SHANKARA’S BHAGAVAD GITA COMMENTARY

Chapter 2

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, well-wishers (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 (Sankhyabuddhi), 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 Yogabuddhi. 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 Self-realization (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 nonrealization 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-nase-apyevam, 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 nondiscrimination, 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, never; 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 forever. 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-karana-sanghata, 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 avyaktanidhanani, 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; karma-bandham, 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 knowledge.

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. nondiscriminating; 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 janmakarma-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. nondiscriminating; 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 janmakarma-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 apahrta-cetasam, 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 niryogaksemah, 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, selfcollected, 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 nondiscrimination, 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 Selfknowledge. When discrimination referred to above gets matured, then the fruitlessness of all things other than Selfknowledge 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 srutivi-pratipanna, 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 vidvatsannyasin, 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-bhaya-krodhah, 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; indriyaarthebhyah, 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) buddhi-nasah, 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) buddhi-nasah, 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 to be 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-dvesaviyuktaih, that are free from those attraction and repulsion; and are atma-vasyaih, under his own control; vidheyaatma, [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 non-forbidden 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 self-revealing, 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 nirahankarah, 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 Brahman-hood 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!

CHAPTER 3

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 realization-those 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 karma-yogena, 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 actions-by 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 mighty-armed 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; samadhi-gacchati, 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 gunassattva (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 Karma-yoga 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; karmaindriyani, the organs of action-hands etc.; aste, sits; manasa, mentally; smaran, recollecting, thinking; indriyaarthan, the objects of the senses; sah, that one; vimudhaatma, 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; karma-indriyaih, 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 non-performance (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; karma-bandhanah, 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; saha-yajnah, 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 heavenwhich 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. Annasambhavah, 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 sarva-gatam, 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 indriya-aramah, 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 atma-trptah, 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 non-performance! 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 selfdestruction. 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; lokasangraham, [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; buddhi-bhedam, disturbance in the beliefsdisturbance 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; karma-sanginam, 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 self-identification 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-karma-vibhagayoh, 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; adhyatma-cetasa, 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 teachingthis 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; sarvajnana-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 manner-attraction 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, well-performed, 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 (Bhaga-van) 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 Bhaga-van. ‘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 sense-organs: 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 mighty-armed one, jahi, vanquish; this satrum, enemy; kama-rupam, in the form of desire; which is durasadam, difficult to subduewhich can be got hold of with great difficulty, it being possessed of many inscrutable characteristics.

CHAPTER 4

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 result-called 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 parampara-praptam, 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; jnanatapasa, 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); gunakarma-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 Selfknowledge, then (undertake actions) for self-purification; 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 nonengagement 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 Selfwell-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 nityakarmas, 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 non-performance 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 nonentity, 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 nonperformance (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 phalaasangam, 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-citta-atma, 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-. Dvandva-atitah,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, totallysaha (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 nonexistence 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, brahma-havih, 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-karmasamadhina, by him who has concentration on Brahman as the objective: Brahman Itself is the objective (karma); he who has concentration (samadhi) on That is brahmakarma-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. 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 subjectmatter. 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. Brahmaagnau, 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; indriya-karmani, the activities of the organs; and also the prana-karmani, activities of the vital forceprana 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 (atmasamyama); 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-jnanayajnah, 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.]-; pranaapana-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-ksapita-kamasah, 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 Vedas- as 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 die-faces) 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 yogathe 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.

CHAPTER 5

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 karma-anusthana (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, Selfinquiry.] (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 ‘Karmayoga’, 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, ‘Karmayoga 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 sarvabhutatma-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); 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 objects-such 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, Nature - one’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 nondiscriminating 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, non-association 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 jnananirdhuta-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; vidyavinayasampanne, endowed with learning and humilityvidya 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 self-identification 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 steadythe 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 ‘horsa-visadau kurvate, cause happiness and sorrow’ in place of ‘harsa-visada-sthane, 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 Brahman -

5.21 Asakta-atma, with his heart, internal organ, unattached, bahya-sparsesu, to external objects-sparsah means objects that are contacted, viz sound etc.; bahyasparsah 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-yukta-atma, 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 brahma-yoga-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 adiantavantah, 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, antarjyotih 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 Brahman-gets 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 Karma-yoga, 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; yataindriya-mano-buddhih, who has control over his organs, mind and intellect; should be moksa-para-yanah, 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; yataindriya-mano-buddhih, who has control over his organs, mind and intellect; should be moksa-para-yanah, 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; sarva-bhutanam, 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.

CHAPTER 6

6.1 Anasritah, without depending on; -on what? - on that which is karma-phalam, 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 actionwhich 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 Karma-yoga 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 Karmayoga 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 Dhyana-yoga; -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 selfcontrolled 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, sarva-sankalpa-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; mana-apamanayoh 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-trptaatma-; 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-asmakancanah, 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:

6.11-12 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-ajinakusa-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, one-pointed,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:

6.13-14 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; adhigacchati, 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 sorrow-that which destroys (hanti) all sorrows (duhkhani)-, i.e., Yoga destroys all worldly sorrows; yuktaahara-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 yukta-ahara-vihara-; and also yukta-cestasya, of one whose effort (cesta) is moderate (yukta); karmasu, in works; similarly, yuktasvapna-avabodhasya, 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; yoga-sevaya, 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 25^th, 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 Self-attainment; 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-samyogaviyogam, 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,

6.24-25 Tyaktva, by eschewing; asesatah, totally, without a trace; sarvan, all; the kamam, desires; sankalpaprabhavan, 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; atma-samstham, 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. This is 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; vigatakalmasah, 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 brahmasamsparsam, 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 Selfabsorbed 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 sarvabhutani, 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 visionof 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; atmaaupamyena, 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 detachmentvairagya 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-samsiddhim, 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, calita-manasah, 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 chinnaabhram, 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; punyakrtam, of the righteous, of the performers of the Horsesacrifice, 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. Because,

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-janma-samsiddhah, 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 actionkarma 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.’]

CHAPTER 7

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; powermental; 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 to 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; Jiva-bhutam, 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; sarva-vedesu, 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; sarva-bhutesu, 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 dharmaaviruddhah, 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) tamas -whatever 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, 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. 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 nara-adhamah, the most depraved among men; who are also apa-hrta-jnanah, 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 eka-bhaktih, 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 others-are 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; anyadevatah, 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 yogamaya-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 yogamaya; 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, therefore-

7.26 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 icchadvesau; anything arising from them is icchadvesasamutthah. (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; punya-karmanam, 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; dvandva-moha-nirmuktah, being free from the delusion of duality as described; and drdhavratah, firm in their convictions-those who [Here Ast. adds, ‘sarva-parityagavratena, 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-marana-moksaya, 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-bhutaadhidaivam, as existing in the physical and the divine planes; ca, and also; sa-adhiyajnam, as existing in the context of the sacrifice; te, they; yukta-cetasah, 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.]

CHAPTER 8

8.1-2 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 karmasanjnitah, 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 tadbhava-bhavitah. 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; abhyasayogayuktena, 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, eyebrows, 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, immutablethat 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 ekaadsaram, 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 ananya-cetah, 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-yugaparyantam, 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; ahoratra-vidah, 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; avyaktasanjnake, 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 spite of itself, [For they are impelled by their own defects] without any independence whatever; ratriagame, at the approach of night, at the close of the day. Prabhavati, it comes to life, verily in spite of itself; aharagame, 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 productsfor 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 light-having 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.

CHAPTER 9

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 itselfwhat is that?-(it is) guhyatamam, the highest secret; and is jnanam, Knowledge, complete Knowledge-nothing 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 anything -

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 subjectmatter [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] akasasthitah, 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 the 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 Deity-who 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 mahatmanah, 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, nature-distinguished by mental and physical control, kindness, faith, etc.; tu, surely; bhajante, adore; mam, Me, God; ananya-manasah, with single-mindedness; 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, knowablethat 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, trai-vidyah, 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;; deva-bhogan, 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, all-pervading, 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 pure-hearted 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.] yadasnasi, whatever you eat; and yat-juhosi, 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 sannyasayoga-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.

CHAPTER 10

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 sinscommitted knowingly or unknowingly. ‘For the following reason also I am the great Lord of the worlds:’

10.4-5 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, non-injury-noncruely 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, fame-renown 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, Dharma-savarini, 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 nonmoving; loke in the world, are the creation; madbhavah, had their thoughts fixed on Me-they 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; bhava-samanvitah, 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 Omnipresent-capable 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 Omnipresent-capable 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; atmavibhutayah, 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. Sastrabhrtam, 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 openmindedness, 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 (Nigrahasthana). 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 nonmoving; 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 nonentity. 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 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 imcompletely-in 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 tattvamasi) 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.]

CHAPTER 11

11.1 Ayam, this; mohah, 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 Selfdealing 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; bhava-apyayau, 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 isnot 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 nanavidhani, 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; maha-yogeswarah, 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 divyaaneka-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-gandha-anulepanam, 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-udaravaktra-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, repository-where 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 everexisting (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 Sadhyasthe 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; bahubahu-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; anekavarnam, with many colours, (i.e.) possessed of many frightening forms; vyatta-ananam, open-mouthed; diptavisala-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-anala-sannibhani, 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; avanipala-sanghaih, 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; abhivijvalanti, 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 whole- together (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 [atiratha- one who could fight innumerable archers], 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; bhitabhitah, 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 adikarte, 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 nonbeing -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; and pra-pitamahah, 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-virya-amita-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; tvat-samah, 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, allcomprehensive; anantam, infinite, limitless; adyam, primeval-that which existed in the beginning; rupam, form, the Cosmic form; yat which form; me, of Mine; na drstapurvam, 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 formpossessing 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-karmakrt, works for Me: work for Me is mat-karma; one who does it is mat-karma-krt-. Mat-paramah, 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.

CHAPTER 12

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 others -

12.2 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, incomprehensiblebecuase 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 evenminded 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 mrtyu-samsara. 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-karmaparamah, 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 bhagavata-dharma, 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 [Practicerepeated 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 Karmayoga 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 sorrow-stricken 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; arpitamano-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-arambhaparityagi, who has renounced every undertaking-works 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; yenakenacit, 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; matparamah, 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.]

CHAPTER 13

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; ksetra-ksetrajnayoh, 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 well-known 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 nonperception. For it disappears with the dawn of discrimination. And the three kind of ignorance, viz nonperception 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 the 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 nonperception, 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 one-that 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. Yat-probhavah 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; indriyagacarah, 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; atmavinigrahah, 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; indriya-arthesu, 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-jaravyadhi-duhkha-dosa-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 fondnessabhisvangah, 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-daragrhadisu, 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; samacittatvam, 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-desasevitvam, 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 viviktadesa- 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; janasamadi, 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 this -what 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. Truly, the redundance could be avoided in this way if that meaning 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 nonbeing.’ 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”.’ Counter objection: 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 nonbeing? 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 super-sensuous, 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 nonbeing. As for your objection that it is contradictory to say, ‘It is the Knowable, but it is neither called being nor nonbeing,’-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 eastward’ (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 [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 the 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 sarvatoksisiro-mukham. 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-indriya-varitam, 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, 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 guna-bhoktr, 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 moving-even 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; mad-bhavaya, 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 qualities-manifest 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, ‘Self-identification 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 well-known fact that knowledge and dispassion, accompanied with renunciation, are the causes of removing this (ignorance and self-identification 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 witnesses 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 intellect-in 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; srutiparayanah, 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 field-which 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 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 well known 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 Thatwhen 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; sarirasthah, 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.

CHAPTER 14

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, supreme-it 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 herewhen 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 great-sustainer; 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 jnana-sangena, 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; sarvadehinam, 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 effects-knowledge, 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; karmasangisu, 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 rajasfor 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 pramada-mohau, 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 beyondeven 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-asmakancanah, 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; tulyaninda-atma-samstutih, to whom, to which monk, censure and his own praise are the same-.

14.25 Further, tulyah, he who is the same, unperturbed; mana-apamanayoh, 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 nondifferent. 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.

CHAPTER 15

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 brahmavanam 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 adhahsakham, 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 sense-objects (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; karmaanubandhini, 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; suvirudhamulam, 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 turning 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, Primeval-existing 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-duhkha-sanjnaih, 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; jivaloke, 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 objects-sound 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 guna-anvitam, 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, jnanacaksusah, 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 understanding 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 nondiscriminating 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 allpervasiveness 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 nonmoving? 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 nonmoving beings.’ Moreover, pusnami, I nourish, I make healthy and full of the sweet flavour of juices; sarvah, all; osadhih, the plants-paddy, 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; prana-apana-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, mutableone 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 sarva-vit, 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!

CHAPTER 16

16.1 Abhayam, fearlessness; sattva-samsuddhih, purtiy of the mind (sattva), mentally avoiding fraud, trickery, falsehood, etc. in dealings, i.e., honest behaviour; jnanayoga-vyavasthitih, persistence in knowledge and yogajnana 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 Karma-yoga 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 vilification-paisunam 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; naatimanita, absence of haughtiness-too much self-esteem (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) bhutasargau, 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; dambhamana-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, cares -worries that defy estimation of their limits!, i.e., constantly burdened with cares; pralayantam, which end (only) with death; kama-upabhoga-paramah, holding that the enjoyment of desirable objects is the highest goalkama 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; asa-pasa-sataih, by hundreds of shackles in the from of hope-the hopes themselves are the shackles; by hundreds of these; kama-krodha-parayanah, giving themselves wholly to passion and anger, having passion and anger as their highest resort; ihante, they endeavour; artha-sancayan, to amass wealth; anyayena, through foul means, i.e. by stealing others’ wealth, etc.; kama-bhogaartham, 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 nondiscrimination, subject to various indiscrimination.

16.16 Aneka-citta-vibhrantah, bewildered by numerous thoughts, confounded variously by thoughts of the kind stated above; moha-jala-samavrtah, 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-manamada-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, nondiscriminating 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; kama-karatah, 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, Goal-heaven or Liberation.

16.24 Tasmat, therefore; sastram, the scripure; is te, your; pramanam, authority, the means of knowledge; karyaakarya-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.

CHAPTER 17

17.1 Tu, but; of Krsna, ka, what; is the nistha, state; tesam, of those -whosoever 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-Saptamatrkas (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-ahankarasamyuktah, given to ostentation and pride; and kama-ragabala-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; asura-niscayan, 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-pritivivardhanah, 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 sattvika-priyah, dear to one endowed with sattva.

17.9 Foods that are katu-amla-lavana-atyusna-tiksnaruksa-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 selfcontrolled;- 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; satkara-mana-pujartham, for earning a name, being honoured and worshipped-for 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, undertaken; mudha-grahena, with a foolish intent, with a conviction arising out of non-discriminating; 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; prati-upakara-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 properasatkrtam, 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; brahma-vadinam, 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, yajna-tapah-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 sadhubhave, 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.]

CHAPTER 18

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 actions- the 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 selfcontrol) 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 resultswith 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 sattva-samavistah, 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 Karmayoga 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 self-indentification 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; karmaphala- 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 stated-for 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 Vedanta-sankhya 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-vanmanobhih, 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; gunasankhyane, 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 hends-since knowledge cannot be an agent of action, therefore the meaning implied is, ‘that, knowledge...through which one apprehends...’-; nana-bhavan, 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, ‘sahankarena 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 loss 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, prowessone’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 under-taken-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; karmaphala-prepsuh, 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?-manah-pranaindriya-kriyah, the functions of the mind, vital forces and organs-restrains 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-kamaarthan, righteousness, covetable things and wealthentertains 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 upindeed,

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-buddhiprasadajam, 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-indriyasamyogat, 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 nidraalasya-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.; prakrtijaih, 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 krsigauraksyavanijyam, 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), nonmateial (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 non-existent 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 (anyonyaabhava)’ 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 the last 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 Self-realization.] 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 misconceived 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 self-evident, 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 self evident, 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 self-revealing, 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 one-pointed 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; ahankaram, 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; brahma-bhuyaya, 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 non-attachment.] 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. Therefore 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 steadfastness 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; sarvakarmani, 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; mat-prasadat, 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-; buddhiyogam, 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 causes of transmigration which are difficult to overcome; matprasadat, 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 in the form of snake 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 Agnihotrasacrifice, 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 logical 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, desire 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 rebirth, 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 people 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) 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 Self-knowledge.] 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 asusrusave, to one who does not render 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 none-pointed; 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.

ABHINAVAGUPTA’S BHAGAVAD GITA COMMENTARY

CHAPTER 1

1.1 Dharmaksetre etc. Here some [authors] offer a different explanation as:-Kuruksetra: the man’s body is the ksetra i.e., the facilitator, of the Kurus, i.e., the sense organs. The same is the field of all wordly duties, since it is the cuse of their birth; which is also the field of the righteous act that has been described as: ‘This is the highest righteous act viz., to realise the Self by means of the Yogas’; and which is the protector [of the embodied Self] by achieving emancipation [by means of this], through the destruction of all duties. It is the location where there is the confrontation among all ksatras, the murderous ones because the root ksad means ‘to kill’ - viz, passion and asceticism, wrath and forbearance, and others that stand in the mutual relationship of the slayer and the slain. Those that exist in it are the mamakas, -i.e., the intentions that are worthy of man of ignorance and are the products of ignorance-and those that are born of Pandu: i.e., the intentions, of which the soul is the very knowledge itself and which are worthy of persons of pure knowledge. What did they do? In other words, which were vanquished by what? Mamaka: a man of ignorance as he utters [always] ‘mine’. Pandu: the pure one.

1.2 -- 1.9 Why this exhaustive counting? The reality of things is this:

1.10 Aparyaptam etc. For us, for Pandava army guarded by Bhimasena is unlimited, i.e., it is not possible to vanquish; or it is not sufficient, i.e., very insignificant when compared with our army. This is the meaning. On the other hand, for these Pandavas, this army guarded by Bhisma, belonging to us, is limited i.e., it is possible to vanquish; or it is sufficient i.e., too much; in other words it is not possible to be vanquished in the war by these (Pandavas).

1.11 Ayanesu etc. Paths: rows.

1.30 1.34 Na ca sreyah, etc., upto mahikrte. Those who are wrongly conceived as object of slaying, with the individualizing idea that ‘these are my teachers etc.’8 would necessarily generate sin. Similarly, the act of slaying even of those deserving to be slain in the battle-if undertaken with the idea that ‘This battle is to be fought for the apparent results like pleasures, happiness etc.’- then it generates sin necessarily. This idea lurks in the objection [of Arjuna]. That is why a reply is going to be given [by Bhagavat] as ‘You must undertake actions simply as your own duty, and not with an individualizing idea’.

1.35 1.44 Nihatya etc. upto anususruma. Sin alone is the agent in the act of slaying these desperadoes. Therefore here the idea is this: These enemies of ours have been slain, i.e., have been take possession of, by sin. Sin would come to us also after slaying them. Sin in this context is the disregard, on account of greed etc., to the injurious consequences like the ruination of the family and the like. That is why Arjuna makes a specific mention of the [ruin of the] family etc., and of its duties in the passage ‘How by slaying my own kinsmen etc’. The act of slaying, undertaken with an individualizing idea about its result, and with a particularizing idea about the person to be slain, is a great sin. To say this very thing precisely and to indicate the intensity of his own agony, Arjuna says only to himself

1.45 Aho bata etc. We denotes one and all who were divided [into the opposite campus] by the division among the Kauravas and the Pandavas. When every one is indiscriminate, what act is proper for me, while I am endowed with the faculty to discriminate? Of course, it is proper to turn back from the battle. Yet, says [Arjuna], what is much more proper is this.

CHAPTER 2

2.2 Kutah etc. To commence with, the Bhagavat exhorts Arjuna just by following the worldly (common) practice; but, in due course, He will impart knowledge. Hence He says ‘practised by men of low birth’. Uttering words of rebuke such as ‘unmanliness’ etc., the Bhagavat causes [Arjuna] to know that he misconceives demerit as meritorious:

2.4-6 Katham etc. upto Dhartarastrah. By the portion Bhisma and Drona in war’ etc., and by the portion ‘I would [not] enjoy the objects of pleasure’, the Sage indicates that in Arjuna’s objection, the intention for a particular act and the intention for a particular result are the points deserving rejection. By the portion ‘We do not know this’ etc., he speaks of the intention for a particular action. For, without intention no action is possible. Certainly one does not proceed on a war with an intention of getting defeated. ‘[In the present war] even our victory would be surely our misfortune.’ This he says by the portion ‘It is good even to go about begging without killing the elders’. It is also impossible to conclude ‘Whether we desire victory or defeat’; for even in the case of our victory our relatives would perish totally.’

2.7-10 Karpanya-etc. upto vacah. By the portion ‘in between the two armies’ etc., [the Sage] indicates this: Being possessed by doubt, Arjuna had not abstained from the war totally; for, he says thus: ‘Please teach me, who am taking refuge in you’. Therefore while he still remains just in between both knowledge and ignorance, he is taught by the glorious Bhagavat.

2.11 Asocyan etc. You lament for the body that cannot be lamented over, because it is of incessantly perishing nature; and also for the Soul that does not require to be lamented. No one, either of departed life, i.e., the dead, or of non-departed life, i.e., the living, is to be mourned for. As for instance, the Soul is ever non-perishing. What sort of lamentability can be for It, as It is pleasantly travelling in different bodies? Nor is it right to say that Its lamentability is due only to Its travel in another body. For, in that case, It should be lamented for, even when the stage of youth etc., is attained. In this manner, the two ideas [the Lord] relates:

2.12-13 Na hi etc. Dehinah etc Never indeed did I not exist, but I did exist [always]. Likewise are you and these kings. If there can be lamentability for one, on attaining change in physical form then why is one not lamented over when one attains the youth from the boyhood? He, who is wise, does not lament. But, wisdom is easily attainable for him whose concern is not even for this [present] body. Therefore you must seek wisdom.

2.14 Matra etc. But the unwise lament even over those passing situations of cold and heat, pleasure and pain that are created by those touches i.e., the contacts of the sense-objects-referable with the term matra - with the Soul through the door of the sense-organs; but the wise do not do so. Thus says [the Lord]. Or, the passage may be interpreted as: The touches (contacts) of these objects are with the matras, i.e., with the sense-organs, and not directly with the Supreme Self, Coming: birth. Going: destruction, Those situations that have these two you must forbear i.e., put up with.

2.15 But, because all these different situations are of the nature of coming and going, on that account itself are they not to be lamented on? It is not so. As for instance: What is this which is termed ‘coming’? If it is ‘birth’, what is that ‘birth’ itself? It is wrong to say that is the same as gaining the self by what is non-existent. For, to be of the nature of non-existence, is indeed to be devoid of every inherent nature and to be devoid of the very self. If a thing is devoid of the self and devoid of every nature, how is it possible to convert it into what has an intrinsic nature? Surely, it is impossible to convert the non-blue into blue. For, it is faulty and undesirable to covert the non-blue into blue. For, it is faulty and undesirable to conclude that a thing with certain in nature changes to be of a different nature. Hence the scripture goes - ‘The intrinsic nature of beings would not cease to exist, e.g., the heat of the sun’. On the other hand, if the ‘birth’ signifies the gaining of self just by what [really] exists, even then, why the lamentability on its coming? For, what has gained a self, could never be non-existent and consequently it would be eternal. Likewise, is the act of ‘going’ also meant for the existent or the non-existent? What is non-existent is just non-existent [forever.] How can there be a non-existence-nature even in the case of that which is of the existence-nature? If it is said that it is of the non-existence-nature in the second moment; [since its birth], then it should be so even in the first moment; and so nothing would be existent. For, the intrinsic nature [ever] remains unabandoned. But is it not that the destruction of it (i.e., of a given thing, like a pot) is brought about by the stroke of a hammer etc.? Yet, if that destruction is altogether different [from the existent one i.e. the pot], then what does it matter for what is existent? But, it is not be seen [at that time]? Yet, what is actually existent (pot) may not be seen just as when it is covered with a cloth; but it has not turned to be altogether different. In fact, it has been said [in the scriptures] that this is not different [from the existent]. Summarising all these, [the Lord] says -

2.16 Nasatah etc. And then, also following the common worldly practice [the Lord] says this: There is no [real] existence for what is non-existent i.e., the body [etc.], that is continuously perishing; for it is changing incessantly by stages. Again, never there is destruction for the ever existing Supreme Self, because of Its unchanging nature. So says the Veda too: ‘Lo! This Soul is of unchanging nature and [hence] is destructionless’ (the Br. U, IV, v. 14). Of These two: of what is existent and what is nonexistent. Finality: the point of boundary where they come to an end. But is this permanent or transient which is perceived by persons who are prone to see the truth? Having raised this doubt, [the Lord] says:

2.17 Avinasi etc [Here] tu is in the sense of ca ‘and’. So, ‘and’ the Soul is not of perishing nature.

2.18 Antavantah etc. The bodies, at the time of their attaining the unobservable stage, meet their apparent destruction. This would be impossible if they do not suffer the peculiar destruction, that it to say they undergo changes every moment. For, it has been said- ‘By observing the dilapidated condition of beings at their last moment, the loss of newness is very moment is inferred’ The same has been said by the Sage (Vyasa) also as- ‘In every being, in every moment, there is mutual difference between its tiny parts that have different purposes. But on account of its subtlety, it is not clearly comprehended (MB, Santi., Moksa. Ch. 308, verse 121). [In the above passage] having different purposes amounts to say ‘because they perform different acts having their own respective special purposes. Now, the bodies have their end and are ever changing. On the other hand, the Self is destructionless, because It is incomprehensible. Changing nature belongs only to the insentient thing which is comprehensible, but not to what is non-insentient and is exclusively consciousness in nature. Because, it is not possible [for one] to gain an altogether different nature. Thus, the bodies meet permanently their end and hence they cannot be lamented for; the Self ever remains without destruction (or without changing) and hence need not be lamented for. Thus a single krtya-suffix has been employed on both the senses simultaneously by the sage in the expression asocyan.

2.19 Ya enam etc. Whosoever views This i.e., the Self and the body, to be the slayer and the slain, ignorance is in him. That is why he is in bondage. The same [point the Lord] clarifies -

2.20 Na jayate etc. Having not been at one time, This etc.: this Self will come to be, having not been at any time non-existent, but only having been existent. Therefore This is not born, This does not die too. For, having been [at one time], This will never be non-existent [at another time]; but certainly This will be [always] existent.

2.21 Veda etc. Whosoever, because of his realisation, understands this Self as ‘This neither slays [any one], nor is This slain [by any one] - how could there be any bondage for him?

2.22 Vasamsi etc. just as a well - dressed person, on the destruction of his garment, gets himself dressed in another more suitable garment, and he does not perish on that account, in the same way the Self, dressed with different bodies [behaves].

2.23-25 Nainam etc. upto arhasi. The weapons etc., that cause destruction, hardly do anything to This. For, being, by nature, exclusively pure Consciousness, remaining without support, having no component parts and being independent, this cannot be destroyed through the process of either assumption of an altogether different nature, or the destruction of the support, or the mutual separation of the component parts, or the rise of an opponent, and so on. Nor the act to going to another body is a new thing for This. For, even when This is [apparently] with a single body, This travels always to different body; for the body does not remain the same even for a moment. By understanding this Self to be as such, you should not lament This.

2.26 Atha va etc. On the other hand if you deem ‘This’ to be the body and to be born constantly, -because its stream does not stop-even then, there is no necessity to lament. Or, if, following the [Vainasika Buddhists’?] doctrine of continuous decay of things, you deem This to be constantly dying, even then where is the need for lamenting? If you, in the same manner, deem the Self to be constantly born or to be constantly dying on account of Its contacts and separations with bodies, even then it is unwarranted, on every account, on the part of the men of rational thinking, to lament. Otherwise this [division of] permanence and impermanence does not stand reasoning. For-

2.27 Jatasya etc. Destruction comes after birth, and after the destruction comes birth. Thus, this series of birth and death is like a circle. Hence to what extent is this to be lamented for? Furthermore-

2.28 Avyaktadini etc. Whether beings are permanent or impermanent, this much is certain: The person, who laments over a given object - as far as that person is concerned, that object is at the beginning unmanifest and at the end also it is unmanifest. Its manifestation in between is therefore a deviation from its natural state, Rather, there may be need to lament over the deviation from natural state and nor over the natural state [itself]. Further, whatever has been approved as its root cause, that itself permanently exhibits, within itself, a variety of different and endless creation, sustenance and absorption as its own manifold nature, in a set pattern. Hence what is the necessity for lamenting over the same nature of this (its effect)? And endowed with the above mentioned nature-2.39 Ascaryavat etc. But, if this Self is, in this manner, changeless (or destructionless), why is This not observed just as such by all? It is so because, as if by a rare chance, only some one observes [This]. Even after listening, not even one understands This i.e., realises This.

2.30 Dehi etc. On these grounds, the permanent destructionlessness of the Self [is established].

2.31 Sva-Dharmam etc. Because one’s duty cannot be avoided, wavering with regard to fighting the war is not proper [on the part of Arjuna].

2.32 Yadrcchaya etc. A war of this nature, because it is conducive to the heaven, should not be avoided even by other such Ksatriyas who are full of desires How much less [it is to be avoided] in the case of one to whom the science of knowledge of this nature has been taught? This is what is intended to be conveyed [here] And the verse does not at all end with [determining how to attain] the heaven. The very thing (i.e. sin), fearing which you withdraw from the battle, will befall you branching off hundred-fold. This [the Lord] says-

2.33-37 Atha ca etc., upto krta-niscavah. Accepting what the opponent has stated, this pentad of verses is narrated as an argument: ‘If your good self prefers to abide by the generally accepted practice, even then this [fighting] must be undertaken necessarily’.

2.38 Sukha-duhkhe etc. For you, performing actions as your own duty, never there is any connection with sin.

2.39 Esa te etc. And this knowledge in the form of determination has been declared [to you] for your sankhya, i.e., perfect knowledge. Now, how the self-same determinate knowledge is also taught for the Yoga i.e., dexterity in action - in that manner only you must listen to by means of which determinate knowledge you shall avoid the binding nature of the actions. Truly, the actions do not themselves bind as they are insentient. Hence, it is the Self which binds Itself by means of the actions in the form of mental impressions.

2.40 Neha etc. Here in this determinate knowledge there arises no loss through transgression, an offence due to negligence; because negligence is [itself] absent there. And just as a burning oil in the boiler get cooled soon, due to a limited quantity of sandal (put in it), in the same way due to this knowledge of Yoga-even though it is very little the great danger in the form of the cycle of birth and death perishes completely. And this knowledge is not introduced as a new thing. Then what?

2.41 Vyavasayatmika etc. The knowledge in the form of determination is just one and natural in the case of everyone; but it suffers manifoldness according to the objects to be determined. Therefore -

2.42-44 Yam imam etc., upto na vidhiyate. Those, who crave for objects of desire, speak, on their own accord, of this flowery Vedic speech which is pervaded by the fruits i.e., the heaven in the future; and who, hence, desire the action itself as the fruit of their birth - these are men without insight. Further, having their mind carried away by the same Vedic sentence imagined by themselves, these persons, even though they are endowed with the determinate knowledge, are not fit for concentration, because they do not decide this (concentration) as a fruit [of their action]. This is the purport of the triad of these verses.

2.45 Traigunya-etc. The Vedas bind very much [only] by means of the three gunas and they do not bind on their own accord. For, the rituals prescribed in the Vedas, create bondage if they are performed with an intention of pleasure, or of (avoiding) pain, or with an illusion of attachment. Hence the triad of gunas in the form of desire (or in a pleasing form) must be abandoned. If the present passage were intended to condemn the Vedas, then the act of fighting the battle in question would be spoiled, because there is nothing other than the Vedas do not bind those, from whom the desire for fruit has completely gone. Because the Vedas alone are useful for proper knowledge in the case of those persons [free from the gunas] hence [the Lord] says-

2.46 Yavan etc. He, according to whom the importance lies in his own duty alone or in the knowledge - for him the purpose is served even from a limited portion of the Vedic teaching Therefore-

2.47 Karmani etc. You should be concerned in the action alone, but not in the fruits of actions. But, if an action has been performed, then will not its fruit just inevitably befall [to the performer]? No. It is not so. For, in that case, if you are covered with the dirt of desire for fruits, then you become a cause for the fruit of action. What is prayed for is known to be the fruit; and it does not befall him who does not desire it. Thus, what attachment a person entertains with regard to the negation of action, that alone is like a firm seizure, and is of the nature of false conception, and hence it must be abandoned. Then what?-

2.48 Yogasthah etc. Being established in Yoga you must perform actions. Evenness [of mind] is the Yoga.

2.49 Durena etc. Due to the contact (one has) with determining faculty [one’s] inferior action i.e., the action that bears bad fruits and is empty, remains far away [from him]. Therefore seek i.e., pray for a refuge in the determining faculty of that nature, on account of which that determining faculty is gained.

2.50 Buddhiyuktah etc. Both indicate the mutual exclusion [of the good and bad actions]. Therefore [strive] for Yoga etc.: Working in that manner alone constitutes the supreme proficiency, by [working] in which manner the good action and the bad action perish. This is the idea here.

2.51 Karmajam etc. The persons who are endowed with the determining faculty with regard to the Yoga, renounce the birth-bondage, by renouncing the fruit of actions; and they attain the Brahman-existence.

2.52-53 Yada te etc. Sruti-etc. At the time, when the determining faculty with regard to the Yoga is attained, the clear sign of recognizing it, is this: An attitude of futility about the revealed literature that has to be listened to, that has been listened to and that is being declared. What has been declared by the above is this: ‘This present view of yours about the ruination of your race is out of place and it is due to the influence of your deceptive notion, born of mental impressions created by your listening to the teachings of those scriptures that favour the observers who are fallen deep into the course of ignorance. But, that view shall vanish when the respect for such a teaching disappears.

2.54 Sthita-prajnasya etc. By the statement ‘When the determining faculty shall stand [firm in concentration, at that time you shall attain Yoga - above II, 55]’ it has been [virtually] stated there that the appellation sthita-prajna (man of stabilized intellect) is a nomenclature signifying man-of-Yoga who is fixed in concentration. Now, what is the connotation of it, i.e., what is the basis for the usage of this nomenclature? For, [connotation is that] basing on which a particular meaning is connoted by words. Does the appellation sthita-prajna of the man of Yoga speak of him through its traditional (or conventional) force of the word or through its force of etymology? This is the first question. Of course, regarding the traditional force of the word there is no doubt at all. [For, it has no such force in it]. Yet, the present question is to make the etymological meaning-though it is already available-clear by explaining the basis for definition of special nature. The expression sthira-dhih has for its imports both the expression [itself] and its meaning ‘the fixed-minded’. Of them, does the expression sthira-dhih denote that meaning alone which is indicated by the force of its components; or else does it denote the ascetic also? This is the second question. Again, where would that firm-minded man-of-Yoga abide i.e., what would he practise; or what would his firmness depend on? This is the third [question]. And what world he achieve by practising? This is the fourth [question]. These four questions are decided one by one by the Bhagavat [in the sequel].

2.55 Prajahati etc. [The expression ‘a man of stabilized intellect’ denotes] a man whose intellect has stabilized, i.e., has grown roots. Growing roots is growing roots permanently on the Self. For, if that is achieved, the agitation in the form of desire born of the distraction by sense-objects comes to an end. Therefore, the nomenclature ‘a man of stabilized intellect’ applied to a man of Yoga, has an etymological sense and it is appropriate in this way. In this manner one question has been answered.

2.56 Dukkhesu etc. Only that sage whose mental attitude is free from desire and hatred in the midst of pleasure and pain, and not anyone else, is a man of stabilized intellect. This is also proper. For-

2.57 Yah sarvatra etc. There is no joy or sorrow in him while meeting the good or the bad.

2.58 Yada samharate etc. the nomenclature is not an expression having a composite of both the forces of etymological and traditional meanings, like the word pankaja ‘a lotus’. But it has only the etymological force like the word pacaka ‘a cook’. Whenever he (the sage) withdraws just in his own self-just as a tortoise keeps its limbs in its bossom-from the sense-objects i.e., warding off from the sense-objects, then and then [only] he is man-ofstabilized-intellect. Or [the passage may mean:] Whenever he withdraws, within his own Self, [all], beginning from the sense-objects upto sense-organs i.e., when he appropriates in his own Self all in the form of sense-objects and sense-organs. But, how is it that the nomenclature ‘a man of stabilized intellect’ does not hold good in the case of an ascetic? It is answered-

2.59 Visayah etc. Of course, in his (ascetic’s) case there is no contact with sense-objects, colour and the rest that are enjoyable. Yet, the sense-objects retreat [from him] leaving a taste in the form of longing that exists in his internal organ. Hence he is not a man of stabilized intellect. Some (commentators) say that ‘taste’ denotes the sweetness etc., of the objects of experience. But, in the case of a man of Yoga there exists no longing as he has seen the Supreme Lord. On the other hand, in the case of the other, i.e. an ascetic, this does not retreat (disappear).

2.60 Yattasyapi etc. For, the mind of that ascetic too is carried away by the sense-organs. Or, the expression yattasya api denotes ‘even of one who exerts’. [So], it is but the mind that is to be subdued by a man of Yoga. Thus the second [question] is decided.

2.61 Tani etc. He, who restrains his sense-organs in this manner by means of his mind, but not by inactivity-he alone is a man of stabilized intellect. He would remain viewing Me alone as his goal i.e., he would concentrate his attention on nothing but Me, the Supreme Lord, the Consciousness-Self.

2.62-63 Dhyayatah etc. krodha etc. In the case of an ascetic, the very act of abandoning sense-objects itself results in undertaking the sense-objects. For, they abandon indeed by meditating [on them], and at the very time of such a meditation, attachment etc., are born in regular succession. Hence the act of abandoning objects is harmless only in the case of a man of stabilized intellect. (65)

2.64-68 Raga-dvesa-etc. upto pratisthita. Here the purport is this: He, who controls his mind, is not tossed by the waves of wrath etc., even while he is enjoying the sense-objects; hence he alone is a man of Yoga, a man of stabilized intellect. Extraordinary is the man of Yoga, even while he is attending to the worldly business. While examining this point, the characteristics mark of his (man of Yoga), is briefly related by the Supreme Lord-

2.69 Ya nisa etc. Infatuating is the Illusion which is night for all beings. In that, the sage is awake (vigilant) with the thought ‘How It could be avoided’ The stage where the worldly men keep awake i.e., perform multifarious [worldly] activities, that stage is the night for the sage, as he is ignorant regarding the worldly activities. It amounts to this statement: What is well known as illusion, Its nature is indeed two-fold, viz., to delude and also to wear a deceptive appearance of spinning pleasure. Of them (the two natures), the worldly man, not considering Its former nature, remains with a memory well tied to the second nature. On the other hand, the man of Yoga, who is contrary to the other, observes its deluding nature in order to root it out. Thus the man of perfect knowledge, while seeing [properly], pays no attention to its nature of spinning pleasure. His indifference to its nature of spinning pleasure is due to the destruction of his false knowledge. That stage is night to him, even while he sees. Hence this is strange. The man of Yoga is awake (or understands) in the field of wisdom, where everyone else is unconscious (or totally perplexed); but in [the field] of ignorance he is not awake (or does not understand), where ordinary man is awake (or understands well). This is also strange. That is why-

2.70 Apuryamanam etc. the man of Yoga does not run out for the sake of pleasure; but, rather just as the floods of the rivers enter into the sea, the objects of pleasure [themselves] continuously enter into him on account of their being peculiar attributes of the sense organs; and they do not create in him waves [of agitation]. Thus the third question is decided.

2.71 Vihaya etc. Because he has renounced all desires, the man of Yoga, attains emancipation in the form of peace.

2.72 Esa etc. This is the Brahman-existence by remaining, i.e., having dwelt in which, even for a moment, one attains the Supreme Brahman [after] one’s body breaks. Thus [all the] four questions have been decided.

CHAPTER 3

3.1-2 Jyayasi etc. and Vyamisrena etc. Action has been taught and knowledge too. Now it is proper [to attach] importance not to both, but only to knowledge. Now if with the strength of knowledge the action is to be destroyed from its very root, according to the instruction ‘The man of wisdom casts off [both the good and the bad action]’, then what is the utility of action? This is idea of [Arjuna’s] question. But the Bhagavat gives the answer:

3.3 Loke etc. In the world, this twofold path is well known. Knowledge is important for men of reflection and action for men of Yoga. But that path has been declared by Me to be only one. For, the Consciousness consists predominantly of knowledge and action. This is the idea here. For this [the Lord continues] -

3.4-5 Na karmanam etc Na hi etc. Knowledge, deserted by action, does not exist; and the action, combined with dexterity does not exist, [if it is] deserted by knowledge. Therefore knowledge and action constitute one and the same thing. Hence it has been declared: ‘Knowledge is not deserted by action and action is not deserted by knowledge. [Hence] a teacher who is well accomplished in knowledge and action, is the cutter of the fetters of the fettered’. Therefore the action that is included within the knowledge cannot be avoided. For, the body, the organ of speech and the mind are, by nature, in a perpetual motion; and hence an individual, being simply under the control of other than himself, necessarily performs one action or the other. For, the body, the speech-organ and the mind are of the nature of throbbing.

3.6 Karmendriyani etc. If he does not act with his organs of action, then he necessarily acts with his mind. At the same time he is the man of deluded action; for, the mental actions can never be avoided totally.

3.7 Yas tu etc. When actions are being performed [by him], there is no loss of his knowledge. For, when the mind does not function, he does his work like a machine- man. Therefore -

3.8 Niyatam etc. you must perform action which has been enjoined i.e., prescribed in the scriptures. For, even the just subsistence of body depends on action. Because -

3.9 Yajnarthat etc. Binding are the actions which are different from the one that is Yajnartha, i.e., the one that is to be performed necessarily. The action, that is to be performed necessarily, does not yield any fruit, if it is performed with no attachment for the fruit.

3.10 Saha-etc. The lord of creatures, the Supreme Soul, created creatures, just together with actions. It has also been declared by Him that the procreation i.e., lineage of creatures is through actions alone; these alone would give them what is desired viz., either the cycle of birth-and-death or emancipation - the cycle of birth and death is due to attachment and emancipation, due to the freedom from attachment. The sense-objects deserve to be enjoyed only by those for whom emancipation is the most important. This is declared:

3.11 Devan etc. Devas: Those that have a tendency of playing i.e., the deities who preside over the organs and who dwell in the senses (or who are nothing but the sensitive faculty of the senses) and who are well-known in the Rahasyasastra. ‘You must gratify these deities by this action i.e., feed them comparability with sense-objects. Then, being satisfied let these deities gratify (cause) you to have emancipation suitable exclusively to the intrinsic nature of the Self. For, [then alone you attain] a capacity to remain in your own Self. Thus when the mutual gratification - you gratifying the [deities of the] senses, and they letting [you] be absorbed in the Self - in the uninterruped series of periods of being extrovert and of meditation, you shall soon undoubtedly attain the highest good i.e., the Supreme that is marked with the total disappearance of [all] mutual differences.’ This path of the said nature is to be followed not merely for emancipation, but also for gaining all super-human powers (or success siddhi). This [the Lord] says -

3.12 Istan etc. [The deities of] the senses, gratified by the necessary actions, bind [the aspirant’s mind] to the state of remaining firm on some object of meditation. Therefore when they are at work, the things, i.e., the objects are granted [to him] by none but the [deities of the] senses, through recollection, resolution, meditation etc., of their objects. If these objects are not offered for the enjoyment of the deities, then it would amount to the status of a thief i.e., to an act of thief, because he is acting deceitfully. Indeed it has already been declared by the Bhagavat that ‘He is called a man of deluded action’. Therefore the idea in the passage [under study] is this: Whosoever is desirous of attaining by easy means, the supernatural power [like anima etc.], or of attaining emancipation, he should enjoy the objects as and when they are brought, [and enjoy] just with the aim of simply alleviating the impatience of the [deities of the] senses.

3.13 Yajnasista-etc. Those who enjoy the pleasures of objects that have come to them on the authority of laws enjoining what is to be necessarily performed; and who enjoy them viewing [the enjoyment] only as a secondary (or intermediate) action and consequently as a subsidiary having no separate purpose; and again those who enjoy the remnant of the necessary action in the form of gratifying the group of the devas of the sense-organs-that residue of food marked with bliss in being firmly established in their own Self - that is to say, those who have mounted upon the Self and are desirous of enjoying objects only as a means to achieve this end - they are freed from all faults of good and bad. Those, who for their own selves etc.: On the other hand, those who believe, under the influence of ignorance, the sheer superficial enjoyment of objects as their final goal, and act with the notion ‘We perform this [act] for the sake of ourselves’ - those persons alone gain the sin in the form of good and bad.

3.14-15 Annat etc. Karma etc. The things, that are born and are of diversified nature, arise from the food viz, the one which is of the nature of being undifferentiated objects of enjoyment, and which is somehow called by different synonyms like maya, vidya, kala etc. The said food also [arises] from the ‘rain-cloud’ i.e., the Self, which is of the nature of uninterrupted Consciousness. For, the state of being an object of enjoyment gains its existence depending on the enjoyer. That ‘rain-cloud’ too viz., the enjoyer, [arises] from the sacrifice (yajna) i.e., the act of enjoying. For, the state of being an enjoyer depends on the act of enjoying. And the act of enjoying [arises] from action, i.e., from the strength of freedom of action-energy (freedom in assuming any and every from). The said freedom also, though it is uninterrupted, [arises] due to the good touch of the Brahman Which is full of freedom and of forms that are conditioned and are many, (or which is full of freedom and of many forms and is not conditioned); and which is the Supreme Soul, Brahman assuming the beings (tattvas), viz., the mighty Isvara (or Mahesvara) [and the Sadasiva] skipping high on It (Brahman). That Brahman, having the rising Lord-ship (or might) that is pure and unveiled, arises from what does not stream forth viz., the pure Supreme Consciousness in which the entire waves of might and Lordship have totally calmed down. Thus, the sacrifice well established [as an axle] in this manner, causing a six spoked wheel to rotate, spins the [two-fold] yarns - the yarn of emancipation by employing that part fitted with three spokes, and the yarn of [birth-and-death] activity by looming with the part of the [other] three spokes. Thus, the Brahman which is charming with rolling waves of wisdom and ignorance, is established on nothing but the sacrifice. But certain other commentators [interpret the passage as]: The food is indeed the cause of beings through its graded changes into semen virile and blood; the food arises from the rain-cloud through the rains; that rains too arises from the [Vedic] sacrifice according to the principle: ‘The oblation offered into the [sacrificial] fire, properly reaches the sun etc. (Manu. III, 76). The sacrifice [arises] from the action; the action follows the knowledge, and the knowledge is from the Imperishable. Still others [explain] differently: The food that is being enjoyed is the pentad of sense-objects; depending on it, the bhutas (elements) i.e., the sense organs, act; the objects are of the nature of the sparkles of the Self. Therefore, it is only the Self that is being nourished by enjoying sense-objects. Hence the all pervading Brahman is established in action. For It is identical with that.

3.16 Evam etc. On the other hand, he, who does not accept as stated above, is full of sins. For, he enjoys only in the sense-organs and not in the Self.

3.17-19 Yas ca etc. upto purusah. However, for a person who rejoices in the Self and performs action simply as a [routine] business of organs of action, there is no difference between (his) action and non-action. That is why he inflicts punishment on, or does favour to, every being, not with desire for any gain for himself, but with a conviction that it is a thing that deserves to be performed. Therefore, just unattached, one should perform action that is to be performed.

3.20 Karman=aiva etc. Therefore, Janaka and others are examples for the fact that emancipation is even for those who perform action.

3.21-22 Yad yad acarati etc. Na me etc. The Bhagavat cites Himself as an example to illustrate the idea that to favour the world is the [only] purpose for such a person to exert in action, even though he has already attained whatever is to be attained, and is fully satisfied in his mind.

3.23-25 Yadi etc. upto loka-sangraham. Further, if a well informed person were to abandon action, that would create in the society, a split for bad in the form of being ill-rooted, because of the binding force - viz., the regard for a particular well-known theory-being loosened. For, they are able neither to cast off their tendency of action nor to occupy the tradition (or stream) of wisdom. Consequently they become weak. Because these (common men) are not purified correct knowledge, therefore to break i.e., to shake their mind would be highly harmful for them. Hence, for their benefit, one should not disturb their mind. This [the Lord] says:

3.26 Na buddhi-etc. Himself knowing in this way, let him perform actions and let him not disturb the minds of common men. [In the last verse] reference is made ‘of the ignorant person’. [The Lord] now demonstrates their ignorance -

3.27 Prakrti etc. Indeed the actions are performed by the gunas, sattva etc., belonging to the Prakrti. But the fool unnecessarily binds himself by wrongly comprehending ‘I’ am the doer’.

3.28 Tattvavit tu etc. On the other hand, the knower of the real nature of divisions of the gunas and of their actions, sets himself free by viewing ‘The Prakrti acts; what comes to men?’ The ignorant men have been described as being attached to action (above III, 26). That attachment [of theirs, the Lord] demonstrates:

3.29 Prakrti etc. The deluded persons, under the influence of the gunas, sattva etc., are attached to the actions performed by the sattva etc., which are the gunas belonging to the Prakrti. In the same context (III, 26) it has been said: ‘Therefore being a master of Yoga, let [the wise] fulfil actions’. How to do that? [The Lord] clarifies:

3.30 Mayi etc. You should perform the worldly act of fighting a war, being desirous of doing favour for the world; renouncing all actions in Me with the thought ‘I am not the doer [of any act]’; and being convinced ‘None but the Sovereign Supreme Lord is the doer of all acts, and I am nobody’.

3.31-32 Ye Me etc. Ye tvetat etc. Taking shelter in this doctrine whosoever performs any action, it does not bind him. On the other hand those, who have no faith is this knowledge, are lost totally; for, they are constantly socked in the fear of birth, death etc.

3.33 Sadrsam etc. There is hardly any difference in the worldly activities like eating etc., of him who is a man of wisdom. But he too acts only in conformity to the sattva, etc., just knowing in this manner: ‘Because the elements like the Earth etc. get absorbed into the prakrti; and the Self is also a non-doer and ever-freed; therefore the eradication of birth etc., are for whose sake?’ Then how can there be bondage at all [for a man of worldly life]? That is as follows, it is said:

3.34-35 Indriyasya etc., Sreyan etc. A person living the worldly life does entertain likes or dislikes towards every sense-object. For, due to his total ignorance he imagines that actions are performed only by his Self. Thus there is this difference between a man of knowledge and a man of worldly life, even though they perform alike their [respective] worldly activities such as eating etc. The established view of ours [in this regard] is this: For a person, who, freed from attachment in every way, performs his own duty, there is hardly any bond of merit or demerit. Indeed one’s own duty never disappears from one’s heart and it is certainly rooted there deeply as a natural taste. Not a single creature is born without that. Hence it should not be given up.

3.36 Atha etc. The question is this: Even though a man knows a sin to be a sin, why does he proceed on it? The idea in raising this question is this: If one’s own duty cannot be (or should not be) given up, because it does not vanish from one’s own heart, then how to account for the sinful acts of these men [of the world]? This amounts to say: What is one’s own duty by which the creature is never deserted? Even though one’s own duty rests in one’s heart, the confusion (or evil) is created by the interruption (or covering) of an intruder, and it is not created by the absence of that duty-with this purport in mind, an answer to the above question-

3.37 Kama esah etc. A total absence of difference among these two (desire and wrath) is indicated by the word esah ‘this’ twice uttered. These desire and wrath are ever interrelated and remain in an inseparable mutual co-existence. Hence [the Lord] well describes them only as identical. This is a swallower i.e., a devourer of the morsel of festival i.e., the happiness. The wrath alone is a bestower of sins as it is the cause of great sins. This is man of intelligence should view to be an enemy.

3.38 Dhumena etc. [The foe’s triple nature viz.] being a mischievous appendage, himself creating mischief, and being an object of disgust, is explained by the triad of these similes. He: the Self.

3.39 Avrtam etc. Looks like a desired one: For it acts when there is desire. It is fire, because it is like fire impossible to satiate. For, it burns down both the visible and the invisible results [of righteous actions].

3.40 Indriyani etc. In the beginning, it stands on the sense organs at work. For example, when an enemy is sighted with eyes, he generates wrath about himself at the very place of the perceiver’s sense-organ, then in the mind i.e., fancy, then in the intellect, i.e., resolve; and producing delusion in this way, it destroys knowledge. [The Lord] speaks of the means for avoiding this foe as:

3.41 Or the passage jnana-vijnana-nasana may be an adverb [modifying the verb ‘must avoid’] meaning ‘by destroying it i.e., by keeping it off by means of knowledge (thought) i.e., by means of the mind and by means of superior knowledge (superior thought) i.e., by means of the intellect.’ The intention is this: One must not allow, in the fancy, [the wrath] risen in the sense organs, and must not make any resolve about [the foe], fancied. The logic in this regard (in the above means) [the Lord] explains in a couple of verses:

3.42-43 Indriyani etc. Evam etc. ‘Because the sense organs are different from the sense-objects that indicate the foe [in question]; from them the mind is different; from that too different is the intellect; what is intrinsically different from the intellect also is the Self; so due to wrath, risen at the sense-organs, how can there be a disturbance in the mind, in the intellect or in the Self?’ Let one contemplate in this manner. This is what is meant here. This is intention of the experts of the Rahasya [literature]: The Supreme I-consciousness viz., the awareness ‘All I am’, which remains beyond the intellect, and the essence of which allows no difference-that is indeed the highest identity. Therefore no frustration (or cut) can be for That which is complete all around; hence wrath etc., do not rise [in It]. Therefore, taking hold of the Supreme Energy which in essence is Consciousness, you must slay the foe, the wrath which is ignorance in essence.

CHAPTER 4

4.1-3 Evam etc. upto uttamam. Even though it has come down by regular succession of teacher, it is lost now. By this [statement] the Bhagavat indicates the rarity (or difficulty) and respectability of this knowledge. You are My devotee and friend too: You are a devotee having nothing but Me as your final goal and you are a friend too. This ‘too’ indicates the secondary importance [of the friendship]. Hence, just as in the sentence ‘wander begging food [etc]’, the importance lies in the act of begging food, but unimportance in the act of bringing the cow; in the same way, in the present case it is devotion towards the teacher that is important and not the friendship also. This is the idea intended here.

4.4 Even though he knows the nature of the Lord, Arjuna asks this question in order to publisize it to the world.

4.5-9 Bahuni etc. upto Arjuna. Indeed the Bhagavat is Himself devoid of all bodily connections on account of His having the group of the ‘six attributes’ in toto. Yet, out of His nature of stabilising [the universe], and out of compassion, He sends forth (or creates) that is which the Self is secondary. The meaning is this: He takes hold of a body, in which the Self, with the group of ‘six qualities’ in full, remains secondary because of Its role as a helper of the body. On account of this, His birth is divine. For, it has been created not by the results of actions, but by His own trick of Illusion, by the highest knowledge of Yoga, and by the energy of Freedom of His own. His action too is divine, as it is incapable of yielding fruits [for Him]. Whosoever knows this truth in this manner i.e., realises in his own Self also in this manner, he necessarily understands the Bhagavat Vasudeva beng.

4.10 Vita-etc. Therefore many persons, who realise in this manner are free of anger etc., because they have [all] their desires completely fulfilled, due to their being full of Me; and who perform actions which are to be performed and which do not yield any fruit [for them] - they have attained My own nature. For-

4.11-12 Ye yatha etc. and Kanksantah etc. Different persons with different forms in their mind take refuge in Me. Assuming the same [respective] forms for them I favour the. Only in this manner, those who are full of Me and those who are not so-all just follow my Path. For [even the performance of sacrifices] Jyotistoma and so on, is not a different path; that is also My own will of that nature. Indeed it is going to be declared [by the Lord] as ‘the four-fold caste-structure has been created by Me’. Someone says: The Present Tense (anuvarttante) is in the sense of Potential. Just as in the sentence ‘They take hold of the group of sixteen in the Atiratra [sacrifice]’, the expression ‘They take hold of’ means ‘They should take hold of’ in the same way in the present sentence too ‘they follow’, means ‘they should follow’. The success [of the action] viz., the enjoyment and emancipation is [achieved] here alone in this word of men and not anywhere else.

4.13-14 Catur-varnyam etc. Na mam etc. How can there be taint of actions in Me Who remain like the ether? The comparison with ether is due to the absence of desire [in both]. As such etc.: whosoever, with this sort of thought, takes refuge in the Bhagavat i.e. contemplates everywhere at all times on the Bliss-dense Supreme Lord as ‘There exits nothing other than Vasudeva [the Absolute]’ - for him can there be any bondage by actions?

4.15 Evam etc. Therefore being purified by this [sort of] conviction you too should perform actions that are to be necessarily performed. But, if it is said that success would result just from the non-performance of action, that is not correct. For -

4.16-17 Kim karma etc. Karmanah etc. The classification of [good] action and non-action is difficult to comprehend. That is to say there is bad action even among the action that has been ordained [in the scriptures], just as the animal-slaughter in the [pious] Agnistoma sacrifice. Again, even in the midst of action, that goes against [the scripture], there is auspicious action; for example there is an end for the trouble of the people in the act of killing a murderous animal. Even in the case of non-performance of action, there do exist [both] the auspicious and inauspicious acts; for there will be necessarily [some] acts performed by the sense of speech and by the mind as they are difficult to avoid without wisdom. Therefore on account of its mysterious nature, even the experts have not properly understood the action as: ‘Prosperity would be for as by this [particular] auspicious action; and emancipation would be for us by that [particular] non-undertaking of [certain] actions’. Therefore, it is the fire of wisdom taught in the sequel, that alone is capable of positively burning down the fuel of all the auspicious and inauspicious actions; and hence that is to be sought after as a refuge. This is what is intended by the Bhagavat. In order to clarify the same, the Lord] says -

4.18 Karmani etc: He who finds the actions, [seemingly] of his own, to be non-actions [of his], on account of his being non-performer [of any action], because of his state of total tranquility; and he who recognises the non-actions [of his] i.e., the actions performed by others, as actions being performed by himself (or who recognises the non-actions undertaken by others as being undertaken by himself), because of his intrinsic nature of the fully risen state; that person alone is a man of intelligence in the midst of all; and he [alone] performs action fully i.e., in its entirety. Therefore what fruit should be borne for him by what action? This is at the stage of rising. But, at the stage of total tranquility he injures, or cuts all actions. Thus he performs all action or performs no action. This is the secret and sacred knowledge, got by sitting near (by serving) the feet of the preceptors. Therefore -

4.19 Yasya etc. The actions, performed without intention for the desirable objects, - i.e., the fruits desired for - are burnt up by putting them into the fire of wisdom, the nature of which has been earlier described, and also is to be described in the sequel.

4.21 Tyaktva etc. Nirasih etc. Even though he sets upon: Even though he is directly exerting in. Bodily action: the action which is in the form of activity of the organs for simply maintaining the body, and which is not coloured (desired) so much by the mind and intellect.

4.22 Yadrccha-etc. He does not get bound even when he acts: Here nibadhyate ‘gets bound’ is a usage of transitive verb with its object functioning as the subject. [Hence] the meaning is: The Self binds Itself by undertaking the dirt of mental impressions for fruits [of action]. Otherwise [the usage would amount to attribute] freedom of actions to the insentient in binding [the Self] - a proposition which is not a very happy one.

4.23 Gatasangasya etc. For sacrifice (yajnaya): The singular number is to be construed with the class [yajnatva]. [Hence the meaning is]: ‘The sacrifice’ that are being defined in the sequel. It has been said ‘for the sake of sacrifice etc.’ Now their general nature, [the Lord] describes:

4.24 Brahmarpanam etc. That is to be offered to the Brahman (list): that, the offering of which is in the Brahman i.e., the reentrance of which is only into That, just from which it has originated. The Brahman (2^nd): That which is the same as the entire universe what we see - this is that very oblation. Into the Brahman-fire: into the fire which is the same as the Brahman, the highly tranquil Supreme Consciousness. By the Brahman: by one or the other action. Is poured: is offered for the augmentation of Its lumination. Hence, a man of Yoga, whose Brahman action of this sort is itself a deep concentration - by him, the Brahman alone is [a goal] to be attained i.e., to be realised, not anything else; for there is no other thing. Alternatively [in the verse] the meaning ‘by him’ brings in, by implication, the meaning ‘by whom’. So the following is the alignment [of words]: The action, in which the Brahman-oblation, intended to be an offering to a deity of the Brahman-nature, has been indeed poured into the Brahman-fire by the sacrificer, identical with the Brahman - that very Brahman-action of this sort is itself a deep contemplation, because it is the means to gain the innate nature of the Self. And what is attained by this Brahman action-contemplation is the very Brahman Itself and not any other fruit. Indeed it has been maintained [by the Lord] as: ‘The way in which men resort to Me, [in the same way I favour them]’. (IV, II) ‘Those, who have cultivated the nature of performing sacrifice which is nothing but Me, but of the delimited nature - they attain, therefore, the fruit of similar [limited] nature. This is different matter. But, with regard to those who have realised the nature of the sacrifice identical with Me (the Supreme Consciousness), the Unlimited and complete; how could they be entertaining a craving for a bit of limited fruit?’ This is the idea here. Thus, a top secret is furnished by this and by the succeeding verses that has been also detailed by us (Ag.) - even though our intelligence is limited - as far as our intelligence permits, by not transgressing the instructions of our preceptors. Maybe, for a person without a regular course of the oral tradition [of the system], this looks like a picture painted on the sky and does not appeal to his mind. On that account we should not be blamed. It has been declared by some, in this context, that [here in this verse] the oblation, the fire and the instruments like sruk [used for offering the oblation into the fire in the sacrifice] and also the act [of offering] are all adjectives qualifying the Brahmam. This [explanation] deserves to be ignored. For, these commentators have not trodden on the path of the secret tradition.

4.25 Daivam etc. the Devas are the sense-organs that are playful. The yajna that stands based on them is nothing but the act of receiving objects of their own. Certain persons are thoroughly devoted only to that yajna, i.e., they gain the gain of their own Self by examining this (yajna) from its root. That is why they are men of Yoga; for, they are absorbed in the Yoga permanently at all stages. Indeed in Yogin the suffix ini, a synonym of matup, here signifies ‘perpetual connection’. Further, they (Yogins) pour, as an offering, the self-same yajna, above defined, into the Brhaman-fire that is insatiable i.e. that cannot be satisfied. Thus [the verse] has been interpreted by some. However, the Sage (the author of the Gita) does not violate the context. Hence, that meaning which exists in his heart we shall show: Certain masters of Yoga perform godly sacrifice i.e., sacrifice, consisting of external objects, and intending only deities like Indra etc., of varied forms. Further, with a single conviction that ‘It is a Yajna and a thing to be performed’, i.e., with no craving for fruit, they offer the same sacrifice, that is being performed, into the Brahman - fire which is insatiable i.e., difficult to satisfy. Thus even those, who perform sacrificial rites with material objects, attain the Supreme Brahman. For, it is going to be declared in the sequel: ‘All these persons too have understood sacrifice’ (IV, 30 below). The Vedic text also [says]: ‘The gods offered sacrifice [just] as sacrifice’. (RV, I, 164, 50; TS, III, v, II, 5; etc.)

4.26 Srotradini etc. But others [offer] the sense organs into the fires of the restrainer. Restrainer: the mind. Its fires are the tongues of flame that are in the form of subdued views of objects and are capable of burning up desires. Into them they offer the sense-organs. Hence, they are the performers of penance-sacrifices. Still others offer objects into the fires of sense-organs that are fully set-blaze by wisdom and that are capable of burning up the fruits [of actions]. I.e., they seek enjoyment only for destroying the [past] mental impression of differences [between the enjoyer and the objects of enjoyment]. This is the secret and sacred truth. Hence I (Ag.) have myself stated in the laghvi Prakriya (the Little Process) as: ‘The object of enjoyment does not manifest as different from you, the enjoyer. Because, it is the [process of] enjoyment that itself is the identification (or unity) of hte enjoyer and the object of enjoyment’. In the [work] Spanda also [it has been said]: ‘It is the enjoyer himself who remains in all the instances and at all times, in the form of the object of enjoyment’.

4.27-28 Sarvani etc. Dravyayajnak etc. Again all the activities of their sense-organs, the activities of their mind, and the activities of their vital airs, such as issuing through the mouth and nose, driving down the urine etc., other [seekers] established in the fire of concentration, named Yoga, which is the means for subduing the self i.e., the mind, and which is set ablaze by i.e., to be filled with, knowledge. The idea is this: With their intellect that has completely abandoned all other activities due to their concentration on the object, they receive the object that is being perceived on conceived. That has been stated in the Sivopanisad: ‘When the intellect, concentrated on a certain object, not rejected, would not go to another object, at that time the meditation, remaining in the core of the objects, blossoms very much.’ Thus the Yoga-sacrifices are explained. So far the performers of the material object-sacrifices, the austerity-sacrifices, and the yoga sacrifices have been defined. Those, who are the performers of the svadhyaya-knowledge-sacrifices are defined now [as] -

4.29-30 Apane etc. Apare etc. Prana (1^st): the arising one i.e., the nada which has, as its end, that one where the first syllabic instance of Pranava dissolves. Into the apana: into what sets down, and is of the nature of entering into the Svananda. They offer: Thus is the svadhyaya of the nature of the firmness of the body is described. What sets down, some [sages] established on what rises up, so that the pupil’s self (mind) may learn the processes of sending out and drawing in [the vital airs]. By [thus] uniting these two, they bestow emancipation on their own Self and on the Self of the pupils; and they, on that account, remain with their mind firmly established on the svadhyaya-sacrifice full of Svananda (i.e., Nijananda) and Parananda - a svadhyaya of the nature of examining, enlightening, entering and uniting [the prana nad apana] in their own Self and in the Self of the pupils. That is why the process of filling [the vital air] in has been first mentioned; and the process of emptying the same out at the last. Further, the process of the inward turning of the act of enjoying objects, is suggested by the first quarter of the verse (29), and by the second quarter the act of coming out for enjoying the objects through the process of having the supreme state of bodylines. Therefore, the performers of the sacrifice of wisdom are not different from the performers of the svadhyaya-sacrifice. The same sages have the desries of their own and of their pupils fulfilled on account of their thorough practice of the said activity; control both the said paths, restrict their food viz., enjoyment of objects; and offer pranas into the pranas, i.e, they offer, by means of the quietude at the stage of stopping [the vital air], the rising of all the mental modifications into the splendour of rising waves of Parananda and Nirananda. All these persons know the truth (or nature) of the sacrifices, starting from the material sacrifice upto the wisdom-sacrifice; only by that means they have eradicated their sins; that is to say, they have uprooted the mighty delusion with its roots, made of mental impressions of duality.

4.31 Yajna-etc. They enjoy the nectar of the Parananda and the Nirananda, which is of the nature of relaxing in their own Self and which has been ordained. ie., brought about - by the sacrifice and which is the remnant of the sacrifice in the form of satisfying [the deities of] their own sense-organs. Yet, remaining as Brahman Itself, they get themselves mixed [in this mundane life] to their heart-content. Here we refrain [ourselves] from the free talk of clearly disclosing what is highly secret. Further, here a good amount of tasty secret has been kept well hidden. Yet, this becomes an object of [actual] chewing and [thus] becomes the cause for enjoying (realising) what is Real, in the case of those persons whose [bodily and internal] elements have been equalised by the powerful medicines of the tradition learnt from the revered teachers, pleased with service, laden with very assiduous devotion. In this context other explanations have been offered by [other] commentators. However, let the intellectuals weigh and decide for themselves, those explanations and the etymological interpretations offered by our revered preceptors. So, look! What is the use of the sport of criticising the statements of those commentators? Hence let us stick to only what we have begun with.

4.32 Evam etc. All these sacrifices have been detailed in the mouth of i.e., at the entrance to, i.e., as means to [attain], the Brahman. In them there lies the practice of actions as common factor. By knowing in this manner, you too shall attain liberation from bondage. The speciality here is this:

4.33 Sreyan etc. The sacrifice, illuminated by knowledge, is much more superior to the sacrifice consisting of materials exclusively. The exclusive nature [of it] is indicated by the suffix mayat [in dravyamaya]. For, all actions attain their finality in knowledge.

4.34-35 Tat etc. Yaj=jnatva etc. This: the knowledge. By prostration: by devotion. By inquiry: by the consideration of pros and cons, by good reasoning etc. By service: by practice. You should learn [this], For, those that are endowed with knowledge i.e., your own different sense-organs, that are exceedingly favoured by consciousness, will point out nearby i.e., will lead the truth to you if you remain practising in the said manner. For this, it has been said that they (sense-organs) are capable of showing the truth i.e., they show nothing but the truth. That has been said: ‘The Yoga alone is the teacher of Yoga [practice]’ and ‘On [reaching] that [seeded Yoga] [there arises] an insight, truth-bearing’ (YS, I, 48). If ‘those that are endowed with knowledge’ is interpreted to mean ‘other wise persons’, then it would amount to say that what the Bhagavat Himself had taught is untruth. Or, the purpose of saying in this manner may be to teach a conventional rule: Other persons too should learn from the men of wisdom only by prostration etc., and not by any other means. The [locatives] atmani ‘in your Self’ and mayi ‘in Me’ are in the same-case-relationship, and they mean ‘in your Soul that has attained (realised Its) identity with Me’. Atho is an expletive. In order to established the [total] sameness (identity) of the Absolute with the [individual] Self, a certain characteristic mark [of the two], is mentioned [here]. If the non-sameness (non-identity) [of these two] is intended, then the meanings ‘choice’ etc., [of atho] have no relevance here. Saying that ‘the sin also perishes’ in the first verse [of following two], in order to clarify the earlier statement ‘all actions, leaving no bit, [meet their end in knowledge’ - verse 33 above]; indicating, by ‘all actions’ - in the second verse-that the suggested meaning of ‘leaving no bit (verse 33)’ is ‘not even a bit of mental impression [of actions] survives’; [the Lord] explains-

4.36-37 Api cet etc. Yatha etc. The idea is this: One should exert is such a way so that the fire of knowledge remains well fuelled with the knot of firmness of conviction born of practice.

4.38 Na hi etc. There exists no purifier similar to the knowledge. The purity of other things is due to the touch of Consciousness and is not intrinsic. This point is not elaborated here for fear of a lengthy discussion. This purifying nature of the knowledge, one would understand for himself on reaching the stage of being perfectly enlightened.

4.39-40 Sraddhavan etc. Ajnah etc. Here the idea of the passage is this: The incoming of faith and the performance of activities intending this [knowledge], both spring up soon no doubt, if one, being a believer, entertains no doubt. Therefore, one should remain being favoured by the preceptors and the scriptures, and not entertaining any doubt. For, the doubt is a destroyer of everything [good]. Indeed a person with doubt knows nothing, because he does not have faith. Hence one should remain without doubt. The subject matter that has been elaborated in this entire chapter is now summarised by a pair of the [following] verses:

4.41 Yoga-etc. Renunciation of actions becomes possible only through Yoga and not otherwise. This has been discussed also [in the sequel].

4.42 Tasmat etc. Cutting asunder the doubt, you must practise, by the said method, the Yoga, the dexterity in action; and then stand up i.e., perform your activities simply with the idea that they are to be performed.

CHAPTER 5

5.1 Samnyasam etc. Is renunciation superior or Yoga? This is the question of the doubting person (Arjuna).

5.2 Samnyasah etc. Renunciation and the Yoga of action-not only one, but two-are mentioned here. Happily joining together they yield salvation. (However), the superiority of the Yoga [over the renunciation] is due to the fact that but for the Yoga, renunciation does not exist.

5.3 Jneyah etc. Therefore he alone is all the time man of renunciation, by whom both desire and hatred have been renounced from his mind. Because his intellect has come out of the pairs of anger, delusion and others, he is released just easily.

5.4-5 Samkhya-Yogau etc. Yat samkhyaih etc. There is nothing to differentiate as ‘This is path of knowledge’ [and] ‘This is Yoga’. Indeed both these are ever interconnected. Knowledge is not without Yoga; and Yoga also is not without knowledge. Hence the identity of these two.

5.6 Samnyasastu etc. [Here] the word tu is used in the sense of ‘affirmation’ and it is to be construed in a different order. [Hence the meaning is]: For a person without Yoga, it is certainly hard to attain renunciation. Because, as it has been already shown logically, it is difficult to renounce actions. But, it is certainly easy for men of Yoga to attain this. That has been said earlier.

5.7-11 Yogayuktah etc. upto atma-siddhaye. He, whose (by whom) Self is [realised to be] the Self of all beings, is not stained, Even though he performs all [sorts of] actions. For, he has undertaken neither what is enjoined nor what is prohibited. Hence, even while performing actions such as seeing and the like, he bears in mind, -i.e., he resolves with [all] firmness of observation, - that ‘If the sense-organs like eyes etc., function on their respective objects, what does it matter for me? Indeed one is not stained by what another does’. This act is nothing but dedicating one’s actions to the Brahman. In this regard the characteristic mark is his detachment. Due to that he is not stained. Because they do not have attachment, the men of Yoga perform actions only with their body etc., that are freed from attachment and do not depend on each other.

5.12 Yuktah etc. Highest: that from which there is no return.

5.13 Sarva - etc. [He would view as]: ‘Just as for a person within a house there is no connection with dilapidation etc., that are found in the house, in the same way for me too residing in the body-house beautified with nine windows in the form of openings like the eyes etc., there is no connection with its attributes.’ For -

5.14 Na kartrtvam etc. This Soul does not do anything for anything. But, Its exertion is only Its inherent nature and it is not due to any desire for results. For, the Bhagavat, the Conscious Energy Itself Whose ultimately true inherent nature is the Illumination Bliss Freedom of Will, and Which brings out, merely by Its own nature, the continuous series of creation, maintenance and withdrawal of all (the Universe); hence in It, there is never a departure, even to a little extent, from Its own inherent nature. Hence there is no such thing as a particular stage of being a creator i.e., a creatorhood separate [from Itself]. Because that does not exist, what actions can be there? If actions are not there, the fruit is to be of what or for whom? Then what connection could be three with the fruit of action? [Further], ‘action’ in this context is [only] the kriya-[sakti] or creative energy [which is nothing but His will], and ‘result of action’ too in only the fruit of this kriya. For example, the activity like rotating the [potter’s] wheel by the stick is not [actually] different [from what is to be created i.e., the pot]. Nor the creator of the pot is different from it. For, all exist within the Conscious Energy. Therefore, it is only the Animate Sovereign Supreme Lord that manifests in this and that form. Therefore there exist no activity and its result etc., apart from That. This is demonstrated conclusion [of the scriptures]. So, if there is no activity or its result [as stated above], then even the result, ordained in [the scriptural] injunctions cannot have a status of being produced by the unseen [cause]. After saying this in the other first hemistich [of the following verse], the Lord justifies in the other hemistich the same statement with reference to the men of mundane life:-

5.15 Nadatte etc. The sinful acts and the like have been effected not by the Soul; but they have been effected by the Illusion belonging to It, just as a poison is effected in the nectar by a doubt. Therefore-

5.16 Jnanena etc. When however the Illusion is destroyed by knowledge, then the natural capacity of knowledge, in illuminating itself and other things starts to work automatically just as the sun does when the darkness is lost. Indeed when the doubt [of poison] is completely rooted out, the nectar does the work of the nectar just automatically. But this is possible for those who have their intellect and mind gone to This [Self] and have abandoned [all] other activities. To make this idea clear [the Lord] says -

5.17 Because it is only the inherent nature that exerts thus, therefore [the Lord] says that the men, who have destroyed their illusion would remain as follows -

5.18 Vidya-etc. So, regarding a Brahmana these men of Yoga entertain no such veiw as ‘I shall become a man of merit by serving him’ and so on; regarding a cow, no [idea] like ‘It is purifying and sacred’ and so on; regarding an elephant, no thought of wealth and so on; regarding a dog, no conviction that it is impure, mischievous and so on; and with regard to a dog-cooker no opinion that he is a sinner, is impure and so on. That is why it is said that ‘they look equally [upon these]’ and not that ‘they act equally [with them]. This has been said as - The Self, which is of the nature of pure Consciousness, [shines] in he bodies of all; no discriminating factor exists anywhere. Hence, the person who has conquered the cycle of birth-and-death, remains considering all as fully absorbed in That (Consciousness) (VB, verse 100). Here too nothing but this stream of thought has been mentioned by ‘remains considering’. The proper mental disposition of a man of wisdom, says [the Lord], would be like this:

5.20 Na prahrsyet etc. In the case of this person, who habitually looks [upon all] alike, the classification of foes and friends is at the level of mundane business alone, and not internally, as he is firmly established in the Brahman.

5.21 He, in whom there is no desire for the external touch viz., the object-he thinks says as follows the Bhagawat -

5.22 Ye hi etc. He considers indeed as follows: ‘All enjoyments born of the external objects are in the form of causes of misery; and even otherwise, they are impermanent’.

5.23 Saknoti etc. It is not easy to accomplish this; [for], if this force of wrath and desire, hard to bear is endured till the last moment of the body, not for a moment alone-then is the total Bliss achievement.

5.24 Yo’ntah etc: Within: For him there is happiness nowhere but within and it does not depend on any external object; there alone he rejoices; his luster is there only. But, there is an apparent ignorance [of him] in his worldly dealings. That has been said as - ‘[A man of realisation] would wander, like a fool, with no inclination for discussion.’ (PS, 71)

5.25 Labhante etc. This [goal] is however possible to attain for those in whom the double knots in the form of dualism and doubt have been cut off.

5.26 Kama - etc. For them at all times i.e., at all stages, there is Brahman-Existence, the ultimately true one, and it does not look for the time of control [of the mind (mediation)]

5.27-28 Sparsan etc.; Yatendriya-etc. Warding off outside, i.e., not accepting, the external contacts (objects); establishing all the sense-organs - indicated by ‘sense of sight’ - in the middle place in between the two wandering ones, i.e., the right and the left views in the form of desire and wrath viz., in that particular place which is free from both these; he would remain fixing in equipoise (or making neutral) both the forward (upward) and backward (downward) moving forces viz., the pious and impious acts, within the mental modification. Nasa ‘that which acts crookedly’. This is mental modification, because it behaves crookedly i.e., inequally due to anger etc. The same is in the external plane. A man of Yoga of this type is just free, though he transacts all mundane business.

5.29 Bhokatram etc. [The Lord is deemed to be] the enjoyer in the caste of their fruit of the sacrifices. For, it is in favour of Him that the fruit is renounced. The same is with regard to the austerities. By knowing the nature of the Lord as such, a man of Yoga is released, whatever way he may remain in.

CHAPTER 6

6.1-2 The subject matter that has been thus established in the series of the preceding chapters is summarised by a couple of verses. Anasritah etc. Yam etc. Bounden: Ordained [in the law books] according to one’s caste etc. [Thus] man of renunciation and man of Yoga are synonyms. That is why [the Lord] says, ‘what [the learned] call renunciation’ etc. Therefore, without Yoga no renunciation is possible. Similarly Yoga is not possible without renouncing the intention [for fruit]. Consequently, the Yoga and renunciation are ever interlinked. The idea, suggested by ‘not he who remains [simply] without his fires etc.’ is this: He remains neither without fires, nor without actions and yet he is man of renunciation, Hence this is strange. Of course, following the principle [involved in the statement] ‘Playing dice is the kingship, without throne’, and following logic it has been asserted already that renunciation is not possible for a person who remains simply without actions. Yet-

6.3 Aruruksoh etc for a sage: For a man of wisdom. Action: that which requires to be performed. Cause (1^st): a means to attain. Quietude: to remain uninterrupted at the stage [already] achieved. Here Cause (2^nd) is an indicator. The same idea is made clear as-

6.4 Yada etc. What is desired by the senses: Objects of senses. The actions for them: actions such as earning the objects and so on. In this [path of] knowledge one should be necessarily attentive. This [the Lord] says-

6.5-6 Uddharet etc. Bandhuh etc. In this [path] there is no other means excepting the self i.e. nothing but one’s mind. Indeed the subdued mind is a friend and it lifts up [the Self] from the highly dreadful cycle of birth and death. But the unsubdued one does the act of enmity as it throws [the Self] down in the horrible hell. The characteristic mark of the subdued-minded man is this:

6.7 Jita-etc. A person with complete calmness: a person without ego. [The thinking etc.]; A thinking that entertains no difference in the case of others and of himself, and of cold and heat etc., i.e., [entertains] no like and dislike [for them].

6.8 Jnana - etc. Knowledge: a knowledge which is different from the false one. What consists of varied thoughts: the action in which varied thoughts are involved, i.e. the action that is born as result of preceding thoughts of reasoning.

6.9 Suhrt etc. Friend is one whose heart remains good and auspicious without cause (on its own accord). Companionship is [that which is felt] mutually. Enmity is [also that which is felt] between one another. The indifferent one: the one, who is free from both these. One who remains in the middle: he who is partly a friend and partly an enemy. Foe: he who deserves to be hated, [but] cannot be hated. Relative: the one [connected] by marital bondage. Whosoever is with his mind equal to all these as well as to the righteous and the sinful; he excels [all] i.e., stage after stage he goes out of the cycle of birth and death. By the worshipful-footed persons of this sort -

6.10-15 Yogi etc. upto adhigacchati. Self: the mind. Let him yoke it: let him make it single-pointed. Always: not for a limited period of time. If the conditions like remaining alone etc., are fulfilled, this [controlling of mind] is possible and not otherwise. On account of the firmness of seat, the time-nerve (or the body?) remains firm and due to this, mind remains firm. He, by whom the mental activities i.e., those that are in the form of intention, and other activities of the sense-organs are subdued i.e., are brought under full control; [he is the person of the subdued mental and sensual activities]. Holding: i.e., with effort. If the nose-tip is looked at, [it is possible] not to look at [different] directions. Let him remain endowed with the state of having Me alone as supreme goal. This is the meaning [here]. He who yokes i.e., concentrates his self (mind) in this manner, there arises for him Peace in which the culmination - as far as the end-is the same as attaining Me.

6.16-17 Yogosti etc. Yuktahara etc. For foods: for sense-objects that are being brought [by sense-organs]. Effort: activity for enjoying [them]. Its appropriateness is neither to have unlimited indulgence, nor to have unlimited abstention. The same is in all cases. The rest [of the text] is clear. On the authority of the Sage [Vyasa], the form jagaratah etc. [may be viewed correct] as those in the Vedic literature. The same is in other similar instances also.

6.18 Yada etc. The distinguishing mark of this man of Yoga is: Having his mind controlled in nothing but the Self, he does not crave at all [for anything].

6.19 Yatha etc. Just as a lamp existing in the windless place does not shake, so is the man of Yoga. Shaking in his case is the efforts like acquiring sense objects and so on. Now, the characteristic of this Brahman - Itself being Its own nature - is described indirectly with a good number of adjectives. This is different from the characteristics assumed in other systems -

6.20-23 Yatra etc. upto anirvinna-cetasa. Where the mind well restrained remains quiet: i.e., on its own accord. Where he realises the limitless Bliss: Because the dirts created by the sense-objects are absent. Any other gain: the gain obtained through the close contacts with wealth, wives, children etc. The idea is: With regard to other objects, the notion of there being sources of pleasure disappears; and it is the nature of the thing in question. Not shaken much: not shaken to a great extent; [hence] there is yet [a little] shaking in him, purely due to [former] mental impression; and it lasts only for a moment due to his compassion [towards all creatures], and not due to the wrong notions like ‘Alas! I am undone! What is to done by me.’ and so on. That, due to which the cessation of contact with misery results that must be yoked i.e., practised (concentrated upon) by all means, with determination i.e., with faith, born of the belief [in the Self]. Of undepressed mind. i.e., because the goal has been reached. Or of depressed mind: i.e., depressed that the birth-and-death-cycle is very firm and is full of misery. The means for abandoning desire is to abandon intention. This (the Lord) says:

6.24-25 Sankalpa - etc. Sanaih etc. By mind alone: i.e., not by withdrawing from activities. Holding steadiness; thinning, step after step, the misery born of desired; let him not think anything like receiving and abandoning objects and so on. Others have explained [the passage] as ‘Let him think only negation (or void). But this (explanation) is not up to our taste. For, that world results in the doctrine of nihilism. What is to be achieved is not a mere withdrawal [of oneself] from the objects. This is stated as -

6.26-28 Yatah etc. upto adhigacchati. From whatever objects the mind returns, immediately after its return, let him make quiet it on the Self. Otherwise, being not firmly established [in the Self], the mind would again take hold of nothing but the sense-objects. But the Bliss, assuming the roll of an agent (or subject, kartv-bhuta) comes to the object (karmabhuta), viz., the man-of-Yoga, whose mind remains quite in the Self. By this way alone the men-of-Yoga attain the Brahman easily and not by [any] difficult Yoga etc. This is the idea [here].

6.29 Sarva - etc. Let him consider the Self to be entering into (i.e., inherent in and manifesting as) all beings as a perceiver (or as a subject); again let him unify all beings in the Self through his realisation of the Self as being object [for them]. As a result of this, there arises a capacity to observe equally and also arises the Yoga. This is in short what is meant here. The details have been dealt with by myself (Ag.) in [my] manual, like the bhedavadavidarana and [my commentary], the Devistotra-Vivarana; and hence they may be ascertained there only. The same idea is made clear [as] -

6.30 Yo Mam etc. Loss: i.e., on account of serving no purpose [on the part of a thing]. For example: He who does not see the all-pervasive nature of the Supreme Self, from him the Supreme Self has fled away, because It does not reveal Its own nature. Further, this aggregate of objects, which is being perceived, remains settled down in the Supreme Self, which is the very nature of their illumination (being known). Now, whosoever fails to view the object as such, he gets lost from the nature of that Supreme Self. For, nothing shines without It. On the other hand, he who finds Me (the Supreme Consciousness) as immanent in all - for him I am not lost; because I appear [to him] in my own nature. [Again], when he perceives objects in Me-when his perceiverhood is complete on account of the possibility of illumination and manifestation of these objects due to this - then he is not lost for the Supreme Self.

6.31 Sarva - etc. Whosoever is completely possessed of the knowledge of this kind, he necessarily realises the Bhagavat as one and immanent in all and does not get stained [by any of his actions] is whatever condition he is.

6.32 Atma-etc. ‘That he finds the pleasure and pain of all on analogy of himself’. This is only a statement of characteristic mark [of the Yogin]; and it is not an injunction enjoining a new action.

6.33-34 Yo’ Yam etc. Cancalam etc. By this and which, the two words denoting [respectively] what is actually perceived and what is not perceived, the following is indicated: Thanks to the series of methods spoken just before by the Bhagavat, the Brahman is of course clear and has been no doubt shown as if by perception. Yet, It remains at a great distance due to the unsteadiness and wickedness of the mind, and It behaves as if It is beyond perception. [Destructive]: The mind destroys both the visible and invisible [ends of man’s action]. Strong: Powerful. Obstinate: impossible to ward off from evil acts. Now the answer -

6.35 Asamsayam etc. Through an attitude of desirelessness, the craving for sense objects is destroyed. Through practice, stage after stage, the side of emancipation is occupied [by the mind]. Hence both are included. Regarding this, it has been said by the revered author of the Bhasya as: The restraint of mental modifications depends on both [the attitude of desirelessness and practice]. Hence is this solemn declaration:

6.36 Asamyata - etc. In no way whatsoever, is the Yoga attainable for a man with uncontrolled self i.e., for a man without desirelessness. One, with subdued self: one, with an attitude of desirelessness. By him who exerts: by him who has practice. By means: by undertaking the means enjoined in many scriptures of the Siddanta and the rest.

6.37-39 Ayatah etc. upto na hyupapadyate. Even if his mind has moved away from the Yoga, he had reached, the faith in [his] mind is not lost. For, a person - even if he has achieved the Yoga - makes all [achievements] useless, if his faith is completely lost. That has been said:- ‘Even after attaining the perfect knowledge, if it gets vitiated due to the caprices of mind, that very moment it perishes soon, just as a heap of cotton does due to fire’. If a complete success in the Yoga has not been achieved, then having come out of this [material] world, and having not yet got himself absorbed in the Brahman, would he get lost? Or, because he has not yet got established in the Brahman, does he permanently get destroyed as the other world (heaven) is [also] ruined for him? This is the question. On this [question], the conclusion -

6.40 Partha etc. The idea [here] is: There is no [question of] destruction for the fallen from Yoga, either is this world or in the other; because his faith is not lost. He has indeed performed as auspicious act of seeking the Bhagavat, and that act is not of perishing nature as the Agnistoma sacrifice etc., are.

6.41 Prapya etc. Of Sasvata of Visnu (personal god). [His] years: three years of Visnu. Of the pure persons: of those whose mind is prone to touch (to meditate upon) the body (amsa) of the Lord.

6.42 Atha va etc. If emancipation is destined to come to him by way of difference (or in grades), then he is reborn nowhere but in a family of the men of Yoga. That is why (the Lord) says: ‘For, this birth is more difficult to get’. Indeed in the house of the rich there are necessarily many obstacles.

6.43-45 Tatra etc. upto param gatim. For a full success: for emancipation. Being not a master of himself: Indeed being exclusively under the control of other [force], he is forcibly driven towards the practice of Yoga by that [mental impression of his] former practice. This is not an ordinary thing. For, his act of passing over what strengthens the [sacred textual] sound is only due to his desire for knowing the Yoga. He passes over, i.e., he does not undertake, what strengthens the sound i.e., that which is of the nature of hymn-recitation etc. After that: after [the rise of] desire for knowing [Yoga]. Striving by method of practice, he attains the Vasudevahood (identity with the Supreme) at the time of destruction of his body. It should not be regarded that he has achieved success by [his pratice in] that single body gone. Instead, it should be regarded that he had practised during the course of many a life-period. Therefore, it may be conclude that the fallen from Yoga is he who craves continuously for activities of [attaining] the Bhagavat by abandoning all other activities. The superiority (or importance) of the Yoga, [the Lord] describes:

6.46 Tapasvibhyah etc. The superiority [of Yogin] over the men of austerities has already been indicated. The knowledge is the fruit of Yoga. Hence Yogin’s superiority over the men of knowledge. He is superior to men of action, because he alone knows how to perform action. The God-discarding difficult Yoga, does not itself yield success. This is stated [as]-

6.47 Yoginam etc. He, who establishes Me in his internal organ; who is totally addicted to devotion and faith and who serves i.e., internally experiences Me alone, and not anything else, following the method of tradition, learnt by rendering service to the revered teachers-he alone among all the Yogins, is the best master of the Yoga i.e., one who is fully absorbed in the Supreme Lord. Thus the superiority of the Yoga with Godly knowledge over all [other means] has been explained.

CHAPTER 7

7.1-2 Mayi etc. Jnanam etc. The words jnana and vijnana mean [respectively] ‘knowledge’ and ‘action’. There remains nothing apart from these [two]. For, all the knowables are rooted in the knowledge and action.

7.3 Manusyanam etc. All [persons] are not fit for this subject. By this statement, [the Bhagavat] has declared that, as the subject is difficult to grasp, it is to be learnt with effort.

7.4-5 Bhumih etc. Apard etc. [The demonstrative] ‘this’ denotes what is being perceived [as objects] through sense-organs by all men at the stage of mundane life. This is only one and at the same time is divided eight-fold. Therefore the universe is one and unitary, because it is made of one single material cause. By this statement, monism is demonstrated even while following the Prakrti theory. The selfsame Prakrti has become the living one i.e., the personal Soul. Hence it is superior [to what has become eight-fold]. It also belongs to Me alone and not to anybody else. This Prakrti is [thus] two-fold and varied in the form of the universe consisting of the knowables and the knower. That is why this Prakrti (the basic material nature), being the substratum of all beings reflected on the surface of the clean mirror, viz., the Self, is nothing but Self’s own nature and [hence] never leaves Him. This world: the Earth etc. [mentioned in the 4^th verse].

7.6-7 Etadyonini etc. Mattah etc. Keep them nearby: You should place them in your neighborhood following the method of experience augmented by practice. Or [it may mean that] You should bear in mind that I, the Vasudeva, am both the origin and destruction of all beings. What is indicated by ‘I’ is this: Even though [it is viewed that] the Absolute (Isvara) is distinct from the Prakrti, Soul and Supreme Soul, It remains by all means immanent in all; hence there is no room for the theory of dualism of the Sankhya and the Yoga schools. Just as the pearls on the string. Just as the string does exist unobserved in the interior [in a necklace] though its form remains undetected, in the same fashion I remain in all.

7.8 Raso ‘ham apsu etc. I am that [basic] taste which has not yet developed as to have the classification of sweetness and so on, and which is being tasted in all waters. Similarly, the light: That [light] which is devoid of gentleness and fierceness etc. (The sound that exist] in the ether in the sky. The sound that etc. Here the emphasis is on all sounds, as they are attributes of the ether. Or, the passage denotes that empty basic sound which, being exclusively an attribute of the ether; which does not depend on any other external cuases like union and partition [of some objects]; which exists in the ether within the cave of the Brahman; which is quite intelligible to the groups of Yogins with attentive heart (mind); which bears the name Anahata; and which pervades the entire groups of the Vedas - that sound represents the Absolute. Manly vigour; that lusture by means of which one is identified as a man throughout the earth.

7.9 Punyah etc. By its own nature pure is that smell which exists in the earth as its exclusive property. The foulness, the excessiveness [of the smell] are due to contamination of other elements. That has been stated [elsewhere] as: ‘[A particular thing] becomes hard because of the excess of the properties of the earth; foul smelling on account of the rise of the fire-properties; and stiff due to liberality (excess) of the properties of water’ and so on.

7.10-11 Bijam etc. Balam etc. The seed: the subtle prime cause. The strength, free from desire and attachment: It is of the nature of vigour and is capable of supporting all that exist. Deire: the Will, which is nothing but Pure Consciousness and which is not opposed to any of the attributes (its objects) like pot, cloth etc. For, the Will, because it is the [conscious] energy of the Bhagavat, is immanent in all and nowhere is it opposed, Even though it is being differentiated (i.e. the wills or desires are classified) on account of its attributes like pot, cloth etc., which are [only] accidental. Thus the wise, because they are devoted to this Will, are of the nature of Pure Consciousness. That has been said also in the Sivopanisad as - ‘[A man of wisdom] would concentrate his mind on the Will or [Self] Consciousness that arises’. (VB, 98) [Here in this quotation] that arises means ‘that has just risen but has not yet spread outside.’ Ignoring this way of interpretation [of the Gita passage] some interpret it so as to bring out the idea ‘He would enjoy the group of the three, not hindering mutually’. These (commentators) are ignorant of the customs (karma) sanctioned by the traditions; yet they interpret the secret about the Absolute! No doubt they deserve [our] salutation.

7.12-13 Ye ca etc. Tribhih etc. The [Gunas] Sattva etc., are derived from Me, and not I from them. That is why he who has achieved his identity with the Bhagavat (the Absolute), properly realises all [objects] as being the Bhagavat [Himself]. On the other hand, the person who is established in the knowledge of objects of umpteen varieties does not understand the reality of the Bhagavat. This krama (traditional order) pleases the mind of all. With this idea only the Lord is going to declare presently ‘Vasudeva is all’. There the meaning is this: He, whose internal organ is favoured by the descent of the Supreme Energy or grace (Sakti-pata) that arises after [teaching the stage of] equalness of effects of actions (karma-samata) that is brought about by the enjoyment [of effects] through many births; and who realises the reality of Bhagavat, with conviction ‘verily all is Vasudeva’ - that person is the great Soul and he is difficult to find. But, not knowing in this manner and, on the contrary, being deluded by the gunas, sattva etc., this world, fails to perceive the reality of Vasudeva, transcending the gunas. [The Lord] declares why the persons established exclusively in the Sattva etc. (Gunas), are not conscious of the real nature of the Bhagavat:

7.14 Daivi etc. Deva means ‘one who plays’. What is born of (or exists in) him is daivi ‘play’. Hence, the meaning is: ‘This is My play’. Due to this [play-trick], the [gunas] Sattva etc., even though they are not really different from the Supreme Brahman, the Pure Consciousness, manifest as different from That. This [differentiation] itself accounts for their secondary nature i.e., the nature of being an object of enjoyment i.e., being dependent on the existence of the enjoyer. This peculiarity of dual-nature is inexplicable for the persons of mundane life. Hence to them it is a trick of Illusion. Therefore, those who have realised the light of the Brahman, the Supreme Reality, and find the universe as not distinct from that [Brahman], they [alone] cross over the trick of Illusion which is of the nature of manifesting in duality and is in the form of the dependent status of the gunas, sattva etc. This is the idea indicated by ‘alone’ in ‘Me alone’. On the other hand those who would find just the manifestation of duality as they [appear to] exist - they do not across over the trick of Illusion. Thus it is rightly said ‘I am not in them (in the beings of the sattva etc.) etc.’

7.15 Na mam etc. Those who do not take refuge with attention in Me, even while their body remains fit for the purpose, they are evil-doers and the basest of men, deluded, demoniac, i.e. given to darkness (ignorance). Hence, this is only the power of the trick-of-illusion.

7.16-19 Caturvidhah etc., upto sudurlabhah. Those who worship Me are men of good action. They are of four types. All these are noble ones. For, other persons, mean-minded as they are, beg a cure of their affliction, and money etc., from persons who have hands, feet, stomach, body and intelligence (or bodily strength) that are equal to their (the beggars) own, or even from those who are very much inferior. But, by comparison with the man of wisdom, [the other three under question] are of inferior intelligence. For, they entertain, at that sage too, a sense of duality. Because, a sense of duality ‘I seek this from the Bhagavat’ is clearly discernible in them. On the other hand, the man of wisdom hangs on Me alone with a sense of identity [of him with Me]. Hence, I am verily identical with him. It is I alone, and not [any other] gain, that is dear to him. That is why he is having a mind purified by the firm conviction ‘All is nothing but Vasudeva’.

7.20-23 Kamaih etc. upto man api. On the other hand, those persons, whose minds are conditioned by a variety of their own respective desires for the best and so on (or the desires that may be classified as the best and so on) - they have thier thinking faculty carried away by their desires, and worship a particular deity who possesses nothing but My intermediate body that suits only to those devotees’ desires. Hence, they obtain their desired result from Me alone. But, that result has an end of its own, because it is limited by the mental impressions of their own. Therefore those who perform sacrifice etc., with the aim of becoming Indra etc., (or of attaining the houses of Indra etc.) gain their desired fruit accordingly. On the other hand, those whose chief aim is to attain Me, they gain Me alone. But, while the Absolute-being is immanent in all, how is it that the fruit achieved by the worshippers of other deities is limited? The answer is given as:

7.24 Avyaktam etc. Because of their poor intellect, these [worshippers of other deities] do not at all recognise the unmanifest and ultimately true nature of Mine. On the contrary, they conceive Me merely as one, possessing only a manifest form with a particular knowledge and a particular image nature, all suitable to their own desires. [They think] not otherwise. That is why, no name or form [of a deity] is insisted upon [by the Lord]. However, this is the established view [of the teachers of the school] in this regard: If a person holds fast to a specific form of a deity in order to get rid of desires, that [itself] results in his becoming pure and emancipated. If the case is reversed, [the result] would be a contrary one.

7.25-26 Naham etc. Vadaham etc. I am not perceivable to all. But the actions themselves, if performed, would beget emancipation at the time of dissolution [of the world]. otherwise, how does the total dissolution come to be there? When this doubt arises, [the Bhagavat] commences [to answer] as:

7.27 Iccha-etc. [At the time of destruction] he (the personal Soul) is led to expand exceedingly, while he still remains unconscious on account of his desire, aversion, anger, delusion etc. On account of this, the entire world takes recourse to the sleeping stage while it continues to exist in its entirity within the stomach of the Prakrti (the Prime Cause); and to exist just being (temporarily) not capable of performing its activities. For, as long as there is delusion, the mental impressions are to be experienced, as in the case of the sleeping stage in the night time every day. But on that account no emancipation is gained. For, when the experience of loss of unconsciousness is over (i.e., when consciousness is regained), again the mundane life with its varieties of activities is found.

7.30 Yesam etc. upto yukta-cetasah. Those, in whom the darkness (ignorance) has totally vanished, and the Self is well secured due to the decaying of the good and bad effects of actions-they break off the canopy of their [castle of the] mighty delusion and realise everything as the Brahman studded (purified) with the rays of the Bhagavat, emerging out of the darkness of old age and death; and realise ‘what governs the Self, the beings, the deities and the sacrifices are all My own different aspects’. They also experience Me at the time of their journey, on account of their having internal organ permanently immersed in the thought of the Bhagavat. For, those who remember the Bhagavat even earlier, since their birth-they at the last moment would very well remember the Absolute Lord. [Hence] it is good to simply keep silent with regard to those who opine ‘What is the use of worshiping since [the time of] birth?’

CHAPTER 8

8.1-2 What has been introduced by the Bhagavat by saying ‘They know that Brahman etc.,’ [at the end of the last chapter], the same [the Sage] decides by raising nine questions [as follows]: Kim tad Brahman etc. Adhiyajnah etc. Who and how is the adhiyajna? Who in this body?: ‘does reside’ may be supplemented.

8.3 Aksaram etc. the Supreme is [called] Brahman because It is big and causes everything to grow [in It]. On the same ground, what is termed ‘as the Lord-of-self’ is that thing which bears the name Consciousness which never ceases to be in It (Brahman) and which is nothing but the Brahman (svah bhavah). This Brahman, which is nothing but Consciousness, embraces the Power of [creating] the universe because of Its unlimited aspect of being external; and on account of Its freedom in the form of supremacy there arises the emitting (i.e. creative) activity [in it] in the form of manifesting Itself as the external inanimate beings and also as various external animate ones. [These two aspects of] this activity cause respectively the birth of the inanimate beings - i.e. the insentient beings, and the animate ones i.e. the sentient beings like Brahman etc. [In other words], It manifests as variegated insentient and sentient beings. Again this activity bestows on what is real, its intrinsic nature i.e. creates a reality for the one from which all that is false is excluded. This emitting activity is what is known as ‘action’.

8.4 Adhibhutam etc. The world of material beings, like pot etc., is of changing nature, because it flows or gushes forth with its innate nature of changes etc. Person: Self. It is the lord of the divinities, as all deities are established in It (or all deities get their perfections in It). On the same reason it is only Myself, the Supreme Soul, Who remain lording - as an enjoyer of sacrifice in its entirety - over sacrifices i.e. actions that are to be performed inevitably; and it is I only Who dwell in the body. Thus, a pair of questions have been decided by single effort. Now, the other question that remains to be answered viz., ‘How are You to be realised at the time of departure?’, the Lord decides as:

8.5-7 Antakale etc., upto asamsayam. At the time of departure also: i.e., not only as longs as [one is] in the healthy and unmolested condition. Me alone: Me, with all attributes undistinguished. But at the time of unhealthy state (at the time of death) of a person, how cloud the Bhagavat enter the path of his memory, when all the activities of the senses of that person have totally ended? Hence [to achieve this result the Lord] teaches also the means or device by ‘Therefore’ etc.: The Bhagavat surely, on His own accord, becomes [even at the time of death] the object of memory of that person from whose heart (mind) the Bhagavat has never gone away in any cirucumstance connected with the mundane life also; who has [thus] renounced all his actions to the Bhagavat alone; and who is full of (fully absorbed in) the Bhagavat. For this end, the means is to remain constantly absorbed in the thought of the Bhagavat. That is why He Says: ‘With whatever object the internal organ of a person is filled up always, that object alone is remembered by him at the time of death, and the state of that being alone is attained [by him]. Hence, let a person, by all means, have Me alone as his goal and be desirous of attaining Me’. This is the idea here. The idea [intended here] is certainly not ‘What is remembered, without fail, at the last moment that being alone is attained by him’. Because in that case the attainment of the man of wisdom would also be just like that of an ignorant man. For, the former too [at the time of death] gets [complete] dullness of mind that is benumbed by the disorder (or defect) of he elements existing in his entire body. Certainly it is not proper to accept this here. For, it would go against the authority of the scriptures. For, the fact is- ‘He who has attained liberation simultaneously with realisation [of the Self], and whose sorrows [therefore] have been destroyed - he attains completely unity [with the Absolute] even though [at the time of death] he has lost his memory and abandons his body in a sacred place or in the house of a dog-cooker (i.e., man of a low tribe)’. (PS, 83). Therefore the matter of fact statement (or explanation) and injunction [that are meant here] are the following: If a person’s internal organ is absorbed incessantly in the thought of a particular being, the same being is attained by him at end after departure. It is immaterial whether [at the time of departure] that being is remembered or not. This secondary importance [of the remembrance] is indicated by the word api ‘also’. The word va ‘or’ makes it clear that the remembrance does not exist in each and every case. The Sage (Vyasa) himself clarifies his idea ‘Let a man always remain by all means keeping Me (the Absolute Lord) as his supreme goal’. Since the Sage says: ‘Therefore at all times keep Me (the Absolute) in your mind’. Therefore, the following is the combination of words [of the verse intended here]: If a person, remembering always, or at the last moment - the use of or denotes ‘or not remembering [at the last moment]’ - a particular being, leaves his body, he attains that particular being alone. For, he is always absorbed in the thought of that being. But others [interpret the verses as follows]: When one leaves his body as the end, just at the moment of leaving the body i.e., at that moment which is not cognizable to the perceivers like relatives, sons etc. [standing nearby]; at that moment that comes last after the limb-movements, like [heavy] breathing, exertion, hiccup, convulsive utterance etc., [have endred]; at that fraction of time when the bondage of pleasure, pain and bewilderment is weakened as a result of the weakening of the control of the bodily strength; at that time that goes by the term dehatyajana ‘the moment of casting the body off’; at that moment whatsoever being a person remembers, his nature becomes entriely identical with that being, favoured (taken as an object) by the First Consiousness. The cause for remembering [the Lord] at that moment is to remain ever absorbed in the thought of Him. The word tyajati [of verse 6] is to be construed as the seventh case [meaning ‘at the time of abandoning’]. Hence, the purport [of the passage] is only what has been said above. What is the use of such a remembrance of Him at the last moment? But, who told that [there] is a use [for it]? But, the remembrance is certainly brought about as a natural course at the last moment. But this [proposition] would lead to an undesirable consequence. For, it has been observed that a person [usually] remembrances at the last moment either the maintenance of his children, wife and relatives, or drinking of cold water and so on. So, he would become identical with those things. It is not so. The moment, you speak of, is not the last moment. For, at that moment the existence of body is being clearly felt. Really that last moment, which we would like to speak of, can’t be perceived by persons like you. In what form alone the remembrance should be there at the last moment is decided by [its cause], a potential mental impression certainly arising at that time - even though it is far off - according to the general principle: ‘The remembrance and the potential mental impression [that causes it] being identical in form, there should be a sequential immediacy [between them], even though they are removed [from one another] by many births, by long distance and by long passage of time’. (YS, IV, 9). Thus, depending on the potential mental impression, there arises remembrance of a particular being, and because of its remembrance one attains the identity of that being. However in the case of certain body the same [process] is accidentally indicated even at the stage of healthy body-condition. See for example, the remembrance of a deer etc., [both in the healthy conditions and in the dying moment] and the consequential attainment of the deer-hood, as described in the Puranic literature. That is why api ca ‘and also’ is employed in [the statement] like ‘and also at the time of journey.’ Therefore, those who constantly think of the Bhagavat with intention ‘Let us become this Being’; they attain [in the following order] the identity with Absolute Lord, of the exclusive nature of Consciousness: [First] there arises the thought (smarana) of the Lord at the moment when the bodily existence is felt; then at that unperceivable last moment the potential mental impression, born of the said thought, gives rise to the remembrance of the Lord by striking down all the other potential mental impressions, according to the principle: ‘The potential mental impression, born therefrom, make all other potential mental impressions powerless (YS., I, 50). Then only at the moment of the fall of the body, because at that time the mental impression created by [the sense of] time has come to an end and because the differences of the objects like ‘this’, ‘that’ etc., are not felt-at that moment he attains identity with the Lord. This much of discussion is enough. Without doubt (verse 7): one should not entertain any doubt in this regard.

8.8 Abhyasa-etc., He, who is engaged in the after reflection: he who reflects on the Bhagavat after the pain created by the body has ended following the break of [his connection with] the body.

8.9-10 Kavim etc. Prayana-etc. He who would meditate in this manner (i.e. as described in the verse) etc. The Sun-coloured. The Sun-colour does not limit the Absolute (Vasudeva-tattva). However, a comparison with the sun is drawn because the absolute too transcends the darkness of ignorance consisting of the varied wrong notions, like fancying forms etc. This is the idea here. In between the eyebrows: [This may be understood] as above.

8.11 Yad aksaram etc. A means is called sangraha because by using this, the end is grasped i.e., determined. That Goal, together with means I shall tell you: Let me tell you now the means for [your] constant practice.

8.12-14 Sarvadvarani etc., upto Yoginah. The gates: the sense organs, like the eyes and not the place of excrement etc. Restraining the mind in the heart: By this, only the absence of attachment towards the objects, and not any seat, is stated. One’s own Prana: the driver of one’s own Self (the vital air). So, the meaning is ‘Fixing this Prana in the head i.e., the very Self with the Power-of-Will, lying beyond all categories. Thus the controlling of body [has been prescribed]. Reciting Om: This denotes the act of controlling the sense of speech. Meditating on Me: It signifies the non-wandering of the mind over other objects. Whosoever travels well: Whosoever travels day after day not to return back (i.e., for final emancipation). Therefore casting away the body i.e., longing ‘How to avoid taking once again the body, a repository of all troubles’, whosoever remembers Me always with his mind, that thinks of nothing else-he reaches Me i.e., he realises My state. Really the Sage (Vyasa) does not favour [the idea of] upward flight [of the Soul from the body] that may go against the pronounced intention of [attaining] total identity with the Absolute Brahman that admits no duality. Therefore it has been said: ‘If the Siva-existence (the Absolute State) is Omnipresent, then the upward flight serves no purpose indeed. On the other hand, if Siva (the Absolute) is not Omnipresent then the upward flight cannot yield Siva (the Auspicious one, the Absolute)’. Alternately [the Gita passage may be interpreted as:] If some persons have not undergone the process of constant practice, yet at the time of death there arises [in them] - due to some undefinable reason, like the Free Will of the Lord and the like-a condition, similar to the one mentioned above, then [in the case of those persons] this condition itself - characterised as ‘the flight from the body’ (getting oneself disassociated from the body) - is stated [by the Sage] as a means obstructing all the other potential mental impressions. That is why in the passage starting ‘That unchanging one which the Veda-knowers speak of’ and ending ‘I shall tell you that’, [the Sage] has made a solemn declaration in order to explain the astonishing nature of the reflection on the Bhagavat - even though it lasts only a moment - marked by the destruction of all the [other] potential mental impressions. Hence the great teachers also say: ‘O Sambhu! If You could set Your foot, at least for the duration of a single winking of the eye, in [my] blemishless mind, what else would You not accomplish [for me]’. That is why, with a view to satisfy those who raise the question ‘But the breaking [of body of the wise] has been found without remembrance [of the Lord] at the time of departure’, here it is said ‘He who [remembers Me] constantly with the mind, not attached to any other thing.’ The meaning of it is: ‘He whose mind is not attached to any other result to be achieved.’ For him I am easy to attain: For him there is no need to undertake the trouble of searching for a suitable time for departure; making pilgrimage to sacred places; [waiting for] the time of the summer solastice; taking shelter in the temples; augmenting the [guna] sattva; remaining absorbed in the thought [of the Lord]; [expecting] the auspicious moment of equinox and of the day [time]; selecting a locality that is naturally pure; having body free from dirt of attachment (or unguent); wearing clean cloth; and similar other ones. Hence it has been stated earlier [under VIII, 5-7 above] ‘Either in a sacred place or in the house of a dog-cooker’ etc. But it has been declared that ‘He attains My State.’ Will there he rebirth for him even after attaining that State? Considering this doubt [the Lord] says:

8.15 Mam upetya etc. In the next verse it is going to be asserted that from all others (other goals) one has to return back. But [in the present verse it is declared that] ‘having attained Me, the Yogins do not again suffer from fear of rebirth etc.’

8.16 A Brahma etc. [This verse] has been interpreted by all as ‘There is rebirth even for those who have reached the world of Brahma (the personal god).’ If this interpretation is accepted, then it would amount to the proposition that going to the worlds that are higher than that [of Brahma], is emancipation [from rebirth]. However according to us, with our inner sight blurred by the powerful darkness of doubt, this interpretation does not seem to touch the heart [of the text]. Hence, the following is the wick of the lamp brought from the Agama literature: Till Brahman: Till the status of the Supreme Brahman is attained. Till then all are subject to return (to rebirth) from each and every world, whether it lies adjacently, or above or below [the world of Brahman]; men run round like a wheel wandering without stop from one place to another. But who knows in this manner viz., ‘from all the worlds there is return’? For, it is heard [in the Puranas] that [the personal gods like] Brahma etc., themselves exist indeed for a very long period. How is it that they too are subject to return again? If they are subject to return, will they not be of the nature of having birth and death? Expecting this objection, [the Lord] says:

8.17-19 Sahasra-etc., upto aharagama. Those who could see afar (great seers), see [actually] the night and day even in the case of Brahma as being marked [respectively] by the destruction and creation [of the world]. Accordingly, having risen from sleep, the same [Selves] continue their own respective activities every day; they themselves, putting an end to their activities every night, remain exclusively in the form of Energy [of the Absolute]. In this manner they come to be again and again at the time of creation and of dissolution. No new, but only the self-same personal Souls are let loose. Their mutual difference in the form of the idea of the long and short lives is based only on the concept of time. This delimitation is unavoidable even in the case of the Prajapatis. Hence it is established that they too are certainly of the nature of having evolution and dissolution. [The Lord] clarifies His [own] statement: ‘People do return from each and every world; but having attained Me, the Supreme Lord, they do not do so.’

8.22 Parah etc. upto pratisthitam. The Absolute (Vasudevatattva) of the above description is beyond the concept of Time Manifest: [because] It is immanent in all beings. In spite of being so, It is Unmanifest: because It is difficult to attain. That It is, however, attainable by means of devotion has also been made clear already. In This exists this universe which is [Its] perennial nature that remains always the same. Now, what is the meaning of the word, punah ‘again’ and of the word avrtti ‘returning’? This meaning certainly presupposes a condition of disruption of one’s own nature for sometime in the intervening period. The auspicious Supreme Lord’s real nature is His Absolute Freedom viz., the Supreme Consciousness that transcends the universe, yet remains identical with the universe, and serves as the basis of the universe; and It is perennial. Hence, it cannot be assumed that there was some disruption at any time for this real nature and that the Supreme Lord regained that nature. Hence it is rightly said ‘Having attained Me’ etc. So far the behaviour of those persons who attain the Bhagavat by constant practice without much labour has been described. Now a difference that lies between those who, by departing, will (or attain) emancipation and those who will enjoyment [of mundane life], is described:

8.23 Yatra etc. The non-return: emancipation. The return: i.e., for enjoying [worldly life]. (23)

8.24-25 Agnih etc. Dhumah etc. Northern: upper (or upward). Course: the one taken [by the sun] during the period of six months. This course, on account of its illuminating nature, is figuratively described by the words denoting fire etc., and the course, contrary to this, by opposite terms. This course is intercepted with the lunar parts of enjoyment. Hence [it leads to] the return for enjoyment.

8.26 Sukla-krsne etc. By the first of these two courses the non-return i.e., the liberation is attained, and by the other, the enjoyment [of the mundane life].

8.27 Naite etc. The idea here is this: [That Yogin does not get deluded] who knows these two courses by adopting ‘the internal method’, approved by the [school of] Yoga practice. This point, if explained in detain, would lengthen our treatise. Hence let us stop here. Therefore etc. Whatsoever are the [units of] time that are internal let one practise the Yoga that is concerned with them all. Our preceptors have however said as: So far the peculiarity in the passing away [of the Yogins], as indicated by the internal times, has been described, in the middle of the discourse, for the benefit of one and all. Having done this, now the chief topic, under consideration, regarding the external units of times, is being wound up by the words ‘Therefore, concerned with all times etc.’

8.28 Vedesu etc. He goes beyond: he humiliates, because he, by his [constant] remembrance of the Bhagavat, neutralizes all the mental impression of all the activities. When all the actions (their mental impressions) are destroyed, he easily attains the Supreme Siva.

CHAPTER 9

9.1 Idam etc. Not to entertain displeasure is an important requisite for communicating knowledge. The words Jnana and Vijnana [mean respectively ‘knowledge’ and ‘action’] as above.

9.2 Raja-etc. Shines: that which illumines in the midst of all sciences. Here [in the Gita] itself it is said ‘The science of the Self [is the chief] among the sciences’. Here in this science kings like Janaka etc., have a right and privilege (adhikara) [to learn]. It is their secret, as it is much protected (by them) by heroism easy for the Ksatriyas. As they do not waver [in their mind] because of their heroic nature that is common in the members of the warring class, it is very easy to do i.e., to observe. Imperishable: Unlike other actions this action of worshipping Brahman does not perish through the enjoyment of [its result].

9.3 Asraddadhanah etc. They remain eternally: Again and again they are born and they die.

9.4 Maya etc. All beings exist in Me: Because no other abode of rest is available, even if one wanders [in search of it] for long. The beings (or elements) that form the objects of knowledge possess their well-known nature of insentiency. When these beings manifest with this nature foremost, their other innate nature viz., sentiency, that is opposed to this [former nature], remain hidden. This is what He says by I do not exist in them.

9.5 Na ca etc. Yet, the beings do not exist in Me: For, the persons, who are blind with nescience, do not see the reality. The ignorant do not consider the Absolute Lord - Who is of the nature of infinite Consciousness - as a basis of determinate knowledge of all objects. On the other hand conceiving [like] ‘I, the lean Devadatta, know this, as existing here on the floor’, they view [things of] finite nature alone as the basis [of determination]. But why this contradiction? On this doubt [the Lord] says Look at the Sovereign Yoga of Mine. Yoga signifies the Power [of the Absolute], because it is being employed. This is indeed My Sovereignty, which is the Freedom of behaving in this manner in a highly strange way. This is the idea (here).

9.6 Yatha etc. Evam etc. In spite of the concomitant connection between the ether and the wind, the touchability of the ether is never heard of. In the same manner the Absolute pervades the entire universe and yet remains not comprehended by all men.

9.7 Sarva- etc. Nature: unmanifest form.

9.8 Prakrtim etc. Taking hold of My own nature: By this much [of statement] it is explained that this host of Beings, though itself insentient, attains luminosity as it is linked to the Absolute nature of [Consciousness]

9.9-10 Na ca etc. Maya etc. There is for Me no bondage of actions, because I remain unconcerned. That is why, not resorting to any activity, I am the prime cause in the process of world-creation.

9.11 Avajananti etc. I am reclining within all that is born Being the Self of all, I become the object of disrespect. For, [they raise the question]: ‘Apart from the fourteen types of creation, like man etc., no Lord is found; hence how can He exist?’

9.12 Mogha-etc. Their action, knowledge and aspirations are all futile, as these are concerned with the unreal. The demonic and devilish nature etc. They are of the nature of excessive desire and ignorance.

9.13-15 Mahatmanah etc., upto Visvato-mukham. Divine nature i.e., of goodness. Offering sacrifices: i.e., by means of sacrifices with the external materials. But others worship Me with knowledge-sacrifice only. Hence through knowledge some [worship Me] as One, while others [worship Me] as Many through the action-Yoga. However all conceive Me alone, as their highest goal. But, action certainly abounds in the idea of duality, because it is coextensive with hosts of different causes (karakas). So how can it lead to the Absolute state? It is answered [as]:

9.16-19 Ahim kratuh etc. upto Arjuna. The Brahman being is of course only one and admits of no parts. The action also depends only on the assumed [or not real] causes. Hence, it accomplishes the aloneness (or oneness) of the Brahman. For, if it is performed with the realisation that all the different causes are nothing but the Self, then the action is not far away from reaching the Bhagavat. That has also been stated - ‘This self same action-power of Siva, if it exists in the ignorant, binds [him]; the same power, when it is realised that it is a path to his own Self [Siva], then it leads to the goal (the Lord).’ (Sp K, III, 16). I have myself (Ag.) stated elsewhere as: The intellect that confirms, in the beginning, to [the duality of] the beings and the non-beings; the same intellect does not conform, at the time of withdrawal, to [the duality of] the beings and the non-beings. This subject has been discussed in detail in different places. Hence let us stop [the present discussion] here. I give heat etc. This is said in the context of discussing the One that admits no duality. But if the Brahman can be attained by means of external sacrifices also, then, is a different god (different from Vasudeva) worshipped in the sacrifices like the Agnistoma? If it is admitted, then it would lead to the doctrine of duality. If [on the other hand] it is Vasudeva Himself, the how is it that emancipation is not attained by the performence [of these sacrifices]? Therefore it is stated -

9.20-21 Traividyah etc. Te tam etc. Of course, they worship Me (Vasudeva) alone. However, the action [like sacrifice] is limited (or is known [to them]) by their aspiration for heaven only. Hence, on account of the weakness is their own being (sattva), they condition the action solely by the result of the heaven. That is why their religious act leads to rebirth and thus they attain the state of going and coming. But [on that account] it is not the inherent nature of the sacrifice to beget rebirth. For instance:

9.22 Ananyah etc. [See for example] those who are different [from the above mentioned] and who think of Me. How [do they think]? They have nothing else: They have no other fruit apart from Me to desire for. Acquisition: gaining (realising) My nature not gained (realised) earlier. Security of acquisition: protection of the already achieved gain of being well established in the nature of the Bhagavat. On account of this there may not be even a doubt regarding the fall from the Yoga. This is the idea here.

9.23-26 Ye’ pi etc. upto prayatatmanah. Even those who worship [gods] with other names, they too [in fact] worship Me alone, because there is nothing (no god) to be worshipped apart from the Brahman. But the difference is that [they do so] by non-injunction. Non-injunction: different injunctions. [This amounts to saying that] having the innate nature of the Absolute Brahman-Existence, I am indeed worshipped by manifold injunctions (i.e., sacrifices enjoined by injunctions). But non-injunction should not be explained as ‘by defective injunction’ as it has been done by others (other commentators), who acquire dirts of great sins by insulting other systems of philosophy. If their view is correct then the declarations that are actually found viz., ‘They offer sacrifice to Me alone’, and ‘I am alone the enjoyer of all sacrifices’ - all would be inconsistent. Enough of talk with the sinful ones. Our preceptors, however, explain [ye’pyanya-etc.] as follows: Those who, following the principle of the doctrine of duality consider certain deity as different from their own Self and as devoid of the innate nature of the Brahman, and offer sacrifice to that deity only-but it is only to Me, their own Self that even those men offer their sacrifices, however by non-injunction i.e. by faulty injunction of the nature of duality-view. That is why [the Lord] says (in verse 25) ‘They do not recognise Me, their own Self, correctly as that deity itself, i.e., as the enjoyer [of the oblation of the sacrifice]. Hence they move away from My nature. Why? By being votaries of gods, they attain the gods etc. (verse 26). It amounts to say that this [fact of attaining these gods] is itself nothing but moving away [from Me, the Self]. On the other hand, those who realise My nature (i.e. Me) as being not different [from their Self], they offer sacrifices to Me alone, even though those sacrifices etc. are for the gods, goblins and manes.’ [The Lord] is going to conclude [the present topic] as: ‘(Thus) offering sacrifice to Me they attain Me alone.’ (IX-29, 35). But that alone is called a deity which is aimed at [according to injunction], for offering things (i.e. oblation). Hence, how can a sacrifice be offered to one’s own Self, a category that cannot be aimed at? For example, there is the injunction: ‘The oblation [of rice] of the rite prayana, crooked in the milk, is intended for the deity Aditi’; and hence this Aditi becomes the object intended [in the sacrifice], because that particular deity is an adjunct of an injunction, and because it is included in the injunction as one to be aimed at. But [in the present case], there is no injunction that concerns the Self. Having [these objections] in mind [the Lord] says: [They offer sacrifice] to Me following non-injunction. The idea is this: An injunction is required only in the case of a deity that is different from one’s own Self. For, the injunction is one of the nature of imparting the knowledge only of that particular thing which is not known [otherwise]. But, one’s own Self, the Absolute Lord, is known, not following any injunction. For, the knowledge of the Self is not brought by injunction. Certainly no action is undertaken not aiming the Self. Therefore in all cases [of offerings], intended for the deities like Indra etc., this Self of one’s own is certainly intended, as the Self is, by nature, the illuminator of the entire Universe; as It is like a thread in a garland; and as It is illumining [on Its own accord], asserting Its superiority [over all others] and only serving as a background (bhittih, ‘a screen’, or ‘a wall’) of the manifestations of the deity so intended by him [in the sacrifice]. Thus it is established by logic that even the votaries of gods offer sacrifices to Me (the Absolute) alone, because ‘I’ depends on no injunction. As far as these sacrificers are concerned, the principal effect of the sacrifice viz., attaining ‘Me’, is not intended by them as their own. On the other hand, they are very much satisfied with attaining the status of Indra etc., just as a priest is satisfied with limited fees. To indicate this, the parasmaipada form (yajanti) [is used]. For, it has been stated by myself (Ag.) [elsewhere] as: ‘One, who knows the Vedas and does not know [to intend for] the status of (or the word) Sambhu (the Absolute), would feel afflicted in despair. [For], aspiring for the heaven, and [hence] rejecting the status of [the actual] performer of sacrifice (yajamana), [but at the same time] performing sacrifice for others (yajan), he has become a [mere] priest in the sacrifice. Indeed, the divergently flowing floods of taste for action, without exception, - even though they flow from the Absolute consciousness - do not bestow [on the performer] the mighty ocean of Bliss of one’s own Self if they do not gain a complete stability’ Thus whosoever realises in the said manner, his sacrifice, though aimed at the deities like Indra, is in fact a sacrifice offered to the Absolute Lord. Whatever may be the other actions of his, they too become acts of worshipping his own Self, the Absolute Lord, as It alone is intended in all his action. This [the Lord] says:

9.27-28 Yat karosi etc. Subhasubha - etc. Because the performers of sacrifices intending other deities have in their mind only limited purpose, and [hence] belittle the [principal] result [of the sacrifice etc.]; therefore all [actions] you should offer, by the method advised above, to Me i.e., consider them to be absorbed in Me (or to be born of Me). This is the renunciation-Yoga. Extensively it has already been made almost quite clear.

9.29-31 Ksipram etc. I swear etc. This result (or subject), has logic [as its strong basis] and now being promised by the Bhagavat, it becomes established most firmly.

9.32-34 Man hi etc; upto Matparayanah. Those who are of sinful birth: I.e., the animals, birds, reptiles etc. Women denotes the ignorant. Men of working class denotes those who find pleasure in different vocations, like agriculture etc. Men of the fourth caste: those who do not have any claim whatsoever for [performing] the Vedic rituals and whose livelihood depends on others. By taking refuge [solely] in Me, even these all attain Me alone. The deeds of the exceedingly compassionate Bhagavat, like the one granting liberation to a chief of the elephants are heard in thousands [in the Puranas]. Certainly it must be so, for those whose behaviour is just the opposite to that of these persons. Some (commentators] declare: The present sentence [of the Lord] intends to glorify the twice-born and members of the ruling class, and it is not uttered with the intention of speaking of the attainment of liberation in the case of the women etc. Indeed these persons [aim to] break into pieces the gracious to all Power of the Bhagavat by fostering upon It, a limited applicability; likewise they do not tolerate the profoundly compassionate nature of the Absolute Lord; they contradict the [Lord’s own] statements ‘To Me none is hateful and none is dear (IX, 30)’, ‘Even a h