(5.1)
Arjuna said:
O Krishna, you praise renunciation of actions and then again yoga. Tell me decisively which one of these two is better.
Śrīdhara:
Removing Arjuna's doubt about karma-saṁnyāsa (renunciation of action) and yoga,
In the fifth chapter he spoke of liberation for the ascetic with controlled senses.
Having said "Cut the doubt born of ignorance with the sword of knowledge and engage in karma-yoga," Arjuna, perceiving a contradiction between what was said earlier and later, said "saṁnyāsam" etc. You speak of renunciation of action with statements like "But he who delights only in the Self" and "All action in its entirety, O Pārtha." And then again you speak of yoga saying "Cut the doubt with the sword of knowledge and engage in yoga." Renunciation of action and karma-yoga cannot occur simultaneously for the same person, as they are contradictory in nature. Therefore, tell me decisively which one of these two is better for me to practice. (1)
Madhusūdana:
The conclusion about karma and knowledge was made in two chapters.
Now the conclusion about karma and its renunciation is made in two chapters.
In the third chapter, when asked by Arjuna "If you think that knowledge is superior to action" etc., the Lord made a conclusion stating "In this world there is a twofold path as declared by Me in the past, O sinless one" etc., establishing different eligibilities due to the impossibility of option or combination of knowledge and action. Thus, action prescribed for the ignorant cannot be combined with knowledge, as they cannot exist simultaneously like light and darkness, because knowledge, by removing the notion of difference which is the basis for eligibility for action, is opposed to it. Nor can there be an option between them, as they do not serve the same purpose. Action cannot accomplish the effect of knowledge, which is the destruction of ignorance, as stated in the śruti: "Only by knowing Him does one transcend death; there is no other path for liberation."
It was stated in "To the extent that a well serves a purpose" that when knowledge arises, the effect of action is no longer required. Thus, it was conclusively determined in the fourth chapter that for one who has knowledge, there being no eligibility for action, either its performance as mere purposeless activity due to the momentum of past karma, or complete renunciation of all action, is undisputed. But for the ignorant, actions should be performed for the arising of knowledge through purification of the inner organ, as stated in the śruti: "Brāhmaṇas seek to know this through study of the Vedas, through sacrifice, charity, austerity, and fasting" and in the Lord's words: "All action in its entirety, O Pārtha, culminates in knowledge." Thus all actions are for the sake of knowledge. Similarly, renunciation of all action is also heard to be for the sake of knowledge in passages like: "Desiring this world alone, renunciates renounce," "Being calm, self-controlled, withdrawn, forbearing, and concentrated, one should see the Self in the self alone," "That which is to be known is indeed to be renounced by the renouncer; the supreme state is behind," "Renouncing truth and falsehood, pleasure and pain, the Vedas, this world and the next, one should seek the Self" etc.
In this matter, there can be no combination of action and its renunciation, which are remotely and proximately beneficial respectively, like the prayāja (preliminary offering) and avaghāta (threshing), as they are contradictory and cannot occur simultaneously. Nor can there be an option between action and its renunciation, as with the acceptance or non-acceptance of the ṣoḍaśin vessel in the atirātra sacrifice, since they do not serve exactly the same purpose, differing in their means. For action has only the unseen result of destruction of sin as its means, while renunciation has the visible result of providing opportunity for contemplation by absence of all distractions as its means. The apūrva (unseen potency) of injunctions, being concomitant with the visible, is not a motivating factor, as in threshing etc. Thus, there can be no option between those serving unseen and seen purposes, which are remotely and proximately beneficial respectively, even if they have the same primary goal, as that would apply to prayāja, avaghāta etc. also. Therefore, both should be practiced in sequence. Even then, if action is performed after renunciation, there would be ineligibility for action due to falling from the previously renounced stage of life by accepting it again, and the futility of the previous renunciation as it would serve no unseen purpose. If knowledge eligibility is gained by the first renunciation itself, performing action afterwards would be futile. Therefore, the Lord's view is that first one should perform desireless action with the attitude of offering to the Lord; when the inner organ is purified and there is intense dispassion with firm desire for knowledge, one should renounce all action for contemplation on Vedānta statements in the form of hearing, reflection etc. Thus it is said: "Not by non-performance of actions does man attain actionlessness." And it will be said:
"For the sage who wishes to attain yoga, action is said to be the means;
For one who has attained yoga, tranquility is said to be the means." (Gītā 6.3)
The yoga here is preceded by intense dispassion and the desire to know. As stated by the authors of the vārtika:
"For the attainment of the desire to know the inner self, there are Vedic recitation and other practices. But for the attainment of Brahman, they desire the renunciation of that, as per the force of śruti."
And the smṛti states:
"Actions are a series of impurities, but knowledge is the highest goal. When the impurities are ripened by actions, then knowledge arises."
In the Mokṣa-dharma:
"Having ripened the impurities and in the three stages of advancement, one should renounce and enter the highest state, the unsurpassed life of a wandering mendicant. This pure soul, through the instruments of future births in many cycles of existence, attains liberation even in the first āśrama (stage of life). Having attained that, for the liberated one who has realized the truth and is wise, what purpose could be supremely desired in the three āśramas?"
Mokṣa means dispassion. By this, both gradual and immediate renunciation are shown. Thus the śruti states: "Having completed the student life, one may become a householder. From the householder life, becoming a forest-dweller, one may renounce; or alternatively, one may renounce directly from the student life, or from the householder life, or from the forest life. On whatever day one becomes dispassionate, on that very day one should renounce."
Therefore, for the ignorant person in the state of non-dispassion, only the performance of actions is prescribed. For the same person in the state of dispassion, renunciation is prescribed for the sake of knowledge by providing the opportunity for hearing the scriptures, etc. Thus, the fifth and sixth chapters are begun to explain karma and its renunciation with reference to the ignorant person in different states. The renunciation of the wise, being accomplished by the power of knowledge itself, is not discussed due to the absence of doubt.
There, with regard to a single seeker who is ignorant, since both karma and its renunciation are prescribed for the sake of knowledge, and since it is impossible to perform these two contradictory things simultaneously, Arjuna, being doubtful about what he should do now as a seeker, said "renunciation."
O Kṛṣṇa! O embodiment of eternal bliss, or O remover of devotees' sorrows! You speak of the renunciation of actions - both nitya (daily) and naimittika (occasional) - prescribed by the Vedas to be performed lifelong, for the ignorant seeker through the mouth of the Vedas. Yet again, you praise yoga in the form of performance of actions, which is contradictory to that. By these two statements - "Desiring this world (of renunciation), mendicants renounce" and "Brahmins seek to know this through Vedic recitation, through sacrifice" etc., or by these two verses from the Gītā:
"Free from expectations, with mind and self controlled, having abandoned all possessions, performing action by the body alone, he incurs no sin." [Gītā 4.21]
"Having cut asunder this doubt, stand up and resort to yoga, O Bhārata."
There, since both karma and its renunciation are prescribed for a single ignorant person, and since it is impossible to perform both simultaneously, of these two - karma and its renunciation - whichever one you consider to be superior and more praiseworthy, whether karma or its renunciation, tell me that as your definitive opinion for me to follow. [1]
Viśvanātha:
It is said that karma is superior even to knowledge, for the establishment of its firmness. And the knowledge of its meaning is equal, as stated in the fifth chapter.
Doubting the contradiction through the statement heard at the end of the previous chapter, he asks "renunciation."
"For one who has renounced actions through yoga, whose doubts are cut asunder by knowledge, who is self-possessed, actions do not bind, O Dhanañjaya." [Gītā 4.41]
By this statement, you speak of the renunciation of action for one whose knowledge has arisen through karma-yoga.
"Therefore, having cut asunder with the sword of knowledge this doubt in your heart born of ignorance, resort to yoga. Stand up, O Bhārata." [Gītā 4.42]
By this, you again speak of karma-yoga for the same person. And renunciation of action and karma-yoga are not possible for the same person at the same time, being of contradictory natures, like stillness and motion. Therefore, not understanding your intention whether a knower should practice renunciation of action or should practice karma-yoga, I ask: of these two, whichever one is definitively considered by you to be superior, tell me that. [1]
Baladeva:
Hari spoke in the fifth [chapter] about the superiority of karma over jñāna due to its ease of practice, etc., and the non-doership of the pure [self] in that [karma], etc.
In the second [chapter], after stating that self-knowledge is liberating for the seeker of liberation, he declared that desireless karma should be performed as a means to that. In the third [chapter he said] that for one who has attained knowledge there is no karma [to be done], as in "But one who delights only in the self", and in the fourth [he said] "All action in its entirety, O Pārtha". But at the end, with "Therefore, arising from ignorance" [Gītā 4.42] etc., he again proclaimed karma-yoga for that very [person].
There Arjuna asks: "Renunciation..." [meaning:] O Kṛṣṇa! You praise sannyāsa (saṁnyāsam) of actions, which is jñāna-yoga in the form of cessation of all sensory activities, and again you praise yoga, which is the practice of karma in the form of all sensory activities. These two cannot exist simultaneously for one person, as they are of contradictory natures, like stillness and motion or darkness and light. Therefore, unable to understand your view on whether one who has attained knowledge should renounce karma or perform it, I ask: Of these two - renunciation of karma and practice of karma - tell me decisively which one you consider superior. ||1||
(5.2)
The Blessed Lord said:
Both renunciation and karma-yoga lead to the highest good.
But of the two, karma-yoga is superior to the renunciation of karma.
Śrīdhara: To this, the Blessed Lord replied: "Saṁnyāsaḥ..." The meaning is: I do not prescribe karma-yoga for one who knows the truth of the self as taught in Vedānta. For that would contradict the previously mentioned renunciation. Rather, I tell you, who identify with the body, to perform karma-yoga as a means to knowledge of the supreme self, after cutting through this doubt caused by sorrow and delusion due to killing relatives etc., with the sword of knowledge that discriminates between body and self. When self-knowledge arises through karma-yoga for one with a purified mind, renunciation was previously mentioned as part of steadfastness in knowledge for its maturation. Thus, since there is an option between the subsidiary and the primary, both renunciation and karma-yoga, combined in different stages, indeed lead to the highest good. Yet between the two, karma-yoga is superior to the renunciation of karma. ||2||
Madhusūdana: Thus to Arjuna's question, the Blessed Lord gave this answer: "Saṁnyāsaḥ..." Both lead to the highest good as they cause the arising of knowledge and are conducive to liberation. But of the two, karma-yoga is superior to the renunciation of karma done by one unqualified, as it produces qualification. ||2||
Viśvanātha: "Karma-yoga is superior" means there is no fault at all in a knower performing karma. On the contrary, through desireless karma, due to the firmness of mental purification, knowledge itself becomes firm. But for a renunciate, if there is sometimes a defect in the mind, is karma prohibited for removing that? The defect of the mind itself obstructs the practice of knowledge. But in grasping sense objects, it would indeed be like eating vomit - this is the idea. ||2||
Baladeva: Thus asked, the Blessed Lord said: "Saṁnyāsaḥ..." Both lead to the highest good, being causes of liberation. [Karma-yoga] is superior to the renunciation of karma, i.e. jñāna-yoga. The meaning is: Verily, even for one who has attained knowledge, karma-yoga does not bring any fault. Rather, being pregnant with knowledge, it only strengthens knowledge. But for one established in knowledge who has renounced karma, if there is a defect in the mind, karma should be performed to destroy that defect, according to prohibitive scriptures. Statements about abandoning karma say that when one delights in the self, karmas abandon him on their own. Therefore, karma-yoga is superior due to being easier to perform, being free from carelessness, and being pregnant with knowledge. ||2||
(5.3)
jñeyaḥ sa nitya-saṁnyāsī yo na dveṣṭi na kāṅkṣati |
nirdvandvo hi mahā-bāho sukhaṁ bandhāt pramucyate ||
śrīdharaḥ: In response to the question "why?", he praises the karma yogin as a sannyāsin and shows his superiority in "jñeyaḥ". One who performs actions for the Supreme Lord, free from attachment and aversion, should be known as a constant sannyāsin even while engaged in action. The reason for this is that one who is nirdvandva (free from dualities) and pure-hearted easily becomes liberated from bondage through knowledge.
madhusūdanaḥ: He praises that very karma yoga in "jñeyaḥ" with three verses. Even though engaged in action, he should be known as a constant sannyāsin. Who is he? One who does not hate action performed with the thought of offering to God, due to doubt about its fruitlessness. He does not desire heaven, etc. He is nirdvandva (free from attachment and aversion). O mighty-armed one, he is easily liberated from bondage in the form of impurity of the inner organ which obstructs knowledge, through excellence in discrimination between eternal and non-eternal objects.
viśvanāthaḥ: It should not be said that liberation, which is attainable through sannyāsa, cannot be attained by him who has not taken sannyāsa. He states this in "jñeyaḥ". That pure-hearted karma yogin should indeed be known as a constant sannyāsin. The address "O mighty-armed one" implies that he alone is the great hero capable of conquering the city of liberation.
baladevaḥ: Why is he superior? He states this in "jñeyaḥ". That pure-hearted karma yogin is a constant sannyāsin. He should be known as always established in jñāna yoga. He who is satisfied with the bliss of self-realization inherent in action does not desire or hate anything else. He is nirdvandva (tolerant of dualities). "Easily" means through dedication to easily performable action.
(5.4)
sāṁkhya-yogau pṛthag bālāḥ pravadanti na paṇḍitāḥ |
ekam apy āsthitaḥ samyag ubhayor vindate phalam ||
śrīdharaḥ: Since there is sequential combination of both as primary and secondary in different stages, therefore the question of which is superior, accepting an option between the two, is appropriate only for the ignorant, not for the discriminating. He states this in "sāṁkhya-yogau". By the word sāṁkhya, which denotes establishment in knowledge, he indicates its subsidiary sannyāsa. Only fools, not the wise, say that sannyāsa and karma yoga, though having the same result, are separate and independent. The reason for this is that one who is properly established in even one of these attains the fruit of both. Thus, one who properly performs karma yoga, becoming pure-hearted, attains through knowledge the fruit of both, which is liberation. One who is properly established in sannyāsa also attains through knowledge the fruit of both, which is liberation, as a result of the karma yoga previously performed. Thus there is no separate fruitfulness for these two.
madhusūdanaḥ: If one who is engaged in action is to be known as a sannyāsin, how can this be, given the inherent contradiction between action and its renunciation? If it is said that this is due to the unity of their results, this is not correct, as there should be contradiction in the results of things that are inherently contradictory. Thus it is not appropriate to say that both lead to the highest good. Anticipating this objection, he says "sāṁkhya-yogau". Sāṁkhya means sannyāsa, which carries correct self-knowledge as its internal means. Yoga means the previously mentioned karma yoga. Only fools, who lack discriminative knowledge of the meaning of scripture, say these two have separate, contradictory results, not the wise. What then is the opinion of the wise? It is stated: One who is properly established in even one of sannyāsa and karma, having performed it according to scripture appropriate to one's qualification, attains the fruit of both, which is liberation, the one highest good, through the arising of knowledge.
viśvanāthaḥ: Therefore, your statement "Which of these two is better?" is actually not applicable. For the discriminating have seen that there is no difference between the two. He states this in "sāṁkhya-yogau". By the word sāṁkhya, which denotes establishment in knowledge, its subsidiary sannyāsa is indicated. Only fools, not the wise, say that sannyāsa and karma yoga are separate and independent, as it was previously stated "He should be known as a constant sannyāsin". Hence "ekam api" etc.
baladevaḥ: Your statement "Which of these is better?" also does not apply. He states this in "sāṁkhya". Only fools say that jñāna yoga and karma yoga are separate due to difference in results, not the wise. Hence "ekam" etc. The fruit is realization of the self.
(5.5)
The state that is attained by the sāṁkhyas (those who follow the path of knowledge) is also reached by the yogis (those who follow the path of action). He who sees that sāṁkhya and yoga are one, he truly sees.
Śrīdhara: This is clarified in "yat sāṁkhyaiḥ". By the sāṁkhyas, who are established in knowledge and are renunciates, the state called liberation is directly attained in the highest sense. By the yogis - here the suffix 'ac' in the sense of possession should be understood as per Pāṇini's rule - meaning by the karma-yogis, the same state is reached through knowledge. Therefore, he who sees sāṁkhya and yoga as one in terms of their result, he alone sees correctly. ||5||
Madhusūdana: How does one obtain the result of both by practicing only one? This is explained in "yat sāṁkhyaiḥ". By the sāṁkhyas, who are established in knowledge and are renunciates, even without performing worldly actions, but with their inner faculties purified by actions from previous lives, through knowledge-establishment preceded by listening etc., that well-known state called liberation is attained, or rather seemingly attained as it is eternally present, just by the removal of obstacles. By the yogis too - those who have yogas, which are scriptural actions performed with the attitude of offering to the Lord without desire for results (the suffix 'ac' is used in the possessive sense as per Pāṇini's rule) - that state is reached through knowledge-establishment preceded by renunciation and listening etc., which will be attained in this or a future life due to the purification of their being. Therefore, due to the oneness of the result, he who sees sāṁkhya and yoga as one, he alone sees correctly, not others.
The idea is this: For those in whom establishment in knowledge preceded by renunciation is seen, by that very sign, their establishment in action offered to the Lord in previous lives is inferred, because an effect cannot arise without a cause. As it is said:
"In other births prior to this, surely what ought to be done by a person here must have been done; otherwise, establishment in Brahman is not possible."
Similarly, for those in whom establishment in action offered to the Lord is seen, by that very sign, their future establishment in knowledge preceded by renunciation is inferred, because the totality of causes invariably produces the effect. Therefore, an ignorant seeker should first practice karma-yoga for the purification of the inner faculties, not renunciation. Renunciation will happen on its own when dispassion becomes intense. ||5||
Viśvanātha: This is clarified in "yat". By sāṁkhyas means by renunciation, by yogis means by desireless action. The plural is used for respect. Therefore, he who sees these two, though separate, as one through discrimination, he sees, meaning he is clear-sighted and wise. ||5||
Baladeva: This is explained in "yat". By sāṁkhyas means by those who follow the path of knowledge, by yogis means by those who perform desireless actions. The suffix 'ac' is used as per Pāṇini's rule. The state refers to the realization of the self. Therefore, he who sees these two, though different in form as cessation and activity, as one due to the unity of their result, he understands, he sees, meaning he is clear-sighted and wise. ||5||
(5.6)
saṃnyāsas tu mahābāho duḥkham āptum ayogataḥ |
yoga-yukto munir brahma na cireṇādhigacchati ||
śrīdharaḥ: However, O mighty-armed one, renunciation without yoga is difficult to attain. The sage who is engaged in yoga quickly attains Brahman. To one who thinks that if even for karma-yogis final establishment in knowledge is through renunciation alone, then it is proper to renounce right from the beginning, he says "saṃnyāsa" etc. Renunciation without yoga, without karma-yoga, is difficult to attain, is a cause of suffering. The meaning is that it is impossible. Because establishment in knowledge is not possible without purification of the mind. But one who is engaged in yoga, being pure-minded, becoming a renunciant sage, quickly attains Brahman. He directly knows. Thus before purification of the mind, karma-yoga alone is superior to renunciation - this previously stated conclusion is established. As stated by the author of the Vārttika:
"Even renunciants are seen to be careless, with outward-turned minds, malicious, eager for quarrels, with their refuge corrupted by fate."
madhusūdanaḥ: If it is asked why renunciation alone is not practiced first even with an impure mind, since it is necessary as the cause of establishment in knowledge, to that he replies with "saṃnyāsa" etc. Renunciation forcibly undertaken without yoga, without the scripturally prescribed action that purifies the inner organ, becomes only a cause of suffering, because establishment in knowledge which is its fruit is impossible due to the impurity of the inner organ. And because of lack of qualification for the purifying action, one falls from both karma and Brahman, leading to extreme difficulty. But one engaged in karma-yoga, due to purity of the inner organ, becoming a sage given to reflection and a renunciant, quickly attains Brahman characterized by truth, knowledge etc., realizes the Self, due to absence of obstacles. This has been stated earlier:
"Not by abstention from actions does man attain actionlessness, nor by mere renunciation does he attain perfection." [Gītā 3.4]
Thus although having the same result, karma-yoga is superior to renunciation of action - what was stated earlier is justified.
viśvanāthaḥ: However, for one who has not properly determined the purification of the mind, renunciation is painful while karma-yoga alone is pleasant - to clearly state this previously implied meaning, he says "saṃnyāsas tu" etc. The remainder is "when there is defect in the mind". "ayogataḥ" means due to absence of karma-yoga, due to absence in the renunciant of karma-yoga which pacifies defects of the mind, due to lack of qualification for it. Renunciation becomes only a cause of suffering. As stated by the author of the Vārttika:
"Even renunciants are seen to be careless, with outward-turned minds, malicious, eager for quarrels, with their refuge corrupted by fate."
The śruti also says: "If ascetics do not uproot the tangle of desires in the heart". The Lord has also said: "But one who has not controlled the six [senses]" [Bhā.Pu. 11.18.40] etc. Therefore one engaged in yoga, performing desireless action, being a sage with knowledge, quickly attains Brahman.
baladevaḥ: To state that karma-yoga which is easy to perform is superior to jñāna-yoga which is difficult to perform, he says "saṃnyāsas tu" etc. Renunciation is jñāna-yoga in the form of complete cessation of the activities of all senses. Without yoga, without karma-yoga, it becomes a cause of suffering. The meaning is that due to being difficult and prone to carelessness, it would only be a cause of suffering. But the desireless karma-yogi who is a sage given to reflection on the Self quickly attains Brahman.
(5.7)
yoga-yukto viśuddhātmā vijitātmā jitendriyaḥ |
sarva-bhūtātma-bhūtātmā kurvann api na lipyate ||
śrīdharaḥ: One who is united with yoga (and in brackets: meditation), therefore having a purified mind, having conquered the body, having subdued the senses, and whose self has become the Self of all beings, even while performing actions, is not tainted.
madhusūdanaḥ: Now, since action is the cause of bondage, it is inappropriate to say that a sage united with yoga attains Brahman. Therefore, it is said "yoga-yukta" (united with yoga). Action performed according to scripture, characterized by dedication to the Lord, absence of desire for results, etc., is called yoga. A person united with such yoga first becomes viśuddhātmā (pure-minded), meaning one whose inner organ of sattva is purified, free from rajas and tamas. Being of pure mind, he becomes vijitātmā (self-controlled), having the body under control. Then he becomes jitendriyaḥ (master of senses), having all external senses under control. This describes the tridaṇḍī (triple-staff-bearer) mentioned by Manu:
vāg-daṇḍo'tha mano-daṇḍaḥ kāya-daṇḍas tathaiva ca |
yasyaite nityatā daṇḍāḥ sa tridaṇḍīti kathyata || iti |
Here, vāk (speech) represents all external senses. Such a person necessarily attains knowledge of reality, hence it is said sarva-bhūtātma-bhūtātmā, meaning one who sees everything, animate and inanimate, as the Self alone. Even while performing actions, such a knower of ultimate reality is not tainted by those actions, as from his perspective they do not exist.
viśvanāthaḥ: This verse states that a knower is not tainted even by performed actions. A yoga-yukta (one united with yoga) knower is of three types: one with pure mind and conquered intellect, one with conquered self and pure mind, and one with controlled senses. The excellence is in order of increasing difficulty of attainment. Such a householder is beloved by all beings, hence it is said that his body (ātmā) has become dear (ātma-bhūta) to all beings.
baladevaḥ: Such a seeker of liberation is dear to all, hence it is said "yoga-yukta". United with yoga means engaged in desireless action. Therefore, he has a pure mind, controlled mind, is free from attachment to sense objects, and his body has become dear to all beings. The charioteer of Pārtha does not mean the oneness of all souls here, as he states the difference between souls elsewhere. Even those who propound that view cannot explain the difference between the knower and the known. Such a person, even while acting, is not tainted due to discrimination of the self, and quickly attains the self. Therefore, karma-yoga is superior.
(5.8-9)
The knower of truth, being disciplined, should think "I do not do anything at all" while seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, eating, moving, sleeping, breathing, speaking, releasing, grasping, opening and closing the eyes. Holding the idea that the senses move among the sense objects.
Śrīdhara: Anticipating the objection that this contradicts the earlier statement that one is not bound even while performing actions, he explains with two verses beginning with "naiva" that there is no contradiction due to the absence of the ego-sense of doership. One who is disciplined through karma yoga, gradually becoming a knower of truth, even while engaging in seeing, hearing, etc., holding the idea in his intellect that the senses move among their objects, thinks "I do not do anything at all". Here, seeing, hearing, touching, smelling and eating are the functions of the sense organs like the eyes, etc. Moving is of the feet. Sleeping is of the intellect. Breathing is of the prāṇa (prāṇa). Speaking is of the organ of speech. Releasing is of the organs of excretion and generation. Grasping is of the hands. Opening and closing the eyes are of the vital air called kūrma (kūrma). This is the discrimination. Even while performing these actions, the knower of Brahman is not bound due to absence of ego. As the sūtra of reflection states: "On attaining That, the destruction and non-attachment of subsequent and prior sins respectively, because that is declared." ||8-9||
Madhusūdana: He elaborates on this very point with two verses beginning with "naiva". While various activities are being performed by the sense organs of knowledge like the eyes etc., organs of action like speech etc., the different vital airs beginning with prāṇa (prāṇa), and the fourfold inner organ, holding the idea that only the senses etc. move among their respective objects and not "I", the knower of truth, the seer of the highest reality, with concentrated mind, thinks "I do not do anything at all". Or, the connection is that first being disciplined through karma yoga, later becoming a knower of truth through purification of the inner organ, he thinks "I do not do anything at all".
Here, seeing, hearing, touching, smelling and eating are mentioned as the functions of the five sense organs of knowledge - eyes, ears, skin, nose and tongue. Moving is of the feet. Speaking is of the organ of speech. Releasing is of the organs of excretion and generation. Grasping is of the hands. These five functions of the organs of action are mentioned as moving, speaking, releasing, grasping. "Breathing" indicates the functions of the five beginning with prāṇa (prāṇa). "Opening and closing the eyes" indicates the five beginning with nāga (nāga) and kūrma (kūrma). "Sleeping" indicates the fourfold inner organ. These two verses are explained by breaking the order of recitation due to the logical order of the topics. Since he sees the non-doership of the Self in all activities, it is appropriate to say that even while acting he is not bound. This is the idea. ||8-9||
Viśvanātha: He teaches the method by which one is not bound by action with "naiva" etc. The disciplined karma yogī, even while performing seeing etc., holding the idea in his intellect that the senses move among sense objects, being free from ego, thinks "I do not do anything at all". ||8-9||
Baladeva: He instructs that the pure Self has no agency in action which requires the five factors beginning with substratum, with "naiva" etc. The disciplined desireless actor, even while performing actions like seeing etc. due to association with the body, senses etc. made of prakṛti (prakṛti), being a knower of truth experiencing the distinct reality of the Self, holding the idea that the senses like eyes etc., impelled by the Supreme Self according to my latent impressions, move among sense objects like form etc., thinks "I do not do anything at all". Seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, eating indicate the functions - seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, eating - of the sense organs of knowledge - eyes, ears, skin, nose, tongue. Here, moving is of the feet. Speaking is of the organ of speech. Releasing and pleasure are of the organs of excretion and generation. Grasping is of the hands - this should be understood. "Breathing" indicates the functions of prāṇa (prāṇa) etc. "Opening and closing the eyes" indicates the functions of nāga (nāga) etc., which are types of vital airs. "Sleeping" indicates the functions of the inner organs. This is to be explained in order. The meaning is that he thinks: "My agency in such actions is due to the connection with the body etc. made of prakṛti (prakṛti), caused by beginningless latent impressions, of me who am of the nature of consciousness and bliss alone, and not due to my essential nature alone." It cannot be stated that there is absolutely no agency of the Self caused by its essential nature, because that is stated in determination and reflection. And that knowledge itself is eternal for the Self. As śruti (śruti) says: "There is no loss of the knowledge of the knower." And its establishment is through Hari's (Hari) knowledge which is His attribute, they say. ||8-9||
(5.10)
He who performs actions, offering them to brahman (the Supreme) and abandoning attachment, is not tainted by sin, just as a lotus leaf is not wetted by water.
śrīdharaḥ: Then, for one who has the ego of "I am doing", the taint of karma is unavoidable. Thus, due to impurity of mind, there is also no renunciation - having fallen into such a great dilemma, he says "brahmaṇi" etc. Offering to brahman (parameśvare) means dedicating to the Supreme Lord. And abandoning attachment to its fruits. He who performs actions is not tainted by sin, by that which causes bondage, by that most sinful action consisting of merit and sin, just as a lotus leaf, though situated in water, is not wetted by that water. ||10||
madhusūdanaḥ: Then an ignorant person would indeed be tainted due to the ego of doership, so how could he attain steadfastness in knowledge preceded by renunciation? To this he says "brahmaṇi" etc. Offering to brahman (parameśvare), the Supreme Lord, abandoning attachment, desire for fruits, he who performs actions, worldly and Vedic, for the sake of the Lord, like a servant for the master's sake, with the intention "I am doing" without expectation of personal fruit, is not tainted by sin, meaning by action consisting of sin and merit. Just as a lotus leaf is not wetted by water sprinkled on top, likewise. Action performed with the thought of offering to the Lord would result only in purification of the intellect. ||10||
viśvanāthaḥ: Moreover, he who performs actions, offering them to brahman (parameśvare), to Me the Supreme Lord, abandoning attachment, even with ego, giving up attachment to action, is not tainted even by action itself. "By sin" is used as a synecdoche. ||10||
baladevaḥ: Clarifying what was said, he says "brahmaṇi" etc. Here, by the word brahman is meant pradhāna (primordial nature) in its state of three guṇas. Because it is heard: "From this brahman, name and form, and food are known." And because it will be said: "My womb is the great brahman." The body, senses, etc. are particular transformations of pradhāna. Offering actions like seeing etc. to pradhāna transformed into their form, these belong to it alone. Not to me, the pure one distinct from it - this is the meaning to be ascertained. Abandoning attachment, desire for its fruits, and obsession with being its doer. He who performs these, though having a body etc. of such nature, is not tainted by sin through the ego of identifying with the body etc. Just as a lotus leaf, though touched by water sprinkled on top, is not wetted. And "brahmaṇi" should not be explained as meaning "in the Supreme Self" based on the previous context of "renouncing actions in Me". Because the meaning that the embodied soul conjoined with the body etc. made of pradhāna is the doer of actions like seeing, not the one distinct from it, is the subject matter. ||10||
(5.11)
With body, mind, intellect, and even with the senses alone,
yogins perform action, renouncing attachment, for self-purification.
Śrīdhara: The fruit of that action would be merely purity of being, because "with the body" etc. With the body, with the mind, and with the intellect. Yogins, renouncing attachment, with body, mind, intellect, and even with the senses alone. The word "alone" is connected with each - body etc. In all activities, yogins who are performers of action act renouncing the sense of "mine", for avoiding attachment. "Renouncing attachment" refers to the fruits. "For self-purification" means for purity of being. Therefore, your qualification is only for that. ||11||
Madhusūdana: He elaborates on that with "with body" etc. With body, mind, intellect, and senses, yogins who are performers of action, renouncing attachment to fruits, perform action. "Alone" is the qualifier for all - body etc. The meaning is: devoid of the sense of "mine", thinking "I do this for the Lord alone, not for my fruit". "For self-purification" means for purification of mind. ||11||
Viśvanātha: "With the senses alone" means: even if the mind is elsewhere at the time of offering oblations etc. with "indra svāhā" etc. "For self-purification" means for purification of mind. ||11||
Baladeva: Authenticating proper conduct, he elaborates on this with "with body" etc. Yogins perform action achievable by body etc., free from ego-sense regarding body etc. "Alone" means pure. "Renouncing attachment" is as before. "For self-purification" means for removal of the beginningless identification of self with body. ||11||
(5.12)
Being disciplined, renouncing the fruit of action, one attains lasting peace. The undisciplined, acting from desire, attached to the fruit, becomes bound.
śrīdharaḥ: Now, how is it that by the same action some are liberated and some are bound? Therefore he says "yukta" (disciplined). One who is disciplined, focused solely on the Supreme Lord, renouncing the fruit of action, performing action, attains ultimate peace, liberation. But one who is undisciplined, outwardly focused, acting from desire, attached to the fruit, becomes completely bound.
madhusūdanaḥ: Even when the sense of doership is the same, by that very action some are liberated and some are bound - what is the reason for this difference? To that he says "yukta" (disciplined). One who is disciplined, with the intention "these actions are for the Lord alone, not for my benefit", renouncing the fruit of action, performing actions, attains peace called liberation, which is ultimate, arising through the stages of purity of being, constant discrimination of the eternal, renunciation, knowledge, and steadfastness - this is the meaning. But one who is undisciplined, without the intention "these actions are for the Lord alone, not for my benefit", acting from desire, with the thought "I perform this action for my own benefit", attached to the fruit, becomes bound, attains complete bondage of samsāra through actions. Since it is thus, you also should perform actions being disciplined - this is the rest of the sentence.
viśvanāthaḥ: Non-attachment and attachment in performing action are indeed the causes of liberation and bondage respectively - thus he says "yukta" (disciplined), meaning a yogi performing desireless action. "Naiṣṭhikīm" (ultimate) means peace that has reached steadfastness, meaning liberation. "Ayukta" (undisciplined) means one performing desire-motivated action. "Kāma-kāreṇa" means by the tendency of desire.
baladevaḥ: One who is disciplined, with mind offered to the Self, renouncing the fruit of action, performing action, attains lasting, firm peace characterized by Self-realization. One who is undisciplined, with mind not offered to the Self, attached to the fruit of action, acting from desire, through engagement in action becomes bound, transmigrates.
(5.13)
The embodied one who has controlled himself, having renounced all actions mentally, rests happily in the nine-gated city, neither acting nor causing to act.
Śrīdhara: Thus far it has been elaborated that karma-yoga is superior to renunciation for one whose mind is not purified. Now he states that for one with a purified mind, renunciation is superior, saying "sarva-karmāṇi" (all actions). Vaśī means one with a controlled mind. Having renounced all distracting actions mentally through discrimination, he rests happily, established in knowledge. Where does he rest? To this he says "nava-dvāre" (nine-gated). The two eyes, two nostrils, two ears and mouth - these seven are in the head. The two lower ones are in the form of the anus and genitals. Thus there are nine gates in which, in that city-like body devoid of ego, the embodied one resides. Due to the very absence of ego, he neither acts himself with that body, nor causes action due to absence of sense of "mine". Thus withdrawal from one with an impure mind is stated. For one with an impure mind, having renounced, again acts and causes action. But this one is not like that. The meaning is he rests happily within. ||13||
Madhusūdana: Having elaborated on what was previously stated - that karma-yoga is superior to mere renunciation for one with an impure mind - now he states that for one with a pure mind, renunciation of all actions alone is superior, saying "sarva-karmāṇi" (all actions). Having renounced all actions - nitya (daily), naimittika (occasional), kāmya (desire-prompted) and pratiṣiddha (prohibited) - mentally through the correct vision of the non-doer Self-nature as stated in "He who sees inaction in action", he simply remains due to the force of prārabdha karma (karma that has begun to bear fruit). How? Happily, without effort, being free from bodily, verbal and mental activities which are the cause of exertion. Why don't the body, speech and mind engage freely? To this he says vaśī - one who has controlled the aggregate of body and senses. Where does he reside? In the nine-gated city - the body characterized by nine gates: seven in the head - two ears, two eyes, two nostrils and one mouth; two below called the anus and genitals. Dehī means one who sees the Self as distinct from the body. Like a traveler in another's house, neither rejoicing nor despairing at worship or insult to it, free from ego and sense of "mine", he remains. For the ignorant, due to identification with the body, is in the body itself, not separate from it. And considering the location of the body alone as the location of the self, he thinks "I am seated in the house or on the ground", not "I am seated in the body", due to lack of vision of separation. But one who sees the Self as distinct from the aggregate, having renounced all actions, realizes "I am seated in the body" due to vision of separation. Thus, negation alone of actions of body etc. superimposed on the actionless Self through ignorance, by knowledge, is called renunciation of all actions. For this very reason, to show the distinction from the ignorant, the qualifying phrase "resides in the nine-gated city" is stated.
Now, even if actions of body etc. superimposed on the Self are negated by knowledge like the motion of a boat on a stationary tree on the shore, there could still be doership of the Self through its own action and causation of action in the activities of body etc. To negate this he says "neither acting nor causing to act". This is connected with "resides". ||13||
Viśvanātha: Thus "Though acting without attachment, he should be known as a constant renunciant" - as previously stated, he is actually called a renunciant. On this he says "sarva-karmāṇi" (all actions) - Having mentally renounced all actions, though outwardly acting through body etc., vaśī (the self-controlled one) rests happily. Where? In the nine-gated city - the body devoid of ego-sense. Dehī - the enlightened jīva (individual soul), neither acting - knowing there is actually no doership of action or its fruits, nor causing to act - knowing there is also no causation of these - this is the meaning. ||13||
Baladeva: "Sarva" etc. - Having renounced, i.e. offered, all actions to that principal (the Supreme Lord) with a discriminating mind, though outwardly performing them through the body etc., vaśī (the self-controlled one) rests happily. In the nine-gated city - the body devoid of ego-sense like a city. Seven gates in the head - two eyes, two nostrils, two ears and mouth; two below called anus and genitals - thus nine gates. Dehī - the enlightened jīva (individual soul). "Neither" etc. - knowing that for the Self distinct from body etc., there is no doership or causation in actions - this is the meaning. ||13||
(5.14)
The Lord does not create the sense of agency, nor actions, nor the connection with the fruits of actions for the people of the world. Rather, it is [their own] nature that operates.
Śrīdhara: Now, according to scriptures like "He indeed makes him do good deeds whom He wishes to lead upwards from these worlds. He makes him do evil deeds whom He wishes to lead downwards" [Kau.U. 3.9], how can a person who is not independent, being employed by the Supreme Lord in actions with auspicious and inauspicious results as the agent, abandon those actions? And if it is said that being employed by the Lord in the path of knowledge, he will abandon both good and bad? In that case, due to the Lord being the instigator and agent, there would be a connection with merit and sin for the Lord as well due to partiality and cruelty. Anticipating this doubt, he says "The Lord does not create the sense of agency" in two verses. The Lord, the controller, does not create agency etc. for the world of souls, but rather the soul's own nature, which is ignorance itself, operates in the form of agency etc. The Lord engages the world of souls, which has the nature of activity due to beginningless ignorance and desire, in actions. But He does not Himself produce agency etc. This is the meaning. ||14||
Madhusūdana: Just as Devadatta's own motion does not occur when he is stationary, similarly the self's agency and causing of action, though inherent, do not occur when there is renunciation. Or, like the surface impurity etc. in the sky, it absolutely does not exist there in reality. To remove doubt about this, he says "The Lord does not create the sense of agency." The Lord, the self, the master, does not create agency for the world, meaning the body etc. He does not become the instigator by commanding "You do this." Nor does He Himself create the most desired actions like pots etc. for the world, meaning He does not become the agent either. Nor does He create the connection with the fruits for one who has performed action, meaning He does not become the one who causes enjoyment or the enjoyer either. This is according to scriptures like "Being the same, He moves through both worlds. He seems to think, as it were, seems to move, as it were. The intelligent one" [Bṛ.U. 4.3.7]. Here too it is said "Though dwelling in the body, O son of Kuntī, it neither acts nor is tainted" [Gītā 13.31].
If the self does not instigate or do anything by itself, then who instigates and acts? To this he says "But nature." The divine illusion (māyā) which is of the nature of ignorance operates. ||14||
Viśvanātha: Now, if the soul actually has no agency etc., then since agency, enjoyership etc. of the soul are seen everywhere in the world created by the Supreme Lord, I think the Supreme Lord has forcibly created its agency etc. In that case, partiality and cruelty would apply to Him. Regarding that, saying "not indeed, not indeed," he states "The Lord does not create the sense of agency." Nor actions through that agency, nor the connection with the fruits of actions, the enjoyments. Rather, the soul's nature, which is beginningless ignorance, operates. The meaning is that it causes the soul to assume the ego of agency etc. ||14||
Baladeva: He clarifies that these two do not exist for the pure [self] in "The Lord does not." The Lord, the master of the body, senses etc., the soul, does not create agency for the world, for people, meaning He does not become the instigator by [saying] "You do." Nor does He create their most desired actions like garlands, clothes etc., meaning He does not become the agent Himself either. Nor does He create the connection, the association with the fruits of actions, pleasure and pain, meaning He does not become the one who causes enjoyment or the enjoyer. This is the meaning. If so, then who is perceived as instigating and acting? To this he says "But nature." Here the word "nature" refers to the embodied soul possessing the primordial impressions (vāsanā) that have been operating without beginning. It is the instigator and agent. This is not the reality of the discriminating one. Though there is indeed some agency in the pure [self] also, as stated earlier in "seated in a comfortable seat," this should be understood as in the case of the sun etc. Indeed, action is the meaning of the verbal root, and agency is said to be its predominance. ||14||
(5.15)
The all-pervading Lord does not take upon Himself anyone's sinful or virtuous acts. Knowledge is covered by ignorance; due to this, beings become deluded.
Śrīdhara: Since it is so, therefore "He does not take" etc. Although being the instigator, the Lord does not take upon Himself or partake of anyone's sin or virtuous act. The reason for this is: vibhuḥ (all-pervading), meaning complete. The sense is that He has fulfilled all desires. If He were to instigate out of desire for His own benefit, then it would be so. But this is not the case. It is because one who has fulfilled all desires instigates through His own inconceivable māyā (illusion) in accordance with each being's previous karma.
But how can He have fulfilled all desires when we see partiality in His favoring devotees and punishing non-devotees? To address this, he says "by ignorance" etc. Even punishment in the form of chastisement is actually a favor. Thus, knowledge that the Supreme Lord is equal everywhere is covered by ignorance. Due to this reason, jantavaḥ (living beings) become deluded. The meaning is that they consider the Lord to be partial. ||15||
Madhusūdana: But the Lord is the instigator and the individual soul is the doer, as stated in śruti: "He indeed makes him do good deeds whom He wishes to lead upwards. He indeed makes him do bad deeds whom He wishes to lead downwards." [Kau.U. 3.9] And smṛti:
"The ignorant soul, powerless over its own pleasure and pain,
Goes to heaven or hell, impelled by the Lord."
Thus, since both the individual soul and the Lord are tainted by sin and merit through their respective roles as doer and instigator, enjoyer and provider of enjoyment, how can it be said "But nature proceeds"? To address this, he says "He does not take" etc. In absolute reality, vibhuḥ (the all-pervading) Supreme Lord does not take upon Himself the sin or merit of any individual soul, because in absolute reality the individual soul is not a doer and the Supreme Lord is not an instigator. How then can śruti, smṛti and worldly dealings be explained? To address this, he says "by ignorance" etc. Knowledge, which is the substratum of the erroneous notion of difference between individual soul, Lord and world, which is eternal, self-luminous, of the nature of existence-consciousness-bliss, non-dual and the absolute truth, is covered, concealed by ignorance called māyā (illusion), which is unreal darkness possessing the power of concealment and projection. Due to this concealment of their true nature, jantavaḥ (beings prone to birth), transient beings who do not see the true nature of reality, become deluded, meaning they experience delusion in the form of the ninefold cycle of transmigration consisting of knower, knowable, means of knowledge, doer, action, instrument, enjoyer, object of enjoyment and enjoyment, which is a projection appearing in that which is not that. This erroneous notion of difference between individual soul, Lord and world, which is experienced, exists for the deluded due to non-perception of one's true nature as the non-dual Self of supreme bliss, which is neither doer nor enjoyer. And in that state, these śruti and smṛti statements, which follow the notions of the deluded, are subsidiary to statements teaching non-dual reality, so there is no fault. ||15||
Viśvanātha: Since the Lord is not the instigator of unrighteous and righteous actions, therefore He does not incur sin or merit - to express this he says "He does not take" etc. nādatte (He does not take) means He does not accept. But it is indeed His power of avidyā (ignorance) that covers the knowledge of the individual soul, to express this he says "by ignorance" etc. The knowledge of the individual soul is innate. Due to this reason. ||15||
Baladeva: But if you say that the pure individual soul has no such agency in karma etc., then it follows that the Supreme Self, overcome with curiosity, throws prakṛti (primordial nature) on its neck and creates for it body, senses etc. which are transformations of that. And this is appropriate. Otherwise, the śruti "He indeed makes him do good deeds whom He wishes to lead upwards from these worlds. He indeed makes him do bad deeds whom He wishes to lead downwards." [Kau.U. 3.9] and the smṛti:
"The ignorant soul, powerless over its own pleasure and pain,
Goes to heaven or hell, impelled by the Lord."
would be contradicted. And thus He leads to a state full of sin and merit. If it is said that since He is the instigator, He would incur partiality etc. and partake of sin etc., to address this he says "He does not take" etc.
The all-pervading Lord, who has unlimited knowledge and bliss, who is full of infinite potencies, who relishes only His own bliss and is thus indifferent to anything else, while making the individual soul - which is desirous due to the impressions of beginningless prakṛti and which has a body etc. made of prakṛti transformed merely by His presence - perform actions according to its impressions, does not take upon Himself or accept the sin or merit of any individual soul. This is stated in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa:
"Just as by mere proximity fragrance causes agitation,
Without the mind being an agent, so is the Supreme Lord.
Just as space, time etc. are the cause of a tree by proximity,
So is Lord Hari the cause of the universe without transformation." [Vi.Pu. 1.2.30-1]
This example of fragrance etc. is for mere indifference, not for absence of will, because His will is heard of in śruti: "He desired". Then why do individual souls call Him partial? To address this, he says "by ignorance" etc. Due to beginningless aversion to Him, the eternal knowledge of individual souls is covered, concealed by ignorance. Due to this reason, jantavaḥ (living beings) become deluded. The meaning is that the confused call Him partial even though He is equal, not the wise. And thus the author of the Sūtras states: "Not inequality and cruelty, because of consideration; for so [scripture] shows" [Ve.Sū. 2.1.35], "If it be said not so, on account of non-distinction of deeds; [we say] no, because it is beginningless" [Ve.Sū. 2.1.36]. ||15||
(5.16)
Knowledge destroys their ignorance of the Self,
For them, knowledge like the sun illuminates the Supreme.
Śrīdhara: He says "jñānena" to show that the wise are not deluded. For those whose ignorance that perceives inequality is destroyed by the Lord's knowledge, that knowledge destroys their ignorance and illuminates that Supreme, the perfect form of the Lord. Just as the sun dispels darkness and illuminates all objects, so too [does knowledge]. ||16||
Madhusūdana: Then how can the cycle of rebirth end when all are covered by ignorance like the egg etc.? To this he says "jñānena". That ignorance which is the root of untruth and misfortune, indescribable with the powers of concealment and projection, with the self as its object, referred to by words like avidyā (ignorance) and māyā (illusion), is destroyed for the self by knowledge - the direct realization free from conceptualization, arising from hearing, reflection and meditation on the great Vedantic statements taught by the guru, having as its object only the non-dual reality of pure existence-consciousness-bliss. For those seekers of liberation blessed by the Lord, endowed with the means of hearing, reflection and meditation, that knowledge is the agent which, like the sun merely by its rising completely dispels darkness without requiring any assistance, destroys ignorance along with its effects merely by its arising, being of the nature of all-pervading light as a transformation of pure sattva, and illuminates the Supreme - the one secondless reality of the highest Self, of the nature of truth, knowledge and infinite bliss.
Here, by saying ignorance is "covered" and "destroyed by knowledge", the view that ignorance is mere absence of knowledge is refuted. For absence does not cover anything, nor is absence of knowledge destroyed by knowledge, being naturally of the nature of non-existence. Therefore, the Lord's view is that ignorance is a positive entity, established by witness-perception like "I am ignorant" and "I do not know myself or others". Details should be seen in Advaita-siddhi.
The plural "yeṣām" shows no restriction. Thus the śruti says: "Whoever among the gods awakened to this became that. So too among the sages, so too among humans. Even now, whoever knows 'I am Brahman' becomes all this." This shows the logical conclusion that ignorance ceases through knowledge of its object and locus as the means of knowledge. The concealment due to ignorance is twofold - one making the existent appear non-existent, the other making the manifest appear unmanifest. Of these, the first ceases through mere knowledge from any valid means, mediate or immediate. For even when fire is inferred on a mountain, the error "there is no fire" is not seen. Similarly, even with indirect certainty from the statement "Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite", the error "Brahman does not exist" ceases. The second concealment causing the error "Brahman exists but is not manifest to me" ceases only through direct realization. And that direct realization is produced by Vedantic statements alone as non-conceptual, as should be investigated in Advaita-siddhi. ||16||
Viśvanātha: Just as ignorance covers his knowledge, so too his power of knowledge destroys ignorance and illuminates knowledge - this is the meaning. "jñānena" means by the power of knowledge. "ajñānam" means ignorance. For those souls, knowledge itself is the agent which, like the sun's light destroys darkness and illuminates pots, cloth etc., similarly destroys ignorance through knowledge alone and illuminates that which is supreme and non-material in those souls. Thus the Supreme Lord does not bind or liberate anyone. Rather, ignorance and knowledge are properties of nature itself which respectively bind and liberate. Agency, enjoyership and their causes are the binding properties. Non-attachment, tranquility etc. are the liberating properties of nature itself. But it is only due to the Supreme Lord's inner controller-ship that these properties of nature awaken, so only in this sense is He the cause, thus there is no partiality or cruelty in Him. ||16||
Baladeva: He states that the wise are not deluded, saying "jñānena". As stated: "By the boat of knowledge alone" [Gītā 4.36], "The fire of knowledge burns all karma" [Gītā 4.37], and "Indeed nothing is equal to knowledge" [Gītā 4.38]. For those who associate with saints, the knowledge of self and supreme Self obtained by the grace of a true guru, which has the greatness described thus, destroys that ignorance which is aversion to Him. For them, that knowledge as the agent illuminates the supreme. It reveals the soul which is beyond the body etc., and the Lord who is beyond faults like inequality. Like the sun which, as soon as it rises, dispelling darkness reveals objects as they are, so too self-knowledge obtained from the instruction of a true guru [reveals] the reality of the self as it is. Here, by stating the plurality of souls whose ignorance is destroyed, the charioteer of Pārtha shows the conditioned nature of that [plurality] in liberation, refuting what was stated in the beginning "These rulers of men are not...". ||16||
(5.17)
Those whose intellects are absorbed in That, whose selves are fixed in That, whose steadfast devotion is to That, who hold That as the highest goal - they go to non-return, their impurities destroyed by knowledge.
Śrīdhara: He states the result for worshippers of the Lord who are thus: "tad-buddhayaḥ" etc. Those whose intellect, of the nature of certainty, is in Him alone. Those whose self, meaning mind, is in Him alone. Those whose steadfast devotion, meaning ultimate aim, is in Him alone. Those for whom He alone is the highest, the ultimate refuge. And thus, those whose impurities have been destroyed, eliminated by self-knowledge obtained through His grace. They attain non-return, meaning liberation. ||17||
Madhusūdana: When the reality of the Supreme Self is illuminated by knowledge, "tad-buddhayaḥ" etc. Those whose intellect, meaning the mental modification characterized by direct realization, is established in that Supreme Self-reality of existence-consciousness-bliss illuminated by knowledge, having abandoned all external objects due to maturation of spiritual practice - they are "tad-buddhayaḥ", always immersed in seedless samādhi (samādhi). But what about the duality of knower as individual soul and known as Brahman reality? This subject-object relationship is expanded by māyā (māyā), not contradicting the non-dual reality - this is the sense.
If it be argued that the qualification "tad-ātmānaḥ" is useless, since qualifications of the wise should exclude the ignorant, and even the ignorant are That in reality, so how does it exclude them - this is not correct. The intent is to negate identification with anything other than That. For the ignorant, having the conceit of self in the non-self body etc., are not designated as "tad-ātmānaḥ". But the wise, free from conceit of body etc., are properly designated as "tad-ātmānaḥ" through negation of the contrary.
If it be asked how conceit of body etc. ceases when engaged in performing actions, to this he says "tan-niṣṭhāḥ". Those whose steadfast devotion is to that Brahman alone, having ceased all engagement in actions - they are "tan-niṣṭhāḥ". The meaning is: renouncing all actions, devoted solely to contemplation on That. If there is attachment to results, how can actions conducive to That be renounced? To this he says "tat-parāyaṇāḥ". Those for whom That alone is the highest goal to be attained are "tat-parāyaṇāḥ". The meaning is: completely detached from everything.
Here, "tad-buddhayaḥ" indicates direct realization. "tad-ātmānaḥ" indicates reflection on Vedānta resulting in cessation of contrary notions like identification with non-self, matured through hearing and contemplation. "tat-parāyaṇāḥ" indicates intensity of detachment. Thus each succeeding quality should be seen as the cause of the preceding. Renunciants with the stated qualities attain non-return, meaning liberation as absence of future embodiment. If it be asked why even those liberated once do not take on bodies again, to this he says "jñāna-nirdhūta-kalmaṣāḥ". Those whose impurities, meaning karma of merit and demerit causing future embodiment, have been destroyed, completely uprooted by knowledge. The sense is: when karma is exhausted through cessation of beginningless ignorance by knowledge, how can there be taking of another body rooted in that? ||17||
Viśvanātha: However, knowledge only illuminates understanding of the individual soul, not knowledge of the Supreme Self, as the Lord has said "I am to be known by devotion alone". Therefore, even for knowers, devotion must be specially practiced again for knowledge of the Supreme Self. Thus he says "tad-buddhayaḥ" etc. By the word "tat", the all-pervading One mentioned earlier is referred to. Those whose intellect is in that Supreme Lord alone - the meaning is: absorbed in contemplation on Him. "tad-ātmānaḥ" - those whose minds are fixed on Him, meaning those who meditate on Him alone. "tan-niṣṭhāḥ" - as the Lord has said "One should renounce knowledge in Me". Even with knowledge of the self as distinct from body etc., abandoning steadfastness in sattva (sattva), solely devoted to Him. "tat-parāyaṇāḥ" - absorbed in hearing and chanting about Him. As will be said:
"By devotion he knows Me truly, who I am and what I am. Then, knowing Me in truth, he enters into Me immediately after." [Gītā 18.55]
"jñāna-nirdhūta-kalmaṣāḥ" - those whose entire ignorance has already been destroyed earlier by knowledge alone, meaning wisdom. ||17||
Baladeva: He states the result for those who meditate on the Supreme Self's impartiality etc.: "tad" etc. Those whose intellect, of the nature of certainty, is in those qualities like His impartiality etc. "tad-ātmānaḥ" - those whose minds are fixed in Him. "tan-niṣṭhāḥ" - those whose ultimate aim is in Him. "tat-parāyaṇāḥ" - those who take complete shelter in Him. Thus, with impurities destroyed, meaning aversion to Him eliminated, by knowledge of His impartiality etc. qualities practiced in this way, they go to non-return, meaning liberation. ||17||
(5.18)
The wise see with equal vision a learned and humble brāhmaṇa (brahmin), a cow, an elephant, a dog, and a dog-eater.
śrīdharaḥ: What are those knowers like who do not return to rebirth? Expecting this question, he says "vidyā-vinaya-saṁpanne" etc. Those who habitually see Brahman equally even in unequal things are paṇḍitāḥ (wise). The meaning is "knowers". Here, a brāhmaṇa endowed with knowledge and humility, and a dog-eater who cooks dogs - this shows inequality by action. A cow, an elephant, and a dog - this shows inequality by species. ||18||
madhusūdanaḥ: Having stated the fruit of knowledge as disembodied liberation after the fall of the body, he now states its fruit as liberation-while-living even when the body exists due to prārabdha karma, saying "vidyā" etc. Vidyā is knowledge of the meaning of the Vedas or knowledge of Brahman. Vinaya means lack of ego, that is, absence of arrogance. In a brāhmaṇa who is endowed with these, who knows Brahman and is humble - in the most superior sāttvika person. Likewise in a cow - the middling, rājasika, devoid of refinement. Likewise in an elephant, a dog, and a dog-eater - extremely tāmasika, the lowest. Those who habitually see Brahman equally, untouched by the qualities of sattva etc. and the refinements born of them, are sama-darśinaḥ (of equal vision). Paṇḍitāḥ means knowers. Just as the sun reflected in Ganges water, a pond, liquor, or urine is not connected with their qualities and faults, so too Brahman reflected through the semblance of consciousness is not connected with the qualities and faults of the limiting adjuncts. Thus realizing, they experience liberation-while-living through the manifestation of supreme bliss, with equal vision everywhere, free from attraction and aversion. This is the meaning. ||18||
viśvanāthaḥ: Thus for those who have transcended the guṇas (qualities), who do not grasp the graduated distinctions in mere objects made of the guṇas, there is only equal vision. He states this in "vidyā" etc. A brāhmaṇa and a cow, being of sāttvika species. An elephant is middling. A dog and a dog-eater, being of tāmasika species, are low. Not grasping their respective distinctions, the paṇḍitāḥ (wise) who have transcended the guṇas see equally. Not grasping distinctions itself is seeing Brahman equally, which has transcended the guṇas. Those who habitually see that are sama-darśinaḥ (of equal vision). ||18||
baladevaḥ: He praises them in "vidyā" etc. Such a brāhmaṇa and a dog-eater - these two are unequal by action. A cow, an elephant, and a dog - these are unequal by species. Those who see the Supreme Self equally in brāhmaṇas etc. who are thus created unequally, they alone are paṇḍitāḥ (wise). Their creation in such and such ways is in accordance with their karma, not in accordance with attraction and aversion. Thus the Supreme Self is equal everywhere, like rain. ||18||
(5.19)
ihaiva tair jitaḥ sargo yeṣāṁ sāmye sthitaṁ manaḥ |
nirdoṣaṁ hi samaṁ brahma tasmād brahmaṇi te sthitāḥ ||
śrīdharaḥ: But how are those who practice equal vision towards unequal things considered wise? As Gautama says: "samāsam ābhyāṁ viṣama-same pūjātaḥ". This means that when one worships the equal as unequal, or the unequal as equal, that worshipper loses both this world and the next. To this he replies with ihaiva. Right here, while still living, by them. Sarga means saṁsāra (cycle of rebirth), which is conquered. By whom? Those whose minds are established in sameness. The reason for this - because brahman (supreme reality) is equal and flawless, therefore those of equal vision are established in brahman. It means they have attained the state of brahman. The fault mentioned by Gautama applies only before attaining the state of brahman. The word pūjātaḥ indicates it refers to the state of being a worshipper. ||19||
madhusūdanaḥ: But equal vision towards beings of different natures - sāttvika (goodness), rājasa (passion) and tāmasa (ignorance) - is prohibited by dharma scriptures. Thus Gautama states, after beginning with "his food is not to be eaten": "samāsam ābhyāṁ viṣama-same pūjātaḥ". Samāsam ābhyām is in the dative dual. Viṣama-same is in the locative singular treated as a compound. It means when one offers the same kind of worship - with gifts of clothes, ornaments, food, etc. - to someone of lesser learning and conduct as one would to a highly learned and virtuous master of the four Vedas; or when one offers elaborate worship befitting a great scholar to someone of little learning and poor conduct, thereby equating the superior with the inferior or vice versa, the food of such a worshipper becomes unfit for consumption. Another fault is that the worshipper loses wealth and dharma by not making proper distinctions. Although for renunciates who possess nothing, the faults of unfit food and loss of wealth do not apply, the loss of dharma is still a fault. Unfit food also implies impurity. For ascetics, austerity is their wealth, so its loss is also a fault. So how can those of equal vision be considered wise and liberated while living? He addresses this with ihaiva.
Those wise ones of equal vision conquer sarga - the dualistic world of creation (derived from sṛjyate, "is created") - right here while still alive. What need to speak of after death? Who are they? Those whose minds are firmly established in the sameness of brahman that exists even in all unequal beings. Because brahman is flawless, equal, devoid of all modifications, eternally unchanging and one, therefore they are established in brahman alone.
The meaning is this: Impurity occurs in two ways - through contact with something impure, or by being inherently impure. Like Ganges water falling into a pit of urine, or urine itself which is inherently impure. Though fools may think brahman becomes tainted by existing in impure beings like outcastes, brahman remains untouched by all impurities, like space, due to its non-attachment. "This Self is unattached." As the scripture says:
"As the sun, the eye of the whole world, is not tainted by the defects of the eyes,
Similarly the one inner Self of all beings is not tainted by the suffering of the world, being beyond it."
Nor is it inherently tainted by qualities like desire, since scriptures establish these as properties of the inner organ. Therefore, renunciates who are of the nature of the flawless brahman are liberated while living, and are not tainted by faults like unfit food. The smrti applies only to ignorant householders, as seen from the beginning "his food is unfit", the mention of pūjātaḥ in the middle, and the conclusion "he loses wealth and dharma". ||19||
viśvanāthaḥ: He praises the state of equal vision. Ihaiva means right here in this world, sarga meaning saṁsāra (cycle of rebirth) is conquered or defeated. ||19||
baladevaḥ: Iha means right here in the stage of practice, sarga meaning saṁsāra is conquered or defeated by them. By whom? Those whose minds are fixed in sāmya, the quality of brahman meaning non-differentiation. Why is brahman non-differentiated? He says nirdoṣaṁ hi. Because they have ascertained that brahman possesses qualities like non-differentiation, therefore though living in the world they are established in brahman alone. It means liberation is easily attained by them. ||19||
(5.20
One who knows brahman, being situated in brahman, should neither rejoice on obtaining what is pleasant nor become dejected on obtaining what is unpleasant. He is steady-minded, free from delusion. [20]
śrīdharaḥ: He describes the characteristics of one who has attained brahman with "na prahṛṣyet" etc. Having become a knower of brahman and being situated in brahman alone, he should not greatly rejoice on obtaining something pleasant. And on obtaining something unpleasant, he should not become dejected, meaning he should not despair. Because he is steady-minded, whose intellect is steady and unwavering. Why is that? Because he is free from delusion, with delusion removed. [20]
madhusūdanaḥ: Since brahman is flawless and equal, therefore realizing the self as of that nature, he says "na prahṛṣyet" etc. The first half has been explained in "One whose mind is undisturbed in sorrows and free from desire in pleasures" [Gītā 2.56]. The potential mood is used to indicate that what is natural conduct for the liberated-while-living should be practiced with effort by seekers of liberation. The meaning is that for one who has the nature of seeing the non-dual self, rejoicing and despair due to obtaining pleasant and unpleasant things are inappropriate, as he is unfit to obtain anything separate.
He elaborates on the vision of the non-dual self: "steady-minded" means one whose intellect regarding brahman is steady, unwavering, free from all doubts through the maturation of inquiry into Vedānta statements preceded by renunciation, meaning one who has obtained the fruit of hearing and reflection. For such a one, even though free from all doubts, direct realization does not arise due to obstruction by contrary notions, so he mentions meditation: "free from delusion". Through the maturation of meditation, which is a flow of similar thoughts uninterrupted by dissimilar thoughts, he is free from delusion in the form of contrary notions. Then, with the removal of all obstructions, he is a knower of brahman, one who has direct realization of brahman. And then, through maturation of samādhi, he is situated in flawless, equal brahman alone, not elsewhere. Thus "situated in brahman" means a liberated-while-living, steady in wisdom. For such a one, it is indeed appropriate that rejoicing and despair do not occur, due to absence of seeing duality. But for the aspirant, even when duality is seen, rejoicing and despair should be abandoned through seeing the defects of objects, etc. This is the intention. [20]
viśvanāthaḥ: Thus he speaks of their equanimity even regarding worldly pleasant and unpleasant things etc. with "na prahṛṣyet" etc. "Should not rejoice" means "does not rejoice". "Should not be dejected" means "is not dejected". Or the potential mood is used with the intention to express that one should practice thus even in the stage of practice. "Free from delusion" because rejoicing, sorrow etc. are merely delusion, being rooted in ego. [20]
baladevaḥ: He describes the characteristics of one situated in brahman with "na" etc. While situated in the present body, obtaining pleasant and unpleasant things drawn by prārabdha karma, he should neither rejoice nor be dejected. Why? Because he is one whose intellect is steady in the self. "Free from delusion" means he has not obtained delusion by identifying the eternal self with the non-eternal body. "Knower of brahman" means experiencing such brahman. One with these characteristics should be understood as situated in brahman. [20]
(5.21)
bāhya-sparśeṣv asaktātmā vindaty ātmani yat sukham |
sa brahma-yoga-yuktātmā sukham akṣayam aśnute ||
śrīdharaḥ: He explains the reason for the steadiness of intellect through the cessation of delusion in "bāhya-sparśeṣv" etc. Sparśās are sense objects that are touched by the senses. One whose mind is unattached to external sense objects finds the sattvic happiness that is of the nature of tranquility in the self, in the inner organ. And having attained that tranquil happiness, he whose self is united with Brahman through yoga, through samādhi (absorption), attains unity with it and experiences imperishable happiness. ||21||
madhusūdanaḥ: But how can one whose mind is attached to external objects, which are extremely unstable due to being experienced over many lifetimes, remain steady in Brahman, which is beyond the world and devoid of all familiar pleasures? If it is said that this is because it is of the nature of supreme bliss, no, because that bliss, being unexperienced, cannot be the cause of mental steadiness. As stated in the Vārttika:
"Even bliss that is directly heard of but not made an object of experience
Is not capable of even slightly diminishing the desire for experienced pleasures."
To this he replies with "bāhya" etc. Sparśās are sounds and other sense objects that are touched by the senses. And they are external because they are not attributes of the self. One whose mind is unattached to these, being free from craving and dispassionate, finds in the self, in the inner organ alone, the happiness that is of the nature of tranquility, independent of external objects. He attains this through the pure sattva modification. As stated in the Mahābhārata:
"Whatever sensual pleasure exists in the world and whatever great divine pleasure there is,
These do not equal even a sixteenth part of the happiness of the cessation of craving."
Or, he attains in the inner self, which is the meaning of 'thou', that happiness which is of the nature of one's own self, experienced in deep sleep, but not attained due to the obstruction of attachment to external objects, now that this obstruction is absent.
Not only does he attain the happiness of the meaning of 'thou', but he also attains the full happiness through the experience of unity with the meaning of 'that', as he says "sa" etc. One who is free from craving, whose self, whose inner organ is engaged in yoga, in samādhi (absorption) in Brahman, the supreme Self, is one whose self is united with Brahman-yoga. Or, one whose self, whose nature as the meaning of 'thou', has attained unity through yoga, through samādhi (absorption) in the form of the experience of the sentence meaning, in Brahman, which is the meaning of 'that', is such. He experiences, he pervades imperishable, endless happiness which is of the nature of his own self. The meaning is that he always exists in the form of the experience of happiness. Even though the entity is eternal, the use of the verbal root is figurative, with the intention of indicating the cessation of ignorance. Therefore, desiring to experience imperishable happiness in the self, one should withdraw the senses from attachment to external objects, which is momentary and leads to great hell, and by this alone steadiness in Brahman is achieved - this is the intention. ||21||
viśvanāthaḥ: And he whose self is unattached, whose mind is not attached to external touches, to sensual pleasures. The reason for this is that he finds in the self, in the individual self, when the supreme Self is attained, that happiness which is imperishable happiness. He alone experiences, attains it, for one who constantly tastes nectar does not relish clay - this is the idea. ||21||
baladevaḥ: He speaks of experiencing one's own self and the supreme Self in sequence in "bāhya" etc. Being unattached to external touches, to experiences of sense objects like sound, he first finds the happiness that is experienced in one's own nature, in the self. Subsequently, he whose self is united with yoga, with samādhi (absorption) in Brahman, the supreme Self, experiences, obtains that imperishable happiness which is characterized by the experience of greatness. ||21||
(5.22)
The pleasures born of sense-contact are indeed sources of pain, O son of Kunti. They have a beginning and an end. The wise man does not delight in them.
Śrīdhara: Now, how can liberation be the goal of man if one abandons even the enjoyment of pleasant objects? To this he replies with "ye hi" etc. Sense-contacts are the objects; the pleasures born from them are joys. Even in the present time, they are sources, i.e. causes of pain due to being pervaded by rivalry, envy, etc. They also have a beginning and an end. Therefore, the discriminating person does not delight in them. ||22||
Madhusūdana: Now, one might object: "When attachment to external objects ceases, there is experience of imperishable joy in the Self. And when that exists, cessation of attachment to external objects occurs only by its grace. Thus, due to mutual dependence, neither can be established." Anticipating this, he explains that cessation of attachment occurs through repeated observation of the faults of sense objects, saying "ye hi" etc. Because (hi) those pleasures (bhogāḥ) which are born of sense-contact (saṁsparśajā), i.e. born of the connection between senses and objects, which are experiences of tiny fragments of pleasure either here or hereafter, are indeed sources of pain (duḥkha-yonaya eva) due to being pervaded by attachment, aversion, etc. All of them, up to the world of Brahmā, are indeed causes of pain. As stated in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa:
"For as many dear connections as a being makes with the mind,
So many thorns of sorrow pierce his heart."
Such pleasures are also not permanent, but have a beginning and an end (ādy-anta-vantaḥ). The beginning is the contact of senses with objects, and the end is separation from them. Thus they have these two. Being non-existent before and after, they appear in the middle like a dream, momentary and false. As stated by Gauḍapādācārya: "What exists in the beginning and end exists likewise in the present."
Because it is thus, therefore the wise man (budhaḥ), the discriminating one, does not delight (na ramate) in them, as they are to be felt as unpleasant, and does not experience pleasure. As stated by the venerable Patañjali: "To the discriminating one, all is suffering due to the pain of change, anxiety, and impressions, and due to the conflict of the activities of the guṇas" [Yo.Sū. 2.15]. All sensory pleasure, seen and heard of, is indeed pain as it is to be felt as unpleasant. This applies to the discriminating one who has understood the nature of afflictions, etc., not to the non-discriminating. The wise man, like an eyeball, is disturbed even by the slightest trace of pain. Just as a very delicate spider's thread placed in the eye causes pain by mere touch, but not on other parts of the body, similarly, only for the discriminating one, all means of enjoyment at all times are painful due to being connected with affliction, like eating food mixed with honey and poison, not for the deluded one who endures many kinds of pain. This is the meaning.
There, by "pain of change, anxiety, and impressions," the extrinsic painfulness of sensory pleasure is stated as being connected with pain in past, present, and future. By "due to the conflict of the activities of the guṇas," its intrinsic painfulness is stated. There, change, anxiety, and impressions - these themselves are pains, by these - this is the meaning. The instrumental case is used in the sense of characterization. Thus: All experience of pleasure is indeed connected with attachment. For it is not possible that one is not attached there and is happy with that. Attachment itself, having first arisen, transforms into the form of pleasure upon obtaining the object. And due to its increasing every moment, the pain caused by non-attainment of its object being unavoidable, it is indeed of the nature of pain. The satisfaction of the senses in enjoyments due to contentment is pleasure. The non-satisfaction due to greed is pain. And it is not possible to create dispassion in the senses through repeated enjoyment. Because following repeated enjoyment, attachments increase and so do the skills of the senses. And the Smṛti says:
"Desire is never extinguished by the enjoyment of desired objects;
It grows even more, like a fire fed with clarified butter." [Bhā.Pu.9.19.14]
Therefore, because of its nature as a transformation of desire, which is inherently painful, even sensory pleasure is indeed pain due to the non-difference of cause and effect. This is the painfulness of transformation.
Similarly, during the experience of pleasure, one hates the causes of pain that are opposed to it. Enjoyment is not possible without harming beings, so one harms beings. And hatred is a particular resolve that "May all causes of pain not happen to me." And no one is able to avoid all of them. Therefore, even during the experience of pleasure, because hatred towards its obstacles always exists, the pain of mental agitation is indeed unavoidable. For agitation is hatred. Thus, the painfulness of delusion should also be explained as being unable to avoid causes of pain and becoming confused. As stated by the author of the Yoga-bhāṣya: "For everyone, the experience of agitation, which is bound up with hatred, depends on conscious and unconscious causes." There exists a karmic residue born of hatred. And desiring the causes of pleasure, one exerts oneself through body, speech, and mind. Then one favors or harms others, and thus accumulates merit and demerit through helping and hurting others. The karmic residue does not arise from greed and delusion - this is called the painfulness of agitation. Similarly, the present experience of pleasure deposits a latent impression at the time of its destruction. That produces the memory of pleasure, and that produces desire, and that produces exertion of mind, body and speech, and that produces the karmic residues of merit and demerit, and those produce birth, etc. - this is the painfulness of latent impressions. In the same way, the latent impressions of agitation and delusion should also be explained.
Thus, having stated that sensory pleasure is indeed pain due to its being pervaded by pain in all three times, he states that it is pain even in its essential nature due to the conflict of the functioning of the guṇas (qualities). The guṇas (qualities) - sattva, rajas and tamas - which have the natures of pleasure, pain and delusion respectively, although mutually opposed in nature, like oil, wick and fire, produce a single effect with three aspects that is useful for the experience of the puruṣa (self), like a lamp. There, when one is predominant, the other two are subordinate, so even a three-fold effect is designated by only the predominant quality as sāttvika, rājasa or tāmasa. There, even a mental state that is in the form of experiencing pleasure, although it is an effect of manifest sattva, because it is also an effect of unmanifest rajas and tamas, is indeed three-fold in nature. And thus, just as it has the nature of pleasure, it certainly also has the nature of pain and dejection. Therefore, everything is indeed pain for the discriminating person. And such a mental state is not even stable. For it is said: "The functioning of the guṇas is fluctuating" - thus the mind is said to transform quickly.
If it is objected: How can one mental state simultaneously have the mutually opposed natures of pleasure, pain and delusion? [We reply:] No, because there is no opposition between the manifest and unmanifest. For only qualities functioning equally conflict simultaneously, not those functioning unequally. Just as righteousness, knowledge, detachment and lordship, when manifest, conflict only with unrighteousness, ignorance, attachment and powerlessness when they are manifest, not when they exist in potential form. For the maxim is: "The predominant conflicts with the predominant, not with the weak." Similarly, even sattva, rajas and tamas do not tolerate each other's mere predominance simultaneously, but not their mere existence.
By this, the simultaneous existence of desire, aversion and delusion in the pains of transformation, agitation and latent impressions is also explained, because the afflictions have four states - dormant, attenuated, interrupted and active. As stated: The five afflictions are ignorance, egoism, desire, aversion and fear of death. Ignorance is the field of the others, whether dormant, attenuated, interrupted or active. Ignorance is the notion of permanence, purity, pleasure and self in what is impermanent, impure, painful and non-self. Egoism is the apparent identity of the powers of seeing and of the instrument of seeing. Desire is that which dwells on pleasure. Aversion is that which dwells on pain. The instinctive fear of death, flowing by its own force, tenaciously held even by the learned, is fear of death. These subtle ones are to be abandoned through involution. Their functions are to be abandoned through meditation. The karmic residue, rooted in the afflictions, is to be experienced in seen or unseen births. When the root exists, its fruition is birth, lifespan and experience. [Yoga Sūtras 2.3-13] These are the sūtras of Patañjali. There, ignorance is the false notion "this is that" - error, false knowledge are synonyms. Its particularity is the cause of transmigration. There, the notion of permanence in what is impermanent is like: "The earth is permanent, the sky with moon and stars is permanent, the gods in heaven are immortal." The notion of purity in what is extremely impure, in the body, is like: "This maiden is lovely like a fresh moonbeam, as if made of honey and nectar, as if emerged by splitting the moon, with eyes long like blue lotus petals, seeming to comfort the world of the living with her glance full of emotion" - what relation is there between whom?
The wise know the body as impure
Due to its place, seed, support,
Exudations, and destruction,
As well as the filth it contains.
This is a verse of Vyāsa. By this, the notion of merit in what is demeritorious and the notion of benefit in what is harmful are explained. The notion of pleasure in pain has been illustrated by the pains of transformation, agitation and latent impressions, and by the conflict in the functioning of the guṇas - thus everything is indeed pain for the discriminating person. The notion of self in non-self is like "I am a human" in relation to the body. This ignorance, which is the root of all afflictions, is called darkness. Egoism, which is the notion of non-difference between intellect and self, is delusion. Desire is a particular error that "May all types of pleasure come to me" even without means - this is great delusion. Aversion is a particular error that "May no pain come to me" even when causes of pain are present - this is gloom. Fear of death, which is the natural, common to all living beings, in the form of terror of death, is a particular error that "May there not be separation from these impermanent body, senses, etc." even in the absence of lifespan, like an ignorant woman or child - this is blind darkness. As stated in the Purāṇa:
Darkness, delusion, great delusion, gloom, and blind darkness -
This five-fold ignorance has arisen from the Great Self.
These afflictions (kleśa) have four states. Among these, the dormant state (suptāvasthā) is the state of non-manifestation of the non-existent due to non-origination. The attenuated state (tanv-avasthā) is the state of non-productivity of effects, even when manifested, due to lack of auxiliary causes. The interrupted state (vicchedāvasthā) is the state of being overpowered by something stronger, even when manifested and having produced effects. The fully active state (udārāvasthā) is the state of producing one's effects unimpededly when manifested and having obtained auxiliary causes. For these four afflictions - asmitā (egoism) and others - which are characterized by these four states and are of the nature of misapprehension, avidyā (ignorance) alone is the general form, the field, the ground of origination. This is because the nature of misapprehension has been shown for all of them. Thus, the meaning is that with the cessation of avidyā alone comes the cessation of afflictions.
These afflictions are dormant, as for those merged in prakṛti (nature); attenuated, as for yogis who have weakened them through cultivation of their opposites. Both of these subtle types are to be abandoned through pratiprasava (involution), through mental restraint alone, through seedless samādhi. But those which are gross effects of subtle tendencies, interrupted and fully active, reappear again and again in this or that form after being interrupted. For example, anger is said to be interrupted when it exists but does not manifest during a time of passion. Similarly, when Caitra is attached to one woman, it doesn't mean he is detached from others, but rather his attachment has an active tendency towards one and a potential tendency towards others - this is then called interrupted. When they have active tendencies towards objects, they are said to be fully active, manifesting in their full form. Both of these, being very gross, are to be abandoned through pure sattva-becoming, through meditation on the Lord, and do not require mental restraint. Only the subtle ones are to be abandoned through restraint.
Thus, in the sufferings of change, anxiety and impressions, all afflictions always exist in dormant, attenuated and interrupted forms. The fully active state occurs sometimes for some - this is the distinction. These, producing suffering characterized by oppression, are denoted by the word kleśa (affliction). For the karmic residue, known as merit and demerit, has its root in afflictions alone. And when the affliction which is the root exists, the fruition of that karmic residue is birth, lifespan and experience. That karmic residue is to be experienced in this life or the next, as it begins to bear fruit. Thus the continuum of afflictions revolves incessantly like a water wheel. Therefore it is rightly said: "The enjoyments born of contact are indeed sources of suffering; they have a beginning and an end." Being sources of suffering is due to change, etc., and due to conflict with the functions of the guṇas (qualities of nature). Having a beginning and end is due to the fluctuating nature of the functions of the guṇas - this is the explanation according to the Yoga view.
But according to the Upaniṣadic view: Avidyā is beginningless ignorance of the nature of existence. Asmitā is the superimposition of the nature of the ego. Attachment, aversion and clinging to life are particular functions of that. Because they all have avidyā as their root, they are all of the nature of avidyā, unreal like the superimposition of a snake on a rope, and though unreal, they are sources of suffering and have a beginning and end, being mere perception-creations like dreams. The wise person, whose delusion has ceased through direct realization of the substratum, does not delight in them, just as one who knows the true nature of a mirage does not strive for water there. Understanding that there is not even a trace of happiness in saṃsāra, one should withdraw all the senses from it - this is the meaning. ||22||
Viśvanātha: Only the discriminating person truly becomes attached even to sensory pleasure - this is stated in "ye hi" etc. ||22||
Baladeva: Due to the certainty of impermanence in sensory enjoyments that are unseen and unattracted, one does not become attached - this is stated in "ye hi" etc. Saṃsparśajā means "born of contact with objects", bhogāḥ means "enjoyments", i.e. pleasures. The rest is clear. ||22||
(5.23)
One who is able to withstand, here itself before the release of the body, the force born of desire and anger - he is a yogī, he is a happy man.
śrīdharaḥ: Since liberation is indeed the highest goal of human life, and the force of desire and anger is extremely opposed to it, therefore only one who is capable of enduring that is eligible for liberation - thus he says "One who is able". The force which arises from desire and anger, characterized by agitation of the mind, eyes, etc. The man who is able to withstand, to restrain that, here itself, right after that moment, and not just for a brief moment, but before the release of the body, meaning until the fall of the body. One who is like this is indeed connected (yukta), composed, and becomes happy. No one else. Or, just as after death, even when embraced by wailing young women or burned by sons etc., being devoid of life-breath, one endures the force of desire and anger, in the same way one who endures even while living before death - he alone is connected and happy. Thus it is said by Vasiṣṭha:
Just as the body does not experience pleasure or pain when the life-breath has departed,
If one is likewise even while having life-breath, he would attain to the state of isolation (kaivalya).
Thus ends verse 23.
madhusūdanaḥ: This extremely difficult to overcome opponent on the path of the highest good, which is the cause of obtaining all misfortunes, is the most troublesome fault that must be removed with great effort by one desiring liberation. Thus, in order to prescribe additional effort, he speaks again "One who is able". Desire is the craving, longing, thirst, greed which has the nature of attachment, through the practice of reflecting on the qualities of that which is seen or remembered as favorable and a source of pleasure for oneself. The word desire (kāma) is especially established in the mutual longing between man and woman. In "By this longing, desire, anger, as well as greed" - here greed refers to thirst for wealth, desire refers to thirst for union with women, thus desire and greed are mentioned separately. But here the word desire is used with the intention of thirst in general, so greed is not mentioned separately. Similarly, anger is the hatred, wrath which has the nature of burning, through the practice of reflecting on the faults of that which is seen or heard as unfavorable and a source of pain for oneself. The intense state of these two, being an obstruction to awareness of contradiction with worldly and Vedic injunctions, taking the form of inclination towards activity contradicting worldly and Vedic injunctions, is called force (vega) by comparison with the force of a river. Just as the force of a river in the rainy season, being extremely powerful, makes even an unwilling person fall into a pit, submerges him, and carries him downstream, disregarding contradiction with worldly and Vedic injunctions, similarly the force of desire and anger, being extremely powerful through the practice of contemplating sense objects, which is like the rainy season, makes even an unwilling person fall into the pit of sense objects, submerges him in the ocean of saṃsāra, and carries him down to the great hells, disregarding contradiction with worldly and Vedic injunctions - this is indicated by the use of the word force. This has been explained in "Then, impelled by what..." [Gītā 3.36].
One who is able to withstand, to render ineffective by not carrying out the corresponding actions, that force born of desire and anger, which takes the form of agitation of the inner organ, characterized by many external modifications like paralysis, sweating, etc., which is to be distrusted as potentially arising at all times due to various causes until the release of the body, through dispassion called self-control born from the practice of seeing faults arisen within - he alone is connected (yukta), a yogī, he alone is happy, he alone is a man, a person, due to accomplishing the goals of human life. But one other than that, being devoted only to animal qualities like eating, sleeping, fearing, and mating, though having human form, is indeed an animal - this is the meaning.
Another explanation of "until the release of the body" is: Just as after death, even when embraced by wailing young women or burned by sons etc., being devoid of life-breath, one endures the force of desire and anger, in the same way one who endures even while living before death - he is connected (yukta), etc. Here, if it meant only the non-arising of desire and anger in life as in death, then this would be appropriate. As said by Vasiṣṭha:
Just as the body does not experience pleasure or pain when the life-breath has departed,
If one is likewise even while having life-breath, he would dwell in the abode of isolation (kaivalya).
But here, in the context of enduring the force of arisen desire and anger, their mere non-arising is not an example. So why insist on this?
Thus ends verse 23.
viśvanāthaḥ: Even though fallen into the ocean of saṃsāra, this one alone is a yogī, this one alone is happy - thus he says "One who is able". 23.
baladevaḥ: One who is able to withstand, here itself before the release of the body, the force born of desire and anger - he is connected (yukta), he is a happy man. 23.
(5.24)
He who is inwardly happy, inwardly delighted, and likewise inwardly illumined, that yogī attains brahma-nirvāṇa (liberation in Brahman), becoming one with Brahman.
śrīdhara: Not only by restraining the force of desire and anger does one attain liberation. But also he who is inwardly happy, meaning one whose happiness is in the inner self alone, not in sense objects. One whose delight is only within, not externally. One whose light or vision is only within, not in song, dance, etc. He, thus established in Brahman, attains nirvāṇa (dissolution) in Brahman. ||24||
madhusūdana: It is not that one is liberated merely by enduring the force of desire and anger, but rather he who is inwardly, etc.
One whose happiness is inherent in his own nature, independent of internal and external objects, is inwardly happy, meaning devoid of happiness generated by external objects. Why is there absence of external happiness? He explains: One whose delight, meaning play, is only in the inner self, not in external objects of happiness like women, etc., is inwardly delighted, meaning devoid of means of external happiness due to renouncing all possessions.
Now, even for a renunciate who has given up all possessions, there is the possibility of worldly happiness arising from accidentally encountered sweet sounds of cuckoos, etc., touch of gentle breezes, seeing moonrise, peacock dances, etc., drinking extremely sweet cool Ganges water, smelling the fragrance of ketakī flowers, etc. So how can there be absence of external happiness and its means? To this he says: "and likewise inwardly illumined." Just as happiness is only internal, not from external objects, so too illumination or knowledge is only internal in the self, not through external senses. He is inwardly illumined, devoid of knowledge of sound and other sense objects generated by the ears, etc. The word 'eva' applies to all three attributes. Because there is no appearance of sound, etc. during samādhi, and even when they appear during the waking state, there is certainty of their falsity, so there is no possibility of happiness arising for him from external objects.
The yogī who is endowed with the aforementioned qualities, being in samādhi, attains brahma-nirvāṇa, which is Brahman of the nature of supreme bliss, which is nirvāṇa in the form of cessation of imagined duality, because the imagined state is of the nature of its substratum. He attains, meaning realizes what is eternally attained, through the removal of the veil of ignorance. Because he is always one with Brahman, not different. As per the śruti: "Being Brahman, he goes to Brahman alone." And according to the maxim: "Due to its existence," as stated by Kāśakṛtsna. ||24||
viśvanātha: For one who has transcended worldly existence, experience of Brahman alone is happiness, as stated in "He who..." One whose happiness is in the inner self alone. Since he delights only in the inner self, his illumination or vision is only in the inner self. ||24||
baladeva: He states what enables one to endure that with love in "He who inwardly..." One whose happiness is through the inner experienced self. One whose delight or play is through that alone. One whose illumination or vision is in that alone. Such a yogī, a performer of desireless action, having attained his pure spiritual nature, attains Brahman, meaning realizes the Supreme Self. Nirvāṇa in the form of liberation is attained through that alone. ||24||
(5.25)
labhante brahma-nirvāṇam (attain liberation in Brahman) ṛṣayaḥ (sages) kṣīṇa-kalmaṣāḥ (whose impurities are destroyed) |
chinna-dvaidhā (free from dualities) yatātmānaḥ (with controlled minds) sarva-bhūta-hite ratāḥ (devoted to the welfare of all beings) ||
śrīdharaḥ: Moreover, labhante (they attain) thus. Ṛṣayaḥ (sages) are those who see correctly. Those whose impurities have been destroyed. They are devoted to the welfare of all beings, compassionate. They attain brahma-nirvāṇam (liberation in Brahman), mokṣam (liberation). ||25||
madhusūdanaḥ: Explaining the other means for knowledge, which is the cause of liberation, he says labhante (they attain) thus. First, those whose impurities are destroyed by sacrifices and other means. Then, through purification of the inner organs, ṛṣayaḥ (sages) capable of discerning subtle realities, renunciates. Then, through maturation of hearing etc., free from dualities, all doubts removed. Then, through maturation of meditation, with controlled minds, with minds focused solely on the Supreme Self. And being such, seeing non-duality, devoted to the welfare of all beings, free from violence, knowers of Brahman attain brahma-nirvāṇam (liberation in Brahman).
As per the scripture: "When to the man of realization all beings become the very Self, then what delusion and what sorrow can there be for that seer of oneness?"
The plural form is used to show that there is no restriction, as stated in scriptures like "He who among the gods" etc. ||25||
viśvanāthaḥ: Thus, many indeed become perfected in the means, he says labhante (they attain) thus. ||25||
baladevaḥ: Thus, many become perfected in the means, he says labhante (they attain) thus. Ṛṣayaḥ (sages) are seers of truth. Chinna-dvaidhā (free from dualities) means those whose doubts are destroyed. The rest is clear. ||25||
(5.26)
Here is a translation of the entire text into English, keeping all numbers and references exactly as they appear in the original:
For ascetics whose minds are controlled, who are free from desire and anger, and who have realized the Self, liberation in Brahman exists all around, both while living and after death.
śrīdharaḥ: Moreover, kāma etc. Free from desire and anger. For ascetics, renunciates. Those with controlled minds who have realized the truth of the Self, for them it exists on both sides - for the living and the dead. Their dissolution in Brahman is not only after death, but exists even while living - this is the meaning. ||26||
madhusūdanaḥ: Previously it was said that even when desire and anger arise, their force should be tolerated. But now it is said that their very arising should be prevented, as stated in kāma etc. Freedom from desire and anger means their non-arising. Therefore, for those with controlled minds, for ascetics who are habituated to effort, for renunciates who have directly realized the Supreme Self, for them liberation in Brahman exists on both sides - for the living and the dead - because it is eternal. It will not be attained in the future, as it is not something to be accomplished. ||26||
viśvanāthaḥ: For those who have attained knowledge of the Supreme Self, which is the meaning of the word "You", how long will it take for the bliss of liberation in Brahman to arise? With this expectation, he speaks kāma etc. For those with controlled minds, meaning those whose subtle bodies have been destroyed, it exists all around, in every way. Thus there is no great delay in liberation in Brahman - this is the meaning. ||26||
baladevaḥ: The Supreme Self also follows such devotees, as stated in kāma etc. For ascetics who make effort, Brahman exists all around them - this is the meaning. As it is said:
"By seeing, meditating on and touching, fish, tortoises and birds nourish their young. In the same way, I also [nourish My devotees], O Lotus-born one." ||26||
(5.27-28)
Having made the external sensory contacts remain outside, and fixing the gaze between the eyebrows, equalizing the inward and outward breaths moving within the nostrils,
With senses, mind and intellect restrained, the sage devoted to liberation, free from desire, fear and anger - such a one is indeed ever liberated.
Śrīdhara: In verses beginning with "sa yogī brahma-nirvāṇam", it was said that the yogi attains liberation. Now the same yoga is briefly described in these two verses. The external sense objects like form, taste etc. when contemplated enter within. Keeping them outside by abandoning their contemplation. Fixing the gaze between the eyebrows, i.e. in the middle of the brows, because when the eyes are completely closed, the mind dissolves in sleep, and when fully open, it spreads outward. To avoid both these faults, the gaze should be fixed between the brows with half-closed eyes. Making the inhalation and exhalation moving within the nostrils equal by stopping their upward and downward movement, i.e. practicing kumbhaka (breath retention). Or, making the prāṇa and apāna equal so that the outgoing breath does not exit and the incoming breath does not enter, but both move only in the middle of the nose with slow inhalation and exhalation.
"Yata" means one whose senses, mind and intellect are restrained by this method. One for whom liberation alone is the supreme goal to be attained. Hence, one who is free from desire, fear and anger. A sage who is like this is ever liberated, even while living.
Madhusūdana: Previously it was said that for one who has offered all attitudes to the Lord, purification of the inner organs happens through karma yoga, then renunciation of all actions, then knowledge of reality which is the means to liberation arises for one devoted to hearing the scriptures etc. Now, to explain in detail the meditation yoga which was hinted at in "sa yogī brahma-nirvāṇam" as the internal means to right knowledge, the Lord speaks these three verses which are like aphorisms. The entire sixth chapter will be like a commentary on these. Even there, yoga is described briefly in two verses. The third verse describes its result as knowledge of the Supreme Self - this is the distinction.
"Sparśān" means keeping the external sense objects like sound etc. outside, even though they enter within through the ears etc. in the form of modifications of the inner organ, by not producing those modifications due to supreme dispassion. If these were internal, they could not be made external by thousands of means, as it would entail changing their inherent nature. But external objects that have entered within due to attachment can be made to go outside through dispassion - to express this the adjective "external" is used. Having thus stated dispassion, practice is now described. "Fixing the gaze between the eyebrows" is to be connected. Because if the eyes are completely closed, there would be just one modification in the form of sleep which is dissolution. But if opened, there would be four distracted modifications - valid cognition, error, imagination and memory. Since all five modifications are to be restrained, the gaze should be fixed between the brows with half-closed eyes. Similarly, equalizing the inward and outward breaths moving within the nostrils by stopping their upward and downward movement through kumbhaka (breath retention). One whose senses, mind and intellect are restrained by this method should be a sage devoted to liberation, detached from all sense objects. "Free from desire, fear and anger" has been explained earlier as "free from passion, fear and anger". A renunciant who is like this is ever liberated. Liberation is not something to be accomplished for him. Or, one who is like this is ever liberated even while living.
Viśvanātha: Thus, purification of the inner organs happens through selfless action offered to the Lord. Then knowledge regarding the meaning of "thou". Then devotion for knowledge of the meaning of "that". Then experience of Brahman through knowledge born of that which transcends the guṇas - this has been stated. Now, to explain aṣṭāṅga yoga in the sixth chapter as the means to experience Brahman, superior even to jñāna yoga, for one whose inner organs have been purified by selfless karma yoga, these three verses which are like aphorisms are spoken beginning with "sparśān". The external sounds, touches, forms, tastes and smells denoted by the word "sparśa" which enter and remain in the mind - withdrawing the mind from those sense objects by keeping them outside the mind. Fixing the gaze between, i.e. in the middle of the eyebrows, because when the eyes are completely closed, the mind dissolves in sleep, and when opened, it spreads outward. To avoid both these faults, the gaze should be fixed between the brows with half-closed eyes. Making the inhalation and exhalation moving within the nostrils equal by stopping their upward and downward movement. One whose senses etc. are thus controlled.
Baladeva: Now one whose mind has been purified by selfless action and in whom self-knowledge has arisen should practice samādhi for realizing that. Hinting at yoga with its limbs, he speaks the verse beginning with "sparśān". The sense objects like sound etc. are external, but when remembered they enter the mind. Withdrawing the mind from sense objects by abandoning their memory and keeping them outside - this is the meaning. Fixing the gaze between, i.e. in the middle of the eyebrows, because when the eyes are completely closed, the mind dissolves in sleep, and when fully opened, it spreads outward. To avoid both, the gaze should be fixed between the brows with half-closed eyes - this is the meaning. Similarly, making the inward and outward breaths moving within the nostrils equal by stopping their upward and downward movement, i.e. practicing kumbhaka (breath retention) - this is the meaning. One whose senses etc. are fixed for realizing the Self by this method. A sage means one devoted to contemplation on the Self. Devoted to liberation means having liberation as the sole purpose. Hence free from desire etc. One who is like this is ever liberated, even during the time of practice just like at the time of attaining the result.
(5.29)
bhoktāraṁ yajña-tapasāṁ sarva-loka-maheśvaram |
suhṛdaṁ sarva-bhūtānāṁ jñātvā māṁ śāntim ṛcchati ||
śrīdharaḥ: How can liberation be attained merely by controlling the senses and such? Not by that alone, but through knowledge, as stated in "bhoktāram". The enjoyer or protector of sacrifices and austerities offered by My devotees. The great Lord of all worlds. The friend of all beings, benefactor without expectation. Knowing Me, the inner controller, one attains peace, liberation, by My grace. ||29||
By removing doubts through alternatives, the combination of Sāṅkhya and Yoga has thus been stated in sequence. I bow to that all-knowing Hari.
Thus ends the fifth chapter named Saṁnyāsa-yoga in the Subodhinī commentary on the Bhagavad Gītā composed by Śrī Śrīdhara Svāmī. ||5||
madhusūdanaḥ: What should a yogi know to be liberated? That is stated in "bhoktāram". The enjoyer or protector of all sacrifices and austerities in the form of the doer and deity. The great Lord of all worlds, controller even of Hiraṇyagarbha and others. The friend of all beings, benefactor without expectation of return, the inner controller of all, illuminator of all, the one essence of complete existence-consciousness-bliss, the supreme reality, the Self of all, Nārāyaṇa. Knowing Me thus, realizing Me as the Self, one attains peace, cessation of all worldly existence, liberation. This is the meaning. The attributes are for removing the doubt "How am I not liberated even while seeing You?" The import is that knowledge of Me in the stated form alone is the cause of liberation. ||29||
The knowledge of one's own nature, accomplished through practice of many means, taught by Hari, is the means of liberation for all. ||5||
Thus ends the fifth chapter named Sva-svarūpa-parijñānam in the Gūḍhārtha-dīpikā commentary on the Bhagavad Gītā composed by Śrī Madhusūdana Sarasvatī, disciple of Śrī Viśveśvara Sarasvatī, the wandering monk and great sage. ||5||
viśvanāthaḥ: Even for such a yogi, like for a jñānī, liberation is only through knowledge of the Supreme Self arising from devotion, as stated in "bhoktāram". The enjoyer or protector of sacrifices performed by karmīs and austerities performed by jñānīs - thus the object of worship for karmīs and jñānīs. The great Lord of all worlds, the great controller, the inner controller - the object of worship for yogis. The friend of all beings, benefactor through His devotees by teaching devotion out of compassion - thus the object of worship for devotees. Knowing Me thus - since direct experience of Me who am beyond qualities is not possible through knowledge made of sattva quality, as I have said "I am to be grasped only through unalloyed devotion." The yogi, making Me, the Supreme Self, his object of worship, directly experienced through devotion beyond qualities, attains peace, liberation. ||29||
The jñānī and yogi are here liberated through desireless action, knowing the individual self and Supreme Self - this is stated as the meaning of the chapter.
Thus in the Sārārtha-darśinī, delighting the hearts of devotees, the fifth chapter of the Gītā is connected and concordant for the good. ||5||
baladevaḥ: Thus established in samādhi, having perceived his own self, the Supreme Self to be worshipped is described, as stated in "bhoktāram". The enjoyer or protector of sacrifices and austerities. The great Lord of all worlds, even of Brahmā, Rudra, etc. As heard in scriptures like "Him, the supreme great Lord of lords" [Śve. Up. 6.7]. The friend of all beings, benefactor without expectation. Knowing such a Me, experiencing Me as the object of worship, one attains peace, cessation of worldly existence. Indeed, worship of the Lord of all and friend of all is conducive to happiness, the means of happiness. ||29||
One is liberated through desireless action headed by yoga, established in knowledge pregnant with devotion - this is the conclusion of the fifth chapter.
Thus ends the fifth chapter in the commentary on the Bhagavad Gītā Upaniṣad. ||5||
Saturday, August 31, 2024
Bg 5.1-29
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment