15.16 See Comment under 15.18


15.17 See Comment under 15.18


15.16-18 Dvav imau etc. upto Purusottamah. What has been stated in the passage 'There are two persons in the world etc.', is this : The body organism is made of the earth and other elements. In the world every person, unitelligent by nature, takes the body for the Self and [hence] views the Soul to be of perishing nature. Hence, the sense of duality does not come to an end with regard to the worldly persons, because of their delusion. But I am (the I-consciousness is) the One favouring all, and by cutting the daulity-knot I am to be realised as the One pervading all.
(I) have transcended the perishing : Since the elements are insentient. (I) have transcended the nonperishing : Since the omnipresence [of the Self] is cut off (not comprehended) when the Self is not properly realised. In the world and in the Veda too I am acclaimed as the Highest of Persons : The Self same Supreme Self, admitting no duality, is described in this manner with the sentences 'He is he Highest Person' and the like.


15.19 Yo mam etc. He, who knows Me thus i.e., he who meditates exclusively on Me as identical with all, and to be the very Brahman - he realises all to be identical with Me and adores (or experiences) Me alone with his entire being viz., his form, action and thought. [That is to say], whatever he perceives, he experiences it as the form of the Bhagavat ; and so on. Hence [it has been said] by myself (Ag.) in the Sivasaktyavinabhavastotra as :
O Mother (Goddess) ! Our praise to You is unusual one ; all (uttering) sounds constitute Your body indeed; in my entire body and in all [my] mental and external activities there is Your association.
O Siva, O Alleviator of what is inauspicious ! When I fully contemplate in this manner, then it has been accomplished in the world, without any effort [of mine], that for me there is indeed not even a small fraction of time without praise, recitation [of hymns], worship and contemplation [of Yours].


15.20 Iti etc. The most secret [scripture] : Because it explains the oneness of all. One becomes a man of wisdom by knowing this only and not by the knowledge of worldly affairs. One becomes a man of success by just understanding this, and not even by the deeds like the total victory over the foes, earning wealth, enjoying women and so on. The word ca 'also' indicates a wonder. Has it not been witnessed that [always] one becomes a man of success by what has been accomplished ? But it is strange that [in the present case one becomes a man of success] by just what has been realised.
The word iti 'thus' indicates the conclusion of the treatise. For, what is to be taught has come to an end completely. That is why in the Sixteenth Chapter the eligibility of the pupil, Arjuna, is exclusively dealt with; and nothing new is taught. The intention [of that chapter] is to say only this much : 'The divine wealth is just of that nature; but the devilish wealth born of illusion is of this nature; you (Arjuna) are however endowed with the divine wealth of wisdom'. Hence [the Lord] is going to say 'Don't worry. [You are endowed] with the divine wealth' (XVI, 5). That is why earlier in the context of explaining the clash between the wisdom and ignorance this has been indicated [by me (Ag.)]: 'It is the confrontation between the wisdom and ignorance that has been detailed under the pretext of [describing] the wars between the gods and devils.' So, while dealing essentially with the ality of a pupil, other subjects are mentioned incidentally. So also the pair of chapters (Ch. XVII & XVIII) would follow. But the teaching [proper] has come to an end completely here itself. For what is to be achieved is nothing but serving (attaining) the Absolute Lord-the serving, which is of the nature of total absorption into Him by one's entire being. All other things are only to achieve this end. This has been explained earlier. The Supreme Happiness is indeed nothing but a complete absorption into the Supreme Lord by one's entire being.


16.1 See Coment under 16.5


16.2 See Coment under 16.5


6.3 See Coment under 16.5


16.4 See Coment under 16.5


16.1-5 It has been stated [at the end of the last chapter] that 'by understanding this' etc. The thing called 'understanding' comes to be [in the following] manner : After the knowledge, born from hearing [the scriptures etc.], there arises a thought-process consisting of the logical analysis, deliberation and deep meditation that take the form 'This (what is taught in the scriptures etc.) is like this'. The above thought-process is of the nature of investigation, critical examination and judgement. From this thought-process one gains a good knowledge of a well practised from i.e., a contemplation of that object, free from the humiliation (influence) of different category. When this is gained, understanding is achieved Hence, it will be declared :
'By critically examining in this way fully, act as you please'. (Ch. XVIII, 63).
Here, only the preceptor and the scripture are mainly capable of creating the scriptural knowledge. But in producing reasoning, deliberation and meditation the main cause is the capacity to examine critically a thing and it is a special attribute of the pupil and it is an important one. Therefore, with an idea that this is in Arjuna and with an intention to add a preparatory note to the purposeful statement 'By critically examining this, [act as you please]'; the Bhagavat, the preceptor, says 'Fearlessness etc.'
The Ignorance, born of the Tamas (Stand) occupies the devilish side. This is repelled (or removed) by the well augmented wisdom that takes hold of the divine part. This is the nature of things [under estion] 'You (Arjuna) have taken refuge in the divine part viz., wisdom, born of the Sattva (Strand). Therefore shirking off the internal Ignorance in the nature of delusion, you should undertake the action, that has the sanction of the scriptures and that is of the nature of eradicating the external foe having the form of ignorance.' Thus commences the [present] chapter. Hence -
Abhayam etc., upto pandava. These are the identification marks of a person of divine parts. [Hence] they are clearly identified. Self-restraint : subduing the sense organs. Thought-lessness : the perfarmance of action without examining the antecedent and the seel; its absence is the absence of thought-lessness. Vital power : the act of casting away [all] limitations by taking hold energy in the Self. [All] this is the divine wealth and this is for your total emancipation, as it destroys craving. Therefore, don't get sorrow like 'Having killed brothers etc., how can I (Arjuna) enjoy pleasure ?' [The idea of] the rest [of passage] is clear.


16.6 Dvau etc. This divine wealth has been described [by the passage] 'Fearlessness' etc.
Now the demoniac [wealth], He describes :


16.7 Pravrttim etc. Origin : i.e. wherefrom this [universe] is born. Withdrawal : i.e. into what this gets dissolved.


16.8 Asatyam etc. [It] has nothing beyond : Here there is no other thing beyond what is seen.


16.9 See Coment under 16.12


16.10 See Coment under 16.12


16.11 See Coment under 16.12


16.9-12 Etam etc. upto arthasancayam : Their anxiety ends only at the time of dissolution i.e. never ceases, becaue the rise and dissolution never end. This much alone : For them the highest goal to be achieved is but the gratification of desires, and when this (aim) is just ruined, there arises anger. Hence the Lord says 'Devoted to their craving and anger'.


16.13 See Coment under 16.16


16.14 See Coment under 16.16


16.15 See Coment under 16.16


16.13-16 Idam adya etc. upto asucau. Endowed with many thoughts etc. For, they do not have any conviction. Into the hell and what is foul : in the [hell] Avici and the like and in the regular succession of birth and death.


16.17 See Coment under 16.20


16.18 See Coment under 16.20


16.19 See Coment under 16.20


16.17-20 Atmasambhavitah etc. upto gatim. They pretend to perform sacrifices : The meaning is that their sacrifice is fruitless. Indeed all is ruined because of their anger. Or, namayjna [may mean] 'the sacrifices which are in name only'. Or, it [may denote] those sacrifices that are performed for one's name sake i.e., for one's reputation, because of which one gets the appellation as 'He is performer of [such and such] sacrifices' These sacrifices, performed out of hypocricy alone, do not , however fetch any fruit. Becasue these persons are rugged with anger etc., they hate people and by that they hate Me only [in fact]. For, I, the Vasudeva (the Universal Soul), dwell every-where. Entertaining hatred towards their own Soul, they perform action, that is hostile to themselves, and responsible for their own fall into the hells. These persons I hurl into nothing but the demoniac wombs.


16.21 See Coment under 16.22


16.21-22 Trividham etc. Etaih etc. Because the traid of desire etc., constitute the gate to the hell, therefore one should avoid that.
What has been stated should not be neglected on the assumption that it is [based on] the human word. On the other hand, there is the authority of the eternal scripture on this subject. This is said [here] –


16.23 See Coment under 16.24


16.23-24 Yah sastravidhim etc. Tasmat etc. On the other hand, a fall into the hell is [inevitable] for a person who rejects the scriptural injunctions and makes, using his own intellect, an analysis as to what is to be done and what is not to be done. Therefore, don't make a decision with your intellect about what is to be done and what is not to be done.-This is what is intended to be conveyed here.


17.1 Ye sastra - etc. The estion is this : What is the goal [to be reached] by those persons who faithfully perform their worldly actions by not adhering to the scripural injunction ?
Now in this regard the answer, basing on the faith, is given by the Bhagavat -


17.2 Trividha etc. Here the ideas is this :- What is termed scripture is indeed the one which is not created by the intellect soiled by any partisan spirit; further it is of the form of the firmness of the recollection; and it is firmly recollected because of the sovereign freedom of the awareness; likewise it is also of the nature of fruit etc., i.e. the nature of the Supreme Brahman, the ultimate purport of speech, a flow of the pure Self-Consciousness; because of its free course, it starts from the internal nature of awareness and goes as for as the external flow, beginning from the subtlest hymn (Om), down to the series of popular saying well-known in the worldly activities. 'What [the sage] says -
'Also the [injunctions based on] remembrance and the virtuous conduct of the knowers of that [constitute authority]'. (Gautamadharmasutra, I, 2).
That scripture, by its own nature, distinguishes what is to be done and what is not to be done, in order to teach what is beneficial and what is not beneficial.
[Further], he whose heart is very tender by nature, because of the excess of the Sattva (i.e., godness) - in whatever way he behaves, that has certainly a scriptural authority. But other person who is made dirty by the Rajas or the Tamas (i.e., desire and ignorance) does not act rightly, even while performing what is enjoined in the scriptures. For, he does not follow the purport (the spirit) of the scripture in its entity. The scripture (or what is enjoined in the scripture) bears fruits only in the case of men of the Sattva (goodness) This has been declared by the scripture itself as :
'He [alone] enjoys the fruit of the scripture (or holy bathing place) whose arms and feet and also mind, learning, austerity and conduct are controlled properly'. (MB, Aranyaka, Ch. 80, verse 30).
Any other person does not enjoy [the fruit], because the rmains unsubdued [in his mind]. Therefore, what is prescribed in the scripture bears fruit in the case of those who have abandoned desire, anger and delusion. This is the purport of the present chapter; and it is being elaborated [throughout]. But it is not explained [in every place by us (Ag.), because the idea is clear enough. But [the concerned verses] are simply written only to remove doubts regarding the readings [of the passages concerned].


17.3 Sattva etc. The word sattva in 'corresponding to one's own sattva' is a synonym of svabhava 'primary nature'. This person i.e., Soul, is necessarily connected with a faith that dominates all [his] other activities. [Hence], he is to be deemed just to be mainly consisting of that.


17.4 See Comment under 17.6


17.5 See Comment under 17.6


17.4-6 Yajante etc., upto asura-niscayan. Unintelligently : i.e. due to their lack of discrimination. Emaciating Me too : Because they do not follow the purport of the scriptures. That is why they undertake practising austerities invented by their own intellect and they are rather men of the Tamas (Strand).
Like faith, the food also is of three types, differentiated by the Sattva etc., so are the sacrifice, austerity and charity. That is being detailed as :


17.7 See Comment under 17.10


17.8 See Comment under 17.10


17.9 See Comment under 17.10


17.7-10 Aharah etc. upto tamasapriyam. What is old : that for which [three] yamas have elapsed [after cooking].


17.11 See Comment under 17.13


17.12 See Comment under 17.13


17.11-13 Aphala-etc. upto paricaksate. Stabilizing mind : by firmly believing. Also for the sake of display etc. Display : an intention 'Let the world take me to be of this natrue'. That which is devoid of scriptural injunction : that which is devoid of rituals prescribed in the scriptures. The same [feature] is elaborated by the attributives 'That in which no food is distributed' etc.


17.14 See Comment under 17.16


17.15 See Comment under 17.16


17.14-16 Deva - etc. upto manasam ucyate : Honesty : uprightness, i.e., the courage regarding what needs no hiding. Which is true : This is explained by 'Which is pleasant and beneficial'. Pleasant : at the time of [hearing] that speech. And beneficial : something in future. This type of speech, but not merely speaking what actually happened, is called 'speaking the truth'. Purity of thought : 'Thought' denotes intention; its highest purity.


17.17 See Comment under 17.19


17.18 See Comment under 17.19


17.17-19 Sraddhaya etc. upto tamasam udahrtam. There is faith in all the three-fold austerity. the faith of a man of the Sattva is full of austerity itself. The faith of a man of the Rajas is in the Rajas i.e, showing (or hyprocricy) etc. But, the faith (or desire) of a man well established in the Tamas is merely in ruining others. Thus the sage speaks of all the three-fold austerity practised with faith.


17.20 See Comment under 17.22


17.21 See Comment under 17.22


17.20-22 Datavyam etc. upto udahrtam. With the thought that 'One must give' : thinking that the [scriptural] injunction 'One must give' is to be obeyed in order to avoid sin. Very much vexed : because of the fault of [giving] very little. A gift is converted into a bad one by offending its recipient, and so on. Thus the activities of the worldly men are explained on the basis of their three-fold intentions born of the Sattva and so on.
How do those persons perform actions, whose intellect has gone beyond the region, that is impassable because of the triad of the Strands ? Now that manner is described as -


17.23 See Comment under 17.27


17.24 See Comment under 17.27


17.25 See Comment under 17.27


17.26 See Comment under 17.27


17.23-27 Om etc. upto abhidhiyate. An indication of the Brahman i.e., an act of facing (or aiming at) the Brahman is made by these three words viz., OM, TAT and SAT. Of them, Om indicates that 'This purport of the scriptures is [to be ?] accepted as long as one has bodily connection'.
The pronoun TAT, which denotes generality and which is incapable of denoting exclusively a particular, mentions, as far as the Brahman is concerned, the absence of intention for fruit. An intention is not possible without reference to something particular. No doubt [TAT] may denote all particulars [in general]. But it would lead to intending the fruits and the doer-ship with regard to all [in general]. Even then [the Brahman] cannot have connection with any particular fruit.
The Vedic word SAT denotes 'prasie'. The act, like this sacrifice etc., though perormed, truns out to be an act of the Tams (evil act) if it is performed with the idea, 'It is an evil act'. Further, what is performed with an intention for a particular fruit is not praiseworthy, and it causes nothing but bondage. Therefore, those, who bear in mind, 'This is a thing to be performed' - they are not fettered, even though they perform acts like sacrifice etc. With this idea only, it has been said in the Adiparvan as -
'The austerity is not dirt, nor the [Vedic] study, nor the natural ritual enjoined by the Vedas, and nor the act of earning wealth by all efforts. But, if they are struck by mind, they themselves become dirt.'
(MB, Adi. i, 210).
[Here in this passage] dirt that which fetters. Natural : [That is, ordained ], such as -
'Without expecting anything, a Brahman should learn the Vedas etc., together with their six subsidiaries' etc.
By all effort : by the act that is suitable and is well known in the scriptures and in the worldly practice. By mind : by the mind that is yoked to the traid of the Strands, Sattva etc. [Those actions that] have been simply ruined [by that mind], are binding and not otherwise. This is the idea here.
Therefore, the acts like sacrifice etc., and the acts, like aciring [Wealth] etc., for that purpose, have to be perfored as being inevitable as long as the body exists.
Or, perhaps, the word OM conveys [with regard to the Brahman] the idea of That in Which the entire universe has been totally calmed down. TAT conveys the idea of That of the nature of Sovereign Independence of Will, which is nothing but comprehending the rising waves in the form of the universe. And the word SAT denotes the act of manifestation by the Brahman - even though It is complete in Itself - as [the universe] having varied nature, a manifestation that causes differences (or duality) expanding under the weight of its Sovereign Independenc of Will. Hence it has been said 'In the sense of manifesting as beings and in the sense of manifesting perfectly [SAT is employed].' Thus, having is front [as a casue] that aspect (the Soul) of highly tranil nature; and having in the centre that aspect which is well connected with desire-waves viz., the desire to make gift, the desire to perform sacrifice and the desire to observe penance; this final body radiates (or dances) filled with a group of activities, such as offering gift, performing sacrifice and observing austerity, and of what are conducive to them. This triad is indeed simultaneously the inherent nature of the Unhindered One (the Soul). So, what fruit could be there ? And to whom ? How ? Whence ? Where ? And by what means ?
The act of person, with no faith, is an act of the Tamas and bears no fruit in any way and bears fruit which is nothing but the labour undertaken in bringing together the band of means [of those acts]. Hence one should not on any account remain faithless. This is being said now :


17.28 Asradhaya etc. ASAT : not praiseworthy (or inauspicious). Therefore Happiness just easily arises for those who exert in the prasieworthy (or auspicious) act.


18.1 Samnyasaya etc. It has been delcared earlier that 'He [alone] is a man of relinishment and is also a man of wisdom' (II, 50); and 'He [alone] is a man of renunciation and a man of Yoga; but not he who remains without his fires (VI, 1)', and so on. Thus, becuase a man of relinishment and a man of renunciation are both found mentioned, now arises this estion from a person (Arjuna) who is desirous of understanding their difference.
Now [by giving] the answer -


18.2 Kamyanam etc. The desire-motivated actions : the Agnistoma (sacrifce) etc. All actions etc. : The relinishment is the relinishment of fruits, even while performing all actions tha are to be performed daily or occasionally. Whatever remains to be spoken in this chapter had been examined in detail even by the previous commentators like the revered Bhatta Bhaskara and others. Hence why should we take the trouble of repeating. For, our main concern is to fulfil the promise to show only the hidden purport of this [work].
Therefore now [the Bhagavat] relates different views in order to determine the best in this regard -


18.3 Tyajyam etc. The harmful : that which is connected with sin, becuase it consists of act of injury etc. Such an action must be relinished and not all aciton that has auspicious result. In this way certain persons-as if they are attached (as domesticated animals do ) to the house of the Sankhyas - think of a distinction is relinishing. But there are other learned persons who put on the coat of the Mimamsakas and who, basing exclusively the scriptures, classify what action to be performed and what action not to be performed . They opine : The act of killing that constitutes the technical aspect of execution of a sacrifice is [in fact] not an act of injury at all in view of the principles, like
'The action intended for sacrifice is indeed known from the scripture only' - (SB, IV, i, 2)
and
'Therefore the act of injury known from the Vedas' etc. - (SV, I, i, 2.23)
For, the general rule 'Don't injure' is annulled in this case. But, at the same time the Syena-sacrifice etc., is an act of killing. Becuase,
'The injunctive suffix does not prescribe what falls within the purveiw of fruit of an action of the injunction.' [SV, I, i, 2.222).
Therefore other [Vedic] sacrifices one should not relinish eventhough they are connected with an act of injury.


18.4 See Comment under 18.11


18.5 See Comment under 18.11


18.6 See Comment under 18.11


18.7 See Comment under 18.11


18.8 See Comment under 18.11


18.9 See Comment under 18.11


18.10 See Comment under 18.11


18.4-11 Niscayam etc. upto abhidhiyate. The conclusion here is this : Due to the manifoldness of the nature of the Strands, that have been defined earlier, the act of relinishment itself is performed with a certain mental disposition which is a modification of the Sattva, the Rajas and the Tamas (the Strands). Because it reflects (is contaminated by) the nature of the person having the same (the said mental dispositon), what is called the real (unalloyed) relinishment is the performance of the actions by the knowers of the Supreme Brahman by giving up desire to achieve fruits and by avoiding the craving and hatred on account of their eanimity to [the pairs of opposites like] success and failure etc. That is why [the Bhagavat] says : 'By the act of relinishment born of the Rajas or of the Tamas (Strands), no connection with the fruit [of relinishment] is attained'. However, for an act of relinishing, born of the Sattva (Strand), there is the fruit in the form of honouring the purport of the scriptures. The application of the term 'relinishment' stands to reason, in fact, only in the case of a sage who has relinished his holding on the multitude of the Strands.


18.12 Anistam etc. To those who are not men of relinishment : to those who are full of [desire for] fruit.
Even at the stage of mundane life, where all the five factors do exist for actions, those persons, blind with their ignorance, obstinately burden their own Self with the entire load of agency. Hence they fetter their own Self with their own thinking. But, in fact, there is no bondage for Him (the Self). This is now being taught as :


18.13 See Comment under 18.17


18.14 See Comment under 18.17


18.15 See Comment under 18.17


18.16 See Comment under 18.17


18.13-17 Panca etc. upto na nibadhyate Conclusion : the established end, because here a decision is arrived at. Basis : the material object Destiny : the good and bad result [of actions] previously accumulated. These five viz., the basis etc., constitute the entire assembly of factors and hence they are the causes for each action.
But other [commentators give an etymology of] adhisthana 'basis' to mean 'That by which all actions are governed'; and on that ground they believe that it denotes that action which exists in the intellect; which comes ot be due to the Rajas, and is being prone to transform itself into the pentad of (the mental dispositions viz.) the content, the faith, the happiness, the desire to know and the aversion to know; which is referable by the term karma-yoga (that which yokes man into activity); and which is described at times by the term prayatna 'effort'.
Agent : the ascertainer characterised by the intellect. Instrument : [the personal instruments viz.] the mind, the eye etc., and also the external ones like sword etc. Activity : the activity of upper life-breath, nether life-breath etc. The effects of the righteous and unrighteous acts are indicated by the term Destiny. All the dispositions located in the intellect are indicated by these two. Still other commentators, however, take Basis to be the Absolute Lord.
Due to his imperfect intellect : because of his having indecisive knowledge. But he, who performs actions with the stability due to disappearance of th I-sense (limited) and [a stability] refined by hundreds of reasoning, as detailed earlier - he does not get the fetter, because he is a man of perfect intellect. This is what is intended [in the passage under study].


18.18 Jnanam etc. Prompting-in-action : the will to exert. At that time those things which - because they exist in one's thought alone - are referable by the terms knowledge, obect-of-knowledge and knowing-subject; at the time of that will (to exert) taking the form 'I shall enjoy it; for it is caused by me' as well as at the time of executing th act, the very same things-because they are fully absorbed [in desire for fruits] - get the names instrument, object and agent. Therefore, because there is no such absorption [in desire for fruits] in the case of the men of Yoga, there is no room in their action for the expressions instrument etc.; rather they exist only as knowledge etc. This is the purport here.
Now [the Lord] speaks to explain, in brief, the classification of all these six items, basing on the classification of the Strands :-


18.19 Jnanam etc. In enumerating the Strands : In the consdered conclusion of the Sankhya where the Strands are decided numerically, these instruments of knowledge etc., are declared to be of three types. that you must listen to. This is what is conveyed by the association of words (or ideas) here. By instrument-of-knowledge (Jnanam) the two-fold instruments viz. that of knowledge and of activity, are spoken of. Similarly object (karman) speaks of both the object of knowledge and the object of activity and agent (kartr) refers to both the knower and the performer.
Now the three verses. Sarvabhutesu etc. (20-22) speak of the three-foldness of the instrument of knowledge. That is why the Instrumental Yena is employed. The nature of all the instruments of knowledge and of action is described by this much of portion. The three-foldness of object of both the types viz. the object of knowledge and the object of action is described by the tripple verses Niyatam etc. (23-25). The three-fold nature of the agent of both the categories viz. the knower and the doer is briefly explained by the three verses Muktasangah etc. (26-28). The three types of the intellect is examined by three verses, Pravrttim etc. (30-32), in order to explain the different nature of the two-fold instruments (i.e. of knowledge and of action). By this means the three-fold nature of other instrumetns is also indicated. The instrument reires technical know-how, and this technical know-how, of course, consists of the pentad that includes content and so on. However, because faith [included in this pentad] has already been dealt with (XVII, 2ff.), and because the desire to know and the aversion to know [both belonging to the pentad] are obtained by inference through the firmness and happiness [of the pentad], the three-fold division of the last two is explained by the verses Dhrtya yaya etc. (33-35) and Sukham tu idanim etc. (36-39). All this [the Lord] declares [one by one] ;-


18.20 See Comment under 18.22


18.21 See Comment under 18.22


18-20-22 Sarvabhutesu etc. upto samudahrtam. In the classified ones : i.e., [classified] as gods, human beings, etc. Considers as [really] different : i.e., with the thought 'Here on this depends my pleasure; here in that lies my displeasure'. Without reason : To take recourse to wrath, desire etc., slavishly under the influence of one's own addiction and also without examining the cause, in named as a thing born of the Tamas (Strand).


18.23 See Comment under 18.25


18.24 See Comment under 18.25


18.23-25 Niyatam etc. : upto Tamasam ucyate. With determination : i.e., it is a thing to be acired. Abundant in offlictions : spread through by nescience etc. Due to ignorance : i.e. due to that which is born of addiction.


18.26 See Comment under 18.28


18.27 See Comment under 18.28


18.26-28 Muktasangah etc. upto Tamasa ucyate. He who does not make speech of egoism : He who does not claim 'I am the agent' i.e., he who is different from the one who claims so by natural inclination, or claims as such with an intention that 'I should do so', or claims so in an efficient manner. This nini (suffix employed in anahamvadi) does not prohibit for a Yogin, the speech 'I do' under the influence of the cover of the mundane life. Who is overpowered by joy and grief : i.e., at the time of success and failure [respectively]. Wickedness : cruelty.


18.29 Buddheh etc. Intellect : the faculty of resolving. Content : satisfaction. After having performed either good or wicked action, everyone, at the end, feels 'what is to be necessarily performed has been performed; so why furhter more ?' Or else what could be the cause for [one's] retiring from that action ?' Therefore in every one there is content. This is the meaning intended here. The word-meaning, that is not clearly known-that alone is certainly explained [hereinafter].


18.30 See Comment under 18.32


18.31 See Comment under 18.32


18.30-32 Pravrttim etc. upto Tamasi mata. Incorrectly ; not properly.


18.33 See Comment under 18.35


18.34 See Comment under 18.35


18.33-35 Dhrtya etc. upto Tamasi mata. One restrains the activities of his mind, living breath and senses, with Yoga : i.e., thinking 'What is the use for me by enjoying etc. ? Let me be delighted in the Self by all means.' Conseently : not with much indulgence. That content whery one fixes pleasure as his goal only in sleep, fight etc.-that content is of the Tamas (Strand).


18.36 See Comment under 18.39


18.37 See Comment under 18.39


18.38 See Comment under 18.39


18.36-39 Sukham etc. upto udahrtam. At its time : at the time of its practice (use). Like poison (1st) : Because it is extremely difficult to give up the attachment for sense-objects cultivated during hundreds of [previous] life-periods. That has been said in the revealed literature as :
'[The path of sprituality] is the edge of a razor, painful and difficult to cross over etc.'
The serenity of intellect (or mind) results from serenity in the Self, as there exists nothing else to be aspired for. The [Rajasic] happiness springs from the mutual contact between the sense-objects and senses, just as in the case of the eye due to its contact with colur. That happiness which is due to sleep, indolence and heedlessness, explained earlier, is of the Tamas (Strand).


18.40 Na tad asti etc. In this manner, the agent, the object and the instrument, the intellect and content, and happiness are classified under different heads of the Sattva etc. Because they have a mutual relationship of subordinate-and-principal or of the oppressed-and-opressor or of the togetherness; becuase they have modifications occuring either together or in a specific seence; and because they, on that account, have varieties beyond all counting; they are capable of bringing forth fruits (results) of umpteen variety. This (statement) logically demonstrates in detail the uncomprehensibility of actions (their results) which has been indicated earlier (above IV, 17ff.). All these beings, starting from the gods down to the immovables, do not transcend the relation with the traid of the Strands. Indeed it has been said -
'Commencing from Brahma (personal god) down to the [insignificant] worm, no one is really happy; all, without exception, having desire to live, undertake different acts of agitation (or commit different frauds to appear to be happy).'
Indeed the real happiness is [only] to him whose mind has gone beyond the Strands and not to anyone else. This is what is intended here.
So far, the three-fold nature of each of the six items and also of the content etc., has been explained. 'Among them, he who is occupied with the group of the Sattva (Strand) and who has attained the divine wealth is fit for the subject under study; and you are of that sort' - telling in this manner, Arjuna has been encouraged.
Now the following is declared : If you engage yourself in the action with this reslove for correct knowledge, then because of your undertaking of your own righteous action and because of your sanctity through wisdom, there is no bondage of aciton for you. On the other hand, if you don't follow this, [even] then there must necessarily be some activity in you; because your birth itself stands to that effect. Since, being controlled by its own intrinsic nature, everything, though it may have, for a short while, its nature concealed due to some fault, regains its own nature that becomes perceivable when the concealing agent disappears. For example, the nature of the castes is of this nature. Thus when an effort necessarily takes place, there would be [for its agent] its fruit. This [the Bhagavat] says-


18.41 See Comment under 18.60


18.42 See Comment under 18.60


18.43 See Comment under 18.60


18.44 See Comment under 18.60


5.10 See Comment under 5.11


18.46 See Comment under 18.60


18.47 See Comment under 18.60


18.48 See Comment under 18.60


18.49 See Comment under 18.60


18.50 See Comment under 18.60


18.51 See Comment under 18.60


18.52 See Comment under 18.60


18.53 See Comment under 18.60


18.54 See Comment under 18.60


18.55 See Comment under 18.60


18.56 See Comment under 18.60


18.57 See Comment under 18.60


18.58 See Comment under 18.60


18.59 See Comment under 18.60


18.41-60 Brahmana - etc. upto avasopitat. Surely the intrinsic nature of the Brahmanas etc., does not voilate what has been difined (above) by way of classifying their duties. Therefore, as far as you are concerned, you have the intrinsic ality of the Ksatriya (warrior), and your nature i.e., intrinsic ality, does, without fail, assume the part of the inciter of yourself, even though you don't like it. For, a person who acts simply being incited by that (natural condition), there is the strong bondage of the merit or demerit. Therefore, perform actions following the means of correct knowledge, taught by Me. In that case, the bondage would disappear. The intention of the principal sentence (statement of the entire passage under study) is to help to get this idea. The meaning of the subordinate sentences (statements) is evident.
Briefly (verse 50) : in short. Knowledge : i.e. the one which has been explained earlier. Nistha conveys, avoiding verbal jugglary, the meaning 'what has been determined'. He who is endowed with intellect totally pure etc. : All this has been almost explained already. Hence, no more trouble is taken [to comment upon it].


18.61 See Comment under 18.62


18.61-62 Isvarah etc. Tam eva etc. This Lord, the Supreme Self, must be taken hold of as refuge. When that Supreme Ruler, the [real] Agent-of-all-actions, the [real] Knower, the very Self of your own, is reflected upon, there (in the heart) the [effects of] actions do not enjoy any locus standi. Indeed, the deer-calves which are of wavering mind [by nature] and are noted only for their power of running away to escape, do not take recourse to their skill in pursuing freely their [usual] activities while there dwells in the [nearby] cave a loin-calf, the glory of whose valour has been made evident by the accessories in the form of the heaps of pearls scattered from the elephants' temples broken upon with the very sharp edges of his (lion-calf's) excellent claws.
By the cocluding statement that commences 'To Him alone you must go for refuge' and [runs] as 'Through My Grace etc.', the Bhagavat indicates the Lord Supreme Self, and Vasudeva krsna to be identical.


18.63 Iti te etc. : The [path of] wisdom has been taught to you. It is a better secret than the secret literature i.e., the last portion of the Vedas (the Upanisads), as it reveals the supreme Non-duality (Advaita-philosophy). Comprehend it fully and then : Deliberate on the purport of it and then.
The purport has been, no doubt, elucidated by us by taking-by-horn-method (directly) whenever occasion arose. Yet, a clear reflection of the entire subject matter is shown here. Because it is the choicest one, the mind is never satisfied, when it is being elucidated and listened to. The most secret thing is being determined here. The method by which that is known, you must listen to now - so He says :-


18.64 See Comment under 18.65


18.64-65 Sarva - etc. Manmanah etc, By the portion 'Be with your mind fixed in Me' etc., it is determined that in the scriptures the importance completely lies only in dedicating [everything] to the Brahman; and it is declared that this present scripture (the Holy Bhagavatgita) is of use [only] in the case of one who cultivates [the attitude of] dedication to the Brahman.
Also He says -


18.66 Sarvadharman etc. Abandoning all attributes : This act of slaying the kinsmen and the like that arises incidentally while fighting a war - not owning those acts as your own attribute by your thought 'I am the doer of all these'; also giving up by mind, the notion 'If the act of slaying the teacher etc., is avoided, merit will accrue to me'. come to Me: Come to Me alone, the Agent-of-all-actions, the Supreme Lord, the Sovereign. As your Refuge : as the Guardian of all your natural impulses. On that account I, the Omniscient, shall rescue you from all the sins. Don't be sorrowful : Don't get perplexed 'What to be done'.


18.67 Idam etc. If the secrecy of this knowledge is maintained it would yield success, because It is out of reach of all [ordinary] persons. When the knot of sin is cut off through observing austerities, then only the results of good act is ready to become ripe. Hence, austerity comes first. Due to austerity, faith is born. The same (faith) is devotion here. The faith, even if it is born, does not grow well, in case it becomes visible only for a moment and then perishes like lightning. Therefore to help its growth, the desire to listen to is [next]. In the case of certain person, even all this arises with regard to the useless knowledge of the dry Sankhya (reasoning) system that admits no Supreme Lord. Even with regard to a system that adimts the Supreme Lord, it may, n the case of another person-on account of his craving for fruit of action-emerge by raising the fruit-of-action alone to the status of importance and by humbling down one's own Worshipful Self to the role of an instrument in achieving that fruit It has been declared :
'The agent also [is an auxiliary], because he is for the action [enjoined].' (JS, III, i, 6);
and
'Actions also [are auxiliary] because they are for the purpose of fruits.' (JS, III, i, 4).
Thus in both the instances there is indignation, meaning 'disregard' with the Bhagavat (Self) - This is the purport.


18.68 See Comment under 18.72


18.69 See Comment under 18.72


18.70 See Comment under 18.72


18.71 See Comment under 18.72


18.68-72 Ya idam etc. upto Dhananjaya. The very act of explaining this among My devotees is itself an act of cultivating devotion towards Me. Whosoever shall declare etc : Whosoever directs the mind [of the devotees] by face to face method, following the best procedure prescribed in the scriptures; i.e., he who shall impart [this knowledge] - he becomes one with Me. This is an injunction [concerning the result] and not a sentence of praise. Likewise is [the case] in other places also.


18.73 Nastah etc. By the passage '[My] delusion is destroyed etc', it is indicated that [after hearing the Lord's instruction], only an inclination to fight has risen in Arjuna, but the perfect realisation of the Brahman is not yet born in him. While indicating so, [the sage Vyasa] provides a scope for the would-be subject matter for the Anugita.


18.74 See Comment under 18.78


18.75 See Comment under 18.78


18.76 See Comment under 18.78


18.77 See Comment under 18.78


18.74-78 Ityaham etc. upto matir mama While concluding the [Krsna-Arjuna] dialogue with Sanjaya's speech, the [sage Vyasa] teaches this : What leads to the Absolute Brahman is nothing but the recollection of the purport of the dialoguea recollection that is led finally to the status of the highly vivid, direct cognition admitting no differentiation [between its subject and object], resulting from the continuity helped by the series of incessant contemplations [on the purport of the dialogue] according to the method of firmly fixing. Thus, only through the recollection of the dialogue of the Bhagavat and Arjuna, the Reality could be reached and due to that come fortunes, voctories and prosperity.


1.1 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.2 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.3 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.4 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.5 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.6 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.7 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.8 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.9 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.10 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.11 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.12 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.13 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.14 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.15 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.16 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.17 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.18 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.19 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.20 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.21 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.22 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.23 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.24 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.25 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.26 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.27 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.28 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.29 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.30 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.31 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.32 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.33 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.34 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.35 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.36 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.37 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.38 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.39 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.40 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.41 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.42 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.43 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.44 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.45 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.46 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


1.47 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


2.1 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


2.2 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


2.3 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


2.4 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


2.5 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


2.6 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


2.7 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


2.8 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


2.9 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.


2.10 And here, the text commencing from 'But seeing the army of the Pandavas' (1.2) and ending with '(he) verily became silent, telling Him (Govinda), "I shall not fight"' is to be explained as revealing the cause of the origin of the defect in the from of sorrow, delusion, etc. [Delusion means want of discrimination. Etc. stands for the secondary manifestations of sorrow and delusion, as also ignorance which is the root cause of all these.] which are the sources of the cycles of births and deaths of creatures.
Thus indeed, Ajuna's own sorrow and delusion, cuased by the ideas of affection, parting, etc., originating from the erroneous belief, 'I belong to these; they belong to me', with regard to kingdom [See note under verse 8.-Tr.], elders, sons, comrades, well-wishers (1.26), kinsmen (1.37), relatives (1.34) and friends, have been shown by him with the words, 'How can I (fight)৷৷.in battle (against) Bhisma' (4), etc. It is verily because his discriminating insight was overwhelmed by sorrow and delusion that, even though he had become engaged in battle out of his own accord as a duty of the Ksatriyas, he desisted from that war and chose to undertake other's duties like living on alms etc. It is thus that in the case of all creatures whose minds come under the sway of the defects of sorrow, delusion, etc. there verily follows, as a matter of course, abandoning their own duties and resorting to prohibited ones. Even when they engage in their own duties their actions with speech, mind, body, etc., are certainly motivated by hankering for rewards, and are accompanied by egoism. [Egoism consists in thinking that one is the agent of some work and the enjoyer of its reward.]
Such being the case, the cycle of births and deaths characterized by passing through desireable and undesirable births, and meeting with happiness, sorrow, etc. [From virtuous deeds follow attainment of heaven and happiness. From unvirtuous, sinful deeds follow births as beasts and other lowly beings, and sorrow. From the performance of both virtuous and sinful deeds follows birth as a human being, with a mixture of happiness and sorrow.] from the accumulation of virtue and vice, continues unendingly. Thus, sorrow and delusion are therefore the sources of the cycles of births and deaths. And their cessation comes from nothing other than the knowledge of the Self which is preceded by the renunciation of all duties. Hence, wishing to impart that (knowledge of the Self) for favouring the whole world, Lord Vasudeva, making Arjuna the medium, said, 'You grieve for those who are not to be grieved for,' etc.
As to that some (opponents) [According to A.G. the opponent is the Vrttikara who, in the opinion of A. Mahadeva Sastri, is none other than Bodhayana referred to in Sankaracarya's commentary on B.S. 1.1.11-19.-Tr.] say: Certainly, Liberation cannot be attained merely from continuance in the knowledge of the Self which is preceded by renunciation of all duties and is independent of any other factor. What then? The well-ascertained conclusion of the whole of the Gita is that Liberation is attained through Knowledge associated with rites and duties like Agnihotra etc. prescribed in the Vedas and the Smrtis. And as an indication of this point of view they ote (the verses): 'On the other hand, if you will not fight this righteous (battle)' (33); 'Your right is for action (rites and duties) alone' (47); 'Therefore you undertake action (rites and duties) itself' (4.15), etc. Even this objection should not be raised that Vedic rites and duties lead to sin since they involve injury etc.'.
Objection: How?
Opponent: The duties of the Ksatriyas, charaterized by war, do not lead to sin when undertaken as one's duty, even though they are extremely cruel since they involve violence against elders, brothers, sons and others. And from the Lord's declaration that when they are not performed, 'then, forsaking your own duty and fame, you will incur sin' (33), it stands out as (His) clearly stated foregone conclusion that one's own duties prescribed in such texts as, '(One shall perform Agnihotra) as long as one lives' etc., and actions which involve crutely to animals etc. are not sinful.
Vedantin: That is wrong because of the assertion of the distinction between firm adherence (nistha) to Knowledge and to action, which are based on two (different) convictions (buddhi).
The nature of the Self, the supreme Reality, determined by the Lord in the text beginning with 'Those who are not to be grieved for' (11) and running to the end of the verse, 'Even considering your own duty' (31), is called Sankhya. Sankhya-buddhi [Sankhya is that correct (samyak) knowledge of the Vedas which reveals (khyayate) the reality of the Self, the supreme Goal. The Reality under discussion, which is related to this sankhya by way of having been revealed by it, is Sankhya.] (Conviction about the Reality) is the conviction with regard to That (supreme Reality) arising from the ascertainment of the meaning of the context [Ascertainment৷৷.of the context, i.e., of the meaning of the verses starting from, 'Never is this One born, and never does It die,' etc. (20).] that the Self is not an agent because of the absence in It of the six kinds of changes, viz birth etc. [Birth, continuance, growth, transformation, decay and death.] Sankhyas are those men of Knowledge to whom that (conviction) becomes natural. Prior to the rise of this Conviction (Sankhya-buddhi), the ascertained [Ast. and A.G. omit this word 'ascertainment, nirupana'-Tr.] of the performance of the disciplines leading to Liberation which is based on a discrimination between virtue and vice, [And adoration of God]. and which presupposes the Self's difference from the body etc. and Its agentship and enjoyership is called Yoga. The conviction with regard to that (Yoga) is Yoga-buddhi. The performers of rites and duties, for whom this (conviction) is appropriate, are called yogis.
Accordingly, the two distinct Convictions have been pointed out by the Lord in the verse, 'This wisdom (buddhi) has been imparted to you from the standpoint of Self-realization (Sankhya). But listen to this (wisdom) from the standpoint of (Karma-) yoga' (39). And of these two, the Lord will separately speak, with reference to the Sankhyas, of the firm adherence to the Yoga of Knowledge. [Here Yoga and Knowledge are identical. Yoga is that through which one gets connected, identified. with Brahman.] which is based on Sankya-buddhi, in, 'Two kinds of adherences were spoken of by Me in the form of the Vedas, in the days of yore.' [This portion is ascending to G1.Pr. and A.A.; Ast. omits this and otes exactly the first line of 3.3. By saying, 'in the form of the Vedas', the Lord indicates that the Vedas, which are really the knowledge inherent in God and issue out of Him, are identical with Himself.-Tr.] similarly, in, 'through the Yoga of Action for the yogis' (3.3), He will separately speak of the firm adherence to the Yoga [Here also Karma and Yoga are identical, and lead to Liberation by bringing about purity of heart which is followed by steadfastness in Knowledge.] of Karma which is based on Yoga-buddhi (Conviction about Yoga). Thus, the two kinds of steadfastness that based on the conviction about the nature of the Self, and that based on the conviction about rites and duties have been distinctly spoken of by the Lord Himself, who saw that the coexistence of Knowledge and rites and duties is not possible in the same person, they being based on the convictions of non-agentship and agentship, unity and diversity (respectively).
As is this teaching about the distinction (of the two adherences), just so has it been revealed in the Satapatha Brahmana: 'Desiring this world (the Self) alone monks and Brahmanas renounce their homes' (cf. Br. 4.4.22). After thus enjoining renunciation of all rites and duties, it is said in continuation, 'What shall we acheive through childeren, we who have attained this Self, this world (result).' [The earlier otation implies an injuction (vidhi) for renunciation, and the second is an arthavada, or an emphasis on that injunction. Arthavada: A sentence which usually recommends a vidhi, or precept, by stating the good arising from its proper observance, and the evils arising from its omission; and also by adducing historical instances in its support.-V.S.A] Again, there itself it is said that, before accepting a wife a man is in his natural state [The state of ignorance owing to non-realization of Reality. Such a person is a Brahmacarin, who goes to a teacher for studying the Vedas]. And (then) after his eniries into rites and duties, [The Brahmacarin first studies the Vedas and then enires into their meaning. Leaving his teacher's house after completing his course, he becomes a house holder.] 'he' for the attainment of the three worlds [This world, the world of manes and heaven.-Tr.] 'desired' (see Br. 1.4.17) as their means a son and the two kinds of wealth consists of rites and duties that lead to the world of manes, and the divine wealth of acisition of vidya (meditation) which leads to heaven. In this way it is shown that rites and duties enjoined by the Vedas etc. are meant only for one who is unenlightened and is passessed of desire. And in the text, 'After renouncing they take to mendicancy' (see Br. 4.4.22), the injunction to renounce is only for one who desires the world that is the Self, and who is devoid of hankering (for anything else).
Now, if the intention of the Lord were the combination of Knowledge with Vedic rites and duties, then this utterance (of the Lord) (3.3) about the distinction would have been illogical. Nor would Arjuna's estion, 'If it be Your opinion that wisdom (Knowledge) is superior to action (rites and duties)৷৷.,' etc. (3.1) be proper. If the Lord had not spoken earlier of the impossibility of the pursuit of Knowledge and rites and duties by the same person (at the same time), then how could Arjuna falsely impute to the Lord by saying, 'If it be your opinion that wisdom is superior to action৷৷৷৷' (of having spoken) what was not heard by him, viz the higher status of Knolwedge over rites and duties? Morevoer, if it be that the combination of Knowledge with rites and duties was spoken of for all, then it stands enjoined, ipso facto, on Arjuna as well. Therefore, if instruction had been given for practising both, then how could the estion about 'either of the two' arise as in, 'Tell me for certain one of these (action and renunciation) by which I may attain the highest Good' (3.2)? Indeed, when a physician tells a patient who has come for a cure of his biliousness that he should take things which are sweet and soothing, there can arise no such reest as, 'Tell me which one of these two is to be taken as a means to cure biliousness'! Again, if it be imagined that Arjuna put the estion because of his noncomprehension of the distinct meaning of what the Lord had said, even then the Lord ought to have answered in accordance with the estion: 'The combination of Knowledge with rites and duties was spoken of by Me. Why are you confused thus?' On the other hand, it was not proper to have answered, 'Two kinds of steadfastness were spoken of by Me it the days of yore,' in a way that was inconsistent and at variance with the estion.
Nor even do all the statements about distinction etc. become logical if it were intended that Knowledge was to be combined with rites and duties enjoined by the Smrtis only. Besides, the accusation in the sentence, 'Why then do you urge me to horrible action' (3.1) becomes illogical on the part of Arjuna who knew that fighting was a Ksatriya's natural duty enjoined by the Smrtis. Therefore, it is not possible for anyone to show that in the scripture called the Gita there is any combination, even in the least, of Knowledge of the Self with rites and duties enjoined by the Srutis or the Smrtis. But in the case of a man who had engaged himself in rites and duties because of ignorance and defects like the attachment, and then got his mind purified through sacrifices, charities or austerities (see Br. 4.4.22), there arises the knowledge about the supreme Reality that all this is but One, and Brahman is not an agent (of any action). With regard to him, although there is a cessation of rites and duties as also of the need for them, yet, what may, appear as his diligent continuance, just as before, in those rites and duties for setting an example before people that is no action in which case it could have stood combined with Knowledge. Just as the actions of Lord Vasudeva, in the form of performance of the duty of a Ksatriya, do not get combined with Knowledge for the sake of achieving the human goal (Liberation), similar is the case with the man of Knowledge because of the absence of hankering for results and agentship. Indeed, a man who has realized the Truth does not thingk 'I am doing (this)' nor does he hanker after its result.
Again, as for instance, person hankering after such desirable things as heaven etc. may light up a fire for performing such rites as Agnihotra etc. which are the mans to attain desirable things; [The Ast. reading is: Agnihotradi-karma-laksana-dharma-anusthanaya, for the performance of duties in the form of acts like Agnihotra etc.-Tr.] then, while he is still engaged in the performance of Agnihotra etc. as the means for the desirable things, the desire may get destroyed when the rite is half-done. He may nevertheless continue the performance of those very Agnihotra etc.; but those performance of those very Agnihotra etc.; but those Agnihotra etc. cannot be held to be for this personal gain.
Accordingly does the Lord also show in various places that, 'even while perfroming actions,' he does not act, 'he does not become tainted' (5.7). As for the texts, '৷৷.as was performed earlier by the ancient ones' (4.15), 'For Janaka and others strove to attain Liberation through action itself' (3.20), they are to be understood analytically.
Objection: How so?
Vedantin: As to that, if Janaka and others of old remained engaged in activity even though they were knowers of Reality, they did so for preventing people from going astray, while remaining established in realization verily through the knowledge that 'the organs rest (act) on the objects of the organs' (3.28). The idea is this that, though the occasion for renunciation of activity did arise, they remained established in realization along with actions; they did not give up their rites and duties.
On the other hand, if they were not knowers of Reality, then the explanation should be this; Through the discipline of dedicating rites and duties to God, Janaka and others remained established in perfection (samsiddhi) either in the form of purification of mind or rise of Knowledge. This very idea [The idea that rites and duties become the cause of Knowledge through the purification of the mind.] will be expressed by the Lord in, '(the yogis) undertake action for the purification of oneself (i.e. of the heart, or the mind)' (5.11). After having said, 'A human being achieves success by adoring Him through his own duties' [By performing one's own duty as enjoined by scriptures and dedicating their results to God, one's mind becomes purified. Then, through Gods grace one becomes fit for steadfastness in Knowledge. From that steadfatness follows Liberation. Therefore rites and duites do not directly lead to Liberation. (See Common. under 5.12) (18.46), He will again speak of the steadfastness in Knowledge of a person who has attained success, in the text, '(Understand৷৷.from Me৷৷.that process by which) one who has achieved success attains Brahman' (18.50).
So, the definite conclusion in the Gita is that Liberation is attained only from the knowledge of Reality, and not from its combination with action. And by pointing out in the relevant contexts the (aforesaid) distinction, we shall show how this conclusion stands.
That being so, Lord Vasudeva found that for Arjuna, whose mind was thus confused about what ought to be done [The ast. and A.A., have an additional word mithyajnanavatah, meaning 'who had false ignorance'.-Tr.] and who was sunk in a great ocean of sorrow, there could be no rescue other than through the knowledge of the Self. And desiring to rescue Arjuna from that, He said, '(You grieve for) those who are not to be grieved for,' etc. by way of introducing the knowledge of the Self. [In this Gita there are three distinct parts, each part consisting of six chapters. These three parts deal with the three words of the great Upanisadic saying, 'Tattvamasi, thou art That', with a view to finding out their real meanings. The first six chapters are concerned with the word tvam (thou); the following six chapters determine the meaning of the word tat (that); and the last six reveal the essential identity of tvam and tat. The disciplines necessary for realization this identity are stated in the relevant places.]


2.11 Bhisma, Drona and others are not to be grieved for, because they are of noble character and are eternal in their real nature. With regard to them, asocyan, who are not to be grieved for; tvam, you; anvasocah, grieve, (thinking) 'They die because of me; without them what shall I do with dominion and enjoyment?'; ca, and; bhasase, you speak; prajnavadan, words of wisdom, words used by men of wisdom, of intelligence. The idea is, 'Like one mad, you show in yourself this foolishness and learning which are contradictory.'
Because, panditah, the learned, the knowers of the Self panda means wisdon about the Self; those indeed who have this are panditah, one the authority of the Upanisadic text, '৷৷.the knowers of Brahman, having known all about scholarship,৷৷.' (Br. 3.5.1) ['Therefore the knowers of Brahman, having known all about scholorship, should try to live upon that strength which comes of Knowledge; having known all about this strength as well as scholorship, he becomes meditative; having known all about both meditativeness and its opposite, he becomes a knower of Brahman.'] ; na anusocanti, do not grieve for; gatasun, the departed, whose life has become extinct; agatasun ca, and for those who have not departed, whose life has not left, the living. The ideas is, 'Your are sorrowing for those who are eternal in the real sense, and who are not to be grieved for. Hence your are a fool!.'


2.12 Why are they not to be grieved for? Because they are eternal. How? Na tu eva, but certainly it is not (a fact); that jatu, at any time; aham, I ; na asam, did not exist; on the contrary, I did exist. The idea is that when the bodies were born or died in the past, I existed eternally. [Here Ast. adds ghatadisu viyadiva, like Space in pot etc.-Tr.] Similarly, na tvam, nor is it that you did not exist; but you surely existed. Ca, and so also; na ime, nor is it that these ; jana-adhipah, rulers of men, did not exist. On the other hand, they did exist. And similarly, na eva, it is surely not that; vayam, we; sarve, all; na bhavisyamah, shall cease to exist; atah param, after this, even after the destruction of this body. On the contrary, we shall exist. The meaning is that even in all the three times (past, present and future) we are eternal in our nature as the Self. The plural number (in we) is used following the diversity of the bodies, but not in the sense of the multiplicity of the Self.


2.13 As to that, to show how the Self is eternal, the Lord cites an illustration by saying,'৷৷.of the embodied,' etc. Yatha, as are, the manner in which; kaumaram, boyhood; yauvanam, youth, middle age; and jara, decrepitude, advance of age; dehinah, to an embodied being, to one who possesses a body (deha), to the Self possessing a body; asmin, in this, present; dehe, body . These three states are mutually distinct. On these, when the first state gets destroyed the Self does not get destroyed; when the second state comes into being It is not born. What then? It is seen that the Self, which verily remains unchanged, acires the second and third states. Tatha, similar, indeed; is Its, the unchanging Self's dehantarapraptih, acisition of another body, a body different from the present one. This is the meaning. Tatra, this being so; dhirah, an intelligent person; na, does not; muhyati, get deluded.


2.14 'In the case of a man who knows that the Self is eternal, although there is no possibility of delusion concerning the destruction of the Self, still delusion, as of ordinary people, caused by the experience of cold, heat, happiness and sorrow is noticed in him. Delusion arises from being deprived of happiness, and sorrow arises from contact with pain etc.' apprehending this kind of a talk from Arjuna, the Lord said, 'But the contacts of the organs,' etc.
Matra-sparsah, the contacts of the organs with objects; are sita-usna-sukha-duhkha-dah, producers of cold, heat, happiness and sorrow. Matrah means those by which are marked off (measured up) sounds etc., i.e. the organs of hearing etc. The sparsah, contacts, of the organs with sound etc. are matra-sparsah. Or, sparsah means those which are contacted, i.e. objects, viz sound etc. Matra-sparsah, the organs and objects, are the producers of cold, heat, happiness and sorrow.
Cold sometimes produces pleasure, and sometimes pain. Similarly the nature of heat, too, is unpredictable. On the other hand, happiness and sorrow have definite natures since they do not change. Hence they are mentioned separately from cold and heat. Since they, the organs, the contacts, etc., agamapayinah, have a beginning and an end, are by nature subject to origination and destruction; therefore, they are anityah, transient. Hence, titiksasva, bear; tan, them cold, heart, etc., i.e. do not be happy or sorry with regard to them.


2.15 What will happen to one who bears cold and heat? Listen: Verily, the person৷৷.,'etc.
(O Arjuna) hi, verily; yam purusam, the person whom; ete, these, cold and heat mentioned above; na, do not; vyathayanti, torment, do not perturb; dhiram, the wise man; sama-duhkha-sukham, to whom sorrow and happiness are the same, who is free from happiness and sorrow when subjected to pleasure and pain, because of his realization of the enternal Self; sah, he, who is established in the realization of the enternal Self, who forbears the opposites; kalpate, becomes fit; amrtattvaya, for Immortality, for the state of Immortality, i.e. for Liberation.


2.16 Since 'the unreal has no being,' etc., for this reason also it is proper to bear cold, heat, etc. without becoming sorrowful or deluded. Asatah, of the unreal, of cold, heat, etc. together with their causes; na vidyate, there is no; bhavah, being, existence, reality; because heat, cold, etc. together with their causes are not substantially real when tested by means of proof. For they are changeful, and whatever is changeful is inconstant. As configurations like pot etc. are unreal since they are not perceived to be different from earth when tested by the eyes, so also are all changeful things unreal because they are not perceived to be different from their (material) causes, and also because they are not perceived before (their) origination and after destruction.
Objection: If it be that [Here Ast. has the additional words 'karyasya ghatadeh, the effect, viz pot etc. (and)'.-Tr.] such (material) causes as earth etc. as also their causes are unreal since they are not perceived differently from their causes, in that case, may it not be urged that owing to the nonexistence of those (causes) there will arise the contingency of everything becoming unreal [An entity cannot be said to be unreal merely because it is non-different from its cause. Were it to be asserted as being unreal, then the cause also should be unreal, because there is no entity which is not subject to the law of cuase and effect.]?
Vedantin: No, for in all cases there is the experience of two awarenesses, viz the awareness of reality, and the awareness of unreality. [In all cases of perception two awarenesses are involved: one is invariable, and the other is variable. Since the variable is imagined on the invariable, therefore it is proved that there is something which is the substratum of all imagination, and which is neither a cause nor an effect.] That in relation to which the awareness does not change is real; that in relation to which it changes is unreal. Thus, since the distinction between the real and the unreal is dependent on awareness, therefore in all cases (of empirical experiences) everyone has two kinds of awarenesses with regard to the same substratum: (As for instance, the experiences) 'The pot is real', 'The cloth is real', 'The elephant is real' (which experiences) are not like (that of) 'A blue lotus'. [In the empirical experience, 'A blue lotus', there are two awarenesses concerned with two entities, viz the substance (lotus) and the ality (blueness). In the case of the experience, 'The pot is real', etc. the awarenesses are not concerned with substratum and alities, but the awareness of pot,of cloth, etc. are superimposed on the awareness of 'reality', like that of 'water' in a mirage.] This is how it happens everywhere. [The coexistence of 'reality' and 'pot' etc. are valid only empirically according to the non-dualists; whereas the coexistence of 'blueness' and 'lotus' is real according to the dualists.]
Of these two awareness, the awareness of pot etc. is inconstant; and thus has it been shown above. But the awareness of reality is not (inconstant). Therefore the object of the awareness of pot etc. is unreal because of inconstancy; but not so the object of the awareness of reality, because of its constancy.
Objection: If it be argued that, since the awareness of pot also changes when the pot is destroyed, therefore the awareness of the pot's reality is also changeful?
Vedantin: No, because in cloth etc. the awareness of reality is seen to persist. That awareness relates to the odjective (and not to the noun 'pot'). For this reason also it is not destroyed. [This last sentence has been cited in the f.n. of A.A.-Tr.]
Objection: If it be argued that like the awareness of reality, the awareness of a pot also persists in other pots?
Vedantin: No, because that (awareness of pot) is not present in (the awareness of) a cloth etc.
Objection: May it not be that even the awareness of reality is not present in relation to a pot that has been destroyed?
Vedantin: No, because the noun is absent (there). Since the awareness of reality corresponds to the adjective (i.e. it is used adjectivelly), therefore, when the noun is missing there is no possibility of its (that awareness) being an adjective. So, to what should it relate? But, again, the awareness of reality (does not cease) with the absence of an object৷৷ [Even when a pot is absent and the awareness of reality does not arise with regare to it, the awareness of reality persists in the region where the pot had existed.
Some read nanu in place of na tu ('But, again'). In that case, the first portion (No,৷৷.since৷৷.adjective. So,৷৷.relate?) is a statement of the Vedantin, and the Objection starts from nanu punah sadbuddheh, etc. so, the next Objection will run thus: 'May it not be said that, when nouns like pot etc. are absent, the awareness of existence has no noun to alify, and therefore it becomes impossible for it (the awareness of existence) to exist in the same substratum?'-Tr.]
Objection: May it not be said that, when nouns like pot etc. are absent, (the awareness of existence has no noun to alify and therefore) it becomes impossible for it to exist in the same substratum? [The relationship of an adjective and a noun is seen between two real entities. Therefore, if the relationship between 'pot' and 'reality' be the same as between a noun and an adjective, then both of them will be real entities. So, the coexistence of reality with a non-pot does not stand to reason.]
Vedantin: No, because in such experiences as, 'This water exists', (which arises on seeing a mirage etc.) it is observed that there is a coexistence of two objects though one of them is non-existent.
Therefore, asatah, of the unreal, viz body etc. and the dualities (heat, cold, etc.), together with their causes; na vidyate, there is no; bhavah, being. And similarly, satah, of the real, of the Self; na vidyate, there is no; abhavah, nonexistence, because It is constant everywhere. This is what we have said.
Tu, but; antah, the nature, the conclusion (regarding the nature of the real and the unreal) that the Real is verily real, and the unreal is verily unreal; ubhayoh api, of both these indeed, of the Self and the non-Self, of the Real and the unreal, as explained above; drstah, has been realized thus; tattva-darsibhih, by the seers of Truth. Tat is a pronoun (Sarvanama, lit. name of all) which can be used with regard to all. And all is Brahman. And Its name is tat. The abstraction of tat is tattva, the true nature of Brahman. Those who are apt to realize this are tattva-darsinah, seers of Truth.
Therefore, you too, by adopting the vision of the men of realization and giving up sorrow and delusion, forbear the dualities, heat, cold, etc. some of which are definite in their nature, and others inconstant , mentally being convinced that this (phenomenal world) is changeful, verily unreal and appears falsely like water in a mirage. This is the idea.
What, again, is that reality which remains verily as the Real and surely for ever? This is being answered in, 'But know That', etc.


2.17 Tu, but this word is used for distinguishing (reality) from unreality; tat viddhi, know That; to be avinasi, indestructible, by nature not subject to destruction; what? (that) yena, by which, by which Brahman called Reality; sarvam, all; idam, this, the Universe together with space; is tatam, pervaded, as pot etc. are pervaded by space. Na kascit, none; arhati, can; kartum, bring about; vinasam, the destruction, disappearance, nonexistence; asya, of this avyayasya, of the Immutable, that which does not undergo growth and depletion. By Its very nature this Brahman called Reality does not suffer mutation, because, unlike bodies etc., It has no limbs; nor (does It suffer mutation) by (loss of something) belonging to It, because It has nothing that is Its own. Brahman surely does not suffer loss like Devadatta suffering from loss of wealth. Therefore no one can bring about the destruction of this immutable Brahman. No one, not even God Himself, can destroy his own Self, because the Self is Brahman. Besides, action with regard to one's Self is self-contradictory.
Which, again, is that 'unreal' that is said to change its own nature? This is being answered:


2.18 Ime, these; antavantah, destructible; dehah, bodies as the idea of reality which continues with regard to water in a mirage, etc. gets eliminated when examined with the means of knowledge, and that is its end, so are these bodies and they have an end like bodies etc. in dream and magic ; uktah, are said, by discriminating people; to belong nityasya, to the everlasting; anasinah, the indestructible; aprameyasya, the indeterminable; sarirnah, embodied One, the Self. This is the meaning.
The two words 'everlasting' and 'indestructible' are not repetitive, because in common usage everlastingness and destructibility are of two kinds. As for instance, a body which is reduced to ashes and has disappeared is said to have been destoryed. (And) even while existing, when it becomes transfigured by being afflicted with diseases etc. it is said to be 'destroyed'. [Here the A.A. adds 'tatha dhana-nase-apyevam, similar is the case even with regard to loss of wealth.'-Tr.] That being so, by the two words 'everlasting' and 'indestructible' it is meant that It is not subject to both kinds of distruction. Otherwise, the everlastingness of the Self would be like that of the earth etc. Therefore, in order that this contingency may not arise, it is said, 'Of the everlasting, indestructible'.
Aprameyasya, of the indeterminable, means 'of that which cannot be determined by such means of knowledge as direct perception etc.'
Objection: Is it not that the Self is determined by the scriptures, and before that through direct perception etc.?
Vedantin: No, because the Self is self-evident. For, (only) when the Self stands predetermined as the knower, there is a search for a means of knolwedge by the knower. Indeed, it is not that without first determining oneself as, 'I am such', one takes up the task of determining an object of knowledge. For what is called the 'self' does not remain unknown to anyone. But the scripture is the final authority [when the Vedic text establishes Brahman as the innermost Self, all the distinctions such as knower, known and the means of knowledge become sublated. Thus it is reasonable that the Vedic text should be the final authority. Besides, its authority is derived from its being faultless in as much as it has not originated from any human being.]: By way of merely negating superimposition of alities that do not belong to the Self, it attains authoritativeness with regard to the Self, but not by virtue of making some unknown thing known. There is an Upanisadic text in support of this: '৷৷.the Brahman that is immediate and direct, the Self that is within all' (Br. 3.4.1).
Since the Self is thus eternal and unchanging, tasmat, therefore; yudhyasva, you join the battle, i.e. do not desist from the war. Here there is no injunction to take up war as a duty, because be (Arjuna), though he was determined for war, remains silent as a result of being overpowered by sorrow and delusion. Therefore, all that is being done by the Lord is the removal of the obstruction to his duty. 'Therefore, join the battle' is only an approval, not an injunction.
The scripture Gita is intended for eradicating sorrow, delusion, etc. which are the cases of the cycle of births and deaths; it is not intended to enjoin action. As evidences of this idea the Lord cites two Vedic verses: [Ka. 1.2.19-20. There are slight verbal differences.-Tr.]


2.19 But the ideas that you have, 'Bhisma and others are neing killed by me in war; I am surely their killer' this idea of yours is false. How? Yah, he who; vetti, thinks; of enam, this One, the embodied One under consideration; as hantaram, the killer, the agent of the act of killing; ca, and; yah, he who, the other who; manyate, thinks; of enam, this One; as hatam, the killed (who thinks) 'When the body is killed, I am myself killed; I become the object of the act of killing'; ubhau tau, both of them; owing to non-discrimination, na, do not; vijanitah, know the Self which is the subject of the consciousness of 'I'. The meaning is: On the killing of the body, he who thinks of the Self ( the content of the consciousness of 'I' ) [The Ast. omits this phrase from the precedig sentence and includes it in this place. The A.A. has this phrase in both the places.-Tr.] as 'I am the killer', and he who thinks, 'I have been killed', both of them are ignorant of the nature of the Self. For, ayam, this Self; owing to Its changelessness, na hanti, does not kill, does not become the agent of the act of killing; na hanyate, nor is It killed, i.e. It does not become the object (of the act of killing).
The second verse is to show how the Self is changeless:


2.20 Na kadacit, neverl; is ayam, this One; jayate, born i.e. the Self has no change in the form of being born to which matter is subject ; va, and ( va is used in the sense of and); na mriyate, It never dies. By this is denied the final change in the form of destruction. The word (na) kadacit), never, is connected with the denial of all kinds of changes thus never, is It born never does It die, and so on. Since ayam, this Self; bhutva, having come to exist, having experienced the process of origination; na, will not; bhuyah, again; abhavita, cease to be thereafter, therefore It does not die. For, in common parlance, that which ceases to exist after coming into being is said to die. From the use of the word va, nor, and na, it is understood that, unlike the body, this Self does not again come into existence after having been non-existent. Therefore It is not born. For, the words, 'It is born', are used with regard to something which comes into existence after having been non-existent. The Self is not like this. Therfore It is not born.
Since this is so, therefore It is ajah, birthless; and since It does not die, therefore It is nityah, eternal. Although all changes become negated by the denial of the first and the last kinds of changes, still changes occuring in the middle [For the six kinds of changes see note under verse 2.10.-Tr.] should be denied with their own respective terms by which they are implied. Therefore the text says sasvatah, undecaying,. so that all the changes, viz youth etc., which have not been mentioned may become negated. The change in the form of decay is denied by the word sasvata, that which lasts for ever. In Its own nature It does not decay because It is free from parts. And again, since it is without alities, there is no degeneration owing to the decay of any ality. Change in the form of growth, which is opposed to decay, is also denied by the word puranah, ancient. A thing that grows by the addition of some parts is said to increase and is also said to be new. But this Self was fresh even in the past due to Its partlessness. Thus It is puranah, i.e. It does not grow. So also, na hanyate, It is puranah, i.e. It does not grow. So also, na hanyate, It is not killed, It does not get transformed; even when sarire, the body; hanyamane, is killed, transformed. The verb 'to kill' has to be understood here in the sense of transformation, so that a tautology [This verse has already mentioned 'death' in the first line. If the verb han, to kill, is also taken in the sense of killing, then a tautology is unavoidable.-Tr.] may be avoided.
In this mantra the six kinds of transformations, the material changes seen in the world, are denied in the Self. The meaning of the sentence is that the Self is devoid of all kinds of changes. Since this is so, therefore 'both of them do not know' this is how the present mantra is connected to the earlier mantra.


2.21 In the mantra, 'He who thinks of this One as the killer,' having declared that (the Self) does not become the agent or the object of the actof killing, and then in the mantra, 'Never is this One born,' etc., having stated the reasons for (Its) changelessness, the Lord sums up the purport of what was declared above: He who knows this One as indestructible, etc.
Yah, he who; veda, knows yah is to be thus connected with Veda ; enam, this One, possessing the characteristics stated in the earlier mantra; as avinasinam, indestructible, devoid of the final change of state; nityam, eternal, devoid of transformation; ajam, birthless; and avyayam, undecaying; katham, how, in what way; (and kam, whom;) does sah, that man of realization; purusah, the person who is himself an authority [i.e. above all injunctions and prohibitions. See 18.16.17.-Tr.]; hanti, kill, undertake the act of killing; or how ghatayati, does he cause (others) to be killed, (how does he) instigate a killer! The intention is to deny both (the acts) by saying, 'In no way does he kill any one, nor does he cause anyone to be killed', because an interrogative sense is absurd (here). Since the implication of the reason [The reason for the denial of killing etc. is the changelessness of the Self, and this reason holds good with regard to all actions of the man of realization.-Tr.], viz the immutability of the Self, [The A.A. omits 'viz the immutability of the Self'.-Tr.] is common (with regard to all actions), therefore the negation of all kinds of actions in the case of a man of realization is what the Lord conveys as the only purport of this context. But the denial of (the act of) killing has been cited by way of an example.
Objection: By noticing what special reason for the impossibility of actions in the case of the man of realization does the Lord deny all actions (in his case) by saying, 'How can that person,' etc.?
Vedantin: Has not the immutability of the Self been already stated as the reason [Some readings omit this word.-Tr.] , the specific ground for the impossibility of all actions?
Objection: It is true that it has been stated; but that is not a specific ground, for the man of realization is different from the immutable Self. Indeed, may it not be argued that action does not become impossible for one who has known as unchanging stump of a tree?!
Vedantin: No, because of man of Knowledge is one with the Self. Enlightenment does not belong to the aggregate of body and senses. Therefore, as the last laternative, the knower is the Immutable and is the Self which is not a part of the aggregate. Thus, action being impossible for that man of Knowledge, the denial in, 'How can that person৷৷.,' etc. is reasonable. As on account of the lack of knowledge of the distinction between the Self and the modifications of the intellect, the Self, though verily immutable, is imagined through ignorance to be the perceiver of objects like sound etc. presented by the intellect etc., in this very way, the Self, which in reality is immutable, is said to be the 'knower' because of Its association with the knowledge of the distinction between the Self and non-Self, which (knowledge) is a modification of the intellect [By buddhi-vrtti, modification of the intellect, is meant the transformation of the internal organ into the form of an extension upto an object, along with its past impressions, the senses concerned, etc., like the extension of the light of a lamp illuminating an object. Consciousness reflected on this transformation and remaining indistinguishable from that transformation revealing the object, is called objective knowledge. Thery, due to ignorance, the Self is imagined to be the perceiver because of Its connection with the vrtti, modification. (-A.G.)
The process is elsewhere described as follows:
The vrtti goes out through the sense-organ concerned, like the flash of a torchlight, and along with it goes the reflection of Consciousness. Both of them envelop the object, a pot for instance. The vrtti destroys the ignorance about the pot; and the reflection of Consciousness, becoming unified with only that portion of it which has been delimited by the pot, reveals the pot.
In the case of knowledge of Brahman, it is admitted that the vrtti in the form, 'I am Brahman', does reach Brahman and destroys ignorance about Brahman, but it is not admitted that Brahman is revealed like a 'pot', for Brahman is self-effulgent.-Tr.] and is unreal by nature. From the statement that action is impossible for man of realization it is understood that the conclusion of the Lord is that, actions enjoined by the scriptures are prescribed for the unenlightened.
Objection: Is not elightenment too enjoined for the ignorant? For, the injunction about enlightenment to one who has already achieved realization is useless, like grinding something that has already been ground! This being so, the distinction that rites and duties are enjoined for the unenlightened, and not for the enlightened one, does not stand to reason.
Vedantin: No. There can reasonable be a distinction between the existence or nonexistence of a thing to be performed. As after the knowledge of the meaning of the injunction for rites like Agnihotra etc. their performance becomes bligatory on the unenlightened one who thinks, 'Agnihotra etc. has to be performed by collecting various accessories; I am the agent, and this is my duty', unlike this, nothing remains later on to be performed as a duty after knowing the meaning of the injunction about the nature of the Self from such texts as, 'Never is this One born,' etc. But apart from the rise of knowledge regarding the unity of the Self, his non-agency, etc., in the form, 'I am not the agent, I am not the enjoyer', etc., no other idea arises. Thus, this distinction can be maintained.
Again, for anyone who knows himself as, 'I am the agent', there will necessarily arise the idea, 'This is my duty.' In relation to that he becomes eligible. In this way duties are (enjoined) [Ast. adds 'sambhavanti, become possible'.-Tr.] for him. And according to the text, 'both of them do not know' (19), he is an unenlightened man. And the text, 'How can that person,' etc. concerns the enlightened person distinguished above, becuase of the negation of action (in this text).
Therefore, the enlightened person distinguished above, who has realized the immutable Self, and the seeker of Liberation are alified only for renunciation of all rites and duties. Therefore, indeed, the Lord Narayana, making a distinction between the enlightened man of Knowledge and the unenlightened man of rites and duties, makes them take up the two kinds of adherences in the text, 'through the Yoga of Knowledge for the men of realization; through the Yoga of Action for the yogis' (3.3).
Similarly also, Vyasa said to his son, 'Now, there are these two paths,' etc. ['Now, there are these two paths on which the Vedas are based. They are thought of as the dharma characterized by engagement in duties, and that by renunciation of them' (Mbh. Sa. 241.6).-Tr.] So also (there is a Vedic text meaning): 'The path of rites and duties, indeed, is the earlier, and renunciation comes after that.' [Ast. says that this is not a otation, but only gives the purport of Tai, Ar. 10.62.12.-Tr.] The Lord will show again and again this very division: 'The unenlightened man who is deluded by egoism thinks thus: "I am the doer"; but the one who is a knower of the facts (about the varieties of the gunas) thinks, "I do not act"' (cf. 3.27,28). So also there is the text, '(The embodied man of selfcontrol,) having given up all actions mentally, continues (happily in the town of nine gates)' (5.13) etc.
With regard to this some wiseacres say: In no person does arise the idea, 'I am the changeless, actionless Self, which is One and devoid of the six kinds of changes beginning with birth to which all things are subject', on the occurrence of which (idea alone) can renunciation of all actions be enjoined. That is not correct, because it will lead to the needlessness of such scriptural instructions as, 'Never is this One born,' etc. (20). They should be asked: As on the authority of scripural instructions there arises the knowledge of the existence of virtue and vice and the knowledge regarding an agent who gets associated with successive bodies, similarly, why should not there arise from the scriptures the knowledge of unchangeability, non-agentship, oneness, etc. of that very Self?
Objection: If it be said that this is due to Its being beyond the scope of any means (of knowledge)?
Vedantin: No, because the Sruti says, 'It is to be realized through the mind alone, (following the instruction of the teacher)' (Br. 4.4.19). The mind that is purified by the instructions of the scriptures and the teacher, control of the body and organs, etc. becomes the instrument for realizing the Self. Again, since there exist inference and scriptures for Its realization, it is mere bravado to say that Knowledge does not arise. And it has to be granted that when knowledge arises, it surely eliminates ignorance, its opposite. And that ignorance has been shown in, 'I am the killer', 'I am killed', and 'both of them do not know' (see 2.19). And here also it is shown that the idea of the Self being an agent, the object of an action, or an indirect agent, is the result of ignorance. Also, the Self being changeless, the fact that such agentship etc. are cuased by ignorance is a common factor in all actions without exception, because only that agent who is subject to change instigates someone else who is different from himself and can be acted on, saying, 'Do this.'
Thus, with a view to pointing out the absence of fitness for rites and duties in the case of an enlightened person, the Lord [Ast, adds vasudeva after 'Lord'.-Tr.] says, 'He who knows this One as indestructible,' 'how can that person,' etc. thery denying this direct and indirect agentship of an enlightened person in respect of all actions without exception. As regards the estion, 'For what, again, is the man of enlightenment alified?', the answer has already been give earlier in, 'through the Yoga of Knowledge for the men of realization' (3.3). Similarly, the Lord will also speak of renunication of all actions in, 'having given up all actions mentally,' etc.(5.13).
Objection: May it not be argued that from the expression, 'mentally', (it follows that) oral and bodily actions are not to be renounced?
Vedantin: No, because of the categoric expression, 'all actions'.
Objection: May it not be argued that 'all actions' relates only to those of the mind?
Vedantin: No, because all oral and bodily actions are preceded by those of the mind, for those actions are impossible in the absence of mental activity.
Objection: May it not be said that one has to mentally renounce all other activities except the mental functions which are the causes of scriptural rites and duties performed through speech and body?
Vedantin: No, because it has been specifically expressed: 'without doing or causing (others) to do anything at all' (5.13).
Objection: May it not be that this renunciation of all actions, as stated by the Lord, is with regard to a dying man, not one living?
Vedantin: No, because (in that case) the specific statement, 'The embodied man৷৷.continues happily in the town of nine gates' (ibid.) will become illogical since it is not possible for a dead person, who neither acts nor makes others act, [The words 'akurvatah akarayatah, (of him) who neither acts nor makes others act', have been taken as a part of the Commentator's arguement. But A.G. points out that they can also form a part of the next Objection. In that, case, the translation of the Objection will be this: Can it not be that the construction of the sentence (under discussion) is Neither doing nor making others do, he rest by depositing (sannyasya, by renouncing) in the body', but not 'he rests in the body by renouncing৷৷.'?] to rest in that body after renouncing all actions.
Objection: Can it not be that the construction of the sentence (under discussion) is, '(he rests) by depositing (sannyasya, by renouncing) in the body', (but) not 'he rests in the body by renouncing৷৷.'?
Vedantin: No, because everywhere it is categorically asserted that the Self is changeless. Besides, the action of 'resting' reires a location, whereas renunciation is independent of this. The word nyasa preceded by sam here means 'renunciation', not 'depositing'. Therefore, according to this Scripture, viz the Gita, the man of realization is eligible for renunciation, alone, not for rites and duties. This we shall show in the relevant texts later on in the cotext of the knowledge of the Self.
And now we shall speak of the matter on hand: As to that, the indestructibility [Indestructibility suggests unchangeability as well.] of the Self, has been postulated. What is it like? That is being said in, 'As after rejecting wornout clothes,' etc.


2.22 Yatha, as in the world; vihaya, after rejecting jirnani, wornout; vasamsi, clothes; narah, a man grhnati, takes up; aparani, other; navani, new ones; tatha, likewise, in that very manner; vihaya, after rejecting; jirnani, wornout; sarirani, bodies; dehi, the embodied one, the Self which is surely unchanging like the man (in the example); samyati, unites with; anyani, other; navani, new ones. This is meaning.


2.23 Why does It verily remain unchanged? This is being answered in, 'Weapons do not cut It,' etc. Sastrani, weapons; na, do not; chindanti, cut; enam, It, the embodied one under discussion. It being partless, weapons like sword etc. do not cut off Its limbs. So also, even pavakah, fire; na dahati enam, does not burn, does not reduce It to ashes. Ca, and similarly; apah, water; na enam kledayanti, does not moisten It. For water has the power of disintegrating a substance that has parts, by the process of moistening it. That is not possible in the case of the partless Self. Similarly, air destroys an oil substance by drying up the oil. Even marutah, air; na sosayati, does not dry; (enam, It,) one's own Self. [Ast. reads 'enam tu atmanam, but this Self', in place of enam svatmanam.-Tr.]