of longing for objects seen or unseen-.
Further,
18.53 (That person) vimucya, having discarded; ahan-karam, egotism,
thinking of the body, organs, etc. as the ego; balam, force-which is
associated with desire and attachment; not the other kind of strength
consisting in the fitness of the body etc., becuase being natural it cannot
be descarded-; darpam, pride, which follows elation and leads to
transgresson of righteousness-for the Smrti says, 'An elated person
becomes proud; a proud man transgresses righteousness' (Ap. Dh. Su.
1.13.4); kamam, desire; krodham, anger, aversion; parigraham,
superfluous possessions-even after removing the defects in the organs
and the mind, there arises the possibility of acceptance of gifts either for
the maintenance of the body or for righteous duties; discarding them as
well, i.e. becoming a mendicant of the param-hamsa class; nirmamah,
free from the idea of possession, becoming devoid of the idea of 'me'
and 'mine' even with regard to so much as one's body and life; and for
the very same reason, santah, serene, withdrawn; the monk who is
effortless and steadfast in Knowledge, kalpate, becomes fit; brahmabhuyaya,
for becoming Brahman.
18.54 Brahma-bhutah, one who has become Brahman, attained
Brahman through the above process; and prasanna-atma, [Prasada
means the manifestation of the supreme Bliss of the Self as a result of
the total cessation of all evils. Prasanna-atma is one who has attained
this in the present life itself.] has attained the blissful Self, the indwelling
Self; na, does not; socati, grieve-does not lament for the loss of
something or the lack of some quality in oneself; nor kanksati, desire. By
saying 'he does not grieve nor desire', this nature of one who has
attained Brahman is being restated. For it does not stand to reason that
in the case of a knower of Brahman there can be any hankering for
something unattained. Or, (in place of kanksati) teh reading may be na
hrsyati, does not become elated. Becoming samah, the same; sarvesu
bhutesu, towards all being-i.e., he verily judges what is happiness and
sorrow in all beings by the same standard as he would apply to himself
(cf. 6.32); but the meaning is not 'seeing the Self alike in all beings', for
this will be spoken of in (the next verse), 'Through devotion he knows
Me'-; he, the one who is of this kind and steadfast in Knowledge,
labhate, attains; param, supreme; madbhaktim, devotion to Me, to the
supreme Lord; (he attains) devotion which is described as Knowledge,
as the 'fourth' in, '...four classes of people...adore Me' (7.16). Then,
18.55 Bhaktya, through devotion, through that devotion described as
Knowledge; abhijanati, he knows; mam, Me; tattvatah, in reality; as to
yavan, what I am, with the extensive differences created by limiting
adjuncts; and yah asmi, who I am when all distinctions create by the
limiting adjuncts are destroyed-Me who am the supreme Person
comparable to space [In points of all-pervasiveness and nonattachment.]
and one-without-a-second, absolute, homogeneous
Consciousness, birthless, ageless, immortal, fearless and deathless.
Tatah, then; jnatva, having known; mam, Me, thus; tattvatah, in truth;
visate, he enters into Me, Myself; tadanantaram, immediately after that
(Knowledge). Here, by saing, 'having known, he enters without delay', it
is not meant that the acts of 'knowing' and 'entering immediately after'
are different. What then? What is meant is the absolute Knowledge itself
that has to no other result, [In place of phalantarabhava-jnana-matram
eva, Ast. reads 'phalantarbhavat jnanamatram eva, absolute Knowledge
itself, since there is no other result'.-Tr.] for it has been said,
'And...understand Me to be the Knower of the field, (13.2). Opponent:
Has it not been contradictory to say, he knows Me through that which is
the supreme steadliness (nistha) in Knowledge? Vedantin: If it be asked,
How it is contradictory? Opponent: The answer is: Whenever any
Knowledge of something arises in a knower, at that very moment the
knower knows that object. Hence, he does not depend on steadfastness
in Knowledge which consists in the repetition of the act of knowing. And
therefore, it is contradictory to say one knows not through knowledge,
but through steadfastness in knowledge which is a repetition of the act
of knowing. Vedantin: There is no such fault, since the culmination of
Knowledge-which (Knowledge) is associated with the causes of its
unfoldment and maturity, and which has nothing to contradict it- in the
conviction that one's own Self has been realized is what is referred to by
the word nistha (consummation): When knowledge-which concerns the
identity of the 'Knower of the field' and the supreme Self, and which
remains associated with the renunciation of all actions that arise from the
perception of the distinction among their accessories such as agent etc.,
and which unfolds from the instruction of the scriptures and teachers,
depending on purity of the intellect etc. and humility etc. which are the
auxiliary cuases of the origin and maturity of Knowledge-continues in the
form of the conviction that one's own Self has been realized, then that
continuance is called the supreme steadfastness (nistha) in Knowledge.
This steadfastness in Knowledge that is such has been spoken of as the
highest, the fourth kind of devotion in relation to the three other
devotions viz of the afflicted, etc. (cf. 7.16). Through that highest
devotion one realizes the Lord in truth. Immediately after that the idea of
difference between the Lord and the Knower of the field vanishes totally.
There-fore the statement, 'one knows Me through devotion in the form
of steadfastness in Knowledge', is not contradictory. And, in this sense,
all the scriptures-consisting of Vedanta (Upanisads etc.), History,
Mythology and Smrtis-, as for instance, 'Knowing (this very Self the
Brahmanas) renounce...and lead a mendicant's life' (Br. 3.5.1),
'Therefore they speak of monasticism as excellent among these
austerities' (Ma. Na. 24.1), 'Monasticism verily became supreme' (ibid.
21.2), which enjoin renunciation become meaningful. Thus, monasticism
means renunciation of rites and duties. There are also the texts, 'Having
renounced the Vedas as well as this world and the next' (Ap. Dh. Su.
2.9.13), and 'Give up religion and irreligion' (Mbh. Sa. 329.40; 331.44),
etc. And here (in the Gita) also various relevant) passages have been
pointed out. In is not porper that those texts should be meaningless. Nor
are they merely eulogistic, since they occur in their own contexts.
Besides, Liberation consists in being established in the changeless real
nature of the indwelling Self. Indeed, it is not possible that one who
wants to go to the eastern sea and the other who wants to go in the
opposite direction to the western sea can have the same course! And
steadfastness in Knowledg consists in being totally absorbed in
maintaining a current of thought with regard to the indwelling Self. And
that is opposed to coexistence with duties, like going to the western sea.
It has been the conclusion of those versed in the valid means of
knowledge that the difference between them is as wide as that between
a mountain and a mustard seed! Therefore it is established that one
should have recourse to steadfastness in Knowledge only, by
relinquishing all rites and duties. The fruit of the attainment of success
from the Yoga of Devotion consisting in worshiping the Lord with one's
own actions is the ability to remain steadfast in Knowledge, from which,
follows stead-fastness in Knowledge, culminating in the result,
Liberation. That Yoga of Devotion to the Lord is now being praised in
this concluding section dealing with the purport of the Scripture, with a
veiw to generating a firm conviction with regard to it (the purport of the
Scripture):
18.56 Sada, ever; kurvanah api, engaging even in; sarva-karmani, all
actions, even the prohibited ones; madvyapasrayah, one to whom I am
the refuge, to whom I, Vasudeva the Lord, am the refuge, i.e. one who
has totally surrendered himself to Me; even he, apnoti, attains; the
sasvatam, eternal; avyayam, immutable; padam, State of Visnu; matprasadat,
through My, i.e. God's, grace. Since this is so, therefore,
18.57 Cetasa, mentally, with a discriminating intellect; sannyasya,
surrendering; sarva-karmani, all actions meant for seen or unseen
results; mayi, to Me, to God, in the manner described in, 'Whatever you
do, whatever you eat' (9.27); and matparah, accepting Me as the
supreme-you to whom I, Vasudeva, am the supreme, are matparah;
becoming so; satatam, ever; maccittah bhava, have your kind fixed only
on Me; upasritya, by resorting-resorting implies not taking recourse to
anything else-; buddhi-yogam, to the concentration of your intellect.
Having the intellect (buddhi) concentrated on Me is buddhi-yoga.
18.58 Maccittah, having your mind fixed on Me; tarisyasi, you will cross
over; sarva-durgani, alldifficulties, all cuases of transmigration which are
difficult to overcome; mat-prasadat, through My grace. Atha cet, if, on
the other hand; tvam, you; na srosyasi, will not listen to, will not accept,
My words; ahankarat, out of egotism, thinking 'I am learned'; then
vinanksyasi, you will get destroyed, will court ruin. And this should not
be thought of by you-'I am independent. Why should I follow another's
bidding?'
18.59 Yat, that; manyase, you think, resolve; this-'na yotsye, I shall not
fight'; asritya, by relying; on ahankaram, egotism, mithya, vain; is esah,
this; vyava-sayah, determination; te, of yours; because prakrtih, nature,
your own nature of a Ksatriya; niyoksyati, will impell; ;tvam, you!
18.60 And because of nibaddhah, being securely bound; svena, by your
own; karmana, duty; svabhavajena, born of nature [Svabhava means
those tendencies which are created by good bad actions performed in
previous births, and which become the cause of performance of duties,
renunciation, experience of happiness, sorrow, etc. in the present birth.-
S.]-herosim etc. as stated (in 43); O son of Kunti, you avasah, being
helpless, under another's control; karisyasi api, will verily do; tat, that
duty; yat, which duty; you na, do not; icchasi, wish; kartum, to do;
mohat, owing to indiscrimination. For,
18.61 Arjuna, O Arjuna-one whose self is naturally white (pure), i.e. one
possessing a pure internal organ. This follows from the Vedic text, 'The
day is dark and the day is arjuna (white) (Rg. 6.9.1). Isvarah, the Lord ,
Narayana the Ruler; tisthati, resides, remains seated; hrd-dese, in the
region of the heart; sarva-bhutanam, of all creatures, of all living beings.
How does He reside? In answer the Lord says: bhramayan, revolving;
mayaya, through Maya, through delusion; sarva-bhutani, all the
creatures; as though yantra-arudhani, mounted on a machine-like man'
etc., made of wood, mounted on a machine. The word iva (as though)
has to be thus understood here. Bhramayan, revolving, is to be
connected with tisthati, resides (conveying the idea, 'resides...while
revolving').
18.62 Gaccha saranam, take refuge; tam eva, in Him, the Lord alone;
sarva-bhavena, with your whole being, for getting rid of your mundane
sufferings, O scion of the Bharata dynasty. Tat-prasadat, through His
grace, through God's grace; prapsyasi, you will attain; param, the
supreme; santim, Peace, the highest Tranquillity; and the sasvatam,
eternal; sthanam, Abode, the supreme State of Mine who am Visnu.
18.63 Te, to you; akhyatam, has been imparted, spoken of; maya, by
Me who am the omniscient God; iti, this; jnanam, knowledge; which is
guhyataram, more secret; guhyat, than any secret-i.e. it is extremely
profound, mystical. Vimrsya, pondering over, contemplating on; etat,
this, the Scripture as imparted; asesena, as a whole, and also on all the
subjects dealt with; kuru, do; yatha icchasi tatha, as you like. 'Once
again, hear what is beng said by Me:'
18.64 Srnu, listen; bhuyah, again; to me, My; paramam, highest; vacah,
utternace; which is sarva-guhyatamam, profundest of all, most secret of
all secrets, though it has been repeatedly stated. Neither from fear nor
even for the sake of money am I speaking! What then? Iti, since,
considering that; asi, you are; drdham, ever, unwaveringly; istah, dear;
me, to Me; tatah, therefore, for that reason; vaksyami, I shall speak;
what is hitam, beneficial; te, to you, what is the highest means of
attaining Knowledge. That is indeed the most beneficial of all beneficial
things. 'What is that (You are going to tell me)?' In answer the Lord
says:
18.65 Bhava manmana, have your mind fixed on Me; be mad-bhaktah,
My devotee; be a madyaji,sacrificer to Me, be engaged in sacrifices to
Me; namaskuru, bow down; mam, to Me. Offer ever your salutations to
Me alone. Continuing thus in them, by surrendering all ends, means and
needs to Vasudeva only, esyasi, you will come; mam, to Me; eva, alone.
(This) satyam, truth: do I pratijane, promise; te, to you, i.e. in this matter I
make this true promise. For, asi, you are; priyah, dear; me, to Me. The
idea conveyed by the passage is: Having thus understood that the Lord
is true in His pormise, and knowing for certain that liberation is the
unfailing result of devotion to the Lord, one should have dedication to
God as his only supreme goal. Having summed up surrender to God as
the highest secret of steadiness in Karma-yoga, there-after, with the idea
that complete realization, which is the fruit of adherence to Karma-yoga
and which has been enjoined in all the Upanisads, has to be spoken
about, the Lord says:
18.66 Sarva-dharman, all forms of rites and duties: Here the word
dharma (righteousness) includes adharma (unrighteousness) as well; for,
what is intended is total renunciation of all actions, as is enjoined in
Vedic and Smrti texts like, 'One who has not desisted from bad actions'
(Ka. 1.2.24), 'Give up religions and irreligion' (Mbh. Sa. 329.40), etc.
Parityajya, abandoning all rites and duties; [Being a Ksatriya, Arjuna is
not qualified for steadfastness in Knowledge through monasticism in the
primary sense. Still, the Gita being meant for mankind as a whole,
monasticism is spoken of here by accepting Arjuna as a representative
man.] saranam vraja, take refuge; mam ekam, in Me alone, the Self of all,
the same in all, existing in all beings, the Lord, the Imperishable, free
from being in the womb, birth, old age and death-by knowing that I am
verily so. That is, know it for certain that there is nothing besides Me. By
revealing My real nature, aham, I; moksayisyami, shall free; tva, you, who
have this certitude of understanding; sarva-papebhyah, from all sins,
from all bondages in the form of righteousness and unrighteousness. It
has also been stated, 'I, residing in their hearts, destroy the dark-ness
born of ignorance with the luminous lamp of Knowledge' (10.11).
Therefore, ma, do not; sucah, grieve, i.e. do not sorrow. In this
scripture, the Gita, has knowledge been established as the supreme
means to Liberation, or is it action, or both? Why does the doubt arise?
(Because) the passages like, '...by realizing which one attains
Immortality' (13.12), 'Then, having known Me in truth, he enters (into Me)
immediately after that (Knowledge)' (55), etc. point to the attainment of
Liberation through Knowledge alone. Texts like, 'Your right is for action
alone' (2.47), '(you undertake) action itself (4.15), etc. show that actions
have to be under-taken as a matter of compulsory duty. Since both
Knowledge and action are thus enjoined as duties, therefore the doubt
may arise that they, in combination as well, may become the cause of
Liberation. Objection: What, again, would be the result of this inquiry?
Vedantin: Well, the resut will verily be this: The ascertainment of one of
these as the cuase of the highest good. Hence this has to be
investigated more extensively. Knowledge of the Self, however, is
exclusively the cause of the highest good; for, through the removal of the
idea of differences, it culminates in the result that is Liberation. The idea
of distinction among action, agent and result is ever active with regard to
the Self because of ignorance. This ignorance in the form, 'My work; I
am the agent; I shall do this work for that resut', has been at work from
time without beginning. The dispeller of this ignorance is this Knowledge
regarding the Self-in the form, 'I am the absolute, non agent, free from
action and result; there is none else other than myself because, when it
(Knowledge) arises it despels the idea of differences which is the cause
of engagement in action. The word 'however' above is used for ruling
out the other two alternatives. This refutes the two other alternative
views by showing that the highest good cannot be attained through
mere actions, nor by a combination of Knowledge and action. Besides,
since Liberation is not a product, therefore it is illogical that it should
have action as its means. Indeed, an eternal entity cannot be produced
by either action of Knowledge. Objection: In that case, ever exclusive
Knowledge is purposeless. Vedantin: No, since Knowledge, being the
destroyer of ignorance, culminates in Liberation which is directly
experienced result. The fact that Knowledge, which removes the
darkness of ignorance, culminates in Liberation as its result is directly
perceived in the same way as is the result of the light of a lamp which
removes ignorance the form of sanke etc. and darkness from objects
such as rope etc. Indeed, the result of light amounts to the mere
(awareness of the) rope, free from the wrong notions of snake etc. So is
the case with Knowledge. As in the case of the acts like 'cutting down',
'producing fire by friction' etc., in which accessories such as the agent
and others operate, and which have perceivable results, there is no
possiblity of (the agent etc.) engaging in any other activity giving some
other result apart from 'splitting into two', 'seeing (or lighting of) fire' etc,
similarly, in the case of the agent and the other factors engaged in the
'act' of steadfastness in Knowledge which has a tangible result, there is
no possibility of (their) engagement in any other action which has a result
different from that in the form of the sole existence of the Self. Hence,
steadfastness in Knowledge combined with action is not logical.
Objection: May it not be argued that this is possible like the acts of
eating and Agnihotra sacrifice etc.? [As such a common action as eating
can go hand in hand with such Vedic rites as the Agnihotra-sacrifice, so,
actions can be combined with Knowledge.] Vedantin: No, since it is
unreasonable that, when Knowledge which resutls in Liberation is
attained, there can remain a hankering for results of actions. Just as
there is no desire for an action or its result [Action, i.e. digging etc.;
result, i.e. bathing etc.] in connection with a well, pond, etc. when there
is a flood all around, similarly when Knowledge which has Liberation for
its result is attained there can be no possibility of hankering for any other
result or any action which leads to it. Indeed, when somebody is
engaged in actions aimed at winning a kingdom, there can be no
possibility of his engaging in any activity for securing a piece of land, or
having a longing for it! Hence, action does not constitute the means to
the highest good. Nor do Knowledge and action in combination. Further,
Knowledge which has Liberation as its result can have no dependence
on the assistance of action, because, being the remover of ignorance, it
is opposed (to action). Verily, darkness cannot be the dispeller of
darkness. Therefore Knowledge alone is the means to the highest good.
Objection: Not so, because from non-performance of nityakarmas one
incurs sin. Besides, freedom (of the Self) is eternal. As for the view that
Liberation is attainable through Knowledge alone, it is wrong. For, if
nityakarmas [As also the occasional duties (naimittika-karmas).] which
are prescribed by the Vedas are not performed, then one will incur evil in
the form of going to hell etc. Counter-objection: If this be so, then, since
Liberation cannot come from action, will there not arise the contingency
of there being no Liberation at all? Pseudo-Vedantin: Not so, for
Liberation is eternal. as a result of performing nityakarmas there will not
be incurring of evil, and as a result of not doing any prohibited action
(nisiddha-karma) there will not be any possibility of birth in an
undesirable body; from relinquishing actions meant for desired results
(kamya-karmas) there will be no possibility of being born in some
desirable body. Since there is no cause to produce another body when
the present body falls after the results of actions that produced this body
get exhausted by experiencing them, and since one does not have
attachment etc., therefore Liberation consists in the mere continuance of
the Self in Its own natural state. Thus, Liberation is attained without
effort. Objection: May it not be argued that, since in the case of actions
done in many past lives-which are calculated to yield such results as
attainment of heaven, hell, etc. but have not commenced bearing
results-there is no possiblity of their being experienced, therefore they
cannot be exhausted? Pseudo-Vedantin: No, since the suffering of pain
from the effort involved in the nityakarmas can reasonably be
(considered to be) the experiencing of their [i.e. of actions done in past
lives, which have not commenced bearing their fruits.-Tr.] results. Or,
since the nityakarmas, like expiations, may be considered as being
meant for eliminating the sins incurred earlier, and since actions that
have begun bearing their fruits get exhausted merely through their being
experienced, therefore Liberation is attained without effort-provided no
fresh actions are performed. Vedantin: No, since there is the Upanisadic
text, 'Knowing Him alone, one goes beyond death; there is no other way
to go by' (Sv. 3.8), which states that for Liberation there is no other path
but enlightenment; also because there is the Upanisadic statement that
Liberation for an unenlightened person is as impossible as the rolling up
of the sky like leather (Sv. 6.20); and since it is mentioned in the Puranas
and the Smrtis that Liberation follows only from Knowledge. (From your
view) it also follows that there is no possibility of the exhaustion of the
results of virtuous deeds which have not as yet begun yielding their
fruits. And, as there is the possibility of the persistence of sins which
were incurred in the past but have not yet commenced yielding results,
similarly there can be the possibility of the persistence of virtues which
have not yet begun bearing fruits. And so, if there be no scope of their
being exhausted without creating another body, then there is no
possibility of Liberation. And since attachment, hatred and delusion,
which are the causes of virtue and vice, cannot be eradicated through
any means other than Knowledge, therefore the eradication of virtue and
vice becomes impossible. Besides, since the Sruti [See Ch. .2.23.1 and
Br. 1.5.16-Tr.] mentions that nityakarmas have heaven as their result,
and there is the Smrti text, 'Persons belonging to castes and stages of
life, and engaged in their own duties' ['...attain to a high, immeasurable
happiness.'-Tr.] (Ap. Dh. Su. 2.2.2.3), etc., therefore the exhaustion of
(the fruits of) actions (through nityakarmas) is not possible. As for those
who say, 'The nityakarmas, being painful in themselves, must surely be
the result of evil deeds done in the past; but apart from being what they
are, they have no other result because this is not mentioned in the Vedas
and they are enjoined on the basis of the mere fact that one is alive'-(this
is) not so, because actions which have not become operative cannot
yield any result. Besides, there is no ground for experiencing a particular
consequence in the form of pain [Pain involved in the performance of
nityakarmas.] The statement, that the pain one suffers from the effort
involved in performing the nityakarmas is the result of sinful acts done in
past lives, is false. Indeed, it does not stand to reason that the result of
any action which did not become operative at the time of death to yield
its fruit is experienced in a life produced by some other actions.
Otherwise, there will be no reason why the fruit of some action that is to
lead to hell should not be experienced in a life that is produced by such
actions as Agnihotra etc. and is meant for enjoying the result in the form
of heaven! Besides, that (pain arising from the effort in performing
nityakarmas) cannot be the same as the consequence in the form of the
particular suffering arising from sin. Since there can be numerous kinds
of sins with results productive of various kinds of sorrows, therefore, if it
be imagined that their (sins') result will be merely in the form of pain
arising from the effort in undertaking the nityakarmas, then it will certainly
not be possible to suppose that they (the sins incurred in the past) are
the causes of such obstacles as the pairs of opposites (heat and cold,
etc.), disease etc., and that the result of sins incurred in the past will be
only the pain arising from the exertion in performing nityakarmas, but not
the sufferings like carrying stones on the head etc. Further, it is out of
context to say this, that the pain resulting from the effort in performing
nityakarmas is the result of sinful acts done in the past. Objection: How?
Vedantin: What is under discussion is that the sin committed in the past,
which has not begun to bear fruit, cannot be dissipated. In that context
you say that pain resulting from the effort in undertaking nityakarmas is
the result of action which has begun bearing fruit, not of that which has
not yet commenced yielding fruit! On the other hand, if you think that all
sins committed in the past have begun yielding their results, then it is
unreasonable to specify that the pain resulting from the exertion in
performing the nitya-karmas is their only result. And there arises the
contingency of the injunction to perform nityakarmas becoming void,
because the sinful deed which has begun bearing fruit can ligically be
dissipated only be experiencing its result. Further, if pain be the result of
nityakarmas enjoined by the Vedas, then it is seen to arise from the very
effort in undertaking nityakarmas-as in the case of excercise etc. To
imagine that it is the result of something else is illogical. [The pain arising
from bodily excercise is the result of the excercise itself, and not the
result of any past sin! Similarly, the pain resulting from undertaking
nityakarmas is the consequence of that performance itself, and need not
be imagined to be the result of any past sin.] And if the nityakarmas
have been enjoined simply on the basis of a person's being alive, it is
unreasonable that it should be the result of sins committed in the past,
any more than expiation is. An expiation that has been enjoined following
a particular sinful act is not the result of that sin! On the other hand, if
the suffering arising from expiation be the reslut of that very sin which is
its cause, then the pain from the effort in performing nityakarmas, though
prescribed merely on the fact of one's being alive, may become the fruit
of that very fact of one's being alive-which was itself the occasion (for
enjoining the nityakarmas)-, because both the nityakarmas and expiatory
duties are indistinguishable so far as their being occasioned by
something is concerned. Moreover, there is the other fact: There can be
no such distinction that only the pain resulting from the performance of
nityakarmas is the result of past sinful deeds, but not so the pain from
performing kamya-karmas (rites and duties undertaken for desired
results), because the pain in performing Agnihotra-sacrifice etc. is the
same when it is performed as a nityakarma or as a kamya-karma. Thus
the latter also may be the result of past sinful acts. This being the case,
it is untenable to assume on the ground of circumstantial inference that,
since no result is enjoined in the Vedas for nityakarmas and since its
prescription cannot be justified on any other ground, therefore pain from
the effort in performing nityakarmas is the result of sinful past deeds.
Thus, the (Vedic) injunction being unjustifiable otherwise, it can be
inferred that nityakarmas have got some result other than the pain
arising from the effort in undertaking them. It also involves this
contradiction: It is contradictory to say that through the performance of
nityakarma a result of some other action is experienced. And when this
is admitted, it is again a contradiction to say that that very experience is
the result of the nityakarma, and yet that niyakarma has no result!
Moreover, when Agnihotra and other sacrifices are performed for
desirable results (Kamya-Agnihotra), then the Agnihotra etc. which are
performed as nityakarma (Nitya-Agnihotra) become accomplished
simultaneously (on a account of its being a part ofthe former). Hence,
since the Kamya-Agnihotra (as an act) is dependent on and not different
from the Nitya-Agnihotra, therefore the result of the Agnihotra and other
sacrifices performed with a desire for results will get exhausted through
the suffering involved in the exertion in undertaking it (the Nitya-
Agnihotra). On the other hand, if the result of Kamya-Agnihotra etc. be
different, viz heaven etc., then even the suffering arising from the
exertion in performing them ought to be necessarily different (from the
suffering involved in the Nitya-Agnihotra). And that is not the fact,
because it contradicts what is directly perceived; for the pain resulting
from the effort in performing only the Nitya-(-Agnihotra) does not differ
from the pain resulting from the exertion in undertaking the Kamya (-
Agnihotra). Besides, there is this other consideration: Actions which
have not been enjoined or prohibited (by the scriptures) produce
immediate results. But those enjoined or prohibited by the scriptures do
not produce immediate results; were they to do so, then there would be
no effort even with regard to heaven etc. and injunctions concerning
unseen results. And it cannot be imagined that only the fruit of (Nitya-)
Agnihotra etc. gets exhausted through the suffering arising from the
effort in performing them, but the Kamya (-Agnihotra) has exalted results
like heaven etc. merely as a consequence of the fact of desire for results,
though as acts there is no essential difference between them (the Nitya
and the Kamya) and there is no additional subsidiary part, processes of
performance, etc. (in the kamya-Agnihotra). Therefore, it can never be
established that nitya-karmas have no unseen results. And hence,
enlightenment alone, not the performance of nityakarmas, is the cuase of
the total dissipation of actions done through ignorance, be they good or
bad. For, all actions have for their origin ignorance and desire. Thus has
it been established (in the following passages) that action (rites and
duties) is meant for the ignorant, and steadfastness in Knowledge-after
renunciation of all actions-is meant for the enlightened: 'both of them do
not know' (2.19); 'he who knows this One as indestructible, eternal'
(2.21); 'through the Yoga of Knowledge for the men of realization;
through the Yoga of Action for the yogis' (3.3); 'the ignorant, who are
attached to work' (3.26); 'But...the one who is a knower...does not
become attached, thinking thus: The organs rest on the objects of the
organs' (3.28); 'The embodied man...having given up all actions
mentally, continues' (5.13); 'Remaining absorbed in the Self, the knower
of Reality should think, I certainly do not do anything' (5.8); i.e; the
unenlightened person thinks, 'I do'; 'For (the sage) who wishes to
ascend (to Dhyana-yoga), action is said to be the means...when he has
ascended (when he is established in the Yoga of Meditation), inaction
alone is said to be the means' (6.3); 'noble indeed' are all the three
(classes of) unenlightened persons, 'but the man of Knowledge is the
very Self. (This is) My opinion' (7.18); the unenlightened who perform
their rites and duties, 'who are desirous of pleasures, attain the state of
going and returning' (9.21); 'becoming non-different from Me and
meditative' (9.22) and endowed with steadfast devotion, they worship
(Me) the Self which has been described as comparable to space and
taintless; and 'I grant that possession of wisdom by which they reach
Me' (10.10); i.e., the unenlightened persons who perform rites and duties
'do not reach Me.' Those who perform works for the Lord and who,
though they be the most devout, are ignorant persons performing rites
and duties,-they remain involved in practices which, in a descending
order, culminate in giving up the fruit of actions (cf. 12.6-11). But those
who meditate on the indefinable Immutable take recourse to the
disciplines stated in the passages beginning with 'He who is not hateful
towards any creature' (12.13) and ending with that Chapter, and also
resort to the path of Knowledge presented in the three chapters
beginning with the Chapter on the 'field'. The three results of actions, viz
the undesirable etc. (cf. 12), do not accrue only to the mendicants
belonging to the Order of Paramahamsas (the highest Order of monks)-
who have renounced all actions that originate from the five causes
beginning with the locus (cf. 14), who possess the knowledge of the
oneness and non-agentship of the Self (17,20), who continue in the
supreme steadfastness in Knowledge, who know the real nature of the
Lord, and who have taken refuge in the unity of the real nature of the
Lord with the Self. It does accrue to the others who are not monks, the
ignorant persons who perform rites and duties. Such is this distinction
made in the scripture Gita with regard to what is duty and what is not.
Objection: May it not be argued that it cannot be proved that all actions
are due to ignorance? Reply: No, (it can be proved,) as in the case of
slaying a Brahmin. Although the nityakarmas are known from the
scriptures, still they are meant only for the ignorant. As such an action as
killing a Brahmin, even though known to be a source of evil from the
scripture prohibiting it, is still perpetrated by one who has defects such
as ignorance, passion, etc.-because impulsion to any action is otherwise
not possible-, so also is it with regard to the nitya, naimittika and kamya
actions. Objection: May it not be held that impulsion to nityakarma etc.
is not possible if the Self be not known as a distinct entity? [Unless one
knows the Self to be distinct from the body etc. he will not perform the
nityakarmas etc. meant for results in the other worlds, viz heaven etc.
(Tr.:) In place of vyatiriktatmani, Ast. reads 'deha-vyatiriktatmani, the Self
which is distinct from the body'.] Reply: No, since it is seen that with
regard to actions which are of the nature of motion and are
accomplished by the not-Self, one engages in them with the idea, 'I do.'
[The actionless Self is not the agent of the movements of the body etc.
Still agentship is superimposed on It through ignorance.] Objection: Can
it not be said that the notion of egoism with regard to the aggregate of
body etc. occurs in a figurative sense; it is not false? Reply: No, since its
effects [i.e. the effects of the notion of egoism.] also will become
figurative. Objection: The notion of 'I' with regard to the aggregate of
one's own body etc. occurs in a figurative sense. As with regard to one's
own son it is said (in the Veda), 'It is you yourself who is called the son'
(Sa. Br. 14.9.4.26), and in common parlance also it is said, 'This cow is
my very life', so is the case here. [As the use of the word 'I' with regard
to a son is figurative, so also with regard to the body.] This is certainly
not a false notion. However, a false notion (of identity) occurs in the case
of a stump and a man, when the distinction between them is not evident
(due to darkness). Reply: A figuratively expressed notion cannot lead to
an effect in the real sense, because that (notion) is used for the eulogy of
its basis with the help of a word of comparison which remains
understood. As for instance, such sentences as, 'Devadatta is a lion',
'The boy is a fire'-implying 'like a lion', 'like a fire', on the basis of the
similarity of cruelty, the tawny colour, etc.-are meant only for eulogizing
Devadatta and the boy who are the basis (i.e. the subjects of the two
sentences). But no action of a lion or a fire is accomplished because of
the use of the figurative words or ideas. On the contrary, one
experiences the evil effects of false notions. [Therefore the idea of 'I' with
regard to one's body etc. does not occur in a secondary sense, but it
does so falsely.] And with regard to the subjects of the figurative notions,
one understands, 'This Devadatta cannot be a lion; this boy cannot be a
fire.' Similarly, actions done by the aggregate of body etc., which is the
'Self' in a figurative sense, cannot be held to have been done by the Self
which is the real subject of the notion of 'I'. For, actions done by the
figurative lion or fire cannot be considered to have been accomplished
by the real lion or fire. Nor is any action of the real lion and fire
accomplished through the (figurative) cruelty or tawnyaness; for, their
purpose is fully served by being used for eulogy. And those who are
praised know, 'I am not a lion; I am not fire; and neither is the work of a
lion or fire mine.' So the more ligical notion is, 'The action of the
aggregate (of body etc.) do not belong to me who am the real Self', and
not, 'I am the agent; it is my work.' As for the assertion made by some
that the Self acts through Its own memory, deisre and effort, which are
the causes of activity-that is not so, for they are based on false
knowledge. Memory, desire, effort, etc. indeed follow from the
tendencies born from the experience of the desirable and the
undesirable results of actions (-which actions themselves arise from the
notions of the 'desirable' and the 'undesirable') caused by false
knowledge. [False knowledge gives rise to the ideas of the desirable and
the undesirable. From these arise desire and repulsion. Actions which
follow give rise to the experience of their desirable and undesirable
results. Such experiences create impressions in the mind, from which
are born memory etc.] Just as in this life virtue, vice and the experience
of their results are cuased by the identification (of the Self) with the
aggregate of body etc. and attraction, repulsion, etc., so also was it in
the previous birth, and even in the life preceding that. Thus it can be
inferred that past and future mundane existence is without beginning
and is a product of ignorance. And from this it becomes proved that the
absolute cessation of mundane existence is caused by steadfastness in
Knowledge, accompanied by renunciation of all rites and duties.
Besides, since self-identification with the body is nothing but ignorance,
therefore, when the (ignorance) ceases, there remains so possibility of
re-birth, and so, mundane existence becomes impossible. The
identification of the Self with the aggregate of body etc. is nothing but
ignorance, because in common life it is not seen that anybody who
knows, 'I am different from cattle etc., and the cattle etc. are different
from me', entertains the notion of 'I' with regard to them. However,
mistaken perceiving a stump to be a man, one may out of
indiscrimination entertain the idea of 'I' with regard to the aggregate of
body etc.; not so when perceiving them as distinct. As for that notion of
considering the son to be oneself-as mentioned in, 'It is you yourself
who is called the son' (Sa. Br. 14.9.4.26)-, that is a metaphor based on
the relationship between the begotten and the begetter. And no real
action like eating etc.can be accomplished through something
considered metaphorically as the Self, just as actions of the real lion or
fire (cannot be accomplished) by someone metaphorically thought of to
be a lion or fire. Objection: Since an injunction relating to an unseen
result is valid, therefore, may it not be said that the purposes of the Self
are accomplished by the body and organs which are figuratively
considered to be the Self? Reply: No, since the thinking of them as the
Self is the result of ignorance. The body, organs, etc. are not the Self in
a figurative sense. Objection: How then? Reply: Although the Self is
devoid of relationship, still, by an ascription of relationship (to the Self),
they (body etc.) come to be regarded as the Self, verily through a false
notion. For, this identification (of body etc.) with the Self exists so long as
the false notion is there, and ceases to exist when it is not there. So long
as ignorance lasts, identification of the Self with the aggregate of body
and organs is seen only in the case of non-discriminating, immature,
ignorant poeple who say, 'I am tall', 'I am fair'. But in the case of
discriminating persons who possess the knowledge, 'I am different from
the aggregate of body etc.', there does not arise the idea of egoism with
regard to the body etc. at that time (i.e. simultaneously with that
knowledge). Hence, since it (i.e. identification of the Self with the body
etc.) ceases in the absence of the false notion, therefore it is a creation
of that (false notion), and not a figurative notion. It is only when the
common and the uncommon features of the lion and Devadatta, or of
fire and the boy, are known distinctly, that a figurative notion or verbal
expression can occur; not when the common and the uncommon
features are unknown. As for the argument that (the figurative notion
should be accepted) on the authority of the Vedas, we say, 'No',
because their validity concerns unseen results. The validity of the Vedas
holds good only with regard to matters concerning the relation between
ends and means of Agnihotra etc., which are not known through such
valid means of knowledge as direct perception; but not with regard to
objects of direct perception etc., because the validity of the Vedas lies in
revealing what is beyond direct perception. Therefore it is not possible to
imagine that the idea of egism with regard to the aggregate of body etc.,
arising from an obviously of false knowledge, is a figurative notion.
Surely, even a hundred Vedic texts cannot become valid if they assert
that fire is cold or non-luminous! Should a Vedic text say that fire is cold
or non-luminous, even then one has to assume that the intended
meaning of the text is different, for otherwise (its) validity cannot be
maintained; but one should not assume its meaning in a way that might
contradict some other valid means of knowledge or contradict its own
statement. Objection: May it not be said that since actions are
undertaken by one possessed of a false idea of agentship, therefore,
when the agent ceases to be so ['According to you (the Vedantin), an
ignorant man alone can be an agent. Therefore, when he becomes
illumined, he will cease to be ignorant and consequently the Vedas will
cease to be valid for him.'] the Vedas will become invalid? Reply: No,
since the Vedas become logically meaningful in respect of knowledge of
Brahman. [Though the Vedic injunctions about rituals etc. be inapplicable
in the case of an enlightened person, still they have empirical validity
before enlightenment. Besides, the Vedas have real validity with regard
to the knowledge of Brahman.] Objection: May it not be said that there
arises the contingency of the Vedic texts enjoining knowledge of
Brahman becoming as invalid as those texts enjoining rites and duties?
Reply: No, since there cannot possibly be any notion which can remove
(the knowledge of Brahman). Unlike the manner in which the idea of
egoism with regard to the aggregate of body etc. is removed after the
realization of the Self from hearing the Vedic injunctions regarding the
knowledge of Brahman, the realization of the Self in the Self can never
be removed in any way in that manner by anything whatsoever-just as
the knowledge that fire is hot and luminous is irremovable-, since (Self-)
realization is inseparable from its result (i.e. cessation of ignorance).
Besides, the Vedic texts enjoining rites (and duties) etc. are not invalid,
because they, through the generation of successively newer tendencies
by eliminating the successively preceding tendencies, are meant for
creating the tendency to turn towards the indwelling Self. [The Vedic
injunctions make people up rituals etc. by giving up their earlier worldly
tendencies. Thereby their minds become purified. The purified mind then
aspires to know the indwelling Self. Thus, since the ritualistic injunctions
are meant for making a person turn towards the knowledge ofthe
indwelling Self, they are not invalid.] Although the means be unreal (in
itself), still it may be meaningful in relation to the truth of the purpose it
serves, as are the eulogistic sentences (arthavada) [See note on p. 40.-
Tr.] occuring along with injunctions. Even in the world, when it becomes
necessary to make to child or a lunatic drink milk etc. it is said that it will
help growth of hair [Cuda, lit. hair on the top of the head; or single lock
of hair left on the crown of the head after tonsure. See V.S.A.] etc.!
Before the dawn of Knowledge, the (ritualistic) Vedic texts concerned
with a different situation [The situation obtaining before the dawn of Selfknowledge.]
are also as valid in themselves as are direct perception etc.
occuring due to Self-identification with the body etc. On the other hand,
as for your view 'The Self, though inactive by Itself, acts through Its mere
proximity; and that itself constitutes agentship of the Self in the primary
sense. Just as it is well known that a king, though not himself engaged
in a battle, is, merely by virtue of his being in charge, said to be fighting
when his soldiers are fighting, and that he is victorious or defeated;
similarly, as the commander of an army acts through his mere orders,
and it is seen that the results of the actions accrue to the king or to the
commander; or, just as the actions of the priests are ascribed to the
sacrificer,-in that very manner are the actions done by the body etc.
ought to be of the Self because the result of those actions accrues to
the Self. And, as the agentship of a magnet which, in fact, is not active,
is attributed to it in the primary sense because it causes a piece of iron
to move, similar is the agentship of the Self'-that is wrong, since it will
amunt to an inactive entity becoming an agent. Objection: May not
agentship be of various kinds? Reply: No, for in the case of the 'king'
and others it is seen that they have agentship even in the primary sense.
As for the king, he fights even through his personal engagement. And he
has agentship in the primary sense by virtue of making (his) warriors
fight, distributing wealth, and also reaping the fruits of victory or defeat.
Similarly, the agentship of a sacrificer is primary by virtue of his offering
the main oblation and giving gifts due to the priests. Therefore it is
understood that the agentship which is attributed to an inactive entity is
figurative. If primary agentship consisting in their personal engagement
is not perceived in the case of the king, a sacrificer and others, then it
could be assumed that they have primary agentship owing to the mere
fact of their presence, just as a magnet has by virtue of making the iron
move. But in the case of the king and others it is not perceived that they
have no personal engagement in that way. Therefore, even the agentship
owing to mere presence is a figurative one. And if that be so, the
connection with the result of such agentship will also be figurative. No
action in the primary sense is performed by an agent figuratively thought
to be so. Hence the assertion is certainly wrong that owing to the
activities of the body etc. the actionless Self becomes an agent and
experiencer. But everything becomes possible due to error. This is just
as it happens in dream or in jugglery! Besides, in deep sleep, absorption
in Brahman, etc. where the current of the mistaken idea of Self-identity
with the body etc. ceases, evils like agentship, enjoyership, etc. are not
perceived. Therefore this delusion of mundane existence is surely due to
false knowledge; but it is not reality. Consequently, it is established that
it ceases absolutely as a result of full enlightenment. Having summed up
in this chapter the import of the whole of the scripture Gita, and having
again summarized it specially here at the end (in verse 66) for the sake of
emphasizing the purport of the Scripture, now after that, the Lord states
the rules for handing down the Scripture:
18.67 Idam, this Scripture; which has been taught by Me te, to you, for
your good, for terminating mundane existence; an vacyam, should not
be taught (-na is connected with the remote word vacyam-); atapaskaya,
to one who is devoid of austerities. It should kadacana, never, under any
condition whatsoever; be taught abhaktaya, to one who is not a
devotee, who is devoid of devotion to his teacher and God, even if he be
a man of austerity. Neither should it be taught even asurusave, to one
who does not redner service-even though he may be a devotee and a
man of austerity. Na ca, nor as well; to him yah, who; abhyasuyati,
cavils; mam, at Me, at Vasudeva-thinking that I am an ordinary person;
to him who, not knowing My Godhood, imputes self-adulation etc. to Me
and cannot tolerate Me. He too is unfit; to him also it should not be
imparted. From the force of the context it is understood that the
Scripture should be taught to one who has devotion to the Lord, is
austere, renders service, and does not cavil. As to that, since it is seen
(in a Smrti)-'to one who is intelligent or to one who is austere'-that there
is an option between the two, it follows that this should be imparted
either to an austere person given to service and devotion, or to an
intelligent person endowed with them. It should not be imparted to an
austere or even an intelligent person if he lacks service and devotion. It
should not be taught to one who cavils at the Lord, even though he be
possessed of all the good qualities. And it should be taught to one
whoserves his teacher and is devout. This is the rule for transmitting the
Scripture. Now the Lord states the fruit derived by one who transmits
the Scripture:
18.68 Yah, he who; abhi-dhasyati, will speak of, i.e., will present with
the help of the text and its meaning, as I have done to you; imam, this;
paramam, highest-that which has Liberation as its purpose; guhyam,
secret, as spoken of above-(i.e.) the text in the form of a conversation
between Kesava and Arjuna; madbhaktesu, to My devotees-. How will
present? This is being stated: Krtva, entertaining; param, supreme;
bhaktim, devotion; mayi, to Me, i.e., entertainting an idea thus-'A service
is being rendered by me to the Lord who is the supreme Teacher'-. Tho
him comes this result: esyati, he will reach; mam, Me; eva, alone. He is
certainly freed. No doubt should be entertained in this regard. By the
repetition of (the word) bhakti (devotion) [In the word madbhaktesu.], it is
understood that one becomes fit for being taught (this) Scripture by
virtue of devotion alone to Him. Besides,
18.69 Ca, and; tasmat, as compared with him, with the one who hands
down the Scripture; na kascit, none else; manusyesu, among human
beings; is priya-krt-tamah, the best accomplisher of what is dear; me, to
Me, i.e., among the present human beings, surely none else other than
him exists who is a better accomplisher of what I cherish. Moreover, na
bhavita, nor will there be in future; anyah, anyone else, a second person;
bhuvi, in he world, here; priyatarah, dearer; tasmat, than him. [It may be
argued that, since for a seeker of Liberation meditation is the best
means for It, therefore he will have no inclination to transmit scriptural
teachings. To this the Lord's answer is: One longing for Liberation has a
duty to impart this scriptural teaching to one possessing the aforesaid
qualities.]
18.70 Ca, and; even he yah, who; adhyesyate, will study; imam, this;
samvadam, conversation, the text in the form of a dialogue; between
avayoh, us two; which is dharmyam, conducive to virtue, not divorced
from virtue; tena, by him; this will be accomplished through that study;
aham, I; syam, shall be; istah, adored; jnana-yajnena, through the
Sacrifice in the form of Knowledge. Iti, this is me, My; matih, judgement.
As compared with the various sacrifices, viz rituals, loud prayer, prayer
uttered in a low voice and mental prayer, the Sacrifice in the from of
Knowledge is the best [See 4.33.] because it is mental. Hence, the study
of the scripture Gita is praised as that Sacrifice in the form of
Knowledge. Or, this (verse) may merely be a judgement about the result.
The idea is that the result of the study is comparable to the result of the
Sacrifice in the form of the knowledge of gods and others. Now, this is
the reward for the hearer:
18.71 Yah narah, any man who; being sraddhavan, reverential; and
anasuyah, free from cavilling; srnuyat api, might even hear this text-the
word even suggests that one who knows the meaning (of the Scripture)
hardly needs to be mentioned-; sah api, he too; becoming muktah, free
from sin; prapnuyat, shall attain; subhan, the blessed, auspicious; lokan,
worlds; punya-karmanam, of those who perform virtuous deeds, of
those who perform rites like Agnihotra etc. In order to ascertaini
whether or not the disciple has comprehended the meaning of the
Scripture, the Lord asks (the following question), the intention of the
questioner beings, 'If it is known that it has not been comprehended, I
shall again make him grasp it through other means.' Hereby is shown
the duty of the teacher that a student should be made to achieve his
goal by taking the help of a different method.
18.72 O Partha, kaccit etat, has this that has been said by Me; been
srutam, listened to, grasped through hearing; ekagrena, with a nonepointed;
cetasa, mind? Or have you been inattentive? O Dhananjaya,
kaccit, has; te, your; ajnana-sammohah, delusion caused by ignorance,
bewilderment, natural indiscrimination; been pranastah, destroyed, for
which purpose has there been this effort on your part for hearing the
Scripture, and on My part, the effort of being a teacher?
18.73 O Acyuta, (my) mohah, born of ignorance and the cause of all evil
in the form of mundane existence, and difficult to cross like an ocean;l
nastah has been destroyed. And smrtih, memory, regarding the reality of
the Self-on the acquisition of which follows the loosening of all the
bonds; labdha, has been regained, tvat-prasadat, through Your grace
maya, by me, who am dependent on Your grace. By this question about
the destruction of delusion and the answer to it, it becomes conclusively
revealed that the fruit derived from understanding the import of the entire
Scripture is this much alone-which is the destruction of delusion arising
from ignorance and the regaining of the memory about the Self. And
similarly, in the Upanisadic text beginning with 'I grieve because I am not
a knower of the Self' (Ch. 7.1.3), it is shown that all bonds become
destroyed when the Self is realized. There are also the words of the
Upanisadic verses, 'The knot of the heart gets untied' (Mu. 2.2.8); 'at
that time (or to that Self) what delusion and what sorrow can there be for
that seer of oneness?' (Is.7). Now then, sthitah, asmi, I stand under
Your command; gata-sandehah, with (my) doubts removed. Karisye, I
shall follow; tava, Your; vacanam, instruction. By Your grace I have
achieved the goal of life. The idea is, there is no duty, as such, for me.
The teaching of the Scripture is concluded. There-after, now in order to
show the connection (of this) with the (main) narrative-.
18.74 Aham, I; iti, thus; asrausam, heard; imam, this; samvadam,
conversation, as has been narrated; vasudevasya, of Vasudeva; and
mahatmanah, parthasya, of the great-soulded Partha; which is
adbhutam, unique, extremely wonderful; and roma-harsanam, makes
one's hair stand on end.
18.75 And vyasa-prasadat, through the favour of Vyasa, by having
received divine vision from him; aham, I; srutvan, heard; etat [The
Commentator uses etam in the masculine gender, in place of etat in the
text, because it refers to the masculine word samvada.] (should rather be
etam), this; guhyam, secret dialogue, such as it is; concerning the
param, supreme; Yogam, Yoga-or, this dialogue itself is the Yoga
because it is meant for it-; krsnat, from Krsna; yogeswarat, from the
Lord of yogas; kathayatah, while He was speaking; svayam, Himself;
saksat, actually; not indirectly through others.
18.76 And, rajan, O king, Dhrtarastra; after having heard, samsmrtya
samsmrtya, while repeatedly remembering; imam, this; adbhuttam,
unique; samvadam, dialogue; kesava-arjunayoh, between Kesava and
Arjuna; which is punyam, sacred, removes sin even when heard;
hrsyami, I rejoice; muhuh, muhuh, every moment.
18.77 And, rajan, O King; samsmrtya samsmrtya, repeatedly
recollecting; tat, that; ati-adbhutam, greatly extraordinary; rupam, form,
the Cosmic form; hareh, of Hari; mahan vismayah me, I am struck with
great wonder. And hrsyami, I rejoice; punah punah, again and again.
18.78 To be brief, yatra, where, the side on which; there is Krsna,
yogeswarah, the Lord of yogas-who is the Lord of all the yogas and the
source of all the yogas, since they originate from Him; and yatra, where,
the side on which; there is Partha, dhanurdharah, the wielder of the bow,
of the bow called Gandiva; tatra, there, on that side of the Pandavas; are
srih, fortune; vijayah, victory; and there itself is bhutih, prosperity, great
abundance of fortune; and dhruva, unfailing; nitih, prudence. Such is me,
my ; matih, conviction.