(2.1)
Sañjaya said:
To him thus overcome with compassion, with eyes full of tears and agitated, despondent, Madhusūdana spoke these words.
Śrīdhara: In the second [chapter], Hari awakened Arjuna, afflicted with sorrow, through knowledge of Brahman, and described the characteristics of one steady in wisdom. In response to "What happened then?", Sañjaya said "To him thus" etc. One whose eyes are full of tears and agitated, to him thus, in the manner described, to the despondent Arjuna, Madhusūdana spoke these words. (1)
Madhusūdana: Having heard of Arjuna's aversion to battle due to the understanding that "Non-violence is the highest dharma, and living on alms," and having ascertained that the kingdom of his sons remained unchallenged, Dhṛtarāṣṭra, with a calm heart, desired to know "What happened then?" Wishing to remove this curiosity, Sañjaya spoke to him, as Vaiśampāyana says.
Kṛpā (compassion) is a special kind of affection caused by delusion of "These are mine." Āviṣṭam means pervaded by that naturally. By stating Arjuna as the object and compassion as the subject, its adventitious nature is refuted. Hence viṣīdantam, experiencing viṣāda (despondency), which is another term for śoka (sorrow), a state of mental agitation caused by the fear of separation from loved ones who have become objects of affection. Here, by presenting despondency as the object and Arjuna as the subject, its adventitious nature is suggested.
Therefore, one whose eyes are full of tears and agitated, unable to see, due to compassion and despondency. Thus, to Arjuna, agitated by compassion and despondency which had reached fullness by producing the two effects of shedding tears and becoming agitated, he spoke these words with reasoning, which will be stated, and did not ignore him. Madhusūdana implies that just as he himself is the subduer of the wicked, he will speak to Arjuna in the same way. (1)
Viśvanātha:
In the second [chapter], Kṛṣṇa-candra, dispelling the darkness of sorrow and delusion through discrimination between self and non-self, spoke here of the characteristics of the liberated. (1)
Baladeva:
In the second [chapter], Hari spoke of the knowledge of the true nature of the soul, the means to attain it, selfless action, and the characteristics of one steady in wisdom.
Thus, having heard of Arjuna's detachment, and observing Dhṛtarāṣṭra rejoicing in the hope of his sons' kingdom not faltering, Sañjaya said "To him thus." Madhusūdana implies that he will destroy his sorrow as easily as [destroying] honey. (1)
(2.2)
The Blessed Lord said:
Whence has this impurity come upon you in this perilous situation, Arjuna? It is not practiced by the noble, does not lead to heaven, and causes dishonor.
Śrīdhara: He speaks those very words. The Blessed Lord said: "Whence" etc. From what cause has this impurity come upon you in this difficult situation? This delusion has arisen, which is not practiced by the noble. It is not conducive to heaven, is unrighteous, and causes infamy. (2)
Madhusūdana: He introduces those very words of the Blessed Lord with "Whence has" etc.
"Bhaga (fortune) is the term for these six: complete sovereignty, righteousness, fame, prosperity, detachment, and liberation." [Vi.Pu. 6.74]
"Complete" is to be connected with each. "Liberation" means the knowledge that is the means to it. Iṅganā means "term". One in whom such complete sovereignty etc. eternally and unobstructedly exists is called Bhagavān. The suffix matup denotes eternal possession. Similarly:
"He who knows the origin and destruction of beings, their coming and going, knowledge and ignorance, he should be called Bhagavān." [Vi.Pu. 6.78]
Here, "of beings" is to be connected with each. The words "origin" and "destruction" also indicate their causes. "Coming and going" mean future prosperity and adversity. Such is the meaning of the word Bhagavān, which culminates in Śrī Vāsudeva alone, hence he is called thus.
This impurity, turning away from one's own duty, preceded by compassion, delusion, shedding of tears, etc., despised by the cultured, in this dangerous situation, whence has it come upon you, the foremost of all kṣatriyas? Is it from a desire for liberation? Or from a desire for heaven? This is questioned by the word "whence". He negates all three causes with three adjectives in the latter half. Not practiced by the noble, the seekers of liberation. How can those desiring liberation through purification of mind by their own duties, with impurities not yet ripened, abandon their own duty? The one eligible for renunciation, with ripened impurities, will be spoken of later. Not leading to heaven, being opposed to duties that lead to heaven, it is not to be practiced out of desire for heaven. Causing dishonor, causing lack of fame or infamy, it is not to be practiced out of desire for fame. Thus, it is to be avoided by those desiring liberation, heaven, or fame. That you alone should practice it out of desire - oh, how improper is your behavior! This is the implication. (2)
Viśvanātha: Kaśmalam means delusion. Viṣame means in this difficult battle situation. Kuto hetoḥ means "from what cause". Upasthitam means "has come upon you". Anārya-juṣṭam means not practiced by well-established people. Asvargyam akīrti-karam means unfavorable to both otherworldly and worldly happiness. (2)
Baladeva: He repeats those words with "The Blessed Lord said" etc.
"Bhaga (fortune) is the term for these six: complete sovereignty, righteousness, fame, prosperity, detachment, and liberation." [Vi.Pu. 6.74]
He is eternally distinguished by the six qualities of sovereignty etc. mentioned by Parāśara. "Complete" is to be applied to all six. O Arjuna! Whence has this impurity, turning away from one's own duty, despised by the cultured, come upon you, the crest jewel of kṣatriyas? In this dangerous time of battle. This aversion to battle is not for liberation, heaven, or fame, he says with "Not practiced by the noble" etc. Not practiced by the noble, the seekers of liberation. The noble indeed perform their duties for purification of heart. Not leading to heaven, being opposed to duties that lead to heaven. Causing dishonor, destroying fame. (2)
(2.3)
The Blessed Lord said:
Do not yield to unmanliness, O Pārtha. It does not befit you. Cast off this petty weakness of heart and arise, O scorcher of enemies.
Śrīdhara: "Do not yield to unmanliness" etc. Therefore, O Pārtha! Do not yield to unmanliness, cowardice. Do not attain it. Because this is not befitting you, it is not appropriate. Cast off this petty, insignificant weakness of heart, cowardice, and arise for battle, O scorcher of enemies, tormentor of foes! (3)
Madhusūdana: Now, if one says, "What can I do, being unable to even hold the bow due to the faintheartedness arising from seeing the army of relatives?", to this he replies "Unmanliness" etc. Do not yield to unmanliness, the state of being unmanly, faintheartedness in the form of breaking of vigor, energy, etc. O Pārtha, son of Pṛthā! Since exceptional valor is well-known in a mere son of Pṛthā, obtained by the grace of gods, as the son of Pṛthā you are unfit for unmanliness - this is the meaning. He also states its unfitness for Arjuna with "This does not". In you, Arjuna, of great fame having fought even with the great Lord himself directly, this unmanliness is not fitting, is not appropriate - thus indicating its unfitness by your uniqueness.
Now, if one objects, "But I have already said earlier 'I am unable to stand and my mind seems to whirl'", to this he replies "Petty" etc. Cast off the weakness of heart, the faintheartedness in the form of the mind's whirling etc., which is petty because it causes pettiness, or is easily removable, and arise, be ready for battle, having removed it through discrimination. O scorcher of enemies! He is addressed thus, implying the reason, as one who scorches the enemy supremely. (3)
Viśvanātha: Klaibyam means the nature of a eunuch, cowardice. O Pārtha! Even though you are the son of Pṛthā, you are yielding to it. Therefore, do not yield, do not attain it. This may be fitting for some other inferior kṣatriya, but it is not appropriate for you, my friend.
Now, if you say, "Don't suspect this unmanliness as a lack of valor. Rather, this is discrimination due to a sense of duty towards respected elders like Bhīṣma and Droṇa, and compassion towards the weak sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra who are ready to die from the blow of my weapons", to this he replies "Petty" etc. These are not your discrimination and compassion, but rather sorrow and delusion. And these are indicators of mental weakness. Therefore, cast off this weakness of heart and arise. O scorcher of enemies! Fight, tormenting the enemies. (3)
Baladeva: Now, if you say, "What should I do, being shaken by the fault of resolve to destroy relatives?", to this he replies "Unmanliness" etc. O Pārtha! Born to Pṛthā by the grace of the king of gods! Do not yield to unmanliness, cowardice. In you, the conqueror of the world, my friend Arjuna, such unmanliness is not appropriate, as it would be in an inferior kṣatriya.
Now, if you say, "My unmanliness is not in the form of lack of valor, but rather this is discrimination due to a sense of duty towards venerable ones like Bhīṣma, and this is compassion towards brothers like Duryodhana who will die from the blow of my weapons", to this he replies "Petty" etc. These are not your discrimination and compassion, but rather a petty, most insignificant weakness of heart. Therefore, cast that off and arise, be ready for battle. O scorcher of enemies! Do not become an object of ridicule for the enemies. (3)
(2.4)
Arjuna said:
How can I fight with arrows in battle against Bhīṣma and Droṇa, O Madhusūdana (slayer of Madhu), who are worthy of worship, O Arisūdana (destroyer of enemies)?
Śrīdhara: I have not withdrawn from battle due to cowardice, but because of the impropriety and unrighteousness of the battle, thus Arjuna says - "How" etc. How can I fight against Bhīṣma and Droṇa who are worthy of worship, deserving of reverence? Moreover, with arrows - where it is inappropriate to even say I will fight with words, how can I fight with arrows? This is the meaning. O destroyer of enemies, crusher of foes. (4)
Madhusūdana: Now, if one says, "This is not an abandonment of one's duty due to sorrow, delusion, etc., but I am abandoning this battle due to its lack of righteousness and its unrighteousness," thus Arjuna, not understanding the Lord's intention, expresses his own intention with "How" etc. How can I fight against, attack with arrows, missiles, Bhīṣma the grandfather and Droṇa the teacher in battle, in war? The meaning is, in no way at all. Because they are worthy of worship, deserving of reverence with flowers etc. Even in a place of play, playful battle with words producing joy is inappropriate with those worthy of worship, what to speak of attacking with arrows on the battlefield resulting in loss of life? This is the meaning.
The two vocatives Madhusūdana and Arisūdana are due to being distraught with sorrow, lacking consideration of before and after. Therefore, there is no fault of repetition in the meaning of Madhusūdana and Arisūdana. Where even mere battle is inappropriate, killing is far off - this is indicated by "I will fight against".
Or, how can I fight against those worthy of worship? The explanation of those worthy of worship is indeed Bhīṣma and Droṇa. The connection is like in "Feed two Brahmins, Devadatta and Yajñadatta". The idea is this - Duryodhana and others do not prepare for battle without putting Bhīṣma and Droṇa at the forefront. There, battle with them is firstly not dharma, being not prescribed like worship etc. And it cannot be said that this is also not adharma because it is not prohibited. When even mere sound like saying "hum" or "you" to a guru is shown to result in undesirable consequences and thus prohibited, what to speak of the unrighteousness and prohibition of war with them? (4)
Viśvanātha: Now, if one says, "The scripture says 'Transgression of worship of the worshipable indeed obstructs merit.' Therefore, I am withdrawing from battle," to this he says "How" etc. I will fight against means I will fight. Now, if these two are fighting, then why are you unable to be their opponent? True, I am indeed unable, thus he says "worthy of worship". I am fit to offer only flowers with devotion at their feet, not sharp arrows with anger - this is the meaning. O friend Kṛṣṇa, you also kill only enemies in battle, not Sandīpani your guru, nor relatives like the Yadus, thus he says "O Madhusūdana". Now, Mādhava indeed means Yadu. To this he says "O Arisūdana!" I am saying Madhu refers to the demon who was your enemy. (4)
Baladeva: Now, if you say, "How can you not fight when Bhīṣma and others are opponents? And because of the rule of battle that one who is challenged should not turn back for a kṣatriya," to this he says "How" etc. Bhīṣma the grandfather and Droṇa the teacher of knowledge. How can I fight with arrows? As these two are worthy of worship, to be revered with flowers etc., battle with them is not proper even with words of jest. How could it be proper with them using arrows? And because of the remembered verse "Transgression of worship of the worshipable indeed obstructs merit." The repetition of the vocatives Madhusūdana and Arisūdana is due to lack of connection between before and after for one overwhelmed with sorrow. And the meaning is that you also kill only enemies in battle, not worshipable ones like Ugrasena, Sāndīpani, etc. (4)
(2.5)
It is better to eat even begged food in this world without killing great teachers, than to kill the teachers who desire wealth and enjoy pleasures stained with blood here itself.
Śrīdhara: If you say that without killing them, even your livelihood will not be possible, he replies with "gurūn" (teachers). It is better and proper to eat begged food, even alms, in this world without killing the teachers like Droṇācārya and others, without committing the sin of killing a teacher which is against the other world. In the opposite case, not only is there suffering in the other world, but I would experience the suffering of hell here itself, he says with "hatvā" (having killed). Having killed the teachers, I would enjoy pleasures here itself that are extensively smeared with blood, focused on wealth and desires. Or "artha-kāmān" (wealth and desires) is an adjective for the teachers. Being overwhelmed by the thirst for wealth, they would not desist from the war, therefore their killing would inevitably occur - this is the meaning. And thus Bhīṣma said to Yudhiṣṭhira:
"A person is a slave to wealth, but wealth is not a slave to anyone. This is true, O great king, I am bound by wealth to the Kauravas." [Mahābhārata 6.41.36]
Madhusūdana: If you say that Bhīṣma and Droṇa are worthy of worship only because of their status as teachers, and the same for others like Kṛpa, and it is not proper to accept them as teachers at present -
"Even a teacher who is arrogant, who does not know right from wrong, who has taken the wrong path, is prescribed to be abandoned." [Mahābhārata 5.178.24]
According to this smṛti (sacred text). Therefore, these who are arrogant with the pride of war, who are devoid of discrimination between right and wrong due to unjustly seizing the kingdom and betraying their disciples, who are fixed on the wrong path, it is better to kill them - anticipating this objection, he says "gurūn" (teachers).
Without killing the teachers, there is at least the other world. But in this world, it is better, more praiseworthy and proper for us kings and others whose kingdom has been seized by them to eat even forbidden alms, rather than killing them and taking the kingdom. Thus, even in dharma (righteousness), taking war as having only the fruit of mere livelihood, attributing sin, in vow.
If you object that their status as teachers is negated due to their arrogance etc., he addresses this with "mahānubhāvān" (of great power). Those who have great power based on learning, study, austerity, conduct, etc. Thus, those who have controlled even time, desire, etc., who are abundant in extraordinary merit, do not have contact with petty sins like arrogance, etc. - this is the meaning. Or "himahānubhāvān" can be one word. Those who have the power of himahā (destroyer of cold), the sun or fire. Thus, due to their excessive brilliance, they do not have faults like arrogance, etc. at all.
"Transgression of dharma and audacity are seen in powerful ones. It is not a fault for the greatly brilliant, just as fire consumes everything." [Bhāgavata Purāṇa 10.33.30]
If you say, when they have engaged in war being greedy for wealth, how can these who have sold themselves have the aforementioned greatness, and thus Bhīṣma said to Yudhiṣṭhira:
"A person is a slave to wealth, but wealth is not a slave to anyone. This is true, O great king, I am bound by wealth to the Kauravas." [Mahābhārata 6.41.36]
Anticipating this objection, he says "hatvā" (having killed). Even though greedy for wealth, they are still my teachers - this is stated again by using the word "guru" (teacher). The word "tu" (but) means that even after killing such teachers, I would only enjoy pleasures, not attain liberation. "Bhogāḥ" (pleasures) are sensory objects, with the suffix ghañ in the sense of object. And these pleasures are only here, not in the other world. And even here, they are as if smeared with blood, extremely detestable due to being pervaded by infamy - this is the meaning. When it is thus even here, how much can the suffering in the other world be described - this is the idea.
Or, having killed the teachers, I would enjoy only pleasures focused on wealth and desires, not dharma and liberation - this alternative explanation should be seen with "artha-kāma" (wealth and desires) as an adjective for pleasures.
Viśvanātha: If you say, if you have no desire to seize this your own kingdom, then by what means will you live? To this he replies with "gurūn ahatvā" (without killing the teachers). Without killing the teachers, it is better to eat even alms, which is despised for Kṣatriyas. Even if there is ill repute in this world, there would be no inauspiciousness in the other world - this is the idea. And it should not be said that the teachers who are arrogant, who do not know right from wrong, who follow the unrighteous Duryodhana and others, should indeed be abandoned. As it is said:
"Even a teacher who is arrogant, who does not know right from wrong, who has taken the wrong path, is prescribed to be abandoned." [Mahābhārata 5.178.24]
To this he says - "mahānubhāvān" (of great power). How can there be the possibility of such faults in Bhīṣma and others who have controlled even time, desire, etc. - this is the idea. If you say:
"A person is a slave to wealth, but wealth is not a slave to anyone. This is true, O great king, I am bound by wealth to the Kauravas." [Mahābhārata 6.41.36]
Thus Bhīṣma himself said to Yudhiṣṭhira, therefore at present, due to their desire for wealth, their previous greatness has disappeared? True, but even killing them would only bring me sorrow - he says this with "artha-kāmān" (desiring wealth). Having killed these Kurus who desire wealth, who are greedy for wealth, I would enjoy pleasures, but only those smeared with their blood. This is the meaning - even though they are greedy for wealth, they are still my teachers, therefore if I kill them, my enjoyment would indeed be mixed with the sin of killing a teacher.
Baladeva: If you say, if you have no desire for your own kingdom, then how will even your livelihood be accomplished? To this he replies with "gurūn" (teachers). For me who remains without killing the teachers, without committing the sin of killing a teacher, it is better, more praiseworthy to eat even alms food which is despised for Kṣatriyas. Even though it causes ill repute in this world, it does not obstruct the other world.
If you say, these teachers like Bhīṣma, due to the pride and arrogance of war, by deceit stealing your kingdom and betraying you, and by association with Duryodhana and others who lack discrimination between right and wrong, are indeed to be abandoned at present -
"Even a teacher who is arrogant, who does not know right from wrong, who has taken the wrong path, is prescribed to be abandoned." [Mahābhārata 5.178.24]
According to this smṛti (sacred text). To this he says - "mahānubhāvān" (of great power). Those who have great, supreme power due to Vedic study, celibacy, etc. Those who have controlled even time, desire, etc., have no connection with such faults - this is the idea.
If you say:
"A person is a slave to wealth, but wealth is not a slave to anyone. This is true, O great king, I am bound by wealth to the Kauravas." [Mahābhārata 6.41.36]
From this statement of Bhīṣma, how can those who have sold themselves due to greed for wealth have great power? Therefore they should be killed in battle - if you say this, he replies with "hatvārtha-kāmān" (having killed those desiring wealth). Having killed the teachers who desire wealth, I would enjoy pleasures only in this world, not in the other world. And those pleasures would be smeared with their blood, mixed with their blood, not pure, because they would be obtained by violence against them. Thus, even though they are intoxicated with the pride and arrogance of war, etc., they are still my teachers - this is indicated by using the word "guru" (teacher) again.
(2.6)
We do not know which is better for us - whether we should conquer them or they should conquer us. The sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra, after killing whom we would not wish to live, stand before us.
Śrīdhara: Moreover, even if we accept unrighteousness, it is not known whether victory or defeat would be better for us, as stated in "na cet" (if not) and so on. We do not know which of these two would be greater (garīyas) or superior for us. He shows these two options: Whether we shall conquer them or they shall conquer us. Even in victory, we do not know which of the two - victory or defeat - would be greater (garīyas) or superior for us. He shows these two options again: Whether we shall conquer them, or they shall conquer us. Furthermore, even our victory would effectively be a defeat, as stated in "yān eva" (whom indeed).
Madhusūdana: One might think that since begging for food is forbidden for a kṣatriya (warrior), and fighting is prescribed, battle would be more beneficial as one's own duty. Anticipating this, he says "na caitat" (and not this). We do not know which of these two - begging or fighting - is greater (garīyas) or better for us. Is it begging, being free from violence, or fighting, being our duty? And we do not know this even after the battle has begun - whether we shall conquer them or the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra shall conquer us. The possibility of a draw should also be understood implicitly.
Moreover, even if we achieve victory, it would effectively be a defeat for us. Because those relatives, having killed whom we would not even wish to live, let alone enjoy sensual pleasures, are standing before us - all the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra, including Bhīṣma, Droṇa, and others. Therefore, the superiority of battle over begging is not established.
Thus, by the preceding text, the characteristics of the qualified person have been stated through the description of the defects of worldly existence. There, in "I do not see any good in killing my own people in battle," it is stated that one killed in battle has the same yoga and kṣema (security and prosperity) as a renunciate. The śreyas (highest good) established in scriptures like "One thing is śreyas, another is preyas (pleasant)" is mentioned as liberation. Implicitly, the discrimination between eternal and non-eternal objects is shown. In "I do not desire victory, O Kṛṣṇa," detachment from worldly results is shown. In "Even for the sake of dominion over the three worlds," detachment from otherworldly results is shown. In "Certain hell is our dwelling place," the existence of a self beyond the gross body is implied. In "What use is kingdom to us," śama (mental control) is explained. In "What use are pleasures," dama (sensory control) is shown. In "Even though they do not see," absence of greed is shown. In "That would be more beneficial for me," forbearance is shown. Thus, the meaning of the first chapter suggests the means of renunciation. In this chapter, in "It is better to live on alms," renunciation characterized by the mendicant's life is established.
Viśvanātha: Moreover, even though I am engaged in opposing my teachers, it is not known whether I would have victory or defeat, as stated in "na caitat" (and not this) and so on. Still, we do not know which of these two - victory or defeat - would be greater (garīyas) or superior for us. He shows these two options: Whether we shall conquer them, or they shall conquer us. Furthermore, even our victory would effectively be a defeat, as stated in "yān eva" (whom indeed).
Baladeva: One might say that begging for food is despicable for a kṣatriya, and battle is one's duty, so why do you speak thus even knowing this? To this he replies with "na caitat" (and not this). We do not know this. We do not know which of these two - begging or fighting - is greater (garīyas) or more praiseworthy for us. Is begging greater because it is free from violence, or is fighting greater because it is our duty? And we do not know this: Whether in the commenced battle we shall conquer the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra, or they shall conquer us.
One might say that victory is certain for you who are mighty warriors and righteous. To this he replies with "yān eva" (whom indeed). All those sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra, including Bhīṣma and others, whom we do not wish even to live after killing, let alone enjoy pleasures. Thus, even our victory would effectively be a defeat. Therefore, the superiority of battle over begging is not established. Thus, by this much text, Arjuna's qualification for knowledge as stated in the scripture "Therefore, one who knows thus, being peaceful, self-controlled, withdrawn, forbearing, faithful, should see the self in the self alone" is shown. There, in "What use is kingdom to us," śama and dama are shown. In "Even for the sake of dominion over the three worlds," indifference to worldly and otherworldly enjoyments, which is withdrawal, is shown. In "It is better to eat by begging," forbearance characterized by tolerance of dualities is shown. Faith characterized by firm trust in the teacher's words will become clear in the following speech. Indeed, one devoid of śama and other qualities has no qualification for knowledge, just as a lame person has none for action.
(2.7)
With my nature overcome by the flaw of kārpaṇya (weakness),
my mind confused about dharma, I ask you:
Tell me decisively what is best for me.
I am your disciple, instruct me who have taken refuge in you.
Śrīdhara: He indicates his qualification to receive instruction with "kārpaṇya" etc. Meaning: With nature overcome by the flaw of kārpaṇya - "How shall we live after killing these people?" Such kārpaṇya and fault are caused by the destruction of one's family. One whose inherent nature characterized by valor etc. is overcome and overwhelmed by these - I who am such ask you. Also, one whose mind is confused about dharma. The meaning is: Being doubtful whether begging alms after abandoning battle is dharma or adharma for a kṣatriya. Therefore tell me what would be decidedly best and proper for me. Moreover, I am your disciple, worthy of instruction. Hence instruct me who have taken refuge in you. ||7||
Madhusūdana: Now approaching a guru is being taught, since only one who has understood the faults of saṁsāra, become extremely dispassionate, and properly approached a guru is qualified to receive knowledge. Thus, due to the dilemma of Bhīṣma and others, showing Arjuna's desire for the life of begging alms established in śruti as "Then arising, they wander as mendicants" [BU 3.5.1], he also shows the proper approach to a guru using that dilemma as a pretext with "kārpaṇya" etc.
One who cannot tolerate even a small disturbance of mind is known in the world as kṛpaṇa (miserly). Being of that nature, every non-knower of the Self is kṛpaṇa due to not having attained the goal of human life. As the śruti says: "O Gārgī, he who departs from this world without knowing that Imperishable is kṛpaṇa" [BU 3.8.10]. Its state is kārpaṇya, having superimposition of the non-Self. The fault characterized by attachment caused by that, in the form of obsession in this birth that "These are mine, what is the use of living when they are killed?" - one whose innate kṣatriya nature characterized by eagerness for battle is overcome and eclipsed by that. With mind confused about dharma due to not seeing authoritative evidence to decide - "Is killing these dharma? Is protecting them dharma? Is protecting the earth dharma? Or is living in the forest as one is dharma?" etc. - one whose mind is pervaded by such doubts. This has been explained in "We do not know which is better for us." Being such, I now ask you - "śreyaḥ" (what is best) is to be connected.
Therefore tell me what would be the decisive, exclusive and ultimate śreyaḥ, the result that is the highest human goal. Exclusiveness is inevitable occurrence after the means, ultimacy is indestructibility once arisen. For just as when medicine is taken, sometimes removal of disease may not occur, or even if occurred the removal of disease is destroyed again by the arising of disease. Similarly even when a sacrifice is performed, due to obstacles heaven may not be attained, or even if attained heaven perishes being afflicted by suffering. Thus there is no exclusiveness or ultimacy in those. As it is said:
"Due to affliction by the three kinds of suffering, there is desire to know the means to remove that.
If that is seen to be purposeless, it is not due to absence of exclusiveness and ultimacy." [SK 1]
"The scriptural is like the seen, for it has impurity, decay and excess.
The opposite of that is better, from knowledge of the manifest, unmanifest and knower." [SK 2]
But you are my friend, not disciple - to this he says "I am your disciple." Being worthy of your instruction, I am indeed your disciple, not friend, due to having lesser knowledge. Therefore instruct me who have taken refuge in you out of compassion, I am not to be neglected due to doubt of not being a disciple - this is the meaning. By this, the meaning of śruti teaching approaching a guru is shown: "For knowledge of that, he should approach a guru alone, with fuel in hand, who is learned in the Vedas and established in Brahman" [MU 1.2.12], "Bhṛgu, son of Varuṇa, approached his father Varuṇa. 'Teach me Brahman, sir' he said." [TU 3.1] etc. ||7||
Viśvanātha: But then you yourself, being a kṣatriya, are deciding on begging alms while speaking the meaning of scripture with reasoning, so what is the use of my words? To this he says "kārpaṇya" etc. Abandoning natural valor itself is my kārpaṇya. And since "The course of dharma is subtle," I am of confused intellect even in determining dharma. Therefore you alone decisively tell me what is best.
But if you refute my words considering yourself learned, how shall I speak? To this he says "I am your disciple." The meaning is: I will not refute your words in vain hereafter. ||7||
Baladeva: Now he shows approaching a guru established in śruti as "For knowledge of that, he should approach a guru alone, with fuel in hand, who is learned in the Vedas and established in Brahman" [MU 1.2.12], "One who has a teacher knows" [CU 6.14.2] etc. with "kārpaṇya" etc. From hearing "O Gārgī, he who departs from this world without knowing that Imperishable is kṛpaṇa" [BU 3.8.10], not knowing Brahman is kārpaṇya. Due to that, one whose innate nature characterized by desire for battle is overcome by the fault characterized by attachment to relatives in "Having killed these very people." With mind confused about dharma, doubting thus: "Is battle my dharma as a kṣatriya, or begging alms abandoning that?" Being such, I now ask you: Therefore tell me what would be the decisive, exclusive and ultimate śreyaḥ for me. Exclusiveness is inevitable occurrence after the means, ultimacy is indestructibility of what has occurred.
But instruction is for one who has taken refuge, according to śruti "For knowledge of that, he should approach a guru" etc. How shall I instruct you who are a friend? To this he says "I am your disciple." Instruct me. ||7||
(2.8)
Indeed, I do not see what could dispel this sorrow of mine that is drying up my senses, even if I were to obtain an unrivaled prosperous kingdom on earth or even sovereignty over the gods.
Śrīdhara: If you say "Consider for yourself what is proper and do that", he responds "Indeed, I do not see". I do not see any action that could remove this sorrow of mine which is causing extreme desiccation of my senses. Even if I obtain a prosperous kingdom on earth free from thorns (rivals), and even if I obtain the position of Indra, I do not see any means of removing sorrow even after obtaining all such desired things. This is the syntactical connection. (8)
Madhusūdana: If you say "You yourself consider what is best, you are well-versed in scripture, why be another's pupil?", to this he says "Indeed". I do not see what, when obtained, could remove my sorrow - therefore instruct me. This shows the meaning of the scripture "I, O Lord, am afflicted with sorrow. May the Lord help me cross beyond sorrow" (Chā. Up. 7.1.3). Anticipating the question "What is wrong with removing sorrow?", he qualifies it by saying "drying up my senses". The meaning is that it is always causing torment.
If you think "Your sorrow will cease if you strive in battle; if you are victorious, you will obtain a kingdom as stated in the dharma scriptures beginning 'There are these two persons in the world...'", anticipating this he says "even if I were to obtain" etc. Even after obtaining a kingdom on earth free from enemies and rich in crops etc., as well as sovereignty over the gods up to the status of Hiraṇyagarbha, I do not see what could remove my sorrow - this is the syntactical connection. This is because scripture states "Just as in this world a realm won by action perishes, so in the next world a realm won by merit perishes" (Chā. Up. 8.1.6). And because of the inference "Whatever is produced is impermanent", and because even worldly enjoyments are seen to perish by direct perception. Therefore neither worldly nor heavenly enjoyment removes sorrow, but rather produces sorrow due to dependence on enjoyment during its existence and separation at its destruction. Thus battle should not be undertaken to remove sorrow - this is the meaning. Hereby detachment from worldly and heavenly enjoyments is shown as a qualification of the eligible person. (8)
Viśvanātha: If you say "You have only friendship towards me, not reverence. So how can I make you my disciple? Therefore take refuge in someone like Dvaipāyana etc. for whom you have reverence", to this he says "Indeed". I do not clearly see anyone in the three worlds except you who could remove my sorrow. I do not know even Bṛhaspati who is more intelligent than myself. Therefore, being afflicted with sorrow, in whom indeed should I take refuge? This is the purport. Because from sorrow there is extreme drying up of the senses, like small ponds in great heat.
If you say "Then fight now while afflicted with sorrow. After defeating these enemies and obtaining the kingdom, your sorrow will depart through absorption in enjoying the kingdom", to this he says "even if I were to obtain". Even after obtaining an unrivaled kingdom on earth or sovereignty over the gods in heaven, this drying up of my senses would still remain - this is the meaning. (8)
Baladeva: If you say "You are knowledgeable in scripture, consider and pursue what is beneficial for yourself. How can you be the disciple of me, your friend?", to this he says "Indeed". I do not clearly see any action that could remove my sorrow. He qualifies sorrow as "drying up of the senses". Therefore I have taken refuge in you for the destruction of sorrow. Thus the meaning of the scripture is shown: "I, O Lord, am afflicted with sorrow. May the Lord help me cross beyond sorrow."
If you say "You now take refuge while confused by sorrow; you will become free from sorrow upon obtaining happiness and prosperity through battle", to this he says "even if I were to obtain". If I were victorious in battle and obtained an unrivaled kingdom on earth free from thorns (enemies), or if I were slain there and obtained sovereignty over the gods in heaven, even then I would not be free from sorrow - this is the meaning. Because scripture states "Just as in this world a realm won by action perishes, so in the next world a realm won by merit perishes" (Chā. Up. 8.1.6), neither worldly nor heavenly happiness obtained through battle removes sorrow. Therefore tell me what is truly beneficial, as battle does not remove sorrow. (8)
(2.9)
Sañjaya said:
Having spoken thus to Hṛṣīkeśa (controller of the senses), Guḍākeśa (conqueror of sleep), the scorcher of enemies, after saying to Govinda (finder of cows), "I will not fight," became silent.
Śrīdhara: Having spoken thus, what did Arjuna do? Expecting this, Sañjaya said "evam" etc. The meaning is clear. (9)
Madhusūdana: After that, what did Arjuna do? In response to Dhṛtarāṣṭra's curiosity, Sañjaya said "evam" etc. Guḍākeśa, the conqueror of sleep, Parantapa, the scorcher of enemies, Arjuna, having spoken thus to Hṛṣīkeśa, the inner controller who directs all senses, to Govinda, who is omniscient as the source of all Vedas (as derived from "finding speech characterized as Veda"), first expressing his unsuitability for the nature of war with "How can I fight against Bhīṣma" etc., and then saying "I will not fight" expressing the futility of war, became silent, meaning he became inactive by ceasing the external sensory activities previously engaged for battle. The word "ha" is used to indicate that laziness and non-scorching, which are foreign to him who is naturally a conqueror of sleep and scorcher of all enemies, will not find a place. With the words Govinda and Hṛṣīkeśa, indicating omniscience and omnipotence, it is suggested that the Lord's removal of his delusion is easily accomplished. (9)
Viśvanātha: Not commented.
Baladeva: Then, expecting [the question] "What did Arjuna do?", Sañjaya said "evam uktvā" etc. It should be understood that Guḍākeśa, having thus spoken to Hṛṣīkeśa about war's inability to remove sorrow with "I do not see" etc., and Parantapa also having said to Govinda, the knower of all Vedas, "I will not fight". Here, being Hṛṣīkeśa, he will direct [Arjuna's] intellect towards war. Being the knower of all Vedas, he will make [Arjuna] understand war as his duty. Thus expressing, the hope for his sons' kingdom arising in Dhṛtarāṣṭra's heart is dispelled. (9)
(2.10)
Hṛṣīkeśa (Krishna) said to him, as if smiling, O Bhārata (Dhritarashtra), these words to the despondent one in the midst of both armies.
Śrīdhara: Then, in response to the question "What happened next?", he says "tam uvāca" (He said to him). "As if smiling" means with a pleased countenance. (10)
Madhusūdana: Even though Arjuna had neglected the battle, the Lord did not neglect him. To dispel Dhritarashtra's false hope, he says "tam uvāca" (He said to him). In the midst of both armies, having come with the intention to fight, to Arjuna who was experiencing despair and delusion contrary to that, Hṛṣīkeśa (Krishna), the all-knowing Lord, as if smiling, as if immersing him in an ocean of shame by revealing his improper conduct, spoke these profound words beginning with "aśocyān" (Those who should not be grieved for), revealing his improper conduct, and did not neglect him.
Revealing improper conduct to produce shame is smiling. And since shame is painful, it is primarily an object of aversion. But for Arjuna, being the object of the Lord's grace, and the revelation of improper conduct being the cause of discrimination, this is only a figurative smile, as indicated by the word "iva" (as if). The Lord reveals Arjuna's improper conduct to produce discrimination, as if to produce shame. Whether shame arises or not is not the main concern.
If he had neglected the battle before even arriving at the battlefield, it would not have been improper. But having come to the battlefield with great enthusiasm, neglecting it is extremely improper. To convey this, the qualification "in the midst of both armies" is used. This will be clear in "aśocyān" (Those who should not be grieved for) etc. (10)
Viśvanātha: "Oh, even you have such a lack of discrimination" - with this friendly attitude, as if smiling, as if immersing him in an ocean of shame by revealing his impropriety. At that time, as Arjuna had become a disciple, laughter would be inappropriate, so the meaning is that he concealed his smile by curling his lower lip. "Hṛṣīkeśa" implies that previously he controlled Arjuna's speech out of love, but now, for Arjuna's benefit, he also controls Arjuna's mind out of love. "In the midst of both armies" implies that Arjuna's despair and the Lord's instruction were generally observed by both armies. (10)
Baladeva: Revealing the implied meaning, he says "tam uvāca" (He said to him). The Lord Hṛṣīkeśa (Krishna) spoke these profoundly meaningful words beginning with "aśocyān" (Those who should not be grieved for) to the despondent Arjuna. "Oh, even you have such discrimination" - smiling with this friendly attitude. The meaning is as if immersing him in an ocean of shame by speaking improperly. "Iva" (as if) means that as Arjuna had just then become a disciple, he slightly raised his lower lip, considering laughter inappropriate. "In the midst of both armies" is to indicate that Arjuna's despair and the Lord's instruction to him were witnessed by all. (10)
(2.11)
You grieve for those who should not be grieved for, yet you speak words of wisdom. The wise do not grieve for the dead or the living.
Śrīdhara: Due to non-discrimination between the body and the self, one experiences sorrow. To show the discrimination, the Blessed Lord said: "aśocyān" etc. You have grieved for relatives who are not fit objects of grief, as you said "Seeing these kinsmen, O Krishna" etc. Even when I instructed you saying "Whence has this weakness come to you in this difficult time?" etc., you again merely speak the words of the wise and learned, such as "How shall I fight against Bhishma?" etc. But you are not wise, because the wise do not grieve for those whose life has departed or those who are still living, thinking "How will these live bereft of relatives?" (11)
Madhusūdana: Here, Arjuna's natural inclination towards his duty of fighting is obstructed by two types of delusion - one arising from non-discrimination, and another from grief caused by that. So these two delusions need to be removed. The first is common to all beings - seeing the unreal cycle of worldly existence as real and as a property of the self, which is actually self-luminous, of the nature of supreme bliss, and unconnected to worldly qualities, due to non-discrimination of the three limiting adjuncts of gross body, subtle body and their cause ignorance. The second is specific to Arjuna - seeing his duty of fighting as unrighteous due to abundance of violence etc., arising from faults like compassion. Knowledge of the pure nature of the self through discrimination of the three limiting adjuncts removes the first delusion for all. For the second, knowledge that fighting is not unrighteous as it is one's duty, despite involving violence, is specific to Arjuna. Grief ceases naturally when its cause is removed, without needing separate means. With this in mind, the Blessed Lord spoke, addressing the two delusions in order:
"aśocyān" etc. Though learned, you have grieved for those who should not be grieved for, like Bhishma and Drona, including yourself, thinking "They die because of me; bereft of them what shall I do? And the kingdom likewise" etc. as expressed in "Seeing these kinsmen" etc. Thus, the delusion of seeing the non-grievable as grievable, common to animals etc., is improper for you who are extremely learned. Even when, on my words "Whence has this weakness" etc., you should have reflected "This behavior of mine is improper", you yourself, though wise, speak words improper for the wise to speak, like "How shall I fight against Bhishma?" etc., instead of falling silent out of shame.
The word "ca" (and) indicates what further impropriety remains. Thus, the specific delusions of seeing the unrighteous as righteous and the righteous as unrighteous are improper for you who are extremely learned. Or, you speak the words of the wise, but do not understand. The past tense is used for grieving as it precedes speaking, while the present tense is used for speaking as it immediately follows. Or the present tense "you grieve" can be explained as a Vedic usage.
If one objects that grief on separation from relatives is not improper as it was done by great sages like Vasishtha etc., he replies with "gatāsūn" etc. The wise, who have knowledge of the truth of the self born of inquiry, do not grieve for bodies imagined as relatives, whether dead or alive. They are not deluded thinking "These dead have gone leaving all possessions; what do they do? Where do they stay? And how will these living ones survive separated from relatives?" - because such notions do not appear in the state of absorption, and even when they appear in the waking state, they are ascertained as false. Indeed, when the delusion of snake is removed by direct perception of the rope's true nature, fear, trembling etc. caused by it do not occur. Nor does one with jaundice-affected senses ever act towards jaggery as if it were bitter, even when it appears bitter sometimes, because the ascertainment of its sweetness is stronger.
Similarly, since the delusion of the grievable is based on ignorance of the nature of the self, how can it remain when that ignorance is removed by knowledge of the self's true nature? This is the idea. The imitation of Vasishtha etc. due to the strength of their past karma does not make it a duty to be followed by others as proper conduct of the wise, because only otherworldly behavior practiced by the wise with the notion of righteousness constitutes their proper conduct. Otherwise even spitting etc. would have to be followed. This should be understood. Since this is so, you too should become wise and not grieve - this is the purport. (11)
Viśvanātha: O Arjuna! This sorrow of yours, caused by the bondage and killing, is rooted in delusion, and your reasoning such as "How can I fight Bhīṣma in battle?" is rooted in ignorance, as stated in "aśocyān" and so on. You have grieved for those who should not be grieved for. And you speak words of wisdom to me who is trying to enlighten you, such as "How can I fight Bhīṣma in battle?" as if you had wisdom, but you have no wisdom at all. Because the wise, those with knowledge, do not grieve for those whose life-breaths have departed, meaning the gross bodies, because of their perishable nature. Nor do they grieve for those whose life-breaths have not departed, meaning the subtle bodies, for they too are perishable before liberation. For both, their nature is thus unavoidable. The foolish, however, grieve only when the life-breaths have departed from the bodies of their fathers and others, but not for the subtle bodies, as they generally do not perceive them, so enough of that. All these - Bhīṣma and others - along with their gross and subtle bodies, are indeed the self. And since the selves are eternal, there is no cause for sorrow regarding them. Thus, when you previously said that the dharmaśāstra (and in parentheses: scripture on duty) is stronger than the arthaśāstra (and in parentheses: scripture on worldly affairs), I say that the jñānaśāstra (and in parentheses: scripture on knowledge) is even stronger than the dharmaśāstra. ||11||
Baladeva: Thus, as Arjuna remained silent, the Lord, challenging his intellect, said "aśocyān". O Arjuna! You have grieved for those who should not be grieved for, namely the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra. And you speak to me words of wisdom, as if you were wise, such as "Seeing these, my own people" and "How can I fight Bhīṣma?", but you do not have even a trace of wisdom. Those who are wise do not grieve for the gross bodies whose life-breaths have departed, nor for the subtle bodies whose life-breaths have not departed, nor, as implied, for the souls. The meaning is this: There is no sorrow for the gross bodies because they are perishable; not the last (subtle bodies) because they are imperishable until liberation; and for the souls possessing these, being free from the six modifications of existence, because they are eternal, there is nothing to be grieved for. For those who know the nature of the body and soul, there is no cause for sorrow at all. The strength of dharmaśāstra over arthaśāstra that is spoken of is indeed countered by the even stronger jñānaśāstra. Therefore, the delusion of seeing the non-grievable as grievable is common to the ignorant and is not appropriate for you, a learned person. ||11||
(2.12)
Neither I, nor you, nor these rulers of men ever did not exist; nor shall we all cease to exist hereafter.
Śrīdhara: He states the reason for not being worthy of grief in "na tv evāham" etc. Just as I, the Supreme Lord, never did not exist due to the appearance and disappearance of my playful form, but rather always existed due to being beginningless; and you also did not not exist, but rather existed; and these rulers of men also did not not exist, but rather existed due to being my parts; similarly, hereafter we shall not cease to exist or endure, but rather shall endure. The meaning is that they are not worthy of grief due to being free from birth and death. (12)
Madhusūdana: With nineteen verses beginning with "na tv eva", an explanation is given of "You grieve for those not worthy of grief". With eight verses beginning with "And considering your own duty", the twofold delusion is refuted as requiring separate effort. There, to distinguish the self from the gross body, he establishes its eternality in "na tv eva".
The word "tu" indicates distinction from the body etc. Just as I never did not exist before this, but rather always existed, so too you existed, and these rulers of men existed. This shows non-relation to prior non-existence. Similarly, we all - I, you, and these rulers - shall not cease to exist hereafter, but rather shall exist. This states non-relation to destruction. Thus, due to existence in all three times, the self's eternality and distinction from the non-eternal body is established. (12)
Viśvanātha: Or, friend, I ask you this: Does grief arise when the death of a loved one is seen? Is the self or the body the object of love here? If the self is the object of love, as Śuka said "For all beings, O king, one's own self is most dear", then since the self, which is of two kinds - individual and supreme - is eternal and thus without death, the self is not an object of grief. He states this in "na tv evāham".
I, the Supreme Self, never did not exist before, but rather always existed. Similarly, you, the individual self, also existed. Likewise, these rulers, kings who are individual selves, also existed. This shows absence of prior non-existence. Similarly, we all - I, you, and these rulers - shall not cease to exist or endure hereafter, but rather shall endure. This shows absence of destruction. Thus it is established that the self, being eternal for both the Supreme Self and individual selves, is not an object of grief. Here are relevant scriptures: "Eternal among eternals, conscious among conscious beings, the One who fulfills the desires of many" etc. (12)
Baladeva: Having thus pointed out Arjuna's lack of wisdom due to grieving inappropriately, and engaging him who desires to know truth with folded hands, the Supreme Lord speaks of the philosophically real difference between Himself and individual souls, established by scripture such as "Eternal among eternals, conscious among conscious beings, the One who fulfills the desires of many", in "na tv evāham".
O Arjuna! I, the Supreme Lord, never did not exist before in the beginning, but rather always existed. Similarly, you, Arjuna, did not not exist, but rather existed. These rulers of men did not not exist, but rather existed. Likewise, hereafter at the end, we all - I, you, and these - shall not cease to exist, but rather shall exist. The meaning is that grief regarding them is not appropriate, since like the Supreme Lord, individual souls also have existence in all three times.
This difference is not merely practical due to being created by ignorance, since ignorance cannot apply to the all-knowing Lord. And because it will be stated that even in liberation, "Having resorted to this knowledge", etc. Nor can it be said that for one who knows non-difference, this perception of difference with Arjuna etc. is due to the maxim of continuation of the sublated, because if so, instruction would fail. Just as the notion of water in a mirage, though sublated, continues but does not lead to fetching water due to certainty of its falsity, similarly the perception of difference with Arjuna etc., though continuing after being sublated by knowledge of non-difference, will not lead to instruction etc. due to certainty of the truth. This is meaningless.
If it is argued that since scripture's purport is seen in an unknown fruitful matter, such non-difference is the subject of its purport, while difference is not its subject due to fruitlessness and being known, but is merely restated like the meaning of scriptures such as "From waters he rises in the morning, into waters he enters in the evening" - this is weak. Because fruits like immortality are heard for difference in scriptures like "Considering the self and controller as separate, one attains immortality through Him". And because it is unknown in the world due to having mutually contradictory qualities as its counter-correlate. Those qualities like all-pervasiveness and minuteness, lordship and servitude etc. should be understood as mutually contradictory and known only through scripture. Non-difference is fruitless there due to not accepting fruits. And it is unknown like a hare's horn due to non-existence. Therefore, their philosophically real difference is established. (12)
(2.13)
Just as in this body the embodied one passes through childhood, youth and old age, so too the attainment of another body. The wise are not deluded by this.
śrīdharaḥ: Indeed, Your lack of birth etc. as the Lord is certainly true, but birth and death are well-known for living beings. On this point he says "dehina" etc. For the embodied one, the one who identifies with the body, just as in this gross body the states of childhood etc. are dependent on that body, not intrinsic, because even when the prior state is destroyed and another state arises, there is recognition that "I am the same". Similarly, when this body is destroyed, the attainment of another body is also dependent on the subtle body. There is no destruction of the self, as even in a newborn there is observed activity like drinking milk due to previous impressions. Therefore the wise, the intelligent one, is not deluded by the destruction and arising of those two bodies. He does not think "The self has died and been born." (13)
madhusūdanaḥ: But the Cārvākas say "The self is just the body endowed with consciousness." And thus the validity of direct perceptions like "I am stout", "I am fair", "I am going" etc. will be irrefutable. How then is the self separate from the body, and even if separate, how is it free from birth and death, since from the cognition "Devadatta is born", "Devadatta is dead" it follows that the self also has birth and death along with the birth and death of the body? Anticipating this objection, he says "dehina".
The one who has bodies - all past, present and future bodies in the universe belong to him, so he is called dehī (embodied). The singular is used to indicate that since it is all-pervasive and connected to all bodies, there is no proof for the self being different in each body, as movement is possible everywhere. The plural "all of us" used earlier is due to following the differences of previous bodies, not with the intention of differences of selves, so there is no fault.
For that one embodied self, just as in this present body there are the three mutually contradictory states of childhood, youth and old age, but there is no difference of self due to their differences, because of the firm recognition "I who experienced my parents in childhood am the same one who now experiences my great-grandchildren in old age", and because the impressions belonging to one cannot produce memory in another. In the same way, for that unchanging self, the attainment of another body means attaining a body completely different from this one, as in dreams and yogic powers, even while cognizing the difference of that body, there is recognition "I am the same".
Thus if the body itself were the self, when the body changes with the differences of childhood etc., there would be no continuity of memory. Or if one were to say there is unity of the body possessing the states, despite the complete difference of the childhood etc. states, according to the maxim "as long as there is recognition, there is continuity of the object". Even then in dreams and yogic powers there would be no continuity of memory when the attributes of the body are different, hence both examples are given. Therefore, just as the cognition of water etc. in a mirage is an error, the cognition "I am stout" etc. must necessarily be accepted as an error, since the invalidation is the same in both cases. This will be elaborated in "It is not born" etc. By this the view that the self is different from the body but is born and dies along with it is also refuted. Because even though continuity of memory is possible when states change, it is not possible when the body itself which is the substratum changes.
Or, just as the attainment of childhood etc. states is for the one unchanging self, so too is the attainment of another body when departing from this body. Even though there is no recognition "I am the same" in that case, because a newborn is seen to have cognitions of joy, sorrow, fear etc. produced by previous impressions. Otherwise there would be no activity like drinking milk, since that is accepted to be produced by knowledge of it being a means to desired ends, or produced by unseen merit alone. Thus the unity of the self in the earlier and later bodies is established. Otherwise there would be the unwanted consequences of destruction of what was done and obtaining what was not done, as explained elsewhere. Destruction of what was done means destruction of merits and demerits without experiencing their fruits. Obtaining what was not done means suddenly getting fruits of merits and demerits that were not performed.
Or, just as for you who are one embodied self, there is no difference due to the successive arising and destruction of bodily states because of your permanence, so too there is simultaneous attainment of all other bodies for you who are one, because of your all-pervasiveness. Because if of medium size, being composed of parts it could not be permanent. If atomic, there would be the unwanted consequence of non-perception of pleasure etc. pervading the whole body. When all-pervasiveness is ascertained, since effects are seen everywhere, it is ascertained that you alone are the one self in all bodies.
This being the case, you are deluded due to lack of wisdom by imagining differences of killer and killed, but the wise man is not deluded, because he does not see differences thinking "I am the killer of these, these are to be killed by me". And thus all bodies that are the objects of dispute have one experiencer, because they are bodies, like your body. Scripture also says "The one God hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the inner self of all beings" etc.
By this, what the Cārvākas say "The self is just the body", what some of them say "The senses, mind and vital force", what the Buddhists say "Momentary consciousness", what the Digambaras say "Different from the body, stable, of the size of the body", what some say "Permanent and atomic because permanence is not possible for medium size" - all that is refuted by establishing permanence and all-pervasiveness. (13)
viśvanāthaḥ: But due to connection with the self, even the body could be an object of affection, and due to connection with the body, even sons, brothers etc., and due to connection with them, even their sons etc. So there would indeed be sorrow at their destruction. Anticipating this objection, he says "dehina". For the embodied one, the living being, in this body there is attainment of childhood, then after the destruction of childhood there is attainment of old age, just as there is attainment of another body. So just as sorrow is not felt at the destruction of childhood etc. which are objects of affection connected to the self, so too sorrow should not be felt at the destruction of the body which is an object of affection connected to the self. If it is said that sorrow arises at the destruction of youth and attainment of old age, then joy also arises at the destruction of childhood and attainment of youth, so then joy should be felt at the destruction of the old bodies of Bhīṣma, Droṇa etc. and attainment of new bodies. This is the idea. Or, just as in one body there is attainment of childhood etc., so too for one embodied living being there is attainment of many bodies. (13)
Baladeva: If it is argued that grief is appropriate due to the destruction of the bodies, which are the abodes of enjoyment, even though the souls embodied in Bhishma and others are eternal, then the response is given in "dehino 'smin". For the embodied soul that has many bodies across the three times, in this present body there are three stages that occur in succession - childhood, youth, and old age. Just as there is no grief when the earlier stages, which are connected to the self and useful for enjoyment, are destroyed and the later stages are obtained, similarly when this body is destroyed, the attainment of another body should be a cause of joy, like Yayati's attainment of youth. Therefore, grief caused by the destruction of that body is not appropriate for you - this is the meaning. The wise one is intelligent, knowing the nature of the body, the self, the results of karma, and the true nature (of things). Here the singular "embodied one" should be understood as referring to the class, since the plurality of selves was stated earlier.
On this point they say: There is only one pure self. Its plurality is due to being limited by ignorance or reflected in it. The shruti also says this: "Just as the one space appears separate in pots etc., so the one self appears in many locations, like the sun (appears) in various water vessels." By knowledge of that, when ignorance is destroyed, the oneness of the self is established through the cessation of that plurality. Thus Krishna speaks using the singular. But this view is weak, because that mass of consciousness cannot be divided by insentient ignorance. Also because they do not accept it as an object of that (ignorance). If there were actual division, defects like mutability would arise, as with a stone cut by a chisel. And because reflection is not possible for a formless, all-pervading entity. Otherwise space etc. would also be subject to that. Nor is the impossibility of explaining the perception otherwise a proof for the reflection of space, because the circular light of planets and stars appearing in water is perceived as belonging to it (the water). The shruti "Space is indeed one" refers to the supreme self, stating that it has many modes like space and the sun - so there is no contradiction. Nor can there be a teacher of the oneness of the self. For is he a knower of truth or not? In the first case, for one who knows the non-dual self, a student does not appear. In the second case, due to ignorance he cannot be a teacher of self-knowledge. Resorting to continued validity of the sublated has been refuted earlier. ||13||
(2.14)
O son of Kuntī, the contacts of the senses with their objects, which give rise to cold and heat, pleasure and pain, are transient and impermanent. Endure them, O descendant of Bharata.
Śrīdhara: If you say, "I do not grieve for them, but for myself who is subject to the pain of separation from them," to that he says "mātrā-sparśāḥ" etc. The senses, by which objects are measured or known, are called mātrās (senses). Their contact with objects produces cold, heat, etc. These are impermanent and unstable due to their coming and going. Therefore, endure them, tolerate them. Just as contact with water, sun, etc., naturally produces cold, heat, etc., at their respective times, similarly the union and separation from desired objects produce pleasure and pain. Due to their instability, it is befitting for you, who are steadfast, to endure them, not to be overwhelmed by joy or sorrow on their account. This is the meaning.
Madhusūdana: If you say, "We do not dispute the eternality and all-pervasiveness of the Self, but we cannot accept its singularity in each body. For instance, the Vaiśeṣikas believe that the Selves possess nine special qualities such as intellect, pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, effort, merit, demerit, and memory, and are different in each body, yet eternal and all-pervasive." This view is also accepted by logicians, Mīmāṁsakas, and others. Even the Sāṅkhyas, though disagreeing on the Self possessing qualities, do not disagree on its difference in each body. Otherwise, there would be a confusion of experiences. Thus, even if I am eternal and all-pervasive, but different from Bhīṣma and others, due to being associated with a body, there would be separation from pleasure and union with pain when the bodies of relatives like Bhīṣma are destroyed. So how are grief and delusion inappropriate?
Anticipating this intention of Arjuna, to distinguish between the subtle body and the Self, he says: The senses, by which objects are measured, are called mātrās. Their contact with objects, or the modifications of the inner organ in the form of various objects, are impermanent, subject to origination and destruction. They give rise to pleasure and pain through cold, heat, etc., but only for the mutable inner organ, not for the eternal, all-pervasive Self, which is devoid of qualities and changeless. For the eternal cannot be the substratum of non-eternal qualities, as there is no difference between a quality and its possessor, and no other relation is possible. Also, the witness cannot possess the quality of being a witness. As it is said:
Let there be no change, no sorrow. What is the witness nature of that which changes? I am the unchanging witness of thousands of changes in the intellect.
Thus, due to the division of the inner organ which is the substratum of pleasure, pain, etc., all arrangements are accounted for. There is no evidence for the division of the self, which is unchanging and illuminates everything, because it pervades everything in the form of existence and manifestation. It is established by both parties that the inner organ is the producer of pleasure, pain, etc., because inherent causality is most appropriate there. It is proper to assume only that, not mere instrumental causality in the absence of another inherent cause. Thus the śruti (scripture) "desire, resolve" etc., "all this is indeed mind" indicates that the mind is the material cause of all modifications like desire etc. through non-different designation. And the self is not the substratum of desire etc., as the scriptures teach that its nature is self-luminous knowledge and bliss. Therefore, the Vaiśeṣikas and others have accepted the changeful nature and difference of the self only through delusion.
Since the inner organ is subject to appearance and disappearance, and is perceivable, it is different from you who are of the nature of eternal consciousness. Thus -
The sense-contacts which are producers are also impermanent and of unfixed nature, as the same cold, heat etc. which produces pleasure at one time is seen to produce pain at another time. Similarly, that which produces pain at one time is seen to produce pleasure at another time.
The mention of cold and heat is to indicate pleasure and pain of the adhyātmika (pertaining to the body and mind), adhibhautika (pertaining to other beings and nature) and adhidaivika (pertaining to supernatural forces) types. Cold and heat sometimes produce pleasure and sometimes pain, but pleasure and pain themselves never interchange, hence the separate mention.
Thus, endure the extremely unstable sense-contacts which are different from you, changeful, producers of pleasure and pain etc., and of the nature of union and separation with Bhīṣma and others. Disregard them through discrimination, thinking "These do not affect me at all". The meaning is - do not consider yourself sorrowful due to superimposition of the sorrowful self. By the two vocatives "O son of Kuntī" and "O descendant of Bharata", he indicates that ignorance is inappropriate for you who are pure in both lineages. ||14||
Viśvanātha: Indeed, truth alone is reality. However, for me, who lacks discernment, even that truth torments my mind, which is filled with sorrow and delusion, as if creating misfortune. In this regard, not only the mind alone, but also all the functions of the mind, in the form of sense organs such as touch, experience their respective objects and cause misfortune. Thus he says: mātrā (sense objects) are the objects grasped by the senses, and their sparśā (contacts) are experiences. Śītoṣṇa (cold and heat) come and go, meaning that which is pleasant in hot weather, like cool water, becomes unpleasant in cold weather. Therefore, due to their inconstancy and transience, endure those sensory experiences. Enduring them is indeed the duty prescribed by scripture. The scriptural duty of bathing is not abandoned in the month of Māgha just because of the perception of water as unpleasant. Duty alone, in time, removes all misfortunes. Similarly, those who bring pleasure at the time of birth of sons and brothers, or when acquiring wealth, become sources of pain at the time of death. They too are transient and impermanent, so endure them as well. However, the prescribed duty of fighting should not be abandoned due to attachment to them. Indeed, not performing prescribed duties is, in time, the cause of great misfortune – this is the underlying meaning. ||14||
Baladeva: "But how will Bhīṣma and others who are dead come back to life? Let there be no sorrow caused by their loss. However, the pain of separation from them burns my mind and other faculties." To this, he responds with mātrā (sense objects). Mātrā are the functions of sense organs like touch; they are called so because objects are measured or grasped by them, according to the etymology. Sparśā (contacts) are indeed the experiences of objects through these senses, which become pleasant or unpleasant, like cold and heat. The same cool water that is pleasant in summer becomes unpleasant in winter. Therefore, due to their inconstancy and transience, endure those impermanent and unstable experiences. This means: just as bathing in the month of Māgha, though painful, is performed as a religious duty due to injunction, similarly, fighting with Bhīṣma and others, though painful, should be done as it is prescribed. The experience of pain in that situation is incidental and should be tolerated as it results from duty. When liberation is attained through knowledge arising from duty, that pain does not persist. Abandoning duty without the maturation of knowledge-based steadfastness leads to misfortune. The words Kaunteya and Bhārata suggest that it is not proper for you, who are pure in both lineages, to deviate from duty. ||14||
(2.15)
O best of men, the person whom these do not disturb, who is steady and equal in pleasure and pain, he becomes fit for immortality.
Śrīdhara: It is better to endure these rather than attempt to counteract them, as it leads to great results, as stated in "yaṁ hi" etc. These sense contacts do not afflict or overcome the person who is equal in pleasure and pain. Undisturbed by them, he becomes qualified for immortality (mokṣa) through knowledge of dharma.
Madhusūdana: If the inner organ is the locus of pleasure, pain, etc., then its agency and experiencing nature must be admitted as conscious. In that case, there would be a dispute only in name regarding the experiencer that illuminates it as distinct from it, due to lack of proof. And if that is admitted, there would be a discrepancy in the substratum of bondage and liberation, as the inner organ would be bound as the locus of pleasure and pain, while the self distinct from it would be liberated. To remove Arjuna's doubt about this, the Lord says "yaṁ hi" etc.
"Yaṁ" refers to the self-luminous one well-known by itself, as per the śruti "This person is self-luminous". "Puruṣam" means the complete one lying in the city (body), as per the śruti "This person lying in all cities is not covered or concealed by anything". "Sama-duḥkha-sukham" refers to the self-luminous, changeless one for whom pleasure and pain are equal, appearing as non-self attributes to be illuminated. Pleasure and pain indicate all modifications of the inner organ. The śruti denies increase and decrease for the self, thus negating pleasure and pain as forms of growth and diminution. "Dhīram" etymologically means the mover of the intellect, i.e. the witness of the intellect, through superimposition of identity with the reflection of consciousness. This indicates the possibility of bondage. As stated:
"That by which the means of knowledge, the three states of waking etc., and the division of existence and non-existence are established, should be known as 'I am Brahman'."
"These" sense contacts producing pleasure and pain do not ultimately disturb or modify him, as he illuminates all modifications and is thus unfit for modification.
As the sun, which is the eye of the whole world, is not tainted by external faults visible to the eye, similarly the one inner Self of all beings is not tainted by the sorrow of the world, being external. Thus says the śruti.
Therefore, that puruṣa (person) becomes fit for immortality, for mokṣa (liberation) which is characterized by freedom from all sorrow and its cause - ignorance, and which is of the nature of unalloyed self-luminous supreme bliss untainted by any duality, through the knowledge of the identity of one's own true nature with Brahman, the Self. This is the meaning.
If the Self were inherently subject to bondage, then it could never be liberated, as inherent qualities cannot cease without the cessation of their substratum. As it is said:
If the Self is inherently of the nature of an agent etc., then do not hope for liberation. For the inherent nature of entities cannot be removed, just as the heat of the sun [cannot be removed].
Because it is seen that the cessation of all specific qualities simultaneously, which cannot coexist with prior non-existence, necessarily entails the cessation of the substratum. But if bondage in the Self is not inherent, but caused by limiting adjuncts like the intellect etc., [as stated in the śruti] "The wise say that the enjoyer is the Self conjoined with the senses and mind" [Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.3.4].
And if it is argued that even with the existence of the substratum, liberation is possible through the cessation of that [bondage], then alas, it follows that the limiting adjunct like the intellect etc., which illumines its own properties as belonging to something else, illumines its own properties as belonging to the Self, because it is accepted that that which illumines its own properties as belonging to something else is a limiting adjunct. And thus it follows that bondage is unreal in the path [of knowledge], because the redness in a crystal caused by the proximity of a china rose is not real. Therefore, bondage is the appearance of association with all qualities of saṃsāra (worldly existence) in the Self, which is actually free from all qualities of saṃsāra, due to limiting adjuncts.
But through the knowledge of one's own true nature, with the cessation of ignorance of one's nature and its effects - the limiting adjuncts like intellect etc., and with the cessation of all delusion caused by them, the pure, self-luminous, supremely blissful, and complete Self naturally attains kaivalya (aloneness), which is mokṣa (liberation), being free from all that is illumined. Thus there is no incongruity between bondage and liberation.
Therefore, the argument that it is merely a dispute about names is refuted, because of the impossibility of the illumined and the illuminator being one. Because of the inference: The sufferer is different from the illuminator, because it is illumined, like a pot. And because the illumined is never seen to be the illuminator.
If it is argued how can the Self be both illumined and illuminator, as there is a contradiction between being the agent and the object for the same entity? No, because we accept it to be only the illuminator.
Because it never enters the category of the illumined, being the illuminator of the ego along with mental states like "I am suffering" etc. Therefore, the inference "The sufferer does not depend on a different illuminator, because it is an illuminator, like a lamp" is also not valid. Because it is contradicted by the reason that proves a different illuminator, namely being illumined.
And illumination can mean either the act of making something known or being of the nature of self-luminous awareness. In the first case, though like a lamp it does not depend on another instrument, the dependence of the sufferer on something else for being known is not contradicted. Otherwise, the example would lack the property to be proved. In the second case, the reason is unestablished. Thus, the reason of being illumined prevails due to greater strength, as awareness distinct from mental modifications is not accepted.
If it is said that consciousness itself is of the nature of manifestation, (we say) no. Because manifestation pervades all space and time and is devoid of differentiating properties, it is not possible for the all-pervading, eternal, and singular (consciousness) to have the nature of transient, limited, singular cognitive modifications. Moreover, the perception of origination, destruction, etc. is also possible as having objects and relations to objects that must necessarily be assumed. Otherwise, there would be the undesirable consequence of having to assume differences in the origination and destruction of various cognitions, etc. This is elaborated elsewhere. Thus the śruti (scripture) states: "Verily, for the seer there is no loss of sight, because it is indestructible" [BṛĀU 4.3.23], "Like space, it is all-pervading and eternal" [BṛĀU 3.14.3], "The great, infinite, endless, solid mass of consciousness" [BṛĀU 2.4.12], "This self is Brahman - without prior or posterior, without interior or exterior; this self is Brahman, all-experiencing" [BṛĀU 2.5.19]. These and other texts show that the self is of the nature of all-pervading, eternal, self-luminous consciousness. This also establishes the distinction from the limiting adjunct characterized by ignorance. Thus, when the illusion of bondage based on unreal limiting adjuncts is removed through knowledge of the true self, there is liberation. All is thus clarified.
By addressing (Arjuna) as "O best among men" (puruṣarṣabha), (Kṛṣṇa) indicates that you grieve not knowing your own nature as self-luminous consciousness (puruṣatva) and supreme bliss (ṛṣabhatva), which is superior to all duality. Therefore, your sorrow can easily be removed just through self-knowledge, as the śruti states: "The knower of the self crosses over sorrow" [ChU 7.1.3]. Here, by using the singular "puruṣa", the Sāṅkhya view is refuted, since they accept a plurality of puruṣas. ||15||
Viśvanātha: Thus, through such reflection and practice of enduring those (experiences), in time the experiences of sense objects indeed do not cause pain. And if they do not cause pain, then liberation of the self is very near, as stated in this verse beginning with "yam". (Endurance leads) to immortality, to liberation. ||15||
Baladeva: Showing that the practice of enduring the pains of dharma and artha leads to happiness later, he speaks the verse beginning with "yam hi". These sensory experiences of pleasant and unpleasant objects do not afflict the wise man who is steadfast in dharma - they do not overwhelm him with pleasure and pain. Such a person is fit for immortality, for liberation. But one who is overwhelmed by pleasure and pain is not so fit - this is the meaning. Clarifying the stated meaning, he qualifies the person with "sama". For whom pleasure incidentally obtained from practicing dharma, which is difficult to achieve, and pain become equal - meaning he is free from dejection or elation due to them. ||15||
(2.16)
The non-existent does not come into being, and the existent does not cease to be. The conclusion about both these has been seen by the seers of truth.
Śrīdhara: Now, even so, how should one endure the unbearable like cold and heat? And if one endures them completely, sometimes there might be destruction of the body. Anticipating this doubt, with the intention that everything can be endured through inquiry into truth, he says "nāsato vidyate" etc. For the non-existent, which is not a property of the self, the existence of cold and heat etc. in the self is not found. Similarly, for the existent, which is the nature of the self, non-existence or destruction is not found. Thus, the conclusion about both the existent and non-existent has been seen. By whom? By the seers of truth, those who know the reality of things. The meaning is: endure with such discrimination. (16)
Madhusūdana: Now, let there be the oneness of puruṣa (spirit), even then for that real one, the saṃsāra (worldly existence) in the form of being the witness of the inert is also real. And thus, when there is the cause of pleasure and pain like cold and heat etc., because of the inevitability of experiencing that, and because of the impossibility of destruction of the real without knowledge, how can there be forbearance? Or how can that lead to immortality? If this is asked, no. Because of the possibility of destruction through knowledge of the entire dualistic expanse imagined in the self, like the destruction of silver imagined in mother-of-pearl through the knowledge of mother-of-pearl.
But how, when there is no perceived difference between self and non-self, would the non-self not be real like the self? Or how would the self not be false like the non-self? Anticipating the doubt that both have equal security and acquisition, the Lord states the distinction – "nāsataḥ" etc.
That which is limited by time, space or substance is non-existent, like a pot etc. which is subject to birth and destruction, is limited by prior time and later time, because of being the counter-positive of prior non-existence and destruction, it is said to be occasional, limited by time. Similarly, it is limited by space too, because of not existing in all places due to being corporeal. Although there is a rule of spatial limitation for the temporally limited, because atomicity etc. accepted as spatially limited by logicians is not accepted as temporally limited, spatial limitation is also stated separately. And that is the absolute non-existence occurring in some space. Similarly, difference of the same kind, difference of different kind, and internal difference - this threefold difference is limitation of substance. Thus, the difference of a tree from another tree, from a stone, and from its leaves and flowers. Or the difference between individual soul and God, between individual soul and world, mutual difference between individual souls, difference between God and world, mutual difference in the world - this fivefold difference is limitation of substance. Although not limited by time and space, space etc. is separately mentioned because logicians accept limitation of substance. This should be applied similarly in the Sāṃkhya view also.
The existence, reality, or non-delimitation by such limitations of the entire manifold world including cold, heat, etc., which is of such a nature, is not possible, due to the contradiction of limitation and non-limitation coexisting in one place, like pot-ness and non-pot-ness. Indeed, nothing visible is negated in any time, place or object due to its non-pervasiveness everywhere, nor is any real object negated in any place, time or object due to its pervasiveness everywhere. Thus, the idea is that in the real object that pervades everywhere, the non-pervading, transient object is imagined, like a snake, etc. imagined in a rope segment that pervades.
If the transient is imaginary, then the real object too would be imaginary, as it too is transient by being different from the non-existent - to this he says: "There is no non-existence of the existent." For the limitation of an object is being the counter-positive of difference located in the existent, and that is not by being different from the non-existent. Because existence is impossible in the non-existent like a hare's horn, etc., and because according to logic, non-existence is determined with reference to the existent and non-existent. Because of the non-acceptance of differences in manifestations of existence, as only one self-luminous, eternal, all-pervading existent pervades all, the cognition "The pot exists" etc. is conventional, as existence which is conventional cannot be the counter-positive of difference located in pot, etc. Non-existence, which is limitation by place, time or object, is not possible for the merely existent which pervades all, due to contradiction as before - this is the meaning.
Now, there is no object called "existent" whose limitation by place, time and object is negated. Rather, existence is the highest universal which is the basis for the usage of "existent" in substances, qualities and actions. That is in universals, particulars and inherence through the relation of one substratum. Thus, for the pot, etc. which is the counter-positive of prior non-existence, existence arises from the operation of the cause, and though existent, its non-existence occurs from the destruction of the cause. So how is it said: "Of the non-existent there is no coming to be, of the existent there is no ceasing to be"? To this objection, he replies with half a verse: "Of both indeed."
The end, i.e. the fixed nature, of both the existent and non-existent - that what is existent is only existent, what is non-existent is only non-existent - has been seen, ascertained through scripture, tradition and reasoning by the seers of truth, those habituated to seeing the true nature of reality, the knowers of Brahman, not by fallacious reasoners. Hence, there is no impossibility of the opposite for fallacious reasoners. The word "tu" is for emphasis. Only the fixed nature as one has been seen, not the variable nature as many - or it has been seen only by seers of truth, not by non-seers of truth. And thus the scripture, beginning with "In the beginning, my dear, this was Being alone, one only, without a second" and concluding with "All this has that as its Self. That is the truth. That is the Self. That you are, Śvetaketu" (Chā. Up. 3.2.1), shows the one existent free from differences of kind, differences from others, and internal differences as the truth. But the scripture "Modification is merely a name based on speech, clay alone is real" (Chā. Up. 6.1.4) shows the unreality of mere modification which is transient, as based on speech. The scripture "By food, my dear, seek the root in water; by water, my dear, seek the root in fire; by fire, my dear, seek the root in Being. All these creatures, my dear, have Being as their root, Being as their abode, Being as their support" (Bṛ. Up. 6.8.4) shows that all modifications are imagined in the existent.
Sattva is not a universal, as there is no evidence for it. Due to its commonality with mere entities, the cognition "this is sat (existent)" applies only to substance, quality and action. Sattva, which cannot explain itself, cannot be imagined, as the opposite is easily stated. It is improper to imagine a difference in relation or nature, as the single form of cognition is explicable through a single object. If the object is not followed but the cognition is, it would result in eliminating all universals. Therefore, the one existent entity, self-illuminating by nature, appearing in known and unknown states, explains all linguistic usage of "existence" through superimposition of its identity. The cognition "this pot exists" objectifies the non-difference from mere existent particulars in the pot, not inherence in existence. The cognition of non-difference cannot be explained by a relation composed of difference. Thus, the non-difference of existence is established by cognitions like "substance exists", "quality exists", etc. Due to the non-establishment of substance-quality difference, existence is not imagined as a property in those substrates. Rather, for simplicity, non-difference from substance etc. is imagined in the existent substrate, which being impossible in reality, is superimposed. As stated by the Vārtika author:
"There would be no difference from existence, how could there be from substance etc.?
For the cognition has one form - 'existent substance', 'existent quality', etc."
Existence does not differentiate the non-existent, as that is not established. Substancehood etc., being properties of the existent, do not differentiate the existent - this is the meaning. Therefore, even cognitions like "cloth is different from pot" do not prove difference, as pot, cloth and their difference are one with existent difference. Thus, wherever there is no apprehension of difference, the cognition of non-difference of existence prevails. Since logicians accept time as all-pervading, and all usage is explicable by that alone, there is no evidence for imagining additional categories. As that very all-pervading [time] is cognized as identical to all in the form of existence and illumination, and illumination too is all-pervading and one, its eternality will be explained in detail in the next verse.
Just as a pot's potness does not exist in another place or time, similarly even Indra cannot make a pot non-existent elsewhere, as the nature of entities cannot be violated. Likewise, the existence of an existent entity in one place and time cannot be made non-existent elsewhere, by the same logic. Thus, both should be seen as having fixed natures, as elaborated in Advaita-siddhi. Therefore, only the existent entity, imagined by māyā (illusion), becomes immortal through cessation of existence, and forbearance too is justified by the view of mere existence - this is the purport. (16)
Viśvanātha: This is stated for those established in discrimination. But in reality, "This puruṣa (self) is unattached" - according to this śruti, the individual self has no connection with the gross and subtle bodies, or their properties like grief and delusion. As that connection is imagined by ignorance, he says "na" (not). The non-existent, being a non-self property, has no existence in the self or individual. Similarly, the existent, being of the nature of truth, the individual self has no non-existence or destruction. Therefore, this is the conclusion about both these non-existent existents. Thus, as Bhīṣma and others, and you and others, are eternal individual selves, body-related grief, delusion etc. do not exist in them at all. How can Bhīṣma etc. perish? Or how can you grieve for them? - this is the purport. (16)
Baladeva: Thus, the Lord has criticized Arjuna's scholarship by [pointing out] his inappropriate grief. Only devotion to Him removes grief, and that involves the difference between the worshipped and worshipper. So the real duality between Himself as the source and the individual souls as His parts has been taught. Now, as it is heard that knowledge of the part's nature is useful for knowing the source's nature in "One should see brahman-reality through the self-reality like a lamp here", that is to be taught first to all without distinction, whether established [in knowledge] or not. And that cannot occur without the cognition of the difference between body and self. So to teach that difference, [the verse] beginning with "na asataḥ" (not of the non-existent) is commenced. The non-existent, changeable body etc. does not have existence, i.e. unchangeability. The existent, unchangeable self does not have non-existence, i.e. changeability. Body and self have the natures of change and non-change respectively. Thus, the conclusion about both, termed non-existent and existent, has been seen, i.e. experienced, by seers of truth who know the nature of both. Here, "non-existent" refers to the perishable, inert body etc., while "existent" refers to the imperishable, conscious self. This is determined similarly in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa too, beginning with "Viṣṇu is the lights, Viṣṇu is the worlds" and "What exists and what does not exist, O best of brahmins". The nature of the conscious and inert, denoted by "exists" and "does not exist" words, is ascertained by "Does any entity exist somewhere" etc. There, the inert is denoted by "does not exist", while consciousness is denoted by "exists", as explained by himself. But those who say that verse establishes the sat-kārya-vāda (pre-existence of effect in cause) are careless, deluded by ignorance of the natures of body and self. To remove that delusion, teaching their natures is relevant here. (16)
(2.17)
Know that to be indestructible by which all this is pervaded. No one is able to cause the destruction of this imperishable.
Śrīdhara: Here, the indestructible substance of true nature is generally said to be pervaded, spread by its witnessing nature. Know that soul-nature to be indestructible, devoid of destruction. He states the reason for that in "destruction," etc. (17)
Madhusūdana: If such an existent is different from knowledge due to being limited, its nature as knowledge must be accepted, and that is not superimposed, otherwise it would become inert. Thus, the existent in the form of non-superimposed knowledge, being the meaning of the verbal root, has origination and destruction, as seen in the cognition "knowledge of the pot has arisen" and "knowledge of the pot has been destroyed." And thus, from the cognition "I know the pot," it has a substrate and an object, so how can the manifestation, which is limited by space, time and object, be free from limitation by space, time and object in the form of that existent? Anticipating this doubt, he says "indestructible."
Destruction is limitation by space, time, or object. That which has this is destructible, limited. The opposite of that is indestructible, completely free from all types of limitation. Know that very existent form, the manifestation, to be such. What is it? By which single, eternal, all-pervading existent form of manifestation, all this visible world, which is inherently devoid of existence and manifestation, is pervaded, encompassed within itself by the superimposition of its own existence and manifestation, like a series of snakes, etc. on a piece of rope. Know that to be indestructible - this is the meaning.
Why? Because no one - no substrate, object, or cause in the form of sense contact, etc. - is able to bring about destruction, i.e. limitation, of the imperishable, unlimited, directly perceived, all-pervading existent in the form of manifestation. For the unreal cannot limit the real, and in mere superimposition, desire would cease. For in "I know the pot," the ego appears as the substrate, and the pot as the object. But some ego-modification with origination and destruction manifests the existent manifestation that is spread everywhere, as even others accept that the connection of self and mind is the cause of knowledge, and the cognition of origination and destruction in the existent form of manifestation limited by that is possible just by the origination and destruction of that [ego-modification]. There is no possibility of assuming origination and destruction for the single manifestation itself, like sound limited by resonance or space limited by pots, etc.
The ego, though superimposed on that [manifestation], appears as its substrate due to the superimposition of identity with its modification. In deep sleep, even in the absence of ego, there is self-manifestation of consciousness which illuminates ignorance impregnated with its impressions. Otherwise, there would be no memory for one who has risen from deep sleep that "For this long, I did not know anything." And it cannot be said that this is an inference of the absence of knowledge for one who has risen.
Due to ignorance of the time of deep sleep which is the subject, and the impossibility of the indicator, non-remembrance, etc. are inconclusive, and inability to establish the absence of indeterminate cognition, etc. which does not produce memory. And the absence of the totality of causes of knowledge is trapped in mutual dependence. Thus the scripture: "What it does not see, it is seeing but does not see what is to be seen. There is no loss of the vision of the seer, because of its indestructibility" [Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.3.24], etc. It shows the existence of self-luminous manifestation in deep sleep as eternal.
Thus, even objects like pots are imagined in the luminous manifestation that reveals their previously unknown state. This is because of the recognition "That which was previously unknown is now known by me." Indeed, the revealing of the unknown is the definition of valid knowledge accepted in all systems. Even logicians who define valid cognition as experience corresponding to reality, by using the term "experience" to differentiate it from memory which reveals the already known, accept this. The unknownness of objects like pots is not apprehended by the senses, because they are incapable of that and because ignorance would persist even after knowledge arises. Nor can it be inferred, due to lack of an inferential mark. The previous unknownness cannot be inferred from present knownness, as this is contradicted in cases of continuous cognitions of the same object. Present knownness qualified by previous unknownness would be unestablished as it is identical with what is to be proved. Without cognition of the unknown state, the causality of objects like pots for knowledge cannot be grasped, as their prior existence is not apprehended, and it contradicts the universal experience "I do not know the pot." Therefore, the unknown luminous manifestation reveals superimposed objects like pots, thus establishing that objects like pots are imagined in the unknown manifestation. Otherwise, since pots etc. are inert, their unknownness and its manifestation would be impossible. The Lord himself will say that the luminous manifestation is unknown and covered by ignorance superimposed on it: "Knowledge is covered by ignorance; thereby creatures are deluded" (Gītā 5.14). This establishes its all-pervasiveness. Thus the śruti (scripture) shows the greatness and infinitude of consciousness: "The great being, infinite, limitless, consisting of nothing but knowledge" (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.12), and "Truth, knowledge, infinite" (Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.1). Greatness means relation to everything superimposed on it, infinitude means freedom from the three types of limitation - this is the distinction.
This also refutes the doctrine of voidness, as delusion without a substratum and unlimited negation are impossible. Thus the śruti demarcates the person as the limit of all negation: "There is nothing higher than the person; that is the highest goal" (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 3.11). The commentators have said: "All perishable things perish up to the person; the person does not perish due to absence of causes of destruction." This also refutes the doctrine of momentariness, due to uncontradicted recognition and impossibility of perceiving one thing and remembering another. Therefore, it is appropriate that "of the existent, there is no non-existence", as the one reality pervading all, of the nature of self-luminous manifestation, is free from all types of limitation. (17)
Viśvanātha: He clarifies the meaning of "of the existent, there is no non-existence" by saying "indestructible". That nature of the individual self by which this entire body is pervaded. If the consciousness of the individual self were limited to the body, it would be of medium size and thus impermanent. Not so, because the Lord has said "Among the subtle, I am the individual self", and due to śrutis like "This subtle self is to be known by the mind, in which the five-fold vital force has entered", "The individual self should be known as a hundredth part of the hundredth part of the tip of a hair" (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 5.9), "Another is seen the size of an awl's point". So it is indeed of the size of an atom. Its ability to pervade the entire body with its power is not inappropriate, like a great jewel or piece of potent herb worn on the head or chest has the power to nourish the entire body. Its going to heaven, hell and various births is due to being controlled by limiting adjuncts. Thus Dattātreya has said regarding the vital force "by which a person transmigrates". Therefore its all-pervasiveness mentioned in the next verse is also not inappropriate. Thus the śruti says "Of the eternal among eternals, the conscious among the conscious, the one who fulfills the desires of many" (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.13).
Or, the triad of body, individual self and supreme self is seen everywhere in humans, animals etc. The nature of the first two, body and individual self, was stated by "of the non-existent, there is no existence". What is the nature of the third, the supreme self? To this he says "But know that to be indestructible". The word "but" indicates a different topic, as the supreme self is essentially different from māyā and the individual self. This entire world... (17)
Baladeva: He clarifies the nature of the individual self and body stated before with two verses starting with "indestructible". Know that nature of the individual self to be indestructible, eternal. By which this entire body is pervaded by the attributive knowledge. No gross object can destroy this indestructible atomic self that cannot be destroyed, just as the body cannot destroy the vital force. Here the individual self should not be understood as limited to the body, as it is heard to be atomic in śrutis like "This subtle self is to be known by the mind, in which the five-fold vital force has entered" (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.1.9) etc. The pervading of the entire body by such an atomic self is indeed through its attributive knowledge. Thus the venerable author of the Sūtras has said: "Or due to quality, like light" (Vedānta Sūtra 2.3.26). Here too he himself will say "As the one sun illumines" (Gītā 13.33) etc. (17)
(2.18)
The bodies are said to have an end, while the embodied Self is eternal, indestructible and immeasurable. Therefore, fight, O Bharata.
Sridhara: He shows the nature of coming and going in "The bodies have an end". Those which have an end or destruction are perishable. Of the eternal, always of one form, embodied, having a body. Therefore, of the indestructible, free from destruction, immeasurable, unlimited Self, these bodies characterized by pleasure and pain etc. are said by the seers of truth. Since thus there is no destruction of the Self, nor connection with pleasure and pain etc., therefore abandoning grief born of delusion, fight. The meaning is: do not abandon your duty. (18)
Madhusudana: Now, how can that which is of the nature of manifestation and existent be indestructible, since it has the properties of the body and the body is destroyed every moment? Thus say the proponents of material consciousness. Refuting them, he elaborates on "the non-existent does not come into being" in "The bodies have an end". These directly perceived bodies are perishable, having an end, being of the nature of growing and decaying, they are bodies. The plural indicates all the gross, subtle and causal forms known as virāṭ (and in parentheses: cosmic gross body), sūtra (and in parentheses: cosmic subtle body) and avyākṛta (and in parentheses: unmanifest), both in their collective and individual aspects, of the eternal, indestructible embodied Self, which has an illusory connection as the possessor of a body, of the one Self which is self-luminous consciousness, are said by the scriptures and the knowers of Brahman to be related as the seen and the experienced. Thus in the Taittiriya Upanishad, after postulating five sheaths from the food sheath to the bliss sheath, it is shown that "Brahman is the tail, the support" which is not postulated. There, the food sheath is the collective gross body, composed of the five gross elements and their effects. Its cause, composed of the five subtle elements and their effects, is Hiranyagarbha, the cosmic subtle body, the formless aggregate. As stated in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad "This is indeed threefold - name, form and action", taking only the power of action as comprising all actions, it is called the vital sheath. Taking only the power of knowledge as comprising names, it is called the mental sheath. Taking agency as the substratum of both, comprising forms, it is called the intellectual sheath. Thus the vital, mental and intellectual sheaths together constitute Hiranyagarbha, the subtle body sheath. Its cause is consciousness associated with maya, the residue of all impressions, called the unmanifest, the bliss sheath. All these are said to be the bodies of the one Self, as stated "This is indeed the embodied Self of the previous one". [tai.u. 2.3.4] This very Self in the body, which was described as hidden in the cave with the characteristics of truth, knowledge etc., is the embodied Self of the previous food sheath. This should be applied similarly to the vital, mental, intellectual and bliss sheaths.
Or, all these bodies related to all beings in the three worlds are said to belong to the one Self, as per the construction. Thus the scripture:
"The one God hidden in all beings,
all-pervading, the inner Self of all beings,
The overseer of all actions, dwelling in all beings,
The witness, the knower, alone and devoid of qualities." [śve.u. 6.11]
Thus it shows the one eternal, all-pervading Self related to all bodies.
Is not permanence the state of lasting for a long time, and thus even though it perishes along with time, like avidyā (ignorance) etc., it is still appropriate? Therefore, he says "indestructible." Although avidyā etc., which are not limited by space, time or substance, are impermanent due to being imagined, their nature of lasting for a long time is conventionally called permanence, according to the maxim "The division lasts as long as the modification, as in the world" [Ve.Sū. 2.3.7]. But for the self, which is devoid of the three limitations and is not imagined, due to the absence of causes of destruction, there is only primary unchanging permanence, not the permanence of transformation or the state of lasting for a long time - this is the intended meaning.
Surely some proof must necessarily be stated for such an embodied being, otherwise it would lead to the fallacy of it being unreal due to lack of proof, and the futility of beginning scripture. And according to the maxim "The limitation of reality is difficult to avoid, because scripture is the source" [Ve.Sū. 1.1.3]. Therefore he says "of the immeasurable." "This immeasurable, unchanging one should be seen as one only" [Bṛ.Ā.U. 4.7.2], "immeasurable" means "immeasurable."
"There the sun does not shine, nor the moon and stars,
These lightnings do not shine - how then this fire?" [Ka.U. 5.15]
"Everything shines only after that shining one,
By its light all this shines" [Mu.U. 2.2.10]
Thus according to śruti, the self is of the nature of self-luminous consciousness, therefore that illuminator of all does not require anything else to illuminate itself, but requires a particular imagined mental modification to remove imagined ignorance and its effects. Because only the imagined can oppose the imagined. According to the maxim "The offering is according to the deity." Thus the beginning of scripture is for producing a particular mental modification that removes all that is imagined, because that depends only on statements like "That thou art" etc. Because it always shines by itself, is the substratum of all imagination, and illuminates all that is seen, it does not become unreal. Thus the scripture stating "Brahman is one only, without a second, real, knowledge, infinite" etc. implies its own imagined nature in accordance with its subject matter, otherwise its own validity would be impossible.
It has been explained earlier that the imagined cannot limit the unimagined. And the self-luminosity of the self has also been established through reasoning by the venerable teachers. Thus - wherever the inquirer has neither doubt, error, nor valid knowledge of the opposite, there is knowledge opposed to those, as seen everywhere. Otherwise one of the three would occur. And no one has doubt about the self like "Do I exist or not?" Nor is there error like "I do not exist," nor valid knowledge of the opposite. If it is said that there is always valid knowledge of its nature, that would make it the locus of all doubts and errors. According to the maxim "There is no error regarding the locus, but error is possible regarding the mode." Therefore it is said:
Valid cognition, invalid cognition, and semblance of cognition all indeed produce knowledge. Where is there room for doubt about that? [bṛ.vā.pu. 1.4.874]
Semblance of cognition is doubt. The meaning is that in the self-luminous, real nature of the substratum, there is no difference between valid and invalid cognition. If the self were not self-manifest, there would be doubt like "Has knowledge of the pot arisen in me or not?". The nature of the object itself is not an obstruction to doubt etc. in the case of internal objects. In the case of external objects, the possibility of obstruction to doubt etc. is only due to contradictory knowledge that is assumed. Therefore, in the case of internal objects, it is inappropriate to assume a difference in nature. Otherwise, everything would be disrupted. Only the connection of the self with the mind is the cause of direct perception of the self. For whom cognition alone is the cause, even in the appearance of pot etc., the appearance of the self is unavoidable even for the best logicians, by the principle of collective cognition. There is no confusion regarding visual perception, inference, existence etc. Because it can be explained by difference in aspects, like being worldly or transcendental. Or because confusion is not a fault, or because visual perception etc. are not accepted as universals. Since the totality of causes for the appearance of the self exists only in determinate cognition, indeterminate cognition is also rejected. And determinate cognition does not require another cognition for its own manifestation, as it is like a lamp independent in illuminating itself. For there is no heterogeneity that establishes the object-subject relationship between determinate and indeterminate cognitions, just as there is between pot and its cognition, because no difference other than individual difference is accepted. If being an object is accepted as delimited by the form that delimits being a subject, then even pot and its cognition would become that, as there is no difference.
If it is argued that just as pot-cognition is accepted for the sake of practical dealings with pot, similarly pot-cognition-cognition should be accepted for practical dealings with pot-cognition, as practical dealings depend on the cognition of what is to be dealt with - what inconsistency is pointed out by the dear one for the proponent of self-luminosity? For being different from what is to be dealt with is not the delimiting factor of being the cause of practical dealings, as that would be cumbersome. Therefore, just as God's knowledge, yogī's knowledge, and the cognition "This is knowable" are sufficient for their own practical dealings, so too in this case there is no scope for assuming another cognition. It should be examined whether indeterminate cognition is the cause of practical dealings with pot-cognition by virtue of being pot-cognition-cognition or by virtue of being pot-cognition itself. For both are present there. Since in practical dealings with pot, causality is established by pot-cognition itself, the same form can explain causality in practical dealings with pot-cognition as well. Pot-cognition-cognition is not the delimiting factor of causality, as that would be cumbersome and there is no evidence. Thus, indeterminate cognition is not established, as a single determinate cognition can produce practical dealings with respect to the cognizer, the cognized, and the cognition. This is the view of the Prābhākaras who assert the perception of the triad.
The followers of the Upaniṣads (aupaniṣadāḥ) think that the self is of the nature of self-luminous cognition only, not the substratum of self-luminous cognition, because its manifestation is not possible due to the contradiction between agent and object. And if different from cognition, it would become inert like pot etc. and thus assumed. Though of the nature of self-luminous cognition only, the self when conditioned by ignorance is called the witness (sākṣin). When conditioned by the internal organ possessing modifications, it is called the knower (pramātṛ). For it, the sense organs like eyes are instruments. Through the eyes etc., it pervades objects like pot by the modification of the internal organ and assumes their form. Then the consciousness delimited by pot destroys its own ignorance due to difference from the knower and becomes directly manifested. And it illuminates the pot, which is its delimiting factor, due to the superimposition of identity with itself. The modification of the internal organ called vṛtti (mental mode) is very transparent and is illuminated by the consciousness delimited by itself. Thus pot, internal organ, and its modification are directly manifested. This is the triad of forms in "I know the pot". Though the illuminating consciousness is of one form, it is knowership with respect to pot because it depends on the mental mode, but it is witnesshood with respect to the internal organ and its modifications because it does not depend on the mental mode - this is the distinction. More details are in Advaita-siddhi and Siddhānta-bindu.
Since, according to the previously stated reasoning, the soul is eternal, all-pervading, free from transmigration, and always of one form, therefore it is not proper for you, who were previously engaged in your duty of fighting, to desist from it due to fear of its destruction. Thus, the Lord gives permission for battle, saying "Therefore fight, O descendant of Bharata." The causes of Arjuna's desisting from his duty of fighting are grief and delusion. These are refuted by knowledge born of discrimination. According to the principle that "when there is an exception to an exception, the general rule stands," the statement "fight" is a restatement, not an injunction. For example, "In an action, [the relation is denoted] by the genitive of the agent and object" is the general rule. "When both agent and object are possible, [the relation is denoted] by the dative of the object" is an exception. "It should be stated that this does not apply in the case of feminine suffixes ā and ī" is an exception to that exception. Similarly, in "For a seeker of liberation, inquiry into Brahman," due to the exception to the exception, the general rule stands again, and the genitive is by "In an action, [the relation is denoted] by the genitive of the agent and object" alone. Thus, due to the non-application of the prohibition "and in an action," the compound "inquiry into Brahman" with the genitive of the object is established. Some prattle that from this very injunction, in liberation there is a combination of knowledge and action. But this is not so, because from "fight" there is no understanding that liberation is achieved by a combination of knowledge and action. We will refute this in detail later through contradiction with the words of the Bhagavad Gita itself. ||18||
Viśvanātha: He clarifies the meaning of "The non-existent has no being" with "Having an end." Of the embodied soul, which is immeasurable due to its extreme subtlety and difficult to know. The implication is that abandoning one's duty prescribed by scripture is improper, hence "Therefore fight." ||18||
Baladeva: "Having an end" means having a nature subject to destruction, of the embodied individual soul. "Immeasurable" means impossible to measure due to its extreme subtlety and its nature as both the knower and the known. Thus, due to having such a nature, the soul and its body are not objects of grief. The body is created by the Supreme Lord for the soul's enjoyment and liberation through the performance of duty. That [enjoyment and liberation] comes about through duty, therefore "fight, O descendant of Bharata." ||18||
(2.19)
He who knows this one as the killer and he who thinks this one is killed,
Both of them do not understand; this one neither kills nor is killed.
Śrīdhara: Thus, the sorrow caused by the death of Bhīṣma and others has been refuted. And the distress arising from one's own role as a killer, as expressed in statements like "I do not wish to kill these," is also without basis, as stated in "He who knows this one." This one refers to the Self. The meaning is that the Self is neither the object nor the agent of the act of killing. The reason for this is given in "this one neither." (19)
Madhusūdana: Even though the sorrow caused by separation from relatives like Bhīṣma has been removed by statements like "You are grieving for those who should not be grieved for," there is still no remedy for the sin resulting from being the agent of their killing. For there is no rule that where there is no sorrow, there is no sin, as it would lead to the absurd conclusion that there is no sin in killing a hated brāhmaṇa. Therefore, thinking "I am the doer, you are the instigator" and that both will incur sin due to violence, one might consider this statement "Therefore fight, O Bhārata" as improper. Anticipating this doubt, the Lord refutes it with a verse from the Kāṭhaka, "He who knows this one."
This one refers to the embodied Self possessing qualities like invisibility. He who knows it as the killer, the agent of the act of killing, thinking "I am its killer." And another who thinks it killed, as the object of the act of killing, thinking "I am killed" by the killing of the body. Both of them, due to identification with the body, do not understand this unchanging Self of non-doer nature through discrimination from scripture. Why? Because this one neither kills nor is killed, meaning it is neither the agent nor the object.
Here, when it could have been said simply "He who knows this one as the killer and killed," the repetition of words is for poetic embellishment. Or, "He who knows this one as the killer" refers to logicians who accept the Self as an agent. Similarly, "He who thinks this one is killed" refers to Cārvākas who accept the Self as perishable. Both of them do not understand - this is to be connected. The separate mention is to indicate different types of disputants. Or the separate instruction is for the extremely brave and the extremely cowardly. The first half has a scriptural reading as "If the killer thinks he kills, if the killed thinks he is killed" [KU 1.2.19]. (19)
Viśvanātha: O friend Arjuna! You are the Self. It is neither the agent nor the object of killing, as stated in "He who." This one refers to the individual Self. He who knows it as the killer, meaning he who knows "Arjuna kills Bhīṣma and others." And he who knows it as killed, meaning he who knows "Arjuna is killed by Bhīṣma and others." Both of them are ignorant. Therefore, you need not fear ill repute from ignorant people's talk that "Arjuna kills his elders" - this is the implication. (19)
Baladeva: He strengthens the previously stated indestructibility. He who knows this one, the Self or individual soul of the described nature, as the killer, the one who harms with a sword etc., and he who thinks this one is killed, harmed by that, both of them do not understand its true nature. Because that extremely subtle consciousness cannot be cut etc., this Self neither kills nor is killed. It means it is neither the agent nor the object of killing. Since killing means separation from the body, the destruction of the Self should not be considered through it. The śruti also states thus: "If the killer thinks he kills, if the killed thinks he is killed" [KU 1.2.19] etc. By this, statements like "One should not harm any beings" are explained as referring to separation from the body. And it should not be said that the agency of the Self is not established here, because in the separation from the body, that exists for it. (19)
(2.20)
He is never born nor does he die at any time;
He has not come into being, nor will he come into being in the future.
He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval.
He is not slain when the body is slain.
Śrīdhara: He explains "is not slain" by emphasizing the absence of the six modifications of existence, saying "He is never born" etc. "He is never born" negates birth. "He does not die" negates destruction. The word "or" means "and". "Nor does he, having come into being, come into being" means he does not attain existence after being produced, but is self-existent from before - this negates the second modification characterized by existence in another birth. The reason for this is that he is unborn (aja). For one who is born attains existence in another birth, but one who already exists does not attain another existence - this is the meaning. "Eternal" meaning always of the same form negates growth. "Ever-existing" (śāśvata) meaning existing forever negates decay. "Primeval" (purāṇa) negates transformation. It means he is always new, not becoming new by undergoing transformation into another form.
Or, connecting "will not be" with what follows, "he will not be more" negates increase. "Unborn, eternal" gives the reason for the absence of both increase etc., so there is no redundancy. Thus the six modifications of existence stated by Yāska and other Vedic scholars - birth, existence, growth, transformation, decay, and destruction - are negated. He concludes with the main point about the absence of destruction for which these modifications were negated, saying "He is not slain when the body is slain." (20)
Madhusūdana: Why is this Self neither the agent nor object of the action of slaying? Due to being unchangeable, he says in the second verse. The etymologists say: "Birth, existence, growth, transformation, decay, and destruction are the six modifications of existence" - thus Vārṣyāyaṇi. Of these, the first and last are negated by "is never born nor dies". The word "or" means "and". The meaning is "is not born and does not die". Why is this Self not produced? Because this Self, not having existed at any time previously, will not come into being again in the future. For what comes into being after not existing undergoes the modification characterized by origination. But this one, being existent even before, is not produced, therefore unborn (aja). Similarly, this Self, having existed before, will not come into being again in the future. Or from the word "or" there is inversion of the sentence. For what ceases to exist in the future after existing before undergoes the modification characterized by death. But this one, being existent even in the future, does not die, therefore eternal (nitya) and unsuitable for destruction - this is the meaning. Here, though there is no compound in "not having been" (na bhūtvā), there is no impropriety, like in "not to be questioned" (nānuyojya). Because in the section on great options, the venerable Pāṇini teaches the negative compound. But what Kātyāyana said - "The word 'or' is meaningless due to being naturally established, with the intention of the compound being obligatory" - that is unacceptable as it contradicts the statement of the venerable Pāṇini. As stated by the teacher Śabara-svāmin: "For Kātyāyana speaks falsely."
The assertion here is that the self is not born and does not die. This is explained by stating that it never came into being, nor will it cease to be. The conclusion is that it is aja (unborn) and nitya (eternal). This is the division of the verse.
By negating change at the beginning and end, the intermediate changes that are encompassed by them are also negated. Even though unmentioned changes like movement are also implied, decrease and growth are explicitly refuted. Since the self is immutable and eternal, and devoid of qualities, neither decrease in its essential nature nor in its qualities is possible. Thus it is called śāśvata (eternal). This means it always exists and does not diminish or decline.
If it does not decrease, then it might increase - but this is denied by calling it purāṇa (ancient). It is ever new in its single form, not experiencing any new state now. In the world, one who experiences a new state of growth is said to increase. But this (self) always being of one form neither decreases nor increases. Changes in existence and transformation are not separately negated as they are included in birth and destruction.
Since the self is thus devoid of all modifications, even when the body is destroyed, though connected to it, it cannot be slain or killed by any means. This is the conclusion. (20)
Viśvanātha: He clearly establishes the eternality of the individual self. "Is not born or dies" negates birth and death in the present. "Having come into being, will not be" negates their past and future. Hence aja (unborn) means absence of birth in all three times, so it has no prior non-existence. Śāśvata (eternal) means it exists at all times, so it has no destruction in the three times. Therefore it is eternal. If it is long-lasting, is it subject to old age? No. Purāṇa (ancient) means though ancient, it is like new. This implies absence of the six types of modifications. If the body dies, can't it have a figurative death? No, because there is no connection with the body. (20)
Baladeva: Now he reinforces the previously stated eternality by negating the six modifications mentioned by Yāska and others - birth, existence, growth, transformation, decline and destruction - with "is not born" etc. The words vā are used in the sense of ca (and). This self or jīva is never born or dies - this negates birth and death. It will not come into being having been born - this negates birth in another existence. "Not again" means it does not become more, negating growth. Why doesn't it become more? Because it is aja (unborn) and nitya (eternal). A tree etc. subject to birth and death grows after being born and is destroyed. But the self lacking both has no growth. Śāśvata (eternal) negates decline. It always exists and does not diminish. Purāṇa (ancient) negates transformation. Though ancient it is new, not having obtained any new form now. Thus being devoid of the six modifications, the self is eternal. Being such, even when the body is destroyed, it is not destroyed. Therefore, Arjuna, you who fear ill repute from the ignorant thought "he is a guru-killer", should perform the scripturally ordained righteous battle. (20)
(2.21)
He who knows this indestructible, eternal, unborn, and immutable being - how, O Partha, can that person slay anyone or cause anyone to be slain?
Sridhara: Therefore, the absence of being a slayer, as previously stated, is well-known. This is expressed in "He who knows this indestructible" and so on. Eternal means devoid of growth. Immutable means devoid of decay. Unborn and indestructible. The person who knows this, whom does he slay? And how does he slay? Because there is no means to kill such a being. Similarly, becoming the instigator himself, whom does he cause to be slain by another? And how does he cause to be slain? Nothing whatsoever and in no way at all is the meaning. By this, it is said "Do not view me as faulty, since I am also the instigator." (21)
Madhusudana: Having stated "This one neither slays nor is slain" and having explained "is not slain", now explaining "does not slay", he concludes. Avināśinam (indestructible) means that which is not prone to destruction, devoid of final transformation. The reason for this is avyayam (immutable), that which has no vyaya (decay), no diminution of parts or qualities. Since destruction is seen through diminution of parts or qualities, that which lacks both cannot possibly be destroyed - this is the meaning.
If one argues that being produced implies being destructible, he says ajam (unborn). Ajam means devoid of initial transformation, not being born. The reason for this is nityam (eternal), existing at all times. For birth is seen for that which did not previously exist, but not for that which always exists - this is the intention.
Or, avināśinam (indestructible) means as much as unrefutable, real. Nityam (eternal) means all-pervading. The reason for this is ajam avyayam (unborn, immutable). Being devoid of birth and destruction, for that which is born and destroyed, all-pervasiveness and reality are impossible.
Thus, he who knows, realizes through scripture and teacher's instruction, this Self, one's own self, which is the topic, as devoid of all modifications: "I am devoid of all modifications, illuminator of all, devoid of all duality, of the nature of supreme bliss and consciousness" - that knower, that complete person, whom does he slay? How does he slay? The word kim is used for refutation. He slays no one and slays in no way - this is the meaning. Similarly, whom does he cause to be slain? How does he cause to be slain? He causes no one to be slain in any way - this is the meaning. For it is not possible for one devoid of all modifications, a non-doer, to be the agent in the action of slaying. And thus the scripture:
If a person knows the Self, thinking "I am This," then for what desire and for whose sake would he suffer following the body? [Bṛ.Ā.U. 4.4.12]
Thus, for one who knows the pure Self, when the superimposition bound by ignorance of that ceases, it shows the absence of agency, experiencership, etc. due to the absence of attachment, aversion, etc. rooted in that.
This is the intention of the Lord here: In reality, no one acts or causes action due to the nature devoid of all modification, but the foolish person imagines agency etc. in the Self through ignorance, as in a dream. As it is said, "Both of these do not know" [Gītā 2.19]. And the Śruti says, "It appears to think, as it were, it appears to move, as it were" [Bṛ.Ā.U. 4.3.7], etc. Therefore, all scriptures are for those who do not know. But the knower, due to the negation of superimposition from its root, does not imagine agency etc. in the Self, like a knower of a post's true nature [does not imagine] it to be a thief. Therefore, due to being free from modification and non-dual, it is said that the knower neither acts nor causes to act. Thus the Śruti says, "The knower fears nothing" [Tai.U. 2.9.1]. Arjuna, superimposing agency on himself and causative agency on the Lord, feared the fault of violence in both. The Lord, knowing his intention, refuted both "he kills" and "he causes to kill". The intention is: Do not fear wrongdoing, superimposing agency on yourself and causative agency on me.
By showing the immutability of the Self, agency is denied, and in the Lord's intended negation of all action, killing is mentioned as representative due to its prominence. Because the reason for negation is the same, permission for other actions is not possible. Thus he will say, "For him there is no duty" [Gītā 3.17]. Therefore, the foolish people's chatter that the Lord permits other actions here by negating only killing is rejected. Hence, in "therefore fight" here, because the Lord permits killing, and because the absence of real agency etc. applies equally to all actions, this is the direction. ||21||
Viśvanātha: Therefore, when there is such knowledge, you fighting and I urging to fight, we do not incur fault - thus he says "veda" etc. "Nityam" (eternally) modifies the action. By "avināśinam" (indestructible), "ajam" (unborn), "avyayam" (immutable), destruction, birth, and decay are respectively negated. That person characterized by me, whom does he cause to kill, and how does he cause to kill? That person characterized by you, whom does he kill, and how does he kill? ||21||
Baladeva: Thus, one who knows the truth and engages in battle with a sense of duty, and one who urges him, neither incurs even a trace of fault - thus he says "veda" etc. One who knows this Self mentioned before as indestructible, unborn, immutable, and free from decay, through scripture and reasoning - that person, even engaged in battle, whom does he kill and how does he kill? Even urging to battle, whom does he cause to kill and how does he cause to kill? The rhetorical questions mean: He does not kill anyone in any way. "Nityam" (eternally) modifies the action of knowing. ||21||
(2.22)
As the worn-out garments are discarded and new ones are taken, likewise the worn-out bodies are discarded and new ones are taken by the embodied soul.
Śrīdhara: If you say, "Even though the soul is indestructible, I grieve considering the destruction of its body," to that he says "vāsāṁsi" (garments). The meaning is that since new bodies are inevitable for those bound by karma, there is no room for grief in the destruction of their worn-out bodies. (22)
Madhusūdana: Now, even though the soul is indestructible, since bodies are destructible and war destroys them, how can I cause the destruction through war of the bodies of Bhīṣma and others, which are the means of many good deeds? To this doubt, the answer is "vāsāṁsi" (garments).
Just as a man, free from modification, discards worn-out clothes and takes new ones - the word "aparāṇi" (others) is used as an adjective to indicate superiority. Thus, it is appropriate that just as people discard inferior clothes and take superior ones, likewise the embodied soul - Bhīṣma and others who perform excellent dharma - discarding the bodies of Bhīṣma and others worn out by age and austerities, attains other bodies, the most superior ones of gods etc., for enjoying the fruits of long-practiced dharma, obtaining them properly without the troubles of dwelling in the womb etc. This is according to the śruti: "He takes another, newer, more auspicious form - ancestral, or gandharva, or divine, or of Prajāpati, or of Brahman."
This means that Bhīṣma and others, with bodies worn out by the hardships of practicing dharma throughout their lives, are unable to enjoy its fruits without the fall of their present bodies. If you, through righteous war, make them fit for heavenly enjoyment by causing their worn-out bodies, which are obstacles to heaven, to fall and by providing them with divine bodies, you are doing them a great favor. Even for Duryodhana and others, providing bodies fit for heavenly enjoyment is a great benefit. Therefore, do not mistake this extremely beneficial war as harmful. The Lord's intention is inferred thus from the three words "aparāṇi anyāni saṁyāti" (takes other new ones). The explanation of the ancients that this example demonstrates the unchanging nature of the soul is very clear. (22)|
Viśvanātha: Indeed, the body named Bhīṣma will certainly leave the individual soul due to my battle. Therefore, you and I are indeed the cause of that. Hence he says "vāsāṁsi" (garments). The meaning is: What fault is there in discarding an old garment to put on a new one? Similarly, with "śarīrāṇi" (bodies), the meaning is: What fault is there of yours or mine if Bhīṣma, abandoning his old body, obtains another new divine body? ||22||
Baladeva: Indeed, there may not be destruction of the souls, but in the destruction by battle of the bodies named Bhīṣma etc., which are the means of their happiness, there would certainly be a fault due to the interruption of their happiness. Otherwise, the scriptures on atonement would become purposeless. If this is said, then he responds with "vāsāṁsi" (garments). Just as discarding an old, coarse garment and wearing a new one, so for those souls, abandoning an old human body and assuming a young divine body is indeed very pleasurable. And both of these would happen quickly through battle, so it is beneficial. Therefore, do not desist - this is the meaning. "Saṁyāti" (attains) means he quickly attains, without any suffering like dwelling in a womb, etc. The statements on atonement should be applied to killings other than those in sacrifice and battle. ||22||
(2.23)
Weapons do not cleave this [ātman (soul)], fire does not burn it, waters do not wet it, and wind does not dry it. (23)
Śrīdhara: How does one kill? By this, showing the absence of means of killing, he clearly explains the indestructibility of the self. "nainam" and so on. Water does not wet him, making him soft and loose. The wind also does not dry him. (23)
Madhusūdana: But with the destruction of the body, why is there no destruction of the self within it, like a person inside a house that is burning? To this he says "nainam". Weapons like swords, even if extremely sharp, cannot cut this self in question, cannot divide it into two parts. Similarly, fire, even if blazing intensely, cannot reduce it to ashes. Nor can waters, even if flowing swiftly, make it disintegrate by moistening. Wind, even if extremely powerful, cannot dry it out. In the context of total destruction in the present battle scenario, weapons and such are mentioned as they are relevant, enumerated by way of recapitulation. Only earth, water, fire, and air are mentioned as they are well-known to be destructive, not space. (23)
Viśvanātha: And no pain to the self can possibly arise from weapons used by you in battle, thus he says "nainam". Weapons means swords and such. Fire refers to fire weapons used by you and others. Waters refers to rain weapons. Wind refers to air weapons. (23)
Baladeva: But with the destruction of the body by weapons, wouldn't the self within it be destroyed, like a creature inside a burning house? To this he says "nainam". Weapons means swords and such. Fire refers to fire weapons. Waters refers to rain weapons as well. Wind refers to air weapons. Thus, no harm comes to the self from weapons and missiles used by them. (23)
(2.24)
This Self is acchedya (uncleavable), adāhya (unburnable), akledya (unwettable), and aśoṣya (undriable).
It is nitya (eternal), sarvagata (all-pervading), sthāṇu (immovable), acala (unshakable), and sanātana (primeval).
Śrīdhara: He explains the reason for this with "acchedya" etc. in one and a half verses. Being without parts, it is uncleavable and unwettable. Being formless, it is unburnable. Being non-liquid, it is undriable - this is the meaning. And for these reasons, it is not subject to cleaving etc. Because it is eternal, indestructible. All-pervading, immovable means having a stable nature, devoid of change of form. Unshakable means not abandoning its original form. Primeval means without beginning.
Madhusūdana: He states the reason for weapons etc. being unable to destroy it and for it being unworthy of destruction caused by them, saying "acchedya" etc. Because it is uncleavable, weapons do not cut it. Because it is unburnable, fire does not burn it. Because it is unwettable, waters do not wet it. Because it is undriable, wind does not dry it - this should be connected in sequence. The word "eva" connected to each term emphasizes the uncleavability etc. The word "ca" indicates conjunction or reason. He states the reason for it being unworthy of cleaving etc. in the latter half.
It is eternal, without beginning or end, hence unproducible. If it were not all-pervading, it would be non-eternal, according to the maxim "Division exists as far as there is modification." But this is all-pervading, hence eternal. This refutes its attainability. If it were mutable, it would not be all-pervading. But it is immovable, hence unmutable. This refutes its modifiability. If it were movable and active, it would be mutable like a pot. But it is unshakable, hence not mutable. This refutes its improvability. Modification is the attainment of another state by abandoning the previous state. Even in the same state, mere movement is action - this is the distinction. Because it is thus, it is primeval, always of one form, not the object of any action. For objecthood would occur in relation to the fruit of action of production, attainment, modification, or improvement. But this is not producible due to being eternal, as only non-eternal things like pots are producible. It is not attainable due to being all-pervading, as only limited things like water are attainable. It is unmodifiable due to being immovable, as only changeable things like ghee are modifiable. It is unimprovable due to being unshakable, as only active things like mirrors are improvable. Thus the scriptures say: "All-pervading and eternal like space", "He stands alone, fixed like a tree in the sky", "Partless, actionless, tranquil", etc. The scripture "He who dwells in the earth... in the waters... in fire... in air..." etc. shows that being all-pervading, it is the inner controller of all and not their object. For weapons etc. cut what does not dwell in them. But this, being the giver of existence and manifestation to weapons etc., is their activator, their inner controller. So how could weapons etc. make it the object of their action? This is the intention. Here, scriptures like "By whose power the sun shines..." etc. should be recalled. The Lord will explain this in the seventh chapter.
Viśvanātha: Therefore, this Self is described thus, he says in "acchedya" etc. In this context, the repetition of the eternality of the individual self, both verbally and in meaning, should be understood as intended to ascertain it in doubtful minds. Just as in this Kali age, by using "dharma exists" three or four times, the understanding that dharma definitely exists becomes certain - this should be understood. All-pervading means pervading all bodies - gods, humans, animals, etc. - due to one's own karma. The repetition in "immovable, unshakable" is for emphasizing stability. Being extremely subtle, it is unmanifest; being consciousness pervading the body, it is inconceivable, beyond reasoning. Being unworthy of the six modifications beginning with birth, it is unchangeable.
Baladeva: He says "This is acchedya" etc., meaning it is called by these names due to the very absence of cleaving etc. The word "eva" is connected to all terms. All-pervading means having reached all bodies - gods, humans, animals, birds, etc. - in turn due to one's own karma. Immovable means having a stable nature. Unshakable means having stable qualities. Or indestructible, according to the scripture "This Self, my dear, is of indestructible nature." This should not be interpreted as "whose nature is mere indestructibility" as that meaning is already obtained by "indestructible." Therefore, the meaning is "he whose eternal natures are indestructible." Primeval means eternal. The fault of repetition will be addressed later.
(2.25)
This Self is said to be unmanifest, inconceivable, and unchangeable.
Therefore, knowing it as such, you should not grieve.
Śrīdhara: Moreover, "unmanifest" means not perceivable by the senses like sight. "Inconceivable" means beyond the mind's grasp. "Unchangeable" means not subject to the action organs - this is the meaning. "It is said" confirms the statements of the wise about its eternality, etc. He concludes with "Therefore, thus" etc. Thus it has been stated that since the Self has no birth or death, one should not grieve.
Madhusūdana: The non-existence of those attributes is also due to the absence of valid means of cognition that could grasp cuttability etc., as stated in "This is unmanifest" etc. That which is perceptible to the senses is called "manifest" due to being directly perceived. But this Self is not like that, being devoid of form etc. So there is no direct perception that could grasp its cuttability etc. - this is the meaning.
Even in the absence of direct perception, there could be inference, so he says "This is inconceivable" - it is different from that which is conceivable or inferable. Sometimes a directly perceived thing like fire, when its invariable concomitance has been grasped, can be inferred elsewhere from seeing smoke etc. But for something imperceptible, inference is impossible due to inability to grasp the invariable concomitance - this is the idea. Even imperceptible things like the senses are objects of inference from general correlation, so he says "This is unchangeable" - whatever undergoes change, like the eyes etc., becomes an object of presumption or inference from general correlation as it is postulated to account for its effects. But this Self does not change, so it is not an object of presumption or inference from general correlation - this is the meaning. Ordinary language also depends on perception etc., so by negating those, it is also negated.
If it is argued that the Veda will grasp its cuttability etc., he says "It is said" - the Veda with its auxiliaries definitively teaches this Self as uncuttable, unmanifest etc. So even the Veda that reveals it does not teach its cuttability etc. - this is the meaning.
Here in "Weapons do not cut it" [Gītā 2.23], the inability of weapons etc. to destroy it was stated. In "This is uncuttable" etc., its unsuitability to be the object of cutting etc. was stated. In "This is unmanifest", the absence of valid means to grasp its cuttability etc. was stated - so there is no redundancy. The commentators have resolved the verbal and conceptual repetition in verses like "Know that which is indestructible". Lord Vāsudeva repeatedly describes the same Self-entity using different words due to its difficulty to comprehend, as stated by those who say "How indeed can the truth become comprehensible to transmigrating beings for ending transmigration?" [Śaṅkara's commentary on 2.24].
Thus, when the eternality and unchangeability of the Self are established by the previously stated arguments, he concludes that your grief is unfounded with "Therefore" etc. Since knowledge of the Self's true nature removes the cause of grief, grief is not appropriate when that knowledge is present, as the effect must be absent when the cause is absent. So your grieving without knowing the Self was appropriate, but knowing the Self, you should not grieve - this is the intention.
Viśvanātha: Not commented upon.
Baladeva: "Unmanifest" means the inner Self imperceptible to the senses. "Inconceivable" means beyond reasoning, knowable only through scripture. Its nature as consciousness, being the knower etc. are known only through scripture. "Unchangeable" means not subject to the six types of transformation. Here Hari, while teaching the truth of the Self through "Know that which is indestructible" etc., repeatedly stated it verbally and conceptually only to make the difficult-to-understand easily understandable - so there is no fault. Or it is for emphasis, just as saying "He knows dharma" makes that knowledge definite. He will say the same later with "Some see this as amazing" etc.
(2.26)
Even if you think this soul is constantly born or constantly dead, O mighty-armed one, you still should not grieve like this.
śrīdharaḥ: Now, even accepting birth of the soul along with the body and its destruction with the body's destruction, grief is not to be done - thus he says "atha cainam" etc. Even if you consider this soul to be constantly born or constantly dead, O mighty-armed one, you still should not grieve like this. ||26||
madhusūdanaḥ: Thus the non-grievability of the soul due to its unchangeability has been stated. Now the Lord establishes its non-grievability through two verses even accepting its changeability. There, the Buddhists say the soul is of the nature of knowledge and perishes every moment. The materialists say the body itself is the soul, and though stable, it transforms every moment, is born and dies - this is established by direct perception. Others say though distinct from the body, it is born and dies along with the body. Some say it is born at the beginning of creation like space, continuing even with the division of bodies, lasting till the end of the age, and is destroyed at dissolution. The logicians say the soul is eternal but is born and dies. Thus - rebirth is birth. That is the connection with a new body, senses, etc. Similarly, death is the separation from the previous body, senses, etc. Both of these, being caused by dharma and adharma, primarily belong to the eternal soul that is their substratum. For the non-eternal, there would be the problem of destruction of effects and appearance of non-effects, so birth and death do not primarily belong to it, as it cannot be the substratum of dharma and adharma. Others say only to the eternal. There, even in the view of non-eternality, he negates the grievability of the soul with "atha cainam".
"Atha" indicates an alternative view. "Ca" means "also". If due to the difficulty in understanding the nature of the soul, despite hearing about it many times, being unable to ascertain it, you do not accept the view I stated and accept an alternative view. There, even taking recourse to the view of non-eternality, if you consider this soul to be constantly born or constantly dead. The word "vā" means "and". In the momentary view, "constantly" means every moment. In the other view, it means necessarily. If you imagine based on ordinary perception that "this is born, this is dead", even then, O mighty-armed one! - this is said mockingly as "foremost among men" because of accepting a false view. Or compassionately, as such a false view is not possible in you. Just as you grieve thinking "Alas, we are prepared to commit a great sin" [Gītā 1.45] etc., you yourself, being like that, are not fit to grieve in this way. In the momentary view, the body-as-soul view, and the view of birth and death along with the body, there being no rebirth, there is no possibility of fear of sin, and you grieve only due to fear of sin. And that is not possible in such a view, as there is no perception of destruction of relatives - this is additional. In the other view, "evam" is to allow grief caused by perceived suffering. Though grief caused by perceived suffering is possible, grief caused by unseen suffering is not proper in any way - this is the meaning of the first verse. ||26||
viśvanāthaḥ: Thus having enlightened you from the perspective of scriptural truth, I also enlighten you from the perspective of worldly truth - listen, he says with "atha". "Constantly born" - when the body is born, you consider this necessarily born. Similarly, when the body dies, you consider it necessarily dead. "Mighty-armed" indicates that for you, a powerful warrior, even then war is necessary as your duty. As it is said:
"This is the duty of warriors created by Prajāpati,
That even a brother may kill a brother - than which what could be more terrible."
This is the idea. ||26||
baladevaḥ: Having thus stated the non-grievability of the individual soul as stated by himself, now the non-grievability of that as stated by others is mentioned for knowledge of others' views. Indeed a disciple who knows others' views, rejecting them with their faults, becoming victorious, remains firm in his own view. Thus some think consciousness arises in the four elements earth etc. qualified by humanity etc., like the redness of betel or the intoxicating power of liquor. The body composed of those four elements is itself the soul. Though stable, due to transformation every moment, it is subject to birth and death - this is established by worldly perception, think the materialists. The Vaibhāṣikas and other Buddhists say though distinct from the body and of the nature of consciousness, the soul perishes every moment. He negates the grievability of the soul in both these views. "Atha" indicates an alternative view. "Ca" means "also". If you, unable to fathom the true nature of the individual soul stated by me, take recourse to the materialist or other view, there in the body-as-soul view, if you consider this soul characterized as the body to be constantly dead. The word "vā" means "and". Even then you should not grieve for it saying "Alas, we are prepared to commit a great sin" etc. Because birth and death are inevitable for that soul of transforming nature, and there being no rebirth, there is no possibility of fear of sin. "O mighty-armed" is a mocking address, meaning such a false view should not be held by you, a foremost warrior and Vedic follower. This is the idea. ||26||
(2.27)
Death is certain for one who is born, and birth is certain for one who has died. Therefore, you should not grieve over this inevitable matter.
Śrīdhara: Why? He explains with "jātasya" etc. Because death is certain for one who is born, when the karma that initiated their existence is exhausted. And for one who has died, birth is also certain due to the karma created by that body. Therefore, you, being wise, should not grieve over this inevitable matter characterized by birth and death, which is bound to happen.
Madhusūdana: Even if the self persists until the final dissolution, there is still the possibility of seen and unseen suffering, so I grieve out of fear of that. To address this, he speaks the second verse "jātasya hi". Because for one who is born, having obtained a connection with body and senses due to their own dharma, adharma etc., death is inevitable for the stable self - the separation from that body etc. caused by the exhaustion of the karma that initiated it, since union ends in separation. Similarly, birth is certain for one who has died, for the purpose of experiencing the fruits of karma done in the previous body, as only one with remaining impressions is relevant here, so there is no exception for the liberated-while-living. Therefore, you being thus wise should not grieve over this inevitable matter characterized by birth and death, which cannot be avoided. As he will say later: "Even without you, all these will not survive" [Gītā 11.32]. If these people would live on without being killed by you in battle, then your grief over fighting would be appropriate. But they will die on their own due to exhaustion of karma, so grief due to visible suffering is not appropriate for you who are unable to prevent it.
The same applies to grief due to unseen suffering - "Therefore, over this inevitable matter" is the answer. War is a fixed duty for a Kṣatriya, like the Agnihotra ritual. Derived from the root "yudh" meaning "to fight", it takes the form of weapon strikes conducive to separating enemies from life, and like the Agnīṣomīya sacrifice etc., does not generate sin when prescribed. As Gautama states: "There is no fault in killing in battle, except for those on chariots, non-combatants, those with joined palms, those with scattered hair, those facing away, those seated, those climbed on walls or trees, messengers, cows, Brahmins, and debaters." The mention of Brahmins here refers to non-combatant Brahmins, as it is listed along with cows etc. All this will be clarified later in "And considering your own duty" [Gītā 2.31]. So in the matter of war, which is prescribed like the Agnihotra etc., being inevitable and impossible to avoid as neglecting it would lead to sin, you should not grieve out of fear of unseen suffering, as before.
Alternatively, if war is considered an optional duty, as Yājñavalkya states: "Those who fight in battles for land without turning back, using honest weapons, go to heaven like yogis" [Yajña. 13.324], and as the Lord says: "If killed you will attain heaven, if victorious you will enjoy the earth" [Gītā 2.37], even then, since an optional duty once begun must be completed like a obligatory one, and you have begun the war, its inevitability is the same.
Or the two verses apply only to the view of an eternal self, as Arjuna being a firm believer cannot accept doctrines outside the Vedas. The word construction would then be: This self, though eternal, is considered born due to connection with body and senses etc., and if you consider it, though eternal, to be born and dead, even then you should not grieve. He gives the reason with "jātasya hi" etc. The birth and death of the eternal has been explained before. The rest is clear. The commentary should also be interpreted in this view.
Viśvanātha: Because death is certain for him when the karma that initiated his existence is exhausted. And for one who has died, birth is also certain due to the karma created by that body. "Inevitable matter" means death and birth cannot be avoided.
Baladeva: Now, the self is eternal and distinct from the body. Its connection with a new body and senses is birth. Separation from the previous body and senses is death. Both of these, being caused by dharma and adharma, are primary for the eternal self which is their basis, and secondary for the body which is distinct from it. The body being impermanent cannot be the basis, as it would lead to the fallacy of the destruction of deeds not done and the arising of deeds not performed - this is the view of the logicians. Even in this view, he refutes that the self is to be grieved for with "jātasya". "Hi" indicates reason. For one who is born, the eternal self having obtained connection with body etc. due to its own karma, death is certain, caused by the exhaustion of the karma that initiated it. And for one who has died, birth is certain, caused by the karma done in that body. Therefore, you being wise should not grieve over this inevitable matter of birth and death which cannot be avoided. Even if you abstain from battle, these will certainly die when their initiating karma is exhausted. But you will fall from your duty - this is the implication.
(2.28)
O Bharata, beings are unmanifest in the beginning, manifest in the middle, and unmanifest again at the end. What is there to lament about?
Sridhara: Moreover, considering the nature of bodies, birth and death of the self due to those limiting adjuncts should not be grieved for. Hence he says "avyaktādīni" etc. Avyakta means primordial nature. That itself is the beginning, the prior form of origination of those, they are avyaktādīni. Bhutani means bodies. Because even those existing in causal form arise. Similarly, vyakta means manifested, madhya means the interval between birth and death characterized by existence, for those which have that, they are vyakta-madhyāni. Those which have dissolution in the unmanifest, they are of such nature. What lamentation is there for them? What wailing due to grief? The meaning is that grief is not appropriate, like for objects seen in a dream for one who has awakened.
Madhusudana: Thus, having established the non-grievability of the self in all ways, now to remove Arjuna's doubt thinking "Even if the self is not to be grieved for, I grieve for bodies which are aggregates of elements", the Lord says "avyaktādīni". In the beginning, before birth, the beings, bodies made of elements like earth etc. are unmanifest, imperceptible. In the middle, after birth and before death, they are manifest, perceptible. At the end they again become unmanifest. Just as in dreams, magic shows etc. things that have existence only as appearances, like silver in mother-of-pearl etc., do not exist before or after cognition, accepting creation by perception. And thus - "What does not exist in the beginning and end does not exist in the middle either" - by this logic they do not exist even in the middle. And as stated before - "The non-existent cannot come into being" [Gita 2.16].
This being so, what lamentation, what sorrowful wailing is appropriate for those false, utterly insignificant beings? Even an ordinary person, after perceiving various relatives in a dream, does not grieve on separation from them upon waking. This very thing is stated in the Purana: "The aggregate of elements, having appeared from non-appearance, again goes to non-appearance." The meaning is that grief is not appropriate even for bodies.
Or the verse can be interpreted with reference to the great elements like ether etc. Avyakta means the undifferentiated, consciousness conditioned by ignorance, which is their prior state, they are such. Vyakta means manifested through the unreal name and form, not in its own truly existent nature, madhya means their state of existence, the elements like ether etc. are such. Avyakta-nidhanāni means those whose dissolution is in the unmanifest, their cause, like pots etc. in clay. What lamentation for those beings? - as before. And thus the śruti: "Verily this was then undifferentiated. It became differentiated by name and form" [Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.4.7] etc. shows that the entire universe has the unmanifest as its material cause. Its being the place of dissolution is logically established, as dissolution of an effect is seen in its cause. Details are in other texts. Thus if grief is inappropriate even for insignificant elements like ether etc. which are imagined in ignorance, what to speak of grief for their effects? This is the purport.
Or the meaning is that lamentation due to separation is inappropriate since they always exist in unmanifest form. By addressing as "Bharata", he indicates "Being born in a pure lineage, you are capable of understanding the scriptural meaning, why do you not understand?"
Visvanatha: Thus, having refuted the object of grief by "It is not born, it does not die" etc., and in the case of the body by "For one who is born, death is certain" etc., now he refutes it in both cases by "avyaktādīni". Bhutani means gods, humans, animals etc. Avyaktāni means those which do not have manifestation in the beginning, before birth, but even then the subtle body and gross body existed in causal form as their constituent earth etc., though indistinct. Vyakta-madhyāni means those which have manifestation in the middle. Those which do not have manifestation after the end. Even in the great dissolution, beings exist in subtle form as karmic potentials etc. Therefore all beings are unmanifest in the beginning and end, manifest in the middle. As stated in the śrutis: "Stationary and moving species arise from the unborn joined with causes." Kā paridevanā means what wailing due to grief? As stated by Narada:
"Whether you consider the world permanent or impermanent or neither,
In any case these are not to be grieved for, except out of delusion born of affection." [Bhāgavata Purāṇa 1.13.44]
Baladeva: Now grief due to destruction of the body is not proper in the view of the body as self or as different from the self, because of the indestructibility of the elemental constituents that produce it - thus he says "avyaktādīni". Avyakta means subtle primordial nature, lacking name and form, which is their beginning form, they are avyakta-nidhanāni. Those whose dissolution, characterized by destruction of name and form, is in such unmanifest primordial nature. When the condition of having a narrow neck etc. is joined to clay etc. which is the existent substance, a pot is produced, and when the opposing condition of being in shards etc. is joined, that is called its destruction. That substance always remains. Thus Lord Parasara says: "Earth becomes a pot, from the pot shards, from that powder and dust, then atoms" [Viṣṇu Purāṇa 2.12.42]. Thus bodies are unmanifest in the beginning and end due to lack of name and form. But in the middle they are manifest due to having that. But their constituent elements always exist, so what lamentation, what wailing due to grief for them which truly exist? In the view of the body as different from the eternal self, "As worn-out garments" etc. should not be forgotten. But those who say that because of non-existence in the beginning and end, beings do not exist even in the middle, thus they are false like chariots and horses seen in a dream, therefore grief due to separation from them is not seen for one who has awakened, accepting creation by perception - that is weak, because it results in the unscriptural doctrine of the non-pre-existence of effects. Thus in both views, grief due to destruction of the body is not established.
(2.29)
Someone sees this as wondrous,
Likewise another speaks of it as wondrous,
Another hears of it as wondrous,
Yet even after hearing, no one truly knows it.
Śrīdhara: Why then do even the wise grieve in this world? With the intent of showing that it is due to lack of self-knowledge, he speaks of the difficulty in knowing the self, saying "āścaryavat" (as wondrous) and so on. Someone seeing this self through the teachings of scripture and teachers sees it as wondrous. Seeing the all-pervading, eternally blissful and conscious nature of the self as extraordinary, one sees it with amazement, as if witnessing a magical feat, being overwhelmed by disbelief. Similarly, another speaks of it as wondrous. And another hears of it. Yet someone else, overcome by contrary notions, does not truly know it even after hearing. The word "ca" (and) implies that even after speaking or seeing, one does not know it properly. This should be understood.
Madhusūdana: Now, if even the wise grieve, why do you repeatedly reproach me alone in this way? Moreover, according to the maxim "It is indeed the speaker's fault if the listener does not understand", your inability to comprehend the meaning of your own words is due to your own mental defects, just like others. Anticipating these two objections, he speaks of the difficulty in knowing the self, saying "āścaryavat" (as wondrous).
This embodied self, being like a wonder, existing as if non-existent despite being real, as if inert despite being self-luminous consciousness, as if sorrowful despite being a mass of bliss, as if changeable despite being immutable, as if impermanent despite being eternal, as if unmanifest despite being manifest, as if different from Brahman despite being non-different, as if bound despite being liberated, as if dual despite being non-dual - someone sees it through the teachings of scripture and teachers, negating all duality born of ignorance, as reflected in the mental modification produced by the great sentences of Vedānta, which is the fruit of all good deeds, having the form of the Supreme Self alone. Someone, endowed with self-control and other qualifications, in their final embodiment, realizes it directly through the maturity of meditation - but not everyone.
Similarly, the phrase "āścaryavat" (as wondrous) modifies both the action and the agent. The vision of the self is also wondrous, as it is unreal in essence yet reveals the truth, born of ignorance yet destroys ignorance, and destroys itself along with its effects while destroying ignorance. Likewise, whoever sees this self is wondrous, for though free from ignorance and its effects, due to the strength of prārabdha karma (karma that has begun to bear fruit), he acts as if still under their influence, though always established in samādhi (meditative absorption) he emerges from it, and though emerged he again experiences samādhi. Due to the variety of prārabdha karma, his behavior is diverse. Having attained difficult-to-attain knowledge, he is desired by the entire world, and thus becomes wondrous.
These three - the self, the knowledge of it, and the knower of it - are extremely difficult to comprehend. How can you easily know the self? This is the implication.
Even in the absence of a teacher, the self is difficult to know. For only one who knows the self can certainly teach it to another. An ignorant person cannot be a teacher. One who knows, being absorbed in meditation, how can he generally speak? Even when emerged from absorption, he cannot be understood by others. Even if somehow known, being free from desire for gain, honor, or fame, he does not speak at all. One who speaks out of mere compassion is extremely rare, like the Supreme Lord. Thus he says "āścaryavad vadati tathaiva cānyaḥ" (Likewise another speaks of it as wondrous). He speaks just as he knows. The word "ca" (and) is for continuation of "enam" (this). And he is different, distinct from all ignorant people. Not that he is different from the one who sees, as that would be contradictory. Here too, "āścaryavat" (as wondrous) should be applied to the object, action, and agent. The wondrousness of the object and agent has been explained before, now the action is explained. The speaking of the pure self, which cannot be expressed by any words, is wondrous. As the śruti (scripture) says: "From which words return, along with the mind, unable to attain it." The teaching of the pure self, which cannot be expressed by any word, through a word with special power, through jahad-ajahat-svārtha-lakṣaṇā (a type of secondary meaning), without any limiting adjunct of the object to be indicated, is also extremely wondrous, being in the form of direct non-dual realization.
Or, the teaching of the self-truth by sentences like "Tat tvam asi" (That thou art), without power, without secondary meaning, without any other relation, like the sentence that awakens one from deep sleep, is wondrous. Because the power of words is inconceivable. And there is no overextension due to understanding without relation, as it is the same in the case of secondary meaning. Because the relation to the primary meaning is common to many. If it is said that the limitation is due to a special intention, no, because that too is not specific to all. If it is said that only some ascertain the special intention, not all, well then, some special quality in the person, in the form of faultlessness, is the limiting factor. And in this view too, there is no prevention by logical fallacy. Thus, just as you accept that for one with a pure mind, understanding of the sentence meaning through secondary meaning, preceded by ascertainment of intention, occurs, similarly for such a person, the special word alone produces direct non-dual realization even without any relation. What is improper in this? In this view, "From which words return" is even more appropriate, as it is beyond the scope of word function. And this is the Lord's intention, as elaborated by the author of the Vārtika:
"Due to the weakness of ignorance, due to the self being of the nature of consciousness, due to the inconceivability of word power, we know it through the destruction of delusion.
Without grasping any relation between word and meaning, abandoning sleep, they awaken from deep sleep, awakened by others.
Because in deep sleep no one knows any word, as in the waking state, therefore when ignorance is destroyed by knowledge, the result is 'I am Brahman'.
From the word that destroys ignorance, the cognition 'I am Brahman' arises, it perishes along with ignorance, like medicine after curing the disease."
Thus, having stated the difficulty in knowing the self due to the extremely wondrous nature of the object of speech, the speaker, and the act of speaking, he now states it due to the rarity of the listener: "āścaryavac cainam anyaḥ śṛṇoti śrutvāpy enaṁ veda" (Another hears of it as wondrous, yet even after hearing, no one truly knows it). Another, different from the seer and speaker, a seeker of liberation, properly approaching a knower of Brahman as a teacher, hears this, makes it the object of inquiry called śravaṇa (hearing), ascertains it through determining the purport of Vedānta sentences. And having heard this, through the maturity of reflection and meditation, even realizes it directly, as wondrous. Thus "Someone sees this as wondrous" has been explained. Here too, the wondrousness of the agent is due to extreme rarity, having a mind cleansed of impurities by good deeds performed over many births. As he will say later:
"Among thousands of men, some strive for perfection;
Even among those who strive and are perfected, scarcely anyone knows Me in truth." [Gītā 7.3]
He who is not obtained by many even for hearing, whom many do not know even while hearing, wonderful is the teacher skilled in imparting him, wonderful is the knower instructed by the skilled. [KU 1.2.7] Thus says the śruti.
In this way, the wonderfulness of hearing and what is to be heard should be explained as before.
Now, one may ask: What is so wonderful about someone who performs hearing, reflection, etc. knowing the Self? To this he says: "And verily no one". The word "ca" (and) is for connecting with the action and object words. No one knows him, even while performing hearing, etc. What need be said of one who does not perform those? This is according to the maxim "In this world, when there is an obstruction to what is irrelevant, that is seen" [VS 3.4.51]. And it is said by the author of the Vārtika:
"If you ask, whence is that knowledge? It is indeed from the destruction of bondage. And that exists either as past, future, or present." [BVS 294]
Even for those performing hearing etc., knowledge arises only from the destruction of obstacles. Otherwise it does not. And that destruction of obstacles is past for some, like Hiraṇyagarbha. Future for some, like Vāsudeva. Present for some, like Śvetaketu. Thus, because the destruction of obstacles is extremely rare, and because of the smṛti "Knowledge arises for people from the destruction of sinful karma", the meaning emerges that this Self is very difficult to know.
But if it were explained only as "Even after hearing, no one knows him", then there would be no consistency with the śruti "Wonderful is the knower instructed by the skilled" [KU 1.2.7]. And there would be contradiction with the Lord's words "Among even those who strive and are perfected, scarcely anyone knows Me in truth" [Gītā 7.3]. So the learned should forgive this impropriety. Or "And verily no one" is connected everywhere: No one sees him, no one speaks of him, no one hears of him, and even after hearing no one knows him - thus five types are stated. Someone only sees but does not speak, someone sees and speaks, someone hears that speech and knows its meaning, someone even after hearing does not know, but no one is completely outside of all this. In the view of the ignorant, because of being overcome by disbelief and contrary notions, there is equivalence of wonder in seeing, speaking and hearing - thus the verse is explained by commentators. In the fourth quarter, the construction is "having seen, having spoken, and even having heard".
Viśvanātha: Now you say, what is this wonder? And is even this a wonder, that lack of discrimination does not depart even for one who is being awakened? To this he says it is indeed so, in "As if wonderful". Him means the Self and the body, and the entire world consisting of both of those.
Baladeva: Now you may ask: Though instructed by you who are omniscient, I do not understand the true nature of the Self which removes sorrow - what is this? To this he says "As if wonderful". Though of the nature of both consciousness and non-consciousness, yet not having opposition to the distinction between them; though of the nature of consciousness, yet existing as the knower; though atomic, yet pervading a large body; though connected to various bodies, yet untouched by their various modifications - thus having many contradictory qualities, existing as if wonderful, similar to something marvelous, this soul instructed by me is seen, that is, directly experienced in its true nature, only by someone whose heart has been purified by practicing their own dharma, truthfulness, austerities, recitation, etc. and who has obtained such knowledge by the grace of the guru. "As if wonderful" is either an adverbial or adjectival modifier according to commentators. The meaning is: That someone sees him is wonderful, or whoever sees him is wonderful. Similarly for the rest. "Even having heard of him" means someone whose heart is not properly purified. Thus the true nature of the individual soul is difficult to comprehend. The śruti also says thus:
"He who is not obtained by many even for hearing,
Whom many do not know even while hearing,
Wonderful is the teacher skilled in imparting him,
Wonderful is the knower instructed by the skilled." [KU 1.2.7]
(2.30)
The embodied soul is eternally indestructible in the body of everyone, O Bharata. Therefore, you should not grieve for any living beings.
Sridhara: Thus, briefly instructing about the indestructibility of the soul, he concludes its non-lamentability with "dehi" etc. The meaning is clear. ||30||
Madhusudana: Now, having stated the means for removing the misconception common to all living beings, he concludes with "dehi". Since this embodied one, the soul conditioned by the subtle body, is not subject to killing even when the body of all living beings is being killed, therefore you should not grieve for all beings, gross and subtle, appearing in the form of Bhishma and others. The gross body is not to be grieved for because its destruction is inevitable. The subtle body is not to be grieved for because it is indestructible like the soul. Thus, it is not proper to grieve for the gross body, subtle body, or the soul. This is the essence. ||30||
Visvanatha: Then, having decided, tell me what I should do or what I should not do. To this, he says not to grieve but to fight, with "dehi" in two verses. ||30||
Baladeva: Thus, briefly instructing about the difficult-to-understand true nature of the soul, he concludes its non-lamentability with "dehi". Since this embodied one, the soul, is eternally indestructible even when the body of all groups of living beings is being killed, therefore you should not grieve for all beings appearing in the form of Bhishma and others. The meaning is that the souls are not to be grieved for due to their eternality, while their bodies are inevitably destructible. ||30||
(2.31)
Even considering your own duty, you should not waver. For a warrior, there is nothing better than a righteous war.
Śrīdhara: What was said by Arjuna, "There is trembling in my body" etc., that too is improper, thus he says "Even considering your own duty". Due to the absence of destruction of the self, you should not waver even in killing these. Moreover, the connection is that even considering your own duty, you should not waver. And what was said - "I do not see any good in killing my own people in battle" - to that he says "For a righteous". Other than a war that does not deviate from dharma, from justice.
Madhusūdana: Thus, to refute Arjuna's delusion common to all beings, which appears in the form of the reality and selfhood etc. of saṃsāra (worldly existence), which is actually false due to non-discrimination of the three limiting adjuncts called the gross body, subtle body, and their cause ignorance, he has stated the nature of the self through discrimination of the three limiting adjuncts. Now, to refute Arjuna's unique delusion rooted in compassion etc., which appears in the form of unrighteousness due to the abundance of violence etc. in warfare as his own duty, the Lord teaches that warfare, even though involving violence etc., is not unrighteous as it is one's own duty, saying "Even considering your own duty".
Not only considering the ultimate truth, but also considering your own duty, the duty of a warrior which is not turning away from battle, having examined it according to scripture, you should not waver, should not turn away from duty due to the delusion of unrighteousness. In that case, although you have said from "Even if they do not see" up to "There will certainly be residence in hell" that battle is a cause of sin, and from "How can I fight against Bhīṣma" etc. you have spoken about not committing the killing of gurus, brahmins etc., all that is said only from examination of dharma scriptures. Why? Because other than a righteous war, not turning away from duty, there is no better means of attaining the highest good for a warrior. For battle alone, through conquest of the earth, accomplishes the duties of a warrior like protecting subjects, serving brahmins etc. Thus that alone is most praiseworthy for a warrior - this is the intention. And so it is said by Parāśara:
"A warrior, protecting subjects, weapon in hand, punishing,
Having conquered enemy armies etc., should rule the earth righteously."
And by Manu:
"A king, protecting subjects equally among high, middle and low,
Should not turn back from battle, remembering the duty of warriors.
Not turning back in battles, and protecting subjects,
Serving brahmins - this is supremely beneficial for kings."
And it is established in the section on ritual that the word 'king' refers to the warrior caste in general. Therefore one should not be confused that this is the duty of a ruler of the earth alone. In the quoted passage also, "A warrior indeed" and "the duty of warriors" are clear indications. Therefore it is well said by the Lord that battle is the praiseworthy duty of a warrior. Like "Other than cows and horses, animals are not animals; cows and horses are animals", it is said by way of praise that "Other than war, there is no better means of attaining the highest good" - thus there is no fault. By this, turning away from battle in order to perform something more praiseworthy is also rejected. And "I do not see any good in killing my own people in battle" - this too [is rejected].
Viśvanātha: Due to the absence of destruction of the self, you should not waver, be afraid of killing. The connection is: Even considering your own duty, you should not waver.
Baladeva: Having thus first taught knowledge of the individual self equally to all as useful for knowledge of the Supreme Self, and about to say that actions performed without desire, along with purification of the heart, produce steadfastness in self-knowledge for those who are steadfast, in order to produce faith in that, he states in two verses the ability of actions performed with desire to give the desired fruits, starting with "Even considering your own duty".
Battle is indeed eternally enjoined for a warrior like the Agnihotra sacrifice etc. And that, though involving the killing of enemy lives, is not a cause of sin, like the killing of animals in the Agniṣṭoma sacrifice etc. In both cases, this violence is actually beneficial, due to desire for divine body and world by abandoning the inferior body and world. And so says the Smṛti:
"Kings desiring to kill each other in battles,
Fighting with all their might, not turning back, go to heaven.
In sacrifices, O Brahmin, animals are constantly killed by twice-borns,
Consecrated indeed by mantras, they too attain heaven." etc.
Thus, considering your own duty, you should not waver, should not deviate from duty. What you have said from "I do not see any good" etc. up to "There will certainly be residence in hell", that battle is a cause of sin - that is only due to ignorance, thus he says "For a righteous". Battle alone, through conquest of the earth, accomplishes the duties of a warrior like protecting subjects, serving gurus and brahmins etc. Thus says the blessed Parāśara:
"A warrior, protecting subjects, weapon in hand, punishing,
Having conquered enemy armies etc., should rule the earth righteously."
(2.32)
By chance, this battle has come as an open door to heaven. Happy are the warriors, O Pārtha, who obtain such a battle.
Śrīdhara: Moreover, when a great blessing comes of its own accord, why do you waver? Thus he says "By chance" etc. They obtain this kind of battle that has come unsought, by chance. Because this is an unobstructed door to heaven. Or the meaning is that only those who obtain such a battle are happy. By this, what was said earlier - "How can we be happy after killing our own people, O Mādhava?" - is refuted.
Madhusūdana: Even if battle is to be done, it is not proper to do it with respected elders like Bhīṣma and Droṇa, as it is highly reprehensible - anticipating this objection, he says "By chance" etc. "By chance" means without one's own effort. The "ca" is for emphasis. Those warriors who obtain as opponents such a battle, which has presented itself without being sought, against heroic men like Bhīṣma and Droṇa, which is a means to visible results like fame and kingdom, they alone are happy, partakers of happiness. Because in victory, fame and kingdom are obtained without much effort. And in defeat, heaven is obtained very quickly - thus he says "an open door to heaven". The meaning is that battle is a means to heaven without obstruction, immediately producing heaven, while a fire sacrifice like the jyotiṣṭoma depends on the fall of the body and absence of obstacles after a long time. By saying "door to heaven", the doubt of sin like in the Śyena sacrifice is removed. For the Śyena and similar sacrifices, though enjoined, are faulty due to the fault in the result. Their result, killing an enemy, is prohibited by scriptures like "One should not harm any beings", "One should not kill a Brahmin" etc., so it produces sin. And since there is no injunction regarding the result, there is no scope for prohibition in what is enjoined, according to logic. For the result of battle is heaven, which is not prohibited. And thus Manu says:
"Kings who fight each other in battle, seeking to kill one another, go to heaven if they fight with all their might, not turning their backs."
And battle, like the killing of animals in the Agnīṣomīya sacrifice etc., cannot be touched by prohibition, like the holding of the Ṣoḍaśin cup. When acceptance and non-acceptance have equal force, like in an option, the general rule can be restricted by the special rule. Thus by the maxim "There is no scope for prohibition in what is enjoined", battle does not produce sin, nor is there fault due to killing respected Brahmins like Bhīṣma and Droṇa, because they are aggressors. As Manu has said:
"One may unhesitatingly kill an aggressor who comes with intent to murder, be he a guru, child, old man, or a very learned Brahmin. One incurs no sin by killing an aggressor, even if he is learned in the Vedānta, who comes with intent to kill. There is no fault at all for the killer in killing an aggressor."
But it may be objected: "When smrti texts conflict, logic is stronger in practice. But dharma-śāstra is stronger than artha-śāstra - this is the rule." - as Yājñavalkya says. So there is indeed sin even in killing an aggressive Brahmin. For "One should not kill a Brahmin" is dharma-śāstra as it does not depend on visible purpose, while "One may kill one who comes to kill; by that one does not become a killer of a Brahmin" is artha-śāstra as it is for self-preservation.
To this we reply: The injunction of battle is itself dharma-śāstra, like "One should sacrifice a Brahmin to Brahman", as it will be said "Having made pleasure and pain the same". The statement of Yājñavalkya refers to killing done in unfair battle etc. with visible purpose in mind, so there is no fault. But the author of the Mitākṣarā says this refers to the twelve-year penance prescribed by Āpastamba, and in the four-fold legal process, even for victory over an enemy, transgression of dharma-śāstra should not be done according to artha-śāstra for gaining allies etc. - this is the supreme statement. Let it be so, we suffer no loss. Thus by stating happiness in doing battle, Arjuna's statement "How can we be happy after killing our relatives, O Mādhava?" is refuted.
Viśvanātha: Moreover, those who die in a righteous battle obtain even more happiness than the victors, so by killing Bhīṣma and others, make them even happier than yourself - thus he says "By chance" etc. The meaning is: Even without performing karma-yoga which is a means to heaven. "Open" means with obstacles removed.
Baladeva: Moreover, when such a great blessing has come without effort, your wavering is not proper - thus he says "By chance" etc. The "ca" is for emphasis. Warriors who are fortunate obtain without any effort such a battle with great heroes like Bhīṣma. The meaning is: In victory, fame and kingdom are obtained with little effort, and in death, heaven is quickly attained. Expressing this, he qualifies: "an open door to heaven". The meaning is: an unobstructed means to heaven. The jyotiṣṭoma etc. lead to heaven after a long time, so this is superior to that.
(2.33)
Now if you will not engage in this righteous battle, then, forsaking your own duty and glory, you will incur sin.
Śrīdhara: He speaks of the fault in the opposite case with "Now if" etc. (33)
Madhusūdana: "But I do not desire the fruits of battle. I do not seek victory, O Kṛṣṇa, even for the sovereignty of the three worlds" - having said this, how should I act? Anticipating this doubt, he speaks of the fault in not acting with "Now if" etc. "Now" indicates an alternative. This dharmic (dharmyaṁ) [righteous] battle against heroic men like Bhīṣma, Droṇa etc., not tainted by faults like violence etc., or not deviating from the dharma of the virtuous. And this is shown by Manu:
"One should not kill enemies in battle with concealed weapons, nor with barbed or poisoned weapons, nor with fire-kindled arrows.
One should not strike one mounted on an elevation or tree, nor a eunuch, nor one with joined palms, nor one with loosened hair, nor one seated, nor one saying 'I am yours'.
Nor one asleep, nor one without armor, nor one naked, nor one disarmed, nor a spectator not fighting, nor one engaged with another.
Nor one whose weapon is broken, nor one afflicted, nor one badly wounded, nor one afraid, nor one who has turned back, remembering the dharma of the virtuous." (Manu 7.91-94)
Indeed, one who fights transgressing the dharma of the virtuous would be sinful. But if you, even when challenged by enemies, will not engage in battle which adheres to the dharma of the virtuous, out of fear of dharma or the world, then by not performing the battle prescribed in scriptures like "Having conquered the enemy armies, he should protect the earth righteously" (Parāśara-smṛti 1.58) etc., forsaking your own duty by not performing it, and forsaking the glory arising from association with great gods etc., and by desisting from battle which is prohibited in scriptures like "One should not turn back from battle" etc., you will incur only the sin arising from battle, but not dharma and glory - this is the purport.
Or the meaning is: Abandoning the dharma accumulated over many births, you will incur only the sin committed by the king. Since these wicked ones will certainly kill you when you turn back, therefore do not become one who, killed after turning back, loses his long-accumulated good deeds and gains only the bad deeds of others - this is the purport. And thus Manu:
"He who, afraid, turns back and is killed in battle by enemies, receives all the bad deeds of his master.
And whatever good deeds he had accumulated for the next world, the master takes all that of one killed after turning back." (Manu 7.95-96)
Yājñavalkya also says: "The king takes the good deeds of those killed who flee." Thus what was said - "Sin alone would accrue to us by slaying these aggressors" (Gītā 1.36), "I do not wish to kill them, O Madhusūdana, even if I am killed" (Gītā 1.35) - that becomes refuted. (33)
Viśvanātha: He speaks of the fault in the opposite case with "Now" etc. in four verses. (33)
Baladeva: He shows the faults in the opposite case with "Now" etc. Forsaking your own dharmic duty of battle and glory gained from pleasing Rudra and slaying Nivātakavaca etc., you will incur sin prohibited in smṛtis like "One should not turn back from battle" etc., characterized by abandoning one's own duty. (33)
(2.34)
And people will speak of your eternal infamy. For one who has been honored, infamy is worse than death. [34]
Śrīdhara: Moreover, "infamy" etc. Avyayām means eternal. Sambhāvitasya means highly respected. Atiricyate means becomes greater. [34]
Madhusūdana: Thus, by abandoning the battle, the non-attainment of the desired fame and dharma, and the attainment of the undesired sin have been shown. Among these, sin, being undesired, leads to suffering in the future life. But the censure by the virtuous, being an immediate result, is unbearable - thus he says "infamy" etc. Bhūtāni (creatures) means gods, sages, humans, etc. They will speak of your avyayām (eternal) infamy for a long time, saying "He is neither righteous nor brave," in conversations with each other. The particles ca and api indicate the combination of loss of fame and dharma. Not only will you lose fame and dharma and incur sin, but you will also gain infamy. Or the particles mean: not only will you gain it, but creatures will also speak of it.
One might argue that even infamy should be endured to avoid the danger of death in battle, as self-preservation is of utmost importance. As it is said in the Śānti Parva:
"One should try to conquer enemies by conciliation, gifts, causing dissension, or all of these together or separately, but never by war. Since victory is uncertain for those fighting, and defeat is possible in battle, therefore one should avoid war." [Manu 7.198-199]
"If the three methods mentioned above are not possible, then one should fight in such a way as to conquer the enemies." [Manu 7.200]
This is also stated by Manu.
Thus, to remove the doubt that "What is the pain of infamy for one who fears death?", he says: For one who is honored (sambhāvitasya), i.e. highly regarded for qualities like righteousness, bravery, etc. that cannot be obtained otherwise, infamy is worse (atiricyate) than death. The word ca indicates reason. Since infamy is thus worse, death itself is preferable as it is lesser. You too are highly honored due to your association with great gods, etc. Therefore, you will not be able to endure the pain of infamy - this is the implication. The quoted passage, being from a treatise on politics, is weaker than the dharma śāstra statements like "One should not turn away from battle" [Manu 7.88], etc. - this is the idea. [34]
Viśvanātha: Avyayām means imperishable. Sambhāvitasya means highly reputed. [34]
Baladeva: Not only the mere loss of your dharma and fame. When the battle has begun, all people will speak of your eternal (avyayām) infamy, saying "Arjuna fled". If you say "Being afraid of death, I should endure infamy", to that he says: For one who is honored (sambhāvitasya), i.e. highly reputed, it (infamy) exceeds (atiricyate), i.e. is greater than death. Thus, for such a person, death itself is preferable to such infamy. [34]
(2.35)
The great warriors will think that you have retreated from battle out of fear. And those who previously held you in high esteem will now consider you insignificant. [35]
Śrīdhara: Moreover, "out of fear" etc. Those who previously respected you for your many qualities will now think that you have retreated from battle out of fear. And thus, having previously been highly esteemed, you will become insignificant. [35]
Madhusūdana: "Let indifferent people criticize me, but great warriors like Bhīṣma and Droṇa will praise me out of compassion" - thinking thus, he says "out of fear" etc. Great warriors like Bhīṣma, Droṇa, and Duryodhana will think that you have retreated from battle out of fear of Karṇa and others, not out of compassion. "But how will they think I am afraid when they hold me in high regard?" Thinking thus, he says - the very same great warriors like Bhīṣma, for whom you were highly esteemed, thinking "this Arjuna is endowed with many qualities", they will consider you to have retreated out of fear. Therefore, having become one who retreated from battle (is implied), you will attain lāghavam (insignificance), becoming an object of disrespect. "Of all" is implied. Or, for those very people who previously held you in high esteem, having become like that, you will attain insignificance. [35]
Viśvanātha: The meaning is: Those great warriors like Duryodhana, for whom you were highly esteemed as "Arjuna, our enemy, is a great hero" and were an object of great respect, will now think that you have retreated from battle out of fear, when you withdraw from the fight, and you will attain insignificance. For warriors, there is no reason for withdrawing from battle other than fear, not even affection for relatives - thinking thus is implied. [35]
Baladeva: "But how can I incur infamy when I have withdrawn due to the fault of family destruction and out of compassion?" If you think thus, he says "out of fear" etc. The great warriors like Duryodhana will think that you have retreated from battle out of fear of Karṇa and others, not out of compassion for relatives. For a hero does not retreat from battle due to affection for relatives without fear of enemies - this is the meaning. Previously, you were highly esteemed by them as a brave enemy with many qualities, but now when the battle has commenced, they will think "he has withdrawn being a coward", and thus you will attain unbearable insignificance in their eyes. [35]
(2.36)
Your enemies will speak many unspeakable words, disparaging your prowess. What could be more painful than that?
Śrīdhara: Moreover, "unspeakable words" means your enemies will speak words that should not be uttered, words unworthy of being spoken.
Madhusūdana: Now, great warriors like Bhīṣma may not think much of me, but enemies like Duryodhana will think highly of me due to my withdrawal from battle, as it benefits them. Hence he says "unspeakable". Your enemies like Duryodhana, disparaging your extraordinary prowess well-known to the world, will speak many unspeakable words, unworthy of being uttered, in the form of words like "eunuch" and "sesame seed", in various ways. They will not think highly of you - this is the intention. Alternatively, the construction is: Your enemies, disparaging your prowess, your praiseworthiness, will speak unspeakable words.
Now, one may say: Unable to bear the extreme pain caused by the killing of Bhīṣma, Droṇa and others, I have withdrawn from battle, so I will be able to endure the pain of enemies disparaging my prowess, etc. To this he replies: What could be more painful than that, i.e. than the pain of receiving such disparagement? There is no pain greater than that - this is the meaning.
Viśvanātha: "Unspeakable words" means harsh words like "coward", etc.
Baladeva: Moreover, "unspeakable" - enemies, the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra, disparaging your prowess, your previously established valor, will speak many unspeakable words like "eunuch", "sesame seed", etc. What pain could be greater than hearing such unspeakable words? Thus, in these six verses, the non-heavenly nature and infamy-producing nature of renunciation of battle have been stated and shown.
(2.37)
If slain, you will attain svarga (heaven), or if victorious, you will enjoy the earth. Therefore, arise, O son of Kuntī, resolved for battle.
Śrīdhara: Regarding what was said "We do not know which is better for us" [Gītā 2.6], he speaks "If slain" and so on. The meaning is that in either case, there is only gain for you.
Madhusūdana: Now then, if in battle, due to killing gurus and others, there is censure from neutral parties, and if one withdraws, there is censure from enemies - thus there is a rope on both sides. Anticipating this doubt, he says "If slain" to show that because of the certainty of gain in both victory and defeat, rising for battle is necessary. The first half is clear. Because in both ways there is gain for you, therefore arise for battle, having resolved "I will conquer enemies" or "I will die". Even if there is doubt about the result of either, the necessity of battle is certain. By this, "We do not know which is better for us" [Gītā 2.6] and so on is addressed.
Viśvanātha: Now, if there is no certainty that victory in battle will be mine, then how should I engage in battle? To this he responds "If slain".
Baladeva: Now, if you say "I have withdrawn from this because there is no certainty that I would be victorious in battle," to this he responds "If slain". The idea is that in either case, there is only gain for you.
(2.38)
Having treated pleasure and pain, gain and loss, victory and defeat equally, then engage in battle. Thus you will not incur sin.
Śrīdhara: Regarding what was said earlier "Sin alone will take refuge in us" (Gītā 1.36), he now says "sukha-duḥkhe" (pleasure and pain) etc. Having made pleasure and pain equal. Similarly, gain and loss which are their causes. And victory and defeat which are also their causes, having made these equal. The reason for their equality is the absence of joy and sorrow. "Engage" means be prepared. The meaning is that fighting with the understanding of one's duty, abandoning desire for pleasure etc., you will not incur sin.
Madhusūdana: If fighting is done for the sake of heaven, there would be a contradiction with its eternality. If fighting is done for the sake of kingdom, being a worldly matter, it would be weaker compared to religious duty. Then, how can there be sin in not performing an optional act? How can killing gurus, Brahmins etc. which has visible results be righteous? Thus the meaning of the verse "If however" (atha cet) would be contradicted. To this he replies "sukha-duḥkhe" (pleasure and pain).
Making equal means absence of attachment and aversion. Not having attachment to pleasure, its cause gain, and its cause victory; similarly not having aversion to pain, its cause loss, and its cause defeat - then engage in battle, be prepared. Thus, abandoning desire for pleasure or desire for removal of pain, fighting with the understanding of one's duty, you will not incur sin due to killing gurus, Brahmins etc. or due to non-performance of obligatory duties. One who acts with desire for results incurs sin due to killing gurus, Brahmins etc. Or one who does not act incurs sin due to non-performance of obligatory duties. Therefore, acting without desire for results, one does not incur both types of sin - this intention was explained earlier. The statement "Slain, you will attain heaven; victorious, you will enjoy the earth" (Gītā 2.37) is a mention of incidental results, so there is no fault. Āpastamba also states: "Just as shade and fragrance arise incidentally when a mango tree is planted for fruit, similarly worldly benefits arise incidentally when practicing dharma. If they do not arise, there is no loss of dharma." Thus the objection "Sin alone will take refuge in us" (Gītā 1.36) etc. is refuted, as the science of warfare is not merely a worldly matter.
Viśvanātha: Therefore for you battle alone is duty in all cases. Even if you suspect this to be a cause of sin, then learn from me the method of not incurring sin and fight, he says "sukha-duḥkhe" (pleasure and pain) etc. Their causes are gain and loss, i.e. gaining and losing the kingdom. Their causes are victory and defeat - making these equal means considering them equivalent through discrimination. Thus for one possessing such equanimity characterized by knowledge, there would be no sin. As will be said later: "He is not tainted by sin, as a lotus leaf is untouched by water" (Gītā 5.10).
Baladeva: If it is argued that the meaning of the verse "If however" (atha cet) etc. is contradicted, since battle undertaken for the sake of kingdom etc. produces sin by causing the destruction of gurus, Brahmins etc., then for you who fights on the path of liberation, there will be no sin caused by their destruction, he says "sukha" (pleasure) etc. Making equal here should be understood as being unaffected in each case. Not having attachment to pleasure, its cause victory, and not having aversion to pain, its cause loss, its cause defeat - being unaffected in each case, then engage in battle. The meaning is: be prepared to fight with the sole understanding of your duty. Thus you who fight in the manner of a seeker of liberation will not incur sin caused by their destruction. One who fights desiring results incurs that sin. But one seeking knowledge destroys endless past sins.
If it is asked how one can engage in difficult acts like battle, charity etc. without desire for results, then accept the attachment to the infinite bliss of the Self as the motivator there, just as attachment to kingdom etc. is in jumping into fire.
(2.39)
This knowledge of sāṁkhya (philosophical analysis) has been explained to you. Now listen to this knowledge of yoga (spiritual discipline). Endowed with this understanding, O Pārtha (Arjuna), you will cast off the bondage of karma (action).
Śrīdhara: Concluding the instruction on jñāna-yoga (path of knowledge), he introduces karma-yoga (path of action) as a means to that end with "This" etc. Sāṁkhya is correct knowledge by which the truth of reality is fully illuminated. The truth of the Self as illuminated in that is sāṁkhya. This understanding to be cultivated in that has been explained to you. Even if the truth of the Self does not become directly manifest to you when explained thus, then listen to this understanding of karma-yoga for the sake of directly realizing the truth of the Self through purification of the inner faculties. United with this understanding, having a purified inner faculty through karma-yoga offered to the Supreme Lord, you will completely cast off, abandon the bondage consisting of karma by direct knowledge obtained through His grace.
Madhusūdana: [Objection:] Let there be absence of sin for one fighting as his duty, but still it is not proper for you to instruct me in the obligation to fight. For one who knows "He who thinks this person a killer" etc. up to "How can that person, O Pārtha (Arjuna), kill anyone or cause anyone to kill?" [Gītā 2.19-21] rejects all action for the wise. For the knowledge "I am of the nature of the pure non-doer and non-enjoyer; having fought I will enjoy its fruits" is not possible due to contradiction, since the combination of knowledge and action is impossible like light and darkness. This intention of Arjuna will become clear in "If you consider knowledge superior" etc. Therefore, instruction to me in either knowledge or action alone is not appropriate. [Reply:] Not so, for instruction in knowledge and action is appropriate due to the difference in the state of the wise and ignorant, as the Lord says with "This" etc.
"This" etc. up to twenty-one verses beginning with "But I am not" has been explained to you regarding sāṁkhya - the supreme truth of the Self which is taught by that as devoid of all limiting adjuncts, i.e. the Upaniṣadic Self which is taught with that as the final purport. Understanding of that, knowledge with that alone as its object, the cause of cessation of all misfortune, has been stated by me to you. For one with such knowledge, action is not prescribed anywhere, since it will be said "He has no duty."
If, however, even when I have spoken thus, this understanding does not arise in you due to mental defects, then you should practice karma-yoga alone for direct realization of the truth of the Self by removing those defects. Listen to this understanding to be cultivated in that yoga, karma-yoga, which is characterized by renunciation of desire for fruits as stated in "Having made pleasure and pain the same" etc., which I will explain in detail. The word "tu" (but) indicates the exclusion of the previous understanding from the sphere of yoga. Thus the instruction in knowledge is for one with a pure inner faculty, while the instruction in action is for one with an impure inner faculty. So how is there room for contradiction by suspicion of combination?
He praises the understanding related to yoga by stating its fruit: United in actions with this resolute understanding, you will completely cast off, abandon the bondage due to karma, the obstruction to knowledge characterized by impurity, in the form of non-recurrence of obstruction. The meaning is this: The obstruction to knowledge due to karma can be removed by karma itself in the form of dharma (duty), according to the śruti "He removes sin by dharma" [Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 13.6]. But inquiry characterized by hearing etc. removes the obstruction like doubt etc. for one free from karmic obstruction through visible means, so it cannot be instructed for removing the bondage of karma. Therefore, because your inner faculty is extremely impure, you should practice only karma, the external means. Even fitness for hearing etc. has not arisen in you now. Fitness for knowledge is far off. Thus he will say "Your right is to action alone" [Gītā 2.47]. By this, the objection "Why does the Lord instruct Arjuna in karma, the external means, abandoning hearing etc., the internal means of sāṁkhya understanding?" is refuted. In the explanation of the ancients "You will cast off saṁsāra (cycle of rebirth) by attaining knowledge through the Lord's grace," the fault of ellipsis and the uselessness of the word karma should be avoided.
Viśvanātha: He concludes the instruction on jñāna-yoga with "This" etc. Sāṁkhya is correct knowledge by which the truth of reality is fully illuminated. This understanding to be cultivated in that has been explained. Now listen to this understanding to be cultivated in yoga, bhakti-yoga (devotional service), which will be explained, united with which understanding related to devotion. Karma-bandha means saṁsāra.
Baladeva: Concluding the stated jñāna-yoga, he begins to speak of its means, niṣkāma-karma-yoga (selfless action) with "This" etc. Sāṁkhya is the truth taught by the Upaniṣads, by which truth is fully explained, according to etymology. The true nature of the Self taught by that is sāṁkhya. This understanding to be cultivated in that has been explained to you, from "But I am not" up to "Therefore all beings." If that does not arise in you due to mental defects, then listen to this understanding to be cultivated in yoga, in niṣkāma-karma-yoga which is internal knowledge stated in śruti like "The brāhmaṇas seek to know that through Vedic study, sacrifice, charity, austerity, fasting" etc., which will be explained. He praises that by stating its fruit with "By which" etc. Performing actions, you performing great endeavors by the Lord's command, will cross over saṁsāra by the devotion to Self-knowledge arising within you through the glory of that intention. Action with desire for fruits like cattle, sons, kingdom etc. is called sa-kāma (with desire), while action with knowledge as the fruit is called niṣkāma (without desire) in this scripture.
(2.40)
There is no loss of initial endeavor in this, nor is there adverse effect. Even a little of this dharma protects one from great fear.
Śrīdhara: Now, like agriculture etc., due to the possibility of failure in results sometimes because of numerous obstacles, and due to the possibility of adverse effects from defects in auxiliary aspects like mantras etc., how can karma-yoga lead to the destruction of karma-bondage? To this he says "neha" etc. In this desireless karma-yoga, there is no loss of initial endeavor, meaning no fruitlessness. And there is no adverse effect, as there is no possibility of obstacles, defects etc. when dedicated to God. Moreover, even a small beginning of this dharma, this karma-yoga for worshipping God, protects one from great fear characterized as saṃsāra (cycle of rebirth). Unlike desire-motivated karma, this does not become fruitless due to any defect in auxiliary aspects etc. This is the meaning.
Madhusūdana: Now, the śruti (scripture) says "Brahmins seek to know That through recitation of the Vedas, through sacrifice, charity, austerity, and fasting" [Bṛ.Ā.U. 4.4.22]. This enjoins all actions for the purpose of seeking knowledge, through the principle of conjunction and disjunction. And as inner purification is a means to that, performance of actions is prescribed for me. In that context, as the śruti states "Just as in this world the realm gained by work perishes, so in the hereafter the realm gained by merit perishes" [Ch.U. 8.1.6], there is the possibility of destruction of results. Since sacrifices etc. performed for the purpose of seeking knowledge to know are desire-motivated, to be performed with all auxiliary parts, even if any part is deficient there is the possibility of defect. And since all actions prescribed in statements like "through sacrifice" etc. are impossible to perform even in one human lifetime, how will you abandon karma-bondage and attain the result? To this the Lord says "neha" etc.
That which is begun by action, the result that is commenced, is called abhikrama. The loss of that, as stated in "Just as in this world" etc., does not exist in this desireless karma-yoga. Because its result, purification, being in the form of destruction of sin, and not being an object of enjoyment denoted by the word "realm", is not subject to destruction. Since seeking to know up to actual knowing is the result of karma, and since knowing, which directly produces the result of removal of ignorance, cannot be destroyed without producing its result, it is correctly said there is no destruction of results here. As stated:
"The censure in 'Just as in this world' etc. is for the result, not for the action.
Action performed renouncing desire for results leads to purification."
Similarly, adverse effect, defect due to deficiency in auxiliary parts, does not exist here. Because with the statement "That", only nitya (obligatory) actions are enjoined for seeking to know through destruction of accumulated sins. And there is no rule of including all auxiliary parts in that. Even in the view that kāmya (desire-motivated) actions are also enjoined through the principle of conjunction and disjunction, they become equivalent to nitya actions due to being free from desire for results. Indeed, there is no inherent difference between desire-motivated and obligatory agnihotra (fire sacrifice). The designation as desire-motivated or obligatory is only due to presence or absence of desire for results. These two views are stated in the Vārtika:
"The injunction of nitya actions for producing knowledge of non-duality
Will be stated by the sentence 'That' etc.
Or, kāmya actions too are for the purpose of seeking to know
By the sentence 'That' etc., through conjunction and disjunction."
Thus, only in action performed with desire for results is there a rule of including all auxiliary parts. In action for purification which is different from that, completion is possible through substitutes etc. So there is no adverse effect due to deficiency in auxiliary parts - this is the meaning. Moreover, even a little of this dharma for purification, prescribed by statements like "That" etc., whether by quantity or procedure, performed as worship of the Lord according to one's capacity, protects the performer from great fear of saṃsāra by obtaining the Lord's grace.
As the smṛti (traditional text) states:
"Even one extremely sinful, meditating on Acyuta (the infallible Lord) for a moment,
Becomes most austere, purifying even those who purify the impure."
Since there is no injunction of combination in the statement "That" etc., and gradation of practice is appropriate due to gradation of impurity, it is correctly said "you will abandon karma-bondage".
Viśvanātha: Here yoga is of two types - devotional practice in the form of hearing, chanting etc., and desireless action offered to the Supreme Lord. Among these, up to "Your right is to action alone", devotional yoga alone is being described. Since it is stated "Be free from the three guṇas, O Arjuna", only devotion is beyond the three guṇas. It is well-known in the Eleventh Canto that only through devotion does a person become free from the three guṇas. Since knowledge and action cannot transcend the guṇas due to being in sattva and rajas respectively, devotion characterized by offering to the Lord only establishes the non-fruitlessness of action, but does not designate itself as devotion due to lack of predominance. If it is held that even action offered to the Lord is devotion itself, then what would action be? If it is said that action not offered to the Lord is action, no.
As Nārada states:
"Even knowledge that is completely pure is not glorious if devoid of devotion to the infallible Lord.
How much less so is fruitless action not offered to the Lord, which is always inauspicious." [Bhā.Pu. 1.5.12]
This establishes its futility. Therefore, here only pure devotional practice of hearing, chanting etc., which is the means to attain the sweetness of the Lord's lotus feet, is being described, just as desireless karma-yoga is also to be described. Both of these should be understood as denoted by the term buddhi-yoga, as stated: "I give that buddhi-yoga by which they come to Me" [10.10], and "Action is far inferior to buddhi-yoga, O Dhanañjaya" [2.49].
Now the glory of transcendental devotional yoga of hearing, chanting etc. is stated in "neha" etc. In this devotional yoga, even when just begun, there is no loss of this devotional yoga. Nor would there be adverse effect. Unlike in karma-yoga, where one who begins but does not complete the action would incur loss and adverse effect - this is the idea.
Indeed, for one who desires to perform devotional service, due to not performing proper devotion, the fruit of devotion would certainly not arise. Regarding this, he says "even a little". Even the slightest devotion that arose at the beginning of practicing this dharma - that is the meaning. It certainly protects from the great fear of saṃsāra (and in brackets: cycle of birth and death). This is heard from statements like "Even a pukkasa (and in brackets: low-caste person) is liberated from saṃsāra by hearing the name just once" [BhP 6.16.44]. And it is seen in cases like Ajamila.
"O Uddhava, because My dharma is nirguṇa (and in brackets: transcendental),
There is no destruction even in the slightest beginning of its practice.
I have established this perfectly,
Because it is free from material desires." [BhP 11.29.20]
The meaning of this verse is seen to be the same as the previous statement. But there the reason given is that because it is nirguṇa, a transcendental object is never destroyed. That should be understood here also. And it should not be said that even niṣkāma karma (and in brackets: desireless action) becomes nirguṇa simply by the glory of offering it to the Lord - "Action offered to Me or done without fruit is sāttvika (and in brackets: in the mode of goodness), one's own duty." [BhP 11.25.23] ||40||
Baladeva: He praises karma-yoga connected with the intelligence that will be described, saying "In this". Here, from the statement beginning "that very" etc., in niṣkāma karma-yoga there is no destruction of the fruit-producing nature of the beginning or commencement. The meaning is that there is no futility of an incomplete beginning. And in case of deficiency in the limbs like mantras etc., there is no fault, due to its destruction by the glory of aiming at the self and by the name of the Lord "oṃ tat sat". Here, even a little practice of the dharma characterized by niṣkāma karma offered to the Lord protects the practitioner from the great fear of saṃsāra. And he will say thus: "O Partha, neither in this world nor the next" [Gita 6.40] etc. Sakāma karmas (and in brackets: actions with desires) performed with all limbs complete produce the stated fruits. But with deficiency in limbs like mantras they produce faults. However, niṣkāma karmas performed according to one's ability certainly produce the fruit characterized by establishment in knowledge, and do not produce faults, due to the stated reason. ||40||
(2.41)
O descendant of the Kurus, in this path of spiritual practice, there is only one resolute understanding. The irresolute, however, have many-branched and endless thoughts.
Śrīdhara: In response to the question "why?", he explains the difference between the two with "vyavasāyātmikā" (resolute). In this karma-yoga (path of action) characterized by worship of the Lord, there is only one resolute understanding, focused on a single goal, that "I will surely cross over through devotion to the Supreme Lord." But for the irresolute, those who are averse to worshipping the Lord and are full of desires, there are endless thoughts due to the endlessness of desires. Even there, due to differences in types such as the results of actions and the qualities of results, the thoughts become many-branched. For the purpose of worshipping the Lord, indeed, daily and occasional rituals do not become fruitless even if performed with some deficiency in the limbs. It is prescribed that one should perform as one is able. There is no fault either, because any deficiency is overcome by the intention towards the Lord. But it is not so with desire-motivated actions. Thus, there is a great difference - this is the idea. ||41||
Madhusūdana: To establish this, he explains the oneness of meaning of the statements beginning with "tam etam" (that, this) in "vyavasāyātmikā" (resolute). O descendant of the Kurus, in this path to the highest good, or in the statement "tam etam", only one resolute understanding, which is of the nature of certainty about the truth of the self, is meant to be achieved by the four stages of life, as indicated by the use of the instrumental case in "by Vedic recitation" etc., showing that each is an independent means. If they had different meanings, there would be accumulation. Even if they have the same meaning, there is no evidence here for a dvandva compound like in "by the new moon and full moon sacrifices", or for the word "ca" (and) as in "for Agni and for Prajāpati". This is the meaning. The understanding related to Sāṅkhya and the understanding related to Yoga are one resolute understanding because they have the same result, negating all contrary understandings, being born from faultless Vedic statements, while the other understandings of the irresolute are to be negated - this is the meaning according to the commentator. Others say the meaning is that in this karma-yoga (path of action), there is only one understanding focused on a single goal, with the resolve that "I will cross over saṃsāra (cycle of rebirth) only through worship of the Supreme Lord." In any case, it is consistent with the statement from the knowledge section that "Even a little of this dharma protects from great fear." In the action section, however, there are many branches, many divisions due to the many divisions of desires. And they are endless due to divisions of sub-branches of types such as the results of actions and the qualities of results - these are the thoughts of the irresolute who desire those respective results. The word "hi" (indeed) is to indicate the well-known endlessness of thoughts. Thus, the intention is to show the great distinction of actions for purification compared to desire-motivated actions. ||41||
Viśvanātha: Moreover, to say that the understanding related to bhakti-yoga (devotional service) is superior to all other understandings, he says "vyavasāyā" (resolute). In this bhakti-yoga, there is only one resolute understanding: "The chanting of the Lord's names, remembering Him, serving His lotus feet, etc., as instructed by my glorious spiritual master - this alone is my means, this alone is my goal, this alone is my life-breath. I cannot abandon this in either the stage of practice or perfection. This alone is what I desire, this alone is what I must do. Nothing else is to be done by me, nor is anything else to be desired even in a dream. Let there be happiness or let there be distress, let saṃsāra (cycle of rebirth) be destroyed or not - I have no concern for that." Such a resolute understanding is possible only in unmotivated devotion. As it is said: "Therefore one should worship Me with devotion, faith and firm resolve." [Bhāgavata Purāṇa 11.20.28]
Then he says "many" to indicate that there is no single understanding elsewhere. Those which have many branches are called bahvaḥ. Thus, in karma-yoga, due to the infinity of desires, there are infinite understandings. Similarly in jñāna-yoga, first there is understanding in desireless action for the purpose of purifying the inner organ. Then, when that is purified, there is understanding in renunciation of action. Then there is understanding in knowledge. For the purpose of avoiding the futility of knowledge, there is understanding in devotion. As stated by the Lord: "One should renounce knowledge in Me", there is understanding in devotion even in the renunciation of knowledge. Thus there are infinite understandings. Because karma, jñāna and bhakti must necessarily be practiced, their respective branches are also infinite. ||41||
Baladeva: He states the distinction between understanding related to desire-motivated action and understanding related to desireless action with "resolute". O descendant of Kuru, here in all Vedic actions, the resolute understanding is single-pointed, taking the form of determination thus: "Having purified my mind through desireless actions in the form of worshipping the Lord, I will experience the true nature of the self through the knowledge inherent in that, like a spider [experiences its web]." It is single because it has a single object. In other words, because those [desireless actions] are prescribed for that single experience. But for the irresolute, the performers of desire-motivated actions, the understandings are indeed infinite, because they have infinite objects of desire such as cattle, food, sons, heaven, etc. Even there, there are many branches. Even for a single result, in rituals like the new and full moon sacrifices, many subsidiary results like long life, good progeny, etc. are heard. Here indeed only knowledge of the self as distinct from the body is required, not the aforementioned true nature of the self, because engagement in desire-motivated actions is impossible when that is ascertained. ||41||
(2.42-44)
Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this.
In the minds of those who are too attached to sense enjoyment and material opulence, and who are bewildered by such things, the resolute determination for devotional service to the Supreme Lord does not take place.
Śrīdhara: One may ask why even those who desire worldly pleasures do not abandon difficult desires and adopt resolute determination. To this he replies with "yām imām" etc. They speak of these flowery words, which are like a poisonous creeper - superficially attractive but ultimately harmful, as being the highest goal, referring to the scriptural promises of heavenly rewards. For those whose minds are captivated by such words, resolute determination in samādhi (meditation) does not arise. This connects with the third verse. Why do they speak thus? Because they are avipaścitaḥ (foolish). The reason for this is that they are veda-vāda-ratāḥ (attached to the ritualistic portions of the Vedas). In the Vedas there are vādāḥ (statements) like "The merit of one who performs the four-month vow never perishes" and "We have drunk soma and become immortal". They are attached only to these. Therefore, they are prone to saying that there is nothing higher to be attained beyond this, no supreme reality.
Thus they are kāmātmānaḥ (full of desires), with minds agitated by desires. For them, svarga (heaven) is the highest goal. It bestows birth, actions, and their fruits. They speak of many specific rituals as means to attain enjoyment and power.
Consequently, for those who are attached to enjoyment and power, whose minds are carried away by these flowery words, samādhi (one-pointed concentration of mind, or being oriented towards the Supreme Lord) does not arise. The resolute intellect is not produced in them. This is the meaning.
Madhusūdana: One might ask why even those without determination do not develop resolute determination, since the evidence is the same for all. To answer this, he explains that due to the presence of obstacles, it does not arise, saying "yām imām" in three verses. He explains why this is so by mentioning "bhogaiśvarya-gatim prati kriyā-viśeṣa-bahulām". It refers to the enjoyments like drinking nectar, sporting with Urvaśī, the fragrance of the pārijāta flower, etc., and the power that causes these, such as lordship over gods. The specific rituals that are means to attain these, like agnihotra, darśa, pūrṇamāsa, jyotiṣṭoma, etc., are abundant in it. It is well-known that the karma-kāṇḍa (ritual portion) is much more extensive everywhere compared to the jñāna-kāṇḍa (knowledge portion).
They declare such speech, which is the karma-kāṇḍa, as supreme, accepting it as giving the ultimate fruits like heaven. Who are they? Those who are avipaścitaḥ (lacking discrimination), devoid of understanding gained through inquiry. Hence they are veda-vāda-ratāḥ (attached to the ritualistic statements in the Vedas) like "The merit of one who performs the four-month vow never perishes". They are satisfied with the false belief that this alone is the truth of the Vedas. O Pārtha! Therefore they say there is nothing else, meaning there is no jñāna-kāṇḍa apart from the karma-kāṇḍa, as the entire Veda is concerned with action, and there is no fruit superior to the fruits of karma. They speak at length against the jñāna-kāṇḍa.
Why do they dislike liberation? Because they are kāmātmānaḥ (full of desires), their minds overwhelmed by hundreds of desired objects. Being so, why don't they desire liberation too? Because they are svarga-parāḥ (considering heaven as the highest), thinking there is no goal beyond heaven. Lacking discrimination and detachment, they cannot even tolerate talk of liberation.
For those who are attached to the aforementioned enjoyment and power, due to not seeing the defects like impermanence etc., whose inner faculties are fixed, whose discriminative knowledge of the mind is stolen and covered by that special type of action-delusion speech, for those who are thus, the arthavādas (explanatory passages) are for the purpose of praise. It is well-known that in a subject matter not contradicted by other means of knowledge, the Veda has authority. But for those who are unable to know even this well-known fact, in samādhi (concentration), a resolute intellect is not produced in the inner organ. This is the meaning. Or, a resolute intellect regarding the object of samādhi does not arise for them, as the locative case ending can refer to both the substratum and the object. The passive voice is used in "vidhīyate". Samādhi is not an unfamiliar concept, as it is derived from "that in which everything is placed", and can refer to the inner organ or the supreme Self. In the interpretation that a resolute intellect conducive to the state of "I am Brahman" does not arise, only the conventional meaning is respected.
This is the idea: Although desirable rituals like the agnihotra (fire sacrifice) are not superior to those meant for purification, they do not accomplish purification of intent due to the defect of desire for results. Purification in accordance with enjoyment is not conducive to knowledge. To show this, "those attached to enjoyment and power" is mentioned again. But when performed without desire for results, they produce purification conducive to knowledge. Thus the difference in results for the wise and unwise is established. This will be explained in detail later. ||42-44||
Viśvanātha: Therefore, he speaks of those without resolve, desiring-action-performers as extremely dull in "yām imām". "Flowery speech" means seemingly delightful like fruitlessness. Those who emphatically declare "This alone is the preeminent Vedic speech", whose minds are stolen by that speech - for them a resolute intellect is not produced. This connects with the third verse. Because it is impossible for them, it is not taught to them. This is the meaning. Why? Because they are unwise fools. The reason for this: The arthavādas in the Vedas like "The merit of one who performs the four-month sacrifice becomes inexhaustible" and "We have drunk the Soma, we have become immortal". Those who chatter that there is no other reality than God - what kind of speech do they proclaim? That which bestows the results of birth and actions, gives abundantly the special actions for attaining enjoyment and power. ||42-43||
And thus, for those attached to enjoyment and power, whose minds are stolen, drawn by that flowery speech. For them, samādhi which is one-pointedness of mind, focus solely on the Supreme Lord - in that, resolute intellect is not produced. This is a passive construction. The idea is that it does not arise. Thus according to Swami's words. ||44||
Baladeva: If one objects that they should have resolute intellect due to equality of scripture, he says it does not arise due to mental defects in three verses starting with "yām". The unwise with little knowledge proclaim this speech like "One desiring heaven should perform the Jyotiṣṭoma sacrifice" etc., imagining "This alone is the preeminent Vedic speech". For those whose minds are stolen by that speech, in samādhi which is the mind, resolute intellect is not produced, does not arise. This is to be supplied. What kind of speech? He says - "flowery". Like a blossoming poisonous creeper, seemingly attractive but fruitless. Why do they speak thus? He says "In the Vedas". The arthavādas in the Vedas like "We have drunk the Soma, we have become immortal" and "The merit of one who performs the four-month sacrifice becomes inexhaustible" - delighting only in these, believing "This must be so since the Veda speaks truth". Therefore, there is nothing else, no supreme knowledge of the individual soul's portion or liberation characterized by unsurpassed eternal bliss to be attained other than the fruits of action like heaven. The Vedānta statements teaching that are subsidiary to action, its performer and deity, being one with them. This is their nature of speech. ||42||
He describes the mental defect: Kāmātmānaḥ (desire-natured) means those whose minds are seized by impressions of sensual pleasures. If so, why don't they desire such liberation? He says "heaven". For whom heaven alone with its nectar and celestial nymphs etc. is supreme. Being seized by such impressions, they speak of nothing else. "Birth and action" means birth characterized by connection with body and senses, action prescribed for various castes and life-stages, and fruits like perishable animals, food, heaven etc. It abundantly and continuously gives these. The special actions like Jyotiṣṭoma for attaining enjoyment and power are abundant in that speech they proclaim. This connects with the previous. Enjoyment means drinking nectar, celestial nymphs etc. Power means lordship over gods etc. ||43||
Baladeva: "Bhoga" etc. - For those attached to the aforementioned enjoyment and power, due to non-manifestation of the defect of impermanence, absorbed in those two, whose discriminative knowledge of the mind is stolen by that flowery speech. For such people, in samādhi - since it is derived as "that in which the truth of the Self is properly placed", samādhi means the mind. This is the meaning. ||44||
(2.45)
The Vedas deal with the three guṇas (qualities). O Arjuna, be free from the three guṇas, free from the pairs of opposites, ever established in pure sattva (goodness), free from acquisition and preservation, and possessed of the Self.
Śrīdhara: If heaven and other such things are not the highest fruit, then why do the Vedas prescribe actions as means to attain them? To this he says "The Vedas deal with the three guṇas." The Vedas, which explain the connection between actions and their fruits, are for those eligible aspirants who are full of desires and composed of the three guṇas. But you should be free from the three guṇas, free from desires. He states the means for this - "free from the pairs of opposites." The pairs of opposites are couples like pleasure-pain, hot-cold, etc. Be free from them. The meaning is to endure them. How? To this he says by "ever established in pure sattva." The meaning is by resorting to steadiness. Also "free from acquisition and preservation." Acquisition is obtaining what is not obtained; preservation is maintaining what is obtained. Be free from these. "Possessed of the Self" means vigilant. For one who is agitated by the pairs of opposites and engaged in acquisition and preservation, and who is negligent, transcendence of the three guṇas is not possible.
Madhusūdana: For those with desires, resolute understanding may not arise due to the fault of intention. But for those without desires who perform actions with resolute understanding, the obstruction to knowledge in the form of attaining heaven and other fruits due to the nature of action is the same. Anticipating this doubt, he says "The Vedas deal with the three guṇas." The activity of the three guṇas is traiguṇya, the cycle of rebirth rooted in desire. The Vedas, in the form of the karma-kāṇḍa (ritual portion), have this as their subject matter in the sense of illuminating it. They teach the particular fruit only to one who desires that fruit. The meaning is that even though there is an injunction "For all desires, one should perform the darśa and pūrṇamāsa sacrifices," the attainment of all fruits does not occur from a single performance due to the absence of desire for all those fruits. It is established in the Yogasiddhi section that in that application, one obtains only that fruit for which one performs the action with desire. Since in the absence of desires there is absence of fruit, therefore you should be free from the three guṇas, free from desires. O Arjuna! By this, rebirth due to the nature of action is refuted.
But since clothing etc. is required as a remedy for cold, heat and other pairs of opposites, how can there be desirelessness? To this he says "free from the pairs of opposites." "In all situations" is to be connected. Following the principle stated in "Sense contacts..." be tolerant of the pairs of opposites like cold and heat. One whose sattva is overpowered by rajas and tamas, thinking "I will die" due to the pain of cold and heat etc., turns away from dharma. But you should overpower rajas and tamas and be established in pure sattva.
But even while enduring cold and heat etc., something unacquired needs to be acquired and something acquired needs to be protected as a remedy for hunger, thirst etc. So how can there be establishment in sattva when effort is made for that? To this he says "free from acquisition and preservation." Acquisition is obtaining what is not obtained; preservation is protecting what is obtained. Be free from these. The meaning is to be free from possessions that cause distraction of the mind. And one should not worry "How will I survive in this way?" Because the supreme Lord who is the inner controller of all will take care of your acquisition, preservation etc. Therefore he says "possessed of the Self." One who has the supreme Self as the object of meditation and as the caretaker of acquisition, preservation etc. is possessed of the Self. The meaning is to be free from anxiety, being certain that "The Lord himself will provide just what is required for sustaining the body for one who worships him by renouncing all desires." Or "possessed of the Self" means vigilant.
Viśvanātha says: You should renounce the means for achieving the four goals of life and take shelter of bhakti-yoga alone. He says this in the verse beginning with "traiguṇya".
The Vedas, whose subjects are the three guṇas (qualities of material nature), deal with karma (ritualistic activities), jñāna (speculative knowledge) and so on, which are composed of the three guṇas. This is stated according to the principle "Designations are made according to the majority."
However, only bhakti leads one to Him. This is stated in śrutis (revealed scriptures) like "One who has supreme devotion to God, as well as to the spiritual master..." The smṛtis (remembered scriptures) like Pañcarātra and Upaniṣads like Gītopaniṣad, Gopāla-tāpanī also deal with nirguṇā bhakti (devotion beyond the material modes). If bhakti were not mentioned in the Vedas, it would not be authoritative.
Therefore, transcend the Vedic injunctions for jñāna and karma which are composed of the three guṇas. Do not perform them. However, fully carry out the Vedic injunctions for bhakti. In performing them:
"Devotional service to Lord Hari that ignores the authorized Vedic literatures like the Upaniṣads, Purāṇas and Nārada Pañcarātra is simply an unnecessary disturbance in society."
This fault is indeed unavoidable. Therefore, both those in the modes of nature and those who have transcended them have Vedic subjects that are composed of the three guṇas and those that are beyond the three guṇas. You should be beyond the three guṇas. Transcend those [injunctions] composed of the three guṇas through my nirguṇā bhakti alone. Thus be free from duality, devoid of honor and dishonor arising from the guṇas. Therefore he is like that - he remains only with the eternal living entities who are my devotees. If it is explained as "Always remain fixed in the mode of goodness", it would contradict the explanation "Be beyond the three guṇas".
Yoga means obtaining what is unattained, and kṣema means protecting what is obtained. He is free from these due to being controlled by relishing the taste of devotion to me. "I carry what my devotees lack and preserve what they have" - because I, who am affectionate to my devotees, carry that burden. ātmavān means endowed with intelligence given by me.
Here is an analysis of what is beyond the three guṇas and what is within them. As stated in the Eleventh Canto:
"That activity performed as an offering to Me, without desire for fruitive results, is considered to be in the mode of goodness. Work performed with the desire to enjoy the results is in the mode of passion. And work impelled by violence and envy is in the mode of ignorance." [Bhāgavata Purāṇa 11.25.23]
niṣphalam vā means occasional religious duties performed without desire for their fruits.
"Knowledge of the self without any material tinge is in the mode of goodness. Knowledge based on duality is in the mode of passion, knowledge based on materialistic conceptions is in the mode of ignorance, and knowledge based on Me is transcendental.
Residence in the forest is in the mode of goodness, residence in a town is in the mode of passion, residence in a gambling house displays the quality of ignorance, and residence in a place where I reside is transcendental.
A worker free from attachment is in the mode of goodness, a worker blinded by personal desire is in the mode of passion, a worker who has lost his sense of discrimination is in the mode of ignorance, and a worker who has taken shelter of Me is transcendental.
Faith directed toward spiritual life is in the mode of goodness, faith rooted in fruitive work is in the mode of passion, faith residing in irreligious activities is in the mode of ignorance, but faith in My devotional service is purely transcendental.
Food that is wholesome, pure and obtained without difficulty is in the mode of goodness, food that gives immediate pleasure to the senses is in the mode of passion, and food that is unclean and causes distress is in the mode of ignorance.
Happiness derived from the self is in the mode of goodness, happiness based on sense gratification is in the mode of passion, happiness based on delusion and degradation is in the mode of ignorance, and happiness based on Me is transcendental." [Bhāgavata Purāṇa 11.25.24-29]
With this text, it is stated that even for one in whom the three modes are somehow present, victory over the three modes through bhakti is also described immediately afterwards:
"O gentle Uddhava, all these - material substance, place, result of activity, time, knowledge, work, the performer of work, faith, state of consciousness, species of life and destination after death - are considered to be manifestations of My potency in the form of the modes of nature.
All states of being - be they of human beings, demigods, animals or plants - are produced by the modes of material nature, which flow from the potency of the Supreme Lord. This material world is thus the manifestation of the real as perceived by the intelligence.
O best among men, the material mind of men is shaped by the reactions of the modes of nature into different mentalities, and according to these mentalities, there exist different occupations, goals of life, and fields of knowledge.
A person who has conquered the false ego based on the three modes and material designations can give up all mental concoctions and subtle coverings generated by the modes. When freed from all material designations, he transcends the stage of material contemplation. Becoming free from all designations, he attains the absolute person." [Bhāgavata Purāṇa 11.25.30-32]
Therefore, victory over the three modes is only through transcendental bhakti, not otherwise. Here also, in response to the question "How does one transcend these three modes?", it will be said:
"One who engages in full devotional service, unfailing in all circumstances, at once transcends the modes of material nature and thus comes to the level of Brahman." [Bhagavad-gītā 14.26]
The explanation of Śrī Svāmī Caraṇa is: The word ca here means "only". "One who serves only Me, the Supreme Lord, with undeviating devotional service" - this is the meaning. [45]
Baladeva: If it is argued that even those performing actions without expectation of results would be connected to their natural fruits, and thus how could that understanding arise, to that he replies with "traiguṇya" (pertaining to the three guṇas). Traiguṇya means the action of the three guṇas. According to the grammatical rule "guṇa-vacana-brāhmaṇādibhyaḥ karmaṇi ca" [Pāṇini 5.1.124], it means having desires. The Vedas dealing with that subject are the karma-kāṇḍas (ritual portions). But you should be established in the Vedānta, which is the pinnacle of that, free from the three guṇas, and desireless.
The meaning is this: The Veda, affectionate like millions of fathers, reveals fruits to those who are averse to the eternal Lord, bound by the guṇas of māyā (illusion), and attached to the sāttvika (mode of goodness) and other pleasures created by those guṇas, accommodating their desires, and thus instills faith in itself. Through that faith, those who study it attain that understanding through the certainty of the true nature revealed in the Upaniṣads, which are its pinnacle. And those fruits would not befall those who do not desire them, as it is heard that they are fruits only for those who desire them. And it is not that all the Vedas deal only with the three guṇas, as that would lead to the invalidity of being free from the three guṇas.
If it is argued that one should endure the dualities like heat and cold for their removal, as stated in "mātrāsparśās tu kaunteya" (sense objects, O son of Kunti), etc., the reason given is "nitya" (eternal). Nitya means the unchanging nature of the soul; be established in that and contemplate on that. Thus, be free from yoga and kṣema (acquisition and preservation). Yoga means obtaining what is not obtained, and kṣema means preserving what is obtained; be free from these.
If it is argued that hunger and thirst would still be troublesome, to that he replies with "ātmavān" (self-possessed). Ātmā means viśvambhara (the supporter of the universe), the Supreme Soul; one who has that as the object of meditation should become like that. The meaning is that He will provide for your bodily sustenance. ||45||
(2.46)
To the extent that there is purpose in a well when water is flooding everywhere,
To that extent there is purpose in all the Vedas for a brāhmaṇa (brahmin) who understands.
Śrīdhara: Now, one might doubt that the buddhiḥ (intellect) focused on worshipping Īśvara (God) by renouncing various fruits mentioned in the Vedas is indeed a kubuddhiḥ (wrong intellect). To address this doubt, he says "yāvān" etc. Udapānam (water reservoir) is that in which water is drunk, such as a pond, well, tank, etc. In that, due to the impossibility of fulfilling the entire purpose in one small body of water, to the extent that there is purpose such as bathing, drinking, etc. by moving around to different places, to that extent all purposes are fulfilled in one place in water that floods everywhere, as in a great lake. Similarly, to the extent that there is purpose in the form of fruits of various actions in all the Vedas, to that extent all purposes are fulfilled for a brāhmaṇa (brahmin) who understands, who is endowed with vyavasāyātmikā buddhiḥ (resolute intellect), who is established in Brahman. This is because lesser joys are included in the bliss of Brahman. As the śruti (scripture) says, "Other beings live on a small portion of this bliss." Therefore, this alone is subuddhiḥ (right intellect). This is the meaning. ||46||
Madhusūdana: One should not doubt thinking, "By renouncing all desires and performing actions, I would be deprived of the joys produced by those actions." Because, "yāvān" etc. Udapāne (in a well) means in a small water body. The singular is used for the class. To the extent that there is purpose, such as bathing, drinking, etc., in water that floods everywhere, in a large water body, to that extent the purpose is indeed fulfilled. Just as mountain streams flowing from all directions meet at one place in a valley, and the water purpose that is produced individually is even more fulfilled in the collective, because all the streams are included in one pond. Similarly, to the extent that there is purpose in all the Vedas, in the desire-motivated actions prescribed by the Vedas, up to the bliss of Hiraṇyagarbha (the cosmic soul), to that extent it is indeed fulfilled for a brāhmaṇa (brahmin) who understands, who has realized the essence of Brahman, who desires to know Brahman. This is because lesser joys are parts of the bliss of Brahman, being included in it. As the śruti (scripture) says, "Other beings live on a small portion of this bliss." Even one bliss, taking on the limitations of various conditions imagined by ignorance, is designated as having parts, just as space is imagined to be limited by pots, etc.
Thus, for you whose inner organ has been purified by desireless actions, upon the rise of self-knowledge, the attainment of the bliss of supreme Brahman would occur, and in the attainment of all bliss, there is no opportunity for anxiety caused by the attainment of lesser joys. Therefore, perform desireless actions for the sake of knowledge of reality, which leads to the attainment of supreme bliss. This is the intention. Here, in the example, the addition of the three words "yathā tathā bhavati" (as it is) and the connection of the two words "yāvān tāvān" (to the extent) should be seen in the object of comparison. ||46||
Viśvanātha: What can be said about the greatness of devotional service (bhaktiyoga) which is free from desire (niṣkāma) and beyond the material modes (nirguṇa), the mere beginning of which is not subject to destruction or adverse effects? Even a small amount brings fulfillment - this will also be told to Uddhava in the Eleventh Canto:
"O Uddhava, even a slight beginning of My dharma (mad-dharmasya) is never subject to destruction (dhvaṁsaḥ), because I have perfectly established it to be free from material qualities (nirguṇatvāt) and devoid of selfish motivation (anāśiṣaḥ)." [Bhā.Pu. 11.29.20]
However, devotional service with desires (sa-kāma bhakti-yogaḥ) is also referred to by the term "resolute intelligence" (vyavasāyātmikā buddhiḥ). He demonstrates this with an example in "yāvān". "Udapāna" is in the singular, referring to the class of wells. "Yāvān arthaḥ" means some wells are for cleansing purposes, some for washing teeth, some for washing clothes, some for cleaning hair, some for bathing, some for drinking - thus all purposes served by all wells are fulfilled by a single large body of water, without the effort of going to different wells. Moreover, well water may be tasteless while lake water is sweet - this distinction should also be noted. Similarly, whatever purposes are served by worshiping various deities in all the Vedas, all those are served for a wise brāhmaṇa (vijānataḥ brāhmaṇasya) by worshiping the Supreme Lord alone. A brāhmaṇa is one who knows the Vedas, but here it refers to one who especially knows devotional service as the essence of the Vedas. As stated in the Second Canto:
"One who desires spiritual power should worship the master of the Vedas; one who desires sense gratification should worship Indra; one who desires progeny should worship Prajāpati." [Bhā.Pu. 2.3.2]
"One who desires material opulence should worship divine Māyā," and so on.
"Whether one is without desire, full of all desires, or seeking liberation, one should worship the Supreme Person through intense devotional service." [Bhā.Pu. 2.3.10]
The intensity of devotional service refers to its being unmixed with knowledge, karma, etc., like the intensity of sunlight unmixed with clouds. Here, fulfilling many desires through many means implies having many objects of thought. Fulfilling all desires through the one Supreme Lord alone implies having only one object of thought, which is known to be superior due to the excellence of that object. [46]
Baladeva: How can one's intelligence develop by studying all the Vedas, which takes much time and may cause distraction? He addresses this in "yāvān". "Sarvataḥ samplutodake" means in an extensive body of water, all the purposes of bathing, drinking etc. for those desiring them are fulfilled. Similarly, for a brāhmaṇa studying the Vedas with Upaniṣads and desiring to attain self-knowledge, whatever purpose of attaining that knowledge would be served by all of them is fulfilled by them. Thus, by studying just one's own branch with Upaniṣads, that can be quickly achieved and one's intelligence can develop. In this analogy, the words "yāvān" and "tāvān" should also be applied to the object of comparison. [46]
(2.47)
You have the right to perform actions only, never to their fruits at any time.
Do not be motivated by the fruits of actions, nor be attached to inaction.
Śrīdhara: Therefore, thinking "All the fruits of actions will come only from worshipping the Supreme Lord", one should engage. Anticipating the question "What is the use of action?", he says "karmaṇy eva" to prevent that. Your right, as one seeking knowledge of truth, is in action alone. There should be no desire for its fruits. Objection: When action is performed, its fruit will definitely occur, just as satisfaction occurs when food is eaten. Anticipating this objection, he says "mā". Do not be the cause of the fruits of action. Do not become one whose motive for engaging is the fruit of action. The meaning is that fruit which is not desired will not occur, since only desired things like heaven etc. have the quality of being fruits as qualifications of what is enjoined. Therefore, fearing that fruit will be binding, you should also not have attachment to inaction, i.e. non-performance of action.
Madhusūdana: Objection: If attainment of supreme bliss is accomplished by gaining self-knowledge through desireless actions, then self-knowledge alone should be cultivated. What is the use of many laborious actions that are external means? Anticipating this objection, he says "karmaṇy eva". You, whose inner organ is impure and unfit for the arising of true knowledge, should have the understanding "This should be done by me" only regarding action that purifies the inner organ, not regarding contemplation on Vedānta statements etc. which is the form of steadfastness in knowledge. And while performing action, you should never at any time, before, during or after the performance of action, have the understanding "This should be enjoyed by me" regarding its fruits like heaven etc.
Objection: Even without the idea "This should be enjoyed by me", action will produce fruit by its own power. If not, he says "mā karma-phala-hetur bhūḥ". One who performs action with desire for fruit becomes the producer of the cause of fruit. But you, being desireless, do not become the cause of the fruits of action. Action done with the idea of offering to the Lord by one who is desireless is not fit for producing fruit, as stated. If there is no fruit, what is the use of action? To this he says "mā te saṅgo'stv akarmaṇi". If fruit is not desired, you should not have attachment to non-performance of action, thinking "What is the use of painful action?"
Viśvanātha: Thus, aiming at Arjuna alone, his dear friend, desiring to teach the paths of knowledge, devotion and action, having taught knowledge and devotion and considering Arjuna unqualified for those, the Lord speaks about desireless action in "karmaṇi". In "mā phaleṣu" - Even those desiring fruits become extremely pure-hearted. But you are already mostly pure-hearted, knowing this I speak to you - this is the meaning.
Objection: When action is performed, fruit will definitely occur. To this he says "mā karma-phala-hetur bhūḥ". One who performs action with desire for fruit becomes the producer of the cause of fruit. But you should not be like that - this blessing is given by me, is the meaning. You should not have attachment to inaction, non-performance of duty, or prohibited action, but rather you should have aversion - this blessing is given again. Here, seeing Arjuna's statement in the next chapter "You confuse my intelligence with mixed words", it should be understood that in this chapter not much connection with introductions to previous and later statements is intended. But this should be seen as the mutual inclination of the minds of Krishna and Arjuna - "Just as I stand by your order in charioteering etc., so you also stand by my order."
Baladeva: Objection: If knowledge is desired to be accomplished by actions, then practices like tranquility etc. being more internal should be performed. What is the use of those many laborious [external actions]? To this he says "karmaṇy eva". The singular is used for the class. You, whose mind is impure due to the idea of unrighteousness even in your own duty of fighting, should for now have authority only in actions like fighting etc. You should not have authority in their fruits which are binding, thinking "These should be enjoyed by me".
Objection: Even without desire for fruit, they would unite with their fruits. To this he says "mā karma". You should not be the cause, the producer of the fruits of actions. Actions done with desire unite with their fruits, since only desired fruits are stated to be fruits as qualifications of what is enjoined. Therefore, fearing that binding fruits will befall, you should not have attachment, liking for inaction, non-performance of action, but rather you should have aversion - this is the meaning. Actions performed without desire will produce steadfastness in knowledge internally like a seed-bearing plant. Tranquility etc. will occur just clinging to its back - this is the idea.
(2.48)
Established in yoga, perform actions, abandoning attachment, O Dhanañjaya (Arjuna),
Remaining equal in success and failure - this equanimity is called yoga.
Śrīdhara: What then? "Established in yoga" means yoga is single-minded devotion to the Supreme Lord. Established in that, perform actions. Also, abandoning attachment, the obsession with being the doer, perform actions solely taking refuge in the Lord. Remaining equal in the success or failure of its fruit, knowledge, perform actions solely taking refuge in the Lord. Because such equanimity is indeed called yoga by the wise, as it consists of steadiness of mind.
Madhusūdana: He elaborates on what was stated earlier with "Established in yoga". O Dhanañjaya (Arjuna), being established in yoga, abandoning attachment, desire for fruits and obsession with being the doer, perform actions. Here, the plural "actions" indicates your duty is only in action, while the singular in "duty is in action alone" refers to the class. He states the means to abandon attachment: "Remaining equal in success and failure" - abandoning joy in success and dejection in failure of results, perform actions solely with the attitude of worshipping the Lord.
Now, previously "yoga" referred to action. But here it says "Established in yoga, perform actions." So how can this be understood? Therefore he says "This equanimity is called yoga." This equanimity in success and failure that is mentioned here by the word "yoga" in "established in yoga" - not action - so there is no contradiction. Here the latter half explains the first half, so there is no redundancy - this is the commentator's approach. In "Having made pleasure and pain the same", equality in victory and defeat was stated as the duty is only to fight, as that was the context. But here the special point is the duty to perform all actions by renouncing all seen and unseen fruits.
Viśvanātha: He teaches the method of desireless action with "Established in yoga". The meaning is: Having equal understanding of victory and defeat, perform only battle as your duty. This desireless karma yoga indeed transforms into jñāna yoga (the yoga of knowledge). Jñāna yoga should also be understood thus from the purport of the preceding and following verses.
Baladeva: He clarifies what was stated earlier with "Established in yoga". Abandoning attachment - desire for fruits and obsession with being the doer - being established in yoga, perform actions like fighting, etc. By the first, one is immersed in māyā (illusion). By the second, one steals the quality of independence belonging to the Supreme Lord. Thus māyā is disturbed by that. So both should be abandoned - this is the meaning. He explains the term "established in yoga" with "In success and failure". Remaining equal - free from attraction and aversion - in the success or failure of their associated results like victory etc., perform actions. This very equanimity is what I have called "yoga" here in "established in yoga", as it consists of steadiness of mind.
(2.49)
Action performed with selfish motives is far inferior to action performed with spiritual understanding, O Dhanañjaya. Seek refuge in spiritual understanding. Those who are motivated by fruits of action are pitiable.
Śrīdhara: He says that selfish action is extremely inferior in the verse beginning with "dūreṇa". Action yoga performed with resolute understanding, or the yoga of understanding which is the means to understanding - compared to that, other means-like selfish action is far inferior and extremely base. Since this is so, seek refuge in understanding, in knowledge; practice karma yoga (selfless action). Or it means: Take refuge in understanding, in the Lord who is the protector. Those desiring fruits, selfish people, are pitiable and wretched. As the scripture says: "He who departs from this world without knowing the Imperishable, O Gārgī, is pitiable." (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.8.10)
Madhusūdana: One may ask: Is the performance of action itself the goal of human life, that it is said it should always be done without expectation of fruits? For even a fool does not engage in action without aiming at some purpose. So is it not better to perform action with desire for fruits? No, he answers with the verse beginning "dūreṇa". Action that is far inferior to buddhi-yoga (yoga of understanding), which is the means to self-realization, is action performed with desire for fruits, which leads to birth and death. Or, all action is far inferior to the yoga of understanding the Supreme Self. Therefore, O Dhanañjaya, seek refuge in understanding, in the realization of the Supreme Self which removes all misfortune; seek to perform selfless action which is protective by destroying obstructing sins. Those who are motivated by fruits, who perform inferior actions with desire for results, are pitiable - always subject to others' control through the cycle of birth and death, extremely wretched. As the scripture says: "He who departs from this world without knowing the Imperishable, O Gārgī, is pitiable." (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.8.10) So you too should not become pitiable, but rather practice selfless action which removes all misfortune and leads to self-knowledge. Just as miserly people, earning wealth with great difficulty, cheat themselves of experiencing great joy from charity etc. out of greed for mere visible pleasures, similarly those who perform actions with great difficulty cheat themselves of experiencing supreme bliss out of greed for petty fruits - alas, what misfortune and foolishness of theirs! This is suggested by the word "pitiable".
Viśvanātha: He condemns selfish action in the verse beginning with "dūreṇa". Inferior means extremely base selfish action. [It is far inferior] to buddhi-yoga, selfless action offered to the Supreme Lord. Buddhi-yoga means the yoga of understanding, which is selfless action.
Baladeva: Now he states the inferiority of selfish action in the verse beginning with "dūreṇa". Action is far inferior to buddhi-yoga, O Dhanañjaya. The meaning is: Selfish action, which leads to misfortunes like birth and death, is extremely inferior and far removed from selfless action, which is the means to understanding the true nature of the self. Since this is so, you should seek refuge in understanding, in the knowledge of its true nature; practice selfless action. Those who are motivated by fruits, who perform inferior actions desiring results, are pitiable - subject to the flow of those fruits, births, actions etc., wretched. So you should not become pitiable. Here it is suggested: Just as the miserly, greedy for a little visible pleasure from wealth earned with difficulty, are unable to give and are cheated of the great joy of charity, similarly those who perform difficult actions, greedy for their paltry fruits, are cheated of the great joy of the self.
(2.50)
The one endowed with wisdom abandons here both good and evil deeds. Therefore, apply yourself to yoga. Yoga is skill in actions. [50]
Śrīdhara: He says that the one endowed with buddhi-yoga (wisdom-based yoga) is superior in "buddhi-yukta" (endowed with wisdom). Sukṛta (good deed) leads to heaven, etc. Duṣkṛta (evil deed) leads to hell, etc. He abandons both of these here in this very life through the grace of the Supreme Lord. Therefore, apply yourself to yoga, for that purpose, to karma-yoga (yoga of action). Strive for it. For yoga is skill in actions. For one engaged in actions known as one's own duty, the equanimous attitude towards success and failure, with mind dedicated to the Lord - that is skill, the state of expertise. That indeed is skill when even actions that are inherently binding cease to be so through an equanimous attitude. Therefore, become endowed with equanimous wisdom. [50]
Madhusūdana: Having thus stated the fault in the absence of buddhi-yoga (wisdom-based yoga) and the virtue in its presence, he says in "buddhi" (wisdom). Here in actions, one endowed with wisdom, united with equanimous understanding, abandons, gives up both good and evil deeds, merit and sin, through the purification of being and attainment of knowledge. Since it is so, therefore apply yourself to, strive for, be devoted to the yoga of equanimous understanding. Because such yoga of equanimous understanding is skill, the state of expertise, for one engaged in actions with mind dedicated to the Lord, which is the non-existence of even actions that are causes of bondage and their culmination in liberation - that is great skill.
Karma-yoga (yoga of action) endowed with equanimous understanding, though consisting of action, destroys evil actions and is thus highly skillful. But you are not skillful since, though conscious, you do not destroy evil of the same kind - this contrast is suggested here. Or, when action endowed with equanimous understanding is performed here, through the purification of being, one endowed with wisdom, having direct realization of the Supreme Self, abandons both good and evil deeds. Therefore, apply yourself to karma-yoga (yoga of action) endowed with equanimous understanding. Because among actions, karma-yoga endowed with equanimous understanding is skill, skillful, adept at preventing evil actions - this is the meaning. [50]
Viśvanātha: Apply yourself to, strive for yoga with the characteristics mentioned. Because among actions, both interested and disinterested, yoga alone is the performance of action with indifference. Kauśalam (skill) means expertise - this is the meaning. [50]
Baladeva: He states the power of the buddhi-yoga (wisdom-based yoga) mentioned in "buddhi" (wisdom). Here in actions, one who is endowed with wisdom, united with understanding related to renouncing the primary fruit and equanimity towards success and failure of incidental fruits, and performs those actions, he abandons, destroys both good and evil deeds accumulated since beginningless time, which obstruct knowledge - this is the meaning. Therefore, apply yourself to, strive for the buddhi-yoga (wisdom-based yoga) mentioned. Because karma-yoga (yoga of action) is connected with such understanding. And kauśalam (skill) means cleverness, because even binding actions, through connection with understanding, transform into liberating ones, like the analogy of purified mercury. [50]
(2.51)
The wise, endowed with understanding, renouncing the fruit born of action, freed from the bondage of birth, go to the place that is free from affliction.
Śrīdhara: He explains the way karma becomes the means of liberation in "karmajam" etc. Renouncing the fruit born of karma, performing actions solely for worshipping the Lord, becoming wise knowers, and being freed from bondage in the form of birth, they go to the place of Viṣṇu called liberation, which is free from all calamities.
Madhusūdana: Now, thinking that abandonment of evil deeds is required, not the abandonment of good deeds, as it would result in the loss of human goals, he states the result as attainment of the highest human goal by renouncing insignificant fruits in "karmajam" etc. Because those endowed with equanimity of mind, renouncing the fruit born of action, performing actions solely for worshipping the Lord, through purification of sattva, become wise possessing self-knowledge born from sentences like "That thou art". Being such, freed from bondage in the form of birth, completely liberated with the characteristic of finality, they reach the state to be attained, the essence of the self in the form of bliss, Brahman free from affliction, free from the disease of ignorance and its effects, called liberation, the human goal - they attain it in non-difference. This is the meaning.
Since thus, renouncing desire for fruits, performing actions with equanimity of mind, having their inner organs purified by those actions, possessing self-knowledge produced by valid means of knowledge like "That thou art" and its effects, they reach the highest abode of Viṣṇu called liberation, which is cessation of all misfortunes and attainment of supreme bliss. Therefore, you too, as one desiring to know what is beneficial, as stated in "Tell me decisively what would be beneficial for me" [Gītā 2.7], should practice such karma yoga - this is the Lord's intention.
Viśvanātha: Not explained.
Baladeva: In "karmajam" etc. - Those endowed with such understanding, renouncing the fruit born of action, performing actions, becoming wise possessing knowledge of the true nature of the self inherent in action, being freed from the bondage of birth, go to the place free from affliction, Vaikuṇṭha. Therefore, you too, as one desiring to know what is beneficial, should perform such actions - this is the purport. Since self-knowledge is the cause of knowledge of the Supreme Self, its being the cause of reaching that abode is proper.
(2.52)
When your intellect crosses over the dense forest of delusion, then you will attain indifference towards what is to be heard and what has been heard.
Śrīdhara: In response to the expectation "When will I attain that state?", he says "yadā" in two verses. Moha (delusion) is the notion of self in the body and other things. That itself is kalila (dense). "Kalila is known as dense," according to the lexicon. Thus, the meaning is: When your intellect, by the grace of the Supreme Lord through such worship of Him, will especially cross over the difficult, dense delusion characterized by identification with the body, then you will attain indifference, detachment towards what is to be heard and what has been heard. The meaning is that you will not have desire for them, considering them unworthy of acceptance.
Madhusūdana: Thus, to the question "When will my purity of being come about while performing actions?", he says "yadā". There is no fixed time limit for purity of being to occur. Rather, when, at whatever time, your intellect, the inner organ, will cross over the dense forest of delusion, will overcome the extremely dense impurity of non-discrimination manifesting as ignorance such as "I am this, this is mine", that is, when it will attain a pure state by removing the impurities of rajas and tamas - at that time you will attain indifference, dispassion towards what is to be heard and what has been heard, towards the fruits of action. As per the śruti: "Having examined the worlds gained by karma, a Brāhmaṇa should become indifferent" [MU 1.2.12]. The intention is that you will know the purity of the inner organ by the fruit of indifference.
Viśvanātha: Thus, saying that your yoga will come about through the practice of desireless action offered to the Supreme Lord, he says "yadā". When your intellect, the inner organ, will especially, excessively cross over the dense forest of delusion, then you will attain indifference towards what is to be heard among things to be heard and what has been heard among things heard, due to the destruction of doubt and misconception. You will think: "What use is hearing the instructive statements of scriptures for me? At present, practicing the means every moment is entirely appropriate for me." This is the meaning.
Baladeva: If you ask, "When will understanding about the self arise in me as I perform desireless actions?", he answers with "yadā". When your intellect, the inner organ, will cross over, that is, abandon the dense forest of delusion, the dense ignorance which is the cause of desire for trivial fruits - then you will attain, you will reach indifference towards that trivial fruit related to what was heard before and what is to be heard later. As it is heard: "Having examined the worlds gained by karma, a Brāhmaṇa becomes indifferent" [MU 1.2.12]. The meaning is that by the fruit of indifference, it will inquire about that [self]. Thus, there is no fixed time limit for this.
(2.53)
When your intellect, which was previously confused by hearing various worldly and Vedic matters in the scriptures, becomes unwavering and steady in samādhi (meditation on the Supreme Lord), then you will attain yoga.
Śrīdhara: Previously, your intellect was distracted by hearing various worldly and Vedic matters in the scriptures. When that intellect becomes steady in samādhi - the Supreme Lord in whom the mind is absorbed - unwavering and undistracted by other objects, and thus stable, then through practice and expertise, you will attain yoga, the fruit of yoga which is knowledge of reality.
Madhusūdana: For one who has developed dispassion through purification of the inner organ, when will knowledge be attained? In response to this expectation, it is said: Your intellect, which was previously distracted by hearing about various fruits in the scriptures without properly considering their purport, and thus full of various doubts and misconceptions, when it abandons that distraction through seeing faults generated by discrimination born of purity, and becomes steady in samādhi on the Supreme Self - free from the distraction characterized by waking and dream perceptions, and free from the instability characterized by deep sleep, fainting, stupor etc. - in other words, when it becomes absorbed after abandoning the faults of dissolution and distraction; or alternatively, when it becomes steady in the Self like a lamp in a windless place, free from doubt and contrary notions, unpolluted by heterogeneous thoughts through long-term, respectful, continuous, and devoted practice - then at that time you will attain yoga, which is the non-dual realization produced by statements like "Thou art That", the fruit of all yoga. Then, with nothing more to be achieved, you will become fulfilled and steady in wisdom - this is the intended meaning.
Viśvanātha: Then, dispassionate towards the various worldly and Vedic matters heard in the scriptures, unwilling to waver regarding those objects, but steady in samādhi as will be described in the sixth chapter, you will attain yoga through direct experience, meaning you will become liberated while living.
Baladeva: If you ask, "When will I directly realize the Self, having developed Self-knowledge through purification of heart obtained by performing actions with detachment from their fruits?" - in response it is said: When your intellect, which has become especially accomplished through the scripture proclaiming the knowledge-containing nature of actions in statements beginning "That this...", becomes unwavering, free from doubt and contrary notions, and remains steady in samādhi in the mind like a lamp's flame in a windless place, then you will attain yoga characterized by experience of the Self. The meaning is that actions performed without desire for fruits lead to steadiness in knowledge characterized by steady wisdom, and that steadiness in knowledge characterized by steady wisdom leads to experience of the Self.
(2.54)
Arjuna said:
O Keśava, what is the description of one with steady wisdom, situated in samādhi (deep meditation)? How does one of steady intelligence speak? How does he sit? How does he move?
Śrīdhara: Arjuna asks about the characteristics of one who knows the truth of the self, as mentioned in the previous verse, saying "of one with steady wisdom." What is the description of one whose wisdom or intelligence is steady and unwavering, who is established in natural samādhi? How is he described as having steady wisdom? Also, how does one of steady intelligence speak, sit, and move?
Madhusūdana: Thus, getting the opportunity, Arjuna asks to know the characteristics of one with steady wisdom, thinking that the very characteristics of the liberated-while-living are the means to liberation for aspirants. One whose wisdom is steady and unwavering in the realization "I am Brahman" is called steady in wisdom. He has two states - absorbed in samādhi and with an outward-turned mind. Therefore, he specifies: What is the description of one steady in wisdom who is absorbed in samādhi? How is one steady in wisdom who is absorbed in samādhi described by others?
And when that same person of steady wisdom has an outward-turned mind, how does he himself speak? How does he speak in situations of praise, blame, etc., showing signs of pleasure, aversion, etc.? Similarly, how does he sit, i.e., how does he control the external senses to restrain the outward-turned mind? When not restraining them, how does he move, i.e., how does he experience sense objects? In other words, how are his speaking, sitting, and moving different from those of deluded people?
Thus, there are four questions - one about the steady in wisdom absorbed in samādhi, and three about the steady in wisdom with an outward-turned mind. By addressing him as Keśava, he indicates that as the inner controller of all, you alone are capable of explaining such a secret.
Viśvanātha: Having heard that in samādhi the intellect is unmoving, he asks about the actual characteristics of a yogi with "of one with steady wisdom." What is the description? What are the characteristics? Of what kind of person? One situated in samādhi. The meaning is: Thus, "steady in wisdom" and "situated in samādhi" are two designations for one liberated while living. How does he speak? When pleasure and pain, honor and dishonor, praise and blame, or affection and aversion arise, what does he say? What does he speak clearly or to himself? How does he sit? How does his senses not move towards external objects? How does he move? Or how does he move among them?
Baladeva: Thus addressed, Arjuna asks to know the characteristics of one steady in wisdom mentioned in the previous verse, saying "of one with steady wisdom." Here there are four questions about one steady in wisdom - one about one absorbed in samādhi, and three about one with an outward-turned mind. Thus: What is the description of one whose wisdom or intelligence is steady, who is absorbed in samādhi? By what characteristics is one called steady in wisdom? Also, how does one steady in wisdom who has come out [of samādhi] perform speaking and other activities? How are his activities different from those of ordinary people? Regarding that, how does he speak? When praise and blame, or affection and aversion come to him, what does he say aloud or to himself? How does he sit? How does he control the senses regarding external objects? How does he move? How does he obtain sense objects when not restraining them? The potential mood is used for possibility in the three [last questions].
(2.55)
The Supreme Lord said:
O Pārtha, when a person completely abandons all desires residing in the mind and remains content in the self alone through the self, then he is said to be of steady wisdom.
Śrīdhara: Here, the spiritual practices that are means of knowledge for the seeker are themselves the natural characteristics of the perfected one. Therefore, while describing the characteristics of the perfected one, he is also explaining the inner means of knowledge up to the end of the chapter. He answers the first question with two verses beginning with "prajahāti". When one completely abandons the desires residing in the mind. He states the reason for abandonment with "ātmani". When one becomes content in the self alone, which is of the nature of supreme bliss, through one's own self - that is, when one becomes absorbed in the self and abandons desires for petty sense objects, then by that characteristic he is called a sage of steady wisdom.
Madhusūdana: The Lord answered these four questions in order from "prajahāti" up to the end of the chapter. When one completely abandons all desires without exception - desire-thoughts and other specific mental functions elaborated fivefold in other texts as valid cognition, misapprehension, imagination, sleep and memory - by removing their cause, that is, when one becomes devoid of all mental modifications, then he is said to be of steady wisdom. The implication is that he is established in samādhi (deep meditation). He states that desires are fit to be abandoned as they are not attributes of the self by saying "mano-gatān" (residing in the mind). If they were attributes of the self, they could not be abandoned, like the natural heat of fire. But these are attributes of the mind. Therefore, they can be abandoned by abandoning the mind.
Now, a special contentment indicated by a serene countenance is understood for one of steady wisdom. How can this exist when all desires are abandoned? He answers this: Content in the self alone which is of the nature of supreme bliss, not in the insignificant non-self; through the self which is self-luminous consciousness, not through mental modification; fully satisfied due to attaining the highest goal of human life. The śruti (scripture) also states:
"When all the desires that dwell in his heart are cast away, then does the mortal become immortal, and attains Brahman here." (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.3.14)
Thus, one established in samādhi (deep meditation) is described by such terms indicating the characteristics of one of steady wisdom. This is the answer to the first question.
Viśvanātha: He answers the four questions in order from "prajahāti" up to the end of the chapter. "All" means he has not even the slightest desire for any object. By saying "mano-gatān" (residing in the mind), he shows that desires are fit to be abandoned as they are not attributes of the self. If they were attributes of the self, they could not be abandoned, like the heat of fire. The reason for this is: Content with the bliss of the self attained in the mind withdrawn into the self. The śruti (scripture) also states:
"When all the desires that dwell in his heart are cast away, then does the mortal become immortal, and attains Brahman here." (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.3.14)
Baladeva: Thus asked, the Lord answers the four questions in order up to the end of the chapter. He answers the first with one verse beginning with "prajahāti". O Pārtha, when one completely abandons all desires residing in the mind, then he is said to be of steady wisdom. Abandonment of desires is appropriate as they are attributes of the mind. If they were attributes of the self, it would be very difficult to abandon them, like the heat of fire.
Now, if one asks how he remains like a dry piece of wood, he answers with "ātmany eva". Content through the self which is of the nature of self-luminous bliss, shining in the mind withdrawn into the self; that is, abandoning desires for petty sense objects and delighting in the bliss of the self, he is established in samādhi (deep meditation) and is of steady wisdom.
As the Medinīkāra states:
"Ātmā (self) can refer to a person, one's own nature, effort, mind, steadiness, intellect, body or Brahman."
Here, Brahman should be understood as referring to either the individual soul or the Supreme Lord.
(2.56)
One whose mind is not agitated in misfortunes, who is free from longing for pleasures, who is without attachment, fear and anger, is called a sage of steady wisdom.
Śrīdhara: Moreover, "in misfortunes" etc. One whose mind remains undisturbed even when misfortunes occur. One who is free from longing for pleasures. The reason for this is - one from whom attachment, fear and anger have departed. Here attachment means affection. Such a person is called a sage of steady wisdom.
Madhusūdana: Now the speech, sitting and walking of a person of steady wisdom who has risen above, which are different from those of deluded people, are to be explained. To answer "What should he speak?", he says "in misfortunes" in two verses. Misfortunes are of three types - those caused by grief, delusion, fever, headaches etc. which are ādhyātmika (relating to body and mind), those caused by tigers, snakes etc. which are ādhibhautika (relating to other beings), and those caused by excessive wind, rain etc. which are ādhidaivika (relating to nature and gods). When such misfortunes, which are particular mental states characterized by the transformation of rajas and resulting in distress, occur due to the fruition of past sinful karma, one whose mind does not become agitated due to inability to prevent the misfortune is called anudvigna-manāḥ (one with an undisturbed mind). For when misfortune befalls the unwise, a particular deluded mental state characterized by regret arises, called udvega (agitation), which is of the nature of tamas, thinking "Alas, I am sinful! Shame on me, a wicked person experiencing such misfortune! Who can remove this misfortune of mine?" If this were to occur at the time of committing sinful acts, it would be fruitful by preventing such acts. But occurring at the time of experiencing the result, when the effect cannot be prevented once the cause has occurred, it is purposeless and does not arise in a wise person of steady wisdom, being of the nature of delusion born of lack of discrimination, thinking "Why does misfortune befall me when the cause of misfortune exists?" For only the misfortune itself is produced by prārabdha karma, not the subsequent delusion also.
If it is argued that the delusion too is produced by another prārabdha karma, being the cause of further misfortune, that is not correct. For a person of steady wisdom, delusion is not possible due to the destruction of ignorance which is the material cause of delusion, and hence there is no prārabdha karma that can produce misfortune born of delusion. It will be explained later in detail that the fruit of prārabdha karma which merely sustains the body can continue even in the absence of delusion, by persisting though sublated.
Similarly, in pleasures, which are particular mental states characterized by joy that is a transformation of sattva, of three types, produced by prārabdha meritorious karma, he is free from longing, without desire for future pleasures of that kind. For longing is a particular deluded mental state of the nature of tamas, which is a vain desire for pleasure of that kind while experiencing pleasure, without performing the virtuous acts that are its cause. This arises only in the unwise. For an effect cannot occur in the absence of its cause. Therefore, just as a vain desire that an effect should not occur when its cause exists, which is a form of agitation, is not possible for the wise, similarly a vain desire that an effect should occur when its cause does not exist, which is a form of craving called spṛhā, is also not possible, since prārabdha karma produces only the pleasure itself.
Or the mental state of joy is referred to by the word spṛhā. That too is a delusion. It is a particular mental state of tamas characterized by elation, thinking "Oh how fortunate am I that such pleasure has come to me! Who is equal to me in the three worlds? By what means can such pleasure of mine not be lost?" Hence it is said in the commentary - "One who does not increase in pleasures like fire with the addition of fuel etc. is called vigata-spṛhaḥ (free from longing)." And it will be said - "One should neither rejoice on obtaining what is pleasant, nor become dejected on obtaining what is unpleasant." This too is not possible for the wise, being a delusion.
Similarly, vīta-rāga-bhaya-krodhaḥ (free from attachment, fear and anger). Rāga (attachment) is a particular mental state of coloring towards objects, based on the superimposition of beauty, characterized by excessive absorption. Bhaya (fear) is a particular mental state characterized by despondency, thinking oneself incapable of preventing the destroyer of the object of attachment when it appears. Similarly, krodha (anger) is a particular mental state characterized by burning, thinking oneself capable of preventing the destroyer of the object of attachment when it appears. One from whom all these have departed, being of the nature of error, is called thus. Such a muni (sage), one who is given to reflection, a sannyāsī (renunciate), is called sthita-prajña (one of steady wisdom). It is stated that a person of steady wisdom with these characteristics would speak words expressing freedom from agitation, desirelessness etc., revealing his own experience for the instruction of disciples. The implication is that other aspirants for liberation too should not be agitated in misfortune, should not rejoice in pleasure, and should be free from attachment, fear and anger.
Viśvanātha: Answering "What should he speak?", he says "in misfortunes" etc. One whose mind is not agitated in misfortunes like hunger, thirst, fever, headaches etc. which are ādhyātmika (relating to body and mind), or those arising from snakes, tigers etc., speaking to himself when asked by someone, or speaking clearly - "This misfortune produced by prārabdha karma must necessarily be experienced by me" - meaning he is not agitated in misfortunes. The absence of facial distortion itself is the sign of non-agitation to be understood by the intelligent. But one who displays artificial signs of non-agitation is a hypocrite, and is recognized by the intelligent as fallen - this is the idea. Similarly, in pleasures too when they arise, he is free from longing, speaking to himself or speaking clearly when asked by someone - "This produced by prārabdha karma must necessarily be experienced" - the sign of his freedom from desire for pleasure is to be understood by the intelligent - this is the idea. He clarifies those signs themselves by showing: One from whom rāga (attachment), which is fondness for pleasures and relatives, has departed. Just as the first Bharata, when brought to the side of the queen desiring to cut him off, had no fear of the outcaste king, nor anger towards him.
Baladeva: Now answering "What should a person of steady wisdom who has risen above speak?", he says "in misfortunes" in two verses. When the three types of misfortunes - ādhyātmika etc. - arise, one whose mind is not agitated, speaking to himself when asked by someone or not - "These fruits of prārabdha karma must necessarily be experienced by me" - meaning he is not agitated by them. And in pleasures, when they arise through excellent food, honors etc., one who is free from longing, devoid of craving, speaking to himself when asked by someone or not - "These drawn by prārabdha karma must necessarily be experienced by me" - meaning he does not become elated in countenance when they arise. "Vīta" etc. - Free from attachment means devoid of fondness for desirable things. Free from fear means devoid of despondency towards those who take away objects, thinking "These righteous things of mine are being taken away by you lowly ones." Free from anger means devoid of anger towards those same powerful ones, thinking "How can these trifling things of mine be taken away by you?" Such a muni, one given to reflection on the Self, is a person of steady wisdom - this is the meaning. Thus speaking his own experience to others or to himself, he speaks words expressing freedom from agitation, desirelessness etc. - this is the answer.
(2.57)
He who is free from attachment everywhere, upon obtaining this or that, auspicious or inauspicious, neither rejoices nor hates - his wisdom is firmly established.
Śrīdhara: He answers the question "How should one speak?" with "yaḥ" (he who). He who is free from attachment everywhere, even towards sons, friends, etc., devoid of affection. Therefore, due to the cessation of obstacles, upon obtaining this or that auspicious (favorable) thing, he does not rejoice; upon obtaining something inauspicious (unfavorable), he does not hate or criticize. Rather, he simply speaks with indifference. This means his wisdom is firmly established.
Madhusūdana: Moreover, the sage who is free from attachment to all bodies, life forces, etc. Attachment is a particular tamasic mental state, synonymous with intense love directed towards others, by which gains and losses of others are superimposed on oneself. He who is completely free from such attachment is called anabhisneha (free from attachment). However, he should certainly have full attachment to the Supreme Self, as the absence of attachment to the non-self is for that purpose.
Upon obtaining this or that object resulting from prārabdha karma (karma that has begun to bear fruit), whether auspicious (causing happiness) or inauspicious (causing sorrow), he neither rejoices by praising it with special delight, nor hates by criticizing it with inner malice. For the ignorant, things like one's wife that cause happiness are considered auspicious objects, and the mental state of praising their qualities is a deluded form of rejoicing. This is tamasic, as praising their qualities is pointless when not intended to encourage others. Similarly, the mental state of criticizing things like others' superior knowledge, which causes sorrow by arousing envy, is a particular deluded mental state. This too is tamasic, as such criticism is pointless when not intended to prevent something. How can these tamasic, deluded states of rejoicing and hatred occur in one whose wisdom is firmly established in pure sattva, free from delusion? Therefore, due to the absence of agitation, the sage who is free from attachment and devoid of joy and sorrow has wisdom firmly established in the Supreme Self reality. This is the meaning of "sthitaprajña" (one of steady wisdom). Thus, any other seeker of liberation should also be free from attachment everywhere. He should not praise upon obtaining something auspicious, nor criticize upon obtaining something inauspicious - this is the intention. Here, the exclusion of speech in the form of criticism, praise, etc. is stated by implication.
Viśvanātha: Anabhisneha (free from attachment) means devoid of conditional affection; however, a slight unconditional affection remains due to compassion. Upon obtaining this or that well-known auspicious thing like honor or food, or inauspicious thing like disrespect or a blow with a fist, he neither rejoices nor praises saying "You are righteous, a server of great souls, may you be happy," nor hates or curses saying "You are sinful, may you fall to hell." His wisdom is established means his wisdom is firmly fixed in samādhi (deep meditation) - this is the meaning.
Baladeva: "Yaḥ" (he who) means free from attachment to all beings, devoid of conditional affection. However, a slight unconditional affection certainly exists due to being compassionate. Upon obtaining this or that well-known auspicious thing like offering of excellent food, garlands, or sandalwood paste, he does not rejoice by saying to the offerer, "You are most righteous, may you live long." Upon obtaining something inauspicious like insult or a blow with a stick, he does not hate by cursing, "You are most sinful, may you die." "His wisdom" means he is sthitaprajña (of steady wisdom) - this is the meaning. Here, the characteristic is stated by exclusion: he does not speak words of praise or criticism.
(2.58)
When this one withdraws the senses from sense objects completely, like a turtle drawing in its limbs, his wisdom is firmly established.
Śrīdhara: Moreover, when this yogī withdraws the senses from sense objects like sound etc. from all sides, thus the one established in knowledge withdraws the senses from all objects. His wisdom is firmly established. This is the meaning of the verse.
Madhusūdana: Now the Lord begins to answer the question "How does he sit?" with six verses. To show that for one of steady wisdom, after again withdrawing the senses scattered due to the influence of prārabdha karma (begun karma), sitting is only for the purpose of samādhi (deep meditation), he says "When". This one who has emerged, completely from all sense objects like sound etc. The word "ca" means "again". When he withdraws, again draws in, contracts. The simile for this is "like a turtle its limbs". Then "his wisdom is firmly established" is clear. In the previous two verses, the absence of all tāmasa (dark) mental states even in the state of emergence was stated. But now the distinction is the absence of all mental states again in the state of samādhi.
Viśvanātha: He answers the question "How does he sit?" with "When". He withdraws the senses like hearing etc. from sense objects like sound etc. The sitting of one of steady wisdom means prohibiting the movement of the controlled senses towards external objects and keeping them still internally. The simile for this: As a turtle keeps its limbs like mouth, eyes etc. inside itself by its own will.
Baladeva: Now he answers "How does he sit?" with "When" etc. in six verses. When this yogī effortlessly withdraws the controlled senses like hearing etc. from sense objects like sound etc., then his wisdom is firmly established - this is the connection. The simile for this is "like a turtle its limbs". As a turtle effortlessly withdraws its mouth, hands and feet, similarly keeping the senses withdrawn from objects inside is the sitting of one of steady wisdom.
(2.59)
The sense objects turn away from the embodied one who abstains from food, but the taste remains. Only upon seeing the Supreme does even the taste turn away.
Śrīdhara: Now then, the non-engagement of the senses in sense objects cannot be a characteristic of one of steady wisdom, because there is no difference in the non-engagement in sense objects of the inert, the sick, and those devoted to fasting. To address this, he says "viṣayā" etc. The grasping of sense objects by the senses is called āhāra (nourishment). For the nirāhārasya (one who abstains from nourishment), i.e. one who does not grasp sense objects with the senses, the embodied one who identifies with the body, the ignorant one - except for rasa (taste), meaning except for desire, attachment does not turn away. Or it may mean: for one devoted to fasting, the sense objects mostly turn away, due to lack of interest in sound, touch etc. when afflicted by hunger, but rasa-varjaṁ (except for taste), the desire for taste does not turn away. The rest is the same.
Madhusūdana: Now, even for a foolish person, due to illness etc., there is withdrawal of the senses from sense objects, so how is it said that his wisdom is established? To address this, he says "viṣayā" etc. For the nirāhārasya (one who abstains from nourishment), i.e. one who does not take in sense objects through the senses, the embodied one who identifies with the body, even for a fool, a sick person, or an ascetic practicing severe austerities, the sense objects like sound etc. turn away, but rasa-varjaṁ (except for taste), meaning except for the thirst for taste. For the ignorant, sense objects turn away, but the attachment to them does not turn away. But for this one of steady wisdom, upon seeing the Supreme, the highest human goal, realizing "That I am" and being established in that, even rasa (taste), even the attachment to petty pleasures, turns away. The word "api" (even) indicates that sense objects also turn away. Thus it has been explained in "yāvān artha" etc. Thus, the turning away of sense objects along with attachment is the characteristic of one of steady wisdom, so there is no deviation in the case of a fool. Since there is no complete cutting off of sense objects along with attachment without proper realization of the Supreme Self, therefore one should strive greatly to attain steadiness of wisdom which consists of right vision that cuts off sense objects along with attachment - this is the intention.
Viśvanātha: Even for a fool, due to fasting or illness etc., there could be non-movement of the senses towards sense objects. To address this, he says "viṣayā" etc. Rasa-varjaṁ (except for taste) means except for rasa (attachment), desire. But desire does not turn away from sense objects - this is the meaning. But for this one of steady wisdom, upon seeing the Supreme, the Supreme Self, desire for sense objects turns away. Thus there is no deviation from the definition. For one capable of Self-realization, there is only the state of being a practitioner, not perfection - this is the idea.
Baladeva: Now, for a foolish person afflicted by disease, non-engagement of the senses in sense objects is seen, so how is this a characteristic of one of steady wisdom? To address this, he says "viṣayā" etc. For the nirāhārasya (one who abstains from nourishment), i.e. one who does not eat etc. due to fear of disease, even for a foolish embodied person, sense objects, i.e. experiences of them, turn away. But rasa (taste), meaning thirst and attachment, except for that, meaning thirst for sense objects does not turn away - this is the meaning. But for this one of steady wisdom, even rasa (taste), even attachment to sense objects, turns away, perishes, upon seeing, experiencing the Supreme, the self-luminous blissful Self beyond sense objects. Thus, the turning away of sense objects along with attachment is his characteristic, so there is no deviation.
(2.60)
Even for a wise man who is striving, O son of Kunti, the turbulent senses forcibly carry away the mind.
Śrīdhara: Without control of the senses, steadiness of wisdom is not possible. Therefore, in the stage of practice, great effort should be made for that, as stated in these two verses beginning with "yatato hy api" (even of one who strives). Even for one who is striving, making efforts for liberation, who is wise and discriminating, the senses forcibly carry away the mind. Because they are pramāthin (turbulent), meaning they are of a nature that causes agitation.
Madhusūdana: In this context, to explain that control of the external senses and control of the mind are the special causes for steadiness of wisdom, as the destruction of wisdom is seen in the absence of both, he first states the fault in the absence of control of external senses with "yatataḥ" (of one who strives). O son of Kunti!
Even for a man who is striving, repeatedly making efforts to see the faults in sense objects, and who is extremely discriminating, the senses carry away the mind that has been made free from modifications for a moment, causing it to become modified.
Now, how can modification occur when discrimination, which is opposed to it, is present? To this he says "pramāthin" (turbulent), meaning they are capable of overpowering discrimination due to their great strength. Therefore, forcibly, by violence, even when the wise owner and discrimination as the protector are watching, the senses, being all-turbulent, carry away the mind that has entered into wisdom born of discrimination, removing it from there and making it absorbed in their own objects. The word "hi" (indeed) indicates this is well-known. This meaning is indeed well-known in the world, just as turbulent robbers forcibly overpower a wealthy person and his wealth-protector and carry away the wealth even as they watch, so too the senses carry away the mind when sense objects are near.
Viśvanātha: In the stage of practice, great effort is indeed required, but there is not complete ability to turn away the senses, as stated in "yatataḥ" (of one who strives). Pramāthin (turbulent) means of a nature that causes agitation.
Baladeva: Now he speaks of the difficulty of this steadiness in knowledge with "yatato hi" (even of one who strives). For a wise man who knows the distinction between objects and the true self, and who is therefore striving to conquer the senses, the senses like hearing etc. as agents forcibly, as if by force, carry away the mind. The meaning is that after carrying it away, they make it inclined towards sense objects. Now, how can they carry it away when discriminative knowledge, which is opposed to them, is present? To this he says "pramāthin" (turbulent), meaning they are capable of overpowering that knowledge due to their great strength. Therefore, like protecting a great treasure from thieves, the seat of the man of steady wisdom is the protection of steadiness in knowledge from the senses.
(2.61)
tāni sarvāṇi saṁyamya yukta āsīta mat-paraḥ |
vaśe hi yasyendriyāṇi tasya prajñā pratiṣṭhitā ||
Śrīdhara: Because it is so, therefore "tāni" (those). The disciplined yogi, having controlled those senses, should remain devoted to me. Whose senses are under control, obedient. By this, the question "how should one sit" is answered as "one should sit having controlled the senses". ||61||
Madhusūdana: If so, then what is the remedy for that? To this he says "tāni" (those). Having controlled all those senses, which are the means of knowledge and action, disciplined, composed, with restrained mind, one should remain, abide without occupation. If asked how to bring under control those that are agitating, to this he says "mat-para" (devoted to me). He whose supreme, excellent, desirable object is I, the all-pervading Vāsudeva, he is devoted to me, meaning exclusively devoted to me. And thus it is said: "For devotees of Vāsudeva, there is no inauspiciousness anywhere". For as in the world, robbers are subdued by taking refuge in a powerful king, and knowing "this one is under the king's protection", they themselves become subservient to him, similarly, taking refuge in the Lord who is the inner controller of all, by His power alone the wicked senses are to be subdued, and again, thinking "this one is under the Lord's protection", they become subservient to Him. This is the idea. And how the devotion to the Lord is of great power, we will explain in detail later. He states the result of controlling the senses with "vaśe hi" (indeed under control). It is clear. Thus the answer to the question "how should one sit" is given as "one should sit having controlled the senses". ||61||
Viśvanātha: "mat-para" (devoted to me) means my devotee. Without devotion to me, there is indeed no conquest of the senses - this should be seen everywhere in the following text as well. As said by Uddhava:
"O lotus-eyed one, yogis who try to control the mind usually become distressed by their inability to achieve perfect concentration. Thus tormented by the attempt to subdue the mind, they give up the practice of yoga. Therefore, O Lord, swanlike men take shelter of Your lotus feet, the source of all transcendental ecstasy." [Bhā.Pu. 11.29.1-2]
With "vaśe hi" (indeed under control), the difference from the practitioner is stated - for one of steady wisdom, the senses become controlled. ||61||
Baladeva: If even for those who have conquered the senses, self-realization is not evident, then what is the means for this? To this he says "tāni" (those). Having controlled all those [senses], being devoted to me, steadfast in me, disciplined, having achieved self-absorption, one should remain, abide. By the power of devotion to me, following the conquest of all senses, self-vision becomes easily attainable. This is the idea. Thus they remember:
"As a blazing fire with rising flames burns dry grass with the help of the wind, so Lord Viṣṇu, situated in the heart of the yogi, burns up all sins." [Vi.Pu. 6.7.74] and so on.
"vaśe hi" (indeed under control) is clear. And thus the answer to "how should one remain" is given as remaining with controlled senses. ||61||
(2.62-63)
dhyāyato viṣayān puṁsaḥ saṅgas teṣūpajāyate |
saṅgāt saṁjāyate kāmaḥ kāmāt krodho'bhijāyate ||
krodhād bhavati saṁmohaḥ saṁmohāt smṛti-vibhramaḥ |
smṛti-bhraṁśād buddhi-nāśo buddhi-nāśāt praṇaśyati ||
Śrīdhara: Having stated the fault in the absence of external sense control, he states the fault in the absence of mind control with "dhyāyataḥ" (of one who contemplates) in two verses. For a person contemplating sense objects with the idea of their qualities, attachment to them arises. And with attachment, excessive desire for them arises. And from desire, when obstructed by something, anger arises. Moreover, "krodhāt" (from anger): From anger comes delusion, the absence of discrimination between what should and should not be done. From that comes the confusion of memory, the deviation from what is instructed by scripture and teacher. From that, the destruction of intellect, consciousness. Like overpowering in trees, etc. From that, one perishes, becomes like one dead. ||62-63||
Madhusūdana: Even for one whose external senses are controlled, for a person who contemplates sense objects like sound, etc., repeatedly thinking about them mentally, attachment to those sense objects arises, a special kind of fondness characterized by the superimposition of excellence, thinking "these are extremely conducive to my happiness". From that attachment, characterized by the knowledge of being conducive to happiness, arises desire, a special kind of craving thinking "may these be mine". From that desire, when obstructed by something, anger arises towards that obstruction, having the nature of burning. From anger comes delusion, in the form of absence of discrimination between what should and should not be done. From delusion comes confusion of memory, deviation or fall from memory, which is the recollection of what is instructed by scripture and teacher. And from that loss of memory comes destruction of intellect, the mental state in the form of knowledge of the self, non-arising due to obstruction by the fault of accumulation of contrary notions, and dissolution of what has arisen due to unfitness for results. From destruction of intellect, one perishes, and from the dissolution of that intellect which is the result, one perishes, becomes unfit for all human pursuits. For one who has become unfit for human pursuits is considered dead in the world. Therefore it is said "praṇaśyati" (perishes). Since thus, in the absence of mind control, even for one whose external senses are controlled, there is attainment of supreme misfortune, one should control the mind with great effort - this is the intention. Therefore it is properly said "Having controlled all those, one should remain disciplined". ||62-63||
Viśvanātha: For one of steady wisdom, control of the mind alone is the cause of control of external senses. But in the complete absence of mind control, what would happen, hear that, he says with "dhyāyataḥ" (of one who contemplates). "saṅgaḥ" (attachment) is fondness. And with fondness, excessive desire, longing for them. And from desire, when obstructed by something, anger. From anger, delusion, absence of discrimination between what should and should not be done. From that, loss of memory of one's own purpose instructed by scripture. From that, destruction of intellect, right determination. From that, one perishes, falls into the well of worldly existence. ||62-63||
Baladeva: Even for one who has conquered the senses, if the mind is not fixed on me, misfortune is again unavoidable, he says this with "dhyāyataḥ" (of one who contemplates) in two verses. For a yogi who contemplates sense objects like sound, etc., repeatedly thinking about them with the idea of their being conducive to happiness, attachment to them arises. From attachment as the cause, desire, craving for them is born. And from desire, when obstructed by something, anger, burning of the mind, arises as its obstruction. From anger comes delusion, loss of knowledge discriminating between what should and should not be done. From delusion comes confusion of memory, fall from recollection of efforts like conquest of senses, etc. From loss of memory comes destruction of intellect, of determination aimed at self-knowledge. From destruction of intellect, one perishes, meaning becomes again immersed in sense enjoyment, wanders in worldly existence. The idea is that due to not taking refuge in me, the weak mind connects them with their objects. Therefore, one desiring to conquer the mind should perform worship of me. ||62-63||
(2.64)
rāga-dveṣa-viyuktais tu viṣayān indriyaiś caran |
ātma-vaśyair vidheyātmā prasādam adhigacchati ||
Śrīdhara: Now, since it is impossible to restrain the senses whose nature is inclined towards objects, how can there be steadiness of wisdom when this fault is difficult to avoid? Anticipating this question, he states with "rāga-dveṣa" (attachment and aversion) in two verses. Even while experiencing sense objects with senses free from attachment and aversion, devoid of pride, one attains serenity, peace. He explains the absence of attachment and aversion with "ātma" (self): One whose self (mind) is controlled, with senses under control of the self (mind). By this alone, the answer to the fourth question "how should one go" is given as "he goes to sense objects with senses under his control". ||64||
Madhusūdana: Saying that when the mind is controlled, there is no fault even in the absence of control of external senses, he answers "how should one go" with eight verses. One whose mind is not composed, even while restraining the external senses, contemplating sense objects with a mind corrupted by attachment and aversion, falls from human goals. But "vidheyātmā" (one whose self is controlled) - the word "tu" (but) indicates contrast from the previous. One who has controlled the inner organ, with senses under control of the self, i.e., dependent on the mind, or self-controlled, free from attachment and aversion, experiencing unprohibited sense objects like sound, etc., with senses like hearing, etc., attains serenity, clarity of mind, fitness for direct realization of the supreme self. Senses impelled by attachment and aversion become causes of fault. But when the mind is under control, there is no attachment and aversion. In their absence, there is no activity of senses dependent on them. But unavoidable perception of objects does not bring fault, so there is no obstruction to purity - this is the idea.
By this, the doubt is removed that if even remembering objects is a cause of misfortune, then how can one consuming objects for the sake of living not incur misfortune? And the answer to the question "how should one go" is given as "he attains sense objects with senses under his control". ||64||
Viśvanātha: Saying that in the absence of mental grasping of objects, there is no fault even in grasping objects with senses under one's control, he answers "how should one of steady wisdom go" with "rāga" (attachment). One whose self (mind) is controlled, established in instruction.
The Amara-kośa states:
"vidheya" means receptive to instruction, established in speech, obedient;
"vaśya" means affectionate, humble, well-behaved, respectful.
By saying "attains serenity", for such a qualified person, what need to say that even grasping of objects is not a fault? Rather, it is indeed a virtue. For one of steady wisdom, both abandoning and accepting objects are movements, both are auspicious for him - this is the idea. ||64||
Baladeva: Saying that when the mind is conquered, even the absence of conquest of hearing, etc. is not a fault, he answers "how should one go" with "rāga" (attachment) in eight verses beginning with this. Even one who has conquered the external senses, if his mind is not offered to me, falls from the highest goal - this was said. But one whose self is controlled, whose mind is self-controlled, whose mind is offered to me, and therefore whose mental impurities like attachment, etc. are burnt, he, even while experiencing unprohibited sense objects like sound, etc., with senses like hearing, etc., which are under control of the self, i.e., dependent on the mind, and therefore free from attachment and aversion, attains serenity, meaning attains a mind free from impurities due to non-arrival of impurities like attachment to sense objects, etc. ||64||
(2.65)
prasāde sarva-duḥkhānāṁ hānir asyopajāyate |
prasanna-cetaso hy āśu buddhiḥ paryavatiṣṭhate ||
Śrīdhara: To the question "What happens when there is serenity?", he responds with "prasāde" (in serenity). When there is serenity, all sorrows are destroyed. And then, for one with a serene mind, the intellect becomes established. This is the meaning. ||65||
Madhusūdana: It was said "attains serenity". Now it is being explained what happens when there is serenity, with "prasāde" (in serenity). When there is serenity of the mind, which is in the form of clarity, the destruction of all sorrows - those arising from the self and others, which are manifestations of ignorance - occurs for this ascetic. Because for an ascetic with a serene mind, the intellect quickly settles all around, becomes steady in the form of the unity of Brahman and the self, due to the absence of obstacles like contrary notions, etc. Thus, when there is serenity, there is establishment of intellect, from that cessation of ignorance which is opposed to it, from that destruction of all sorrows which are its effects. Even though this is the sequence, stating that serenity causes destruction of all sorrows is for emphasis, so there is no contradiction. ||65||
Viśvanātha: "The intellect becomes established" means it becomes steady towards its desired object in all respects. The idea is that for him, even in the absence of grasping objects, grasping appropriate objects is pleasant. "One with a serene mind" - it should be known that serenity of mind comes only through devotion. Without it, there is no serenity of mind - this has been elaborated in the first book itself. Even for Vyāsa, who had completed the Vedānta scriptures, whose mind was not serene, serenity of mind was seen through devotion instructed by Śrī Nārada. ||65||
Baladeva: To the question "What happens when there is serenity?", he says: When there is serenity of mind for this yogin, destruction of all sorrows caused by contact with material nature arises. For one with a serene mind, the intellect concerning the true nature of one's self becomes established, becomes steady. ||65||
(2.66)
nāsti buddhir ayuktasya na cāyuktasya bhāvanā |
na cābhāvayataḥ śāntir aśāntasya kutaḥ sukham ||
Śrīdhara: He establishes the means of steady wisdom through sense control by way of negation in "nāsti" (there is not). For one who is ayukta (not disciplined), whose senses are uncontrolled, there is no buddhi (intellect). Prajñā (wisdom) concerning the self, which comes from the teachings of scriptures and teachers, does not arise. How can there be talk of its establishment? To explain why, he says "na ca" (and not). For one who is not disciplined, there is no bhāvanā (meditation). For through meditation, the intellect becomes established in the self, and this does not exist for one who is not disciplined. And for one who does not meditate, who does not perform meditation on the self, there is no śānti (peace), which is the cessation of the mind in the self. For one without peace, how can there be sukha (happiness), which is the bliss of liberation? This is the meaning. ||66||
Madhusūdana: He strengthens this very meaning through negation in "nāsti" (there is not). For one who is ayukta (undisciplined), whose mind is uncontrolled, there is no buddhi (intellect) concerning the self, which arises from Vedantic inquiry in the form of listening and reflection. In the absence of that intellect, for one who is undisciplined, there is no bhāvanā (meditation) in the form of profound contemplation, which is a flow of similar thoughts uninterrupted by dissimilar thoughts. The negative particle is to be connected with "asti" (there is) throughout. And for one who does not meditate on the self, there is no śānti (peace) in the form of cessation of ignorance along with its effects, which is direct realization of the unity of Brahman and the self, arising from Vedantic statements. For one without peace, devoid of self-realization, how can there be sukha (happiness), which is the bliss of liberation? This is the meaning. ||66||
Viśvanātha: He strengthens the stated meaning through negation in "nāsti" (there is not). For one who is ayukta (undisciplined), whose mind is uncontrolled, there is no buddhi (intellect), no wisdom concerning the self. For one who is undisciplined, devoid of such wisdom, there is no bhāvanā (meditation), meditation on the Supreme Lord. For one who does not meditate, who has not performed meditation, there is no śānti (peace), cessation from objects. For one without peace, there is no sukha (happiness), which is the bliss of the self. ||66||
Baladeva: He states the previously mentioned meaning through negation. For one who is ayukta (not a yogin), whose mind is not fixed on me, there is no buddhi (intellect) with the stated characteristics. Therefore, for him there is also no bhāvanā (meditation), contemplation on such a self. For one who does not meditate on such a self, there is no śānti (peace), cessation of thirst for objects. For one without peace, who is agitated by that thirst, how can there be sukha (happiness), which is characterized by the experience of the self as self-luminous bliss? ||66||
(2.67)
indriyāṇāṁ hi caratāṁ yan mano'nuvidhīyate |
tad asya harati prajñāṁ vāyur nāvam ivāmbhasi ||
Śrīdhara: He states the reason for "There is no intellect for the undisciplined" [Gītā 2.66] in "indriyāṇām" (of the senses). Among the uncontrolled senses roaming freely in their objects, when even one sense is followed by the mind, that is, when it goes along with a controlled sense, then that one sense, mind, or person's prajñā (wisdom), intellect, is carried away, made scattered by objects. What more needs to be said about many senses carrying away wisdom? Just as the wind tosses about in all directions the boat of a careless helmsman, so too in this case. ||67||
Madhusūdana: To explain why there is no intellect for the undisciplined, he says "indriyāṇām" (of the senses). Among the uncontrolled senses that are moving, operating in their own respective objects, whichever single sense the mind follows, that is, is driven by or operates according to - the passive voice is used with an active meaning - that single sense, followed by the mind, carries away, removes this aspirant's or the mind's prajñā (wisdom) concerning the self, which is derived from scripture, because the mind is absorbed in that object. If even one sense carries away wisdom, what more needs to be said when all senses do so? This is the meaning.
The simile is clear. "In water" is said to indicate that the wind has the power to carry away the boat, not on land. Similarly, in the subject of comparison, it is indicated that the sense has the power to carry away wisdom only when the mind is unsteady like water, not when the mind is steady like land. ||67||
Viśvanātha: He establishes that "there is no intellect for the undisciplined" by saying "indriyāṇām" (of the senses). Among the senses moving in their respective objects, whichever single sense of mine is followed, that is, whichever sense a person follows, that very mind carries away his prajñā (wisdom), intellect. Just as an adverse wind [carries away] a boat being steered in water. ||67||
Baladeva: He states the fault in the absence of sense control due to not fixing the mind on him in "indriyāṇām" (of the senses). Among the unconquered senses moving in their objects, whichever single sense - be it the ear or the eye - the mind follows, that is, operates according to, that single sense, followed by the mind, carries away, removes this instigator's prajñā (wisdom) concerning the distinctive self, because the mind is attracted to that object. What more? All those [senses]. Just as an adverse wind [carries away] a boat being steered in water. ||67||
(2.68)
tasmād yasya mahābāho nigṛhītāni sarvaśaḥ |
indriyāṇīndriyārthebhyas tasya prajñā pratiṣṭhitā ||
Śrīdhara: He concludes by stating that sense control is a means to steady wisdom in "tasmād" (therefore). In concluding its status as a means, the meaning is that his prajñā (wisdom) should be understood as pratiṣṭhitā (established). By addressing him as "mahābāho" (mighty-armed one), he suggests that just as you are capable in subduing enemies, you should be capable in this matter as well. ||68||
Madhusūdana: Since it is thus, therefore. "Sarvaśaḥ" (completely) means all [senses] along with the mind. By addressing him as "mahābāho" (mighty-armed one), he suggests that just as you are capable of warding off all enemies, you are also capable of warding off the enemy-like senses. The rest is clear. "Tasya" (his) refers to both the perfected one and the aspirant. This is because both the characteristic of steady wisdom for one with sense control and the means of wisdom for an aspirant seeking liberation are to be concluded. ||68||
Viśvanātha: Of one whose mind is controlled. The meaning of addressing him as "mahābāho" (mighty-armed one) is: just as you subdue enemies, subdue the mind as well. ||68||
Baladeva: "Tasmād" (therefore). One whose mind is fixed on me has established self-realization. Addressing him as "mahābāho" (mighty-armed one) means: just as you subdue enemies, subdue the senses as well. From these verses, it should be understood that for one of steady wisdom who is perfected, victory over the senses through fixation on the Lord is natural, while for an aspirant, it is a means to be practiced. ||68||
(2.69)
yā niśā sarva-bhūtānāṁ tasyāṁ jāgarti saṁyamī |
yasyāṁ jāgrati bhūtāni sā niśā paśyato muneḥ ||
Śrīdhara: One might object that no one in the world is seen to be completely sense-controlled like one who is asleep, devoid of sensory activities. Thus, thinking this characteristic is impossible, he addresses this with "yā niśā" (what is night). What is night for all beings. Night-like night is self-realization. For those whose intellects are covered by the darkness of ignorance, there is an absence of sensory activities in it. In that self-realization, the saṁyamī (one with self-control) whose senses are restrained awakens. For the muni (sage) who sees the reality of the self, it is night. In it, he has no sensory activities. This means: Just as nocturnal creatures like owls see at night but not during the day, similarly, the knower of Brahman, even with open eyes, sees only Brahman, not sense objects. Therefore, this characteristic is not impossible. ||69||
Madhusūdana: Thus, it has been said that an aspirant for liberation should practice sense control with effort for stability of wisdom, but for one of steady wisdom, control of all senses is naturally accomplished. He states this in "yā niśā" (what is night). The wisdom "I am Brahman" born from Vedantic statements in the form of direct realization is like night for all ignorant beings, as it is of the nature of non-illumination for them. In that night characterized by knowledge of Brahman, the saṁyamī (one with self-control) with steady wisdom awakens, being alert and free from the sleep of ignorance. But in the sleep of ignorance characterized by the vision of duality, where beings are as if asleep yet seem to act as in a dream, that night does not illuminate for the muni (sage) of steady wisdom who directly sees the reality of the self. For as long as one is not awakened, dream-vision persists, as delusion lasts until the moment of awakening. But at the time of true knowledge, there is no activity caused by delusion. As stated by the author of the Vārtika:
"In the activity of agents, they do not see the pure reality. When the pure reality is established, likewise there is no activity of agents. This saṁsāra (worldly existence) is like night for owls and day for crows for those who know and don't know the self. 'What is night for all beings,' thus spoke Hari himself."
Thus, one who has contrary vision does not have vision of reality, as contrary vision is born from non-vision of reality. And one who has vision of reality does not have contrary vision, as the cause of contrary vision, which is non-vision of reality, is negated by vision of reality. Thus the śruti (scripture) states: "Where there seems to be another, there one might see another. But where everything has become just the self for oneself, by what and whom would one see?" This establishes the distinction between knowledge and ignorance. Just as what is day for a crow, blind at night, is night for an owl, blind during the day, and what is day for an owl that sees at night is night for a crow - this is a great wonder. Therefore, how could those who see reality engage in ignorance-based activities involving agents and actions? Thus, sense control is naturally accomplished for them. ||69||
Viśvanātha: For one of steady wisdom, control of all senses is naturally accomplished, he states in "yā" (what). Indeed, intellect is of two types: self-inclined and object-inclined. Among these, the self-inclined intellect is night for all beings. Just as people sleeping at night do not know what is happening, similarly all beings do not know the reality attained in the self-inclined intellect. But in that, the saṁyamī (one with self-control) of steady wisdom is awake, not asleep. Thus he directly experiences the bliss established in self-knowledge. In the object-inclined intellect where beings are awake, they directly experience the happiness, sorrow, delusion, etc. established in it, not sleeping there. That is night for the muni (sage) of steady wisdom; he does not experience anything established in it. But paśyataḥ (for one who sees) means for one who observes with indifference the sense objects that give happiness and sorrow to worldly people, appropriately accepting even his own enjoyable objects without attachment. ||69||
Baladeva: It has been said that for a sādhaka (practitioner) of steady wisdom, sense control is achieved through effort. But for one who has attained perfection, such control is natural, as he states in "yā niśā" (what is night). The intellect is of two types: focused on the discriminated self and focused on objects. The self-focused intellect is metaphorically described as night for all beings, comparable to night, similarly non-illuminating. Just as people sleeping at night do not experience the self attainable in it, so too all do not experience the self attainable in the self-focused intellect. But the saṁyamī (one with self-control) who has conquered the senses is awake in it, not asleep. He experiences the self attainable by it. In the object-focused intellect where beings are awake, experiencing sense enjoyments, not sleeping there, that is night for the muni (sage) of steady wisdom. For him, it does not illuminate sense enjoyments. What kind of sage? He explains with "paśyataḥ" (for one who sees). It means one who directly experiences the self and experiences objects drawn by prārabdha (begun karma) with indifference. The idea is that due to vision of the self, there is no grasping of other flavors, like the principle of attention on a pot on a dancer's head. ||69||
(2.70)
āpūryamāṇam acala-pratiṣṭhaṁ
samudram āpaḥ praviśanti yadvat |
tadvat kāmā yaṁ praviśanti sarve
sa śāntim āpnoti na kāma-kāmī ||70||
Śrīdhara: If one asks how he enjoys objects without focusing on them, he answers with "āpūryamāṇam" (being filled). Just as waters enter the ocean, which though being filled by various rivers and streams, remains with unmoving foundation, not exceeding its boundaries, similarly desires or sense objects enter the sage of inner vision who remains unaffected by enjoyments, being impelled by prārabdha (begun) karma. He attains śānti (peace), kaivalya (liberation). But not the kāma-kāmī (desirer of desires), one habituated to craving enjoyments. ||70||
Madhusūdana: He states with an example that for such a steady-minded one, cessation of all distractions is also accomplished, in "āpūryamāṇam" (being filled). All waters, even those originating from rain etc., enter the ocean which is being filled by all rivers. How is it? Acala-pratiṣṭham (with unmoving foundation), not exceeding its boundaries. Or it may mean having the foundation of unmoving mountains like Mainaka, indicating extreme depth. Just as it remains unchanged, in the same way of being unchanged, all desires, objects like sound etc. desired by ignorant people, enter the steady-minded one who remains unchanged, unavoidably due to prārabdha (begun) karma, but cannot modify him. That steady-minded one, comparable to the great ocean, attains śānti (peace), cessation of all worldly and otherworldly karmic distractions, cessation of the effects of negated but continued ignorance, through the power of knowledge. Not the kāma-kāmī (desirer of desires), the ignorant one whose nature is to desire objects, does not attain the aforementioned peace. Rather, he always remains submerged in the great ocean of suffering with worldly and otherworldly karmic distractions. This is the meaning of the verse. By this, it should be understood that only the knower has the resultant renunciation of the wise, and only he has liberation while living in the form of cessation of all distractions, remaining unchanged even when experiencing objects due to fate, etc. ||70||
Viśvanātha: He states that absence of disturbance in grasping objects is indeed detachment in "āpūryamāṇam" (being filled). Just as in the rainy season, waters from here and there enter the ocean, what kind of ocean? Slightly filled, unable to be filled even by so many waters. Acala-pratiṣṭham (with unmoving foundation), not exceeding its boundaries. Similarly, desires or objects enter him, come as objects of enjoyment. Just as the ocean experiences no particular change whether waters enter or not, similarly one who remains undisturbed whether desires are enjoyed or not, he is steady-minded. Śānti (peace) means knowledge. ||70||
Baladeva: Explaining the stated sentiment, he says "āpūrya" (being filled). Just as the ocean, though being filled by its very nature, remains steadfast and does not overflow its shores when other rivers born from rain enter it, and these rivers are unable to make any particular difference to it, similarly, all desires and sense objects drawn by past actions (prārabdha) enter him but are unable to affect him. He attains peace. The meaning is that even among sound and other sense objects, the sthita-prajña (one with steady wisdom) does not find even a trace of change, being satisfied with the experience of self-bliss. One who is desirous of desires and eager for sense objects does not attain the peace with the aforementioned characteristics. ||70||
(2.71)
vihāya kāmān yaḥ sarvān pumāṁś carati niḥspṛhaḥ |
nirmamo nirahaṁkāraḥ sa śāntim adhigacchati ||
Sridhara: Because it is so, therefore "vihāya" (abandoning). Abandoning, rejecting, disregarding the obtained desires, and being without desire for the unobtained, because he is without ego and therefore without attachment to the means of enjoying them, becoming inward-looking, he who moves experiences enjoyments due to the force of past actions (prārabdha). Or he goes wherever. He attains peace. ||71||
Madhusudana: Because it is so, therefore "vihāya" (abandoning). Abandoning, disregarding all three types of desires - external ones like house and field that have been obtained, internal ones in the form of daydreams, and those in the form of mere impressions, and those like the touch of grass while walking on a path - being without desire even for mere bodily sustenance. Because he is without ego, free from the notion of "I am this" in body, senses, etc. Or, free from self-importance due to being learned, etc. Therefore, without attachment, free from the notion of "this is mine" even in matters necessary for bodily sustenance brought about by past actions (prārabdha) like covering with a loincloth, etc. The man who moves thus experiences enjoyments due to the force of past actions, or goes wherever randomly. He, being such a sthita-prajña (one with steady wisdom), attains peace characterized by the cessation of all worldly sorrows, the cessation of ignorance and its effects, attains through the power of knowledge. This describes the movement of the sthita-prajña, thus concluding the answer to the fourth question. ||71||
Visvanatha: Someone, however, not trusting in desires, does not enjoy them at all, he says. "Vihāya" (abandoning), without ego, without attachment means free from the sense of "I" and "mine" in body and bodily things. ||71||
Baladeva: "Vihāya" (abandoning). Abandoning all obtained desires, sense objects, being without attachment even to mere bodily sustenance, free from the sense of "mine", without ego, free from the notion of self in the non-self body, he moves, eats only for mere sustenance, or goes wherever. He attains peace. This is the answer to "how should he move?" ||71||
(2.72)
This is the brāhmī sthiti (state of Brahman), O Partha. Having attained this, one is not deluded. Abiding in this state even at the time of death, one attains brahma-nirvāṇa (liberation in Brahman).
Sridhara: Praising the aforementioned steadfastness in knowledge, he concludes with "eṣā" (this). Brāhmī sthiti is steadfastness in the knowledge of Brahman. This is of such a nature. Having attained this, a person with a purified inner self through worship of the Supreme Lord is not deluded. He does not again attain the delusion of worldly existence. Because even at the time of death, having abided in this state even for a moment, he attains brahma-nirvāṇa, dissolution in Brahman. What more needs to be said about attaining it by abiding from childhood? ||72||
He who lifted the devoted Arjuna, immersed in the mire of sorrow, through the instruction of Sankhya and Yoga, that Krishna is my refuge.
Thus ends the second chapter of the Subodhinī, the commentary on the Bhagavad Gita by Sri Sridhara Swami ||2||
Madhusudana: Thus, under the pretext of answering four questions, all the characteristics of the sthita-prajña (one of steady wisdom) have been described as duties for the seeker of liberation. Now, praising the steadfastness in Sankhya, which is the fruit of Karma Yoga, he concludes with "eṣā" (this). This state, described under the pretext of characteristics of the sthita-prajña, previously referred to as "this wisdom has been imparted to you in Sankhya," is brāhmī, pertaining to Brahman, characterized by the knowledge of the Supreme Self preceded by renunciation of all actions. O Partha! Having attained this state, whoever it may be is never again deluded. Indeed, there is no possibility of ignorance recurring once it has been dispelled by knowledge, as it cannot originate being beginningless. Abiding in this state even at the end time, even in old age, one attains brahma-nirvāṇa, extinction in Brahman, or liberation in the form of Brahman. He attains it through non-difference. What need is there to say that one who renounces from brahmacarya itself and abides in this brāhmī state throughout life attains brahma-nirvāṇa - this is the meaning implied by 'api' (even). ||72||
Thus ends the second chapter named "Summarization of the Meaning of the Entire Gita" in the Gudhartha-dipika, a commentary on the Srimad Bhagavad Gita, composed by Sri Madhusudana Saraswati, disciple of Sri Visvesvara Saraswati, the wandering monk and great swan. ||2||
Visvanatha: He concludes with "eṣā" (this). Brāhmī means leading to Brahman. Even at the end time means at the time of death. What more needs to be said about from childhood? ||72||
Knowledge and action have been clearly stated, devotion has been stated unclearly. Therefore, this chapter is called the essence of Sri Gita.
Thus in the Sarartha-varshini, delightful to the hearts of devotees, this second chapter of Sri Gita is concluded, well-connected for the virtuous. ||2||
Baladeva: He praises the state of steady wisdom with "eṣā" (this). Brāhmī means leading to Brahman. At the end time means in old age. What more needs to be said about attaining Brahman from youth? Nirvāṇa means immortal; it bestows that, is the meaning. If it is asked how one abiding in that state attains Brahman, since attaining it is caused by devotion to it, it is said: Because that state causes devotion to it, and because it causes devotion to it, it leads to its attainment. ||72||
Through desireless actions, the knower should remember Hari alone. Otherwise, there will only be obstacles - this is the conclusion of the second chapter.
Thus ends the second chapter in the commentary on the Bhagavad Gita Upanishad.
||2||
Saturday, August 31, 2024
Bg 2.1-72
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment