13.1
The Supreme Lord said:
This body, O son of Kuntī, is called the field (kṣetra). One who knows this body is called the knower of the field (kṣetrajña) by those who know this truth. [1]
Śrīdhara:
What was said before - that I am the deliverer of devotees from saṃsāra -
To establish that, knowledge of truth is now being expounded.
"I shall soon become the deliverer from the ocean of death and rebirth, O Pārtha" [Gītā 12.7] - this was promised earlier. And since deliverance from saṃsāra is not possible without self-knowledge, this chapter on discriminating between prakṛti and puruṣa is begun for the purpose of teaching knowledge of truth. In the seventh chapter, two types of prakṛti were mentioned - lower and higher. Due to non-discrimination between these two, the portion of consciousness assumes the state of an individual soul, and this is saṃsāra. And it is for the sake of the jīva's enjoyment that the Lord engages in creation, etc. through these two prakṛtis. The Lord now speaks, wishing to describe in truth that very pair of prakṛtis, which are denoted by the terms kṣetra and kṣetrajña, as distinct from each other. This body, which is the abode of enjoyment, is called the field (kṣetra), as it is the ground for the sprouting of saṃsāra. One who knows this, who considers "I am this, this is mine" - him they call the knower of the field (kṣetrajña), because he is the enjoyer of its fruits, like a farmer. Those who know this are those who know the discrimination between kṣetra and kṣetrajña. [1]
Madhusūdana:
May that blue effulgence which races on the banks of the Yamunā
Long remain a delight to our eyes.
If some yogis, with minds controlled through meditation practice,
See that supreme, attributeless, inactive light - let them see it.
The first six chapters explained the meanings of "that" and "thou". Now the last six chapters, focused on the meaning of the sentence and predominated by right knowledge, are begun. Previously it was said: "I shall soon become their deliverer from the ocean of death and rebirth" [Gītā 12.7]. And deliverance from death, characterized by self-knowledge, is not possible without self-knowledge. Therefore, the self-knowledge and knowledge of truth by which cessation of death and rebirth is achieved, and by which renunciates endowed with qualities like non-hatred etc. that were explained earlier become unified, must be taught. And that has as its object only the non-difference of the individual soul from the non-dual supreme Self, since all misfortune is caused by the delusion of difference from that.
In this regard, if it is asked how there can be non-difference between the many individual souls who are bound to saṃsāra in each body, and the one supreme Self who is free from saṃsāra, it must be said that saṃsāra and difference are attributes of the non-self imagined through ignorance, not of the individual soul. For that purpose, to establish that the knower of the field (kṣetrajña), the puruṣa, the individual soul, is one and unchanging in each body when discriminated from the field consisting of body, senses and inner organs, the discrimination between kṣetra and kṣetrajña is made in this chapter. The Supreme Lord speaks, wishing to describe the truth through discrimination of those two prakṛtis which were indicated by the terms "lower" and "higher" as the form of the field consisting of earth etc. and as the form of the knower of the field as the individual soul:
This body along with the senses and inner organs, which is the abode of enjoyment, O son of Kuntī, is called the field (kṣetra), because the fruit of action repeatedly arises in it, like crops. One who knows this, who considers "I am this, this is mine" - him they call the knower of the field (kṣetrajña), because he is the enjoyer of its fruits, like a farmer. Those who know this are those who know the discrimination between kṣetra and kṣetrajña. Here, by using the passive voice in "is called", the Lord indicates that the field is inert and an object, and by omitting "iti" in "kṣetrajña" he indicates that due to being self-luminous it is not an object - only those lacking discrimination say this, as it is imperceptible to those of gross vision. And by using different verbal forms and mentioning the agent in one case, the Lord points this out. [1]
Viśvanātha:
Obeisance to devotion to the Lord, which by its grace
Makes even a tiny portion of its parts like knowledge meaningful.
In this third set of six chapters, knowledge mixed with devotion is explained.
And within that, pure devotion is also extolled indirectly.
In the thirteenth, the body and the individual soul and Supreme Soul
Are distinguished as the means of knowledge and the knower.
Thus, in the second set of six chapters, attainment of the Lord through pure devotion was taught. Then three other types of worship - ahaṃgraha upāsana etc. - were described. Now the third set of six chapters begins, to elaborate through analysis of kṣetra, kṣetrajña etc. on the knowledge mixed with devotion that leads to liberation for the niṣkāma karma yogis mentioned in the first set of six chapters, which knowledge was briefly stated earlier.
What is the field and who is the knower of the field? In response to this question, he says "this". This body, the abode of enjoyment along with the senses, is the field, as it is the ground for the sprouting of saṃsāra (cycle of rebirth). He who knows it - in the state of bondage, considering it as "I" and "mine" and knowing it as related to oneself; and in the state of liberation, free from the notions of "I" and "mine" and knowing it as unrelated to oneself - the jīva (individual soul) in both these states is called the knower of the field. Like a farmer, he is both the knower of the field and the enjoyer of its fruits. As said by the Lord:
"The greedy village dwellers eat one fruit of this tree, while the forest-dwelling swans eat another fruit. The swans who know the one manifold magical tree eat the one fruit." [BhP 11.12.23]
The meaning is: The greedy ones who dwell in villages, the bound souls, eat one fruit of this tree, which is suffering, as even heaven etc. ultimately result in suffering. The forest-dwelling swans, the liberated souls, eat one fruit which is happiness, as even final liberation, which is of the nature of complete happiness, is born from this. Thus, though one, the tree of saṃsāra is manifold as it leads to various hells, heavens and liberation, and is magical as it is produced by the power of māyā (illusion). He who knows this through the worshipable gurus - the knowers of that are the knowers of the field and the knower of the field. ||1||
Baladeva:
The meanings of jīva etc. mentioned in the first six chapters,
Their natures are clearly explained in the last six.
As knowledge is the door to the previously taught devotion,
The knowledge of body, soul and God should be explained in the thirteenth.
In the first six chapters, desireless action leading to knowledge was shown. In the middle six chapters, devotion in the form of worship of the Supreme Self was taught, preceded by a description of its glory. That devotion alone subjugates Him and leads to Him. For those who worship Him out of distress etc., it removes distress etc., and when exclusive, it alone leads to Him.
When combined with yoga and knowledge, it was said to lead to the realization of His form dominated by opulence and to liberation. Thus, in these last six chapters, the world caused by the conjunction of nature and person, the natures of its Lord, and the natures of action, knowledge and devotion are distinguished. For clarity of knowledge, the natures of body, individual soul and Supreme Lord should be distinguished in this thirteenth chapter. The cause of the embodied soul's connection with the body, though distinct from it, and the method of discriminating between them should be considered. To express this subject matter, the Lord said "this". O son of Kunti, this body with senses and life-breath is called the field by the knowers of truth, as it is the ground for the sprouting of enjoyable pleasure, pain, etc. for the enjoying soul. Though this body is perceived by the ignorant as different from the self, thinking "I am a god", "I am a human", "I am fat", he who knows it as different from the self like a bed or seat, and as a means for the self's enjoyment and liberation, him the knowers of the natures of the field and knower of the field call the knower of the field, as distinct from the known body by being its knower. The body's nature as a means for enjoyment and liberation is stated in the Bhāgavata:
"The greedy village dwellers eat one fruit of this tree, while the forest-dwelling swans eat another fruit. The swans who know the one manifold magical tree eat the one fruit." [BhP 11.12.23]
But one who considers the body as the self is not the knower of the field, as he lacks the knowledge of it as the field. ||1||
BhG 13.2
Know Me also as the knower of the field in all fields, O Bharata.
The knowledge of the field and its knower is considered by Me to be true knowledge. ||2||
Śrīdhara: Thus the nature of the one in saṃsāra has been stated. Now he states the ultimate non-saṃsāric nature of that very one in "Know Me". Know that knower of the field, the individual soul in saṃsāra, to be truly Me alone, present in all fields. As it is stated to be My form by the conscious part indicated by the scripture "That thou art". He praises that knowledge for emphasis. The knowledge that thus distinguishes the field and its knower is considered by Me to be knowledge, as it leads to liberation. Other knowledge is useless learning, as it leads to bondage. As it is said:
"That action which does not bind, that knowledge which liberates,
Other action is mere toil, other knowledge mere skill in crafts."
Madhusūdana: Having thus described the knower of the field as distinct from the body, senses, etc. and self-luminous, he now states its ultimate truth as non-different from the non-saṃsāric Supreme Self in "Know Me also".
He who is the one knower of the field in all fields, who is of the nature of self-luminous consciousness, eternal and all-pervading - know that field-knower to be Me, the Lord, who is free from the qualities of transmigration like doership and enjoyership superimposed by ignorance, who is without transmigration, of the nature of non-dual blissful Brahman, O Bhārata! Thus, the field is imagined by māyā and is false. The knower of the field is absolutely real and the substratum of the illusion of the field. The knowledge of the field and knower of the field, being the means of liberation, is knowledge of the nature of light that destroys ignorance - this is My view. Anything else is ignorance, being opposed to that - this is the intention.
Here, the distinction between the individual soul and God is due to ignorance, while their non-difference is absolute. The arguments for this have been described by the commentators. We have not presented them here due to fear of excessive length of the text and because they have been mentioned many times before. ||2||
Viśvanātha: Thus, from the knowledge of the field, the individual soul's status as knower of the field has been stated. Now the Supreme Soul's status as knower of all fields is stated in "Know also the Knower of the field". Know Me, the Supreme Soul, situated as the controller in all fields, to be the Knower of the field. The individual souls each know only one field, and even that not completely. But I alone know all fields completely - this distinction should be understood. In response to "What is knowledge?", he says: The knowledge of the field along with the knowers of the field - the individual soul and Supreme Soul - meaning the knowledge of the field, individual soul and Supreme Soul, that alone is knowledge in My view and is approved. Due to contradiction with the text, the non-dualist view should not be followed here through a different explanation. ||2||
Baladeva: The individual soul's status as knower of the field has been stated from the knowledge of the field. Now the Supreme Soul's status is stated in "Know also Me as the Knower of the field". O descendant of Bharata, know Me also to be the Knower in all fields. The word "api" (also) is used for emphasis. The individual souls, knowing their own respective fields as means for their own enjoyment and liberation, are knowers of the field like subjects. But I alone, being the Lord of all, knowing all those fields that are to be sustained, am the Knower of all fields like a king - this is the meaning. The status as knower of the field for the Lord of all and Lord of the field is also stated in smṛti texts like:
"The bodies are indeed the fields, and the seed is also good and bad. He who knows them is called the knower of the field, being united with yoga."
In response to "What is knowledge?", he says "Of the field". The field together with the two knowers of the field - the individual and Supreme - are the field and knowers of the field. The knowledge which discriminates between them mutually - that alone is knowledge in My view. Anything else is ignorance - this is the meaning.
This should be understood here: Although nature, the individual soul and the Lord are mutually connected through their qualities of being the enjoyed, enjoyer and controller respectively, there is no mixing of those qualities, like the colors in a variegated cloth. Thus the sūtrakāra states: "But not due to the nature of the example". The śrutis also declare the distinct qualities of nature, etc.:
"Considering the individual self and the impeller as separate, being pleased by Him, one attains immortality." [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 1.6]
"The knower and the non-knower, both unborn, the powerful and the powerless - the unborn female is connected with the enjoyer and objects of enjoyment." [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 1.9]
"The perishable is nature, the imperishable is Hara. The one God rules over the perishable and the individual self." [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 1.10]
"Considering the enjoyer, the object of enjoyment and the impeller - all this is declared to be the threefold Brahman." [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 1.12]
"The unborn female, red, white and black, producing many offspring similar to herself; there is one unborn male who loves her, another unborn male leaves her, having enjoyed the objects of enjoyment." [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 4.5]
"The Lord of nature and the knower of the field, the master of qualities." [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.16], etc.
Here also, he will declare his own status as the Supreme Person distinct from the pair denoted by the words "perishable" and "imperishable", referring to the field and knower of the field, in verses beginning with "These two puruṣas". Therefore, the knowledge of nature etc. as distinct, though mutually connected, is true knowledge.
But the non-dualists say that in "Know also Me as the Knower of the field", due to grammatical apposition, the Supreme Lord himself appears as the knower of the field through ignorance, like a rope appearing as a snake. For removing that, this statement of the most trustworthy Hari "Know also Me as the Knower of the field" destroys the illusion of being the knower of the field, just as the trustworthy statement "This is a rope, not a snake" destroys the illusion of it being a snake. That view is refuted due to the impossibility of instruction, as explained in the commentary on "In this body". The following explanation is appropriate: The word "ca" (and) is used to include the field. Know the field and knower of the field to be Me alone. Know them to be of My nature, as their existence and activity depend on Me and they are pervaded by Me. This is stated in "Of the field and knower of the field". Their knowledge as being of My nature, due to their existence and activity depending on Me etc., is knowledge in My view. Anything else is not approved.
bhg 13.3
That field, and of what nature it is, and what its modifications are, and whence it is, and also who he is, and what his powers are - hear all that briefly from Me.
It has been sung in many ways by sages, in various distinctive sacred hymns, and also in the well-reasoned and decisive words of the Brahma-sutras.
śrīdharaḥ: Although prakṛti (nature), which is divided into twenty-four categories, is meant by the term kṣetra (field), non-discrimination through ego-sense is clearly manifest only when it is transformed into the form of the body. To discriminate that, this body is said to be the field, etc. Elaborating on this, he declares "that", etc. That field which I have mentioned is by nature inert, having the nature of being visible, etc. "Of what nature" means having qualities like desire, etc. "What modifications" means endowed with modifications like the senses, etc. "Whence" means it arises from the union of prakṛti and puruṣa. "What" means in what ways it is divided, such as into stationary and mobile beings. "He" refers to the knower of the field. "What his powers are" means endowed with what powers through the connection with inconceivable sovereignty. Hear all that briefly from Me.
madhusūdanaḥ: He begins to elaborate on the meaning stated briefly with "that field", etc. That body, as previously stated, which is in the form of the inert group, is the field, which by its nature has the characteristics of being inert, visible, limited, etc. "Of what nature" means having qualities like desire, etc. "What modifications" means endowed with modifications like the senses, etc. "Whence" means from what cause what effect arises - this is to be supplied. Or, it arises from the union of prakṛti and puruṣa. "What" means in what ways it is divided, such as into stationary and mobile beings. Here, due to the irregular use of "ca", all should be taken as combined. "He" refers to the knower of the field, who by nature has the essence of self-illuminating consciousness and bliss. "What his powers are" means what powers or capacities he has due to limiting conditions. Hear briefly from my words this true nature of the field and knower of the field, qualified by all these attributes. The meaning is: having heard, understand.
viśvanāthaḥ: He begins to elaborate on the meaning stated briefly with "that field", etc. That field, the body, which is in the form of an aggregate of the great elements, vital forces, senses, etc. "Of what nature" means having qualities like desire, etc. "What modifications" means endowed with modifications like hostility, affection, etc. "Whence" means it arises from the union of prakṛti and puruṣa. "What" means in what ways it is divided, such as into stationary and mobile beings. "He" refers to the individual soul and the Supreme Soul. The neuter "that" is used with the non-neuter by the rule of ekasesha. "Briefly" means concisely.
baladevaḥ: To clarify the meaning stated briefly, he says "that", etc. That field, the body, which substance it is, of what nature as its substratum, what modifications it has, from what cause it arises, and what purpose it serves. "What" refers to its essential nature. "He" refers to the knower of the field, characterized as the individual soul and the Supreme Lord, what his essential nature is, what his powers are, and what his potencies are. The neuter is used with the non-neuter by the rule "napuṃsakam anapuṃsakenaikav cāsyānyatrasyām".
bhg 13.4
It has been sung in many ways by sages, in various distinctive sacred hymns, and also in the well-reasoned and decisive words of the Brahma-sutras.
śrīdharaḥ: In response to the question "By whom has this been elaborately stated, of which this is a summary?", he says "By sages", etc. By sages like Vasishtha, etc. It has been described in many ways in yoga scriptures as the object of meditation, concentration, etc., in forms like Viraj, etc. By various distinctive Vedas dealing with nitya, naimittika, kamya and other types of rituals. It has been sung in many ways in the form of various deities to be worshipped, etc. And by the aphorisms and words about Brahman. Brahma-sutras are those by which Brahman is indicated or pointed out, such as "That from which these beings are born" [TaittU 3.1.1], etc., which state the indirect characteristics. And words are those by which Brahman is directly known, stating the essential characteristics, such as "Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite" etc. It has been sung in many ways by these also. Moreover, by reasoned arguments like "In the beginning, my dear, this was Being alone" [ChU 6.2.1], and "Who could breathe, who could live, if this bliss of Brahman were not in the space of the heart? He alone causes bliss" [TaittU 2.7.1], etc. The meaning of the two Shruti words is: Who else could perform the activity of out-breath? Who could perform the activity of life-breath? By decisive statements whose meaning is ascertained through agreement of beginning and end, and unity of purport, without ambiguity. Thus, what has been stated elaborately by these and is difficult to grasp, I will tell you briefly. Hear that - this is the meaning. Or, the Brahma-sutras beginning with "Now therefore the inquiry into Brahman" [BS 1.1.1] etc. are taken. Those very sutras are the words by which Brahman is ascertained. By those, which are reasoned and decisive, such as "Because of thinking" [BS 1.1.5], "The blissful one, because of repetition" [BS 1.1.13], etc. The rest is the same.
Madhusūdana: In response to the question "Of what is this a summary that has been elaborately explained by whom?", he says "ṛṣibhiḥ" (by the sages) to praise it for the purpose of stimulating the listener's intellect. It has been sung about in many ways by sages like Vasiṣṭha and others in yoga treatises as the subject of dhāraṇā (concentration) and dhyāna (meditation). By this, it is said to be expounded in yoga treatises. It has been sung about separately and distinctly through various Vedic meters dealing with nitya (obligatory), naimittika (occasional), and kāmya (desire-prompted) rituals and other subjects, through mantras of the Ṛg Veda and others, and through Brāhmaṇa texts. By this, it is said to be expounded in the karma-kāṇḍa (ritual portion). And through the words of the Brahma-sūtras - Brahma-sūtras are those by which Brahman is indicated, hinted at, or expounded with some elaboration, such as "That from which these beings are born, that by which they live after being born, that into which they enter at their death" [Taittirīya Upaniṣad 3.1.1] and other Upaniṣadic statements dealing with the indirect definition; similarly, words are those by which Brahman is directly expounded, such as "Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite" and others dealing with the essential definition - through these Brahma-sūtras and words. And through those containing reasoning - starting with "In the beginning, my dear, this was Being alone, one only, without a second" [Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.2.1], then presenting the atheist view "Some say that in the beginning this was non-being alone, one only, without a second. From that non-being, being was produced", and then expounding logical arguments like "But how, indeed, my dear, could it be thus? How could being be produced from non-being?" - which are conclusive, free from doubt, expounding the meaning through the unity of the beginning and end statements, it has been sung about in many ways. By this, it is said to be expounded in the jñāna-kāṇḍa (knowledge portion). Thus, what has been said very elaborately by these, I will tell you briefly about the true nature of kṣetra (field) and kṣetrajña (knower of the field). Listen to that - this is the meaning. Or, "brahma-sūtrāṇi" and "those words" is a karmadhāraya compound. Among them, the sūtras of knowledge are like "One should meditate on the Self alone", and the sūtras of ignorance are like "He does not know, like an animal". It has been sung about through these. ||4||
Viśvanātha: In response to the question "Of what is this a summary that has been elaborately explained by whom?", he says "By sages like Vasiṣṭha and others in yoga treatises". "Chandobhiḥ" means by the Vedas. "Brahma-sūtrāṇi" are those beginning with "Now, therefore, the inquiry into Brahman" [Vedānta-sūtra 1.1.1]. Those very sūtras are called "pada" because Brahman is known through them. And how are they? "Containing reasoning" means containing logic, like "Because of the word 'thinking'" [Vedānta-sūtra 1.1.5], "The blissful one, because of repetition" [Vedānta-sūtra 1.1.13], "conclusive" means with specially determined meanings.
Baladeva: In response to the question "By whom has this true nature of kṣetra and kṣetrajña been elaborately explained, which you are stating briefly?", he says "ṛṣibhiḥ". By sages like Parāśara and others, this nature of kṣetra etc. has been sung about in many ways:
"O king, I, you, and others are carried along by the elements. This group of beings also goes, fallen into the stream of qualities.
These qualities - sattva and others - are indeed subject to karma, O lord of the earth. That karma is accumulated through ignorance in all beings.
The Self is pure, imperishable, peaceful, attributeless, beyond prakṛti (nature). It has no increase or decrease, being one in all beings." [Viṣṇu Purāṇa 2.13.69]
And so on. Similarly, through various Vedic meters, all the Vedas, it has been sung about in many ways. In the Yajur Veda branch, starting with "From that, verily, from this Self, space was produced" [Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.1.3] and ending with "Brahman is the tail, the support" [Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.5.1], five puruṣas (persons) are described: made of food, made of breath, made of mind, made of understanding, and made of bliss. Among these, the first three - made of food etc. - are inert, the nature of kṣetra. Different from that, the one made of understanding is the jīva (individual soul), its enjoyer - thus the nature of the jīva as kṣetrajña. And different from that, the innermost one made of bliss - thus the nature of Īśvara (the Lord) as kṣetrajña is stated. This should be sought in other Vedas as well. Through words or statements in the form of Brahma-sūtras, that true nature has been sung about. Among them, the nature of kṣetra is stated beginning with "Not the ether, because of non-mention" [Vedānta-sūtra 2.3.1], the nature of jīva beginning with "Not the Self, because of scriptural statement" [Vedānta-sūtra 2.3.18], the nature of Īśvara beginning with "But from the Supreme, because of scriptural statement" [Vedānta-sūtra 2.3.39]. The rest is clear.
bhg 13.5-6
The great elements, ego, intellect, and the unmanifest;
The ten senses and one, and the five objects of senses. ||5||
Desire, aversion, pleasure, pain, the aggregate, consciousness, firmness;
This field has been briefly described with its modifications. ||6||
śrīdharaḥ: He describes the nature of the field in these two verses beginning with "mahābhūtāni". The great elements are the five beginning with earth. Ego is their cause. Intellect is the principle of mahat in the form of knowledge. The unmanifest is the root nature. The ten senses are the external senses of knowledge and action. And one is the mind. The five objects of senses are indeed in the form of subtle elements, manifest as the specific qualities of sound, etc. in ether, etc., being the five sense objects. Thus, twenty-four principles have been stated. ||5||
"icchā" etc.: Desire and the rest are well-known. The aggregate is the body. Consciousness is the mental state of knowledge. Firmness is courage. These, desire and the rest, being objects of perception, are not attributes of the self, but only attributes of the mind. Therefore, they are included within the field. This is also indicative of resolve, etc. Thus the śruti says: "Desire, resolve, doubt, faith, lack of faith, steadiness, unsteadiness, shame, intelligence, fear - all this is indeed mind" [bau 1.5.3]. By this, the attributes of the field promised by "of what nature" have been shown. This field with its modifications, including the modifications of the senses, etc., has been briefly told to you by me - thus concludes the description of the field. ||6||
madhusūdanaḥ: Thus, to Arjuna who has been motivated, he first describes the nature of the field in two verses. The great elements are the five beginning with earth. Ego is their cause, characterized by self-conceit. Intellect is the cause of ego, the principle of mahat, characterized by determination. The unmanifest is its cause, composed of the qualities of sattva, rajas, and tamas, the primary cause of all, not an effect of anything. The word "eva" is for emphasizing prakṛti (primordial nature). This much is the eightfold prakṛti. The word "ca" is for combining the difference. Thus it has been explained according to the Sāṅkhya view. But for the Upaniṣadic thinkers, the unmanifest is the undifferentiated, indescribable power of the Supreme Lord called māyā. It has been said: "My māyā is difficult to overcome". Intellect is the initial perception of that. Ego is the resolve "May I become many" following the perception. Then, in the order of ether, etc., the five elements are produced. For the unmanifest, mahat, and ego as established by Sāṅkhya are not accepted by the Upaniṣadic thinkers due to reasons such as not being mentioned in scripture, as has been established. But the unmanifest propounded by the śruti is: "One should know māyā as prakṛti and the wielder of māyā as the great Lord" [śvetu 4.10], "They saw the power of the divine Self hidden by its own qualities, engaged in meditation and yoga" [śvetu 1.3]. Intellect is in the form of perception as in "It saw". Ego is in the form of the resolve to become many as in "May I be many, may I be born" [chāu 6.2.3]. "From that, from this Self, was produced ether. From ether, air. From air, fire. From fire, water. From water, earth" [taittu 1.1] - these are the five elements according to śruti. This view is indeed superior.
"indriyāṇi daśaikaṃ ca" - The ten senses are the five sense organs of knowledge named ear, skin, eye, tongue, and nose, and the five organs of action named speech, hands, feet, anus, and genitals. And one is the mind characterized by imagination and discrimination. "pañca cendriya-gocarāḥ" - The five objects of senses are sound, touch, form, taste, and smell. They are objects for the sense organs of knowledge in terms of being known, and for the organs of action in terms of being produced. The Sāṅkhyas call these twenty-four principles. ||5||
icchā (desire) for pleasure and its means, thinking "may this be mine" is a mental state called kāma or rāga. dveṣa (aversion) to pain and its causes, thinking "may this not happen to me" is a mental state opposed to desire, called krodha or īrṣyā. Pleasure is a mental state that is the object of unconditional desire, caused by dharma, and indicative of the bliss of the supreme self. Pain is a mental state that is the object of unconditional aversion, caused by adharma. The body is the aggregate of the five great elements with the senses. Consciousness is the mental state called knowledge that manifests self-awareness and is the common cause of valid cognition. dhṛti (fortitude) is the effort that supports the depressed body and senses. This enumeration of desire etc. is indicative of all internal faculties. Thus the scripture says: "Desire, resolve, doubt, faith, lack of faith, steadfastness, unsteadfastness, shame, intellection, fear - all this is indeed mind." [BAU 1.5.3] This states that desire etc. are properties of the mind, like clay and pot being non-different as material cause. This entire visible world from the great elements to fortitude is insentient, being illuminated by the witnessing knower of the field, and is therefore not the self. It is the field to be known, the insentient, briefly enumerated.
But the materialists say the aggregate of body and senses itself is the conscious knower of the field. The Buddhists say momentary cognition itself is the self. The Naiyayikas say desire, aversion, effort, pleasure, pain and knowledge are the mark of the self. So how can all this be just the field? To this he says "with modifications". Modification means transformation beginning with birth and ending with destruction, as explained by etymologists. This from the great elements to fortitude, along with its modifications, is not the witness of modifications, as it cannot see its own origination and destruction. Also, since one's own properties cannot be seen without seeing oneself, and seeing oneself involves the contradiction of subject-object identity, the witness of all modifications is itself unmodified. As it is said:
"Without undergoing modification, how can one be the witness of the suffering modifier? Being the witness of thousands of mental modifications, I am unmodified."
Therefore, being subject to modification itself is the mark of the field, not enumeration. This is the meaning. [6]
Viśvanātha: He describes the nature of the field: The great elements like ether etc., ego which is their cause, intellect which is of the nature of knowledge and is the cause of ego, the unmanifest which is primordial nature and the cause of intellect, the ten senses of hearing etc. and the one mind, the five sense objects like sound etc. - thus it consists of 24 principles. Desire etc. are well-known. The aggregate is the body, a transformation of the five great elements. Consciousness is the mental state of knowledge, fortitude is courage. Desire etc. are only properties of the mind, not of the self. Hence they fall within the field. This enumeration indicates resolve etc. as well. Thus the scripture says: "Desire, resolve, doubt, faith, steadfastness, shame, intellection, fear - all this is indeed mind." [BAU 1.5.3] This shows the properties of the field that were promised to be described. This field is with modifications, accompanied by the six modifications beginning with birth. [5-6]
Baladeva: He describes the nature of the field promised to be explained in the first half beginning with "That field which": The great elements are the five like ether etc., ego is their cause called the principle of elements, intellect is its cause predominated by knowledge called the great, the unmanifest is its cause. The primordial nature in the state of three qualities, the ten senses of hearing etc. and speech etc., the subtle elements of sound etc. between the principle of elements and ether etc., which become gross as the specific qualities of ether etc. and are grasped by the five senses of hearing etc. as objects - thus the field is to be known as consisting of 24 principles. The four like desire etc. are well-known. This enumeration indicates resolve etc. These are properties of the mind, as per the scripture: "Desire, resolve, doubt, faith, steadfastness, shame, intellection, fear". Although desire etc. are properties of the self as per "He who is of true desires, true resolve" in "That which is the self", "Let one who desires recite" in the hymn of thousand names, and "The person is said to be the cause of experiencing pleasure and pain" which will be stated later, still they are properties of the mind due to manifestation through the mind. Hence they fall within the field. The aggregate is the body, a transformation of the elements. It is produced as the support for the conscious individual striving for enjoyment and liberation. Here, the substances like the primordial etc. are the constituents of the field, the senses of hearing etc. are those dependent on the ear etc., desire etc. are the effects of the field, consciousness and fortitude are the modifications, and the aggregate is "from which". All this is stated as the answer to "what". This field with modifications, accompanied by the six modifications beginning with birth, is stated. [5-6]
BG 13.7-11
Humility, unpretentiousness, non-violence, forbearance, uprightness, service to the teacher, purity, steadfastness, self-control, [7]
Dispassion towards sense objects, absence of ego, perception of the evil of birth, death, old age, disease and pain, [8]
Non-attachment, non-clinging to son, wife, home etc., constant equanimity in desirable and undesirable situations, [9]
Unwavering devotion to Me through exclusive yoga, resorting to solitary places, aversion to crowds of people, [10]
Constancy in self-knowledge, understanding the goal of knowledge of truth - this is declared to be knowledge; what is contrary to this is ignorance. [11]
Śrīdharaḥ: Now, in order to describe in detail the pure knower of the field (kṣetrajña) that is to be known as distinct from the field (kṣetra) with the characteristics just mentioned, he states the means of pure knowledge in five verses beginning with "amānitvam". Amānitvam is the absence of self-praise. Adambhitvam is the absence of hypocrisy. Ahiṃsā is refraining from harming others. Kṣāntiḥ is forbearance. Ārjavam is straightforwardness. Ācāryopāsanam is service to a true guru. Śaucam is both external and internal purity. External purity is through clay, water, etc., while internal purity is the washing away of impurities like attachment. As the śruti states:
"Purity is said to be of two kinds - external and internal. External is through clay and water, while internal is through purity of mind."
Dhairyam is steadfast dedication for one who has entered the right path. Ātmavinigrahaḥ is restraint of the body. This is proclaimed as knowledge, as connected with the fifth verse. Furthermore, "in Me" means in Me, the Supreme Lord. Ananya-yogena means with the vision of the Self in all. Avyabhicāriṇī ekāntā bhaktiḥ is unwavering and exclusive devotion. Viviktaḥ is that which brings purity and tranquility to the mind. The nature of one who has the habit of resorting to such a place is vivikta-deśa-sevitvam. Aratir jana-saṃsadi is lack of attachment to gatherings of worldly people. Moreover, adhyātma-jñāna-nityatvam means constant engagement in knowledge pertaining to the Self. Tattva-jñānārtha-darśanam means contemplation on the supreme excellence of liberation, which is the goal and purpose of knowledge of reality. These twenty qualities beginning with amānitvam and adambhitvam are proclaimed as knowledge by sages like Vasiṣṭha, since they are means to knowledge. The opposites of these, like pride, etc., are proclaimed as ignorance, being opposed to knowledge. Therefore, they should be completely abandoned. [7-11]
Madhusūdanaḥ: Having thus explained the field, in order to explain in detail its witness, the knower of the field, as distinct from the field, he states the means for becoming fit for that knowledge, beginning with amānitvam, in five verses starting with "That which is to be known". Mānitvam is self-praise for existing or non-existing qualities, for the sake of gain, worship, and fame. Dāmbhitvam is displaying one's religious duties. Hiṃsā is afflicting beings through body, speech, and mind. The abandonment of these is stated as amānitvam, adambhitvam, and ahiṃsā. Kṣāntiḥ is enduring others' offenses without mental disturbance even when provoked. Ārjavam is acting according to one's heart without deceit, meaning absence of cheating others. Ācārya here refers to the instructor of the means to liberation, not the Vedic teacher who performs initiation. Ācāryopāsanam is serving him through attending, prostrating, etc. Śaucam is external - cleansing bodily impurities with clay and water, and internal - removing mental impurities like attachment through contemplating the faults of sense objects. Sthairyam is repeatedly increasing effort in the means to liberation even when faced with various obstacles, without abandoning it. Ātmavinigrahaḥ is restraining the natural tendency of the body and senses towards what is unfavorable to liberation and establishing them only in the means to liberation. [7]
Furthermore - Vairāgyam is the mental state of desirelessness, opposed to attachment, for seen or heard sense objects or enjoyments. Anahaṅkāraḥ is the absence of the pride "I am supreme" arising in the mind even in the absence of self-praise. The word eva is for excluding its opposite. The word ca is for conjunction. Thus, the combined practice of all twenty qualities starting with amānitvam is proclaimed as knowledge, not the absence of even one. Janmādi-duḥkhānudarśanam is repeated contemplation on the faults of birth - staying in the womb, exiting through the birth canal; death - severing of all vital points; old age - in the form of decline of intelligence, strength, vigor, being insulted by others, etc.; diseases like fever, diarrhea, etc.; and sufferings born of separation from the desired, association with the undesired, etc., due to the self, elements, and deities. Or it is contemplation on the faults up to diseases beginning with birth, and on suffering up to diseases beginning with birth. This aids in realizing the Self by causing detachment from objects. [8]
Furthermore - Asaktiḥ is lack of fondness merely thinking "This is mine". Anabhiṣvaṅgaḥ is lack of excessive fondness thinking "I am this alone" with a sense of non-difference, feeling "I am happy or sad" when another is happy or sad. Where are attachment and excessive fondness to be abandoned? He says: In sons, wife, home, etc. The word "etc." includes all other objects of affection like servants. Nityaṃ ca samacittatvam is constant equanimity, freedom from joy and sorrow in the mind on obtaining the desired and undesired. Upapattiḥ means attainment. It means absence of joy on obtaining the desired and absence of sorrow on obtaining the undesired. The word ca is for conjunction. [9]
Furthermore - Mayi means in Me, Lord Vāsudeva, the Supreme Lord. Bhaktiḥ is love preceded by knowledge of His supreme excellence. Ananya-yogena means with the conviction that there is none superior to Lord Vāsudeva, therefore He alone is our refuge. Avyabhicāriṇī means unable to be obstructed by any opposing cause. This love is also a cause of knowledge, as stated: "As long as one is not liberated from bodily identification, one is not released from Me, Vāsudeva." [BhP 5.5.6]
viviktaḥ (secluded) by nature or by preparation, pure, free from impurities and snakes, tigers, etc., pleasing due to being situated on the banks of the heavenly Ganges, etc. - residing in such a place is called vivikta-deśa-sevitvam (residing in a secluded place). As the śruti states:
"One should practice in a cave or sheltered place that is level, clean, free from pebbles, fire and sand, pleasing to the mind by its sounds, water and surroundings, not offensive to the eye." [śvetu 2.10]
Aversion to the assembly of people who are averse to self-knowledge, who are attached to sense enjoyment, and whose gathering is unfavorable to the knowledge of truth; but fondness for the assembly of saintly people that is conducive to the knowledge of truth is proper. As it is said:
"Association should be completely avoided. This cannot be done, it is said. Therefore it should be done with the virtuous. For association with the virtuous is the remedy." ||10||
Furthermore, adhyātma-jñānam (knowledge of the Self) is knowledge that discriminates between the Self and non-Self, which proceeds with reference to the Self. Constancy in that, being firmly established in that. One who is established in discrimination becomes capable of understanding the meaning of Vedantic statements. Seeing the purpose of the knowledge of truth, which is the direct realization "I am Brahman" brought about by Vedantic sentences, which is the fruit of the maturation of all means like dispassion, etc. - that purpose being liberation in the form of cessation of all suffering consisting of ignorance and its effects, and attainment of supreme bliss that is one's true nature. By seeing the fruit of knowledge of truth, one would engage in the means for it. This knowledge consisting of twenty items from amānitvam (humility) up to seeing the purpose of knowledge of truth is called knowledge because it leads to knowledge. The opposite of this, mānitvam (pride) etc., is called ignorance because it opposes knowledge. Therefore, the meaning is that knowledge alone should be accepted by abandoning ignorance. ||11||
viśvanāthaḥ: Wishing to describe in detail the individual self and supreme Self, who are to be known as distinct from the aforementioned field, he states the twenty means of knowledge like amānitvam in five verses. Here eighteen are common to devotees and jñānīs, but devotees make effort only for "exclusive devotion to Me" as the means to experience God. The other seventeen arise naturally for those who practice that, without separate effort, according to the tradition. The last two are exclusive to jñānīs.
Here amānitvam etc. have clear meanings. śaucam is both external and internal. As the smṛti states:
"Purity is said to be of two types - external and internal. External is with clay and water, internal is purity of mind."
ātma-vinigrahaḥ is restraint of the body. Seeing the defect of suffering in birth etc. is repeated contemplation. asaktiḥ is giving up affection for sons etc. anabhiṣvaṅgaḥ is absence of the idea "I am happy or sad" in the happiness or sorrow of sons etc. Even-mindedness always in desirable and undesirable worldly occurrences. Exclusive devotion to Me in the form of Śyāmasundara unmixed with jñāna, karma, tapas, yoga etc., and also with predominance of mixing with jñāna etc. due to ca. Some say the first is to be practiced by devotees, the second by jñānīs. Others explain that mentioning in this group of six is to indicate that exclusive devotion is the means for experiencing the supreme Self just as it is for prema. Jñānīs interpret it as "by yoga that is exclusive through seeing all as the Self." avyabhicāriṇī means to be practiced daily, unable to be prevented by anyone, according to Madhusūdana Sarasvatī. adhyātma-jñānam is knowledge concerning the Self. Its constancy means it is to be practiced constantly, meaning being established in the purity of the categories. The purpose of knowledge of truth is liberation; seeing that means considering it as one's desired goal. This set of twenty is the general means for knowledge of the individual self and supreme Self. The specific means for knowledge of the supreme Self will be stated later. The opposite of this, mānitvam etc. ||7-11||
baladevaḥ: Now wishing to describe in detail the two knowers of the field to be known as distinct from the aforementioned field, he states the twenty means of knowledge like amānitvam in five verses. amānitvam is indifference to one's own honor. adambhitvam is absence of practicing dharma for the sake of appearing religious. ahiṃsā is not causing pain to others. kṣāntiḥ is tolerance of insults. ārjavam is straightforwardness even with the deceitful. ācāryopāsanam is sincere service to the guru who imparts knowledge. śaucam is external and internal purity.
Purity is said to be of two kinds - external and internal. External purity is achieved through clay and water, while internal purity is the purification of one's thoughts. Thus says the smṛti (sacred text).
Steadfastness is being firmly established in the righteous path. Self-control is restraining the mind from sense objects contrary to self-contemplation. Dispassion towards sense objects like sound is the absence of attachment to them. Absence of ego is giving up the sense of self in the body and other things. Perceiving the defects in the form of suffering in birth and other stages of life is repeatedly contemplating on them. Non-attachment to sons and others opposed to the highest truth is giving up affection for them. Non-clinging is not being affected by their happiness or sorrow. Equanimity is the absence of joy or dejection in favorable or unfavorable situations. Constant unwavering devotion to Me, the Supreme Lord, through listening and other practices. Exclusive service to My devotees with single-minded dedication. Fondness for solitary places and dislike for crowds of worldly people. Constant contemplation of spiritual knowledge pertaining to the Self. As the smṛti says: "The knowers of truth declare that I am the Supreme Brahman, the non-dual knowledge which is the essence." Perceiving in the heart the goal of that knowledge, which is attaining Me. This humility and other qualities are said to be the direct and indirect means of realizing that knowledge, as per the etymology "that by which something is known or realized." The opposite of this - pride and other such qualities - is ignorance and is opposed to that realization. ||7-11||
bhg 13.12
I shall now declare that which is to be known, knowing which one attains immortality. It is the beginningless Supreme Brahman, which is said to be neither existent nor non-existent. ||12||
Śrīdhara: He states in six verses what is to be known through these means, beginning with "jñeyaṃ" (that which is to be known). To generate interest in the listener, he shows the fruit of knowledge: By knowing what will be stated, one attains immortality, i.e. liberation. What is it? It is anādimat (beginningless). It does not have a beginning. It is the supreme, unsurpassed Brahman. Though the compound anādimat is sufficient to convey beginninglessness, the additional use of the matup suffix is Vedic usage. Or anādi and mat-param can be taken as two separate words, meaning "that which is beyond Me, Viṣṇu - the attributeless form of Brahman." He further states: It is said to be neither existent nor non-existent. What is the object of affirmative cognition is called "existent", while the object of negative cognition is called "non-existent". This, however, is distinct from both, meaning it is beyond the scope of cognition. ||12||
Madhusūdana: In response to the question "What is to be known through these means called knowledge?", he states in six verses beginning with "jñeyaṃ yat tat" (that which is to be known). I shall clearly explain that which is to be known by the seeker of liberation. To engage the listener, he praises it by stating its result: By knowing what will be explained, one attains immortality, meaning freedom from saṃsāra (cycle of rebirth). What is it? It is anādimat (beginningless) - that which does not have a beginning. It is the supreme, unsurpassed Brahman, the Self unlimited in any way. Though the meaning is conveyed by anādi alone in this compound, the matup suffix is used to indicate excess or eternal connection. Some consider anādi and mat-param as separate words, meaning "that which is beyond Me, the qualified Brahman - the attributeless form of Brahman." But interpreting it as "that which has Me, called Vāsudeva, as the supreme power" is incorrect, as power cannot be attributed to the attributeless Brahman being taught here.
He states its attributelessness: It is said to be neither existent nor non-existent. What is the object of affirmative cognition is called "existent", while the object of negative cognition is called "non-existent". This, however, is distinct from both, being attributeless and of the nature of self-luminous consciousness. As the śruti (Vedic text) says: "That from which words return, along with the mind, unable to reach it." [Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.4.1] Because that Brahman is not the substratum of existence, it is not directly expressed by any word, as the causes for the application of words are absent there. For example, words denote objects through: universal properties (like "cow"), actions (like "cooks", "reads"), qualities (like "white", "black"), or relations (like "wealthy", "possessing cows"). Here, all properties distinct from action, quality and relation, whether in the form of universal or limiting attributes, are included under "universal". Even seemingly arbitrary words like Ḍittha or Ḍavittha operate by taking some property or their own form as the cause of their application, so they too fall under universal terms. Even the word "ākāśa" (space) for logicians operates by taking some property like being the substratum of sound as its basis. In our view, since there are many produced instances of space like earth etc., spatiality itself is a universal property, so that word too denotes a universal. There is no direction apart from space. Time is not separate from God. Even if separate, words like direction and time operate based on specific limiting attributes, so they too denote universals. Thus, due to the fourfold nature of denotative causes, words are of four types. The negation "neither existent nor non-existent" negates universal properties and by extension also negates action, quality and relation. "One only, without a second" negates universal properties as they cannot apply to a single entity. "Attributeless, actionless, peaceful" [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.19] negates qualities, actions and relations respectively. "This Self is unattached" [Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.3.15] and "Now the teaching: Not this, not this" [Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.3.6] negate everything. Therefore, it is appropriate to say Brahman is not directly expressed by any word. Then how can it be said "I shall explain" or how can the sūtra state "Because it is the source of scripture" [Vedānta Sūtra 1.1.3]? This should be understood as indirect indication through words. The method of teaching is explained in "Some see this as amazing" [Bhagavad Gītā 2.28]. More details can be found in the commentary. ||12||
Viśvanātha: Thus, the individual soul and the Supreme Soul are to be known through these means. Among them, only the all-pervading Supreme Soul is referred to by the word brahma. That brahma, both without attributes and with attributes, is to be worshipped by the jñānī (knower) and the bhakta (devotee) respectively. Even though situated in the body, it is to be meditated upon as having four arms and is referred to by the word paramātmā. Regarding this, he first says "brahma is to be known". Anādi means that which has no beginning, as it is my essential nature, the meaning is "eternal". Mat-param means that for which I alone am the supreme and excellent shelter. This is because of my later statement "For I am the foundation of brahman" [Gītā 14.27]. What is that brahma? In anticipation of this question, he says: That brahma is neither sat (existent) nor asat (non-existent), meaning it is beyond cause and effect. ||12||
Baladeva: Having thus instructed the means of knowledge, he now instructs what is to be known through them in "jñeyaṃ yat tat". I will explain in detail, for easy understanding, that which is to be known, that which is to be realized through the stated means, including the entity of the individual soul, knowing which one attains amṛta (immortality), or mokṣa (liberation). He instructs about the entity of the individual soul with "anādi" in half a verse. That which has no beginning, meaning the individual soul has no original creation, so it is also not non-existent, thus it is eternal. The śruti (scripture) also says this: "The wise soul is neither born nor does it die" [Kaṭhu 1.2.18], etc. "I alone am the supreme master of that" because of the śruti: "The lord of the chief and the field-knower, the master of qualities" [Śvetu 6.16]. And because of the smṛti (remembered text): "He is eternally a servant of Hari alone, never of anyone else". Brahman is distinguished by the eight qualities beginning with being free from sin. The śruti also says thus: "The soul which is free from sin, free from old age, free from death, free from sorrow, free from hunger, free from thirst, whose desires come true, should be sought, should be understood". The word brahma is used for the individual soul because of śrutis like "If one knows consciousness as brahman" [Taittu 2.5.1]. "Transcending these qualities, he becomes fit for becoming brahman" [Gītā 14.26]. And because it will be said: "One who has become brahman, whose self is pleased, neither grieves nor desires" [Gītā 18.55]. "Na sat" means that pure entity of the individual soul is called neither existent nor non-existent due to the absence of the two states of being cause and effect. Rather, it is called the consciousness of the smallest particle, distinguished by eight qualities - in its manifest state with differentiated name and form it is called existent, and in its causal state with suppressed name and form it is called non-existent. ||12||
bhg 13.13
sarvataḥ pāṇi-pādaṃ tat sarvato 'kṣi-śiro-mukham |
sarvataḥ śrutimal loke sarvam āvṛtya tiṣṭhati ||13||
Śrīdhara: Now, if brahman is thus different from both the existent and non-existent, it would contradict śrutis like "All this is indeed brahman" and "All this is brahman alone". Anticipating this objection, he shows its all-pervasiveness through its inconceivable power, well-known from śrutis like "The supreme power of that is heard to be various, and natural is its knowledge, strength and action", in five verses beginning with "sarvataḥ". That which has hands and feet everywhere. That which has eyes, heads, and mouths everywhere. Having ears everywhere, it exists in the world pervading everything. The meaning is that it exists as the basis of all interactions through the functions of all beings such as hands and other limiting adjuncts. ||13||
Madhusūdana: Thus, when there is a doubt about the non-existence of the attributeless brahman due to its being beyond the scope of the word and concept of 'existence', and even when that doubt is refuted by the statement "not non-existent", in order to remove that doubt in detail, he states "sarvataḥ" to establish its existence as the conscious kṣetrajña (knower of the field) through the medium of all living beings and senses.
"Sarvataḥ" means in all bodies. The hands and feet, which are unconscious, are to be operated in their respective functions by the conscious kṣetrajña (knower of the field). That brahman is to be known as having hands and feet everywhere. Since all unconscious activities are preceded by a conscious substratum, there is no doubt about the non-existence of that conscious brahman, which is to be known as the kṣetrajña (knower of the field) and the cause of all unconscious group activities. Similarly, that which has eyes, heads, and mouths to be operated everywhere is "sarvato 'kṣi-śiro-mukham" (having eyes, heads, and mouths everywhere). Likewise, that which has ears or hearing organs to be operated everywhere is "sarvataḥ śrutimat" (having ears everywhere). In the world, in all groups of living beings, the one eternal, all-pervading brahman remains, covering all unconscious groups with its existence and manifestation, pervading them through an apparent connection, remaining unchanged, and not being affected even to the slightest degree by the faults or merits of the inert world superimposed on it. And as it has been elaborated before, the one eternal, all-pervading consciousness is not different in each body. ||13||
Viśvanātha: If brahman is thus different from both existence and non-existence, wouldn't it contradict scriptures like "All this is indeed brahman" and "All this is brahman alone"? Anticipating this doubt, he states that although brahman is beyond cause and effect in its essential nature, due to the non-difference of the power and the powerful, it is also of the nature of cause and effect. He says "sarvata eva" (everywhere indeed), meaning that which has hands and feet everywhere. The brahman itself is endowed with innumerable hands and feet, as seen everywhere in the multitude of hands and feet from Brahmā down to the ant. Similarly for "sarvato 'kṣi" (eyes everywhere) and so on. ||13||
Baladeva: Now he instructs about the supreme Self with "sarvataḥ pāṇi" (hands everywhere). That supreme Self has hands and feet everywhere, etc., with a clear meaning. ||13||
BhG 13.14
sarvendriya-guṇābhāsaṃ sarvendriya-vivarjitam |
asaktaṃ sarva-bhṛc caiva nirguṇaṃ guṇa-bhoktṛ ca ||14||
Śrīdhara: Moreover, "sarvendriya" (all senses) means it appears in the form of the functions of all senses like eyes, etc., in the form of their objects like form, etc. Or, it illuminates all senses and their objects. It is also devoid of all senses. As the scripture says, "Without hands and feet, He moves and grasps; without eyes, He sees; without ears, He hears," etc. It is unattached, free from association. Yet it supports everything, being the substratum of all. It is indeed nirguṇa (without qualities), free from qualities like sattva, etc. And it is guṇa-bhoktṛ (enjoyer of qualities), the sustainer of qualities like sattva, etc. ||14||
Madhusūdana: Following the method of superimposition and negation by which the non-dual is expounded, having explained the supreme brahman as having no beginning through the superimposition of all phenomena, now he begins to explain "It is said to be neither existent nor non-existent" through negation, for the knowledge of its attributeless nature, with "sarvendriya" (all senses). In reality, it is devoid of all senses, but through its māyā (illusion), it appears as if endowed with the qualities of all senses. It appears as if engaged in the functions of all external senses like hearing, etc., and internal organs like intellect and mind, through their qualities like determination, deliberation, hearing, speaking, etc., as if operating in their respective objects. That brahman is to be known as such, as the scripture says, "It thinks, as it were, and moves, as it were." Here, thinking indicates the function of the organs of knowledge, and moving indicates the function of the organs of action.
Similarly, in reality, it is unattached, completely free from all relations, but through māyā, it appears as sarva-bhṛt (all-supporting), as if supporting and nourishing everything imagined in it as the substratum of existence, because an illusion without a substratum is impossible. Likewise, in reality, it is nirguṇa (without qualities), devoid of the qualities of sattva, rajas, and tamas. And it is guṇa-bhoktṛ (enjoyer of qualities), the perceiver of the qualities sattva, rajas, and tamas transformed into pleasure, pain, and delusion through sound and other objects. That brahman is to be known as such. ||14||
viśvanāthaḥ: Moreover, it illuminates all the senses and the objects of the senses, as per the śruti (scripture) "It is the eye of the eye" etc. Or, it shines through all the senses and qualities like sound etc. That too is devoid of all senses, free from material senses etc. And thus the śruti says - "Without hands and feet He moves swiftly and grasps; He sees without eyes and hears without ears" etc. "His supreme power is heard of in various ways, and His knowledge, strength and action are natural" - this is the meaning, as it is the basis of the self-power well-known in śruti. Unattached, devoid of attachment; sustainer of all, protector of all in the form of Śrī Viṣṇu; without qualities (nirguṇa), having a form devoid of qualities like sattva etc. Moreover, the enjoyer of qualities, transcending the three guṇas, expressed by the word bhaga, relishing the six qualities. ||14||
baladevaḥ: Moreover, it shines through all senses and qualities and their functions. Thus, it should be accepted that Hari is devoid of all senses separate from His own form like the individual soul's senses, free from material organs, but possessing those connected to His essential nature. "Without hands and feet He moves swiftly and grasps; He sees without eyes and hears without ears." What is the nature of Bhagavān, that is the nature of His manifestation. What is the nature of Bhagavān - He is of the nature of knowledge, of lordship, and of power. Thus we understand Bhagavān to have intelligence, mind, limbs and sub-limbs, as per the śruti "He has intelligence, mind, limbs and sub-limbs." Sustainer of all, supporting all principles, yet unattached, as He supports them merely by His will, without contact. Without qualities (nirguṇa), as per the śruti "The witness, consciousness, alone and without qualities." Enjoyer of qualities, as the controller of those touched by the qualities of māyā, beginning with "The ignorant who generates transformations by experiencing qualities"
"But the one God drinks here willingly, following His own desire. Through meditation and action, the all-pervading Lord forcefully enjoys." Thus it is heard. ||14||
bhg 13.15
bahir antaś ca bhūtānām acaraṃ caram eva ca |
sūkṣmatvāt tad avijñeyaṃ dūra-sthaṃ cāntike ca tat ||15||
śrīdharaḥ: Moreover, bahir (outside) etc. Of beings, moving and non-moving, its own effects, it is outside and inside, like gold in bangles, earrings etc. Like water inside and outside of water waves. acara (non-moving) means stationary, and cara (moving) means mobile beings, that alone is, because the effect is of the nature of the cause. Even so, due to sūkṣmatva (subtlety), being devoid of form etc., that is avijñeya (unknowable), it cannot be clearly known as "this is that". Therefore for the ignorant it is as if dūra-stha (far away) by millions of yojanas. Because it is beyond mutable prakṛti (nature). But for the wise, being the inner self, it is antike (near) ca tat, always present. And thus the mantra says:
"It moves and it moves not; It is far and It is near; It is within all this and It is outside of all this." [Īśopaniṣad 5]
ejati means moves, naijati means does not move. tad u antike is split thus. ||15||
madhusūdanaḥ: Of bhūtānām (beings) having the nature of becoming, of all imagined effects, it is the one non-imagined substratum bahir antaś ca (outside and inside), like a rope for the snake, stick etc. imagined in it, pervading everything completely. Therefore acara (non-moving) means stationary and cara means mobile beings, that alone is, being of the nature of the substratum. Nothing imagined is separate from it. Even though it is the self of all, due to sūkṣmatva (subtlety), being devoid of form etc., that is avijñeya (unknowable), it cannot be clearly known as "this is thus". Therefore for those devoid of the means of self-knowledge, even after billions of years it is as if dūra-stha (far away) by billions of yojanas. But for those endowed with the means of knowledge, it is antike (near) ca tat, extremely close, being the self. As per śrutis like "Far, farther than the far, and here very near, seen here itself, placed in the secret heart" [Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.1.7] etc. ||15||
Viśvanātha: Like space and other elements are for bodies, it is outside and inside of beings for their own purposes. It is the same stationary immovable and moving mobile world of beings. Because the effect is of the nature of the cause. Even so, due to being different in form etc., it is unknowable as "this is that" - it does not become clearly knowable. Therefore, for the ignorant it is as if distant by ten million yojanas, but for the wise it is situated in their own home nearby, and in their own body as the inner controller. This is from śrutis like "Far beyond the far and near here, seeing it placed here in the cave" [Muṇḍu 3.1.7]. ||15||
Baladeva: "Outside" means: situated outside and inside of beings, which are the conscious and unconscious principles. From hearing "Nārāyaṇa remains pervading all that, inside and outside" [MNāu 13.5]. The immovable unmoving and movable moving, from the śruti "Sitting it travels far, lying down it goes everywhere" [Kaṭhu 1.2.21]. Unknowable due to subtlety, being the inner self, and having the form of consciousness-bliss; unable to be known like other deities. Hence "distant" etc., from the śruti "No one knows this with the mind, no one sees it with the eye" [Śvetu 4.20]. But it can be known by a sense organ imbued with devotion, like recognizing musical notes with an ear accustomed to Gandharva music. So it says "near" etc. It should be seen as if in the mind. Some wise person saw the inner self. From hearing "He remains in devotional yoga" [GTu 2.78] etc. And from smṛtis like "But by undivided devotion he can be known" [Gītā 11.55] etc. ||15||
BhG 13.16
Undivided, yet appearing as if divided among beings,
It is to be known as the sustainer of beings, the devourer and the generator. ||16||
Śrīdhara: Moreover - "Undivided" etc. Undivided means non-different in its causal nature, appearing as if divided in its effect nature, situated in beings composed of the immovable and mobile. Like foam etc. born from the ocean is not different from the ocean. That very nature is said to be known as the sustainer, i.e. nourisher of beings during the time of maintenance. And at the time of dissolution, having the nature of devouring. And at the time of creation, having the nature of generating in the form of various effects. ||16||
Madhusūdana: To explain what was said - that one alone remains covering everything - and to refute those who argue for different selves in each body, "Undivided" etc. Undivided means non-different, one alone in all beings, i.e. all living things. Not different in each body, being all-pervading like space. Yet appearing as if divided in each body, being perceived as identical with the body. The appearance of division there is unreal, based on limiting adjuncts, like in space.
Now one may say: Let the knower of the field be one all-pervading entity, but Brahman, the cause of the world, is different from that. No, it says "the sustainer of beings" - it sustains all beings during maintenance. "Devourer" means having the nature of devouring during dissolution. "Generator" means having the nature of generating everything during creation. Like a rope etc. for an illusory snake etc. Therefore, Brahman which is the cause of the world's maintenance, dissolution and creation, is to be known as the one knower of the field in each body, not different from that. ||16||
Viśvanātha: Undivided means non-different in its causal nature, appearing as if divided, i.e. different, in its effect nature, situated in beings composed of the immovable and mobile. That very form of Śrī Nārāyaṇa, being the sustainer of beings means the protector during maintenance. The devourer means the destroyer during dissolution. The generator means having the nature of generating in the form of various effects during creation. ||16||
Baladeva: "Undivided" etc. That Brahman is undivided, one, in mutually divided, different living beings, yet appears as if divided, as if different in each living being. From the śruti "Being one, appearing as many". And from the smṛti:
"The one supreme Viṣṇu is everywhere, there is no doubt.
By his divine power, his one form appears as many, like the sun."
And it is the sustainer of beings, the protector during maintenance. The devourer of them during dissolution, destroying them by the power of time. The generator during creation, having the nature of generating in the form of various effects by the powers of pradhāna and living beings. And the śruti says "That from which these beings are born, by which when born they live, into which they enter on departing - seek to know that. That is Brahman." [Taittu 3.1.1] ||16||
bhg 13.17
That is said to be the light of lights, beyond darkness. It is knowledge, the object of knowledge, attainable through knowledge, and situated in the hearts of all. [17]
Śrīdhara: Moreover, "jyotiṣām api" etc. That which is the light, the illuminator, of lights such as the sun, etc. "By which the sun shines, kindled with heat."
"There the sun does not shine, nor the moon and stars, nor do these lightnings shine—how then could this fire? Everything shines only after that shining light, and by its light all this is illuminated." [Kaṭhu 2.5.15] Thus state the śrutis.
Therefore it is said to be beyond darkness or ignorance, untouched by it. "Of the color of the sun, beyond darkness," thus state the śrutis. And that same knowledge is manifested in the function of the intellect. That itself is the object of knowledge in the form of forms etc., and is attainable through knowledge. The meaning is that it is attainable through the previously mentioned means of knowledge characterized by humility etc. It explains "attainable through knowledge" as situated in the hearts of all beings, specially situated as the unchanging essence, as the controller. If the reading is "dhiṣṭhitam", the meaning is "having stood over".
Madhusūdana: If it is not perceived though present everywhere, then wouldn't it be inert? The self-luminous would not be imperceptible to the senses etc. due to lacking form etc., thus he says "jyotiṣām" etc. That knowable Brahman is the light, the illuminator, of lights that illuminate, such as the sun etc., and external and internal ones like the intellect etc., because the light of consciousness is the illuminator of inert lights. "By which the sun shines, kindled with heat. By its light all this shines." [Kaṭhu 2.5.15] Thus state the śrutis. And he will say "That light which is in the sun" [Gītā 15.8] etc.
Though not itself inert, it may be mixed with the inert, thus he says it is beyond darkness, the inert class, untouched by avidyā and its effects which are not ultimately real, as it is ultimately real, there being no connection possible between the real and unreal. It is said to be "higher than the imperishable" etc. by the śrutis and knowers of Brahman. As it is said:
"There can be no real connection between the unattached and the attached, the unchanging and the changing, the Self and the non-Self."
And the śruti says: "Of the color of the sun, beyond darkness." "Of the color of the sun" means it illuminates everything, not depending on any other light to shine. Because it is self-luminous and untouched by the inert, therefore it is knowledge in the form of awareness manifested by the mental modification produced by a means of knowledge. Therefore that alone is knowable, fit to be known, because of being unknown, the inert not being fit to be known due to not being unknown. How then is it not known by all? To this he says "attainable through knowledge", meaning it is attainable, reachable through the previously mentioned means characterized by humility etc. up to seeing for the purpose of knowledge of reality, which are called knowledge as being the cause of knowledge, not without that.
If attainable through means, is it separated by space? No, he says it is situated in the hearts of all, situated in the intellect of all living beings, though present everywhere in general, specially situated there, manifested as the individual self and as the inner controller. Like sunlight in a mirror, sun-stone etc. Though not actually separated, it appears separated due to delusion and is as if attained by the removal of ignorance which is the cause of all delusion. This is the meaning. [17]
Viśvanātha: That which is the light, the illuminator of lights such as the moon, sun etc. "By which the sun shines, kindled with heat."
"There the sun does not shine, nor the moon and stars, nor do these lightnings shine—how then could this fire? Everything shines only after that shining light, and by its light all this is illuminated." [Kaṭhu 2.5.15] Thus state the śrutis.
Therefore it is said to be beyond darkness or ignorance, untouched by it. "Of the color of the sun, beyond darkness," thus state the śrutis. That same, when manifested in the function of the intellect, is called knowledge. That itself, transformed into the form of forms etc., is also the object of knowledge. That itself is attainable through knowledge, meaning attainable through the previously mentioned means of knowledge characterized by humility etc. That itself, being the form of the Supreme Self, is situated in the hearts of all living beings, meaning standing over as the controller. [17]
Baladeva: That Brahman is the light, the illuminator of lights such as the sun etc.
"There the sun does not shine, nor the moon and stars,
nor do these lightnings shine—how then could this fire?
Everything shines only after that shining light,
and by its light all this is illuminated." [Kaṭhu 2.5.15]
Thus state the śrutis about that Brahman. That Brahman is said to be beyond darkness or prakṛti, untouched by it, as the śruti says: "Of the color of the sun, beyond darkness" [Śvetu 3.8]. It is called knowledge, of the nature of pure consciousness, as the śruti says: "Brahman is consciousness, a mass of bliss" [GTU 2.79?]. Knowledge is said to be fit to be known as a refuge for the seeker of liberation, as the śruti says: "I take refuge in that God, the illuminator of self-knowledge, whom the seeker of liberation indeed approaches" [GTU 1.25]. It is said to be attainable through knowledge, as the śruti says: "Only by knowing Him does one go beyond death" [Śvetu 3.8]. It is said to be situated in the hearts of all living beings, standing over as the controller, as the śruti says: "Having entered within, the ruler of people" [Taittā 3.11.10]. And the five verses starting with "With hands and feet everywhere" etc. should not be taken as referring only to the individual self, as it may be said due to being in that context etc., because the Lord is also spoken of as the knower of the field like the individual self. Because the one and a half verses starting with "With hands and feet everywhere" etc. are recited by the Śvetāśvataras after beginning with Brahman, and because mixing of contexts is seen in the Upaniṣads. [17]
bhg 13.18
Thus the field, as well as knowledge and the knowable, have been briefly stated. My devotee, understanding this, becomes qualified for My state. ||18||
Śrīdhara: He concludes the previously stated topics of the field etc., along with the qualified person and the result, with "iti" etc. This field, from the great elements to steadfastness. Similarly, knowledge, from humility to perception of the purpose of true knowledge. And the knowable, from "It is beginningless" to "It dwells". All that has been explained in detail by Vasiṣṭha and others has been briefly stated by Me. And how is this? My devotee, with the characteristics mentioned in the previous chapter, understanding this, becomes qualified for My state, for becoming Brahman. ||18||
Madhusūdana: Stating the previously mentioned field etc., the qualified person and the result, he concludes with "iti" etc. Thus, in this previously mentioned manner, the field from the great elements to steadfastness, similarly knowledge from humility to perception of the purpose of true knowledge, and the knowable from "It is beginningless, supreme Brahman" to "It dwells" - drawing from śrutis and smṛtis, all three have been briefly stated by Me for the benefit of those with dull intellect. For this indeed is the entire meaning of the Vedas and the Gītā. And in this, only My devotee with the characteristics mentioned in the previous chapter is qualified, thus he says - My devotee, who has surrendered his entire self to Me, the Supreme Guru Vāsudeva, who has taken sole refuge in Me, understanding this field, knowledge and knowable as stated, through discrimination, becomes qualified for My state, for liberation, which is the state of supreme bliss devoid of all misery.
As per the śruti: "To him who has the highest devotion to God, and to the teacher as to God, these matters which have been declared become manifest" [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.23].
Therefore, always taking sole refuge in Me, desiring the highest human goal, one should pursue the means of self-knowledge, abandoning the desire for trivial sense enjoyments - this is the intention. ||18||
Viśvanātha: He concludes the previously stated topics of the field etc., along with the qualified person and the result, with "iti" etc. The field, from the great elements to steadfastness. Knowledge, from humility to perception of the purpose of true knowledge. And the knowable, that which is to be known, from "It is beginningless" to "It dwells". The one reality, Brahman, which is denoted by the words Bhagavān and Paramātmā, has been briefly stated. My devotee, the wise one endowed with devotion, for My state, for union with Me. Or, My devotee, My exclusive servant, understanding this, knowing "This much is the glory of my Lord", becomes endowed with bhāva (love) for Me. ||18||
Baladeva: He concludes the previously stated field etc., along with the result of its knowledge, with "iti kṣetram" etc. From "the great elements" to "steadfastness", the nature of the field has been stated. From "humility" to "perception of the purpose of true knowledge", the knowledge of the two fields to be known and the means to that knowledge have been stated. From "It is beginningless, supreme" to "It dwells in the heart of all", the two knowers of the field to be known have been stated by Me. Understanding these three, discerning them from each other, My devotee becomes qualified for My state, for love of Me, or for My nature, for becoming non-worldly. ||18||
Bg 13.19
Know that both prakṛti (prakṛti, nature) and puruṣa (puruṣa, spirit) are beginningless. And know that modifications and guṇas (guṇa, qualities) are born of prakṛti (prakṛti, nature). ||19||
Śrīdhara: Thus, "What is that field and of what nature" has been elaborated. Now, "What is its modification, from what it is produced, and who he is and what his powers are" - this, which was previously promised, is elaborated through the description of prakṛti and puruṣa as the cause of worldly existence, in five verses beginning with "prakṛtim". If prakṛti and puruṣa had a beginning, they would have to be produced by another prakṛti, leading to infinite regress. Therefore, know both of them to be beginningless. Prakṛti is beginningless because it is the power of the beginningless Lord. Puruṣa too is beginningless, being a part of Him. Here, the beginninglessness and eternality of the Supreme Lord and His powers have been extensively established by the venerable author of Śaṅkara Bhagavad Bhāṣya, so we do not elaborate due to the vastness of the text. Know that the modifications like body, senses, etc., and the guṇas, the transformations of the guṇas like pleasure, pain, delusion, etc., are born of prakṛti. ||19||
Madhusūdana: This text has explained "that field and what it is like". Now, "what it is made of, where it comes from, and he who is and what his powers are" needs to be explained. Among these, "what it is made of and where it comes from" is elaborated in the two verses starting with "prakṛti" (nature), by describing prakṛti and puruṣa (spirit) as the cause of worldly existence. "He who is and what his powers are" is explained in the two verses starting with "puruṣa". This is the distinction. In the seventh chapter, the Lord's two natures, higher and lower, characterized as field and knower of the field, were introduced, and it was said "all beings have these as their source" [Gītā 7.7]. There, the lower nature was characterized as the field, while the higher was characterized as the individual soul. After stating their beginninglessness, the fact that beings have both as their source is stated in "prakṛti".
Prakṛti, known as māyā (illusion), consisting of the three guṇas (qualities), is the supreme divine power characterized as the field, which was previously called the lower nature. What was previously called the higher nature, known as the individual soul, is here called puruṣa, so there is no contradiction between the earlier and later statements. Know that both prakṛti and puruṣa are indeed beginningless. They have no beginning or cause. Thus, prakṛti is beginningless because it is the cause of the entire world. If it required a cause, there would be an infinite regress. Puruṣa is beginningless because the entire created world is impelled by its virtue and vice, experiencing joy, sorrow and fear. Otherwise, there would be the fallacy of the destruction of what was done and the arising of what was not done. Because prakṛti is beginningless, it was previously stated to be the source of beings, which is now explained: Know that the sixteen modifications and the three guṇas in the form of pleasure, pain and delusion are indeed born from prakṛti, indeed caused by prakṛti. ||19||
Viśvanātha: Having spoken of the Supreme Self, in order to speak of the individual self denoted by the term "knower of the field", in anticipation of the questions "From where does it get entangled with māyā?" and "When did this entanglement begin?", he says: Know that both prakṛti (māyā) and puruṣa (the individual soul) are beginningless, having no origin or cause, because they are the energies of me, the beginningless Lord.
"Earth, water, fire, air, space, mind, intellect, and ego – this is My eightfold divided prakṛti. This is the inferior [nature]. But know My other prakṛti, which is superior, O mighty-armed one, which is in the form of living beings, by which this world is sustained." [Gītā 7.4-5]
From these statements of mine, since māyā and the individual soul are also my energies, they are beginningless, so their entanglement is also beginningless – this is the idea. Even though they are mutually entangled, there is indeed an actual difference between them, which he states: Know that the modifications like body, senses, etc. and the guṇas, which are transformations of the guṇas like pleasure, pain, sorrow, delusion, etc., are born from prakṛti, originated from prakṛti. The idea is that the individual soul is indeed different from prakṛti, which has transformed into the form of the field. ||19||
Baladeva: Thus, the mutual association of prakṛti and jīva, which have distinct natures and are beginningless, is described as beginningless, and the difference in effects of these two in association and the cause of their beginningless association is described in the verses starting with "prakṛti". The word api is used for emphasis. Know that prakṛti and puruṣa, mutually associated, are both indeed beginningless; know them to be eternal because they are my energies. That they are my energies was previously stated in "Earth, water..." etc. Even though they are associated beginninglessly, there is a difference in their essential natures, with this intention he says: Know that the modifications like body, senses, etc. and the guṇas like pleasure and pain are born from prakṛti, material, not belonging to the soul. Thus it is shown that the soul is different from prakṛti which has transformed into the form of the field. ||19||
bhg 13.20
The prakṛti (nature) is said to be the cause in the agency of effects and instruments. The puruṣa (soul) is said to be the cause in the experience of pleasure and pain. ||20||
Śrīdhara: Showing that modifications originate from prakṛti, he shows the cause of transmigration for the puruṣa in "kārya" etc. Kārya is the body. The instruments are the senses, which are the means of pleasure and pain. Prakṛti is said by Kapila and others to be the cause in their agency, in their transformation into those forms. The puruṣa, the individual soul, is said to be the cause in the experience of the pleasure and pain produced by them. This is the meaning: Although agency is not possible for the unconscious prakṛti by itself, and experience is not possible for the unchanging puruṣa, still agency means the accomplishment of action. That is possible even for the unconscious, due to being governed by the unseen (aḍṛṣṭa) of the conscious, like the upward flaming of fire, the sideways movement of wind, the flowing of cow's milk due to the calf's unseen, etc. Therefore, due to the proximity of puruṣa, agency is ascribed to prakṛti. And experience is the perception of pleasure and pain, and that is certainly a property of the conscious. So due to the proximity of prakṛti, experience is ascribed to puruṣa. ||20||
Madhusūdana: Distinguishing that modifications originate from prakṛti, he shows the cause of transmigration for the puruṣa in "kārya" etc. Kārya is the body, the instruments are the senses, the thirteen elements that initiate the body situated there, and the objects are included here by the term kārya. And the guṇas consisting of pleasure, pain and delusion are included by the term instrument, as they reside in the instruments. Prakṛti is said by the great sages to be the cause, the source, in their agency, in their transformation into those forms of effects and instruments. Even in the reading kārya-karaṇa as a compound, the meaning is the same. Having thus explained prakṛti as the cause of transmigration, he states how it is also for puruṣa: The puruṣa is the knower of the field, the higher nature, as explained before. He is said to be the cause in the experience, the perception colored by mental modifications, of pleasure and pain, of all objects to be experienced consisting of pleasure, pain and delusion. ||20||
Viśvanātha: He shows its connection with māyā. Kārya is the body. The instruments are the senses, which are the means of pleasure and pain. The agents are the deities presiding over the senses. There, due to association with puruṣa through superimposition in that way, prakṛti would be transformed into the form of effects etc., and would bestow that superimposition through its function called ignorance - this is the meaning. The puruṣa, the individual soul alone, is the cause in the experience of the pleasure and pain produced by that. This is the meaning: Although the states of being an effect, an instrument, an agent and an experiencer are properties of prakṛti alone, still, since the inert aspect predominates in being an effect etc., but the conscious aspect predominates in experience which is the perception of pleasure and pain, according to the maxim "designations are based on predominance", prakṛti is the cause in being an effect etc., puruṣa is said to be the cause in experience. ||20||
Baladeva: Now he states the difference in function of those two when connected: The body is the effect as it accomplishes knowledge and action, the senses are the instruments. Prakṛti is the cause in their agency, in its own transformation into their respective forms. From the upcoming "puruṣa indeed situated in prakṛti", puruṣa presides over conscious prakṛti through its connection. And presided over by it, prakṛti transforming according to its karma creates those various bodies etc. So puruṣa is the cause in the experience of pleasure etc. attributed to prakṛti - he alone is the agent in experiencing them, this is the meaning. Presiding over prakṛti and experiencing pleasure etc. are the functions of puruṣa. And the agency of the body etc. belongs to prakṛti which he presides over. Thus the agency of puruṣa alone is primary. The sūtrakāra states this in "The soul is the agent, because of the purposefulness of scripture" etc. But the presiding of the supreme Lord Hari is unavoidable everywhere - this has been stated and will be stated. ||20||
Bg 13.21
The puruṣa situated in prakṛti experiences the guṇas born of prakṛti. Attachment to the guṇas is the cause of its births in good and bad wombs. ||21||
Śrīdhara: But how is there experience for the unchanging and unborn? Therefore he says "puruṣa" etc. Hi means because. The puruṣa situated in prakṛti means situated in its effect, the body, through identification. Therefore he experiences the pleasure, pain etc. produced by it. And for this puruṣa, in births in good wombs like the gods and in bad wombs like animals, guṇa-saṅga means attachment to the guṇas, to the senses that perform good and bad actions - that is the cause, this is the meaning. ||21||
Madhusūdana: That which is the experience of pleasure and pain for puruṣa - indeed the puruṣa situated in prakṛti through identification experiences, perceives the guṇas born of prakṛti. Therefore, in births in good and bad wombs which are the causes of perceiving the guṇas born of prakṛti - good wombs are gods etc., for in them desirable sattvic results are experienced; bad wombs are animals etc., for in them undesirable tamasic results are experienced - for this puruṣa, guṇa-saṅga means the false identification with prakṛti consisting of the guṇas sattva, rajas and tamas - that alone is the cause. Transmigration does not happen on its own for the unattached puruṣa, this is the meaning. Or guṇa-saṅga means attachment to the guṇas - to sound etc., to pleasure, pain and delusion - attachment means desire. That alone is the cause of its births in good and bad wombs, as per the śruti "As one's desire is, so is one's resolve; as is the resolve, so is the action; as is the action, so is the result attained." In this interpretation also, false identification with prakṛti should be seen as the root cause. ||21||
Viśvanātha: However, there, due to superimposition caused by beginningless ignorance, he considers agency, enjoyership, etc., which are its properties, as his own. From that alone arises his worldly existence, as stated in "puruṣa" (person). Situated in prakṛti (nature), indeed established in identity with the body which is an effect of prakṛti. He experiences the guṇas (qualities) born of prakṛti, such as grief, delusion, pleasure, pain, etc., which are properties of the inner organs, considering them as his own. The cause for this is attachment to the guṇas. Even though the self is unattached to the bodies made of guṇas, attachment is imagined due to ignorance. In response to where he experiences, it is said: in the existent divine and other wombs, and in the non-existent animal and other wombs, in the births created by good and bad karma. ||21||
Baladeva: He clarifies that the person alone has agency in the abode of prakṛti and in enjoyment of pleasures etc., and shows the cause for his connection with prakṛti in "puruṣa" (person). Although composed only of consciousness and bliss, the person, due to beginningless karmic impressions, is situated in prakṛti, having a body and senses created by it, distinguished by prāṇa (life force), and experiences the guṇas created by it, such as pleasure etc. In response to where, he says "sat" (existent): In the existent divine, human, and other wombs, and in the non-existent animal, bird, and other wombs created by good and bad deeds, in whatever births - thus the person alone has agency there.
He states the cause for connection with it in "kāraṇam" (cause). Guṇa means attachment, beginningless desire for objects made of guṇas. The meaning is: The beginningless soul is colored by beginningless impressions in the form of karma. And due to being an enjoyer, desiring enjoyable objects, he will resort to prakṛti which is present with desires etc. directed towards it, until those impressions are destroyed through association with the truth. But when they are destroyed, he enjoys the bliss of the supreme self's abode, as per scriptures like "He enjoys all desires together with Brahman, the wise one." What the Sāṅkhyas, who grasp only the superficial meaning, say based on "by prakṛti" etc., "effect and cause" etc., "only by prakṛti" etc., and "nothing other than the guṇas" etc., that only prakṛti has agency, that is merely a hasty statement, as it is impossible for it to be so, being insentient like a clod or wood. Agency is indeed having the form of immediate desire to create the material cause, and that belongs only to the conscious entity, as scripture states: "Consciousness extends the sacrifice and extends actions", "For he is the seer, toucher, hearer, taster, smeller, thinker, understander, doer, the person whose nature is knowledge" etc.
And what they say, that it has that nature due to the proximity of the person, superimposition of consciousness, that is not correct. Because it is easily said that if its agency is due to the consciousness below which it is proximate, that belongs to the proximate one itself. Indeed, the burning nature of heated iron is seen to be caused by fire, not by the iron. And the proof of its nature like "water moves, a tree bears fruit" is not established for the insentient one, because it is accepted that water etc. are presided over by the inner controller, and it contradicts the prescriptive scriptures. Indeed, scripture does not prescribe the jyotiṣṭoma sacrifice etc. for the result of heaven etc., or meditation for the result of liberation, with reference to insentient prakṛti, but only with reference to the conscious enjoyer. Thus agency belongs to the person alone. And what was said "by prakṛti", that is only due to the abundance of its functions, just as there is the designation "the hand carries" when a person carries with his hand, similarly there could be "prakṛti acts" when the person acts through prakṛti, according to some. Or according to others, the person united with the material body etc. has agency in sacrifice, battle, and other actions, but not the pure one separated from them. Therefore it is said to be "of prakṛti". ||21||
BG 13.22
upadraṣṭānumantā ca bhartā bhoktā maheśvaraḥ |
paramātmeti cāpy ukto dehe 'smin puruṣaḥ paraḥ ||22||
Śrīdhara: Thus, in this way, the person's worldly existence is only due to non-discrimination from prakṛti, not by his own nature. With this intention, he states his true nature in "upadraṣṭā" (overseer). Though present in this body which is an effect of prakṛti, the person is para (supreme), indeed different. He is not connected with its qualities, this is the meaning. The reasons for this are: Because he is an upadraṣṭā, a separate seer standing nearby, a witness, this is the meaning. Similarly, an anumantā (permitter), one who permits, favoring merely by his presence. As per scripture: "Witness, thinker, alone, without qualities". Similarly, he is called bhartā (supporter), sustainer by his lordly nature. And bhoktā (enjoyer), protector. And he is great and the Lord, thus the Lord even of Brahmā and others. And he is called paramātmā (supreme self) or the inner controller by scripture. And thus the scripture: "He indeed is the Lord of all, the ruler of beings, the protector of the world" etc. ||22||
Madhusūdana: Thus it has been said that the person's worldly existence is due to false identification with prakṛti, not by his own nature. Then what is his true nature in which worldly existence is not possible? In response to this expectation, directly indicating his nature, he says "upadraṣṭā" (overseer). Though present in this body, which is a transformation of prakṛti, in the form of an individual soul, the person is para (supreme), untouched by the qualities of prakṛti, in reality free from worldly existence in his own nature, this is the meaning. Because he is an upadraṣṭā, just as when priests and sacrificers are engaged in sacrificial acts, another standing nearby, himself unengaged, being skilled in sacrificial knowledge, is a seer of the merits and demerits of the acts of the priests and sacrificers, similarly the person is a seer standing near the active sense organs, himself unengaged, distinct, not an agent. As per scripture: "Whatever he sees there, he is not followed by it; for this person is unattached."
Or, among seers consisting of the body, eyes, mind, intellect, and self, the self which is the seer, being most proximate compared to the external body etc., is the upadraṣṭā (overseer). Because the word upa means proximity, and that, being in the form of immediacy, culminates only in the inner self.
And anumantā (permitter), though himself not engaged in the activities of the effects and instruments, as if engaged, being favorable to them merely by his presence, he is a permitter. Or, the person who is a witness to the body, senses, etc. engaged in their own activities never stops them, thus he is a permitter. As per scripture: "Witness, thinker".
The supporter, sustainer and nourisher of the aggregate of body, senses, mind and intellect endowed with the semblance of consciousness by his own existence and manifestation. The experiencer illuminates the mental states of pleasure, pain and delusion through his innate consciousness, thus being the unchanging perceiver. Maheśvara (Great Lord) is the great controller due to being the Self of all and independent. Paramātmā (Supreme Self) is the supreme, excellent Self possessing the aforementioned qualities like being the overseer, etc. of the body up to intellect erroneously identified as the self due to ignorance. He is also referred to by this word in the śruti (scripture). And the ca (and) indicates He is the same supreme Person referred to by words like upadraṣṭā (overseer), etc. It will be said later: "But distinct is the Supreme Person called the Supreme Self" [Gītā 15.17]. ||22||
viśvanātha: After describing the individual self, he describes the Supreme Self with upadraṣṭā, etc. Although the Supreme Self has already been described in general and in detail by "the eternal supreme Brahman", etc. and "situated in the heart of all", etc., this statement should be understood as meant to clearly indicate His presence in the body separately along with the individual self. In this body, there is another supreme Person who is Maheśvara, also called Paramātmā. The meaning is He is also referred to by the name Paramātmā. Here, in the non-dualist view, the word parama indicates He is the source of the individual self. He is the overseer, witness situated separately but nearby (upa) the individual self. Approver, granting approval, bestowing grace merely by His presence. "Witness, conscious, alone, and without qualities" [GTU 2.96, Puruṣa-bodhinī] according to śruti. Also supporter, sustainer, experiencer, protector.
baladeva: After describing the individual self situated in the body as the experiencer of pleasure, etc., he describes the Lord situated there as the controller with upadraṣṭā, etc. In this body, there is another supreme Person distinct from the individual self, who is called Maheśvara, Paramātmā. Upadraṣṭā means witness situated separately but nearby. Anumantā means giver of permission, meaning the individual self is not able to do anything without His permission. Bhartā means sustainer. Bhoktā means protector. This is stated again to indicate the Lord's co-existence with the individual self, although already described by "having hands and feet everywhere", etc. ||22||
bhg 13.23
He who thus knows the Person and material nature along with the guṇas (qualities), in whatever condition he may be living, is not born again. ||23||
śrīdhara: He praises one who knows the distinction between nature and spirit thus with ya evam, etc. He who thus knows the Person as the overseer, etc. and material nature along with the guṇas, i.e. along with its transformations as pleasure, pain, etc. - that person, even while living here transgressing all rules, is not born again. The meaning is he is liberated. ||23||
madhusūdana: Having thus explained "He and what His nature is" [Gītā 13.4], he now concludes "by knowing which one attains immortality" with ya evam, etc. He who thus knows in the manner described the Person, directly realizing "This I am", and material nature, i.e. ignorance, along with its guṇas, i.e. modifications, as false and negated by self-knowledge, thinking "My ignorance and its effects have ceased" - he, though living in all ways transgressing rules due to prarabdha karma like Indra, is not born again, does not take another body when this knower's body falls. For when ignorance is destroyed by knowledge, its effects cannot arise, as stated many times. According to the principle "On attaining that, the prior and posterior sins adhere not" [VS 4.1.13]. The api (even) implies: what need to mention one living without transgressing rules and following his duties is not born again. ||23||
viśvanātha: He states the fruit of this knowledge with ya, etc. Puruṣa means the Supreme Self, prakṛti means the illusory potency. The ca (and) indicates the living entity potency also. "Though living in all ways" means even if overcome by dissolution, projection, etc. ||23||
baladeva: He states the fruit of this knowledge with ya, etc. He who thus knows in the manner I have described the Person, i.e. the Great Lord, and prakṛti, i.e. the individual self, as mutually distinct - even while living in all ways in contact with worldly affairs, he is not born again, meaning he is liberated at the end of the body. ||23||
bhg 13.24
Some perceive the Self in the self by the self through meditation, others through Sāṃkhya yoga, and others through karma yoga. ||24||
śrīdhara: He states the alternatives for the means of knowledge of the Self thus distinguished in two verses beginning with dhyānena. Through meditation, i.e. repetition of the idea of the form of the Self. In the self, i.e. in the body itself, by the self, i.e. by the mind, some thus perceive the Self. Others through Sāṃkhya, i.e. contemplation of the distinction between nature and spirit. Through yoga, i.e. the eight-limbed yoga. And others through karma yoga. "Perceive" should be supplied everywhere. Although these meditation, etc. are properly practiced in sequence and combination, the alternatives are stated with reference to the differences in dedication to each. ||24||
madhusūdana: Here these alternatives for the means of Self-realization are stated with dhyānena, etc. There are four types of people - some superior, some middling, some dull, some very dull. He states the means of Self-knowledge for the superior: Through meditation, i.e. through contemplation of the Self called nididhyāsana resulting from hearing and reflection, which is a flow of similar thoughts uninterrupted by dissimilar thoughts, in the self, i.e. in the intellect, some superior yogis perceive, i.e. directly realize, the Self, i.e. the inner consciousness, by the self, i.e. by the internal organ refined by meditation.
He states the means of Self-knowledge for the middling: Others, i.e. the middling, through Sāṃkhya yoga, i.e. hearing and reflection preliminary to meditation, consisting of discrimination between the eternal and non-eternal, etc., thinking "All these modifications of the three guṇas are false and not the Self; I am the eternal, all-pervading, immutable, true Self, witness of that, free from all connection with the inert" - through such contemplation arising from inquiry into Vedānta statements, they perceive the Self. "By the self" is understood, meaning through the arising of meditation.
He states the means of knowledge for the dull: And others, i.e. the dull, through karma yoga, i.e. through the collection of Vedic rituals appropriate to one's class and stage of life, performed with the attitude of offering to the Lord, free from desire for results - they perceive the Self. "By the self" is understood, meaning through the arising of hearing, reflection and meditation due to purification of the mind. ||24||
Viśvanātha: Here he explains the alternatives of sādhana (spiritual practice) in two verses. Some devotees [see the Lord] through dhyāna (meditation), by contemplating on the Lord alone. As per the upcoming statement "Through devotion one knows Me" [Gītā 18.55], the meaning is that [they see] the Self in the mind by themselves alone, not through any other means. Others, the jñānins (those pursuing knowledge), [see] through sāṅkhya, which is discrimination between self and non-self. Others, the yogis, [see] through yoga, the eightfold path, and through karma-yoga, which is desireless action. Here, sāṅkhya, aṣṭāṅga-yoga, and niṣkāma-karma-yoga are mutually supportive causes for seeing the Supreme Self, but not direct causes, as they are in the mode of goodness while the Supreme Self is beyond the modes. Moreover, as per the Lord's statement "One should renounce knowledge in Me" [BhP 11.19.1] and "After renouncing knowledge etc., I am to be grasped by devotion alone" [BhP 11.14.11], they see [the Lord] through devotion alone, abandoning knowledge. ||24||
Baladeva: He explains the alternatives of sādhana for attaining the Supreme Lord in two verses. Some with purified minds see the Self, the Supreme Lord, Me, situated in the mind through dhyāna (meditation) accompanied by knowledge, directly by themselves alone, not through any other means. Others see through sāṅkhya, knowledge accompanied by meditation. Others see through yoga, the eightfold path accompanied by knowledge. Yet others [see] through karma-yoga, desireless action incorporating meditation and knowledge. ||24||
BhG 13.25
Others, however, not knowing thus, worship having heard from others. They too certainly cross beyond death, devoted to what they have heard. ||25||
Śrīdhara: He explains the means of deliverance for those of very dull qualification in [the verse beginning with] "Others". Others, unable to directly realize the Self characterized as the Overseer etc. through the paths of sāṅkhya, yoga, etc., worship, that is, meditate, having heard from teachers through instruction. They too, being devoted to hearing the instructions with faith, certainly cross beyond death, that is, saṃsāra (cycle of rebirth), gradually. ||25||
Madhusūdana: He explains the means of knowledge for those of duller qualification in [the verse beginning with] "Others". Others means those of duller qualification. The word "tu" (but) indicates the distinction from the three types of qualified persons mentioned in the previous verse. Not knowing the Self as described through any of these means, having heard from other compassionate teachers "Contemplate on this", they worship, that is, they contemplate with faith. They too certainly cross beyond death, that is, saṃsāra, being devoted to śruti (scripture), that is, being devoted merely to hearing the teacher's instructions, though incapable of independent inquiry. The word "api" (also) in "te 'pi" (they too) implies that if even they cross beyond death, what need be said of those capable of independent inquiry? ||25||
Viśvanātha: Others [refers to] listeners of discourses here and there. ||25||
Baladeva: Others, not knowing such means, being devoted to śruti (scripture), that is, dedicated to hearing various discourses, worship the Supreme Lord, having heard about those means from others, the speakers of those [discourses]. They too, and those associated with them, gradually realizing and practicing those [means], certainly cross beyond death. Thus the supreme glory of hearing discourses about Him is shown. ||25||
bhg 13.26
Whatever being is born, whether stationary or moving, know that it arises from the union of the field and the knower of the field, O best of the Bharatas. (26)
Śrīdhara: Now, since karma-yoga has been elaborated in the third, fourth and fifth chapters, and dhyāna-yoga has been elaborated in the sixth and eighth chapters, and since meditation etc. has Sāṃkhya and the discriminated Self as its object, he elaborates on Sāṃkhya itself, saying "Whatever" etc. up to the end of the chapter. Know that whatever entity at all is produced, all that arises from the union of the field and the knower of the field, from the superimposition of identity caused by non-discrimination. (26)
Madhusūdana: To ascertain the meaning that liberation is attained through knowledge since transmigration is rooted in ignorance, transmigration and the knowledge that removes it are elaborated up to the end of the chapter. He elaborates on what was previously stated in "Attachment to the guṇas is the cause of births in good and evil wombs" (Gītā 13.21) saying "Whatever" etc. Whatever being or entity is born, whether stationary or moving, know that all of it arises from the union of the field and the knower of the field. The field is the inert, indescribable, existent-non-existent visible world consisting of ignorance and its effects. The knower of the field is distinct from that, illuminating it, self-luminous, absolutely real consciousness, unattached, indifferent, without qualities, non-dual. Their union is due to māyā (illusion), caused by mutual non-discrimination, a false superimposition of identity, consisting of the mixing of truth and untruth. From that alone all effects are produced - know this, O best of the Bharatas. Thus transmigration is rooted in ignorance of one's true nature and can be destroyed by knowledge of one's true nature, like a dream etc. - this is the intention. (26)
Viśvanātha: He elaborates on the meaning already stated up to the end of the chapter. "Whatever" means of whatever measure, inferior or superior. "Being" means any living entity. (26)
Baladeva: Now, for contemplation on the union of prakṛti (nature) and jīva (individual soul) which are beginninglessly conjoined, he first states their creation through union, saying "Whatever" etc. Know that whatever living being, stationary or moving, of whatever measure, superior or inferior, is born, arises from the union of the field and the knower of the field. The meaning is: Know that it arises from the connection of the knowers of the field with the field, which is prakṛti. The Lord, controlling prakṛti and the jīvas, sets them in motion, and they become mutually connected. Thus the creation of beings occurs through the production of bodies - this is the meaning. (26)
Bg 13.27
He who sees the Supreme Lord existing equally in all beings, imperishable among the perishable - he truly sees. (27)
Śrīdhara: Having stated the arising of transmigration caused by non-discrimination, he now states correct vision having the discriminated Self as its object, for the cessation of that, saying "Equally" etc. He who sees the Supreme Self existing equally without distinction in all beings, stationary and moving, in the form of existence, and therefore sees it as imperishable even among those that are perishing - he alone truly sees. (27)
Madhusūdana: Having thus stated that transmigration is rooted in ignorance, in order to state the knowledge that removes it, he elaborates on what was previously stated as "He who knows the puruṣa thus" (Gītā 13.23), saying "Equally" etc. He who sees with the eye of scripture, through discrimination, the Self as different from the inert world in every way - as existing equally in all beings that are subject to becoming, i.e. all stationary and moving creatures, which are unequal due to undergoing various kinds of birth etc. and attaining the state of qualities and substance, and therefore unstable, for entities undergoing constant change cannot remain without change even for a moment, and therefore subject to mutual obstruction and being obstructed; even though they are thus perishing, having the nature of being seen and destroyed, like illusory cities of Gandharvas etc. - (he who sees the Self) as existing equally everywhere in one form, as one in every body, remaining unchanged as free from the transformations of birth etc., as the Supreme Lord granting existence and manifestation to the entire class of inert objects, as free from the state of obstructing and being obstructed, as always unshaken, as imperishable even when all duality which is like what is seen and destroyed is negated - he alone truly sees the Self, like one who negates the illusion of a dream with waking consciousness.
The ignorant person, like one seeing a dream, due to delusion sees the opposite and does not see at all. This is because delusion is characterized by non-perception. Indeed, one who sees a rope as a snake is not said to be seeing. The perception of a snake is characterized by non-perception of the rope. Similarly, from the vision of the pure self unaffected by such things, there is cessation of avidyā (ignorance) which consists of that vision, and from that there is cessation of its effect, saṃsāra (cycle of rebirth) - this is the intended meaning. Here "the self" is understood as the subject qualified by the limiting adjective. Or "the Supreme Lord" may be taken as the subject word. The dissimilarity pertaining to the inert, characterized by unevenness, fickleness, and being subject to obstruction, is implicitly obtained through the force of the qualifications of the self such as evenness, stability and being the Supreme Lord, while other aspects are explicitly stated - this is the distinction. ||27||
viśvanātha: He explains how one should know the Supreme Self thus with "samam". The meaning is that one who sees even as bodies are perishing is truly the knower. ||27||
baladeva: Now he states how one should see the Lord as distinct from prakṛti (material nature) and the jīvas (souls) connected to it, though situated in them, with "samam". One who is not a knower of truth, being attached, sees the Supreme Lord equally present in all beings possessing stationary and moving bodies, remaining undiminished even as they perish through the destruction of their respective bodies - only he truly sees, becoming a seer of His true nature. Thus the Lord, who is of one essence and imperishable, is distinct from the jīvas connected to prakṛti, which are characterized by diversity and destruction. ||27||
bhg 13.28
samaṃ paśyan hi sarvatra samavasthitam īśvaram |
na hinasty ātmanātmānaṃ tato yāti parāṃ gatim ||28||
śrīdhara: For what reason? To this he says "samam". Seeing the Supreme Self equally situated everywhere in all beings. Because he does not destroy the self by the self. He does not obscure the self which is of the nature of existence, consciousness and bliss through ignorance. And therefore he attains the highest goal, liberation. But one who does not see thus, seeing the body as the self, destroys the self along with the body. As the śruti states:
"Those worlds covered by blinding darkness are named asurya. Those people who are self-destroyers go to them after death." [Īśā Upaniṣad 3] ||28||
madhusūdana: He praises this self-realization through its result to generate interest with "samam". "Samavasthitam" means properly situated, free from the modifications of birth etc. up to destruction - this is how imperishability is obtained. The rest has been explained previously. Seeing the self characterized as described before in this way, directly realizing "I am this" through the vision of scripture, he does not destroy the self by the self. For every ignorant person, obscuring through ignorance the one self which is supreme reality, non-doer, non-enjoyer, of the nature of supreme bliss, though it exists and shines, as if making it non-existent by generating the notion "it does not exist, it does not shine" even when the object exists - thus he indeed destroys it. Similarly, destroying the old self identified as the aggregate of body and senses through ignorance and taking on a new one due to karma, he indeed destroys it. Thus in both ways, every ignorant person is indeed a self-destroyer. Regarding this, there is this smrti in the form of Śakuntalā's words:
"What sin has not been committed by that thief who steals the self, who apprehends the self which exists in one way in another way?"
And the śruti:
"Those worlds covered by blinding darkness are named asurya. Those people who are self-destroyers go to them after death." [Īśā Upaniṣad 3]
"Asurya" means to be enjoyed by the demonic nature, being of the nature of the asuras. "Self-destroyers" means those who have the notion of self in the non-self. Therefore one who knows the self refutes the notion of self in the non-self through vision of the pure self. Thus through attainment of one's true nature, one does not destroy the self by the self, and therefore attains the highest goal. That is, he attains liberation characterized by the cessation of ignorance and its effects. ||28||
viśvanātha: He does not destroy, does not cast down the self, the jīva, by the self, the mind going on the wrong path. ||28||
baladeva: Now he explains that one who sees the Lord as distinct from the aforementioned objects, and through the power of that vision also gains discrimination of oneself from the modifications of prakṛti, with "samaṃ paśyan hi". Seeing the Lord properly situated everywhere in beings in the same way, with His nature and qualities undiminished, he does not destroy, does not cast down the self, which is oneself, by the self, the mind which grasps discrimination from the modifications of prakṛti but is greedy for sense objects. He attains the highest, supreme goal, the realization of one's distinction from those modifications, through that mind which is detached from their taste. ||28||
bhg 13.29
And when one sees that all activities are performed by nature alone, and that the Self is not the doer, then he truly sees.
Śrīdhara: Now it is explained how, even though diversity is seen in the doers of auspicious and inauspicious actions, there is equality in the Self. It is said "by nature alone" - by nature itself transformed into the form of body and senses. "In all ways" means in all manners. One who sees actions being performed, and likewise sees the Self as non-doer, understanding that the Self's agency is only due to identification with the body, not intrinsically - one who sees thus alone sees correctly, not another - this is the meaning.
Madhusūdana: Now, it may be objected: The doers of good and bad actions are different in each body, and the Selves are unequal as they experience diverse fruits of those actions. So how was it said that "seeing the one Self situated in all beings equally, he does not destroy the Self by the self"? To address this, it is said "by nature alone". One who discerns sees all actions, beginning with those of speech, mind and body, performed in all ways by nature alone - by the Lord's māyā which has transformed into the form of the aggregate of body and senses, which is the cause of all modifications, which consists of the three guṇas - and not by the changeless puruṣa. Thus, even when actions are being performed by the field (body-mind complex), one who sees the Self, the knower of the field, as the non-doer, devoid of all limiting adjuncts, unattached, one, and equal everywhere - the word "likewise" indicates connection with the verb "sees" - he truly sees, he is the seer of the highest truth, as stated before. Although there is difference and inequality in each body due to the field undergoing modifications being the doer of various actions, there is no proof of any difference in the changeless, non-doing Self, like space - this has been established earlier.
Viśvanātha: By nature transformed into the form of body, senses, etc. "In all ways" means all. The Self (jīva) has agency only due to identification with the body, not intrinsically. This is the meaning of "one who sees thus".
Baladeva: How does one gain discrimination from nature? Expecting this question, the method is explained in two verses beginning with "by nature alone". One who sees all actions being performed by nature alone under my superintendence and impelled by the Lord, and likewise sees the Self as the non-doer of those actions - he alone sees, he becomes the seer of his own true nature. The meaning is: "I, whose nature is consciousness and bliss, do not perform painful actions like fighting and sacrifices. Rather, nature, superintended by me who am non-discriminating due to beginningless experience of enjoyment, performs those actions through my body etc. for the sake of my enjoyment." Thus, since it is the cause, nature alone is the doer. The pure Self, being the non-doer of actions done by nature, is distinct. That even the pure Self has agency is clear from the word "sees".
When one sees the separate existence of all beings as resting in one, and their expansion from that alone, he attains Brahman.
Śrīdhara: Now it is explained that when one sees even the diversity of beings as merely nature, and thus does not see difference in the Self caused by the difference of beings, he attains Brahman-hood. When one sees the separate existence, difference, distinctness of beings - both mobile and immobile - as resting in one, in the Lord's power-like nature alone at the time of dissolution; and from that very nature sees the expansion of beings at the time of creation; then seeing even beings as non-different due to being merely nature, he attains, becomes the complete Brahman.
Madhusūdana: Thus, having first not accepted the apparent perception of difference in the field and refuted the perception of difference in the field, now the perception of difference in the field is also negated as illusory. When - at which time - one sees the separate existence, distinctness, mutual difference of beings - all inanimate objects, both mobile and immobile - as resting in one, in the Self alone which is of the nature of existence, as superimposed (since the superimposed is non-different from its substratum) and non-different from the nature of the Self which is of the form of existence; when following the teachings of scripture and teacher one realizes for oneself "All this is indeed the Self" (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 7.25.2); and even then due to the power of māyā sees the expansion, the separate existence of beings from that one Self alone, like a dream or magic - then one becomes Brahman, becomes Brahman alone which is free from all misery, due to absence of perception of difference of the same class or different class. As the Upaniṣad states: "When to the knower all beings have become the Self alone, then what delusion, what sorrow can there be for one who sees oneness?" (Īśa Upaniṣad 7).
The difference is that in "by nature alone" the difference of the Self was negated, while in "When one sees the separate existence of beings" even the difference of non-Self is negated.
viśvanāthaḥ: When one sees the separate existence of all beings, both stationary and moving, in their various forms, as resting in one nature during the time of dissolution, and then sees their expansion from that nature at the time of creation, at that time one attains Brahman, meaning one becomes Brahman itself. ||30||
baladevaḥ: When this individual soul sees the separate existence of beings such as gods and humans, with their distinct forms like divinity, humanity, tallness, shortness, etc., as resting in nature during dissolution, and then sees their expansion as gods etc. from nature during creation, not seeing that separate existence as residing in the self nor seeing the expansion from the self, but seeing the self as distinct from its nature, then it attains that Brahman, meaning it experiences its own eight great qualities such as freedom from sin, etc., which are distinct from that [nature]. ||30||
bhg 13.31
anāditvān nirguṇatvāt paramātmāyam avyayaḥ |
śarīra-stho 'pi kaunteya na karoti na lipyate ||31||
śrīdharaḥ: Even so, how can there be equal vision when the Supreme Lord, in the state of worldly existence, has inequality due to actions caused by association with the body and their fruits such as pleasure and pain, which are difficult to avoid? To this, he says "anāditvāt" (because of beginninglessness). Only that which has an origin perishes. And only a substance with qualities experiences decay when its qualities are destroyed. But this Supreme Self is beginningless and without qualities. Therefore, it is imperishable and unchanging. Thus, even though situated in the body, it does not do anything, nor is it tainted by the fruits of actions. ||31||
madhusūdanaḥ: Removing the doubt that even if the self is not an agent by its own nature, it might have agency due to the limiting adjunct of association with the body, he elaborates on "one who sees the self as a non-agent sees thus" with "anāditvāt" (because of beginninglessness). This directly perceived Supreme Self, non-different from the Supreme Lord, the inner self, is avyayaḥ (imperishable), meaning it is free from all modifications. Decay is of two types: either the very nature of the substance having an origin, or even if the substance's nature is unproduced, its qualities having an origin, etc. He refutes the first with "anāditvāt". ādiḥ (beginning) means the state of prior non-existence. That does not exist for the ever-existent self. Therefore, due to the absence of a cause, there is no birth for it. Indeed, birth is not possible for the beginningless. In the absence of that, the subsequent modifications of existence are also impossible. Thus, it does not decay in its essential nature.
He refutes the second with "nirguṇatvāt" (because of being without qualities), meaning because it is devoid of attributes. For no quality comes or goes without modifying the substance, as quality and substance are identical. But this is devoid of attributes, so it does not decay even through qualities. This is according to the śruti: "This self is indeed indestructible, of the nature of non-cessation" [bau 4.5.14]. Because this is free from the six modifications of existence - birth, existence, growth, transformation, decay, and destruction - even though situated in the body by an superimposed connection, when that [body] acts, this self does not act. Just as the sun, situated in water by a superimposed connection, does not move even when that [water] moves. Therefore, it is not tainted, meaning it is not an agent. This is because desire, aversion, pleasure, pain, etc., are stated to be properties of the field, and because actions are said to be performed by nature alone, being designated as effects of māyā. Hence, as explained earlier, for those who see the ultimate truth, there is cessation of eligibility for all actions. By this statement of the self's attributelessness, internal difference is also refuted. With "actions are performed by nature alone" [gītā 13.29], difference within its own kind is negated. With "When one sees the separate existence of beings" [gītā 13.30], difference from other kinds is negated. With "Because of beginninglessness, because of being without qualities" [gītā 13.31], internal difference is negated. Thus, it is established that the self is non-dual Brahman. ||31||
viśvanāthaḥ: Indeed, it was said that the cause is the association with the guṇas (qualities) in births in good and bad wombs. There, although equal in being situated in the body, only the individual soul is stained by the guṇas and transmigrates, not the Supreme Soul. Why is this so? To answer this, he says "because of being beginningless." That which has no beginning or cause is beginningless. Just as the word anuttama (unsurpassed) in the fifth case ending denotes the supreme, similarly the word anādi (beginningless) denotes the supreme cause. And thus, because of being beginningless, being the supreme cause, being without qualities, and being that from which the qualities of creation etc. have departed, his nature or essence is different from the individual soul. He is avyaya (immutable), always and in every way free from the loss of his own knowledge, bliss, etc. Although situated in the body, due to not accepting its qualities, he does not act like the individual soul, does not become an agent or enjoyer, and is not stained or affected by the qualities of the body. ||31||
baladevaḥ: Indeed, the statement that one who sees the Supreme Lord and the self as distinct becomes fulfilled is improper, because it is heard that the individual soul arises from these very elements and perishes following them, and there is no consciousness after death. To address this, he says "because of being beginningless." This self, the individual soul, although situated in the body, is beginningless, supremely immutable because immutability is its principal quality, free from destruction due to being without qualities, of the nature of pure knowledge and bliss, and does not perform actions like fighting, sacrifice, etc. Therefore, it is not stained by the nature of the body and senses characterized by birth and death. The meaning of the śruti (scripture) should be interpreted figuratively. ||31||
bhg 13.32
yathā sarva-gataṃ saukṣmyād ākāśaṃ nopalipyate |
sarvatrāvasthito dehe tathātmā nopalipyate ||32||
śrīdharaḥ: He states the reason with an example in "yathā" (just as). Just as the all-pervading ākāśa (space), though present even in mud etc., is not stained by mud etc. due to its subtlety and non-attachment, similarly the ātmā (self), though situated in all bodies - superior, middling, or inferior - is not stained. ||32||
madhusūdanaḥ: To illustrate that although situated in the body, it is not stained by its actions due to its own non-attachment, he gives an example in "yathā" (just as). Just as ākāśa (space), though all-pervading, is not stained by mud etc. due to its subtlety and non-attached nature - this is the meaning of the example. The rest is clear. ||32||
viśvanāthaḥ: Now he gives an example in "yathā" (just as). Just as ākāśa (space), though present everywhere even in mud etc., is not stained by mud etc. due to its subtlety and non-attachment, similarly the Supreme Soul is not affected by the qualities and faults of the body - this is the meaning. ||32||
baladevaḥ: If one asks why it is not stained by the qualities of the body while situated in it, he answers with "yathā" (just as). Just as ākāśa (space), though gone into or entered everywhere in mud etc., is not stained by their respective qualities due to its subtlety, similarly the self, the individual soul, though situated in all bodies - divine, human, etc., high or low - is not stained by their qualities, due to its very subtlety. ||32||
bhg 13.33
yathā prakāśayaty ekaḥ kṛtsnaṃ lokam imaṃ raviḥ |
kṣetraṃ kṣetrī tathā kṛtsnaṃ prakāśayati bhārata ||33||
śrīdharaḥ: It was shown by the example of ākāśa (space) that there is no staining due to non-attachment. He now says by the example of the sun that it is not affected by the qualities of the illuminated objects due to being an illuminator, in "yathā prakāśayati" (just as... illuminates). The meaning is clear.
madhusūdanaḥ: Not only is the self not stained due to its non-attached nature, but also due to being an illuminator it is not stained by the qualities of the illuminated objects. He states this with an example in "yathā" (just as). Just as the sun alone illuminates this entire world, the aggregate of bodies and senses, or all objects with form, and is neither stained by the qualities of the illuminated objects nor divided by the divisions of the illuminated objects, similarly the kṣetrī (knower of the field) alone illuminates the entire kṣetra (field). O Bhārata! Therefore, it is neither stained by the qualities of the illuminated objects nor divided by the divisions of the illuminated objects - this is the meaning.
As stated in the śruti (scripture):
"Just as the sun, the eye of the whole world,
Is not tainted by the external faults of the eyes,
So the one inner Self of all beings
Is not tainted by the world's sorrow, being external." [KaṭhU 2.2.11]
viśvanāthaḥ: He says "yathā" with an example to show that due to being illuminating, it is not associated with the qualities of the illuminated. Just as the sun is illuminating and is not associated with the qualities of the illuminated, so is the kṣetrī (knower of the field), the Supreme Self.
As stated in the śruti [kaṭhu 2.2.11]:
"Just as the sun, which is the eye of the whole world,
Is not tainted by the external faults of the eyes,
Similarly, the one inner Self of all beings
Is not tainted by the sorrow and suffering of the world, being external."
baladevaḥ: He says "yathā" to show that the Self, untainted by the qualities of the body, nourishes the body with its own qualities. Just as the one sun illuminates this entire world with its radiance, similarly the one kṣetrī (knower of the field), the individual soul, illuminates this entire field, the body from head to toe, with consciousness. This is stated in "guṇād vā lokavad" [vs 2.3.26].
bhg 13.34
Those who perceive with the eye of knowledge the difference between the field and the knower of the field, and the liberation from material nature, attain the Supreme. ||34||
śrīdharaḥ: He concludes the meaning of the chapter in "kṣetra-kṣetrajñayor". Those who know the difference between the field and the knower of the field in the manner described, with the eye characterized by discriminative knowledge, and those who know the liberation from material nature, which is the source of beings, and the means of liberation such as meditation, they attain the supreme abode. ||34||
I bow to that Lord Kṛṣṇa, the son of Nanda, who is supreme bliss,
By whose essence the mixed prakṛti and puruṣa are distinguished.
Thus ends the thirteenth chapter named "The Yoga of Distinguishing between Prakṛti and Puruṣa" in the Subodhinī, the commentary on the Bhagavad-gītā by Śrī Śrīdhara Svāmī. ||13||
madhusūdanaḥ: Now he concludes the meaning of the chapter with its result in "kṣetra". Those who know with the eye of knowledge, which is the eye in the form of self-knowledge generated by the teachings of scripture and preceptors, the difference between the field and the knower of the field as explained earlier, characterized by the distinction of inertness and consciousness, changeability and unchangeability, etc., and those who know the liberation from material nature, which is the source of all beings, called avidyā or māyā, its destruction through the knowledge of the supreme Self, they attain the supreme, the essential nature of the supreme Self, which is kaivalya (isolation), meaning they do not take another body. Thus, it is established that for one established in the means beginning with humility and possessing the knowledge of the distinction between the field and the knower of the field, there is the attainment of the highest human goal through the cessation of all miseries. ||34||
Thus ends the thirteenth chapter named "The Distinction between the Field and the Knower of the Field" in the Gūḍhārtha-dīpikā, a commentary on the Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā, composed by Śrī Madhusūdana Sarasvatī, the disciple of Śrī Viśveśvara Sarasvatī, the wandering monk and great liberated soul. ||13||
viśvanāthaḥ: He concludes the chapter: Those who know the difference between the field and the two knowers of the field, the individual soul and the Supreme Soul, as well as the liberation from material nature, which is the source of beings, and the means of liberation such as meditation, they attain the supreme abode. ||34||
Between the two knowers of the field, the individual soul partakes of the qualities of the field.
It is bound and liberated through knowledge - this is declared as the meaning of the chapter.
Thus in the Sārārtha-varṣiṇī, delightful to the hearts of the devotees,
This thirteenth chapter of the Gītā is concluded, in association with the good. ||13||
baladevaḥ: Concluding the meaning of the chapter, he states its result in "kṣetra". Those who know with the eye of knowledge, the eye of wisdom focused on the difference, the distinction between the two knowers of the field associated with the field, the individual soul and the Lord, in the manner I have described, and those who know the liberation from material nature, which is the source of beings, and its means beginning with humility, they go to my supreme, most excellent abode called para-vyoma. ||34||
The Lord said:
I shall again declare the supreme knowledge, the best of all knowledge, by knowing which all the sages have attained the highest perfection from here.
Two jīvas (and in parentheses, individual souls) residing in the middle of the body, of which the first is subject to the nature of the body. It is bound and liberated through knowledge - this is the knowledge from the thirteenth chapter.
Thus ends the thirteenth chapter of the commentary on the Bhagavad Gītā Upaniṣad.
Saturday, August 31, 2024
Bg 13.1-34
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment