Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Sri Madhvacharya) 2.23
Bhagavad Gita Bhashya (Sri Madhvacharya) 2.23 · 2 · Verse 23
Sanskrit Original
।।2.23।।स्वतः प्रायो निमित्तैश्चाविनाशिनोऽपि केनचिन्निमित्तविशेषेण स्यात् ककच्छेदादिवत् इत्यतो विशेषनिमित्तानि निषेधति नैनमिति। वर्तमाननिषेधात्स्यादुत्तरत्रेत्यत आह अच्छेद्य इति। वर्तमानादर्शनाद्युक्तयोग्यत्वमिति सूचयति वर्तमानापदेशेन। कुतोऽयोग्यता नित्यसर्वगतादिविशेषणेश्वरसरूपत्वत्।शाश्वत इत्येकरूपत्वमात्रमुक्तम्। स्थाणुशब्देन नैमित्तिकमप्यन्यथात्वं निवारयति। नित्यत्वं सर्वगतत्वविशेषणम् अन्यथा पुनरुक्तेः। ऐक्योक्तावप्यनुक्तविशेषणोपादानान्नेश्वरैक्ये पुनरुक्तिः। युक्ताश्च बिम्बधर्माः प्रतिबिम्बेऽविरोधे। तत्ता च रूपं रूपं प्रतिरूपो बभूव बृ.उ.2।5।19कठो.5।2।10आभास एव च इत्यादिश्रुतिस्मृतिसिद्धा। न चांशत्वविरोधः तस्यैवांशत्वात्। न चैकरूपतैवांशता। प्रमाणं चोभयविधवचनमेव। न चांशस्य प्रतिबिम्बत्वं कल्प्यम् गाध्यादिष्वंशबाहुरूप्यदृष्टेरितरत्रादृष्टेः। स्थाणुत्वेऽपि तदैक्षत इत्याद्यविरुद्धमीश्वरस्य उभयविधवाक्यात् अचिन्त्यशक्तेश्च। न च माययैकम्त्वयीश्वरे ब्रह्मणि नो विरुद्ध्यतेन योगित्वादीश्वरत्वात्चित्रं न चैतत् त्वयि कार्यकारणे इत्याद्यैश्वर्येणैव विरुद्धधर्माविरोधोक्तेः महातात्पर्याच्च। मोक्षो हि महापुरुषार्थः। तत्रापि मोक्ष एवार्थः।अन्तेषु रेमिरे धीरा न ते मध्येषु रेमिरे। अन्तप्राप्तिं सुखं प्राहुर्दुःखमन्तरमेतयोः शां.मो.ध.प.174।34 पुण्यचितो जितो लोकः क्षीयते छां.उ.8।1।6 इत्यादिश्रुतिस्मृतिभ्यः। स च विष्णुप्रसादादेव सिद्ध्यति।वासुदेवमनाराध्य को मोक्षं समवाप्नुयात्।तुष्टे तु तत्र किमलभ्यमनन्त ईशे (आद्ये) भाग.3।6।25तत्प्रसादादवाप्नोति परां सिद्धिं न संशयः।येषां स एव भगवान्दययेदनन्तः सर्वात्मनाश्रितपदो यदि निर्व्यलीकम्। ते वै विदन्त्यतितरन्ति च देवमायां नैषां समाहमिति धीः श्वशृगालभक्ष्ये भाग.2।7।42तस्मिन्प्रसन्ने किमिहात्स्त्यलभ्यं धम्र्मार्थकामैरलमल्पकास्तेऋते यदस्मिन्भव ईश जीवस्तापत्रयेणोपहता न शर्म आत्मँल्लभन्तेऋते भवत्प्रसादाद्धि कस्य मोक्षो भवेदिह तमेवं विद्वान् नृ.पू.उ.1।6 इत्यादिश्रुतिस्मृतिभ्यः। स चोत्कर्षज्ञानादेव भवति लोकप्रसिद्धेः।
That the imperishable is not characterized by particular incidental causes is denied — e.g., by saying ‘not like cutting off’ — therefore particular causal supports are negated. The present (sense) prohibition is against current perception; hence later it says: ‘not to be cut off.’ This indicates fitness to be spoken of from present perception. Why would it be unfit? Because the Lord is of special character as omnipresent etc.; ‘everlasting’ was spoken only of unity of form. The word ‘sthaṇu’ serves to exclude the opposite claim that ‘permanent’ means merely incidental; permanence is a particular qualification of omnipresence, not otherwise. Where unity is asserted, repeated statements and denominators are explained by scriptural reasons. The nature of mirror‑like relations and image–reflected properties are not contrary. Forms arise as forms and counter‑forms; they are mere semblances — established by śruti and smṛti. No contradiction arises from parts because the part follows from the whole. Neither is sameness of form opposed to parthood. The proof in both cases rests on scriptural passages. Nor is the reflection‑status of a part to be invented where the view of parts and bodies in other passages differs. Even for permanence the scripture says ‘so.’ The Lord is declared by both ways to be of both kinds of statements, owing to His inconceivable power. Nor does māyā alone in the Lord contradict Brahman, for the Lord’s sovereignty is different; the relation of cause and effect in Him is manifold. The great purport is that liberation (moksha) is the supreme human goal; that is the one end. ‘At the end they rejoice, not in the middle’ — scriptures testify that final attainment brings bliss and that liberation comes by Vishnu’s grace. Who, without worshiping Vasudeva, can attain liberation? By His grace ultimate perfection is had, no doubt. Those who are established in Him, taking refuge in the all‑pervading Self, surpass others; such are known to cross the worldly ocean. Thus by His grace one attains the supreme state — this is affirmed in many passages. That preeminence arises only by supreme knowledge and is world‑famous.