Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya)
भगवद्गीताभाष्यम् (आदि शङ्कराचार्य)
Adi Shankaracharya’s commentary on the Bhagavad Gita, with Sanskrit text and available source translations.
Chapter 13 · 35 shlokas
+ Add ShlokaBhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.1
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.1 · Chapter 13 · Verse 1
।।13.1।। -- No Commentary
13.1 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. Many editions of the Bhagavadgita do not contain this sloka৷৷ If this sloka is included, the total number of slokas in the Bhagavadgita is 701.
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.2
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.2 · Chapter 13 · Verse 2
।।13.2।। --,इदम् इति सर्वनाम्ना उक्तं विशिनष्टि शरीरम् इति। हे कौन्तेय? क्षतत्राणात्? क्षयात्? क्षरणात्? क्षेत्रवद्वा अस्मिन् कर्मफलनिष्पत्तेः क्षेत्रम् इति -- इतिशब्दः एवंशब्दपदार्थकः -- क्षेत्रम् इत्येवम् अभिधीयते कथ्यते। एतत् शरीरं क्षेत्रं यः वेत्ति विजानाति? आपादतलमस्तकं ज्ञानेन विषयीकरोति? स्वाभाविकेन औपदेशिकेन वा वेदनेन विषयीकरोति विभागशः? तं वेदितारं प्राहुः कथयन्ति क्षेत्रज्ञः इति -- इतिशब्दः एवंशब्दपदार्थकः एव पूर्ववत् -- क्षेत्रज्ञः इत्येवम् आहुः। के तद्विदः तौ क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञौ ये विदन्ति ते तद्विदः।।एवं क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञौ उक्तौ। किम् एतावन्मात्रेण ज्ञानेन ज्ञातव्यौ इति न इति उच्यते --,
13.2 The Lord specifies the body as the object referred to by the pronoun idam (this). O son of Kunti, (this body) abhidhiyate, is referred to; ksetram iti, as the field-because it is protected (tra) against injury (ksata), or because it perishes (ksi), wastes away (ksar), or because the results of actions get fulfilled in the body as in a field (ksetra). The word iti is used in the sense of 'as'. They-who?-tadvidah, who are versed in this, who know the 'field' and the 'knower of the field'; ahuh, call; tam, him, the knower; yah, who; vetti etat, is concious of, knows, it, the body, the field-makes it, from head to foot, an abject of his knowledge; makes it an object of perception as a separate entity, through knowledg which is spontaneous or is acired through instruction; ksetrajna iti, as the knower of the field. As before, the word iti is used in the sense of 'as'. They call him as the knower of the field. Is it that the field and the knower of the field thus mentioned are to be understood through this much knowledge only? The answer is, no.
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.3
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.3 · Chapter 13 · Verse 3
।।13.3।। --,क्षेत्रज्ञं यथोक्तलक्षणं चापि मां परमेश्वरम् असंसारिणं विद्धि जानीहि। सर्वक्षेत्रेषु यः क्षेत्रज्ञः ब्रह्मादिस्तम्बपर्यन्तानेकक्षेत्रोपाधिप्रविभक्तः? तं निरस्तसर्वोपाधिभेदं सदसदादिशब्दप्रत्ययागोचरं विद्धि इति अभिप्रायः। हे भारत? यस्मात् क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञेश्वरयाथात्म्यव्यतिरेकेण न ज्ञानगोचरम् अन्यत् अवशिष्टम् अस्ति? तस्मात् क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोः ज्ञेयभूतयोः यत् ज्ञानं क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञौ येन ज्ञानेन विषयीक्रियेते? तत् ज्ञानं सम्यग्ज्ञानम् इति मतम् अभिप्रायः मम ईश्वरस्य विष्णोः।।ननु सर्वक्षेत्रेषु एक एव ईश्वरः? न अन्यः तद्व्यतिरिक्तः भोक्ता विद्यते चेत्? ततः ईश्वरस्य संसारित्वं प्राप्तम् ईश्वरव्यतिरेकेण वा संसारिणः अन्यस्य अभावात् संसाराभावप्रसङ्गः। तच्च उभयमनिष्टम्? बन्धमोक्षतद्धेतुशास्त्रानर्थक्यप्रसङ्गात्? प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणविरोधाच्च। प्रत्यक्षेण तावत् सुखदुःखतद्धेतुलक्षणः संसारः उपलभ्यते जगद्वैचित्र्योपलब्धेश्च धर्माधर्मनिमित्तः संसारः अनुमीयते। सर्वमेतत् अनुपपन्नमात्मेश्वरैकत्वे।।न ज्ञानाज्ञानयोः अन्यत्वेनोपपत्तेः -- दूरमेते विपरीते विषूची अविद्या या च विद्येति ज्ञाता (क0 उ0 1।2।4)। तथा च तयोः विद्याविद्याविषययोः फलभेदोऽपि विरुद्धः निर्दिष्टः -- श्रेयश्च प्रेयश्च इति विद्याविषयः श्रेयः? प्रेयस्तु अविद्याकार्यम् इति। तथा च व्यासः -- द्वाविमावथ पन्थानौ (महा0 शान्ति0 241।6) इत्यादि? इमौ द्वावेव पन्थानौ इत्यादि च। इह च द्वे निष्ठे उक्ते। अविद्या च सह कार्येण हातव्या इति श्रुतिस्मृतिन्यायेभ्यः अवगम्यते। श्रुतयः तावत् -- इह चेदवेदीदथ सत्यमस्ति न चेदिहावेदीन्महती विनष्टिः (के0 उ0 2।5) तमेवं विद्वानमृत इह भवति (नृ0 पू0 उ0 6)। नान्यः पन्था विद्यतेऽयनाय (श्वे0 उ0 3।8) विद्वान्न बिभेति कुतश्चन (तै0 उ0 2।4)। अविदुषस्तु -- अथ तस्य भयं भवति (तै0 उ0 2।7)? अविद्यायामन्तरे वर्तमानाः (क0 उ0 1।2।5) ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति (मु0 उ0 3।2।9) अन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति न स वेद यथा पशुरेवं स देवानाम् आत्मवित् यः स इदं सर्वं भवति (बृह0 उ0 1।4।10) यदा चर्मवत् (श्वे0 उ0 6।20) इत्याद्याः सहस्रशः। स्मृतयश्च -- अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानं तेन मुह्यन्ति जन्तवः (गीता 5।15) इहैव तैर्जितः सर्गो येषां साम्ये स्थितं मनः (गीता 5।19) समं पश्यन् हि सर्वत्र (गीता 13।28) इत्याद्याः। न्यायतश्च -- सर्पान्कुशाग्राणि तथोदपानं ज्ञात्वा मनुष्याः परिवर्जयन्ति। अज्ञानतस्तत्र पतन्ति केचिज्ज्ञाने फलं पश्य तथाविशिष्टम् (महा0 शा0 201।16)। तथा च -- देहादिषु आत्मबुद्धिः अविद्वान् रागद्वेषादिप्रयुक्तः धर्माधर्मानुष्ठानकृत् जायते म्रियते च इति अवगम्यते देहादिव्यतिरिक्तात्मदर्शिनः रागद्वेषादिप्रहाणापेक्षधर्माधर्मप्रवृत्त्युपशमात् मुच्यन्ते इति न केनचित् प्रत्याख्यातुं शक्यं न्यायतः। तत्र एवं सति? क्षेत्रज्ञस्य ईश्वरस्यैव सतः अविद्याकृतोपाधिभेदतः संसारित्वमिव भवति? यथा देहाद्यात्मत्वमात्मनः। सर्वजन्तूनां हि प्रसिद्धः देहादिषु अनात्मसु आत्मभावः निश्चितः अविद्याकृतः? यथा स्थाणौ पुरुषनिश्चयः? न च एतावता पुरुषधर्मः स्थाणोः भवति? स्थाणुधर्मो वा पुरुषस्य? तथा न चैतन्यधर्मो देहस्य? देहधर्मो वा चेतनस्य सुखदुःखमोहात्मकत्वादिः आत्मनः न युक्तः अविद्याकृतत्वाविशेषात्? जरामृत्युवत्।।न? अतुल्यत्वात् इति चेत् -- स्थाणुपुरुषौ ज्ञेयावेव सन्तौ ज्ञात्रा अन्योन्यस्मिन् अध्यस्तौ अविद्यया देहात्मनोस्तु ज्ञेयज्ञात्रोरेव इतरेतराध्यासः? इति न समः दृष्टान्तः। अतः देहधर्मः ज्ञेयोऽपि ज्ञातुरात्मनः भवतीति चेत्? न अचैतन्यादिप्रसङ्गात्। यदि हि ज्ञेयस्य देहादेः क्षेत्रस्य धर्माः सुखदुःखमोहेच्छादयः ज्ञातुः भवन्ति? तर्हि? ज्ञेयस्य क्षेत्रस्य धर्माः केचित् आत्मनः भवन्ति अविद्याध्यारोपिताः? जरामरणादयस्तु न भवन्ति इति विशेषहेतुः वक्तव्यः। न भवन्ति इति अस्ति अनुमानम् -- अविद्याध्यारोपितत्वात् जरामरणादिवत् इति? हेयत्वात्? उपादेयत्वाच्च इत्यादि। तत्र एवं सति? कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वलक्षणः संसारः ज्ञेयस्थः ज्ञातरि अविद्यया अध्यारोपितः इति? न तेन ज्ञातुः किञ्चित् दुष्यति? यथा बालैः अध्यारोपितेन आकाशस्य तलमलिनत्वादिना।।एवं च सति? सर्वक्षेत्रेष्वपि सतः भगवतः क्षेत्रज्ञस्य ईश्वरस्य संसारित्वगन्धमात्रमपि नाशङ्क्यम्। न हि क्वचिदपि लोके अविद्याध्यस्तेन धर्मेण कस्यचित् उपकारः अपकारो वा दृष्टः।।यत्तु उक्तम् -- न समः दृष्टान्तः इति? तत् असत्। कथम् अविद्याध्यासमात्रं हि दृष्टान्तदार्ष्टान्तिकयोः साधर्म्यं विवक्षितम्। तत् न व्यभिचरति। यत्तु ज्ञातरि व्यभिचरति इति मन्यसे? तस्यापि अनैकान्तिकत्वं दर्शितं जरादिभिः।।अविद्यावत्त्वात् क्षेत्रज्ञस्य संसारित्वम् इति चेत्? न अविद्यायाः तामसत्वात्। तामसो हि प्रत्ययः? आवरणात्मकत्वात् अविद्या विपरीतग्राहकः? संशयोपस्थापको वा? अग्रहणात्मको वा विवेकप्रकाशभावे तदभावात्? तामसे च आवरणात्मके तिमिरादिदोषे सति अग्रहणादेः अविद्यात्रयस्य उपलब्धेः।। अत्र आह -- एवं तर्हि ज्ञातृधर्मः अविद्या। न करणे चक्षुषि तैमिरिकत्वादिदोषोपलब्धेः। यत्तु मन्यसे -- ज्ञातृधर्मः अविद्या? तदेव च अविद्याधर्मवत्त्वं क्षेत्रज्ञस्य संसारित्वम् तत्र यदुक्तम् ईश्वर एव क्षेत्रज्ञः? न संसारी इत्येतत् अयुक्तमिति -- तत् न यथा करणे चक्षुषि विपरीतग्राहकादिदोषस्य दर्शनात्। न विपरीतादिग्रहणं तन्निमित्तं वा तैमिरिकत्वादिदोषः ग्रहीतुः? चक्षुषः संस्कारेण तिमिरे अपनीते ग्रहीतुः अदर्शनात् न ग्रहीतुर्धर्मः यथा तथा सर्वत्रैव अग्रहणविपरीतसंशयप्रत्ययास्तन्निमित्ताः करणस्यैव कस्यचित् भवितुमर्हन्ति? न ज्ञातुः क्षेत्रज्ञस्य। संवेद्यत्वाच्च तेषां प्रदीपप्रकाशवत् न ज्ञातृधर्मत्वम् -- संवेद्यत्वादेव स्वात्मव्यतिरिक्तसंवेद्यत्वम् सर्वकरणवियोगे च कैवल्ये सर्ववादिभिः अविद्यादिदोषवत्त्वानभ्युपगमात्। आत्मनः यदि क्षेत्रज्ञस्य अग्न्युष्णवत् स्वः धर्मः? ततः न कदाचिदपि तेन वियोगः स्यात्। अविक्रियस्य च व्योमवत् सर्वगतस्य अमूर्तस्य आत्मनः केनचित् संयोगवियोगानुपपत्तेः? सिद्धं क्षेत्रज्ञस्य नित्यमेव ईश्वरत्वम् अनादित्वान्निर्गुणत्वात् (गीता 13।31) इत्यादीश्वरवचनाच्च।।ननु एवं सति संसारसंसारित्वाभावे शास्त्रानर्थक्यादिदोषः स्यादिति चेत्? न सर्वैरभ्युपगतत्वात्। सर्वैर्हि आत्मवादिभिः अभ्युपगतः दोषः न एकेन परिहर्तव्यः भवति। कथम् अभ्युपगतः इति मुक्तात्मनां हि संसारसंसारित्वव्यवहाराभावः सर्वैरेव आत्मवादिभिः इष्यते। न च तेषां शास्त्रानर्थक्यादिदोषप्राप्तिः अभ्युपगता। तथा नः क्षेत्रज्ञानाम् ईश्वरैकत्वे सति? शास्त्रानर्थक्यं भवतु अविद्याविषये च अर्थवत्त्वम् -- यथा द्वैतिनां सर्वेषां बन्धावस्थायामेव शास्त्राद्यर्थवत्त्वम्? न मुक्तावस्थायाम्? एवम्।।ननु आत्मनः बन्धमुक्तावस्थे परमार्थत एव वस्तुभूते द्वैतिनां सर्वेषाम्। अतः हेयोपादेयतत्साधनसद्भावे शास्त्राद्यर्थवत्त्वं स्यात्। अद्वैतिनां पुनः? द्वैतस्य अपरमार्थत्वात्? अविद्याकृतत्वात् बन्धावस्थायाश्च आत्मनः अपरमार्थत्वे निर्विषयत्वात्? शास्त्राद्यानर्थक्यम् इति चेत्? न आत्मनः अवस्थाभेदानुपपत्तेः। यदि तावत् आत्मनः बन्धमुक्तावस्थे? युगपत् स्याताम्? क्रमेण वा। युगपत् तावत् विरोधात् न संभवतः स्थितिगती इव एकस्मिन्। क्रमभावित्वे च? निर्निमित्तत्वे अनिर्मोक्षप्रसङ्गः।,अन्यनिमित्तत्वे च स्वतः अभावात् अपरमार्थत्वप्रसङ्गः। तथा च सति अभ्युपगमहानिः। किञ्च? बन्धमुक्तावस्थयोः पौर्वापर्यनिरूपणायां बन्धावस्था पूर्वं प्रकल्प्या? अनादिमती अन्तवती च तच्च प्रमाणविरुद्धम्। तथा मोक्षावस्था आदिमती अनन्ता च प्रमाणविरुद्धैव अभ्युपगम्यते। न च अवस्थावतः अवस्थान्तरं गच्छतः नित्यत्वम् उपपादयितुं शक्यम्। अथ अनित्यत्वदोषपरिहाराय बन्धमुक्तावस्थाभेदो न कल्प्यते? अतः द्वैतिनामपि शास्त्रानर्थक्यादिदोषः अपरिहार्य एव इति समानत्वात् न अद्वैतवादिना परिहर्तव्यः दोषः।।न च शास्त्रानर्थक्यम्? यथाप्रसिद्धाविद्वत्पुरुषविषयत्वात् शास्त्रस्य। अविदुषां हि फलहेत्वोः अनात्मनोः आत्मदर्शनम्? न विदुषाम् विदुषां हि फलहेतुभ्याम् आत्मनः अन्यत्वदर्शने सति? तयोः अहमिति आत्मदर्शनानुपपत्तेः। न हि अत्यन्तमूढः उन्मत्तादिरपि जलाग्न्योः छायाप्रकाशयोर्वा ऐकात्म्यं पश्यति किमुत विवेकी। तस्मात् न विधिप्रतिषेधशास्त्रं तावत् फलहेतुभ्याम् आत्मनः अन्यत्वदर्शिनः भवति। न हि देवदत्त? त्वम् इदं कुरु इति कस्मिंश्चित् कर्मणि नियुक्ते? विष्णुमित्रः अहं नियुक्तः इति तत्रस्थः नियोगं श्रृण्वन्नपि प्रतिपद्यते। वियोगविषयविवेकाग्रहणात् तु उपपद्यते प्रतिपत्तिः तथा फलहेत्वोरपि।।ननु प्राकृतसंबन्धापेक्षया युक्तैव प्रतिपत्तिः शास्त्रार्थविषया -- फलहेतुभ्याम् अन्यात्मविषयदर्शनेऽपि सति -- इष्टफलहेतौ प्रवर्तितः अस्मि? अनिष्टफलहेतोश्च निवर्तितः अस्मीति यथा पितृपुत्रादीनाम् इतरेतरात्मान्यत्वदर्शने सत्यपि अन्योन्यनियोगप्रतिषेधार्थप्रतिपत्तिः। न व्यतिरिक्तात्मदर्शनप्रतिपत्तेः प्रागेव फलहेत्वोः आत्माभिमानस्य सिद्धत्वात्। प्रतिपन्ननियोगप्रतिषेधार्थो हि फलहेतुभ्याम् आत्मनः अन्यत्वं प्रतिपद्यते? न पूर्वम्। तस्मात् विधिप्रतिषेधशास्त्रम् अविद्वद्विषयम् इति सिद्धम्।।ननु स्वर्गकामो यजेत न कलञ्जं भक्षयेत् इत्यादौ आत्मव्यतिरेकदर्शिनाम् अप्रवृत्तौ? केवलदेहाद्यात्मदृष्टीनां च अतः कर्तुः अभावात् शास्त्रानर्थक्यमिति चेत्? न यथाप्रसिद्धित एव प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्त्युपपत्तेः। ईश्वरक्षेत्रज्ञैकत्वदर्शी ब्रह्मवित् तावत् न प्रवर्तते। तथा नैरात्म्यवाद्यपि नास्ति परलोकः इति न प्रवर्तते। यथाप्रसिद्धितस्तु विधिप्रतिषेधशास्त्रश्रवणान्यथानुपपत्त्या अनुमितात्मास्तित्वः आत्मविशेषानभिज्ञः कर्मफलसंजाततृष्णः श्रद्दधानतया च प्रवर्तते। इति सर्वेषां न प्रत्यक्षम्। अतः न शास्त्रानर्थक्यम्।। विवेकिनाम् अप्रवृत्तिदर्शनात् तदनुगामिनाम् अप्रवृत्तौ शास्त्रानर्थक्यम् इति चेत्? न कस्यचिदेव विवेकोपपत्तेः। अनेकेषु हि प्राणिषु कश्चिदेव विवेकी स्यात्? यथेदानीम्। न च विवेकिनम् अनुवर्तन्ते मूढाः? रागादिदोषतन्त्रत्वात् प्रवृत्तेः? अभिचरणादौ च प्रवृत्तिदर्शनात्? स्वाभाव्याच्च प्रवृत्तेः -- स्वभावस्तु प्रवर्तते (गीता 5।14) इति हि उक्तम्।। तस्मात् अविद्यामात्रं संसारः यथादृष्टविषयः एव। न क्षेत्रज्ञस्य केवलस्य अविद्या तत्कार्यं च। न च मिथ्याज्ञानं परमार्थवस्तु दूषयितुं समर्थम्। न हि ऊषरदेशं स्नेहेन पङ्कीकर्तुं शक्नोति मरीच्युदकम्। तथा अविद्या क्षेत्रज्ञस्य न किञ्चित् कर्तुं शक्नोति। अतश्चेदमुक्तम् -- क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि (गीता 13।2) ? अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानम् (गीता 5।15) इति च।।अथ किमिदं संसारिणामिव अहमेवम् ममैवेदम् इति पण्डितानामपि श्रृणु इदं तत् पाण्डित्यम्? यत् क्षेत्रे एव आत्मदर्शनम्। यदि पुनः क्षेत्रज्ञम् अविक्रियं पश्येयुः? ततः न भोगं कर्म वा आकाङ्क्षेयुः मम स्यात् इति। विक्रियैव भोगकर्मणी। अथ एवं सति? फलार्थित्वात् अविद्वान् प्रवर्तते। विदुषः पुनः अविक्रियात्मदर्शिनः फलार्थित्वाभावात् प्रवृत्त्यनुपपत्तौ कार्यकरणसंघातव्यापारोपरमे निवृत्तिः उपचर्यते।।इदं च अन्यत् पाण्डित्यं केषाञ्चित् अस्तु -- क्षेत्रज्ञः ईश्वर एव। क्षेत्रं च अन्यत् क्षेत्रज्ञस्यैव विषयः। अहं तु संसारी सुखी दुःखी च। संसारोपरमश्च मम कर्तव्यः क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञविज्ञानेन? ध्यानेन च ईश्वरं क्षेत्रज्ञं साक्षात्कृत्वा तत्स्वरूपावस्थानेनेति। यश्च एवं बुध्यते? यश्च बोधयति? नासौ क्षेत्रज्ञः इति। एवं मन्वानः यः सः पण्डितापसदः? संसारमोक्षयोः शास्त्रस्य च अर्थवत्त्वं करोमीति आत्महा स्वयं मूढः अन्यांश्च व्यामोहयति शास्त्रार्थसंप्रदायरहितत्वात्? श्रुतहानिम् अश्रुतकल्पनां च कुर्वन्। तस्मात् असंप्रदायवित् सर्वशास्त्रविदपि मूर्खवदेव उपेक्षणीयः।।यत्तूक्तम् ईश्वरस्य क्षेत्रज्ञैकत्वे संसारित्वं प्राप्नोति? क्षेत्रज्ञानां च ईश्वरैकत्वे संसारिणः अभावात् संसाराभावप्रसङ्गः इति?,एतौ दोषौ प्रत्युक्तौ विद्याविद्ययोः वैलक्षण्याभ्युपगमात् इति। कथम् अविद्यापरिकल्पितदोषेण तद्विषयं वस्तु पारमार्थिकं न दुष्यतीति। तथा च दृष्टान्तः दर्शितः -- मरीच्यम्भसा ऊषरदेशो न पङ्कीक्रियते इति। संसारिणः अभावात् संसाराभावप्रसङ्गदोषोऽपि संसारसंसारिणोः अविद्याकल्पितत्वोपपत्त्या प्रत्युक्तः।।ननु अविद्यावत्त्वमेव क्षेत्रज्ञस्य संसारित्वदोषः। तत्कृतं च सुखित्वदुःखित्वादि प्रत्यक्षम् उपलभ्यते इति चेत्? न ज्ञेयस्य क्षेत्रधर्मत्वात्? ज्ञातुः क्षेत्रज्ञस्य तत्कृतदोषानुपपत्तेः। यावत् किञ्चित् क्षेत्रज्ञस्य दोषजातम् अविद्यमानम् आसञ्जयसि? तस्य ज्ञेयत्वोपपत्तेः क्षेत्रधर्मत्वमेव? न क्षेत्रज्ञधर्मत्वम्। न च तेन क्षेत्रज्ञः दुष्यति? ज्ञेयेन ज्ञातुः संसर्गानुपपत्तेः। यदि हि संसर्गः स्यात्? ज्ञेयत्वमेव नोपपद्येत। यदि आत्मनः धर्मः अविद्यावत्त्वं दुःखित्वादि च कथं भोः प्रत्यक्षम् उपलभ्यते? कथं वा क्षेत्रज्ञधर्मः। ज्ञेयं च सर्वं क्षेत्रं ज्ञातैव क्षेत्रज्ञः इति अवधारिते? अविद्यादुःखित्वादेः क्षेत्रज्ञविशेषणत्वं क्षेत्रज्ञधर्मत्वं तस्य च प्रत्यक्षोपलभ्यत्वम् इति विरुद्धम् उच्यते अविद्यामात्रावष्टम्भात् केवलम्।।अत्र आह -- सा अविद्या कस्य इति। यस्य दृश्यते तस्य एव। कस्य दृश्यते इति। अत्र उच्यते -- अविद्या कस्य दृश्यते इति प्रश्नः निरर्थकः। कथम् दृश्यते चेत् अविद्या तद्वन्तमपि पश्यसि। न च तद्वति उपलभ्यमाने सा कस्य इति प्रश्नो युक्तः। न हि गोमति उपलभ्यमाने गावः कस्य इति प्रश्नः अर्थवान् भवति। ननु विषमो दृष्टान्तः। गवां तद्वतश्च प्रत्यक्षत्वात् तत्संबन्धोऽपि प्रत्यक्ष प्रश्नो निरर्थकः। न तथा अविद्या तद्वांश्च प्रत्यक्षौ? यतः प्रश्नः निरर्थकः स्यात्। अप्रत्यक्षेण अविद्यावता अविद्यासंबन्धे ज्ञाते? किं तव स्यात् अविद्यायाः अनर्थहेतुत्वात् परिहर्तव्या स्यात्। यस्य अविद्या? सः तां परिहरिष्यति। ननु ममैव अविद्या। जानासि तर्हि अविद्यां तद्वन्तं च आत्मानम्। जानामि? न तु प्रत्यक्षेण। अनुमानेन चेत् जानासि? कथं संबन्धग्रहणम् न हि तव ज्ञातुः ज्ञेयभूतया अविद्यया तत्काले संबन्धः ग्रहीतुं शक्यते? अविद्याया विषयत्वेनैव ज्ञातुः उपयुक्तत्वात्। न च ज्ञातुः अविद्यायाश्च संबन्धस्य यः ग्रहीता? ज्ञानं च अन्यत् तद्विषयं संभवति अनवस्थाप्राप्तेः। यदि ज्ञात्रापि ज्ञेयसंबन्धो ज्ञायते? अन्यः ज्ञाता कल्प्यः स्यात्? तस्यापि अन्यः? तस्यापि अन्यः इति अनवस्था अपरिहार्या। यदि पुनः अविद्या ज्ञेया? अन्यद्वा ज्ञेयं ज्ञेयमेव। तथा ज्ञातापि ज्ञातैव? न ज्ञेयं भवति। यदा च एवम्? अविद्यादुःखित्वाद्यैः न ज्ञातुः क्षेत्रज्ञस्य किञ्चित् दुष्यति।। ननु अयमेव दोषः? यत् दोषवत्क्षेत्रविज्ञातृत्वम् न च विज्ञानस्वरूपस्यैव अविक्रियस्य विज्ञातृत्वोपचारात् यथा उष्णतामात्रेण अग्नेः तप्तिक्रियोपचारः? तद्वत्। यथा अत्र भगवता क्रियाकारकफलात्मत्वाभावः आत्मनि स्वत एव दर्शितः -- अविद्याध्यारोपितैः एव क्रियाकारकादिः आत्मनि उपचर्यते तथा तत्र तत्र य एनं वेत्ति हन्तारम् (गीता 2।19) प्रकृतेः क्रियमाणानि गुणैः कर्माणि सर्वशः (गीता 3।27) नादत्ते कस्यचित्पापम् (गीता 5।15) इत्यादिप्रकरणेषु दर्शितः। तथैव च व्याख्यातम् अस्माभिः। उत्तरेषु च प्रकरणेषु दर्शयिष्यामः।। हन्त तर्हि आत्मनि क्रियाकारकफलात्मतायाः स्वतः अभावे? अविद्यया च अध्यारोपितत्वे? कर्माणि अविद्वत्कर्तव्यान्येव? न विदुषाम् इति प्राप्तम्। सत्यम् एवं प्राप्तम्? एतदेव च न हि देहभृता शक्यम् (गीता 18।11) इत्यत्र दर्शयिष्यामः। सर्वशास्त्रार्थोपसंहारप्रकरणे च समासेनैव कौन्तेय निष्ठा ज्ञानस्य या परा (गीता 18।50) इत्यत्र विशेषतः दर्शयिष्यामः। अलम् इह बहुप्रपञ्चनेन? इति उपसंह्रियते।। इदं शरीरम् (गीता13।1) इत्यादिश्लोकोपदिष्टस्य क्षेत्राध्यायार्थस्य संग्रहश्लोकः अयम् उपन्यस्यते तत्क्षेत्रं यच्च (गीता 13।3) इत्यादि? व्याचिख्यासितस्य हि अर्थस्य संग्रहोपन्यासः न्याय्यः इति --,
13.3 Ca api, and; viddhi, understand; mam, Me, the supreme God who is transcendental; to be the ksetrajnam, 'Knower of the field' with the characterisitics noted above; sarva-ksetresu, in all the fields. The idea is this: Know the 'Knower of the field'- who has become diversified by limiting adjuncts in the form of numerous 'fields' ranging from Brahma to a clump of grass-as free from differentiations resulting from all the limiting adjuncts, and as beyond the range of such words and ideas as existece, nonexistence, etc. O scion of the Bharata dynasty, since there remains nothing to be known apart from the true nature of the field, the knower of the field and God, therefore; tat, that; is jnanam, Knowledge, right knowledge; yat, which; is the jnanam, knowledge; ksetra-ksetrajnayoh, of the field and the knower of the field-which are the two knowables-, and by which Knowledge the field and the knower of the field are made objects of knowledge. This is mama, My, God Vishu's; matam, opinion. Objection: Well, if it be that in all the field there exists God alone, and none else other than Him, as the enjoyer, then God will become a mundane being; or, due to the absence of any mundane creature other than God, there will arise the contingency of the negation of mundance existence. And both these are undesirable, since the scriptures dealing with bondage, Liberation and their causes will become useless, and also becuase they contradict such valid means of knowledge as direct perception. In the first place, mundane existence which is characterized by happiness, sorrow and their cause is apprehended through direct perception. Besides, from the perception of variety in the world it can be inferred that mundane existence results from virtue and vice. All this becomes illogical if God and the individual soul be one. Reply: No, because this becomes justifiable owing to the difference between Knowledge and ignorance. 'These two, viz that which is know as Knowledge and that which is known as ignorance are widely contradictory, and they follow divergent courses' (Ka. 1.2.4.); and similarly, the different results, viz Liberation and enjoyment, belonging (respectively) to those Knowledge and ignorance, have also been pointed out to be contrary by saying that Liberation is the goal of Knowledge, and enjoyment is the result of ignorance (see Ka. 1.2.2). Vyasa, also has said so: 'Now, there are these two paths' (Mbh Sa. 241.6) etc. and, 'There are only these two paths,' etc. Here (in the Gita) also, two kinds of steadfastness have been stated. And it is understood from the Vedas, the Smrtis and reason that ignorance together with its effects has to be destroyed by Knowledge. As for the Vedic texts, they are: 'If one has realized here, then there is truth; if he has not realized here, then there is great destruction' (Ke. 2.5); 'Knowing Him in this way, one becomes Immortal here' (Nr. Pu. 6); 'There is no other path to go by' (Sv. 3.8); 'The enlightened man is not afraid of anything' (Tai. 2.9.1). On the other hand, (the texts) with regard to the unenlightened person are: 'Then, he is smitten with fear' (Tai. 2.7.1); 'Living in the midst of ognorance' (Ka. 1.2.5); One who knows Brahman becomes Brahman indeed. In his line is not born anyone who does not know Brahman' (Mu. 3.2.9); '(While he who worships another god thinking,) "He is one, and I am another," does not know. He is like an animal to the gods' (Br. 1.4.10). He who is a knower of the Self, 'He becomes all this (Universe)' (Br. 1.4.10); 'When men will fold up space like (folding) leather, (then) there will be cessation of sorrow, without knowing the Deity' (Sv. 6.9). There are thousands of texts like these. And the Smrti texts (from the Gita) are: 'Knowledge remains covered by ignorance. Thery the creatures become deluded' (5.15); 'Here itself is rirth conered by them whose minds are established on sameness' (5.19); 'Since by seeing eally the God who is present alike everywhere (he does not injure the Self by the Self, therefore he attains the supreme Goal)' (13.28), etc. And as for reason, there is the text, 'Men avoid snakes, tips of kusa-grass as also well when they are aware of them. Some fall into them owing to ignorance. Thus, see the special result arising from knowledge' (Mbh. Sa. 201.17). Similarly, it is known that an unelightened person, who identifies himself with the body etc. and who practises righteousness and unrighteousness under the impulsion of attachment and aversion, takes birth and dies. It cannot be reasonably denied by anyone that, those who see the Self as different from the body etc. become liberated as a result of the cessation of righteous and unrighteous conduct, which depends on the destruction of attachment and aversion. The being so, the Knower of the field, who is reality is God Himself, appears to have become a mundane soul owing to the various adjuncts which are products of ignorance; as for instance the individual soul becomes identified with the body etc. For it is a well-known fact in the case of all creatures that their self-identify with the body etc. which are not-Self is definitely caused by ignorance. Just as, when a stump, of a tree is firmly regarded as a man, the alities of a man do not thery come to exist in the stump, nor do the alities of the stump come to the person, similarly the property ofconsciousness does not come to the body, nor those of the body to consciousness. It is not proper that the Self should be identified with happiness, sorrow, delusion, etc., since they, like decrepitude and death, are eally the products of ignorance. Objection: May it not be said that this is not so, becuase of dissimilarity? The stump and the man, which are verily objects of perception, are superimposed on each other through ignorance by their perceiver. On the other hand, in the case of the body and the Self,, the mutual superimposition occurs verily between a knower and an object of perception. Thus, the illustration is not eally applicable. Therefore, may it not be that the properties of the body, though objects of knowledge, belong to the Self which is the knower? Reply: No, since there arises the contingency of (the Self) becoming devoid of consciousness! If alities such as happiness, sorrow, delusion, desire, etc. of the body etc., which are the field and are objects of knowledge, indeed belong to the knower, then it will be necessary to explain the particular reason why some of the alities of the object of knowledge-the field-superimposed through ignorance belong to the Self, while decrepitude, death, etc. do not. (On the contrary) it is possible to infer that they (happiness etc.) do not pertain to the Self, since, like decrepitude etc., they are superimposed on the Self through ignorance, and because they are either avoidable or acceptable. This being so, the mundane state, consisting of agentship and enjoyership pertaining to the objects of knowledge, is superimposed on the knower through ignorance. Hence, nothing of the knower is affected thery-in the same way as nothing of the sky is affected by the superimposition of surface, diret, etc. (on it) by fools. Such being the case, not the least touch of the mundane state is to be apprehended with regard to the almighty [see footnote on p.5, and p.168.] God, the Knower of the field, even though He exists in all the fields. For it is nowhere seen in the world that anybody is benefitted or harmed by a ality attributed to him through ignorance. As for the statement that the illustration is not eally applicable-that is wrong. Objection: How? Reply: Because what is intended as common between the illustration and the thing illustrated is merely the superimposition through ignorance. There is no disagreement as to that. However, as for your contention that the illustration fails with regard to the Knower, that too has been shown to be inapt by citing the example of decrepitude etc. [If it be held that objects of experience may be superimposed on one another, but they cannot be superimposed on the experiencer, the answer is that this cannot be a universal proposition. For decrepitude and death, which are matters of experience, are superimposed on the Self, the experiencer.] Objection: May it not be that the Knower of the field becomes a mundane being owing to his having ignorance? Reply: No, because ignorance is of the nature of tamas. Since ignorance has the nature of covering, it is indeed a notion born of tamas; it makes one perceive contrarily, or it arouses doubt, or it leads to non-perception. For it disappears with the dawn of discrimination. And the three kind of ignorance, viz non-perception etc. [Etc: false perception and doubt.], are experienced when there are such defects as blindness etc. which are forms of tamas and have the nature of veiling. [It is known through the process of agreement and difference that false perception etc. arise from some defects,and they are not the alities of the Self.] Objection: Here it is asserted that if this be the case, then ignorance is a ality of the knower? Reply: No, for the defects such as blindness are seen to belong to the eye which is an organ. As for your notion that 'ignorance is a ality of the experiencer, and the very fact of being possessed of the ality of ignorance is what constitutes the mundane state of the Knower of the field; the assertion which was made (by the Vedantin) in that connection, "that the Knower of th field is God Himself and not a mundane being, " is improper,'-this is not so. As for example: Since such defects as false perception etc. are seen to belong to the organ eye, therefore false perception etc. or their causes, viz defects like blindness etc., do not belong to the perceiver. Just as blindness of the eyes does not pertain to the perceiver since on being curved through treatment it is not seen in the perceiver, similarly notions like non-perception, false perception, doubt, and their causes should, in all cases, pertain to some organ; not to the perceiver, the Knower of the field. And since they are objects of perception, they are not alities of the Knower in the same way that light is of a lamp. Just because they are objects of perception, they are cognized as different from one's own Self. Besides, it is denied by all schools of thought that in Liberation, when all the organs depart, there is any association with such defects as ignorance etc. If they (the defects) be the alities of the Self Itself, the Knower of the field, as heat is of fire, then there can never be a dissociation from them. Again, since there can be no association with or dissociation from anything for the immutable, formless Self which is all-pervading like space, therefore it is established that the Knower of the field is ever identical with God. This follows alos from the utternance of the Lord, 'Being without beginning and without alities' (31), etc. Objection: Well, if this be so, then, owing to the nonexistence of the world and the mundane creatures, there will arise the defect of the uselessness of the scriptures, etc. Reply: No, since this (defect) is admitted by all. A defect that is admitted by all who believe in the Self is not to be explained by one alone! Objection: How has this been admitted by all? Reply: People of all schools of thought who believe in the Self admit that there is no worldly behaviour or the behaviour of a worldling in the liberated ones. Yet, in their case (i.e. in those various schools), it is not admitted that there is any possibility of such a defect as the scriptures becoming useless, etc. Similarly, in our case let the scriptures be useless when the knowers of the field become identified with God; and purposeful within the sphere of ignorance. This is just as in the case of all the dualists, where it is admitted that the scriptures etc. become useful in the state of bondage, not in the state of Liberation. Objection: Well, for us all dualists, bondage and Liberation of the Self are real in the truest sense. So, when things to be renounced or accepted as also the means thereto are real, the scriptures etc. become meaningful. On the other hand, may it not be that for the non-dualists, since duality deos not exist in truest sense, it being the creation of ignorance, therefore the state of bondage of the Self is not ultimately real, and hence the scriptures etc. become purposeless as they remain shorn of a subject-matter? Reply: No, since it is not logical that the Self should have different states. If this were possible at all, then the states of bondage and freedom of the Self should be simultaneous, or successive. As to that, they cannot occur simultaneously, since they are contradictory-like rest and motion in the same object. Should they occur successively and without being caused, then there will arise the contingency of there being no Liberation; if they occur through some cause, then, since they do not exist inherently, there arises the contingency of their being ultimately unreal. In this case also the assumption becomes falsified. Moreover, when ascertaining the precedence and succession of the states of bondage and Liberation, the state of bondage will have to be considered as being the earlier and having no beginning, but an end. And that is contrary to valid means of knowledge. Similarly it will have to be admitted that the state of Liberation has a beginning, but no end- which is certainly opposed to valid means of knowledge. And it is not possible to established eternality for something that has states nd undergoes a change from one state to another. On the other hand, if for avoiding the defect of non-eternality the different states of bondage and Liberation be not assumed, then, even for the dualists such defects as the purposelessness of the scriptures become certainly unavoidable. Thus, the situation being similar (for both), it is not for the Advaitin (alone) to refute the objection. Nor do the scriptures become purposeless, because the scriptures are applicable to the commonly known unenlightened person. It is indeed in the case of the ignorant person-not in the case of the enlightened one-that there occurs the perception of identity of the Self with the effect (i.e. enjoyership) and the cause (i.e. agentship) which are not-Self. For, in the case of the enlightened persons, it is impossible that, after the dawn of the realization of non-identity of the Self with effect and cause, they can have Self identification with these as 'I'. Surely, not even a downright fool, or a lunatic and such others, see water and fire or shade and light as identical; what to speak of a discriminating person! Therefore, such being the case, the scriptures dealing with injunction and prohibition do not concern a person who sees the distinction of the Self from effect and cause. For, when Devadatta is ordered to do som work with the words, 'You do this,' Visnumitra who happens to be there does not, even on hearing the ?nd, conclude, 'I have been ordered.' But this conclusion is reasonable when the person for whom the order is meant is not understood. So also with regard to cause and effect. Objection: Can it not be that, even after having realized the Self as different from effect and cuase, it is ite reasonable from the standpoint of natural relationship, [Natural relationship-Self-identification with the body through ignorance.] that with regard to the scriptures one should have the understanding, 'I am enjoined to adotp the means that yields a desired result, and am porhibited from adopting the means that leads to an undesirable result'? As for instance, in the case of a father and son, or between others, even though there exists the awareness of the distinction between each other, still there is the comprehension of the implication of the injunctions and prohibitions meant for one as being also meant for the other. [In the (Br. (1.5.17) we read, 'Now therefore the entrusting: When a man thinks he will die, he says to his son, "You are Brahman, you are the sacrifice, and you are the world,"' etc. It has been enjoined here in this manner that the son should accept as his own all the duties thus entrusted to him by the father. Similarly, it is understood that when a son in unable to perform his own duties, the father has to accept them. So also in the case of brothers and others. Thus, in the case of the enlightened person also, though there is a comprehension of his own distinction from effect and cause, still, owing to his earlier relationship with ignorance, body, etc., there is no contradiction in his understanding that the injunctions and prohibitions are meant for him.] Reply: No, since identification of the Self with effect and cause is possible only before attaining the knowledge of the Self as distinct (from them). It is only after one has followed (or eschewed) what is enjoined or prohibited by the scriptures that he comprehends his own distinction from the effect and cause; not before. [In B.S. (3.4.26-7) it is said that the merit earned by the performance of scriptural duties helps to generate knowledge of Brahman. Therefore these duties are not meant for the enlightened. (By following what is enjoined, and avoiding what is prohibited, one's mind becomes purified, and then only one understands he is different from cause and effect-agentship and enjoyership.-Tr.)] Therefore it is established that the scriptures dealing with injunctions and prohibitions are meant for the ignorant. Objection: Well, if (injunctions and prohibitions) such as, 'One who desires heaven shall perform sacrifices', 'One should not eat poisoned meat,' etc. be not observed by those who have realized the Self as distinct and by those who view only the body as the Self, then, from the absence of any observer of those (injunctions etc.) there would follow the uselessness of the scriptures. Reply: No, because engagement in or abstention from actions follows from what is ordained by the scriptures. As for one who has realized the identity of the Lord and the knower of the field, one who has realized Brahman-he does not engage in action. Similarly, even the person who does not believe in the Self does not engage in action, under the idea that the other world does not exist. However, one who has inferred the existence of the Self on the ground of the wellknown fact that study of the scriptures dealing with injunctions and prohibitions becomes otherwise purposeless, who has no knowledge of the essential nature of the Self, and in whom has arisen hankering for the results of actions-he faithfully engages in action. This is a matter of direct perception to all to us. Hence, the scriptures are not purposeless. Objection: May it not be that the scriptures will become meaningless when, by noticing abstention from action in the case of men with discrimination, their followers too will abstain? Reply: No, because discrimination arises in some rare person only. For, as at present, some rare one among many people comes to possess discrimination. Besides, fools do not follow one who has discrimination, because (their) engagement in action is impelled by defects such as attachment etc. And they are seen to get engaged in such acts as black magic. Moreover, engagement in action is natural. Verily has it been said (by the Lord), 'But it is Nature that acts' (5.14). Therefore, the mundane state consists of nothing but ignorance, and is an object of perception (to the ignorant man who sees it) just as it appears to him. Ignorance and its effects do not belong to the Knower of the feild, the Absolute. Moreover, false knowledge cannot taint the supreme Reality. For, water in a mirage cannot taint the supreme Reality. For, water in a mirage cannot make a desert muddy with its moisture. Similarly, ignorance cannot act in any way on the Knower of the field. Hence has this been said, 'And understand Me to be knower of the field,' as also, 'Knowledge remains covered by ignorance' (5.15). Objection: Then, what is this that even the learned say like the worldly people, 'Thus [Possessed of aristorcracy etc.] am I,' 'This [Body, wife, etc.] verily belongs to Me'? Reply: Listen. This is that learnedness which consists in seeing the field as the Self! On the contrary, should they realize the unchanging Knower of the field, then they will not crave for enjoyment or action with the idea, 'May this be mine.' Enjoyment and action are mere perversions. This being so, the ignorant man engages in action owing to his desire for results. On the other hand, in the case of an enlightened person who has realized the changeless Self, engagement in aciton in impossible because of the absence of desire for results. Hence, when the activities of the aggregate of body and organs cease, his withdrawal from action is spoken of in a figurative sense. Some may have this other kind of learnedness: 'The Knower of the field is God Himself; and the field is something different and an object of knowledge to the Knower of the field. But I am a mundane being, happy and sorrowful. And it is my duty to bring about the cessation of worldly existence through the knowledge of the field and the Knower of the field, and by continuing to dwell in His true nature after directly perceiving through meditation God, the Knower of the field,' and he who, understands thus, and he who teaches that 'he (the taught) is not the Knower of the field,' and he who, being under such an idea, thinks, 'I shall render meaningful the scriptures dealing with the worldly state and Liberation'-is the meanest among the learned. That Self-immolator, being devoid of any link with the traditional interpreters of the purport of the scriptures, misinterprets what is enjoined in the scriptures and imagines what is not spoken there, and thery himself becoming deluded, befools others too. Hence, one who is not a knower of the traditional interpretation is to be ignored like a fool, though he may be versed in all the scriptures. As for the objection that, if God be one with the knower of the field, He will then become a mundane being, and that, if the knowers of the fields are one with God, then from the nonexistence of mundane beings will follow the absence of the mundane state, -these two objections have been refuted by admitting Knowledge and ignorance as having different characteristics. Objection: How? Reply: By saying that any defect imagined through ignorance does not affect the supreme Reality which is the substratum of that (imagination). In accordance with this an illustration was cited that a desert is not made muddy by water in a mirage. Even the defect of the possibility of nonexistence of the mundange state, conseent on the nonexistence of individual souls, stands refuted by the explanation that the mundane state and the individual souls are imagined through ignorance. Objection: The defect of mundane existence in the knower of the field consists in his being possessed of ignorance. And sorrowfulness etc. which are its products are matters of direct experience. Reply: No, since whatever is known is an attribute of the field, therefore the knower-the knower of the field-cannot reasonably be tainted by the defects arising from it. Whatsoever blemish-not existing in the knower of the field-you attribute to It is logically an object of experience, and hence it is verily a ality of the field; not the ality of the knower of the field. Nor does the knower of the field become tainted thery, because of knower cannot possibly have any conjunction with an object of knowledge. Should there be a conjunction, then there will be no possibility at all of its (the latter's) becoming a knowable. Oh! Sir, if being ignorant, sorrowful, etc. be alities of the Self, how is it that they are directly perceived? Or how can they be alities of the Knower of the field? If the conclusion be that all that is known consititutes the field, and that the one who knows is verily the knower of the field, then, to say that being ignorant, sorrowful, etc.are the alities of the knower of the field and that they are directly perceived is a contradictory statement having only ignorance as its basis. Here, (the opponent) asks: To whom does ignorance belong? (The answer is that) it belongs verily to him by whom it is experienced! Objection: In whom is it perceived? Reply: Here the answer is: It is pointless to ask, 'In whom is ignorance experienced?' Objection: How? Reply: If ignorance be perceived (by you), then you perceive its possessor as well. Moreover, when that possessor of ignorance is perceived it is not reasonable to ask, 'In whom is it perceived?' For, when an owner of cattle is seen, the estion, 'To whom do the cattle belong', does not become meaningful. Objection: Well, is not the illustration dissimilar? Since, the cattle and their owner are directly perceived, their relation also is directly perceived. Hence the estion is meaningless. Ignorance and its possessor are not directly perceived in that manner, in which case the estion would have been meaningless. Reply: What will it matter to you if you know the relation of ignorance with a person who is not directly perceived as possessed of ignorance? Opponent: Since ignorance is a source of evil, therefore it should be got rid of. Reply: He to whom ignorance belongs will get rid of it! Opponent: Indeed, ignorance belongs to myself. Reply: In that case, you know ignorance as also yourself who possess it? Opponent: I know, but not through direct perception. Reply: If you know through inference, then how is the connection (between yourself and ignorance) known? Surely it is not possible for you the knower to have at that time ['When you are knowing your own ignorance.'] the knowledge of the relation (of the Self) with ignorance which is an object of knowledge; ['After having perceived ignorance as an object of your knowledge, how can you who continue to be the knower cognize yourself as the knower of that ignorance? For this would lead to the contradiction of the same person becoming the subject and the object of cognition.'] because the cognizer is then engaged in cognizing ignorance as an object. Besides, there cannot be someone who is a (separate) cognizer of the relation between the knower and ignorance, and a separate cognition of that (relation), for this would lead to infinite regress. If the knower and the relation between the knower and the thing known be cognizable, then a separate cognizer has to be imagined. Of him, again, another knower has to be imagined; of him again a separate cognizer would have to be imagined! Thus, an infinite regress be comes unavoidable. Again, whether the knowable be ignorance or anything else, a knowable is verily a knowable; similarly, even a knower is surely a knower; he does not become a knowable. And when this is so, [Since the knower cannot be known, therefore his relation with ignorance also cannot be known by himself or by anybody else] nothing of the cognizer-the knower of the field-is tainted by such defects as ignorance, sorrowfulness, etc. Objection: May it not be said that the (Self's) defect is surely this, that the field, which is full of defects, is cognized (by It)? Reply: No, because it is the Immutable, which is consciousness, by nature, that is figuratively spoken of as the cognizer. It is just like figuratively attributing the act of heating to fire merely because of its (natural) heat. Just as it has been shown here by the Lord Himself that identification with action, cause and effect are absent in the Self, and that action, cause, etc. are figuratively attributed to the Self owing to their having been superimposed (on It) through ignorance, so has it been shown by Him in various places: 'He who thinks of this One as the killer৷৷.' (2.19), 'While actions are being done in ever way by the gunas of Nature' (3.27), 'The Omnipresent neither accepts anybody's sin৷৷.' (5.15), etc. It has been explained by us, too, in that very way, and in the following contexts also we shall explain accordingly. Objection: Well, in that case, if identification with action, cause and effect be naturally absent in the Self, and it they be superimpositions through ignorance, then it amounts to this that actions are meant for being undertaken only by the ignorant, not by the enlightened. Reply: It is true that is comes to this. This very fact we shall explain under the verse, 'Since it is not possible for one who holds on to a body৷৷.' (18.11). And, in the context dealing with the conclusion of the purport of the whole Scripture, we shall explain this elaborately under the verse, '৷৷.in brief indeed, O son of Kunti,৷৷.which is the supreme consummation of Knowledge' (ibid. 50) It is needless here to expatiate further, Hence we conclude. The next verse, '(Hear about)৷৷.what that field is,' etc., summarizing the purport of the chapter dealing with the 'field' taught in the verses begining from 'This body৷৷.'etc., is being presented. For it is proper to introduce briefly the subject-matter that is sought to be explained.
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.4
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.4 · Chapter 13 · Verse 4
।।13.4।। --,यत् निर्दिष्टम् इदं शरीरम् इति तत् तच्छब्देन परामृशति। यच्च इदं निर्दिष्टं क्षेत्रं तत् यादृक् यादृशं स्वकीयैः धर्मैः। चशब्दः समुच्चयार्थः। यद्विकारि यः विकारः यस्य तत् यद्विकारि? यतः यस्मात् च यत्? कार्यम् उत्पद्यते इति वाक्यशेषः। स च यः क्षेत्रज्ञः निर्दिष्टः सः यत्प्रभावः ये प्रभावाः उपाधिकृताः शक्तयः यस्य सः यत्प्रभावश्च। तत् क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोः याथात्म्यं यथाविशेषितं समासेन संक्षेपेण मे मम वाक्यतः शृणु? श्रुत्वा अवधारय इत्यर्थः।।तत् क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयाथात्म्यं विवक्षितं स्तौति श्रोतृबुद्धिप्ररोचनार्थम् --,
13.4 Srnu, hear, i.e., having heard, understand; me, from Me, from My utterance; samasena, in brief; about (all) tat, that-the true nature of the field and the Knower of the field, as they have been described; as to yat, what; tat, that-tat stands for that which has been indicated as 'This body' (in verse 1); ksetram, field is, which has been referred to as 'this'; ca, and; yadrk, how it is along with its own alities; yadvikari, what its changes are; ca, and; yatah, from what cause; arises yat, what effect (-arises is understood-); sah ca yah, and who He, the Knower of the field indicated above, is; ca, and; yat-prabhavah, what His powers are. Yat-probhavah is He who is possessed of the powers arising from the adjuncts. The word ca has been used (throughout) in the sense of and. For making the intellect of the hearer interested the Lord praises that true nature of the field and the Knower of the field which is intended to be taught:
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.5
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.5 · Chapter 13 · Verse 5
।।13.5।। --,ऋषिभिः वसिष्ठादिभिः बहुधा बहुप्रकारं गीतं कथितम्। छन्दोभिः छन्दांसि ऋगादीनि तैः छन्दोभिः विविधैः नानाभावैः नानाप्रकारैः पृथक् विवेकतः गीतम्। किञ्च? ब्रह्मसूत्रपदैश्च एव ब्रह्मणः सूचकानि वाक्यानि ब्रह्मसूत्राणि तैः पद्यते गम्यते ज्ञायते इति तानि पदानि उच्यन्ते तैरेव च क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयाथात्म्यम् गीतम् इति अनुवर्तते। आत्मेत्येवोपासीत (बृह0 उ0 1।4।7) इत्येवमादिभिः ब्रह्मसूत्रपदैः आत्मा ज्ञायते? हेतुमद्भिः युक्तियुक्तैः विनिश्चितैः निःसंशयरूपैः निश्चितप्रत्ययोत्पादकैः इत्यर्थः।।स्तुत्या अभिमुखीभूताय अर्जुनाय आह भगवान् --,
13.5 Gitam, It has been sung of, spoken of; bahudha, in various ways; rsibhih, by the Rsis, by Vasistha and others; sung prthak, separately; vividhaih, by the different kinds of; chandobhih, Vedic texts-chandas mean the Rg-veda etc; by them; ca, and; besides, hetumadbhih, by the rational; and viniscitaih, by the convincing, i.e. by those which are productive of certain knowledge-not by those which are in an ambiguous form; brahma-sutra-padaih eva, sentences themselves which are indicative of and lead to Brahman. Brahma-sutras are the sentences indicative of Brahman. They are called padani since Brahman is reached, known, through them. By them indeed has been sung the true nature of the field and the Knower of the field (-this is understood). The Self is verily known through such sentences as, 'The Self alone is to be meditated upon' (Br. 1.4.7), which are indicative of and lead to Brahman. To Arjuna who had become interested as a result of the eulogy, the Lord says:
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.6
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.6 · Chapter 13 · Verse 6
।।13.6।। -- महाभूतानि महान्ति च तानि सर्वविकारव्यापकत्वात् भूतानि च सूक्ष्माणि। स्थूलानि तु इन्द्रियगोचरशब्देन अभिधायिष्यन्ते अहंकारः महाभूतकारणम् अहंप्रत्ययलक्षणः। अहंकारकारणं बुद्धिः अध्यवसायलक्षणा। तत्कारणम् अव्यक्तमेव च? न व्यक्तम् अव्यक्तम् अव्याकृतम् ईश्वरशक्तिः मम माया दुरत्यया (गीता 7।14) इत्युक्तम्। एवशब्दः प्रकृत्यवधारणार्थः एतावत्येव अष्टधा भिन्ना प्रकृतिः। चशब्दः भेदसमुच्चयार्थः। इन्द्रियाणि दश? श्रोत्रादीनि पञ्च बुद्ध्युत्पादकत्वात् बुद्धीन्द्रियाणि? वाक्पाण्यादीनि पञ्च कर्मनिर्वर्तकत्वात् कर्मेन्द्रियाणि तानि दश। एकं च किं तत् मनः एकादशं संकल्पाद्यात्मकम्। पञ्च च इन्द्रियगोचराः शब्दादयो विषयाः। तानि एतानि सांख्याः चतुर्विंशतितत्त्वानि आचक्षते।।
13.6 Mahabhutani, the great elements: Those elements which are great owing to their pervasion of all midifications, and which are subtle. As for the gross elements, they will be spoken of by the word indriya-gocarah, objects of the senses. Ahankarah, egoism, which is the source of the great elements and consists of the idea of 'I'. Buddhih, intellect, the source of egoism and consisting of the faculty of judgement; ca, and; its cause, the avyaktam eva, Unmanifest itself, the Undifferentiated, the power of God spoken of in, 'Maya of Mine৷৷.difficult to cross' (7.14). The word eva (itself) is used for singling out Prakrti (Nature). The Prakrti divided eightfold [The undifferentiated (avyakta), mahat, egoism and the five uncompunded subtle elements] is this much alone. The word ca (and) is used for joining the various categories. The dasa, ten; indriyani, organs : The five, organs ear etc., which are called sense-organs since they produce perception, and the (other) five organs-organ of speech, hands, etc.-which are called motor-organs since they accomplish actions. They are ten. Ekam ca, and the one-which is that?-the mind, the eleventh, possessed of the power of thinking etc. (see fn. on p. 173). Ca, and; the panca, five; indriya-gacarah, objects of the senses-such objects as sound etc. The followers of the Sankhya call these which are such the twenty-four categories. Thereafter, the Lord now says that even those alities which the Vaisesikas speak of as the attributes of the sould are certainly the attributes of the field, but not of the Knower of the field:
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.7
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.7 · Chapter 13 · Verse 7
।।13.7।। --,इच्छा? यज्जातीयं सुखहेतुमर्थम्? उपलब्धवान् पूर्वम्? पुनः तज्जातीयमुपलभमानः तमादातुमिच्छति सुखहेतुरिति सा इयं इच्छा अन्तःकरणधर्मः ज्ञेयत्वात् क्षेत्रम्। तथा द्वेषः? यज्जातीयमर्थं दुःखहेतुत्वेन अनुभूतवान्? पुनः तज्जातीयमर्थमुपलभमानः तं द्वेष्टि सोऽयं द्वेषः ज्ञेयत्वात् क्षेत्रमेव। तथा सुखम् अनुकूलं प्रसन्नसत्त्वात्मकं ज्ञेयत्वात् क्षेत्रमेव। दुःखं प्रतिकूलात्मकम् ज्ञेयत्वात् तदपि क्षेत्रम्। संघातः देहेन्द्रियाणां संहतिः। तस्यामभिव्यक्तान्तःकरणवृत्तिः? तप्त इव लोहपिण्डे अग्निः आत्मचैतन्याभासरसविद्धा चेतना सा च क्षेत्रं ज्ञेयत्वात्। धृतिः यया अवसादप्राप्तानि देहेन्द्रियाणि ध्रियन्ते सा च ज्ञेयत्वात् क्षेत्रम्। सर्वान्तःकरणधर्मोपलक्षणार्थम् इच्छादिग्रहणम्। यत उक्तमुपसंहरति एतत् क्षेत्रं समासेन सविकारं सह विकारेण महदादिना उदाहृतम् उक्तम्।। यस्य क्षेत्रभेदजातस्य संहतिः इदं शरीरं क्षेत्रम् इति उक्तम्? तत् क्षेत्रं व्याख्यातं महाभूतादिभेदभिन्नं धृत्यन्तम्। क्षेत्रज्ञः वक्ष्यमाणविशेषणः -- यस्य सप्रभावस्य क्षेत्रज्ञस्य परिज्ञानात् अमृतत्वं भवति? तम् ज्ञेयं यत्तत्प्रवक्ष्यामि (गीता 13।12) इत्यादिना सविशेषणं स्वयमेव वक्ष्यति भगवान्। अधुना तु तज्ज्ञानसाधनगणममानित्वादिलक्षणम्? यस्मिन् सति तज्ज्ञेयविज्ञाने योग्यः अधिकृतः भवति? यत्परः संन्यासी ज्ञाननिष्ठः उच्यते? तम् अमानित्वादिगणं ज्ञानसाधनत्वात् ज्ञानशब्दवाच्यं विदधाति भगवान् --,
13.7 Iccha, desire: Having experienced again an object of that kind which had given him the feeling of pleasure earlier, a man wants to have it under the idea that it is a source of pleasure. That is this desire which is an attribute of the internal organ, and is the 'field' since it is an object of knowledge. So also dvesah, repulsion: Having experienced again an object of that kind which he had earlier felt as a cause of sorrow, he hates it. That is this repulsion, and it is surely the 'field' since it is an object of knowledge. Similarly, sukham, happiness- which is favourable, tranil, having the ality of sattva-is the 'field' since it is an object of knowledge. Duhkham, sorrow-which is by nature adverse-, that, too, is the 'field' since it is a knowable. Sanghatah is the aggregate, the combination, of body and organs. Cetana, sentience, is a state of the internal organ, manifest in that aggregate like fire in a heated lump of iron, and pervaded by an essence in the form of a semblance of Consciousness of the Self. That too is the 'field' because it is an object of knowledge. Dhrtih, fortitude, by which are sustained the body and organs when they get exhausted-that too is the 'field' becuase it is an object of knowledge. Desire etc. have been selected as suggestive of all the alities of the internal organ. The Lord concludes what has been said: Etat, this; ksetram, field; savikaram, together with its modifications beginning from mahat (buddhi); has been samasena, briefly; udahrtam, spoken of. That 'field' which was referred to as, 'This body is called the field' (1), and is constituted by the aggregate of the constituents of the field has been explained in its different forms beginning from the great elements etc. ending with fortitude. The Knower of the field whose alities are going to be described, and by realizing which Knower of the field along with His majesty Immortality follows-of Him, togehter with His attributes, the Lord Himself will narrate in the verse, 'I shall speak of that which is to be known' (12). But, for the present, the Lord enjoins the group of disciplines characterized as humility etc. which lead one to the knowledge of That (Knower of the field)-that group of humility etc. which are referred to by the word Knowledge since they lead to Knowledge, and owing to the existence of which one becomes appropriately competent for the realization of that Knowable, and being endued with which a monk is said to be steadfast in Knowledge:
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.8
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.8 · Chapter 13 · Verse 8
।।13.8।। --,अमानित्वं मानिनः भावः मानित्वमात्मनः श्लाघनम्? तदभावः अमानित्वम्। अदम्भित्वं स्वधर्मप्रकटीकरणं दम्भित्वम्? तदभावः अदम्भित्वम्। अहिंसा अहिंसनं प्राणिनामपीडनम्। क्षान्तिः परापराधप्राप्तौ अविक्रिया। आर्जवम् ऋजुभावः अवक्रत्वम्। आचार्योपासनं मोक्षसाधनोपदेष्टुः आचार्यस्य शुश्रूषादिप्रयोगेण सेवनम्। शौचं कायमलानां मृज्जलाभ्यां प्रक्षालनम् अन्तश्च मनसः प्रतिपक्षभावनया रागादिमलानामपनयनं शौचम्। स्थैर्यं स्थिरभावः? मोक्षमार्गे एव कृताध्यवसायत्वम्। आत्मविनिग्रहः आत्मनः अपकारकस्य आत्मशब्दवाच्यस्य कार्यकरणसंघातस्य विनिग्रहः स्वभावेन सर्वतः प्रवृत्तस्य सन्मार्गे एव निरोधः आत्मविनिग्रहः।।किञ्च --,
13.8 Amanitvam, humility-the ality of a vain person is manitvam, boasting about oneself; the absence of that is amanitvam. Adambhitvam, unpretentiousness- proclaming one's own virtues is dambhitvam; the absence of that is adambhitvam. Ahimsa, non-injury, absence of cruely towards creatures; ksantih, for-bearance, remaining undisturbed when offened by others; arjavam, sincerity, uprightness, absence of crookedness; acarya-upasanam, service of the teacher, attending on the teacher who instructs in the disciplines for Liberation, through acts of service etc.; saucam, cleanliness-washing away the dirt from the body with earth and water, and internally, removing the 'dirt' of the mind such as attachment etc. by thinking of their opposites; sthairyam, steadiness, perseverance in the path to Liberation alone; atma-vinigrahah, control of the aggregate of body and organs which is referred to by the word 'self', but which is inimical to the Self; restricting only to the right path that (aggregate) which naturally strays away in all directions. Further,
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.9
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.9 · Chapter 13 · Verse 9
।।13.9।। --,इन्द्रियार्थेषु शब्दादिषु दृष्टादृष्टेषु भोगेषु विरागभावो वैराग्यम् अनहंकारः अहंकाराभावः एव च जन्ममृत्युजराव्याधिदुःखदोषानुदर्शनं जन्म च मृत्युश्च जरा च व्याधयश्च दुःखानि च तेषु जन्मादिदुःखान्तेषु प्रत्येकं दोषानुदर्शनम्। जन्मनि गर्भवासयोनिद्वारनिःसरणं दोषः? तस्य अनुदर्शनमालोचनम्। तथा मृत्यौ दोषानुदर्शनम्। तथा जरायां प्रज्ञाशक्तितेजोनिरोधदोषानुदर्शनं परिभूतता चेति। तथा व्याधिषु शिरोरोगादिषु दोषानुदर्शनम्। तथा दुःखेषु अध्यात्माधिभूताधिदैवनिमित्तेषु। अथवा दुःखान्येव दोषः दुःखदोषः तस्य जन्मादिषु पूर्ववत् अनुदर्शनम् -- दुःखं जन्म? दुःखं मृत्युः? दुःखं जरा? दुःखं व्याधयः। दुःखनिमित्तत्वात् जन्मादयः दुःखम्? न पुनः स्वरूपेणैव दुःखमिति। एवं जन्मादिषु दुःखदोषानुदर्शनात् देहेन्द्रियादिविषयभोगेषु वैराग्यमुपजायते। ततः प्रत्यगात्मनि प्रवृत्तिः करणानामात्मदर्शनाय। एवं,ज्ञानहेतुत्वात् ज्ञानमुच्यते जन्मादिदुःखदोषानुदर्शनम्।।किञ्च --,
13.9 Vairagyam, non-attachment, the attitude of dispassion; indriya-arthesu, with regard to objects of the senses, viz sound etc., with regard to seen or unseen objects of enjoyment; eva ca, and also; anahankarah, absence of egotism, absence of pride; janma-mrtyu-jara-vyadhi-duhkha-dosa-anudarsanam, seeing the evil in birth, death, old age, diseases and miseries-seeing the evil in each one of them from 'birth' to 'miseries'. The evil in birth consists in lying in the womb and coming out of it; seeing, i.e. thinking, of it. Similarly, thinking of the evil in death; so also, seeing in old age the evil in the form of deprivation of intelligence, strength and vigour, and becoming an object of contempt. In the same way, thinking of the evil in diseases like headtache etc.; so also with regard to miseries arising from causes physical, natural and supernatural. Or, duhkha-dosa may mean the miseries themselves which are evil. Seeing, as before, that (evil in the form of miseries) in birth etc.-birth is miserable, death is miserable, old age is miserable, diseases are miserable. Birth etc. are miserable because they cause misery; not that they are miseries in themselves. [Birth etc. are perceivable events, and as such are not miseries in themselves.] Thus, when one thinks of the evil in the form of miseries in birth etc. dispassion arises with regard to the pleasures in the body, organs and objects. From that follows the tendency of the organs towards the indwelling Self for the realization of the Self. The seeing of the evil in the form of misery in birth etc. is called Knowledge because it thus becomes a cuase of the rise of Knowledge. Moreover,
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.10
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.10 · Chapter 13 · Verse 10
।।13.10।। --,असक्तिः सक्तिः सङ्गनिमित्तेषु विषयेषु प्रीतिमात्रम्? तदभावः असक्तिः। अनभिष्वङ्गः अभिष्वङ्गाभावः। अभिष्वङ्गो नाम आसक्तिविशेष एव अनन्यात्मभावनालक्षणः यथा अन्यस्मिन् सुखिनि दुःखिनि वा अहमेव सुखी? दुःखी च? जीवति मृते वा अहमेव जीवामि मरिष्यामि च इति। क्व इति आह -- पुत्रदारगृहादिषु? पुत्रेषु दारेषु गृहेषु आदिग्रहणात् अन्येष्वपि अत्यन्तेष्टेषु दासवर्गादिषु। तच्च उभयं ज्ञानार्थत्वात् ज्ञानमुच्यते। नित्यं च समचित्तत्वं तुल्यचित्तता। क्व इष्टानिष्टोपपत्तिषु इष्टानामनिष्टानां च उपपत्तयः संप्राप्तयः तासु इष्टानिष्टोपपत्तिषु नित्यमेव तुल्यचित्तता। इष्टोपपत्तिषु न हृष्यति? न कुप्यति च अनिष्टोपपत्तिषु। तच्च एतत् नित्यं समचित्तत्वं ज्ञानम्।।किञ्च --,
13.10 Asaktih, non-attachment-attachment means merely the kind for things arising from association; the absence of that is asaktih; and anabhisvangah, absence of fondness-abhisvangah, is in fact a special kind of attachment consisting of the idea of self-identification; as for instance, thinking 'I myself am happy,' or, 'I am sorrowful,' when somody else is happy or unhappy, and thinking 'I live', or, 'I shall die,' when some- body else lives or dies-With regard to what? In answer the Lord says: putra-dara-grhadisu, with regard to sons, wives, homes, etc. From the use of 'etc.' (it is understood that this fondness is) even with regard to others who are liked very much-retinue of sevants and so on. And since both these (absence of attachment and fondness) lead to Knowledge, therefore they are called Knowledge. And nityam, constant; sama-cittatvam, eanimity of mind, mental eipoise;-with regard to what?-ista-anista-upapattisu, the attainment of the desirable and the undesirable; mental eipoise with regard to them, always, without exception. One does not become happy on the attainment of the desirable, nor does he become angry on the attainment of the undesirable. And that constant eanimity of mind which is of this kind is Knowledge Further,
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.11
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.11 · Chapter 13 · Verse 11
।।13.11।। --,मयि च इश्वरे अनन्ययोगेन अपृथक्समाधिना न अन्यो भगवतो वासुदेवात् परः अस्ति? अतः स एव नः गतिः इत्येवं निश्चिता अव्यभिचारिणी बुद्धिः अनन्ययोगः? तेन भजनं भक्तिः न व्यभिचरणशीला अव्यभिचारिणी। सा च ज्ञानम्। विविक्तदेशसेवित्वम्? विविक्तः स्वभावतः संस्कारेण वा अशुच्यादिभिः सर्पव्याघ्रादिभिश्च रहितः अरण्यनदीपुलिनदेवगृहादिभिर्विविक्तो देशः? तं सेवितुं शीलमस्य इति विविक्तदेशसेवी? तद्भावः विवक्तदेशसेवित्वम्। विविक्तेषु हि देशेषु चित्तं प्रसीदति यतः ततः आत्मादिभावना विविक्ते उपजायते। अतः विविक्तदेशसेवित्वं ज्ञानमुच्यते। अरतिः अरमणं जनसंसदि? जनानां प्राकृतानां संस्कारशून्यानाम् अविनीतानां संसत् समवायः जनसंसत् न संस्कारवतां विनीतानां संसत् तस्याः ज्ञानोपकारकत्वात्। अतः प्राकृतजनसंसदि अरतिः ज्ञानार्थत्वात् ज्ञानम्।।किञ्च --,
13.11 Ca, and; avyabhicarini, unwavering-not having any tendency to deviate; bhaktih, devotion; mayi, to Me, to God; ananya-yogena, with single-minded concentration, with undivided concentration-ananyayogah is the decisive, unswerving conviction of this kind: 'There is none superior to Lord Vasudeva, and hence He alone is our Goal'; adoration with that. That too is Knowledge. Vivikta-desa-sevitvam, inclination to repair into a clean place-a place (desa) naturally free (vivikta) or made free from impurity etc. and snakes, tigers, etc.; or, place made solitary (vivikta) by being situated in a forest, on a bank of a river, or in a temple; one who is inclined to seek such a place is vivikta-desa-sevi, and the abstract form of that is vivikta-desa-sevitvam. Since the mind becomes calm in places that are indeed pure (or solitary), therefore meditation on the Self etc. occurs in pure (or solitary) places. Hence the inclination to retire into clean (or solitary) places is called Knowledge. Aratih, lack of delight, not being happy; jana-samadi, in crowd of people-an assemblage, a multitude of people without culture, lacking in purity and immodest-, (but) not (so) in a gathering of pure and modest persons since that is conducive to Knowledge. Hence, lack of delight in an assembly of common people is Knowledge since it leads to Knowledge. Besides,
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.12
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.12 · Chapter 13 · Verse 12
।।13.12।। --,अध्यात्मज्ञाननित्यत्वम् आत्मादिविषयं ज्ञानम् अध्यात्मज्ञानम्? तस्मिन् नित्यभावः नित्यत्वम्। अमानित्वादीनां ज्ञानसाधनानां भावनापरिपाकनिमित्तं तत्त्वज्ञानम्? तस्य अर्थः मोक्षः संसारोपरमः तस्य आलोचनं तत्त्वज्ञानार्थदर्शनम् तत्त्वज्ञानफलालोचने हि तत्साधनानुष्ठाने प्रवृत्तिः स्यादिति। एतत् अमानित्वादितत्त्वज्ञानार्थदर्शनान्तमुक्तं ज्ञानम् इति प्रोक्तं ज्ञानार्थत्वात्। अज्ञानं यत् अतः अस्मात् यथोक्तात् अन्यथा विपर्ययेण। मानित्वं दम्भित्वं हिंसा अक्षान्तिः अनार्जवम् इत्यादि अज्ञानं विज्ञेयं परिहरणाय? संसारप्रवृत्तिकारणत्वात् इति।।यथोक्तेन ज्ञानेन ज्ञातव्यं किम् इत्याकाङ्क्षायामाह -- ज्ञेयं यत्तत् इत्यादि। ननु यमाः नियमाश्च अमानित्वादयः। न तैः ज्ञेयं ज्ञायते। न हि अमानित्वादि कस्यचित् वस्तुनः परिच्छेदकं दृष्टम्। सर्वत्रैव च यद्विषयं ज्ञानं तदेव तस्य ज्ञेयस्य परिच्छेदकं दृश्यते। न हि अन्यविषयेण ज्ञानेन अन्यत् उपलभ्यते? यथा घटविषयेण ज्ञानेन अग्निः। नैष दोषः? ज्ञाननिमित्तत्वात् ज्ञानमुच्यते इति हि अवोचाम ज्ञानसहकारिकारणत्वाच्च --,
13.12 Adhyatma-jnana-nityatvam, steadfastness in the knowledge of the Self: adhyatma-jnanam is the knowledge of the Self, etc.; constant dwelling in that is nityatvam. Tattva-jnanartha-darsanam, contemplating on the Goal of the knowledge of Reality: Tattva-jnanam is that (realization of Truth) which arises from the fruition of application to the disciplines like humility etc. which are the means to knowledge. Its Goal (artha) is Liberation, the cessation of mundane existence. Contemplation (darsana) on that is tattva-jnana-artha-darsanam. For, when one engages in contemplation on the result of the knowledge of Reality, one gets the urge to undertake the disciplines which are its means. Etat, this-those that have been stated from 'humility' etc. to 'contemplation on the Goal of the knowledge of Reality'; proktam, is spoken of; iti, as; jnanam, Knowledge, because they are meant to lead one to Knowledge. Ajnanam, ignorance; is yat, that which is; anyatha, other; atah, than this-what has been stated above. Contrarily, arrogance, pretentiousness, cruelty, revenge, insincerity, etc. are to be known as ignorance so that, since they are the cause of the origination of worldly existence, they can be avoided. To the estion as to what is to be known through the aforesaid Knowledge, the Lord says, 'I shall speak of that which is to be known,' etc. Objection: Do not humility etc. constitute yama and niyama [See fn. on p. 239.-Tr.]? The Knowable is not known through them. For humility etc. are not seen to determine the nature of anything. Moreover, everywhere it is observed that whatever knowledge reveals its own object, that itself ascertains the nature of that object of knowledge (the knowable). Indeed, nothing else is known through a knowledge concerning some other object. As for instance, fire is not known through the knowledge of a pot. Reply: This is not a defect, for we have said that they are called 'Knowledge' because they lead one to Knowledge, and because they are auxiliary causes of Knowledge.
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.13
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.13 · Chapter 13 · Verse 13
।।13.13।। --,ज्ञेयं ज्ञातव्यं यत् तत् प्रवक्ष्यामि प्रकर्षेण यथावत् वक्ष्यामि। किं फलं तत् इति प्ररोचनेन श्रोतुः अभिमुखीकरणाय आह -- यत् ज्ञेयं ज्ञात्वा अमृतम् अमृतत्वम् अश्नुते? न पुनः म्रियते इत्यर्थः। अनादिमत् आदिः अस्य अस्तीति आदिमत्? न आदिमत् अनादिमत् किं तत् परं निरतिशयं ब्रह्म? ज्ञेयम् इति प्रकृतम्।।अत्र केचित् अनादि मत्परम् इति पदं छिन्दन्ति? बहुव्रीहिणा उक्ते अर्थे मतुपः आनर्थक्यम् अनिष्टं स्यात् इति। अर्थविशेषं च दर्शयन्ति -- अहं वासुदेवाख्या परा शक्ितः यस्य तत् मत्परम् इति। सत्यमेवमपुनरुक्तं स्यात्? अर्थः चेत् संभवति। न तु अर्थः संभवति? ब्रह्मणः सर्वविशेषप्रतिषेधेनैव विजिज्ञापयिषितत्वात् न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते इति। विशिष्टशक्ितमत्त्वप्रदर्शनं विशेषप्रतिषेधश्च इति विप्रतिषिद्धम्। तस्मात् मतुपः बहुव्रीहिणा समानार्थत्वेऽपि प्रयोगः श्लोकपूरणार्थः।।अमृतत्वफलं ज्ञेयं मया उच्यते इति प्ररोचनेन अभिमुखीकृत्य आह -- न सत् तत् ज्ञेयमुच्यते इति न अपि असत् तत् उच्यते।। ननु महता परिकरबन्धेन कण्ठरवेण उद्घुष्य ज्ञेयं प्रवक्ष्यामि इति? अननुरूपमुक्तं न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते इति। न? अनुरूपमेव उक्तम्। कथम् सर्वासु हि उपनिषत्सु ज्ञेयं ब्रह्म नेति नेति (बृह0 उ0 4।4।22) अस्थूलमनणु (बृह0 उ0 3।3।8) इत्यादिविशेषप्रतिषेधेनैव निर्दिश्यते? न इदं तत् इति? वाचः अगोचरत्वात्।।ननु न तदस्ति? यद्वस्तु अस्तिशब्देन नोच्यते। अथ अस्तिशब्देन नोच्यते? नास्ति तत् ज्ञेयम्। विप्रतिषिद्धं च -- ज्ञेयं तत् ? अस्तिशब्देन नोच्यते इति च। न तावन्नास्ति? नास्तिबुद्ध्यविषयत्वात्।।ननु सर्वाः बुद्धयः अस्तिनास्तिबुद्ध्यनुगताः एव। तत्र एवं सति ज्ञेयमपि अस्तिबुद्ध्यनुगतप्रत्ययविषयं वा स्यात्? नास्तिबुद्ध्यनुगतप्रत्ययविषयं वा स्यात्। न? अतीन्द्रियत्वेन उभयबुद्ध्यनुगतप्रत्ययाविषयत्वात्। यद्धि इन्द्रियगम्यं वस्तु घटादिकम्? तत् अस्तिबुद्ध्यनुगतप्रत्ययविषयं वा स्यात्? नास्तिबुद्ध्यनुगतप्रत्ययविषयं वा स्यात्। इदं तु ज्ञेयम् अतीन्द्रियत्वेन शब्दैकप्रमाणगम्यत्वात् न घटादिवत् उभयबुद्ध्यनुगतप्रत्ययविषयम् इत्यतः न सत्तन्नासत् इति उच्यते।। यत्तु उक्तम् -- विरुद्धमुच्यते? ज्ञेयं तत् न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते इति -- न विरुद्धम्? अन्यदेव तद्विदितादथो अविदितादधि (के0 उ0 1।3) इति श्रुतेः। श्रुतिरपि विरुद्धार्था इति चेत् -- यथा यज्ञाय शालामारभ्य यद्यमुष्िमँल्लोकेऽस्ति वा न वेति (तै0 सं0 6।1।1) इत्येवमिति चेत्? न विदिताविदिताभ्यामन्यत्वश्रुतेः अवश्यविज्ञेयार्थप्रतिपादनपरत्वात् यद्यमुष्मिन् इत्यादि तु विधिशेषः अर्थवादः। उपपत्तेश्च सदसदादिशब्दैः ब्रह्म नोच्यते इति। सर्वो हि शब्दः अर्थप्रकाशनाय प्रयुक्तः? श्रूयमाणश्च श्रोतृभिः? जातिक्रियागुणसंबन्धद्वारेण संकेतग्रहणसव्यपेक्षः अर्थं प्रत्याययति न अन्यथा? अदृष्टत्वात्। तत् यथा -- गौः अश्वः इति वा जातितः? पचति पठति इति वा क्रियातः? शुक्लः कृष्णः इति वा गुणतः? धनी गोमान् इति वा संबन्धतः। न तु ब्रह्म जातिमत्? अतः न सदादिशब्दवाच्यम्। नापि गुणवत्? येन गुणशब्देन उच्येत? निर्गुणत्वात्। नापि क्रियाशब्दवाच्यं निष्क्रियत्वात् निष्कलं निष्क्रियं शान्तम् (श्वे0 उ0 6।19) इति श्रुतेः। न च संबन्धी? एकत्वात्। अद्वयत्वात् अविषयत्वात् आत्मत्वाच्च न केनचित् शब्देन उच्यते इति युक्तम् यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते (तै0 उ0 2।4।9) इत्यादिश्रुतिभिश्च।।सच्छब्दप्रत्ययाविषयत्वात् असत्त्वाशङ्कायां ज्ञेयस्य सर्वप्राणिकरणोपाधिद्वारेण तदस्तित्वं प्रतिपादयन् तदाशङ्कानिवृत्त्यर्थमाह --,
13.13 Pravaksyami, I shall speak of, fully describe just as it is; tat, that; yat, which; is jenyam, to be known. In order to interest the hearer through inducement, the Lord speaks of what its result is: Jnatva, by realizing; yat, which Knowable; asnute, one attains; amrtam, Immortality, i.e.; he does not die again. Anadimat, without beginning-one having a beginning (adi) is adimat; one not having a beginning is anadimat. What is that? The param, supreme, unsurpassable; brahma, Brahman, which is under discussion as the Knowable. Here, some split up the phrase anadimatparam as anadi and matparam because, if the word anadimat is taken as a Bahuvrihi compound, ['That which has no (a), beginning (adi) is anadi.' Matup is used to denote possession. Since the idea of possession is a already implied in anadi, therefore matup, if added after it, becomes redundant.] then the suffix mat (matup) becomes redundant, which is undesirable. And they show a distintive meaning: (Brahman is anadi, beginningless, and is) matparam, that of which I am the supreme (para) power called Vasudeva. Trully, the redundance could be avoided in this way if that meanig were possible. But that meaning is not possible, because what is intended is to make Brahman known only through a negation of all attributes by saying, 'It is called neither being nor non-being.' It is contradictory to show a possession of a distinctive power and to negate attributes. Therefore, although matup and a bahuvrihi compound convey the same meaning of 'possession', its (matup's) use is for completing the verse. [The Commentator accepts anadimat as a nan-tatpurusa compund. If, however, the Bahuvrihi is insisted on, then the mat after anadi should be taken as completing the number of syllables needed for versification. So, nat need not be compounded with param.] Having aroused an interest through inducement by saying, 'The Knowable which has Immortality as its result is beeing spoken of by Me,' the Lord says: Tat, that Knowable; ucyate, is called; na sat, neither being; nor is it called asat, non-being. Objection: After strongly girding up the loins and declaring with a loud voice, 'I shall speak of the Knowable,' is it not incongruous to say, 'That is called neither being nor non-being'? Reply: No. What has been said is surely consistent. Objection: How? Reply: For in all the Upanisads, the Knowable, i.e. Brahman, has been indicated only by negation of all attributes-'Not this, not this' (Br. 4.4.22), 'Not gross, not subtle' (op. cit. 3.3.8), etc.; but not as 'That is this', for It is beyond speech. Objection: Is it not that a thing which cannot be expressed by the word 'being' does not exist? Like-wise, if the Knowable cannot be expressed by the word 'being', It does not exist. And it is contradictory to say, 'It is the Knowable', and 'It cannot be expressed by the word "being".' Counter-objection: As to that, no that It does not exist, because It is not the object of the idea, 'It is non-being.' Objection: Do not all cognitions verily involve the idea of being or non-being? This being so, the Knowable should either be an object of a cognition involving the idea of existence, or it should be an object of a cognition involving the idea of non-existence. Reply: No, because, by virtue of Its being super-sensuous, It is not an object of cognition involving either, of the two ideas. Indeed, any object perceivable by the senses, such as pot etc., can be either an object of cognition involving the idea of existence, or it can be an object of cognition involving the idea of non-existence. But this Knowable, being supersensuous and known from the scriptures, which are the sole means of (Its) knowledge, is not, like pot etc., an object of cognition involving either of the two ideas. Therefore It is called neither being nor non-being. As for your objection that it is contradictory to say, 'It is the Knowable, but it is neither called being nor non-being,'-it is not contradictory; for the Upanisad says, 'That (Brahman) is surely different from the known and, again, It is above the unknown' (Ke. 1.4). Objection: May it not be that even the Upanisad is contradictory in its meaning? May it not be (contradictory) as it is when, after beginning with the topic of a shed for a sacrifice, [Cf. 'Pracinavamsam karoti, he constructs (i.e. shall construct) (the sacrificial shed) with its supporting beam turned east-ward' (Tai, Sam.; also see Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Monier Williams).-Tr.] it is said, 'Who indeed knows whether there exists anything in the other world or not!' (Tai. Sam. 6.1.1)? Reply: No, since the Upanisad speaking of something that is different from the known and the unknown is meant for establishing an entity that must be realized. [The Upanisadic text is not to be rejected on the ground that it is paradoxical, for it is meant to present Brahman as indentical with one's own inmost Self.] But, '৷৷.whether there exists anything in the other world,' etc. is merely an arthavada [See note on p. 40. Here, the passage, '৷৷.whether there exists৷৷.,' etc. is to be interpreted as an arthavada emphasizing, the need of raising a shed, irrespective of any other consideration.-Tr.] connected with an injunction. From reason who it follows that Brahman cannot be expressed by such words as being, non-being, etc. For, every word used for expressing an object, when heard by listeners, makes them understand its meaning through the comprehension of its significance with the help of genus, action, ality and relation; not in any other way, because that is not a matter of experience. To illustrate this: a cow, or a horse, etc. (is comprehended) through genus; cooking or reading, through action; white or black, through ality; a rich person or an owner of cows, through relation. But Brahman does not belong to any genus. Hence it is not expressible by words like 'being' etc.; neither is It possessed of any alitity with the help of which It could be expressed through alifying words, for It is free from alities; nor can It be expressed by a word implying action, It being free from actions-which accords with the Upanisadic text, 'Partless, actionless, calm' (Sv. 6.19). Nor has It any relation, since It is one, non-dual, not an object of the senses, and It is the Self. Therefore it is logical that It cannot be expressed by any word. And this follows from such Upanisadic texts as, 'From which, words trun back' (Tai. 2.4.1), etc. Therefore it is logical that It cannot be expressed by any word. And this follows from such Upanisadic texts as, 'From which, words turn back' (Tai. 2.4.1), etc. Since the Knowable (Brahman) is not an object of the word or thought of 'being', there arises the apprehension of Its nonexistence. Hence, for dispelling that apprehension by establishing Its existence with the help of the adjuncts in the form of the organs of all creatures, the Lord says:
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.14
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.14 · Chapter 13 · Verse 14
।।13.14।। --,सर्वतःपाणिपादं सर्वतः पाणयः पादाश्च अस्य इति सर्वतःपाणिपादं तत् ज्ञेयम्। सर्वप्राणिकरणोपाधिभिः क्षेत्रज्ञस्य अस्तित्वं विभाव्यते। क्षेत्रज्ञश्च क्षेत्रोपाधितः उच्यते। क्षेत्रं च पाणिपादादिभिः अनेकधा भिन्नम्। क्षेत्रोपाधिभेदकृतं विशेषजातं मिथ्यैव क्षेत्रज्ञस्य? इति तदपनयनेन ज्ञेयत्वमुक्तम् न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते इति। उपाधिकृतं मिथ्यारूपमपि अस्तित्वाधिगमाय ज्ञेयधर्मवत् परिकल्प्य उच्यते सर्वतःपाणिपादम् इत्यादि। तथा हि संप्रदायविदां वचनम् -- अध्यारोपापवादाभ्यां निष्प्रपञ्चं प्रपञ्च्यते इति। सर्वत्र सर्वदेहावयवत्वेन गम्यमानाः पाणिपादादयः ज्ञेयशक्तिसद्भावनिमित्तस्वकार्याः इति ज्ञेयसद्भावे लिङ्गानि ज्ञेयस्य इति उपचारतः उच्यन्ते। तथा व्याख्येयम् अन्यत्। सर्वतःपाणिपादं तत् ज्ञेयम्। सर्वतोऽक्षिशिरोमुखं सर्वतः अक्षीणि शिरांसि मुखानि च यस्य तत् सर्वतोऽक्षिशिरोमुखम् सर्वतःश्रुतिमत् श्रुतिः श्रवणेन्द्रियम्? तत् यस्य तत् श्रुतिमत्? लोके प्राणिनिकाये? सर्वम् आवृत्य संव्याप्य तिष्ठति स्थितिं लभते।।उपाधिभूतपाणिपादादीन्द्रियाध्यारोपणात् ज्ञेयस्य तद्वत्ताशङ्का मा भूत् इत्येवमर्थः श्लोकारम्भः --,
13.14 Tat, That-the Knowable; sarvatah-pani-padam, which has hands and feet everywhere-. The existence of the Knower of the field is revealed through th adjuncts in the form of the organs of all creatures. And the Knower of the field is spoken of as such because of the limiting adjuncts of the field. The field, too, is diversely differentiated as hands, feet, etc. All diversity in the Knower of the field, caused by the differences in the adjunct-the field-, is certainly unreal. Hence, by denying it, the nature of the Knowable has been stated, in, 'That is called neither being nor non-being.' Although the unreal form is caused by the limiting adjuncts, still, for the comprehension of Its existence it is said, '(It) has hands and feet everywhere, etc., by assuming this as a ality of the Knowable. Thus, as is well known, there is saying of the people versed in tradition, 'The Transcendental is described with the help of superimposition and its refutation'. Everywhere the hands, feet, etc., which are perceived as limbs of all bodies, perform, their duties due to the presence of the power of the Knowable (Brahman). Thus the grounds for the inference of the existence of the Knowable are metaphorically spoken of as belonging to the Knowable. The others have to be explained similarly. That Knowable has hands and feet everwhere. That which has eyes, heads, and mouths everywhere is sarvatoksi-siro-mukham. That which has ears every-where is sarvatah-srutimat: sruti means the organs of hearing; that which has it is sruti-mat. Tisthati, It exists, remains established; loke, in the multititude of creatures; avrtya, by pervading; sarvam, them all. With this purpose is view, that as a result of the superimposition of the organs like hands, feet, etc., which are adjuncts, there may not be the misconception that the Knowable is possessed of them (adjuncts), the (next) verse is begun:
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.15
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.15 · Chapter 13 · Verse 15
।।13.15।। -- सर्वेन्द्रियगुणाभासं सर्वाणि च तानि इन्द्रियाणि श्रोत्रादीनि बुद्धीन्द्रियकर्मेन्द्रियाख्यानि? अन्तःकरणे च बुद्धिमनसी? ज्ञेयोपाधित्वस्य तुल्यत्वात्? सर्वेन्द्रियग्रहणेन गृह्यन्ते। अपि च? अन्तःकरणोपाधिद्वारेणैव श्रोत्रादीनामपि उपाधित्वम् इत्यतः अन्तःकरणबहिष्करणोपाधिभूतैः सर्वेन्द्रियगुणैः अध्यवसायसंकल्पश्रवणवचनादिभिः अवभासते इति सर्वेन्द्रियगुणाभासं सर्वेन्द्रियव्यापारैः व्यापृतमिव तत् ज्ञेयम् इत्यर्थः ध्यायतीव लेलायतीव (बृह0 उ0 4।3।7) इति श्रुतेः। कस्मात् पुनः कारणात् न व्यापृतमेवेति गृह्यते इत्यतः आह -- सर्वेन्द्रियविवर्जितम्? सर्वकरणरहितमित्यर्थः। अतः न करणव्यापारैः व्यापृतं तत् ज्ञेयम्। यस्तु अयं मन्त्रः -- अपाणिपादो जवनो ग्रहीता पश्यत्यचक्षुः स श्रृणोत्यकर्णः (श्वे0 उ0 3।19) इत्यादिः? स सर्वेन्द्रियोपाधिगुणानुगुण्यभजनशक्तिमत् तत् ज्ञेयम् इत्येवं प्रदर्शनार्थः? न तु साक्षादेव जवनादिक्रियावत्त्वप्रदर्शनार्थः। अन्धो मणिमविन्दत् (तै0 आ0 1।11) इत्यादिमन्त्रार्थवत् तस्य मन्त्रस्य अर्थः। यस्मात् सर्वकरणवर्जितं ज्ञेयम्? तस्मात् असक्तं सर्वसंश्लेषवर्जितम्। यद्यपि एवम्? तथापि सर्वभृच्च एव। सदास्पदं हि सर्वं सर्वत्र सद्बुद्ध्यनुगमात्। न हि मृगतृष्णिकादयोऽपि निरास्पदाः भवन्ति। अतः सर्वभृत् सर्वं बिभर्ति इति। स्यात् इदं च अन्यत् ज्ञेयस्य सत्त्वाधिगमद्वारम् -- निर्गुणं सत्त्वरजस्तमांसि गुणाः तैः वर्जितं तत् ज्ञेयम्? तथापि गुणभोक्तृ च गुणानां सत्त्वरजस्तमसां शब्दादिद्वारेण सुखदुःखमोहाकारपरिणतानां भोक्तृ च उपलब्धृ च तत् ज्ञेयम् इत्यर्थः।।किञ्च --,
13.15 Sarvendriya-guna-abhasam, shining through the functions of all the organs: By the use of the words all the organs are understood ears etc., known as the sense-organs and motor-organs, as also the internal organs-the intellect and the mind, for they are eally the limiting adjuncts of the Knowable. Besides, the organs of hearing etc. become the limiting adjuncts from the very fact of the internal organ becoming so. Hence, the Knowable gets expressed through determination, thinking, hearing, speaking, etc. that are the functions of all the organs, internal and external, which are the limiting adjuncts. In this way, It is manifest through the functions of all the organs. The idea is that, that Knowable appears to be as though active owing to the functions of all the organs, as it is said in the Upanisadic text, 'It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were' (Br. 4.3.7). For that reason, again, is It not perceived as being actually active? In answer the Lord says: It is sarva-indriya-varjitam, devoid of all the organs, i.e. bereft of all the instruments of action. Hence the Knowable is not active through the functioning of the instruments of action. As for the Upanisadic verse, 'Without hands and feet He moves swiftly and grasps; without eyes He sees, without ears He hears' (Sv. 3.19), etc.-that is meant for showing that that Knowable has the power of adapting Itself to the functions of all the organs which are Its limiting adjuncts; but it is not meant to show that It really has such activity as moving fast etc. The meaning of that verse is like that of the Vedic text, 'The blind one discoverd a gem' (Tai, Ar. 1.11). [This is an artha-veda (see note on p.530), which is not to be taken literally but interpreted in accordance with the context.] Since the Knowable is devoid of all the instruments of actions, therefore It is asaktam, unattached, devoid of all associations. Although It is of this kind, yet it is ca eva, also verily; the sarva-bhrt, supporter of all. Indeed, everything has existence as its basis, because the idea of 'existence' is present everywhere. Verily, even mirage etc. do not occur without some basis. Therefore, It is sarva-bhrt, the supporter of all-It upholds everything. There can be this other organs as well for the realization of the existence of the Knowable: Nirgunam, without ality-the alities are sattva, rajas and tamas; that Knowable is free from them; and yet It is the guna-bhoktr, perceiver of alities; i.e., that Knowable is the enjoyer and experiencer of the alities, sattva, rajas and tamas, which, assuming the forms of sound etc., transform them-selves into happiness, sorrow, delusion, etc. Further,
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.16
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.16 · Chapter 13 · Verse 16
।।13.16।। -- बहिः त्वक्पर्यन्तं देहम् आत्मत्वेन अविद्याकल्पितम् अपेक्ष्य तमेव अवधिं कृत्वा बहिः उच्यते। तथा प्रत्यगात्मानमपेक्ष्य देहमेव अवधिं कृत्वा अन्तः उच्यते। बहिरन्तश्च इत्युक्ते मध्ये अभावे प्राप्ते? इदमुच्यते -- अचरं चरमेव च? यत् चराचरं देहाभासमपि तदेव ज्ञेयं यथा रज्जुसर्पाभासः। यदि अचरं चरमेव च स्यात् व्यवहारविषयं सर्वं ज्ञेयम्? किमर्थम् इदम् इति सर्वैः न विज्ञेयम् इति उच्यते -- सत्यं सर्वाभासं तत् तथापि व्योमवत् सूक्ष्मम्। अतः सूक्ष्मत्वात् स्वेन रूपेण तत् ज्ञेयमपि अविज्ञेयम् अविदुषाम्। विदुषां तु? आत्मैवेदं सर्वम् (छा0 उ0 7।25।2) ब्रह्मैवेदं सर्वम् (बृ0 उ0 2।5।1) इत्यादिप्रमाणतः नित्यं विज्ञातम्। अविज्ञाततया दूरस्थं वर्षसहस्रकोट्यापि अविदुषाम् अप्राप्यत्वात्। अन्तिके च तत्? आत्मत्वात् विदुषाम्।।किञ्च --,
13.16 Existing, bahih, outside- the word bahih is used with reference to the body including the skin, which is misconceived through ignorance to be the Self, and which is itself taken as the boundary. Similarly, the word antah, inside, is used with reference to the indwelling Self, making the body itself as the boundary. When 'outside' and 'inside' are used, there may arise the contingency of the nonexistence of That in the middle. Hence this is said: acaram caram eva ca, moving as well as not moving-even that which appears as the body, moving or not moving, is nothing but the Knowable, in the same way as the appearance of a snake on a rope (is nothing but the rope). In all empirical things, moving as also non-moving, be the Knowable, why should It not be known by all as such? In answer it is said: It is true that It shines through everything; still it is subtle like space. Therefore, although It is the Knowable, tat, It; is avijneyam, incomprehensible to the ignorant people; suksmatvat, due to Its intrinsic subtleness. But to the enlightened It is ever known from the valid means of knowledge such as (the texts), 'All this is verily the Self' (Ch. 7.25.2), 'Brahman alone is all this' (Nr. Ut.7), etc. It is durastham, far away, since, to the unenlightened, It is unattainable even in millions of years. And tat, That; is antike, near, since It is the Self of the enlightened.
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.17
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.17 · Chapter 13 · Verse 17
।।13.17।। --,अविभक्तं च प्रतिदेहं व्योमवत् तदेकम्। भूतेषु सर्वप्राणिषु विभक्तमिव च स्थितं देहेष्वेव विभाव्यमानत्वात्। भूतभर्तृ च भूतानि बिभर्तीति तत् ज्ञेयं भूतभर्तृ च स्थितिकाले। प्रलयकाले गृसिष्णु ग्रसनशीलम्। उत्पत्तिकाले प्रभविष्णु च प्रभवनशीलं यथा रज्जवादिः सर्पादेः मिथ्याकल्पितस्य।।किञ्च? सर्वत्र विद्यमानमपि सत् न उपलभ्यते चेत्? ज्ञेयं तमः तर्हि न। किं तर्हि --,
13.17 And further, tat, that; jneyam, Knowable; though avibhaktam, undivided, remaining the same in all beings like space; iva sthitam, appears to be existing; as vibhaktam, divided; bhutesu, in all beings, because It is perceived as existing in the bodies themselves. And just as a rope etc. are with regard to a snake etc. That are falsely imagined, similarly that Knowable is bhutabhartr, the sustainer of all beings, sinced It sustains all during the period of their existence; grasisnu, the devourer, at the time of dissolution; and prabhavisnu, the originator, at the time of creation. Further, it the Knowable is not perceived though existing everywhere, then It is darkness? Not! What then?
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.18
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.18 · Chapter 13 · Verse 18
(13.18।। -- ज्योतिषाम् आदित्यादीनामपि तत् ज्ञेयं ज्योतिः। आत्मचैतन्यज्योतिषा इद्धानि हि आदित्यादीनि ज्योतींषि दीप्यन्ते? येन सूर्यस्तपति तेजसेद्धः तस्य भासा सर्वमिदं विभाति (श्वे0 उ0 6।14) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः स्मृतेश्च इहैव -- यदादित्यगतं तेजः इत्यादेः। तमसः अज्ञानात् परम् अस्पृष्टम् उच्यते। ज्ञानादेः दुःसंपादनबुद्ध्या प्राप्तावसादस्य उत्तम्भनार्थमाह -- ज्ञानम् अमानित्वादि ज्ञेयम् ज्ञेयं यत् तत् प्रवक्ष्यामि (गीता 13।12) इत्यादिना उक्तम् ज्ञानगम्यम् ज्ञेयमेव ज्ञातं सत् ज्ञानफलमिति ज्ञानगम्यमुच्यते ज्ञायमानं तु ज्ञेयम्। तत् एतत् त्रयमपि हृदि बुद्धौ सर्वस्य प्राणिजातस्य विष्ठितं विशेषेण स्थिम्। तत्रैव हि त्रयं विभाव्यते।।यथोक्तार्थोपसंहारार्थः अयं श्लोकः आरभ्यते --,
13.18 Tat, that Knowable; is the jyotih, Light; api, even; jyotisam, of the lights-of the sun etc. For the lights like the sun etc. shine because they are enkindled by the light of consciousness of the Self, as is known from Upanisadic texts like, 'Illumined by whose light the sun shines' (Tai. Br. 3.12.9.7), 'By Its light all this shines variously' (Sv. 6.14), and from the Smrti also, as here (in the Gita) itself: 'That light in the sun৷৷.' (15.12), etc. It is ucyate, spoken of as; param, beyond, untouched by; tamasah, darkness; ignorance. For cheering up anyone who may become disheartened by thinking that Knowledge etc. is difficult to attain, the Lord says: It is jnanam, Knowledge-humility etc. (verse 7, etc.); jneyam, the Knowable, which has been spoken of in, 'I shall speak of that which is to be known' (12); and jnana-gamyam, the Known. The Knowable itself is referred to as jnanagamyam, when after being known, It becomes the result of Knowledge. But when It is an object to be known, It is called jneyam. All these three which are such, visthitam, specially exist; hrdi, in the hearts, in the intellects; sarvasya, of all, of all creatures. For these three are, indeed, perceived there. This verse is begun for concluding the topic under discussion:
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.19
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.19 · Chapter 13 · Verse 19
।।13.19।। -- इति एवं क्षेत्रं महाभूतादि धृत्यन्तं तथा ज्ञानम् अमानित्वादि तत्त्वज्ञानार्थदर्शनपर्यन्तं ज्ञेयं च ज्ञेयं यत् तत् इत्यादि तमसः परमुच्यते (गीता 13।17) इत्येवमन्तम् उक्तं समासतः संक्षेपतः। एतावान् सर्वः हि वेदार्थः गीतार्थश्च उपसंहृत्य उक्तः। अस्मिन् सम्यग्दर्शने कः अधिक्रियते इति उच्यते -- मद्भक्तः मयि ईश्वरे सर्वज्ञे परमगुरौ वासुदेवे समर्पितसर्वात्मभावः यत् पश्यति शृणोति स्पृशति वा सर्वमेव भगवान् वासुदेवः इत्येवंग्रहाविष्टबुद्धिः मद्भक्तः। स एतत् यथोक्तं सम्यग्दर्शनं विज्ञाय? मद्भावाय मम भावः मद्भावः परमात्मभावः तस्मै मद्भावाय उपपद्यते मोक्षं गच्छति।।तत्र सप्तमे ईश्वरस्य द्वे प्रकृती उपन्यस्ते? परापरे क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञलक्षणे एतद्योनीनि भूतानि इति च उक्तम्। क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञप्रकृतिद्वययोनित्वं कथं भूतानामिति अयमर्थः अधुना उच्यते --,
13.19 Iti, thus; uktam, has been spoken-commencing from 'I shall speak of that which is to be known' (12) and ending with 'It is spoken of as beyond darkness' (17); samasatah, in brief; the ksetram, field -beginning with the 'great elements' and ending with 'for titude' (5,6); tatha, as also; jnanam, Knowledge-beginning from 'humility' (7) and ending with 'contemplation on the Goal of the knowledge of Reality' (11); and the jneyam, Knowable. All this has been stated by way of summarizing the purport of the Vedas and the Gita. Who is fit for this true knowledge? The answer is: madbhaktah, My devotee, who attributes the fact of being the Self of all to Me who am God, Vasudeva, the Omniscient, the supreme Teacher, (and) whose conviction has been saturated with the idea that whatever he sees, hears or touches, all that verily is Lord Vasudeva. Vijnaya, by understanding; etat, this, the aforesaid true knowledge; he upa-padyate, becomes alified; mad-bhavaya, for My State (bhava) -the State of being the supreme Self; for that State of Mine. He attains Liberation. There in the Seventh Chapter have been presented the two aspects [Cf. 15.16-18.] of God, viz the higher and the lower, characterized as the field and the Knower of the field. And it has also been said, '(Understand thus) that all things have these as their source' (7.6). The explanation as to how creatures have the two aspects, the field and the Knower of the field, as their source is now being stated:
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.20
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.20 · Chapter 13 · Verse 20
।।13.20।। --,प्रकृतिं पुरुषं चैव ईश्वरस्य प्रकृती तौ प्रकृतिपुरुषौ उभावपि अनादि विद्धि? न विद्यते आदिः ययोः तौ अनादी। नित्येश्वरत्वात् ईश्वरस्य तत्प्रकृत्योरपि युक्तं नित्यत्वेन भवितुम्। प्रकृतिद्वयवत्त्वमेव हि ईश्वरस्य ईश्वरत्वम्। याभ्यां प्रकृतिभ्याम् ईश्वरः जगदुत्पत्तिस्थितिप्रलयहेतुः? ते द्वे अनादी सत्यौ संसारस्य कारणम्।।न आदी अनादी इति तत्पुरुषसमासं केचित् वर्णयन्ति। तेन हि किल ईश्वरस्य कारणत्वं सिध्यति। यदि पुनः प्रकृतिपुरुषावेव नित्यौ स्यातां तत्कृतमेव जगत् न ईश्वरस्य जगतः कर्तृत्वम्। तत् असत् प्राक् प्रकृतिपुरुषयोः उत्पत्तेः ईशितव्याभावात् ईश्वरस्य अनीश्वरत्वप्रसङ्गात्? संसारस्य निर्निमित्तत्वे अनिर्मोक्षप्रसङ्गात् शास्त्रानर्थक्यप्रसङ्गात् बन्धमोक्षाभावप्रसङ्गाच्च। नित्यत्वे पुनः ईश्वरस्य प्रकृत्योः सर्वमेतत् उपपन्नं भवेत्। कथम् विकारांश्च गुणांश्चैव वक्ष्यमाणान्विकारान् बुद्ध्यादिदेहेन्द्रियान्तान् गुणांश्च सुखदुःखमोहप्रत्ययाकारपरिणतान् विद्धि जानीहि प्रकृतिसंभवान्? प्रकृतिः ईश्वरस्य विकारकारणशक्तिः त्रिगुणात्मिका माया? सा संभवो येषां विकाराणां गुणानां च तान् विकारान् गुणांश्च विद्धि प्रकृतिसंभवान् प्रकृतिपरिणामान्।।के पुनः ते विकाराः गुणाश्च प्रकृतिसंभवाः --,
13.20 Viddhi, know; ubhau, both; prakrtim Nature; and also the purusam, individual soul;-these two; Nature and the soul. the aspects of God-to be api, verily; anadi, without beginning. Those two that have no beginning (adi), are anadi. Since the godhood of God is eternal, therefore it is logical that even His aspects also should have eternality. For God's god-hood consists verily in having the two aspects. Those two aspects through which God becomes the cause of creation, continuance and dissolution of the Universe, and which are beginningless, are the sources of mundane existence. Some interpret the phrase anadi in the tatpurusa [Tatpurusa: Name of a class of compounds in which the first member determines the sense of the other members, or in which the last member is defined or alified by the first, without losing its original independence.-V.S.A.] sense of na adi, not primeval (not cause). (According to them) thery indeed is established the causality of God. Again, if Nature and soul themselves be eternal, the mundane existence would surely be their creation, and the causality of the mundane existence would not be God's. That is wrong because, there being nothing to rule over before the emergence of Nature and soul, there will arise the contingency of God ceasing to be God! And if the mundane state be uncaused [Uncaused, i.e. not caused by Nature and soul, but by God independently of those two aspects.] there arises the contingency of the absence of Liberation, [If God were. Himself the sole cause of mundane existence, independently of His two aspects, then it would be endless because there would be nothing to prevent liberated souls from being put under bondage again.] the scriptures becoming useless, and the absence of bondage and freedom. On the other hand, all these become justifiable if God and the two aspects be eternal. How? Viddhi, know; the vikaran, modifications that will be spoken of-the intellect etc., the body and the organs; ca eva, as also; gunan, the alities (sattva etc.)-manifest in the form of the mental states of happiness, sorrow and attachment; as prakriti-sambhavan, born of Nature. Nature, Maya, is the power of God, which is the cause of the modifications and which consists of the three alities. Those modifications and alities, which have that Nature as their source,-know those modifications and alities as 'born of Nature', as transformations of Nature. Which again, are those modifications and alities born of Nature?
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.21
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.21 · Chapter 13 · Verse 21
।।13.21।। --,कार्यकरणकर्तृत्वे -- कार्यं शरीरं करणानि तत्स्थानि त्रयोदश। देहस्यारम्भकाणि भूतानि पञ्च विषयाश्च प्रकृतिसंभवाः विकाराः पूर्वोक्ताः इह कार्यग्रहणेन गृह्यन्ते। गुणाश्च प्रकृतिसंभवाः सुखदुःखमोहात्मकाः करणाश्रयत्वात् करणग्रहणेन गृह्यन्ते। तेषां कार्यकरणानां कर्तृत्वम् उत्पादकत्वं यत् तत् कार्यकरणकर्तृत्वं तस्मिन् कार्यकरणकर्तृत्वे हेतुः कारणम् आरम्भकत्वेन प्रकृतिः उच्यते। एवं कार्यकरणकर्तृत्वेन संसारस्य कारणं प्रकृतिः। कार्यकारणकर्तृत्वे इत्यस्मिन्नपि पाठे? कार्यं यत् यस्य विपरिणामः तत् तस्य कार्यं विकारः विकारि कारणं तयोः विकारविकारिणोः कार्यकारणयोः कर्तृत्वे इति। अथवा? षोडश विकाराः कार्यं सप्त प्रकृतिविकृतयः कारणम् तान्येव कार्यकारणान्युच्यन्ते तेषां कर्तृत्वे हेतुः प्रकृतिः उच्यते? आरम्भकत्वेनैव। पुरुषश्च संसारस्य कारणं यथा स्यात् तत् उच्यते -- पुरुषः जीवः क्षेत्रज्ञः भोक्ता इति पर्यायः? सुखदुःखानां भोग्यानां भोक्तृत्वे उपलब्धृत्वे हेतुः उच्यते।।कथं पुनः अनेन कार्यकरणकर्तृत्वेन सुखदुःखभोक्तृत्वेन च प्रकृतिपुरुषयोः संसारकारणत्वमुच्यते इति? अत्र उच्यते -- कार्यकरणसुखदुःखरूपेण हेतुफलात्मना प्रकृतेः परिणामाभावे? पुरुषस्य च चेतनस्य असति तदुपलब्धृत्वे? कुतः संसारः स्यात् यदा पुनः कार्यकरणसुखदुःखस्वरूपेण हेतुफलात्मना परिणतया प्रकृत्या भोग्यया पुरुषस्य तद्विपरीतस्य भोक्तृत्वे न अविद्यारूपः संयोगः स्यात्? तदा संसारः स्यात् इति। अतः यत् प्रकृतिपुरुषयोः कार्यकरणकर्तृत्वेन सुखदुःखभोक्तृत्वेन च संसारकारणत्वमुक्तम्? तत् युक्तम्। कः पुनः अयं संसारो नाम सुखदुःखसंभोगः संसारः। पुरुषस्य च सुखदुःखानां संभोक्तृत्वं संसारित्वमिति।।यत् पुरुषस्य सुखदुःखानां भोक्तृत्वं संसारित्वम् इति उक्तं तस्य तत् किं निमित्तमिति उच्यते --,
13.21 Karya-karana-kartrtve, with regard to the source of body and organs: Karya is the body, and karana are the thirteen [Five sense organs, five motor organs, mind, intellect and ego.] organs existing in it. Here, by the word karya are understood the aforesaid elements that produce the body as also the objects which are modifications born of Nature. And since the alities-which are born of Nature and manifest themselves as happiness, sorrow and delusion-are dependent on the organs, (therefore) they are implied by the word karana, organs. The kartrtvam, (lit) agentship, with regard to these body and organs consists in being the source of the body and organs. With regard to this source of the body and organs, prakrtih, Nature; ucyate, is said to be; the hetuh, cause, in the sense of being the originator. Thus, by virtue of being the source of body and organs, Nature is the cause of mundane existence. Even if the reading be karya-karana-kartrtva, karya (effect, modification) will mean anything that is the transformation of something; and karana (cause) will be that which becomes transformed. So the meaning of the compund will be: 'with regard to the source of the effect and the cause'. Or, karya means the sixteen [The eleven organs (five sensory, five motor, and mind) and the five objects (sound etc.).] modificaitons, and karana means the seven [Mahat, egoism, and the five subtle elements.] transformations of Nature. They themselves are called effect and cuase. So far as the agentship with regard to these is concerned Nature is said to be the cause, because of the same reason of being their originator. As to how the soul can be the cause of mundane existence is being stated: Purusah, the soul, the empirical being, the knower of the field-all these are synonymous; is the hetuh, cause; bhoktrtve, so far as enjoyership, the fact of being the perceiver; sukha-duhkhanam, of happiness and sorrow-which are objects of experience, is concerned. How, again, is it asserted with respect to Nature and soul that, they are the causes of mundane existence by virtue of this fact of their (respectively) being the source of body and organs, and the perceiver of happiness and sorrow? As to this the answer is being stated: How can there be any mundane existence if there be no modification of Nature in the form of body and organs, happiness and sorrow, and cause and effect, and there be no soul, the conscious being, to experience them? On the other hand, there can be mundane existence when there is a contact, in the form of ignorance, between Nature-modified in the form of body and organs, and cause and effect as an object of experience and the soul opposed to it as the experiencer. Therefore it was reasonable to have said that, Nature and soul become the cause of mundane existence by (respectively) becoming the originators of the body and organs, and the perceiver of happiness and sorrow. What again is this that is called worldly existence? Worldly existence consists in the experience of happiness and sorrow; and the state of mundane existence of the soul consists in its being the experiencer of happiness and sorrow. It has been asserted that the state of mundane existence of the soul consists in its being the experiencer of happiness and sorrow. How does it come about? This is being answered:
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.22
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.22 · Chapter 13 · Verse 22
।।13.22।। -- पुरुषः भोक्ता प्रकृतिस्थः प्रकृतौ अविद्यालक्षणायां कार्यकरणरूपेण परिणतायां स्थितः प्रकृतिस्थः? प्रकृतिमात्मत्वेन गतः इत्येतत्? हि यस्मात्? तस्मात् भुङ्क्ते उपलभते इत्यर्थः। प्रकृतिजान् प्रकृतितः जातान् सुखदुःखमोहाकाराभिव्यक्तान् गुणान् सुखी? दुःखी? मूढः? पण्डितः अहम् इत्येवम्। सत्यामपि अविद्यायां सुखदुःखमोहेषु गुणेषु भुज्यमानेषु यः सङ्गः आत्मभावः संसारस्य सः प्रधानं कारणं जन्मनः? सः यथाकामो भवति तत्क्रतुर्भवति (बृह0 उ0 4।4।5) इत्यादिश्रुतेः। तदेतत् आह -- कारणं हेतुः गुणसङ्गः गुणेषु सङ्गः अस्य पुरुषस्य भोक्तुः सदसद्योनिजन्मसु? सत्यश्च असत्यश्च योनयः सदसद्योनयः तासु सदसद्योनिषु जन्मानि सदसद्योनिजन्मानि? तेषु सदसद्योनिजन्मसु विषयभूतेषु कारणं गुणसङ्गः। अथवा? सदसद्योनिजन्मसु अस्य संसारस्य कारणं गुणसङ्गः इति संसारपदमध्याहार्यम्। सद्योनयः देवादियोनयः असद्योनयः पश्वादियोनयः। सामर्थ्यात् सदसद्योनयः मनुष्ययोनयोऽपि अविरुद्धाः द्रष्टव्याः।।एतत् उक्तं भवति -- प्रकृतिस्थत्वाख्या अविद्या? गुणेषु च सङ्गः कामः? संसारस्य कारणमिति। तच्च परिवर्जनाय उच्यते। अस्य च निवृत्तिकारणं ज्ञानवैराग्ये ससंन्यासे गीताशास्त्रे प्रसिद्धम्। तच्च ज्ञानं पुरस्तात् उपन्यस्तं क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञविषयम् यज्ज्ञात्वामृतमश्नुते इति। उक्तं च अन्यापोहेन अतद्धर्माध्यारोपेण च।।तस्यैव पुनः साक्षात् निर्देशः क्रियते --,
13.22 Hi, since; purusah, the soul, the experiencer; is prakrtisthah, seated in Nature, which is characterized as ignorance and gets transformed into body and organs, i.e., (since the soul) has become identified with Nature; therefore, bhunkte, [Bhunkte, lit. enjoys, here means 'experiences'.-Tr.] it enjoys, i.e. experiences; gunan, the alities-manifest as happiness, sorrow and delusion; prakrtijan, born of Nature, thinking thus, 'I am happy, sorrowful, deluded, learned.' Even though ignorance continues as a cause, still the main cause of worldly existence, of birth, is the contact, the self-identification, with the alities-happiness,sorrow, and delusion-when they are experienced, as is affirmed by the Upanisadic text, 'What it desires, it resolves' (Br. 4.4.5) [See Sankaracarya's Comm. on this.-Tr.]. That very fact is stated here: Gunasangah, contact with the alities; is karanam, the cause; asya, of its, the soul's, the experiencer's; sad-asad-yoni-janmasu, births in good and evil wombs. Self-identification with the alities is the cause of the experience of births in good and evil wombs. Or the meaning is, 'Self-identification with the alities is the cause or its worldly existence through birth in good and evil wombs,' where the words 'of worldly existence' have to be supplied. The good wombs are he wombs of gods and others; evil wombs are the wombs of gods and others; evil wombs are the wombs of beasts etc. From the force of the context it is to be understood that there is no contradiction in including even human wombs among 'good and evil wombs'. It amounts to saying that ignorance-called 'being seated in Nature'-and the contact with. i.e. the desire for, the alities are the causes of worldly existence. And this is said so that they can be avoided. And in the scripture Gita it is a well-known fact that knowledge and dispassion, accompanied with renunciation, are the causes of removing this (ignorance and self-identification with the alities). That knowledge about the field and the Knower of the field, too, has been presented earlier. This has also been said in, '৷৷.by realizing which one attains Immortality' (12), etc., through the process of refutation of elements alien (to the Self) and superimposition of alities belonging to others (that are not the Self). [Verse 12 deals with the refutation of alien elements, and vere 13 with the superimposition of alities belonging to others.] A direct presentation is again being made of that (knowledge) itself:
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.23
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.23 · Chapter 13 · Verse 23
।।13.23।। --,उपद्रष्टा समीपस्थः सन् द्रष्टा स्वयम् अव्यापृतः। यथा ऋत्विग्यजमानेषु यज्ञकर्मव्यापृतेषु तटस्थः अन्यः अव्यापृतः यज्ञविद्याकुशलः ऋत्विग्यजमानव्यापारगुणदोषाणाम् ईक्षिता? तद्वच्च कार्यकरणव्यापारेषु अव्यापृतः अन्यः तद्विलक्षणः तेषां कार्यकरणानां सर्वव्यापाराणां सामीप्येन द्रष्टा उपद्रष्टा। अथवा? देहचक्षुर्मनोबुद्ध्यात्मानः द्रष्टारः? तेषां बाह्यः द्रष्टा देहः? ततः आरभ्य अन्तरतमश्च प्रत्यक् समीपे आत्मा द्रष्टा? यतः परः अन्तरतमः नास्ति द्रष्टा सः अतिशयसामीप्येन द्रष्ट्टत्वात् उपद्रष्टा स्यात्। यज्ञोपद्रष्ट्टवद्वा सर्वविषयीकरणात् उपद्रष्टा। अनुमन्ता च? अनुमोदनम् अनुमननं कुर्वत्सु तत्क्रियासु परितोषः? तत्कर्ता अनुमन्ता च। अथवा? अनुमन्ता? कार्यकरणप्रवृत्तिषु स्वयम् अप्रवृत्तोऽपि प्रवृत्त इव तदनुकूलः विभाव्यते? तेन अनुमन्ता। अथवा? प्रवृत्तान् स्वव्यापारेषु तत्साक्षिभूतः कदाचिदपि न निवारयति इति अनुमन्ता। भर्ता? भरणं नाम देहेन्द्रियमनोबुद्धीनां संहतानां चैतन्यात्मपारार्थ्येन निमित्तभूतेन चैतन्याभासानां यत् स्वरूपधारणम्? तत् चैतन्यात्मकृतमेव इति भर्ता आत्मा इति उच्यते। भोक्ता? अग्न्युष्णवत्? नित्यचैतन्यस्वरूपेण बुद्धेः सुखदुःखमोहात्मकाः प्रत्ययाः सर्वविषयविषयाः चैतन्यात्मग्रस्ता इव जायमानाः विभक्ताः विभाव्यन्ते इति भोक्ता आत्मा उच्यते। महेश्वरः? सर्वात्मत्वात् स्वतन्त्रत्वाच्च महान् ईश्वरश्च इति महेश्वरः। परमात्मा? देहादीनां बुद्ध्यन्तानां प्रत्यगात्मत्वेन कल्पितानाम् अविद्यया परमः उपद्रष्टृत्वादिलक्षणः आत्मा इति परमात्मा। सोऽन्तः परमात्मा इत्यनेन शब्देन च अपि उक्तः कथितः श्रुतौ। क्व असौ अस्मिन् देहे पुरुषः परः अव्यक्तात्? उत्तमः पुरुषस्त्वन्यः परमात्मेत्युदाहृतः (गीता 15।17) इति यः वक्ष्यमाणः।। क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि (गीता 13।2) इति उपन्यस्तः व्याख्याय उपसंहृतश्च? तमेतं यथोक्तलक्षणम् आत्मानम् --,
13.23 He who is the upadrasta, Witness, who while staying nearby does not Himself become involved: As when the priests and the performer of a sacrifice remain engaged in duties connected with the sacrifice, there is another (called Brahma) remaining nearby who is unengaged, is versed in the science of sacrifices and witnesses the merit or demerit of the activities of the priest and the performer of the sacrifice, similarly, He who is not engaged in the activities of and is different from the body and organs, who has characteristics other than theirs, and is the proximate (upa) observer (drasta) of the body and organs engaged in their duties, is the upa-drasta. Or: The observers are the body, eyes, mind, intellect and the soul. Of them the body is the external observer. Proceeding inwards from that (body), the Self is the inmost as also the proximate observer, compared with which there is no other higher and inner observer. The Self, because of being the most proximate observer, is the upadrasta. Or, It is the upadrasta since, like the non-looker of a sarifice, It witness everything. And He is the anu-manta, Permitter: Anumananam, approval, means satisfaction with those performers (viz body and organs) as also their perfomances. The agent of that (approval) is the anumanta. Or, He is the anumanta since, even though Himself not engaged in the activities of the body and organs, He appears to be favourably disposed towards and engaged in them. Or, He is the anumanta because, when the body and organs are engaged in their own functions, He remains as a witness and never dissuades them. It is the bharta, Sustainer: Bharanam means the continuance in their own state of the body, organs, mind and intellect, which reflect consciousness and have become aggregated owing to the need of serving the purpose [Viz enjoyment, or Liberation.-Tr.] of some other entity, viz the conscious Self. And that (continuance) is verily due to the consciousness that is the Self. In this sense the Self is said to be the Sustainer. It is the bhokta, Experiencer: As heat is by fire, similarly, the experiences of the intellect-in the form of happiness, sorrow and delusion in relation to all objects-, when born as though permeated by the consciousness that is the Self, are manifested differently by the Self which is of the nature of eternal Consciousness. In this sense the Self is said to be the Experiencer. He is maheswarah, the great God, because, as the Self of all and independent, He is the great Ruler. He is paramatma, the transcendental Self, because He is the Self which has the characteristics of being the supreme Witness etc. of (all) those-beginning from the body and ending with the intellect-which are imagined through ignorance to be the indwelling Self. He is api ca, also; uktah, spoken of, referred to, in the Upanisads; iti, as, with the words; 'He is the indwelling One, the paramatma, the transcendental Self.' [Ast reads atah in place of antah. So the translation of the sentence will be: Therefore He is also referred to as the transcendental Self in the Upanisads.-Tr.] Where is He? The parah, suprem; purusah, Person, who is higher than the Unmanifest and who will be spoken of in, 'But different is the supreme Person who is spoken of as the transcendental Self' (15.17); is asmin, in this; dehe, body. What has been presented in, '৷৷.also understand Me to be the Knower of the field' (2), has been explained and conclude.
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.24
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.24 · Chapter 13 · Verse 24
।।13.24।। --,यः एवं यथोक्तप्रकारेण वेत्ति पुरुषं साक्षात् अहमिति प्रकृतिं च यथोक्ताम् अविद्यालक्षणां गुणैः स्वविकारैः सह निवर्तिताम् अभावम् आपादितां विद्यया? सर्वथा सर्वप्रकारेण वर्तमानोऽपि सः भूयः पुनः पतिते अस्मिन् विद्वच्छरीरे देहान्तराय न अभिजायते न उत्पद्यते? देहान्तरं न गृह्णाति इत्यर्थः। अपिशब्दात् किमु वक्तव्यं स्ववृत्तस्थो न जायते इति अभिप्रायः।। ननु? यद्यपि ज्ञानोत्पत्त्यनन्तरं पुनर्जन्माभाव उक्तः? तथापि प्राक् ज्ञानोत्पत्तेः कृतानां कर्मणाम् उत्तरकालभाविनां च? यानि च अतिक्रान्तानेकजन्मकृतानि तेषां च? फलमदत्त्वा नाशो न युक्त इति? स्युः त्रीणि जन्मानि? कृतविप्रणाशो हि न युक्त इति? यथा फले प्रवृत्तानाम् आरब्धजन्मनां कर्मणाम्। न च कर्मणां विशेषः अवगम्यते। तस्मात् त्रिप्रकाराण्यपि कर्माणि त्रीणि जन्मानि आरभेरन् संहतानि वा सर्वाणि एकं जन्म आरभेरन्। अन्यथा कृतविनाशे सति सर्वत्र अनाश्वासप्रसङ्गः? शास्त्रानर्थक्यं च स्यात्। इत्यतः इदमयुक्तमुक्तम् न स भूयोऽभिजायते इति। न क्षीयन्ते चास्य कर्माणि (मु0 उ0 2।2।8) ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति (मु0 उ0 3।2।9) तस्य तावदेव चिरम् (छा0 उ0 6।14।2) इषीकातूलवत् सर्वाणि कर्माणि प्रदूयन्ते (छा0 उ0 5।24।3) इत्यादिश्रुतिशतेभ्यः उक्तो विदुषः सर्वकर्मदाहः। इहापि च उक्तः यथैधांसि इत्यादिना सर्वकर्मदाहः? वक्ष्यति च। उपपत्तेश्च -- अविद्याकामक्लेशबीजनिमित्तानि हि कर्माणि जन्मान्तराङ्कुरम् आरभन्ते इहापि च साहंकाराभिसंधीनि कर्माणि फलारम्भकाणि? न इतराणि इति तत्र तत्र भगवता उक्तम्। बीजान्यग्न्युपदग्धानि न रोहन्ति यथा पुनः। ज्ञानदग्धैस्तथा क्लेशैर्नात्मा संपद्यते पुनः इति च। अस्तु तावत् ज्ञानोत्पत्त्युत्तरकालकृतानां कर्मणां ज्ञानेन दाहः ज्ञानसहभावित्वात्। न तु इह जन्मनि ज्ञानोत्पत्तेः प्राक् कृतानां कर्मणां अतीतजन्मकृतानां च दाहः युक्तः। न सर्वकर्माणि इति विशेषणात्। ज्ञानोत्तरकालभाविनामेव सर्वकर्मणाम् इति चेत्? न संकोचे कारणानुपपत्तेः। यत्तु उक्तम् यथा वर्तमानजन्मारम्भकाणि कर्माणि न क्षीयन्ते फलदानाय प्रवृत्तान्येव सत्यपि ज्ञाने? तथा अनारब्धफलानामपि कर्मणां क्षयो न युक्तः इति? तत् असत्। कथम् तेषां मुक्तेषुवत् प्रवृत्तफलत्वात्। यथा पूर्वं लक्ष्यवेधाय मुक्तः इषुः धनुषः लक्ष्यवेधोत्तरकालमपि आरब्धवेगक्षयात् पतनेनैव निवर्तते? एवं शरीरारम्भकं कर्म शरीरस्थितिप्रयोजने निवृत्तेऽपि? आ संस्कारवेगक्षयात् पूर्ववत् वर्तते एव। यथा स एव इषुः प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तानारब्धवेगस्तु अमुक्तो धनुषि प्रयुक्तोऽपि उपसंह्रियते? तथा अनारब्धफलानि कर्माणि स्वाश्रयस्थान्येव ज्ञानेन निर्बीजीक्रियन्ते इति? पतिते अस्मिन् विद्वच्छरीरे न स भूयोऽभिजायते इति युक्तमेव उक्तमिति सिद्धम्।।अत्र आत्मदर्शने उपायविकल्पाः इमे ध्यानादयः उच्यन्ते --,
13.24 Sah yah, he who; vetti, knows, in the manner described; the purusam, Person, that Self possessed of the characteristics stated above, as 'I myself (am That)'; and knows prakrtim, Nature as described above, which is characterized as ignorance; to have been eradicated by Knowledge, saha, along with; gunaih, the alities which are its modifications; na abhijayate, will not be born; bhuyah, again-after the fall of this body of the man of realization, he does not become born again for (taking) another body, i.e. he does not take up another body; sarvatha api, in whatever way; vartamanah, he may live. From the word api it is understood that, it goes without saying that one who is firm in his own duty is not rorn. Objection: Though it has been said that there is absence of rirth after the dawn of Knowledge, still is not illogical that actions done (in the present life) before the rise of Knowledge and those done subseently, as also those done in the many past lives, should be destroyed without yielding their results? Hence there should be three births! For destruction of acired merit is not logical, to the same extent as actions that have produced the present birth and are yielding their proper results (cannot be destroyed). Besides, it is not understood that actions have distinctions [Since all actions arise from ignorance, they are on the same level so far so they are opposed to Knowledge; i.e., there can be no such distinction among actions as 'those which have started yielding results' and 'those that have not'.]. Therefore, the actions of the three kinds, without exception, will produce three births or they all collectively will produce one birth. Otherwise, if the acired merits become destroyed, it will lead to loss of faith everywhere as well as to the purposelessness of scriptures. Therefore it has been illogical to say, 'he will not be born again.' Reply: No, for the burning away of all the actions of the man of knowledge has been stated in hundreds of Upanisadic texts such as: 'And all one's actions become dissipated' (Mu. 2.2.8); 'Anyone who knows (that supreme) Brahman, becomes Brahman' (op. cit. 3.2.9); 'For him the delay is for so long only (as he does not become freed)' (Ch. 6.14.2); 'As the fibres at the tip of a blade of reed (become completely burnt৷৷.,' so) all actions 'get completely burnt' (op. cit. 5.24.3). Here too the burning of all actions has been stated in, 'as a blazing fire reduces pieces of wood to ashes,৷৷.'etc. (4.37), and He will also say so (later) [See 18.66: 'I shall free you from all sins,' etc.-Tr.]. This accords with reason also. Verily, actions, which arise from the seed of evils [Klesas, evils-see note under 8.19-Tr.] like ignorance and desires, germinate the sprout of rirth. Here also it has been said by the Lord in various places that actions which are associated with egoism and desire for results bear fruits, not the others. And there is also the verse: 'As seeds burnt by fire do not germinate, so also the Self does not acire another body due to evils that have been burnt by Knowledge (cf. Mbh. Va. 199. 107). Objection: It may be granted for the present that actions performed after the rise of Knowledge are burnt by Knowledge, since they coexist with Knowledge. But the burning away of actions done in this life prior to the rise of Knowledge and those done in the many past lives is not reasonable. Reply: No, because of the alification, 'all actions' (4.37). Objection: May it not be that 'all actions' means those that are undertaken after Illumination? Reply: No, for there is no reason for the restriction (of the meaning). On the other hand, as for the statement, 'just as actions that have produced the present birth and are already active in producing their results do not get dissipated even after Illumination, similarly it is not reasonable that actions which have not commenced producing their results should get dissipated,'-that is wrong. Objection: Why? Reply: Since they have already begun producing results, like an arrow that has been shot: As an arrow, freed earlier from a bow for hitting a target, even after piercing through the target comes to a stop only after falling down as a result of the dissipation of its initial momentum, similarly, actions that produced the (present) body verily continue, even after fulfilling the purpose of maintaining the body, to exist as before until the dissipation of their inherent tendencies. But, as that very arrow, when it has not acired the momentum, needed for action, when it has not been shot even though fixed on the bow, can be withdrawn, similarly, actions which have not begun yielding their results may be rendered unproductive by Knowledge, even while existing in their receptacle. [The internal organ bearing the reflection of Consciousness.] Hence, it is established that , it has been reasonable to state that on the fall of the present body of an enlightened person, 'He is not born again.' Here are being presented these meditation etc. which are the alternative means for the realization of the Self:
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.25
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.25 · Chapter 13 · Verse 25
।।13.25।। -- ध्यानेन? ध्यानं नाम शब्दादिभ्यो विषयेभ्यः श्रोत्रादीनि करणानि मनसि उपसंहृत्य? मनश्च प्रत्यक्चेतयितरि? एकाग्रतया यत् चिन्तनं तत् ध्यानम् तथा? ध्यायतीव बकः? ध्यायतीव पृथिवी? ध्यायन्तीव पर्वताः (छा0 उ0 7।6।1) इति उपमोपादानात्। तैलधारावत् संततः अविच्छिन्नप्रत्ययो ध्यानम् तेन ध्यानेन आत्मनि बुद्धौ पश्यन्ति आत्मानं प्रत्यक्चेतनम् आत्मना स्वेनैव प्रत्यक्चेतनेन ध्यानसंस्कृतेन अन्तःकरणेन केचित् योगिनः। अन्ये सांख्येन योगेन? सांख्यं नाम इमे सत्त्वरजस्तमांसि गुणाः मया दृश्या अहं तेभ्योऽन्यः तद्व्यापारसाक्षिभूतः नित्यः गुणविलक्षणः आत्मा इति चिन्तनम् एषः सांख्यो योगः? तेन,पश्यन्ति आत्मानमात्मना इति वर्तते। कर्मयोगेन? कर्मैव योगः? ईश्वरार्पणबुद्ध्या अनुष्ठीयमानं घटनरूपं योगार्थत्वात् योगः उच्यते गुणतः तेन सत्त्वशुद्धिज्ञानोत्पत्तिद्वारेण च अपरे।।
13.25 Dhyanena, through meditation: Meditation means contemplation (on the Self) after withdrawing into the mind with concentration the organs of hearing etc. from the objects like sound etc., and then withdrawing the mind into the indwelling conscious Self. Thus, from the citation of such illustrations as, 'the crane meditates, as it were, 'the earth meditates, as it were; the mountains meditate, as it were' (Ch. 7.6.1), it follows that meditation is a constant and uninterrupted current of thought like a line of pouring oil. Through that meditation, kecit, some yogis; pasyanti, realize; the indwelling conscious atmanam, Self; atmani, in (their) intellect; atmana, with the help of the internal organ that has been purified by meditation. Anye, others; sankhyena yogena, through Sankhya-yoga: Sankhya means thinking, 'These alities, viz sattva, rajas and tamas, are objects of my perception; I am the Self, distinct from them, a witness of their functions, eternal and different from the alities.' This Sankhya is Yoga. [By Sankhya is meant that knowledge which arises from the foregoing reflection. This knowledge is itself called Yoga (concentration of mind) inasmuch as it is similar to Yoga in leading to the realization of the Self.] Through that they realize the Self with the help of the internal organ. This is how it is to be construed. And anye, others; karma-yogena, through Karma-yoga-action itself being the Yoga: Action performed with the idea of dedication to God is figuratively called Yoga since it leads to Yoga. (others realize) with the help of that (action), through purification of the mind and rise of Knowledge. [The best among the yogis are competent for meditation (dhyana); the modiocre for reflection (Sankhya); and the lowest for Karma-yoga.]
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.26
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.26 · Chapter 13 · Verse 26
।।13.26।। --,अन्ये तु एषु विकल्पेषु अन्यतरेणापि एवं यथोक्तम् आत्मानम् अजानन्तः अन्येभ्यः आचार्येभ्यः श्रुत्वा इदमेव चिन्तयत इति उक्ताः उपासते श्रद्दधानाः सन्तः चिन्तयन्ति। तेऽपि च अतितरन्त्येव अतिक्रामन्त्येव मृत्युम्? मृत्युयुक्तं संसारम् इत्येतत्। श्रुतिपरायणाः श्रुतिः श्रवणं परम् अयनं गमनं मोक्षमार्गप्रवृत्तौ परं साधनं येषां ते श्रुतिपरायणाः केवलपरोपदेशप्रमाणाः स्वयं विवेकरहिताः इत्यभिप्रायः। किमु वक्तव्यम् प्रमाणं प्रति स्वतन्त्राः विवेकिनः मृत्युम् अतितरन्ति इति अभिप्रायः।।क्षेत्रज्ञेश्वरैकत्वविषयं ज्ञानं मोक्षसाधनम् यज्ज्ञात्वामृतमश्नुते इत्युक्तम्? तत् कस्मात् हेतोरिति? तद्धेतुप्रदर्शनार्थं श्लोकः आरभ्यते --,
13.26 Anye tu, others again; ajanantah, who do not know the Self as described above; evam, thus, even in one of these alternative ways; upasate, take to thinking, take to reflection, being imbued with faith; srutva, after hearing; anyhyah, from others, from the teachers, having been told, 'Think only of this.' Te api ca, they, too; sruti-parayanah, who are devoted to hearing, to whom hearing is the supreme course, the best discipline for starting on the path to Liberation, i.e., those who, themselves lacking in discrimination, accept only others' advice as most authoritative; eva, certainly; ati-taranti, overcome; mrtyum, death, i.e. the mundane existence which is fraught with death. The implication is; It goes without saying that those discriminating people who are idenpendent in the application of the valid means of knowledge, cross over death. That the knowledge of the identity of the Knower of the field and God leads to Liberation has been stated in, '৷৷.by realizing which one attains Immortality' (12). For what reason is it so? To point out that reason the (next) verse is begun:
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.27
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.27 · Chapter 13 · Verse 27
।।13.27।। --,यावत् यत् किञ्चित् संजायते समुत्पद्यते सत्त्वं वस्तु किम् अविशेषेण नेत्याह -- स्थावरजङ्गमं स्थावरं जङ्गमं च क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञसंयोगात् तत् जायते इत्येवं विद्धि जानीहि भरतर्षभ।। कः पुनः अयं क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोः संयोगः अभिप्रेतः न तावत् रज्ज्वेव घटस्य अवयवसंश्लेषद्वारकः संबन्धविशेषः संयोगः क्षेत्रेण क्षेत्रज्ञस्य संभवति? आकाशवत् निरवयवत्वात्। नापि समवायलक्षणः तन्तुपटयोरिव क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोः इतरेतरकार्यकारणभावानभ्युपगमात् इति? उच्यते -- क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोः विषयविषयिणोः भिन्नस्वभावयोः इतरेतरतद्धर्माध्यासलक्षणः संयोगः क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञस्वरूपविवेकाभावनिबन्धनः? रज्जुशुक्तिकादीनां तद्विवेकज्ञानाभावात् अध्यारोपितसर्परजतादिसंयोगवत्। सः अयं अध्यासस्वरूपः क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञसंयोगः मिथ्याज्ञानलक्षणः। यथाशास्त्रं क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञलक्षणभेदपरिज्ञानपूर्वकं प्राक् दर्शितरूपात् क्षेत्रात् मुञ्जादिव इषीकां यथोक्तलक्षणं क्षेत्रज्ञं प्रविभज्य न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते इत्यनेन निरस्तसर्वोपाधिविशेषं ज्ञेयं ब्रह्मस्वरूपेण यः पश्यति? क्षेत्रं च मायानिर्मितहस्तिस्वप्नदृष्टवस्तुगन्धर्वनगरादिवत् असदेव सदिव अवभासते इति एवं निश्चितविज्ञानः यः? तस्य यथोक्तसम्यग्दर्शनविरोधात् अपगच्छति मिथ्याज्ञानम्। तस्य जन्महेतोः अपगमात् य एवं वेत्ति पुरुषं प्रकृतिं च गुणैः सह (गीता 13।23) इत्यनेन विद्वान् भूयः न अभिजायते इति यत् उक्तम्? तत् उपपन्नमुक्तम्।।न स भूयोऽभिजायते इति सम्यग्दर्शनफलम् अविद्यादिसंसारबीजनिवृत्तिद्वारेण जन्माभावः उक्तः। जन्मकारणं च अविद्यानिमित्तकः क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञसंयोगः उक्तः अतः तस्याः अविद्यायाः निवर्तकं सम्यग्दर्शनम् उक्तमपि पुनः शब्दान्तरेण उच्यते --,
13.27 Bharatarsabha, O scion of the Bharata dynasty; yavat kincit, whatever; sattvam, object;-as to whether they are without exception the Lord says-sthavara-jangamam, moving or non-moving; sanjayate, comes into being; viddhi, know; tat, that; as originating ksetra-ksetrajna-samyogat, from the association of the field and the Knower of the field. Objection: What, again, is meant by this 'association of the field and the Knower of the field'? Since the Knower of the field is partless like space, therefore Its conjunction with the field cannot be a kind of relationship like coming together of a rope and a pot through the contact of their parts. Nor can it be an intimate and inseparable relation as between a thread and a cloth, since it is not admitted that the field and the Knower of the field are mutually related by way of being cause and effect. Reply: The answer is: The association of the field and the Knower of the field-which are the object and the subject, respectively, and are of different natures-is in the form of superimposition of each on the other an also of their alities, as a conseence of the absence of discrimination between the real natures of the field and the Knower of the field. This is like the association of a rope, nacre, etc. with the superimposed snake, silver, etc. owing to the absence of discrimination between them. This association of the field and the Knower of the field in the form of superimposition is described as false knowledge. After having known the distinction between and the characteristics of the field and the Knower of the field according to the scriptures, and having separated, like a stalk from the Munjagrass, the above-described Knower of the field from the field whose characteristics have been shown earlier, he who realizes the Knowable (i.e. the Knower of the field)-which, in accordance with 'That is neither called being nor non-being' (12), is devoid of all distinctions created by adjuncts- as identical with Brahman; and he who has the firm realization that the field is surely unreal like an elephant created by magic, a thing seen in a dream, an imaginary city seen in the sky, etc., and it appears as though real-for him false knowledge becomes eradicated, since it is opposed to the right knowledge described above. Since the cause of his rirth has been eliminated. therefore what was said in, 'He who knows thus the Person and Nature along with the alities৷৷.', that the man of realization is not born again (23), has been a reasonable statement. In 'He৷৷.will not be born again' (23) has been stated the result of right knowledge, which is the absence of birth owing to the destruction of ignorance etc., the seeds of worldly existence. The cause of birth, viz the association of the field and the Knower of the field brought about by ignorance, has also been stated. Hence, although right knowledge, which is the remover of that ignorance, has been spoken of, still it is being stated over again in other words:
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.28
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.28 · Chapter 13 · Verse 28
।।13.28।। --,समं निर्विशेषं तिष्ठन्तं स्थितिं कुर्वन्तम् क्व सर्वेषु समस्तेषु भूतेषु ब्रह्मादिस्थावरान्तेषु प्राणिषु कम् परमेश्वरं देहेन्द्रियमनोबुद्ध्यव्यक्तात्मनः अपेक्ष्य परमेश्वरः? तं सर्वेषु भूतेषु समं तिष्ठन्तम्। तानि विशिनष्टि विनश्यत्सु इति? तं च परमेश्वरम् अविनश्यन्तम् इति? भूतानां परमेश्वरस्य च अत्यन्तवैलक्षण्यप्रदर्शनार्थम्। कथम् सर्वेषां हि भावविकाराणां जनिलक्षणः भावविकारो मूलम् जन्मोत्तरकालभाविनः अन्ये सर्वे भावविकाराः विनाशान्ताः विनाशात् परो न कश्चित् अस्ति भावविकारः? भावाभावात्। सति हि धर्मिणि धर्माः भवन्ति। अतः अन्त्यभावविकाराभावानुवादेन पूर्वभाविनः सर्वे भावविकाराः प्रतिषिद्धाः भवन्ति सह कार्यैः। तस्मात् सर्वभूतैः वैलक्षण्यम् अत्यन्तमेव परमेश्वरस्य सिद्धम्? निर्विशेषत्वम् एकत्वं च। यः एवं यथोक्तं परमेश्वरं पश्यति? सः पश्यति।।ननु सर्वोऽपि लोकः पश्यति? किं विशेषणेन इति। सत्यं पश्यति किं तु विपरीतं पश्यति। अतः विशिनष्टि -- स एव पश्यतीति। यथा तिमिरदृष्टिः अनेकं चन्द्रं पश्यति? तमपेक्ष्य एकचन्द्रदर्शी विशिष्यते -- स एव पश्यतीति तथा इहापि एकम् अविभक्तं यथोक्तं आत्मानं यः पश्यति? सः विभक्तानेकात्मविपरीतदर्शिभ्यः विशिष्यते -- स एव पश्यतीति। इतरे पश्यन्तोऽपि न पश्यन्ति? विपरीतदर्शित्वात् अनेकचन्द्रदर्शिवत् इत्यर्थः।।यथोक्तस्य सम्यग्दर्शनस्य फलवचनेन स्तुतिः कर्तव्या इति श्लोकः आरभ्यते --,
13.28 Sah, he; pasyati, sees; yah, who; pasyati, sees;-whom?-parameswaram, the supreme Lord-the Lord who is supreme as compared with the body, organs, mind, intellect, the Unmanifest and the individual soul; as tisthantam, existing, having His presence; samam, eally, without distinction;-where?-sarvesu, in all; bhutesu, beings, all living things from Brahma to the non-moving;-he who sees Him existing eally in all living things. The Lord specifies them by the word vinasyatsu, among the perishable; and He also specifies Him, the supreme Lord, by the word avinasyantam, the Imperishable. This is meant for showing the absolute difference between the living things and God. How? For, all the modifications [See note 3 on p.38.-Tr.] of an existing thing have as their root that modification of an existing thing described as birth. All other modifications of existing things that follow birth end with destruction. After destruction there is no modification of an existing thing, because the object itself becomes nonexistent. Indeed, alities can exist so long as the thing alified exists. Therefore, by the reiteration of the absence of the last modification of an existing thing, all its preceding modifications become negated along with their effects. Hence it is established that the supreme Lord is very greatly different from all beings, and is also Unconditioned [Free from all modifications that things are subject to.] and One. He sees who thus sees the supreme Lord as described. Objection: Is it not that all poeple see? What is the need of specification? Reply: True, they see; but they see contrarily! Hence the Lord specifies, 'He alone sees'. As in comparison with one who, suffering from the (eye) disease called Timira, sees many moons, the person who sees one moon is distingusihed by saying, 'He alone sees,' similarly, here as well, the man who sees the one undivided Self as described above is distinguished from those who contrarily see many and differentiated selves, by saying 'He alone sees'. Others, though seeing, do not see because they see contrarily like the person who sees many moons. This is the meaning. The obove-described true knowledge has to be praised by stating its result. Hence the verse begins:
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.29
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.29 · Chapter 13 · Verse 29
।।13.29।। --,समं पश्यन् उपलभमानः हि यस्मात् सर्वत्र सर्वभूतेषु समवस्थितं तुल्यतया अवस्थितम् ईश्वरम्,अतीतानन्तरश्लोकोक्तलक्षणमित्यर्थः। समं पश्यन् किम् न हिनस्ति हिंसां न करोति आत्मना स्वेनैव स्वमात्मानम्। ततः तदहिंसनात् याति परां प्रकृष्टां गतिं मोक्षाख्याम्।।ननु नैव कश्चित् प्राणी स्वयं स्वम् आत्मानं हिनस्ति। कथम् उच्यते अप्राप्तम् न हिनस्ति इति यथा न पृथिव्यामग्निश्चेतव्यो नान्तरिक्षे इत्यादि। नैष दोषः? अज्ञानाम् आत्मतिरस्करणोपपत्तेः। सर्वो हि अज्ञः अत्यन्तप्रसिद्धं साक्षात् अपरोक्षात् आत्मानं तिरस्कृत्य अनात्मानम् आत्मत्वेन परिगृह्य? तमपि धर्माधर्मौ कृत्वा उपात्तम् आत्मानं हत्वा अन्यम् आत्मानम् उपादत्ते नवं तं चैवं हत्वा अन्यमेवं तमपि हत्वा अन्यम् इत्येवम् उपात्तमुपात्तम् आत्मानं हन्ति? इति आत्महा सर्वः अज्ञः। यस्तु परमार्थात्मा? असावपि सर्वदा अविद्यया हत इव? विद्यमानफलाभावात्? इति सर्वे आत्महनः एव अविद्वांसः। यस्तु इतरः यथोक्तात्मदर्शी? सः उभयथापि आत्मना आत्मानं न हिनस्ति न हन्ति। ततः याति परां गतिम् यथोक्तं फलं तस्य भवति इत्यर्थः।।सर्वभूतस्थम् ईश्वरं समं पश्यन् न हिनस्ति आत्मना आत्मानम् इति उक्तम्। तत् अनुपपन्नं स्वगुणकर्मवैलक्षण्यभेदभिन्नेषु आत्मसु? इत्येतत् आशङ्क्य आह --,
13.29 Hi, since; pasyan, by seeing, by realizing; samam, eally; isvaram, God, i.e., (by realizing Him) as described in the immediately preceding verse; who is samavasthitam, present alike; sarvatra, everywhere, in all beings;-what follows from seeing eally?-he na, does not; hinasti, injure; his own atmanam, Self; atmana, by the Self, by his own Self; tatah, therefore, as a result of that non-injuring; yati, he attains; the param, supreme; gatim, Goal, called Liberation. Objection: Is it not that no creature whatsoever injures himself by himself? Why do you refer to an irrelevant thing by saying, 'He does not injure৷৷.,which is like saying, 'Fire should neither be lit on the earth nor in the sky,' etc.? Reply: This defect does not arise, because it is logical with reference to an unenlightened person's ignoring the Self. For, all unillumined people ignore the very wellknown Self which is manifest and directly perceptible, and regard the non-Self as the Self. By performing righteous and unrighteous acts they destroy even that self which has been accepted, and adopt another new self. And destroying even that, they take up another. Similarly, destroying even that, they adopt another. In this way they destroy the self that had been accepted successively. Thus, all unillumined persons are destroyers of the Self. But that which is the Self in reality, even that remains as though destroyed for ever by ignorance, because of the absence of any benefit from Its presence. So, all unenlightened persons are, verily, destroyers of the Self. On the contrary, the other person who has realized the Self as described does not injure in either way [i.e. either through superimposition or through non-super-imposition.] the Self by his own Self. Therefore he attains the supreme Goal, i.e., the result stated above comes to him. Lest it be doubted that what was said in, 'seeing eally God who is present in all beings, he does not injure the Self by the Self, is improper with regard to the selves which are diverse according to the differences created by the variety in their own alities and actions, the Lord says:
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.30
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.30 · Chapter 13 · Verse 30
।।13.30।। -- प्रकृत्या प्रकृतिः भगवतः माया त्रिगुणात्मिका? मायां तु प्रकृतिं विद्यात् (श्वे0 उ0 4।10) इति मन्त्रवर्णात्? तया प्रकृत्यैव च न अन्येन महदादिकार्यकरणाकारपरिणतया कर्माणि वाङ्मनःकायारभ्याणि क्रियमाणानि निर्वर्त्यमानानि सर्वशः सर्वप्रकारैः यः पश्यति उपलभते? तथा आत्मानं क्षेत्रज्ञम् अकर्तारं सर्वोपाधिविवर्जितं सः पश्यति? सः परमार्थदर्शी इत्यभिप्रायः निर्गुणस्य अकर्तुः निर्विशेषस्य आकाशस्येव भेदे प्रमाणानुपपत्तिः इत्यर्थः।।पुनरपि तदेव सम्यग्दर्शनं शब्दान्तरेण प्रपञ्चयति --,
13.30 And yah, he who; pasyati, sees, realizes; karmani, actions, those performed through speech, mind and body; as kriyamanani, being done, being accomplished; sarvasah, in various ways; prakrtya, by Nature-Nature is God's Maya consisting of the three alities, as is said in the Upanisadic text, 'However, know Maya as Nature' (Sv. 4.10); by that Nature; eva, itself-not by the other [Not by the Pradhana of the Sankhyas, known otherwise as prakrti.] which transforms itself in the form of cause and effects such as Mahat etc.; tatha, and also; atmanam, the Self, the Knower of the field; as akartaram, the non-agent, devoid of all adjuncts; sah, he; pasyati, sees-he is the one who has realized the supreme Reality. This is the idea. What is implied is that there is no valid proof about differences in the Non-agent who is devoid of alities and is unconditioned like space. The Lord elaborates again in other words that very true knowledge:
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.31
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.31 · Chapter 13 · Verse 31
।।13.31।। -- यदा यस्मिन् काले भूतपृथग्भावं भूतानां पृथग्भावं पृथक्त्वम् एकस्मिन् आत्मनि स्थितं एकस्थम् अनुपश्यति शास्त्राचार्योपदेशम्? अनु आत्मानं प्रत्यक्षत्वेन पश्यति आत्मैव इदं सर्वम् (छा0 उ0 7।25।2) इति? तत एव च तस्मादेव च विस्तारं उत्पत्तिं विकासम् आत्मतः प्राण आत्मत आशा आत्मतः स्मर आत्मत आकाश आत्मतस्तेज आत्मत आप आत्मत आविर्भावतिरोभावावात्मतोऽन्नम् (छा0 उ0 7।26।1) इत्येवमादिप्रकारैः विस्तारं यदा पश्यति? ब्रह्म संपद्यते भवति तदा तस्मिन् काले इत्यर्थः।।एकस्य आत्मानः सर्वदेहात्मत्वे तद्दोषसंबन्धे प्राप्ते? इदम् उच्यते --,
13.31 Yada, when, at the time when; anupasyati, one realizes-having reflected in accordance with the instructions of the scriptures and the teachers, one realizes as a matter of one's own direct experience that 'All this is but the Self' (Ch. 7.25.2); that bhuta-prthak-bhavam, the state of diversity of living things; is ekastham, rooted in the One, existing in the one Self; and their vistaram, manifestation, origination; tatah, eva, is also from That-when he realizes that origination in such diverse ways as, 'the vital force is from the Self, hope is from the Self, memory [Smara, memory; see Sankaracarya's Comm. on Ch. 7.13.1.-Tr.] is from the Self, space is from the Self, fire is from the Self, water is from the Self, coming into being and withdrawal are owing to the Self, food is from the Self' (op. cit. 7.26.1); tada, then, at that time; brahma sampadyate, one becomes identified with Brahman Itself. This is the import. If the same Self be the Self in all the bodies, then there arises the possiblity of Its association with their defects. Hence this is said:
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.32
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.32 · Chapter 13 · Verse 32
।।13.32।। --,अनादित्वात् अनादेः भावः अनादित्वम्? आदिः कारणम्? तत् यस्य नास्ति तत् अनादि। यद्धि आदिमत् तत् स्वेन आत्मना व्येति अयं तु अनादित्वात् निरवयव इति कृत्वा न व्येति। तथा निर्गुणत्वात्। सगुणो हि गुणव्ययात् व्येति अयं तु निर्गुणत्वाच्च न व्येति इति परमात्मा अयम् अव्ययः न अस्य व्ययो विद्यते इति अव्ययः। यत एवमतः शरीरस्थोऽपि? शरीरेषु आत्मनः उपलब्धिः भवतीति शरीरस्थः उच्यते तथापि न करोति। तदकरणादेव तत्फलेन न लिप्यते। यो हि कर्ता? सः कर्मफलेन लिप्यते। अयं तु अकर्ता? अतः न फलेन लिप्यते इत्यर्थः।।कः पुनः देहेषु करोति लिप्यते च यदि तावत् अन्यः परमात्मनो देही करोति लिप्यते च? ततः इदम् अनुपपन्नम् उक्तं क्षेत्रज्ञेश्वरैकत्वम् क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि (गीता 13।2) इत्यादि। अथ नास्ति ईश्वरादन्यो देही? कः करोति लिप्यते च इति वाच्यम् परो वा नास्ति इति सर्वथा दुर्विज्ञेयं दुर्वाच्यं च इति भगवत्प्रोक्तम् औपनिषदं दर्शनं परित्यक्तं वैशेषिकैः सांख्यार्हतबौद्धैश्च। तत्र अयं परिहारो भगवता स्वेनैव उक्तः स्वभावस्तु प्रवर्तते (गीता 5।14) इति। अविद्यामात्रस्वभावो हि करोति लिप्यते इति व्यवहारो भवति? न तु परमार्थत एकस्मिन् परमात्मनि तत् अस्ति। अतः एतस्मिन् परमार्थसांख्यदर्शने स्थितानां ज्ञाननिष्ठानां परमहंसपरिव्राजकानां तिरस्कृताविद्याव्यवहाराणां कर्माधिकारो नास्ति इति तत्र तत्र दर्शितं भगवता।।किमिव न करोति न लिप्यते इति अत्र दृष्टान्तमाह --,
13.32 Anadivat, being without beginning: Adih means cause; that which has no cause is anadih. That which has a cause undergoes loss of its own characteristics. But this One, being causeless, has no parts. This being so, It does not suffer loss. So also, nirgunatvat, being without alities: indeed, It si only something possessing alities that perishes owing to the losss of its alities. But this One, being without alities, does not perish. Hence, ayam, this; paramatma, supreme Self; is avyayah, immutable. It suffers no depletion. Therefore It is immutable. Since this is so, therefore, api, although; sarira-sthah, existing in the body-since the perception of the Self occurs in the bodies, It is said to be 'existing in the body'; even then, It na, does not; karoti, act. From the very fact that It does not act, It na, is not; lipyate, affected by the result of any action. For, one who is an agent of action becomes affected by its result. But this One is not an agent. Hence It is not affected by any result. This is the meaning. Objection: Who is it, again, that acts in the body and becomes affected? On the one hand, if there be some embodied being other than the supreme Self who acts and becomes affected, then it has been improper to say in, 'And also understand Me to be the Knower of the field,' etc., that the Knower of the field and God are one. Again, if there be no embodied being who is different from God, then it has to be stated who is it that acts and gets affected. Or it has to be asserted that the supreme One does not exist. [If the supreme One also acts like us, then He is no God.] Thus, since the Upanisadic philosophy as stated by the Lord is in every way difficult to understand and difficult to explain, it has therefore been abandoned by the Vaisesikas, the Sankhyas, the Jainas and the Buddhists. Reply: As to that, the following refutation has been stated by the Lord Himself in, 'But it is Nature that acts' (5.14). Indeed, Nature, which is nothing but ignorance, acts and becomes affected. In this way empirical dealing becomes possible; but in reality it does not occur in the one supreme Self. It has been accordingly shown by the Lord in various places that there is no duty to be performed by those who adhere to this philosophy of discriminating knowledge of the supreme Reality, who are steadfast in Knowledge, who have spurned actions arising out of ignorance, and who are mendicants belonging to the highest Order of monks. The Lord cites an illustration to show like what It does not act and is not affected:
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.33
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.33 · Chapter 13 · Verse 33
।।13.33।। --,यथा सर्वगतं व्यापि अपि सत् सौक्ष्म्यात् सूक्ष्मभावात् आकाशं खं न उपलिप्यते न संबध्यते? सर्वत्र अवस्थितः देहे तथा आत्मा,न उपलिप्यते।।किञ्च --,
13.33 Yatha, as; sarva-gatam, the all-pervading; akasam, space;-though pervasive, still, na upalipyate, is not defiled, does not come into contact; saukmyat, because of its subtlety; tatha, similarly; atma, the Self; avasthitah, present, sarvatra, everywhere; dehe, in the body; na, is not; upalipyate, defiled. Further,
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.34
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.34 · Chapter 13 · Verse 34
।।13.34।। --,यथा प्रकाशयति अवभासयति एकः कृत्स्नं लोकम् इमं रविः सविता आदित्यः? तथा तद्वत् महाभूतादि धृत्यन्तं क्षेत्रम् एकः सन् प्रकाशयति। कः क्षेत्री परमात्मा इत्यर्थः। रविदृष्टान्तः अत्र आत्मनः उभयार्थोऽपि भवति -- रविवत् सर्वक्षेत्रेषु एक एव आत्मा? अलेपकश्च इति।।समस्ताध्यायार्थोपसंहारार्थः अयं श्लोकः --,
13.34 Yatha, as; ekam, the one; ravih, sun; prakasayati, illumines; imam, this; krtsnam, whole; lokam, world tatha, similarly;-who?-ksetri, the Knower of the field, i.e. the supreme Self, though one; prakasayati, illumines; krtsnam, the whole; ksetram, field, from the 'great elements' to 'fortitude' (cf. 5-6). Here the illustration of the sun serves to highlight two aspects of the Self, viz that, like the sun, the Self is one in all the fields, and that It remains unaffected. This verse is meant for summarizing the idea of the whole of this chapter:
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.35
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Adi Shankaracharya) 13.35 · Chapter 13 · Verse 35
।।13.35।। --,क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोः यथाव्याख्यातयोः एवं यथाप्रदर्शितप्रकारेण अन्तरम् इतरेतरवैलक्षण्यविशेषं ज्ञानचक्षुषा शास्त्राचार्यप्रसादोपदेशजनितम् आत्मप्रत्ययिकं ज्ञानं चक्षुः? तेन ज्ञानचक्षुषा? भूतप्रकृतिमोक्षं च? भूतानां प्रकृतिः अविद्यालक्षणा अव्यक्ताख्या? तस्याः भूतप्रकृतेः मोक्षणम् अभावगमनं च ये विदुः विजानन्ति? यान्ति गच्छन्ति ते परं परमात्मतत्त्वं ब्रह्म? न पुनः देहं आददते इत्यर्थः।।इति श्रीमत्परमहंसपरिव्राजकाचार्यस्य श्रीगोविन्दभगवत्पूज्यपादशिष्यस्य,श्रीमच्छंकरभगवतः कृतौ श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्ये त्रयोदशोऽध्यायः।। श्रीमच्छंकरभगवत्पादविरचितम् श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्यम्
13.35 Ye, those who; viduh, know; evam, thus, in the manner described above; jnana-caksusa, through the eye of wisdom-the eye is the realization in the form of the knowledge of the Self, which arises from following the instructions of the scriptures and teachers; through that eye of wisdom; antaram, the distinction, the particular mutual distinction; ksetra-ksetrajnayoh, beween the field and the Knower of the field as they have been explained; and bhuta-prakrti-moksam, the annihilation of the Matrix of beings-the Matrix of beings is that which is described as ignorance and is called the Unmanifest; (those who know) the annihilation (moksanam) of that Matrix of beings; te, they; yanti, reach, go to; param, the Supreme, to Brahman, the Reality which is the suprme Goal. The idea is that they do not take up a body again.