Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 12 - Shloka (Verse) 5

व्याख्या--'क्लेशोऽधिकतरस्तेषामव्यक्तासक्तचेतसाम्'--अव्यक्तमें आसक्त चित्तवाले-- इस विशेषणसे यहाँ उन साधकोंकी बात कही गयी है, जो निर्गुण-उपासनाको श्रेष्ठ तो मानते हैं, पर जिनका चित्त निर्गुणतत्त्वमें आविष्ट नहीं हुआ है। तत्त्वमें आविष्ट होनेके लिये साधकमें तीन बातोंकी आवश्यकता होती है -- रुचि, विश्वास और योग्यता। शास्त्रों और गुरुजनोंके द्वारा निर्गुण-तत्त्वकी महिमा सुननेसे जिनकी (निराकारमें आसक्त चित्तवाला होने और निर्गुण-उपासनाको श्रेष्ठ माननेके कारण) उसमें कुछ रुचि तौ पैदा हो जाती है और वे विश्वासपूर्वक साधन आरम्भ भी कर देते हैं; परन्तु वैराग्यकी कमी और देहाभिमानके कारण जिनका चित्त तत्त्वमें प्रविष्ट नहीं होता-- ऐसे साधकोंके लिये यहाँ 'अव्यक्तासक्तचेतसाम्' पदका प्रयोग हुआ है।

किंतु --, ( उनको ) क्लेश अधिकतर होता है। यद्यपि मेरे ही लिये कर्मादि करनेमें लगे हुए साधकोंको भी बहुत क्लेश होता है? परंतु जिनका चित्त अव्यक्तमें आसक्त है? उन अक्षरचिन्तक परमार्थदर्शियोंको तो देहाभिमानका परित्याग करना पड़ता है? इसलिये उन्हें और भी अधिक क्लेश उठाना पड़ता है। क्योंकि जो अक्षरात्मिका अव्यक्तगति है वह देहाभिमानयुक्त पुरुषोंको बड़े कष्टसे प्राप्त होती है? अतः उनको अधिकतर क्लेश होता है। उन अक्षरोपासकोंका जैसा आचारविचारव्यवहार होता है वह आगे ( अद्वेष्टाइत्यादि श्लोकोंसे बतलायेंगे।

How is it even among the worshipers of Saguna, he says -- Kiṁ tviti (But).

Due to the difficulty of the worship of the Imperishable and the ease of the other worship, having this intention, he says -- Kleśa iti (Effort). Adhika eva (is indeed greater) -- greater than the others (dualists and those with desires), this is the implied part.

Assuming the reason for their effort being greater, he qualifies -- Deha iti (Body etc.). Avyaktam -- the extremely subtle, qualityless Imperishable, in which their mind is attached (fixed), of those, this is the meaning.

The Lord Himself states the reason for the effort of the worshipers of the Imperishable being greater -- Avyakteti. Duḥkham -- with difficulty, with effort, this is the meaning. Therefore, by the abandonment of body-identification, this is the meaning.

How do they behave, to that he says -- Akṣara iti (Imperishable etc.).

If so, then why do you not state the supreme goodness of these (worshipers of the Nirguna), and why did you call the worshipers of Saguna the best, fearing this, and with the intention that it is not proper to speak of the state of being the most devoted or the least devoted for those who are of His nature, and that there is no greater effort in the worship of Saguna, he says -- Kleśa iti (Effort).

Although there is indeed greater effort for the worshipers of Saguna in devotion to My work etc., nevertheless, for the worshipers of the Imperishable, the effort caused by the rejection of body-identification is greater. Avyakte -- in the unmanifest, which is beyond the senses, whose mind is attached for its attainment, for those whose minds are attached to the unmanifest (Avyaktāsaktacetasām), Hi yasmāt (because), the path (gati/devotion) related to the unmanifest Imperishable is attained by the embodied ones (those with body-identification) Duḥkhaṁ yathā syāt (as there would be distress), i.e., with extreme difficulty. Therefore, the effort is greater, it is said.

"Then how is the superiority of Your worshippers?"—to this He says—"Kleshah" (Trouble). The Unmanifest Goal is attained with sorrow indeed. "Gati" (Goal) means path. The path to attain Me through the worship of the Unmanifest is attained with difficulty; this is the meaning. Without the aggregate of means like excessive worship, excessive control of all senses, equal-mindedness to all, being engaged in the welfare of all beings, extremely good conduct, perfect devotion to Vishnu etc., there is no direct realization of the Unmanifest. And without that, there is no grace of Vishnu. And even when that (grace/realization) exists, without perfect worship of the Lord, and without Him (the Lord), there is no liberation? (Or: Without proper worship, even with that realization, there is no liberation?). Without the worship of the Unmanifest, liberation indeed happens for the worshippers of the Lord; thus this path (of Unmanifest) is most troublesome; this is the purport.

Still, for those who have realized the Unmanifest, the worship of the Lord is easy—this alone is the purpose. Even there, whatever effort is in the realization of the Unmanifest, if with that much effort one worships the Lord? Or with less? Then realization of the Lord indeed happens—thus the second (Lord's worship) is superior. In the deficiency of sense-control etc., the Devi (Unmanifest/Sri) does not become extremely gracious even to the extreme worshipper. But the God (Deva) Himself gives those means to the devotee with effort—thus is the 'easiness' for devotees in the worship of the Lord. And elsewhere (in Unmanifest worship), the trouble is greater.

All this is understood by the words 'Paryupasate' (Worship fully), 'Sanniyamya' (Controlling well), 'Adhikatara' (Greater)—by the prefixes Pari, Sam and the suffix Tarap.

And it is stated in the Madhucchanda Shakha of Sama Veda: "And devotees who are extremely devoted to Vishnu, extremely self-controlled, endowed with right conduct; and who worship Her with even mind; the Devi is seen by them, not by others. And She, seen and full of devotion to Vishnu, having given (grace/herself?), worships; cuts off all obstacles. Having worshipped that Vasudeva, having known, then and then one attains extreme peace"—thus.

And it is said in the Ayasya Shakha of Sama Veda: "The God will become pleased, along with the Unmanifest indeed. As much is Her grace, exactly that much (is His?), no doubt. But by Her grace alone that Great Lord is not pleased (fully?). But when He is pleased, the love of all happens indeed undoubtedly. Although there is excess (difficulty) in worship, still He alone is the giver of qualities. And He alone is the One Giver of Liberation, not the Unmanifest etc. anyone"—thus.

"Desiring My nature/state, they strive for the Supreme Self" (Mahabharata 12.228.20)—this is the word of Sri in Mokshadharma. "In one constant in Dharma, of great intellect, devoted to Brahman, truthful, humble, and charitable, I always reside" (12.228.26)—thus also.

"Higher than the Great" is Brahman alone. For thus it is spoken by the Lord (Vyasa) with logic—"If you say it speaks (of Pradhana), No, for the wise one..." "For of the three alone is this mention and question" etc. (Brahma Sutras 1.4.5-6). And from the masculine word "Tam" (Him), this is established. But superiority over the Great indeed belongs to the One higher than the Unmanifest. And thus in Agni-veshya Shakha: "Beginningless, endless, higher than the Great, firm" (Katha 1.3.15). "For the God is Higher, the invoked of many (Puruhuta), than the Great."

And the Unmanifest form is not denied by the Lord, because it is established in Bharata etc. But in "Because of being understood as a metaphor for the body" (Brahma Sutra 1.4.1) etc., prohibiting the Pradhana famous in Sankhya, the Vedic Unmanifest alone is stated. And thus the Saukarayana Shruti: "Having the form of body of the bodiless Vishnu, since She is dear, She is the source of the world"—thus.

"To those of good vows, the Devi gives great wealth quickly, not the God"—this is the distinction.

"Having known the golden-colored, lotus-handed Devi, the Ruler of all, pervasively inert (?); 'She alone'—thus indeed to those of good vows, Sri may give great glory in a month, not the God"—in the Khilas of Rig Veda.

He states the difficulty of attaining this path—with "Kleshah" (Trouble). Although for the knowers of Saguna, there is indeed much trouble (in rituals etc.), still they meditate with support (Salambana); they enter the Supreme Goal by the sequence of climbing steps. But for those whose meditation is supportless like a battle in the sky; for them, in stabilizing the mind in the objectless, there is greater trouble.

There, the application of gradual meditation is: On the Pure Consciousness alone, the Universal Form is superimposed by Maya. And there, the entire inert Adhibhautika (physical) is superimposed on the mere Ativahika (subtle). As stated by Vasishtha: "This (world) is indeed Ativahika, having the mind as body, for people like you; grasped by the Adhibhautika (physical) intellect due to long contemplation." Transcending stones etc. it carries, leads the identifier (Jiva) to the desired place—thus "Ativahi"—the subtle element having unobstructed movement everywhere; accomplished by that is this entire Ativahika world; since it is "Chitta-dehaka"—Mind alone is its body/nature—thus being indeed like a dream, due to long contemplation, endowed with hardness like a diamond cage, it is grasped by the intellect born of gross elements (Adhibhautika)—this is the meaning of the verse.

And thus, just as the rope-snake being observed with intense absorption calms down by itself, and the rope which is its substratum manifests; similarly, on the image of Madhava etc. which is in reality of the nature of Consciousness, inertness is superimposed; for one seeing that very (image) with absorption for a long time even with the physical eye, the inertness of that image disappears, Consciousness manifests. Therefore indeed, it is narrated everywhere that Bana etc. deal with their Worshipable Deities by the logic of Master and Servant. Thus, "The reality of even the insentient image is the Universal Form indeed"—thinking thus, seeing the image alone with great respect, he understands its reality, the Universal Form; which Arjuna saw in the body of Vasudeva. Having made this very 'Direct Perception born of Vitarka' the subject, the Lord Yoga-Bhashyakara Badarayana (Vyasa) said: "That is the supreme perception, and that is the seed of hearing and inference."

Samadhi with gross support is Vitarka. Since the Universal Form is also superimposed on mere I-am-ness (Asmita), in its observation mere Asmita remains. Since Asmita is also superimposed on Pure Consciousness, when the mind is collected in That also, Asmita disappears along with the mind; Pure Consciousness alone remains.

Thus, those attached to the Manifest (Vyakta) attain the Supreme Goal by the sequence of climbing steps. But those attached to the Unmanifest (Avyakta), who wish to ascend to the high abode suddenly like a bird; they are greatly obstructed by Laya (sleep/inertness) and Vikshepa (distraction). And sometimes they accept Laya itself as Samadhi—thus there is possibility of their defeat also; therefore it is said "The trouble is greater for those whose minds are attached to the Unmanifest."

"Hi"—because; the "Avyakta"—supportless—"Gati"—attainment of the state—is obtained "Duhkham" (with difficulty) by the embodied, the identified-with-body; it is not easily attainable; this is the purport.

The effort (kleśaḥ) of those whose minds are attached to the unmanifest (avyaktāsaktacetasām) is indeed greater.

For the path (gatiḥ) related to the unmanifest, the mental state having the unmanifest as its object, is attained with difficulty (duḥkhena) by the embodied ones (those who identify with the body). For the embodied ones certainly consider the body itself as the Self.

He clearly states the supreme devotion (yuktatamatvam) of those who worship the Lord (Bhagavantam upāsīnānām) --.

Now, they too attain you alone, then why the superior devotion of the others (worshipers of Saguna), in this expectation he states the distinction caused by effort and lack of effort (kleśa and akleśa) -- Kleśa iti tribhiḥ (with three verses).

The effort of those whose mind is attached to the unmanifest (qualityless Imperishable) is greater.

Hi yasmāt (because) the path (gati/devotion) related to the unmanifest is attained by those who identify with the body (dehābhimānibhiḥ) as it were with difficulty.

The sense is that perpetual turning inwards (pratyakpravaṇatva) is difficult for those who identify with the body.

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. Tata eva -- only by being other than the body, this is the meaning.

In intending the quality of being extremely unmanifested (atyantānabhivyaktatva), there is a contradiction with the speaker's own statement 'upāsate' (they worship), with this intention he says -- chakṣurādikaraṇānabhivyaktamiti (unmanifested by sense organs like the eye etc.).

In 'sarvatragam' (all-pervading), to resolve the contradiction with the Shruti on atomicity (aṇutva), he says -- devādideheṣviti (in the bodies of gods etc.). Or, to introduce the subject of the quality of being thinkable (chintyatva) which is to be negated, 'sarvatragam' is said, he says -- devādideheṣu vartamānam apīti (even though existing in the bodies of gods etc.). 'tena tena rūpeṇa' (in that particular form) is not possible to negate mere thinking due to contradiction with the injunction for thinking of the Self, this is the sense.

'tata eva kūṭastham' -- for that very reason, due to being distinct from those (particular forms), this is the meaning. The former Puruṣa (Self) is common to many, continuously existing Puruṣas; here only commonness is intended, he says -- sarvasādhāraṇamiti (common to all). By this, those who speak of the supervision of Māyā (māyādhyakṣatva) designated by the word Kūṭa, or existence like a heap (rāśivat sthitattva), are refuted by the rejection of the well-known meaning etc. Hence, 'immovable like a Kūṭa, free from growth, decay etc.' is also weak here.

Now, is the quality of being common to all simultaneously unestablished? Even by assuming bodies of all kinds of species due to differences in time, there is no assumption of all individuals? Hence, how is the quality of being common to all possible? To this he says -- devādi. The sense is that the non-common (asādhāraṇa) qualities like god-ness etc., are not directly connected with the Self without an intervening factor.

Since the prohibition of motion etc., is unsuitable for the Jīva (individual soul) which has the act of passing out (utkrānti) etc., he states what is intended by the word Achala here -- apariṇāmitveneti (by non-transformability). Impermanence (anityatva) is indeed pervaded by transformation (pariṇāma). For that reason, the absence of the pervaded (impermanence) is intended due to the absence of the pervader (transformation), thus there is no tautology, he says -- tata eva dhruvamiti (for that very reason, permanent).

Since the restraint of the mind is established by 'upāsate' (they worship) itself, he explains it as being aimed at the restraint of the activities of the external sense organs appropriate for it -- samyaṅniyamyeți (having properly restrained).

'ahiṁsā satyam asteyaṁ brahmacharyaparigrahaḥ' (non-violence, truth, non-stealing, celibacy, non-possession) etc. is intended by 'sarvatra' (everywhere).

'śuni caiva śvapāke ca paṇḍitāḥ samadarśinaḥ' (The wise see equally in a dog and an outcaste) etc. is intended by 'ātmasu jñānaikākāratayā samabuddhayaḥ' (possessing equal intellect in the Selves due to their being of the single form of knowledge). Tata eva -- for that very reason, by possessing equal intellect.

Ye evam akṣaram upāsate -- those who worship the Supreme Self, having determined the inner Self denoted by the word Akṣara as the object to be attained, and the Supreme Self as the means of attaining it. Te'pi -- they also, meaning those who are certain of an object to be attained other than Me. Mām prāpnuvanti eva -- they attain the liberated form which is an inseparably related attribute, which is of the same form as Me, as stated in the manner 'viṣṇuśaktiḥ parā proktā' (Viṣṇu's energy is declared to be supreme) (Viṣṇu Purāṇa 6.7.61) and 'avibhāgena dṛṣṭatvāt' (because of being seen as non-separate) (Brahma Sūtra 4.4.3), this is the meaning. The body of the object of knowledge is better, if we find the scriptural authority, fearing this, he cites a corroborating Shruti -- paramaṁ sāmyam upaitīti (attains supreme equality).

Now, how is the word Akṣara, commonly used for the Supreme Brahman in 'athaparā yayā tadakṣaram adhigamyate' (Now the higher knowledge by which that Imperishable is attained), 'akṣaram amaranta dhṛteḥ' (The Imperishable sustains up to Ākāśa) etc., said to be the designator of the individual Self? Because it is stated in 'amṛtākṣaraṁ haraḥ' (Hara is immortal and imperishable), 'kūṭastho'kṣaraucyate' (The Kūṭastha is called Akṣara) etc., to this he says -- tathākṣaraśabdānirdiṣṭādityādinā (And from the one designated by the word Akṣara etc.).

In the manner stated in 'pañcaviṁśakamavyaktaṁ ṣaḍviṁśaḥ puruṣottamaḥ. etajjñātvā vimucyante yatayaḥ śāntabuddhayaḥ' (The twenty-fifth is the unmanifest, the twenty-sixth is the Supreme Person. Knowing this, ascetics with tranquil intellects are liberated) (Yājñavalkya Smṛti), the effort is greater for those whose minds are attached to the unmanifest (Prakṛti) and the individual Self, because of the absence of a mind fixed on Me. The mental modification having the unmanifest as its object is in the form of the cessation of all senses.

Now, being possessed of a body is possible even for Sanaka etc., fearing this, 'dehātmābhimānayuktaiḥ' (possessed of the conceit of body being the Self) is said.

सगुण और निर्गुण दोनों के ही उपासकों को एक ही लक्ष्य की प्राप्ति बताने के पश्चात् भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण दोनों मार्गों की तुलना करने का प्रय़त्न करते हैं जबकि वास्तव में वे अतुलनीय हैं तथा समान प्रभाव और गुण वाले हैं। भगवान् कहते हैं? अव्यक्त के उपासकों को सगुणोपासकों की अपेक्षा अधिक कष्ट होता है। इस कथन को इतना ही और इसी रूप में समझने पर ऐसा प्रतीत होगा कि यह कथन न केवल सगुणोपासना का समर्थन ही करता है? बल्कि निर्गुणोपासना की निश्चयात्मक रूप से निन्दा भी करता है। इस प्रकार की त्रुटिपूर्ण और पथभ्रष्टक व्याख्या गीता को उपनिषत्प्रतिपादित सनातन ज्ञान का खण्डन करने वाला शास्त्र बना देगी। भक्ति मार्ग के कुछ वाचाल समर्थक ऐसे हैं? जो श्रद्धालु धर्मप्राण जनता को छलने के लिए इस श्लोकार्थ को ही उद्धृत करते हैं स्वयं भगवान् ही प्रथम पंक्ति के तात्पर्य को दूसरी पंक्ति में स्पष्ट करते हैं। अव्यक्त के उपासकों को अधिक क्लेश क्यों होता है भगवान् बताते हैं कि देहधारियों के द्वारा अव्यक्त की गति कठिनाई से प्राप्त की जाती है। इस श्लोक में परीक्षणीय शब्द है देहवद्भि अर्थात् देहधारियों के द्वारा। प्राय इस शब्द का यही वाच्यार्थ स्वीकार किया जाता है। परन्तु यदि हम इस प्रकार की व्याख्या के दूसरे स्वाभाविक पक्ष को देखें? तो ऐसे अर्थ की असंगति स्पष्ट हो जायेगी। यदि सभी देहधारी मनुष्य केवल सगुणसाकार की ही उपासना कर सकते हैं? तो इसका अर्थ यह होगा कि निराकार का ध्यान करना केवल देहत्याग के बाद ही संभव होगा।इसलिए? श्रीशंकराचार्य इसे स्पष्ट करते हुए लिखते हैं कि देहवद्भि का अर्थ है देहाभिमानवद्भि अर्थात् देहधारी से तात्पर्य उन लोगों से है? जिन्हें देहाभिमान बहुत दृढ़ है। जो देह को ही अपना स्वरूप समझते हैं? वे लोग उनमें आसक्त होकर सदा विषयोपभोग का ही जीवन जीते हैं। ऐसे विषयासक्त पुरषों के लिए अनन्त निराकार और सर्वव्यापी तत्त्व का ध्यान करना प्राय असंभव होता है। जिसकी दृष्टि मन्द हो और हाथ काँपते हों? ऐसे वृद्ध व्यक्ति को सुई में धागा डालने में बड़ी कठिनाई हो सकती है। इसी प्रकार? जो मन और बुद्धि क्षुब्ध हैं? चंचल और विषयोपभोग में लालायित रहती है? ऐसे अन्तकरण से युक्त पुरुष समस्त नाम और रूपों के अतीत अनन्त आत्मवैभव को कदापि प्राप्त नहीं कर सकता। तात्पर्य यह है कि स्वयं अव्यक्तोपासना में कष्ट नहीं है? वरन् देहाभिमानियों के लिए वह कष्टप्रद प्रतीत होती है।संक्षेप में बहुसंख्यक साधकों के लिए विश्व में व्यक्त भगवान् के सगुण साकार रूप का ध्यान करना अधिक सरल और लाभदायक है। यदि मनुष्य जगत् की सेवा को ही ईश्वर की पूजा समझकर करे? तो शनैशनै उसकी देहासक्ति तथा विषयोपभोग की तृष्णा समाप्त हो जाती है। और मन इतना शुद्ध और सूक्ष्म हो जाता है कि फिर वह निराकार? अव्यक्त और अविनाशी तत्त्व का ध्यान करने में समर्थ हो जाता है।अक्षरोपासकों के जीवनवर्तन के विषय को इसी अध्याय के अन्तिम भाग में वर्णन किया जायेगा। तथापि अब? सगुण की उपासना करने वालों के लिए उपयोगी साधनाओं का वर्णन किया जा रहा है

'Ye tu' (But those who) etc. up to 'avāpyate' (is attained). But those who worship the Akṣara Brahman, on the Self, by the attributes like 'sarvatragam' (all-pervading) etc., all the attributes of Īśvara (the Lord) are superimposed on the Self. Therefore, although the worshipers of Brahman also attain Me alone, nevertheless 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.

Now, what is the fruit of the others? The answer 'te prāpnuvanti mām eva' (They attain Me alone) was given to this question, so what is the purpose of the following (verse)? To this he says -- Katham iti (How). In the previous sentence, only the side was taken, but the intended defect in it was not refuted. Therefore, the sense is that when the intention is revealed by the opponent, he states the resolution of that.

Then, if the fruit of both is the same. Although this doubt was refuted in the previous sentence by the use of the word 'pari' etc., and it will be stated further. Nevertheless, since the object to be proven (the greater difficulty) was not stated, the doubt arises again for one who considers the statement of the reason as a statement of the nature (of the path).

Since the connection of the words in the second half of the verse is not immediately apparent due to separation, he states it -- Avyakta iti. By this, the adjectival nature of 'duḥkham' to the verb is stated.

Since the word 'gati' is used in the sense of a non-agent case (like instrument), action (bhāva), and means (karaṇa), he states the intended meaning here -- Gatiḥ iti. By deriving it as 'that by which one goes', the meaning is that 'gati' is the means.

Now, how is the unmanifested nature of the path stated, and why is the meaning of the goal abandoned for the word 'gati'? To this he says -- Avyakta iti. That of which the worship of the unmanifest is the door (means) is so called. The worship of the Lord that follows the worship of the unmanifest is thus stated. By this, the word 'avyakta' indicates its worship. And by that, its nature as a door is indicated. If the meaning of the goal were taken, then the goal named 'avyakta' would have been said to be the 'gati'. And that is not proper. Because the attainment of the Lord is stated by 'te prāpnuvanti mām eva' (They attain Me alone), this is what is meant.

Here, in the first half of the verse, having asserted the greater effort of this path, to the question of how (it is greater), it is stated in the second half that it is well-known. He elaborates on that well-known fact -- Atiśaya iti.

Of equal intellect in all, in the manner stated in the Sixth (Chapter), what follows from that, to this he says -- Tad ṛte cha iti (And without that). That only the exclusion of non-connection is stated, and not merely that much, he says -- Sati api iti (Even though there is). When there is direct perception of the unmanifest in that, the grace of Viṣṇu exists, this is the sense. What follows from that too, to this he says -- Na ṛte cha iti (And not without). That grace of Viṣṇu.

Let the nature of the path to the attainment of the Lord through the worship of the unmanifest be this. Nevertheless, why is the effort greater here, to this he says -- Vinā iti (Without). The path of unmanifest worship, this is one having the unmanifest worship as its door. If so, why did one engage in it, which caused Arjuna to doubt? To this he says -- Tathāpi iti (Even so).

If so, then there is equality of the paths. Since the difficulty is resolved by this purpose, to this he says -- Tatrāpi iti (Even there). Even in the path having the worship of the unmanifest as its door, the difficulty in the second worship of the Lord is optional, because it is said 'ūnenā vā' (or by a lesser one). And also because the effort is greater than the worship of the Lord in the path having the worship of the unmanifest as its door, he says -- Indriya iti.

After 'nātiprasādam eti' (does not attain supreme grace), the word 'ekaḥ' (one) is understood. Both are reasons or denote manner. Why is this the intention of the Lord? To this he says -- Tad etat iti (This is that). This is illustrative. 'Sarvatra samabuddhayaḥ' (of equal intellect everywhere) etc., should also be understood. There, 'pari' denotes the excellence of the worshiper. 'sam' denotes the excellence of sense-restraint. 'Sarvatra' etc. denotes the meaning of 'sarva' etc. 'tarap' denotes the very good conduct etc. 'Avyaktā gatiḥ' denotes the separation of 'tad ṛte cha' etc. The emphatic 'mām eva' denotes 'tathāpi' etc. The statement of independence 'prāpnuvanti' (they attain) denotes the absence of divine help in sense-restraint etc. The absence of this in the worship of the Lord, as stated in the Gītā, will be shown later.

This is the intention of the Lord also because it is established by other scriptures, he says -- Sāmaveda iti.

The sixth case 'teṣām' (of those) is used in the sense of the third case. Having directly realized, from that knowledge, from the pleased Vāsudeva. The grace of the unmanifest is that which is attained with as much effort as His grace. The second word 'tu' in 'sarvasyāpi' is in the sense of 'api' (also). The word 'ādhikya' (greater) also denotes lesser-ness. Lesser and greater elsewhere are causes of transgression. In the reading 'nāvyaktādeḥ' (not of the unmanifest etc.), 'madhye' (in the middle) is supplied.

The state of the Self (kaivalyam) through My worship, having that as the object for the Supreme Self. How is this sentence relevant to the topic? To this it is said -- Śrīvacanam iti (the statement of Śrī). I reside in the eternal, determined Brahman, in the good Brahman, I become pleased, this is the connection with the statement of Śrī.

The sentences like 'śriyaṁ vasānā' (clothed in glory) etc. were cited before as the cause of doubt, that this one among them is not related to the unmanifest, he states the actual fact -- Mahataḥ iti (Of the Great). Which is taught by the sentence 'anādyanantaṁ mahataḥ paraṁ dhruvam' (Beginningless, endless, higher than the Great, permanent), this is the meaning. He also states a corroborative argument here -- Tam iti (Him).

Now, the justification for the reference mentioned is appropriate, so the argument was also stated in the Pūrvapakṣa (objection), therefore he says that it is established otherwise -- Mahataḥ iti. And the sense is that, by the strength of what is said and what will be said, this is the reference to what is stated in 'avyaktāt puruṣaḥ paraḥ' (The Puruṣa is higher than the unmanifest). Since this sentence is also explained thus by other Shrutis, it is dedicated to that (meaning), he says -- Tathā cha iti (And thus). Hurried by many, he is Puruhūta (called by many).

Now, the Sūtrakāra (author of the Brahma Sūtras) said that the principle called Unmanifest does not exist, so the deity called Unmanifest who presides over it also does not exist, then how is the commentary made with reference to it? To this he says -- Na cha iti (And not). Then what about that Sūtra? To this he says -- Śarīra iti (Body). The Pradhāna (Primordial Matter) famous in Sāṅkhya is independent, primarily denoted by the word, this is the meaning. The Vedic one is dependent on the Lord, denoted by the word through its connection with Him, this is the meaning. He also cites Shruti here -- Tathā cha iti (And thus).

Previously, one purpose was stated by 'tathāpi' (even so) 'aparokṣīkṛtāvyaktānām' (of those who have directly realized the unmanifest) etc. He states another one with proof -- Suvratānām iti (Of those with good vows). Who worship in the manner stated by 'buddhyā' (by intellect) etc., this is the implied part. This purpose is not indicated in the Gītā, therefore it was not stated there itself.

Now, showing the superiority of the former (worshipers of Nirguna) compared to these (worshipers of Saguna), he says -- Kleśo'dhikatara iti (The effort is greater). Even for the former ones, in withdrawing the mind from objects and fixing it on Saguna Brahman, and in continuous devotion to His work, and in being endowed with supreme faith, the effort is indeed greater. But for those whose minds are attached to the unmanifest (Avyaktāsaktacetasām), who are intent on contemplating the Nirguna Brahman, their effort (āyāsaḥ), who possess the aforementioned means, is greater, excessively greater.

Here the Lord Himself states the reason -- Avyakta iti (Unmanifest). Avyaktā hi gatiḥ (The path is indeed unmanifest). Hi yasmāt (because) the goal (gantavyaṁ) which is the nature of the Imperishable, the Brahman which is the fruit, is attained by the embodied ones (those with body-identification) with difficulty (kṛcchreṇa), as there would be distress. The great effort in renouncing all actions, approaching a preceptor, and removing those respective illusions by that respective deliberation on Vedānta passages, is directly established, hence their effort is greater, it is said.

Although the fruit is one and the same, the intention is that those who attain it by an easy means are superior compared to those who attain it by a difficult means.

Moreover, even in the attainment through sequence by the feeling desired by Me, there is trouble for them? For those whose minds are attached to the Unmanifest Form, due to the lack/distress of all senses manifested for service, the trouble becomes greater? Due to being attached in mind, when there is desire for vision etc., due to its absence, there is excess (of trouble) even in the stage of practice? Therefore indeed 'greater-ness' is stated.

The fruit is also attained with difficulty, He says—"Avyakta" etc. By the embodied—by those serving the body as Self—the Unmanifest Goal—the Goal established in the Unmanifest—"Duhkham"—with difficulty—"Avapyate"—is attained. "Hi"—is for justification. Due to the going in vain of the body which is fit solely for the service of the Lord, that Goal is attained with difficulty indeed.

Even after attainment, due to the absence of supernatural body etc., in the entry as Unmanifest, for the part of that nature, due to the memory of previously experienced worldly sense-pleasure, sorrow is obtained like the drinking of water for one submerged in water; this is the purport.

"Kleshah adhiktarah" (The trouble is greater)? Although for those devoted to My work etc. the trouble is indeed great (effort is there); (still) the trouble is greater for those devoted to the Imperishable, the seers of the Supreme Self, caused by the abandonment of identification with the body.

"Avyaktasaktachetasam"—those whose mind is attached to the Unmanifest are Avyaktasaktachetas; of them—Avyaktasaktachetasam. "Avyakta hi"—since the Goal which is of the nature of the Imperishable; "Duhkham" (with difficulty)—that is attained by the embodied, by those possessing body-identification? Therefore the trouble is greater.

The conduct of the worshippers of Akshara, that we shall say later—

The attainment of My nature by them (teṣām) in that unmanifested way is itself My nature. And that is not even happiness preceded by realization (adhigama), he says -- Iha kleśo'dhikataro duḥkham avyaktā gatiḥ iti (Here the effort is greater, the unmanifest path is distress).

Even there, only those who are devoted to the welfare of all beings (sarvabhūtahite ratāḥ) attain Me in that manner then. By this, it is stated that in the Eleventh Skandha of the Bhāgavata, the attainment of the Lord is mentioned for one devoted to the welfare of all beings, and not for another, similarly here also it is stated.

So, for the embodied ones (dehavatām), whose minds are attached to My unmanifest body, the attainment of the Self (Me) situated at the end of that (unmanifest body) is not in the form of direct essence-bliss (rasānanda), but the unmanifest path is attained with difficulty, the state of being one with the loss (destruction) of one's own form, like salt in water, this is the sense.

Moreover, even during the time of that worship, the effort in the means is greater. Due to the possibility of distress in meditating on the non-qualified (nirviśeṣa) as non-separate (abheda).

Therefore it is said -- 'śreyassṛtim bhaktimudasyatevibhokliśayantiyekevalabodhalabdhaye' (O Lord! Those who abandon the beneficial path of devotion and exert themselves merely for the attainment of knowledge). They abandon the devotion to Puruṣottama and exert themselves for the attainment of the knowledge of the mere Imperishable Self, thus the effort is greater, 'śrama eva hi kevalam' (It is merely effort), with this intention the termination 'tarap' (denoting greater degree) is also used.

In My path of devotion, there is supreme bliss from the very beginning, but in the path of knowledge of the Imperishable, it is at the end, this is also a distinction.

क्लेशः the trouble? अधिकतरः (is) greater? तेषाम् of those? अव्यक्तासक्तचेतसाम् whose minds are set on the unmanifested? अव्यक्ता the unmanifested? हि for? गतिः goal? दुःखम् pain? देहवद्भिः by the embodied? अवाप्यते is reached.Commentary Worshippers of the Saguna (alified) and the Nirguna (unalified) Brahman reach the same goal. But the latter path is very hard and arduous? because the aspirant has to give up attachment to the body from the very beginning of his spiritual practice.The embodied Those who identify themselves with their bodies. Identification with the body is Dehabhimana. The imperishable Brahman is very hard to reach for those who are attached to their bodies. Further? it is extremely difficult to fix the resltess mind on the formless and attributeless Brahman. Contemplation on the imperishable? attributeless Brahman demands a very sharp? onepointed and subtle intellect. The Upanishad says Drisyate tu agraya buddhya sukshmaya sukshmadarsibhih -- It is seen by subtle seers through their subtle intellect.He who meditates on the unmanifested should possess the four means. Then he will have to approach a Guru who is well versed in the scriptures and who is also established in Brahman. He will have to hear the Truth from him? then reflect and meditate on It.He who realises the Nirguna (attributeless) Brahman attains eternal bliss or Selfrealisation or Kaivalya (Moksha) which is preceded by the destruction of ignorance with its effects. He who realises the Saguna Brahman (Brahman with attributes) goes to Brahmaloka and enjoys all the wealth and powers of the Lord. He then gets initiation into the mysteries of the Absolute from Hiranyagarbha and without any effort and without the practice of hearing? reflection and meditation attains? through the grace of the Lord alone? the same state as attained by those who have realised the Nirguna Brahman. Through the knowledge of the Self? ignorance and its effects,are destroyed in the case of the worshippers of the Saguna Brahman also.

Tesam, for them; avyakta-asakta-cetasam, who have their minds attached to the Unmanifest; klesah,the struggle; is adhika-tarah, greater. Although the trouble is certainly great for those who are engaged in works etc. for Me, still owing to the need of giving up self-identification with the body, it is greater in the case of those who accept the Immutable as the Self and who kept in view the supreme Reality. Hi, for; avyakta gatih, the Goal which is the Unmanifest-(the goal) which stands in the form of the Immutable; that is avapyate, attained; duhkham, with difficulty; dehavadbhih, by the embodied ones, by those who identify themselves with the body. Hence the struggle is greater.
We shall speak later of the conduct of those who meditate on the Unmanifest.

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: