Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 12 - Shloka (Verse) 3

व्याख्या--'तु'--यहाँ 'तु' पद साकार-उपासकोंसे निराकार-उपासकोंकी भिन्नता दिखानेके लिये आया है। 'संनियम्येन्द्रियग्रामम्'--'सम्' और 'नि'-- दो उपसर्गोंसे युक्त 'संनियम्य' पद देकर भगवान्ने यह बताया है कि सभी इन्द्रियोंको सम्यक् प्रकारसे एवं पूर्णतः वशमें करे, जिससे वे किसी अन्य विषयमें न जायँ। इन्द्रियाँ अच्छी प्रकारसे पूर्णतः वशमें न होनेपर निर्गुण-तत्त्वकी उपासनामें कठिनता होती है। सगुण-उपासनामें तो ध्यानका विषय सगुण भगवान् होनेसे इन्द्रियाँ भगवान्में लग सकती हैं; क्योंकि भगवान्के सगुण स्वरूपमें इन्द्रियोंको अपने विषय प्राप्त हो जाते हैं। अतः सगुण-उपासनामें इन्द्रिय-संयमकी आवश्यकता होते हुए भी इसकी उतनी अधिक आवश्यकता नहीं है, जितनी निर्गुण-उपासनामें है। निर्गुण-उपासनामें चिन्तनका कोई आधार न रहनेसे इन्द्रियोंका सम्यक् संयम हुए बिना (आसक्ति रहनेपर) विषयोंमें मन जा सकता है और विषयोंका चिन्तन होनेसे पतन होनेकी अधिक सम्भावना रहती है (गीता 2। 62 -- 63)। अतः निर्गुणोपासकके लिये सभी इन्द्रियोंको विषयोंसे हटाते हुए सम्यक् प्रकारसे पूर्णतः वशमें करना आवश्यक है। इन्द्रियोंको केवल बाहरसे ही वशमें नहीं करना है? प्रत्युत विषयोंके प्रति साधकके अन्तःकरणमें भी राग नहीं रहना चाहिये; क्योंकि जबतक विषयोंमें राग है, तबतक ब्रह्मकी प्राप्ति कठिन है (गीता 15। 11)।

तो क्या दूसरे युक्ततम नहीं हैं यह बात नहीं? किंतु उनके विषयमें जो कुछ कहना है सो सुन --, परंतु जो पुरुष उस अक्षरकीजो कि अव्यक्त होनेके कारण शब्दका विषय न होनेसे किसी प्रकार भी बतलाया नहीं जा सकता इसलिये अनिर्देश्य है और किसी भी प्रमाणसे प्रत्यक्ष नहीं किया जा सकता इसलिये अव्यक्त है -- सब प्रकारसे उपासना करते हैं। उपास्य वस्तुको शास्त्रोक्त विधिसे बुद्धिका विषय बनाकर उसके समीप पहुँचकर तैलधाराके तुल्य समान वृत्तियोंके प्रवाहसे जो दीर्घकालतक उसमें स्थित रहना है? उसको उपासना कहते हैं -- उस अक्षरके विशेषण बतलाते हैं -- वह आकाशके समान सर्वव्यापक है और अव्यक्त होनेसे अचिन्त्य है क्योंकि जो वस्तु इन्द्रियादि करणोंसे जाननेमें आती है उसीका मनसे भी चिन्तन किया जा सकता है। परंतु अक्षर उससे विपरीत होनेके कारण अचिन्त्य और कूटस्थ है। जो वस्तु ऊपरसे गुणयुक्त प्रतीत होती हो और भीतर दोषोंसे भरी हो उसका नाम कूट है। संसारमें भी कूटरूप कूटसाक्ष्य इत्यादि प्रयोगोंमें कूट शब्द ( इसी अर्थमें ) प्रसिद्ध है। वैसे ही जो अविद्यादि अनेक संसारोंकी बीजभूत अन्तर्दोषोंसे युक्त प्रकृति मायाअव्याकृत आदि शब्दोंद्वारा कही जाती है एवं प्रकृतिको तो माया और महेश्वरको मायापति समझना चाहिये मेरी माया दुस्तर है इत्यादि श्रुतिस्मृतिके वचनोंमें जो माया नामसे प्रसिद्ध है? उसका नाम कूट है। उस कूट ( नामक माया ) में जो उसका अधिष्ठातारूपसे स्थित हो रहा हो उसका नाम कूटस्थ है। अथवा राशि -- ढेरकी भाँति जो ( कुछ भी क्रिया न करता हुआ ) स्थित हो उसका नाम कूटस्थ है। इस प्रकार कूटस्थ होनेके कारण जो अचल है और अचल होनेके कारण ही जो ध्रुव अर्थात् नित्य है ( उस ब्रह्मकी जो लोग उपासना करते हैं )।

That which was said 'vakṣyāmas tad upariṣṭāt' (we will speak about it later), he reveals with a question -- kimityādinā (beginning with 'what'). The word 'tu' (but/on the other hand) has the meaning of a distinction in result compared to the former ones. That Avyaktatva (unmanifest nature) is the reason for Anirdeśyatva (indescribability), he says -- Avyaktatvāditi (Because of being unmanifest). The construction is: since it is unmanifest, therefore it is indescribable.

How is worship possible in the Nirupādhika (unconditioned) Imperishable (Akṣara), he asks -- Upāsanamiti. Knowing the Imperishable from scripture, approaching it, attaining it as the Self, they worship, similarly they remain established, they always meditate on the Imperishable Self, which is pure consciousness and one-pointed (Ekatāna), this is intended here, he says -- Yathā (As).

That Avyaktatva is also the reason for Achintyatva (inconceivability), he says -- Yad dhīti.

He proves the stated meaning of the word 'Kūṭastha' from the usage of the elders -- Kūṭarūpamiti. The word ādi (etc.) is for the meaning of anṛta (unreal/false).

What is that unreality here (in the context) which is denoted by the word Kūṭa, suspecting this, he says -- Tathā ceti (And thus). When the meaning of anṛta for the word Kūṭa is established in the manner stated, that which is the seed of the many-fold world (Samsāra), which when analyzed is fraught with various defects, that is indeed the Avyākṛta (unmanifest nature), the Avidyā (ignorance) etc. known by the word Māyā in 'māyāṁ tu prakṛtiṁ' (Māyā is the Prakṛti), 'mama māyā' (My Māyā) etc., that is denoted here by the word Kūṭa, this is the meaning.

In what form is the remaining there, to this apprehension he says -- Tadadhyakṣatayeti (By being the supervisor of that). He states a different meaning (Arthāntara) for the word Kūṭastha, namely inactivity -- Athavā (Or).

He states the application of the two subsequent attributes by depending on the former (attribute) -- Ata eveti (For this very reason).

Having taught the extreme superiority of the worship of the Attributeless (Nirguna) due to its being the direct cause of Liberation; He teaches the superiority of the worship of the Qualified (Saguna) due to its easiness—with "Ye tu" (But those who). The word "Tu" (But) is to indicate superiority over the previous ones, because the worship of the Attributeless is the fruit of the worship of the Qualified. "Ye tu aksharam" (But those who... the Imperishable)—"Does not perish (Ksharati) or pervade (Ashnute)" thus Akshara. "This indeed is that Akshara, O Gargi, which Brahmanas speak of; not gross, not atomic, not short, not long, unprecedented, without sequel..." (Brihadaranyaka 3.8.8 / 2.5.19)—by such Shruti, He indicates the Attributeless nature of Brahman taught as devoid of all attributes.

"Anirdeshyam" (Indefinable)—cannot be pointed out/defined. Meaning not expressible by words. Because "Avyaktam" (Unmanifest)—not manifested by proofs like perception etc., therefore Unmanifest; meaning because of being devoid of form etc. which are the causes for the usage of words, and devoid of connections like name, species, quality, and action. Or, "Because indefinable, therefore unmanifest," meaning devoid of form etc. In this view, intending the inconsistency of cause-and-effect relationship, this view was ignored by the Acharyas (Shankara).

"Why unmanifest-ness?" To this He says. "Sarvatragam" (All-pervading)—due to being the substratum of all, pervading everything like space; therefore impossible to be delimited by any proof, thus Unmanifest; this is the meaning. Or else, (Objection) "Now, if so, then the emptiness (Shunyatva) of Brahman has arrived?" To this He says. "Sarvatragam"—pervading all changing things like pot, cloth etc. as the unchanging Existence-nature; because it is impossible for the Giver of existence and manifestation to all to be Void; this is the purport.

Due to being Unmanifest, "Achintyam" (Unthinkable)—because of being beyond organs, impossible to be thought of by the mind. And thus the Shruti: "From whom words return along with the mind without attaining" (Taittiriya 2.4). By this, the doubt "If it is all-pervading and conscious, why is it not understood by all?" is refuted. Because the object-ness for universal understanding is rejected from afar for That which is not delimitable by any proof and impossible even to be thought of even by the extremely skilled.

(Objection) "Now, if it is so, then what is the fate of Shrutis, Smritis, and Sutras like 'I ask you about that Aupanishada Purusha', 'It is seen by the sharp subtle intellect by subtle-seers', 'To be seen by the mind alone', 'The Self, my dear, should be seen, heard, thought of', 'Thinking of Me to the exclusion of others', 'Because of being the source of Scripture'?" If you ask, to that He says.

"Kutastham" (Kuta-seated/Immutable)—an object having visible qualities but internal defect is denoted by the word 'Kuta'. Because usage of the word 'Kuta' is seen in such cases like 'Kuta-rupaka' (fake rupee), 'Kuta-sakshya' (false witness), 'Kuta-karshapana' (fake coin). In "That this was then Undifferentiated," "Maya and Avidya becomes Herself," "Know Maya as Prakriti and Maheshwara as Mayin," "Divine indeed is this Gunamayi Maya of Mine, difficult to cross" etc.—what is well-known as designated by words like Maya etc., i.e., Avidya etc., that 'Internal Defect' which is the seed of manifold Samsara is here to be grasped by the word 'Kuta'. He stands in that 'Kuta' as the Overseer, as the Substratum, therefore "Kutastham". In the Bhashya, by the word 'Adi' in "Avidya-adi" (Ignorance etc.), Ego etc. should be grasped. And thus, for the removal of Avidya etc. superimposed on Brahman, the Attributeless is the subject of Scripture by figurative usage; this is the purport.

Or else, "Therefore standing like a heap, Kutastham, Immutable." Therefore "Achalam" (Immovable)—due to the qualities and defects of the superimposed Avidya etc., He does not move from His own nature 'as possessing qualities and defects', therefore Immovable; this is the meaning. Therefore "Dhruvam" (Firm/Constant)—Eternal. Meaning always uniform. Such Akshara (Imperishable) those who "Paryupasate"—worship well/fully from all sides—having approached proximity by making the object of worship an object of hearing and reflection; they perform "Asanam"—sitting/Nididhyasana—for a long time with a flow of similar cognitions like an unbroken stream of oil; this is the meaning.

"Let Your worshippers alone be the best; but what is the fruit of the others?"—to this He says—"Ye tu" (But those who) etc.

The quality of being "Anirdeshya" (Indefinable) is stated of Maya in Bhagavatam: "Some have conviction even in the Indisputable and Indefinable"—thus. But Ishvara is spoken of by the word 'Deva' (God)—in "Daivam anye pare" (Others sacrifice to the Deva - 4.25).

And it is stated in the Kashayana Shruti of Sama Veda: "Neither non-existence (Asat) was nor existence (Sat) was then" (Rig Veda 10.129.1?)—thus. Starting with "Neither Great Element nor Sub-element was then" etc., "Darkness (Tamas) was hidden by darkness in the beginning" (Rig Veda 10.129.3?)—thus.

"Tamas indeed is Unmanifest, undecaying, indefinable; this indeed is Prakriti"—thus. She is indeed characterized by being all-pervading, unthinkable etc.

For instance in Mokshadharma: "From the Resort of Narayana's qualities, from the Undecaying, Immortal, Supersensuous, Ungraspable, Unborn (Asambhavatah); from the Unreal (Asatyat?), from the Non-violent (Ahimsrat - indestructible?), from the Chief (Lalamat), from the One having a second specific activity, from the Non-inimical, from the Inexhaustible, from the Immortal, from the Imperishable (Akshara), from the Formless; from Her who is All (Sarvasyah), of All (Sarvasya), the Maker of All (Sarvakartuh), from the Eternal Darkness" (Mahabharata 12.342.6?)—thus. "This was Tamas-formed, Unknown, Characteristic-less, Indisputable, Unknowable, as if asleep everywhere"—in Manava (Manu Smriti 1.5).

He will say "The Kutastha is called Akshara" (15.16). Standing in the 'Kuta'—in Akasha (Space)—is 'Kutastha'. "She is established in Akasha, therefore She is considered Kuta-sthita"—thus indeed in the Khilas of Rig Veda. "She is All-pervading (Sarvaga), Immovable (Nischala), Womb of the world; and She is Imperishable, Moving everywhere (Vishvaga), Free from Rajas"—in the Gaupavana Shakha of Sama Veda.

Thus having praised the worshipers (of Saguna Brahman), he describes the rarity of the Knower of the Unmanifest (Avyaktavid) in three verses -- Ye tu (But those who). The word 'tu' is for the purpose of distinction from Saguna. The Akshara (Imperishable) is described as devoid of all attributes by the Shruti: 'etadvaitadakṣara m˙gārgibrāhmaṇā abhivadantyasthūlamanaṇvahṛsvamadīrgham' (Gārgi, the Brāhmaṇas speak of this as the Imperishable, which is neither gross nor subtle, neither short nor long) etc. For this very reason, it is Anirdeśya (incapable of being designated) by speech. And Avyakta (unmanifest) means it is not an object even of the intellect due to being beyond the range of speech, this is the meaning. And the Shruti also shows the transcendence of Brahman beyond speech and mind thus: 'yatovāconivartenteaprāpyamanasā saha' (From which words turn back, without reaching it, along with the mind). They Pariupāsate (worship completely) -- they worship in all respects. Here, Upāsana (worship) is simply the non-perception of the non-Self (Anātman). As it is said -- 'Anātmādarśanenaiva parātmānam upāsmahe' (We worship the Supreme Self only by the non-perception of the non-Self).

Now, what is the proof for the existence of such a void-like (Śūnyakalpa) entity, to this he says -- Sarvatragatam (Pervading everywhere). Gone everywhere in the form of existence and in the form of manifestation. By whose existence everything becomes existent, how can its non-existence be stated, this is the sense.

Now, such an entity would be the generic existence (Sattāsāmānya) accepted by the logicians. It is seen pervading everywhere, as 'the pot is existent, the cloth is existent,' fearing this, he says -- Achintyam (Inconceivable). The generic existence is indeed perceptible, but it also attains itself only through the connection with the existence of Brahman, not that the generic (Sāmānya) existence is self-established. From the notion that 'Genus is existent, pot-ness is existent,' the Sāmānya (generic quality) being so. But if it were beyond the scope of the notion of 'existent,' then it would lead to non-existence, and it would not be a substance at all. Therefore, Brahman, the substratum of all, being devoid of form etc., is incapable of being conceived; its being an object of direct perception due to its omnipresence is farfetched, this is the meaning.

Now, since the notion 'existent, existent' can be explained otherwise, the substratum-Brahman cannot be proven against the proponent of generic existence, to this he says -- Kūṭastham (Seated in the Kūṭa/Unchanging). Kūṭa is that which, though essentially non-existent, appears as existent. Just as a 'Kūṭa-Kārṣāpaṇa' (counterfeit coin), 'Kūṭa-Tulā' (false balance), similarly Kūṭa is the ego (Ahaṅkāra). Even though it appears as non-different from the inner Self (Pratyak), it is intermittent, and whatever appears as non-different from something occasionally, that is falsely superimposed upon it, like the snake on the rope, similarly this ego is called Kūṭa due to its falsity. It resides therein as its illuminator, this is Kūṭastha Chaitanya (Consciousness abiding in the Kūṭa). In the 'I' experience, the ego appears as the object seen, and the consciousness illuminating it is different from it. Just as the sun illuminating the pot is different from the pot, so too. By this, the eternal immediacy (Nityāparokṣatvam) of Brahman is established.

Now, the 'I' experience itself has the Self as its object, therefore the meaning of 'I' is the Self, and there is no other Self different from it, fearing this, he says -- Achalam (Immovable). The meaning of 'I' is indeed happy, miserable, changing, and subject to appearance and disappearance, and therefore it is moving (chañchala). The Self is not so. If it were so, non-liberation would ensue, because the final destruction of misery, which is liberation, is impossible without the destruction of the substrate of misery (Dharmin) like the heat of fire, as the destruction of form is never seen while the pot remains. And upon the disappearance of the Self, the blindness (ignorance) of the world would arise. Even in deep sleep, the Self exists in its manifested form as the witness of the happiness and ignorance therein. Otherwise, the recollection of the one who has awakened from sleep, 'I slept happily,' would be illogical.

Now, even though the Self exists in deep sleep, it does not shine due to the absence of conjunction with the mind which illuminates it. A sense organ (Karaṇa) put into action by the agent (Kartṛ) accomplishes an action. And there is no operation of the sense organ in deep sleep. Therefore, the Self exists in deep sleep, devoid of qualities like knowledge, unmanifested, like a carpenter whose adze has been laid down, fearing this, he says -- Dhruvam (Permanent). Now, does the Self set the sense organs in motion merely by its existence, like a magnet, or by being engaged in an operation? Not the first. It would result in the acceptance of what is desired (by the opponent). And in your view, the agency of the Self would not be established. Not the last. It would lead to impermanence. Operation is Spanda (vibration/movement). That is proper only for the limited (Paricchinna), not for the ubiquitous (Vibhu). And since ubiquitousness is lost, minuteness (Aṇutvam) is not accepted. If it were of medium size, it would lead to impermanence like a pot etc. Therefore, Akshara is Dhruvam (fixed), of uncorrupted nature, this is the meaning.

But those who worship the Akṣara (Imperishable/the nature of the inner Self), which is Anirdeśya (indescribable, because it is non-designable by words like Deva etc., due to being different from the body), and for this very reason Avyakta (unmanifested) by sense organs (Karaṇas) like the eye etc., Sarvatragam (pervading everywhere) and Achintyam (inconceivable), though present in all bodies of gods etc., yet due to being dissimilar to them, it is unworthy of being contemplated in that particular form; and for that very reason Kūṭastham (unchanging/common to all), meaning unconnected with the particular forms of those gods etc.

Due to non-transformability, it does not move or deviate from its own unique nature, therefore Achalam (immovable), and for this reason Dhruvam (permanent). Having properly restrained the group of sense organs (Indriyagrāmam), such as the eye etc., from all their activities, they are Sarvatra Samabuddhayah (possessing equal intellect everywhere), meaning possessing equal intellect in the Selves situated in the uneven forms of the bodies of gods etc., due to their being of the single form of knowledge. For this very reason, they are Sarvabhūtahite Ratāḥ (devoted to the welfare of all beings), desisting from delight in the harm of all beings. For delight in the harm of all beings is caused by the conceit (Abhimāna) of the Self in the uneven forms of gods etc. Those who worship the Akṣara in this manner, they too attain Me alone.

They attain the Self which is of the same form as Me, non-transmigratory, this is the meaning. It will be said, 'mamasādharmyamagatāḥ' (They attain My nature) (Gītā 14.2), and the Shruti also states 'nirañjanaḥparamasaṃyamupaiti' (The taintless one attains supreme equality) (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.1.3).

And the distinctness of the Supreme Brahman from the Kūṭastha designated by the word Akṣara will be stated. 'kūṭastho'kṣaraucyate' (The Kūṭastha is called Akṣara), 'uttamaḥpuruṣastvanyaḥ' (But the supreme Puruṣa is other) (Gītā 15.16-17), thus.

But in the Akṣara Vidyā of 'athaparāyathā tadakṣaramadhigamyate' (Now the higher knowledge by which that Imperishable is attained) (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.1.5), the Supreme Brahman itself is designated by the word Akṣara, because it is the source of beings (Bhūtayoni).

Then, are the others not superior? To this he says with 'ye tu' (but those who) etc. in two (verses).

'Ye tu akṣaraṁ paryupāsate dhyāyanti te'pi mām eva prāpnuvanti' (But those who worship, meditate upon, the Imperishable, they too attain Me alone) is the construction for both.

The characteristic of the Imperishable is 'anirdeśyam' (indescribable) etc. Anirdeśyam -- incapable of being designated by word. Because it is avyakta (unmanifest), devoid of form etc. Sarvatragam -- all-pervading. Achintyam (inconceivable) due to being unmanifest. Kūṭastham -- situated in the Kūṭa (the expanse of Māyā), situated as the substratum. Achalam -- devoid of vibration/motion. For this very reason Dhruvam -- eternal, devoid of growth etc.

He states the inferiority of the one devoted to the Imperishable (Akṣara-niṣṭha) with 'ye tv akṣaram' etc., in three verses.

Since the prohibition of designation of all kinds is flawed by self-contradiction etc., he states the specific designation intended to be prohibited in the actual form, along with its reason -- Dehādanyatayeti (By being other than the body). Although words like Deva etc., function through the body even in the embodied Self which is other than the body, yet in the nature of the liberated Self (Apavṛktātmasvarūpa), which is to be specifically designated and is free from connection with Prakṛti (Primordial Matter), such a usage is not possible at all, this is the intention.

In reference to the intention of it being extremely unmanifest, he says that there would be a contradiction even with the verse 'upāsate' (worship) in his own statement -- Chakṣurādikaraṇānabhivyaktamiti (Unmanifest to the organs like the eye).

To resolve the contradiction with the Śruti (scriptural text) stating atomic size (aṇutva) in the context of 'Sarvatragam' (All-pervading), he says -- Devādideheṣu (In the bodies of Devas, etc.). Or, in order to show the relevance of the state of being contemplated upon (cintyatva) which is to be prohibited, he states 'Sarvatragam' (All-pervading) and says -- Devādideheṣu vartamānamapi (Even though existing in the bodies of Devas, etc.).

The sense is that a total prohibition of the object of contemplation is not possible because of the contradiction with the injunction regarding the contemplation of the Self, in relation to 'Tena tena rūpeṇa' (By means of that very form).

The meaning of 'tata eva kūṭasthamiti' (Therefore, the Kūṭastha) is because of its distinctness from those things. The previous Puruṣa (Self) which is common to many continuing Puruṣas is indeed Kūṭastha (Immutable). Here, however, only the commonality is aimed at, so he says -- Sarvasādhāraṇamiti (Common to all). By this, those who speak of the Kūṭa-word designating the presidentship of Māyā (Illusion) or the state of being positioned like a heap are refuted due to their abandonment of the conventional meaning. Therefore, to say that it is steady like an anvil (kūṭa), devoid of growth or decay, is also weak here.

If it is objected: How is commonality to all possible simultaneously? Even by assuming bodies of all species over time, there is no assumption of every individual. Therefore, how is the commonality to all? He answers -- Devādi (Deva etc.). The idea is that characteristics like being a Deva (God) etc., which are not common, are not immediately related to the Self.

Since the prohibition of movement (spanda) etc., is inappropriate for the Jīva (individual soul) who undergoes exit (utkrānti), he states what is intended by the word 'acala' (immovable) here -- Aparināmitvena (By being non-changing). Impermanence (anityatva) is indeed pervaded by change (pariṇāma). Therefore, he says that since the pervader (vyāpaka) is absent, the absence of the pervaded (vyāpya) is intended, which makes it non-redundant, and says -- Tata eva dhruvamiti (Therefore, permanent).

Since restraint of the mind is already established by 'upāsate [12.2]' (worship), he interprets it as referring to the restraint of the external sensory activities appropriate for that purpose -- Samyaṅniyamya (Having properly restrained). He says 'Sarvatra' (Everywhere), referring to [injunctions] like: 'Ahiṁsā, Satyam, Asteyaṁ, Brahmacaryaparigrahaḥ' (Non-violence, Truth, Non-stealing, Celibacy, Non-possession) [Vi. Dh. 104.3, Bṛ. Nā. 31.76]. Referring to [texts] like: 'Śuni caiva śvapāke ca paṇḍitāḥ samadarśinaḥ' (The wise behold equally the dog and the dog-eater) [5.18], he said 'Ātmasu jñānaikākārayā samabuddhayaḥ' (Those whose intellect is equal concerning the Selves, due to the single form of knowledge). 'Tata eva' (Therefore) means -- only because of possessing equal intellect.

'Ye evam akṣaram upāsate' (Those who thus worship the Imperishable): Having ascertained the individual Self (Pratyagātman), which is denoted by the word Akṣara, as the object to be attained, they worship the Supreme Self (Paramātman) as the means to attain it. 'Te’pi' (They also) means -- those who have ascertained an object of attainment other than Me. 'Māṁ prāpnuvantyeva' (They certainly attain Me) means -- in the manner stated in 'Viṣṇuśaktiḥ parā proktā' (The power of Viṣṇu is declared to be the highest) [Vi. Pu. 6.7.61], they attain the liberated form (muktasvarūpa) which is a uniquely established attribute (apṛthaksiddhaviśeṣaṇabhūta) due to 'avibhāgena dṛṣṭatvāt' (Because it is seen as undivided) [Br. Sū. 4.4.3], and which is similar in form to Me, this is the meaning.

Is the body of the object of knowledge (prameyaśarīra) better? Apprehending the doubt, 'If we find the authoritative proof (pramāṇa)', he quotes a Śruti passage with supplementary text (upabṛṁhaṇa) -- Paramaṁ sāmyam upaitīti (He attains supreme equality).

If it is asked, how is the word Akṣara, which is commonly used for the Supreme Brahman in texts like 'Atha parā yayā tad akṣaram adhigamyate' (Then the higher knowledge by which that Imperishable is attained) [Muṇ. U. 1.1.5] and 'Akṣaram ambarāntadhṛteḥ' (The Imperishable, due to its supporting [all things] up to the ether) [Br. Sū. 1.3.10], said to denote the individual soul (Jīvātman)? He answers, because it is stated in texts like 'Amṛtākṣaraṁ Haraḥ' (The immortal Imperishable is Hara) [Śve. U. 1.10] and 'Kūṭastho 'kṣara ucyate' (The Kūṭastha is called the Imperishable) [15.16], by saying -- Tathā Akṣaraśabdanirdiṣṭāt (Thus, from that which is designated by the word Akṣara) etc.

The hardship (kleśa) is greater for those whose minds are attached to the unmanifest individual soul (avyakta-jīvātmā), [which is described] in the manner stated in: 'Pañcaviṁśakam avyaktaṁ ṣaḍviṁśaḥ puruṣottamaḥ. Etajjñātvā vimucyante yatayaḥ śāntabuddhayaḥ' (The unmanifest is the twenty-fifth; the Puruṣottama is the twenty-sixth. Knowing this, the serene-minded ascetics are liberated) [Yama Smṛti], because their minds are not fixed on Me. The mental operation concerning the unmanifest object consists of the cessation of all senses.

Apprehending the possibility that embodiment might apply even to sages like Sanaka, he stated 'Dehātmābhimānayuktaiḥ' (Those possessing the misconception that the body is the Self).

See Commentary under 12.4

'Ye tu' (But those who) etc. up to 'avāpyate' (is attained). But those who worship the Imperishable (Akṣara) Brahman, on the Self, by the attributes like 'sarvatragam' (all-pervading) etc., all the attributes of Īśvara (the Lord) are superimposed.

Therefore, although the worshipers of Brahman also attain Me alone, yet their effort (kleśa) is greater.

Indeed, having superimposed the group of eight qualities, such as being free from sin, etc., on the Self, they subsequently worship that very Self, thus they find double effort even when Īśvara (the Lord), who possesses the greatness of the naturally established group of qualities, is attainable without effort.

"If so, then by 'Entering into Me' (12.2) alone, the answer to the question 'My worshippers alone are the best' has happened? (Then) what is the use of the subsequent sentence?"—To this he says—"Bhavantu" (Let them be). This acceptance is pregnant with objection. "It is not proper that Your worshippers alone are the best"—this is the idea.

To establish that, he asks—"Itaresham" (Of others). "Do the worshippers of the Unmanifest have the fruit of Liberation? Or not? If not, there is contradiction with the cited sentence. In the first case (if yes), how are Your worshippers the best? Because of equality of fruit"—this is the purport.

(Objection) "Now, since these adjectives (Indefinable etc.) are impossible elsewhere than Brahman, how is this introduced as an answer to 'What is the fruit of others'?"—To this; since Imperishability (Aksharatva) and Unmanifest-ness (Avyaktatva) have been established in Maya, establishing the others (adjectives) there (in Maya), he first establishes 'Indefinability'—with "Anirdeshyatvam cha" (And indefinability). Beyond words. "Of Dharma, my leg-break"—is the construction (example).

"Now, let Ishvara also be Indefinable here?"—To this he says—"Ishvarastu" (But Ishvara). "They say Daiva (Fate/God) is the cause of leg-break" (Example). And thus there would be repetition; this is the purport. And the word 'Daiva' does not mean Adrishta (Unseen potency/Fate). Because that is stated separately as "Others sacrifice Action" (4.25?). Regarding the Indefinability of Maya, he states clear proof—"Uktam cha" (And it is said).

"Mahabhuta"—form of Akasha and Vayu. "Upabhuta"—characterized by Tejas and Water (?). "Tada"—in Dissolution. "Ajaram" (Undecaying) etc. are establishers of existence in dissolution. And to show that "This is not Brahman," "Esha hyesha prakritih" (This indeed is Prakriti) is cited. Now to establish "Sarvatragam" (All-pervading) etc. in Maya, he says—"Sarvaga" (All-pervading).

The instruction is regarding the state/nature (Bhava-pradhana). Or the definition-word denotes the essential nature. "Narayana-guna"—His will etc.—characterized by that is the "Ashraya" (Resort) of whom, that is such. By this, Brahman is excluded. "Ajarat", "Amarat" (From undecaying, immortal)—of the inert Pradhana etc.; because of the absence of obtaining that (decay/death) for it. From "Agrahyat"—beyond even the mind—by this "Achintyam" (Unthinkable) is established. From "Asambhavatah" (Unborn?), "Akshayat" (Inexhaustible), "Aksharat" (Imperishable)—"Dhruvatva" (Firmness/Constancy) is established. "Asati"—in dissolution; "Bhavam" (Being/Born?)—"Asattyam" (Unreality/In non-existence?). "Lalamam"—Pradhana (Chief). "Dvitiya"—dependence solely on the Lord; is the specific activity of whom, that is such. "Amurtitah"—from being devoid of material body. "Sarvasyah" (Of all)—"Sarvagayah" (Of the all-pervading)—this is Vedic gender-change? Because of identifying with beginningless Avidya. "Shashvat-tamasah purushobhut" (From eternal darkness Purusha became)—is the construction. This well-known Tamas named Maya was as if asleep everywhere in dissolution, devoid of activity. "Abhutam"—unborn. By "Aprajnatam" (Unknown) etc., the absence of being knowable by perception, inference, and scripture is stated. Due to having unknowable characteristics, it is "Apratarkyam" (Indisputable/Incomprehensible). By this "Sarvatragam Achintyam Dhruvam" is established. If by the Gita sentence "Kutastham" and "Nityam" (are established), then "Dhruvam" is repetition. "Kuta—Falsehood—stays in this"—is impossible (for Brahman); to this he says—"Kuta". The denotation of the word Kuta in the sense of Akasha (Space) was read before. Still, for firmness, Shruti is cited. According to Shruti, it is feminine gender (Kutastha). "Sa sarvaga" (She is all-pervading)—is clear proof for the stated meaning. "Nischala" (Immovable)—not fallen from her position. "Vishvam gatam" (Universe has gone)—is dependent on her, so "Vishvaga" (Going everywhere/Containing universe). And these stated adjectives should be known as being for the support of accepting Her worship as a means to Liberation.

In the expectation of what superiority exists in the knowers of Saguna Brahman compared to the knowers of Nirguna Brahman, by which they alone are the most devoted and they alone are the desired ones, to state that superiority, he introduces the knowers of Nirguna Brahman, who define it, with two (verses) -- Ye tvityādinā (beginning with 'But those who'). 'Ye'kṣaraṁ mām upāsate te'pi mām eva prāpnuvanti' (Those who worship Me, the Imperishable, they too attain Me alone) is the construction with the second (verse). The word 'tu' (but) is for indicating distinctiveness from the former ones.

Akṣara (Imperishable) -- the qualityless Brahman (Nirviśeṣa Brahma), famous in the Vācaknavī Brāhmaṇa (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad). There are seven attributes for its description. Anirdeśyam -- incapable of being designated by word.

Because it is avyaktam (unmanifested) -- devoid of Jāti (genus), Guṇa (quality), Kriyā (action), and Sambandha (relation), which are the causes for the application of a word. Since a word functions only by means of Jāti, Guṇa, Kriyā, or Sambandha, its application to the Nirviśeṣa (qualityless) is impossible. Why is it devoid of Jāti etc., to this he says -- Sarvatragamiti (Pervading everywhere).

Sarvatragam -- all-pervading, the cause of all. Therefore, devoid of Jāti etc., because the connection with Jāti etc. is seen only in the Paricchinna (limited) effect, and because Ākāśa (space) etc. are also accepted as effects. For this very reason Achintyam -- it is not the object even of the mental modification, just as it is not of the application of word. Due to the limited scope of the mind also, as per the Shruti 'yatov a ˉ conivartanteapr a ˉ pyamanasa ˉ saha' (From which words turn back, without reaching it, along with the mind).

Then how is the Shruti 'ta m ˙ tvaupaniṣada m ˙ puruṣa m ˙ pṛcch a ̉ mi' (I ask you about that Puruṣa known in the Upaniṣads), and 'dṛ s ˊ yatetvagryay a ̉ buddhy a ̉ ' (But it is seen by a subtle intellect), and the Sūtra ' s ˊ a ˉ strayonitv a ˉ t' (because scripture is its source) (justified)? It is said. By the reflection of the last mental modification, which is produced by a word through a relation imagined by Avidyā (ignorance), in the pure entity which is the nature of supreme bliss and consciousness, the cessation of Avidyā and its imagined effects is appropriate, and thus it is conventionally spoken of as the object.

Therefore, to demonstrate the Avidyā-relation superimposed on it, he says -- Kūṭasthamiti (Abiding in the Kūṭa). Kūṭastham -- that which, though unreal, is perceived as real, is called Kūṭa, so it is said by people. As in 'kūṭakārṣāpaṇaḥ' (counterfeit coin), 'kūṭasākṣitvam' (false testimony) etc. Ignorance called Māyā, though unreal along with the manifold effects, is perceived as real by the worldly people, and is Kūṭa. In that, it resides as the substratum by a superimpositional (Adhyāsika) relation, thus Kūṭastham -- the substratum of ignorance and its effects, this is the meaning. By this, the refutation of all inconsistencies is made.

For this very reason -- since all modifications are imagined by Avidyā, its substratum, the witnessing consciousness (Sākṣi Chaitanya), is changeless, he says -- Achalamiti (Immovable). Achalam -- free from motion/change. Due to immovability itself, Dhruvam -- unchangeable, eternal. Such pure Brahman they Pariupāsate -- by Shravana (hearing) removing the impossibility regarding the means of knowledge, by Manana (reflection) (removing the impossibility) regarding the object of knowledge, and subsequently for the cessation of contrary notions, they Dhyāyanti (meditate). They make it the object by Dhyāna (meditation) called Nididhyāsana, which is a continuous flow of similar notions like a stream of oil, by rejecting dissimilar notions, this is the meaning.

How is the rejection of dissimilar notions possible when there is conjunction of objects and senses, to this he says -- Saṁniyamyeeti (Having properly restrained). Saṁniyamya -- having withdrawn the Indriyagrāmam (the group of sense organs) from their objects. By this, the acquisition of Śama (control of mind), Dama (control of senses) etc. is stated.

When the desire for the enjoyment of objects exists, how is the withdrawal of the senses from them possible, to this he says -- Sarvatreti (Everywhere). Whose intellect is Sama (equal) regarding all objects, free from joy and sorrow, and from attachment and aversion. Because ignorance, which is the cause of attachment and aversion, is removed by right knowledge, and desire is removed by the practice of seeing defects in objects, they are Samabuddhayaḥ (of equal intellect) everywhere. By this, Vashīkāra-sañjñā Vairāgya (the highest stage of detachment) is stated.

For this very reason -- due to seeing the Self everywhere and being free from aversion which is the cause of violence, they are Sarvabhūtahite Ratāḥ (devoted to the welfare of all beings). They have given the gift of fearlessness to all beings by the mantra 'abhayaṁ sarvabhūtebhyo mattaḥ svāhā' (fearlessness to all beings from me, svāhā). They have performed Saṁnyāsa (renunciation), this is the meaning. As per the Smṛti 'abhayaṁ sarvabhūtebhyo dattvā saṁnyāsam ācaret' (having given fearlessness to all beings, one should undertake renunciation). Being possessed of all such means, having become Brahman themselves, they attain the Akṣara Brahman alone by a doubt-free direct perception, which is the fruit of all means. Previously also being of My nature, by the cessation of Avidyā, they remain of My nature alone, this is the meaning. 'brahmaivasanbrahm āpyeti' (Being Brahman, he attains Brahman), 'brahmavedabrahmaivabhavati' (He who knows Brahman becomes Brahman) etc. are the Shrutis, and here too 'j n ~ a ˉ n ı ˉ tv a ˉ tmaivamematam' (The knower is verily My Self, this is My view) is said.

Thus having stated the superiority of His devotees, he states the nature of the worshipers of the Imperishable -- ye tv akṣaramiti (by 'but those who [worship] the Imperishable') in two (verses). Ye tu -- by the word 'tu', His being the desired one is rejected.

Who worship the Anirdeśyam -- incapable of being clearly stated by words. Avyaktam -- of unmanifest form. Sarvatragam -- of an unstable nature in the heart even in the state of meditation etc. For this very reason Achintyam -- unworthy of contemplation, due to the absence of form etc., and due to instability. Kūṭastham -- superimposed on the phenomenal world (Prapañca). Achalam -- of the nature of My feet. For this very reason Dhruvam -- eternal. Such an Akṣara (Imperishable) (they worship).

Ye tu Akṣaram Anirdeśyam (But those who worship the indescribable Imperishable). Due to being unmanifest, it is not within the range of words, so it cannot be designated, hence Anirdeśyam (indescribable). Avyaktam (unmanifest) -- is not manifested by any means of proof, hence Avyaktam. Pariupāsate -- they worship fully, all around.

Upāsanā (worship) is what is said to be the sitting for a long time in a continuous flow of similar notions, like a stream of oil, having attained nearness by making the object of worship, which is in accordance with the scriptures, the object of knowledge.

He states the attributes of the Imperishable which is to be worshipped -- Sarvatragam (all-pervading), like space. Achintyam cha (and inconceivable) -- inconceivable due to being unmanifest. That which is within the range of the sense organs is also conceivable by the mind; the Imperishable is Achintyam because it is the opposite of that.

Kūṭastham (seated in the Kūṭa) -- a thing having apparent quality but internal defect is Kūṭa. The word Kūṭa is famous in the world in 'kūṭarūpam' (false form), 'kūṭasākṣyam' (false witness) etc. And that which is the seed of many transmigrations like ignorance etc., possessing internal defect, and which is denoted by words like Māyā, Avyākṛta (unmanifest), and is famous in 'māyām tu prakṛtiṁ vidyān māyinam tu maheśvaram' (One should know Māyā as the Primordial Nature and the possessor of Māyā as the Great Lord) (Śve. U. 4.10), 'mamāṁyā duratyayā' (My Māyā is difficult to cross) (Gītā 7.14) etc., that is Kūṭa. Kūṭastham -- abiding in that Kūṭa, as its supervisor.

Or, Kūṭastham -- situated like a heap. For this very reason Achalam (immovable). Because it is immovable, therefore Dhruvam -- eternal, this is the meaning.

Ye tu iti. The word 'tu' indicates distinction. Those who worship the Akṣara (Imperishable/part of the Inner Controller's nature), which is Avyakta (unmanifest) due to the absence of name and form as stated before, which is calculated bliss (gaṇitānanda), which is the great form (bṛhatsvarūpa).

The distinction is clear. The Akṣara is unmanifest, but I am manifest. That (Akṣara) is indescribable, but I am worthy of transcendental designation by My own will. That is all-pervading, but I am attainable only by the devotee. And that is inconceivable, but I am conceivable by devotees. That is Kūṭastha (common to all), I am uncommon. That is Achala (immovable Self), I am mobile, moving while sporting here and there. That is Dhruva (permanent) in the form of the state (Aiśvarya) in the spiritual realm (Adhyātma), but I am Īśvara, its abode, thus.

Its worshipers attain Me, the Śrī (Lakṣmī) who is the nature of Brahman's bliss, or Me, the permanent Self.

ये who? तु verily? अक्षरम् the imperishable? अनिर्देश्यम् the indefinable? अव्यक्तम् the unmanifested? पर्युपासते worship? सर्वत्रगम् the omnipresent? अचिन्त्यम् the unthinkable? च and? कूटस्थम् the unchangeable? अचलम् the immovable? ध्रुवम् the eternal.Commentary Anirdesyam That which cannot be actually shown or which cannot be defined -- the Akshaa or Satchidananda Para Brahman is beyond the reach of the mind and speech. Why can It not be defined Because It is unmanifested. It does not have the four alities of manifested beings? vi.z? Jati (caste such as Brahmana? Kshatriya? etc.)? Guna (attributes such as blueness? whiteness? tallness? shortness? etc.)? Kriya (reading? walking? etc.)? and Sambandha (like the relation between father and son).The unmanifest Incomprehensible by any of the organs of knowledge not manifest to any of the organs of knowledge.Upasana (worship) means sitting near. It is approaching the chosen ideal or object of worship by meditating on it? in accordance with the teachings of the scriptures and the spiritual preceptor? and dwelling steadily in the current of that one thought like a threat of oil poured from one vessel to another. It means continous and uninterrupted contemplation of God.The imperishable Brahman is omnipresent? pervading everything like the ether. It is unthinkable? because It is unmanifest. Whatever is visible to the senses can be thought of by the mind also. That which can be grasped by the organs of knowledge can be thought of by the mind also. But the Supreme Being is invisible to the senses and so cannot be grasped by the organs of knowledge and is? therefore? unthinkable. All thoughts of God ultimately lead the aspirant to iescent meditation.It is Kutastha (unchangeable). Kutastha means remaining like a mass or a heap. Therefore It is immutable and eternal. Just as the anvil remains unchanged though the ironpieces which are beaten on the anvil change their shape? so also Brahman is unchanging though the forms are changing. Hence Brahman is called Kutastha. Kuta also means a thing which appears to be good externally but which is full of evil within. Hence it refers to that seed of Samsara? viz.? ignorance? which is full of evil within and which is known as the Avyakrita (undifferentiated) in the Svetasvataropanishad (Mayam tu prakritim vidyat? Mayinam tu mahesvaram) and in the Gita (Mama maya duratyaya -- The illusion of Mine is hard to pierce -- VII.14). Another interpretation for Kutastha is that which is at the root of everything. He Who is seated in Maya as its witness? as its Lord? is Kutastha.Achalam Immovable? that which is free from change. Therefore the imperishable Brahman is Dhruvam? eternal. (Cf.VIII.21)

Ye, those; tu, however; who, pari-upasate, meditate in every way; aksaram, on the Immutable; anirdesyam, the Indefinable-being unmanifest, It is beyond the range of words and hence cannot be defined; avyaktam, the Unmanifest-It is not comprehensible thrugh any means of knowledge-.
Upasana, meditation, means approaching an object of meditation as presented by the scriptures, and making it an object of one's own thought and dwelling on it uniterruptedly for long by continuing the same current of thought with regard to it-like a line of pouring oil. This is what is called upasana.
The Lord states the characteristics of the Immutable [Here Ast. adds 'upasyasya, which is the object of meditation'.-Tr.] : Sarvatragam, all-pervading, pervasive like space; and acintyam, incomprehensible-becuase of Its being unmanifest. For, whatever comes within the range of the organs can be thought of by the mind also. Being opposed to that, the Immutable is inconceivable. It is kutastham, changeless. Kuta means something apparently good, but evil inside. The word kuta (deceptive) is well known in the world in such phrases as, 'kuta-rupam, deceptive in appearance,' 'kuta-saksyam, false evidence', etc. Thus, kuta is that which, as ignorance etc., is the seed of many births, full of evil within, referred to by such words as maya, the undifferentiated, etc., and well known from such texts as, 'One should know Maya to be Nature, but the Lord of Maya to be the supreme God' (Sv. 4.10), 'The divine Maya of Mine is difficult to cross over' (7.14), etc. That which exists on that kuta as its controller (or witness) is the kuta-stha. Or, kutastha may mean that which exists like a heap [That is, motionless.].
Hence it is acalam, immovable. Since It is immovable, therefore It is dhruvam, constant, i.e. eternal.

The individual self meditated upon by those who follow the path of the 'Aksara' (the Imperishable) is thus described: It cannot be 'defined' in terms indicated by expressions like gods and men etc., for It is different from the body; It is 'imperceptible' through the senses such as eyes; It is 'omnipresent and unthinkable,' for though It exists everywhere in bodies such as those of gods and others, It cannot be conceived in terms of those bodies, as It is an entity of an altogether different kind; It is 'common to all beings' i.e., alike in all beings but different from the bodily forms distinguishing them; It is 'immovable' as It does not move out of Its unie nature, being unmodifiable, and therefore eternal. Such aspirants are further described as those who, 'subduing their senses' like the eye from their natural operations, look upon all beings of different forms as 'eal' by virtue of their knowledge of the sameness of the nature of the selves as knowers in all. Therefore they are not given 'to take pleasure in the misfortune of others,' as such feelings proceed from one's identification with one's own special bodily form.
Those who meditate on the Imperishable Principle (individual self) in this way, even they come to Me. It means that they also realise their essential self, which, in respect of freedom from Samsara, is like My own Self. So Sri Krsna will declare later on: 'Partaking of My nature' (14.2). Also the Sruti says: 'Untainted, he attains supreme eality' (Mun. U., 3.1.3).
Likewise He will declare the Supreme Brahman as being distinct from the freed self which is without modification and is denoted by the term 'Imperishable' (Aksara), and is described as unchanging (Kutastha). 'The Highest Person is other than this Imperishable' (15.16 - 17). But in the teaching in Aksara-vidya 'Now that higher science by which that Aksara is known' (Mun. U., 1.5) the entity that is designated by the term Aksara is Supreme Brahman Himself; for He is the source of all beings, etc. Greater is the difficulty of those whose minds are attached to the unmanifest. The path of the unmanifest is a psychosis of the mind with the unmanifest as its object. It is accomplished with difficulty by embodied beings, who have misconceived the body as the self. For, embodied beings mistake the body for the self.
The superiority of those who adore the Supreme Being is now stated clearly: