13.12

।।13.13।। --,ज्ञेयं ज्ञातव्यं यत् तत् प्रवक्ष्यामि प्रकर्षेण यथावत् वक्ष्यामि। किं फलं तत् इति प्ररोचनेन श्रोतुः अभिमुखीकरणाय आह -- यत् ज्ञेयं ज्ञात्वा अमृतम् अमृतत्वम् अश्नुते? न पुनः म्रियते इत्यर्थः। अनादिमत् आदिः अस्य अस्तीति आदिमत्? न आदिमत् अनादिमत् किं तत् परं निरतिशयं ब्रह्म? ज्ञेयम् इति प्रकृतम्।।अत्र केचित् अनादि मत्परम् इति पदं छिन्दन्ति? बहुव्रीहिणा उक्ते अर्थे मतुपः आनर्थक्यम् अनिष्टं स्यात् इति। अर्थविशेषं च दर्शयन्ति -- अहं वासुदेवाख्या परा शक्ितः यस्य तत् मत्परम् इति। सत्यमेवमपुनरुक्तं स्यात्? अर्थः चेत् संभवति। न तु अर्थः संभवति? ब्रह्मणः सर्वविशेषप्रतिषेधेनैव विजिज्ञापयिषितत्वात् न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते इति। विशिष्टशक्ितमत्त्वप्रदर्शनं विशेषप्रतिषेधश्च इति विप्रतिषिद्धम्। तस्मात् मतुपः बहुव्रीहिणा समानार्थत्वेऽपि प्रयोगः श्लोकपूरणार्थः।।अमृतत्वफलं ज्ञेयं मया उच्यते इति प्ररोचनेन अभिमुखीकृत्य आह -- न सत् तत् ज्ञेयमुच्यते इति न अपि असत् तत् उच्यते।।ननु महता परिकरबन्धेन कण्ठरवेण उद्धुष्य ज्ञेयं प्रवक्ष्यामि इति? अननुरूपमुक्तं न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते इति। न? अनुरूपमेव उक्तम्। कथम् सर्वासु हि उपनिषत्सु ज्ञेयं ब्रह्म नेति नेति (बृह0 उ0 4।4।22) अस्थूलमनणु (बृह0 उ0 3।3।8) इत्यादिविशेषप्रतिषेधेनैव निर्दिश्यते? न इदं तत् इति? वाचः अगोचरत्वात्।।ननु न तदस्ति? यद्वस्तु अस्तिशब्देन नोच्यते। अथ अस्तिशब्देन नोच्यते? नास्ति तत् ज्ञेयम्। विप्रतिषिद्धं च -- ज्ञेयं तत् ? अस्तिशब्देन नोच्यते इति च। न तावन्नास्ति? नास्तिबुद्ध्यविषयत्वात्।।ननु सर्वाः बुद्धयः अस्तिनास्तिबुद्ध्यनुगताः एव। तत्र एवं सति ज्ञेयमपि अस्तिबुद्ध्यनुगतप्रत्ययविषयं वा स्यात्? नास्तिबुद्ध्यनुगतप्रत्ययविषयं वा स्यात्। न? अतीन्द्रियत्वेन उभयबुद्ध्यनुगतप्रत्ययाविषयत्वात्। यद्धि इन्द्रियगम्यं वस्तु घटादिकम्? तत् अस्तिबुद्ध्यनुगतप्रत्ययविषयं वा स्यात्? नास्तिबुद्ध्यनुगतप्रत्ययविषयं वा स्यात्। इदं तु ज्ञेयम् अतीन्द्रियत्वेन शब्दैकप्रमाणगम्यत्वात् न घटादिवत् उभयबुद्ध्यनुगतप्रत्ययविषयम् इत्यतः न सत्तन्नासत् इति उच्यते।।यत्तु उक्तम् -- विरुद्धमुच्यते? ज्ञेयं तत् न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते इति -- न विरुद्धम्? अन्यदेव तद्विदितादथो अविदितादधि (के0 उ0 1।3) इति श्रुतेः। श्रुतिरपि विरुद्धार्था इति चेत् -- यथा यज्ञाय शालामारभ्य यद्यमुष्िमँल्लोकेऽस्ति वा न वेति (तै0 सं0 6।1।1) इत्येवमिति चेत्? न विदिताविदिताभ्यामन्यत्वश्रुतेः अवश्यविज्ञेयार्थप्रतिपादनपरत्वात् यद्यमुष्मिन् इत्यादि तु विधिशेषः अर्थवादः। उपपत्तेश्च सदसदादिशब्दैः ब्रह्म नोच्यते इति। सर्वो हि शब्दः अर्थप्रकाशनाय प्रयुक्तः? श्रूयमाणश्च श्रोतृभिः? जातिक्रियागुणसंबन्धद्वारेण संकेतग्रहणसव्यपेक्षः अर्थं प्रत्याययति न अन्यथा? अदृष्टत्वात्। तत् यथा -- गौः अश्वः इति वा जातितः? पचति पठति इति वा क्रियातः? शुक्लः कृष्णः इति वा गुणतः? धनी गोमान् इति वा संबन्धतः। न तु ब्रह्म जातिमत्? अतः न सदादिशब्दवाच्यम्। नापि गुणवत्? येन गुणशब्देन उच्येत? निर्गुणत्वात्। नापि क्रियाशब्दवाच्यं निष्क्रियत्वात् निष्कलं निष्क्रियं शान्तम् (श्वे0 उ0 6।19) इति श्रुतेः। न च संबन्धी? एकत्वात्। अद्वयत्वात् अविषयत्वात् आत्मत्वाच्च न केनचित् शब्देन उच्यते इति युक्तम् यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते (तै0 उ0 2।4।9) इत्यादिश्रुतिभिश्च।।सच्छब्दप्रत्ययाविषयत्वात् असत्त्वाशङ्कायां ज्ञेयस्य सर्वप्राणिकरणोपाधिद्वारेण तदस्तित्वं प्रतिपादयन् तदाशङ्कानिवृत्त्यर्थमाह --,

Alignment

machine-validated; human review pending

Checksum

0acacc1bfa02…

13.13 I shall declare that nature of the individual self (brahman) which is the object to be known, namely, what is to be gained by means of virtues like modesty etc., by knowing which one attains to the self which is immortal, birthless, free from old age, death and such other material alities. [The expression is split up as - Anadi = beginningless; Mat-param = having Me as the Highest.] Anadi means that which is beginningless. Indeed, there is no origination for this individual self (brahman) and for the same reason, It is endless. The Sruti also declares: 'The wise one is not born, nor dies' (Ka. U., 2.18). 'Matpara' means having Me for the Highest. Verily, it has been told: 'Know that which is other than this (lower nature), which is the life-principle, to be the highest Prakrti of Mine' (7.5). By virtue of being the body of the Lord, the nature of the self finds joy in being completely subsidiary to Him. So the Sruti declares: 'He who, dwelling in the self, is within the self, whom the self does not know, whose body the self is and who controls the self from within ৷৷.' (Br. U. Madh., 5.7.22). Similarly do the texts declare: 'He is the cause, Lord of Lords and of sense organs. He has no progenitor, nor lord' (Sve. U., 6.9); and 'He is the Lord of the Pradhana and of the individual selves, and the Lord of alities (Ibid., 6.16). That which is conjoined with the ality of infinite dimension or extensiveness can be designated as brahman. It is different from, and not circumscribable by, the body etc. The meaning is, It is the principle which apprehends the Ksetra. Sruti also declares: 'He (i.e., the individual self) partakes of infinity' (Sve. U., 5.9). By its Karma It is circumscribed. It assumes Its infinite nature only when It is freed from the bonds of Karma. The term brahman is applied to designate the individual self as in: 'He, crossing beyond the Gunas', becomes fit for the sake of brahman' (14.26), 'I am the ground of the brahman, who is immutable and immortal' (14.27), and 'Having attained to the state of brahman, tranil, he neither grieves nor craves; regarding all beings alike, he attains supreme devotion to Me' (18.54). It (brahman) is said to be neither being nor non-being. The terms 'being' and 'non-being' cannot signify the nature of the self because It is neither effect nor cause. For It is called 'being' (Sat) in the condition of effect when It has the form of gods etc. As It cannot possess names and forms in the condition of cause, It is said to be 'non-being' or Asat. So the Sruti texts declare: 'In the beginning, verily, this (brahman) was non-existence; therefrom the being was born' (Tai. U., 2.7.1) and 'Verily, this (brahman) was then undifferntiated. It became differentiated by names and forms' (Br. U., 1.4.7). The self's conditions as effect and cause have arisen on account of veiling by Avidya or ignorant in the form of Karma. It is not an expression of Its real nature. So, the terms 'being' and 'non-being' do not signify the nature of the self, If it is argued that, in the passage 'In the beginning, verily, this (Brahman) was non-existence' (Tai. U., 2.7.1), it is the Supreme Brahman in the state of cause that is described - even then it can be pointed out that the Supreme Brahman in causal condition has, for His body, the conscient and non-conscient entities in a subtle state, incapable of being differentiated by names and forms. Such a description is therefore valid. On the same principle the nature of Ksetra (body) and Ksetrajna (individual self) in the state of cause can also be indicated by the term 'non-being'. But this condition of the individual self has arisen due to Karma and such descriptions as 'being' and 'non-being' are applicable to the self only in the state of bondage. Its pure form cannot be signified by the terms 'being' and 'non-being'.

Alignment

machine-validated; human review pending

Checksum

e13ae7be501e…

13.13 ज्ञेयम् has to be known? यत् which? तत् that? प्रवक्ष्यामि (I) will declare? यत् which? ज्ञात्वा knowing? अमृतम् immortality? अश्नुते (one) attains to? अनादिमत् the beginningless? परम् supreme? ब्रह्म Brahman? न not? सत् being? तत् that? न not? असत् nonbeing? उच्यते is called.Commentary The Lord praises that which ought to be known (Para Brahman) in order to create in Arjuna (or any hearer) an intense desire to know It.Brahman cannot be expressed in words like being or nonbeing? because Brahman does not belong to any class or genus like a Brahmana? cow or horse. It has no ality like whiteness? blackness? etc. It has no relation or connection with anything else? because It is one without a second. It is no object of any sense. It is beyond the reach of the mind and the senses. It is actionless. It is the great transcendental and unmanifested Absolute. It is always the witnessing subject in all objects.The Vedas emphatically declare that Brahman is without attributes? activity? attachment or parts.In chapter IX. 19 it was stated that He is the being and also the nonbeing. It is now stated that He is neither being nor nonbeing. This would seem to the readers to be a contradiction in terms but it is not so. Though the manifest (perishable) and the unmanifest (imperishable) universe are both forms of Brahman? He is beyond both these. (Cf.VII.2XV.16?17and18)

Alignment

machine-validated; human review pending

Checksum

9305f863b666…