Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 13 - Shloka (Verse) 12

व्याख्या -- अध्यात्मज्ञाननित्यत्वम् -- सम्पूर्ण शास्त्रोंका तात्पर्य मनुष्यको परमात्माकी तरफ लगानेमें? परमात्मप्राप्ति करानेमें है -- ऐसा निश्चय करनेके बाद परमात्मतत्त्व जितना समझमें आया है? उसका मनन करे। युक्तिप्रयुक्तिसे देखा जाय तो परमात्मतत्त्व भावरूपसे पहले भी था? अभी भी है और आगे भी रहेगा। परन्तु संसार पहले भी नहीं था और आगे भी नहीं रहेगा तथा अभी भी प्रतिक्षण अभावमें जा रहा है। संसारकी तो उत्पत्ति और विनाश होता है? पर उसका जो आधार? प्रकाशक है? वह परमात्मतत्त्व नित्यनिरन्तर रहता है। उस परमात्मतत्त्वके सिवाय संसारकी स्वतन्त्र सत्ता है ही नहीं। परमात्माकी सत्तासे ही संसार सत्तावाला दीखता है। इस प्रकार संसारकी स्वतन्त्र सत्ताके अभावका और परमात्माकी सत्ताका नित्यनिरन्तर मनन करते रहना अध्यात्मज्ञाननित्यत्वम् है।उपाय -- आध्यात्मिक ग्रन्थोंका पठनपाठन? तत्त्वज्ञ महापुरुषोंसे तत्त्वज्ञानविषयक श्रवण और प्रश्नोत्तर करना।तत्त्वज्ञानार्थदर्शनम् -- तत्त्वज्ञानका अर्थ है -- परमात्मा। उस परमात्माका ही सब जगह दर्शन करना? उसका ही सब जगह अनुभव करना तत्त्वज्ञानार्थदर्शनम् है। वह परमात्मा सब देश? काल? वस्तु? व्यक्ति? घटना? परिस्थिति आदिमें ज्योंकात्यों परिपूर्ण है। एकान्तमें अथवा व्यवहारमें? सब समय साधककी दृष्टि? उसका लक्ष्य केवल उस परमात्मापर ही रहे। एक परमात्माके सिवाय उसको दूसरी कोई सत्ता दीखे ही नहीं। सब जगह? सब समय समभावसे परिपूर्ण परमात्माको ही देखनेका उसका स्वभाव बन जाय -- यही,तत्त्वज्ञानार्थदर्शनम् है। इसके सिद्ध होनेपर साधकको परमात्मतत्त्वका अनुभव हो जाता है।एतज्ज्ञानमिति प्रोक्तमज्ञानं यदतोऽन्यथा -- अमानित्वम् से लेकर तत्त्वज्ञानार्थदर्शनम् तक ये जो बीस साधन कहे गये हैं? ये सभी साधन देहाभिमान मिटानेवाले होनेसे और परमात्मतत्त्वकी प्राप्तिमें सहायक होनेसे ज्ञान नामसे कहे गये हैं। इन साधनोंसे विपरीत मानित्व? दम्भित्व? हिंसा आदि जितने भी दोष हैं? वे सभी देहाभिमान बढ़ानेवाले होनेसे और परमात्मतत्त्वसे विमुख करनेवाले होनेसे अज्ञान नामसे कहे गये हैं।विशेष बातयदि साधकमें इतना तीव्र विवेक जाग्रत् हो जाय कि वह शरीरसे माने हुए सम्बन्धका त्याग कर सके? तो उसमें यह साधनसमुदाय स्वतः प्रकट हो जाता है। फिर उसको इन साधनोंका अलगअलग अनुष्ठान करनेकी आवश्यकता नहीं पड़ती। विनाशी शरीरको अपने अविनाशी स्वरूपसे अलग देखना मूल साधन है। अतः सभी साधकोंको चाहिये कि वे शरीरको अपनेसे अलग अनुभव करें? जो कि वास्तवमें अलग ही हैपूर्वोक्त किसी भी साधनका अनुष्ठान करनेके लिये मुख्यतः दो बातोंकी आवश्यकता है -- (1) साधकका उद्देश्य केवल परमात्माको प्राप्त करना हो और (2) शास्त्रोंको पढ़तेसुनते समय यदि विवेकद्वारा शरीरको अपनेसे अलग समझ ले? तो फिर दूसरे समयमें भी उसी विवेकपर स्थिर रहे। इन दो बातोंके दृढ़ होनेसे साधनसमुदायके सभी साधन सुगम हो जाते हैं।शरीर तो बदल गया? पर मैं वही हूँ? जो कि बचपनमें था -- यह सबके अनुभवकी बात है। अतः शरीरके साथ अपना सम्बन्ध वास्तविक न होकर केवल माना हुआ है -- ऐसा निश्चय होनेपर ही वास्तविक साधन आरम्भ होता है। साधककी बुद्धि जितने अंशमें परमात्मप्राप्तिके उद्देश्यको धारण करती है? उतने ही अंशमें उसमें विवेककी जागृति तथा संसारसे वैराग्य हो जाता है। भगवान्ने विवेक और वैराग्यको पुष्ट करनेके लिये ज्ञानके आवश्यक साधनोंका वर्णन किया है।जब मनुष्यका उद्देश्य परमात्मप्राप्ति करना ही हो जाता है? तब दुर्गुणों एवं दुराचारोंकी जड़ कट जाती है? चाहे साधकको इसका अनुभव हो या न हो जैसे वृक्षकी जड़ कटनेपर भी बड़ी टहनीपर लगे हुए पत्ते कुछ दिनतक हरे दीखते हैं किन्तु वास्तवमें उन पत्तोंके हरेपनकी भी जड़ कट चुकी है। इसलिये कुछ दिनोंके बाद कटी हुई टहनीके पत्तोंका हरापन मिट जाता है। ऐसे ही परमात्मतत्त्वकी प्राप्तिका दृढ़ उद्देश्य होते ही दुर्गुणदुराचार मिट जाते हैं। यद्यपि साधकको आरम्भमें ऐसा अनुभव नहीं होता और उसको अपनेमें अवगुण दीखते हैं? तथापि कुछ समयके बाद उनका सर्वथा अभाव दीखने लग जाता है।साधन करते समय कभीकभी साधकको अपनेमें दुर्गुण दिखायी दे सकते हैं। परन्तु वास्तवमें साधनमें लगनेसे पहले उसमें जो दुर्गुण रहे थे? वे ही जाते हुए दिखायी देते हैं। यह नियम है कि दरवाजेसे आनेवाले,और जानेवाले -- दोनों ही दिखायी देते हैं। यदि साधन करते समय अपनेमें दुर्गुण बढ़ते हुए दीखते हों? तो समझना चाहिये कि दुर्गुण आ रहे हैं। परन्तु यदि अपनेमें दुर्गुण कम होते हुए दीखते हों? तो समझना चाहिये कि दुर्गुण जा रहे हैं। ऐसी अवस्थामें साधकको निराश नहीं होना चाहिये? प्रत्युत अपने उद्देश्यपर दृढ़ रहकर तत्परतापूर्वक साधनमें लगे रहना चाहिये। इस प्रकार साधनमें लगे रहनेसे दुर्गुणदुराचारोंका सर्वथा अभाव हो जाता है। सम्बन्ध -- पूर्वोक्त ज्ञान(साधनसमुदाय) के द्वारा जिसको जाना जाता है? उस साध्यतत्त्वका अब ज्ञेय नामसे वर्णन आरम्भ करते हैं।

तथा --, अध्यात्मज्ञाननित्यत्व आत्मादिविषयक ज्ञानका नाम अध्यात्मज्ञान है? उसमें नित्यस्थिति। तत्त्वज्ञानके अर्थकी आलोचना अर्थात् अमानित्वादि ज्ञानसाधनोंकी परिपक्व भावनासे उत्पन्न होनेवाला जो तत्त्वज्ञान है उसका अर्थ जो संसारकी उपरतिरूप मोक्ष है? उसकी आलोचना। क्योंकि तत्त्वज्ञानके फलकी आलोचना करनेसे ही उसके साधनोंमें प्रवृत्ति होगी। अमानित्व से लेकर तत्त्वज्ञानके अर्थकी आलोचनापर्यन्त कहा हुआ समस्त साधनसमुदाय ज्ञानका साधन होनेके कारण ज्ञान इस नामसे कहा गया है। इससे अर्थात् उपर्युक्त ज्ञानसाधनोंके समुदायसे विपरीत जो मानित्व? दम्भित्व? हिंसा? क्षमाका अभाव? कुटिलता इत्यादि अवगुणसमुदाय है वह संसारमें प्रवृत्त करनेका हेतु होनेसे उसे त्याग करनेके लिये अज्ञान समझना चाहिये। उपर्युक्त ज्ञानद्वारा जाननेयोग्य क्या है इस आकाङ्क्षापर ज्ञेयं यत्तत् इत्यादि श्लोक कहते हैं -- पू0 -- अमानित्व आदि गुण तो यम और नियम हैं? उनसे ज्ञेय वस्तु नहीं जानी जा सकती क्योंकि अमानित्वादि सद्गुण किसी वस्तुके ज्ञापक नहीं देखे गये हैं। सभी जगह यह देखा जाता है कि जो ज्ञान जिस वस्तुको विषय करनेवाला होता है वही उसका ज्ञापक होता है? अन्य वस्तुविषयक ज्ञानसे अन्य वस्तु नहीं जानी जाती। जैसे घटविषयक ज्ञानसे अग्नि नहीं जाना जाता।

He introduces the subsequent text—with "Yathokta" (As stated). He raises an objection to the status of Humility etc. as knowledge—with "Nanu" (Objection). Suspecting that it is knowledge due to being a delineator of the object, he says—"Na hi" (Not indeed). Intending that there is mutual dependence (Anyonyashraya) in saying that it is knowledge due to being a delineator, and being a delineator due to being knowledge, he says—"Sarvatra" (Everywhere). He clarifies that only the knowledge of one's own object is a delineator, through negative concomitance—"Na hi" (Not indeed). He gives an example of negative concomitance—"Yatha" (Just as).

He refutes the objection raised against the knowledge status of Humility etc.—"Naisha doshah" (This is not a fault). He reminds of what was stated as the cause there—"Jnana" (Knowledge). He states another reason for the word 'Jnana' in those (qualities)—"Jnana" (Knowledge). Having stated the knowledge status of Humility etc., he introduces the object to be known (Jñeyam)—with "Jñeyam" (Knowable).

Having stated the fruit of the declaration of the knowable through a question, and having done the commendation (Prarochana), he says that the subsequent sentence, which aims to state the fruit of commendation, is to bring the listener (Arjuna) face-to-face—with "Kim" (What) etc. He qualifies that very thing—with "Anadimad" (Not having a beginning).

Since 'absence of beginning' exists for the unmanifest (Prakriti) also, he shows the distinction—"Kim tat" (What is that) etc. The enjoyer also is superior to the enjoyed, therefore he qualifies—"Brahma" (Brahman).

To show that there is no repetition due to the word-split into 'Anadi' (beginningless) as one word and 'Matparam' (having Me as supreme) as another, he raises another doctrine—"Atra" (Here). Fearing that if one word were possible, why use two words (Anadi-mat), and thinking that the possessive suffix (Matup) would be futile if it meant 'not having a beginning' (which is already said by Bahuvrihi compound), they split the word—the connection is with the preceding. Fearing what the meaning would be if 'Matparam' is said after 'Anadi' (beginningless), he says—"Artha" (Meaning). He says that this repetition-solution is improper because the stated explanation is illogical—"Satyam" (True). He supports the impossibility of the meaning—"Brahmanah" (Of Brahman). Still, why shouldn't it have the characteristic of possessing specific power?—anticipating this, he says—"Vishishta" (Specific). Still, why is the possessive suffix not useless, having the same meaning as the Bahuvrihi compound? To that he says—"Tasmat" (Therefore).

Having rejected another interpretation and supported his own view on "Anadimad param brahma," now, since Brahman is obtained as the cause and effect due to being Brahman, he introduces 'Na sat' (Not existence) etc. by restating what was said—"Amritatva" (Immortality). Sat (existence) is the effect, due to having manifest name and form; Asat (non-existence) is the cause, due to the reverse of that—this is the division.

He objects that the declaration of the knowable is contrary to the subject matter due to being about the undefinable—"Nanu" (Objection). He answers that the declaration about the Attributeless entity is consistent with the subject matter due to its being knowable—"Na" (Not) etc. How is this consistent when it is said 'neither existence nor non-existence' in the context of undefinability?—he asks—"Katham" (How). Since the self-illumination of Brahman is established, and teaching by way of positive assertion is improper for that, and since teaching by way of negation is famous in the Vedantas for removing the superimposed characteristics, this declaration in the form of negation of superimposed specific attributes is proper—he refutes—"Sarvasu" (In all) etc.

He states the reason for the impropriety of teaching the knowable Brahman by way of positive assertion—"Vachah" (Of speech). He fears the undesirable contingency of non-existence of Brahman like a man's horn if Brahman is not expressible by the word 'Astī' (Is)—"Nanu" (Objection). Even with such a general statement, what happens to Brahman?—anticipating this, he says—"Atha" (Or). He says that there is contradiction if the knowable is not expressible by the word 'Astī'—"Vipratishiddham cha" (And contradictory). That Brahman is not a substance due to being inexpressible by the word 'Astī'—here he says that it is a non-probative reason—"Na tavat" (Not indeed). The being an object of the 'non-existence-notion' is the cause of being a non-substance; therefore, due to the absence of that (notion), Brahman is not a non-substance—to clarify this very thing, he questions—"Nanu" (Objection). If all intellects are pervaded by either the notion of existence or the notion of non-existence, and if Brahman is not the object of either notion, its undefinability is unavoidable—he states the consequence—"Tatra" (There). He says that even if Brahman is not the object of both notions due to its distinction from objects like the pot, it is not undefinable—"Na" (Not) etc. Even though the pot etc., being perceivable by the senses, are objects of both notions, Brahman, being ungraspable by them, is not the object of both notions; yet it is not undefinable, because the one essence of existence and consciousness is seen to be not the object of verbal proof—thus he expands what was stated—"Yaddhi" (For that which).

He restates the contradiction said by the opponent—"Yattu" (But that which). He refutes it by relying on the Shruti—"Na viruddham" (Not contradictory). He suspects that the Shruti itself is an inference about having contradictory meanings, because the revealer depends on non-contradiction—"Shrutih" (Shruti). He gives an example of the Shruti being non-authoritative due to having contradictory meanings—"Yatha" (Just as). Presenting the construction of the sacrificial hall for the performance of a sacrifice yielding otherworldly fruit, the phrase 'Who indeed knows that' suggests doubt about the existence of the other world; just as a Shruti with contradictory meaning is non-authoritative, so is the Shruti about being other than the known and unknown—this is the meaning. This Shruti should not be abandoned as non-authoritative due to contradiction; it is authoritative because it propounds the non-dual inner reality in Brahman—he answers—"Na viditeta" (Not known) etc. That which was cited as 'Who indeed' regarding contradictory meaning is false, as the purpose of the arthavada (eulogy) is subsidiary to the injunction—he says—"Yadi" (If).

Where there is the characteristic of species etc., there is expressibility by words, like in a cow etc.; there is no characteristic of species etc. in Brahman, therefore its inexpressibility must be taught only by negation—he says—"Upapatteshcha" (And by reason). 'Nochyate' (Is not said)—meaning its instruction is only by negation. Expressibility by words is only for the entity possessing species etc., because the correlation is grasped only there—he expands—"Sarvo hi" (For all). The word (Shabda) does not reveal what is unheard or what has an unknown correlation through species etc., because of not being seen—he says—"Na anyatha" (Not otherwise). He gives an example of species etc. being the subject of the word 'Sat' (Existence)—"Tadyatha" (Just as that) etc. But since Brahman lacks the characteristic of species etc., due to Shrutis like 'Without Gotra (lineage)' and 'Without Varna (color)', it is not expressible by words—he says—"Na tu" (But not). Due to the Shruti 'Kevalah, Nirgunah' (Alone, Attributeless - Svetasvatara 6.11), Brahman is not expressible by words through quality—he says—"Napi" (Nor also). He states the proof for non-activity—"Nishkalam" (Without parts). Since the non-duality of Brahman is established in all Upanishads, and since specific relation is not established in It, it is not expressible by words through that either—he says—"Na cha" (And not). He states other reasons for the non-applicability of words to Brahman by direct denotation—"Advayatvat" (Due to non-duality). He correlates the Shruti about the inexpressibility of Brahman—"Yatah" (Since) etc.

And further, the knowledge of discrimination between the self and the non-self, which is directed towards the self, is 'Adhyātmajñānam'. Constant state in that is 'Nityatvam', meaning being constantly devoted to that alone is 'Adhyātmajñānanityatvam'.

The utmost limit of the means like Amanitvam (humility), achieved through effort, is the cause for the knowledge of the truth (Tattvajñānam). 'Tat' (That) is a pronoun. Everything is Brahman, its name is 'Tat' - thus the knowledge of the state of that Brahman, i.e., its reality (Yāthātmyam) is 'Tattvajñānam'. Or, the knowledge of the reality of Brahman and the world mentioned in the Śrutis (Vedic texts): 'Satyaṃ jñānamanantaṃ Brahma' (Brahman is truth, knowledge, and infinite), 'Ekamevādvitiyaṃ' (One alone, without a second), 'Neha nānāsti kiṃcana' (There is no plurality here at all), 'Vācārambhaṇaṃ vikāro nāmadheyam' (Modification is merely a verbal expression, a name only) - is 'Tattvajñānam' - this is its meaning. Its 'Arthaḥ' (meaning) is the purpose (Mokṣa) - liberation which is the cessation of all adversities (sorrows) and the attainment of supreme bliss, the vision of that.

By the Śruti 'Na sa punarāvartate' (He does not return again), and by the Smṛti 'Yadgatvā na nivartante taddhāma paramaṃ mama' (That supreme abode of Mine, having reached which they do not return), its eternal nature is indicated. And because the impermanence of Dharma, Artha, and Kāma is understood from the Śruti 'Tadyatheha karmacito lokaḥ kṣīyata evamevāmutra piṇyacito lokaḥ kṣīyate' (Just as here the world acquired by action perishes, so also the world acquired by merit perishes in the next world), etc., and also from perception (Pratyakṣa) etc., Mokṣa (liberation) alone is the highest human goal (Parama Puruṣārtha) due to its supreme excellence. And that is the fruit of Tattvajñāna alone, and not of anything else. 'Tarati śokamātmavit' (The knower of the Self crosses over sorrow), 'Tameva viditvātimṛtyumeti nānyaḥ panthā vidyate'yanāya' (Knowing Him alone one goes beyond death, there is no other path for liberation) - etc., Śrutis. Therefore, inclination towards the practice of its means occurs only when the purpose of Tattvajñāna is thus considered.

This group of twenty (qualities), from Amanitvam etc. up to Tattvajñānārthadarśanam, is called 'Jñānam' because it is the means to knowledge, and is excellently stated in Śruti, Smṛti, Itihāsa, Purāṇa, etc.

Hence, from this (the above) and otherwise (opposite) also. Non-display of the evils of birth, death, old age, sickness, and sorrow. Also, non-attachment and non-clinging in sons, wives, houses, etc. Constant equanimity in the attainment of the desirable and the undesirable. Non-existence of non-deviating devotion to Me by non-other-yoga. Non-habit of resorting to a secluded place and non-aversion to the assembly of people. Non-constant state in Adhyātmajñāna and also non-seeing of the purpose of knowledge. All this is Jñeya (knowable) knowledge, the cause of Saṃsāra (transmigratory existence) to be rejected.

And the implication is that for the cessation of Saṃsāra by rejecting this, one should resort to Amanitvam etc.

Vision of the object of knowledge of Truth -- vision (study) of scripture for the sake of direct knowledge.

Constancy in the knowledge of the Self -- bearing steadfastness in the knowledge born of spiritual scripture.

The 'Artha' (purpose) of the knowledge of Truth is the cessation of ignorance and the attainment of bliss; the vision of those two.

This group of twenty starting with humility and ending with the vision of the object of the knowledge of Truth is declared in the Vedas as 'Knowledge', meaning the means of knowledge.

'Ignorance', meaning opposed to knowledge, is what is otherwise than this, meaning pride etc.

Therefore, by abandoning that, humility etc. alone is to be accepted, this is the sense.

The knowable (Jñeya), the Goal (Prāpya), which is the nature of the Inner Self (Pratyagātma-svarūpa), attainable by means like 'Amānitvam' (Humility) etc., that I shall declare (pravakṣyāmi); knowing which, one attains the immortal Self (ātman) free from material attributes like birth, old age, and death.

'Anādi'—that which has no beginning (ādi) is Anādi; for the Inner Self, origin does not exist, and for that reason, the end also does not exist. And the Shruti says—'The wise one is neither born nor does he die' (Katha 1.2.18).

'Matparam'—That for which I am the Supreme (Para) is Matparam—'But know My other nature (Prakriti), the superior one, to be the living entity (Jīva-bhūtām)' (Gita 7.5)—thus it has been said; the nature of the Self is indeed one essence of being subsidiary to the Lord (Bhagavaccheṣhataikarasam) due to being His body (Bhagavaccharīratayā). And thus the Shruti: 'Who, standing in the Self, is within the Self, whom the Self does not know, whose body is the Self, who controls the Self from within' (Brihadaranyaka 3.7.22).

And similarly: 'He is the cause, the Lord of the lords of the senses, nor is there any progenitor or master of Him' (Svetasvatara 6.9); 'The Master of Pradhana (Prakriti) and Kshetrajña, the Lord of the Gunas' (Svetasvatara 6.16)—etc.

'Brahma'—endowed with the quality of greatness (bṛhattvam); an entity distinct from the body etc.; the Kshetrajña-Tattva (principle of the knower of the field), which is naturally free from limitation by the body etc., this is the meaning. 'And that one becomes fit for infinity' (Svetasvatara 5.9)—this is heard.

The limitation by the body (Śarīraparicchinnatvam) is Karma-wrought; for the one freed from the bondage of Karma, there is infinity. The word 'Brahma' is also used for the Self. 'He, transcending these Gunas, becomes fit for the state of Brahman' (Gita 14.26); 'I am indeed the support of Brahman, the immortal and the immutable' (14.27); 'One who has become Brahman, with a serene mind, neither grieves nor desires. Being equal towards all beings, he attains Supreme Devotion to Me' (18.54)—thus the statement.

'Na sat tat na asad ucyate' (It is said neither to be existence nor non-existence)—the nature of the Self is not spoken of by the words Sat (existence) and Asat (non-existence) due to being devoid of the two states of effect-form and cause-form.

For in the state of effect, it is called Sat due to possessing names and forms like gods etc.; in the state of cause, it is called Asat due to being unfit for that (names and forms). And thus the Shruti: 'Non-existence indeed was this in the beginning. From that indeed existence was born' (Taittiriya 2.7); 'That, this was then unmanifest. It was differentiated by name and form' (Brihadaranyaka 1.4.7)—etc.

But the conjunction of the two states of cause and effect with the Self is wrought by the envelopment of Avidyā in the form of Karma, not by its essential nature; hence the nature of the Self is not spoken of by the words Sat and Asat.

Although 'Non-existence indeed was this in the beginning' refers to the Supreme Brahman in the state of cause. Nevertheless, the Supreme Brahman in the causal state has the subtle sentient and insentient entities, which are unfit for the division of name and form, as Its body—thus the nature of the Field and the Knower of the Field in the causal state is also denoted by the word Asat; since that state of the Knower of the Field is Karma-wrought, the purified nature is not designated by the words Sat and Asat.

Moreover -- 'Adhyatma' etc. 'Adhyatma-jnana' is that which exists regarding the Self; 'Nityatvam' in that is constant state. Meaning steadfastness in the purification of the meaning of the word 'Thou' (Tvam-pada).

The 'Artha' (purpose) of the knowledge of Truth is liberation; the vision of that. Meaning consideration of the supreme excellence of liberation.

This which has been stated consisting of twenty items like humility, unpretentiousness, etc., is declared to be 'Knowledge', because it is the means to knowledge.

Therefore 'otherwise', opposite to this, pride etc., which is this, is declared to be 'Ignorance' by Vasishtha etc., because it is opposed to knowledge. Therefore, it is to be abandoned by all means, this is the meaning.

'Constancy in the knowledge of the Self' -- here by the word 'Nitya' (constant), uninterrupted continuity is intended, he says -- 'Constancy in that'.

'Reflection on the object/meaning of the knowledge of Truth' -- saying 'reflection on the meaning of the knowledge of Truth' is inappropriate; for the mode of reflection is not 'what is the meaning of the knowledge of Truth?'; but rather 'what is the Truth?', then 'reflection on the Truth' or 'reflection on the object of Truth' should be said, not 'reflection on the object of the knowledge of Truth'. Similarly, reflection on the object or the purpose of the knowledge of Truth? Even 'seeing the human goal of the knowledge of Truth' etc. has weak purpose; and the word 'Darshana' (vision) is not read here by students; therefore he states another appropriate meaning for this -- 'Purpose of the knowledge of Truth'. Intending the absence of thought regarding anything else as the resultant meaning, he says 'Being intent on that is the meaning'.

He states the definition suitable for designating all qualities like humility etc. without distinction by the word 'Knowledge' -- 'Is known by this'. 'Self' is the mention of the specific subject obtained from context and meaning. Explaining the instrumental derivation, he states the resultant meaning -- 'Means to Self-knowledge'. Since superficial understanding etc. are already established, direct knowledge etc. is intended here.

Having indicated 'This is Knowledge', 'What is otherwise than this' -- by thus stating generally that everything distinct from this is Ignorance, it is intended that all that is to be avoided -- with this intention he says 'Of the one connected with the Field'. The statement of connection with the Field is to indicate that its absolute cessation depends on knowledge. 'This' -- by this restricted indication, the intended meaning is explained by the emphasis 'group of qualities alone'. Not merely pride etc. which are opposed to the qualities in question -- with this intention he says 'Everything distinct from this'.

Regarding 'Ignorance', independent of the instrumental derivation, following the well-known abstract noun derivation, opposition to knowledge is stated; he says -- 'Field-effect being opposed to Self-knowledge is Ignorance'. Or, even if the instrumental sense is taken to avoid dissimilarity, this is the resultant statement.

ज्ञान को दर्शाने वाले इस प्रकरण के इस अन्तिम श्लोक में भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण दो और गुणों को बताते हैं अध्यात्म ज्ञान में स्थिरता? तथा तत्त्वज्ञानार्थ का दर्शन।आत्मज्ञान में स्थिरता आत्मज्ञान जीवन में अनुभव करके जीने का विषय है? केवल बुद्धि से सीखने का नहीं। यदि आत्मा ही एक सर्वव्यापी पारमार्थिक सत्य है? तब साधक को अपने व्यक्तित्व के सभी स्तरों पर आत्मदृष्टि से रहने का प्रयत्न करना चाहिये। स्वयं को आत्मा जानकर? उसी बोध में स्थित होकर साधक को अपने जीवन के समस्त व्यवहार करने चाहिये। इसके लिये सतत अभ्यास की आवश्यकता होती है।तत्त्वज्ञानार्थदर्शनम् अमानित्वादि गुणों का विकास जिसके निमित्त करने को कहा गया है? वह है तत्त्वज्ञान और उस तत्त्वज्ञान के अर्थ का जो लक्ष्य है ? उसका दर्शन करना। संसार बन्धनों की उपरामता अर्थात् मोक्ष ही वह लक्ष्य है। लक्ष्य का सतत स्मरण करते रहने से साधनाभ्यास में प्रवृत्ति और उत्साह बना रहता है? जो लक्ष्यप्राप्ति में साहाय्यकारी सिद्ध होता है। इस प्रकरण में इन बीस गुणों को ही ज्ञान कहा गया है? क्योंकि ये समस्त गुण आत्मसाक्षात्कार के लिए अनुकूल हैं।उपर्युक्त ज्ञान के द्वारा जानने योग्य ज्ञेय वस्तु क्या है इसके उत्तर में कहते हैं

Thus the Field has been explained, and the Knower of the Field also. Now, Knowledge is spoken of—"Amānitvam" (Humility) etc. up to "Anyathā" (Otherwise/Ignorance).

'Ananyayogena' (By the yoga of non-difference)—The certainty that there is nothing else other than the Supreme Self, Mahesvara—that very certainty is 'Yoga'; by that certainty, 'Bhakti' (Devotion) towards Me. Therefore, it never deviates; due to the absence of desires which are believed to be the cause of deviation; or even if those (desires) are of the nature of other mental modifications, due to their being absorbed in that one (Bhakti).

Thus, it should be contemplated everywhere. The opposite of this is 'Ajñānam' (Ignorance), like vanity (Mānitvam) etc.

Objection: 'Vision of the object of knowledge of Truth' is indeed knowledge itself? How is that stated among the means of knowledge? To this he says -- 'Tattva' etc.

'Vision of Shastra' means reflection on the purport.

Here, it should be known that the explanation is by supplying 'of the Shastra'.

'Adhyatma' etc. Moreover, 'Adhyatma' -- the knowledge of discrimination between Self and non-Self which has proceeded regarding the Self is 'Knowledge of the Self' (Adhyatma-jnana); 'Constancy' in that -- steadfastness in that very thing. For one established in discrimination becomes capable of (understanding) the knowledge of the meaning of the Sentence (Tat Tvam Asi).

'Knowledge of Truth' -- of the direct realization "I am Brahman" produced by the instrument of Vedanta sentences, which is the fruit of the maturity of all means like Humility etc.; its 'Artha' -- meaning purpose -- is Moksha, which is of the nature of the cessation of all sorrow consisting of Avidya and its effects, and of the nature of the attainment of the Supreme Blissful Self; the 'Vision' (Darshana) -- meaning reflection -- of that. For, only upon reflecting on the fruit of the knowledge of Truth, would there be engagement in its means.

This group of twenty starting with Humility etc. and ending with Vision of the object of knowledge of Truth is declared to be 'Knowledge', because it is for the sake of knowledge. Therefore 'otherwise' -- opposite to this, pride etc., which is that, is declared to be 'Ignorance', because it is opposed to knowledge. Therefore, the sense is that by abandoning ignorance, knowledge alone is to be accepted.

'In Adhyatma-jnana' -- in the knowledge of the nature of the Self -- constant state. 'Object of Tattva-jnana' -- Bhagavan who consists of the meaning (Artha), or Moksha; 'Vision' of that -- inquiry in the manner of reflection.

This stated in the five verses is declared to be 'Knowledge'. One endowed with this is a knower.

Therefore 'otherwise' -- that which is contrariety, endowed with states like pride etc., that is 'Ignorance', meaning not knowledge.

Unworthy of association, these too are to be abandoned.

'Constancy in the knowledge of the Self' -- knowledge having the Self etc. as its object is 'Adhyatma-jnana'; constant state in that is 'Constancy'. 'Knowledge of Truth' is the cause (result) of the maturity of cultivation of the means of knowledge like Humility etc.; its 'Artha' (purpose) is Moksha, the cessation of Samsara; the reflection on that is 'Vision of the object of knowledge of Truth'. For, upon considering the fruit of the knowledge of Truth, there would be engagement in the practice of its means.

This, stated from Humility etc. ending with Vision of the object of knowledge of Truth, is declared as 'Knowledge', because it is for the purpose of knowledge. 'Ignorance' is 'what' is 'otherwise' -- contrary -- 'to this' as described. Pride, hypocrisy, violence, intolerance, crookedness etc. is Ignorance; (this) should be known for the purpose of removal, because it is the cause of the continuance of Samsara.

Regarding the expectation 'What is to be known by the described Knowledge?', He says -- 'That which is to be known' etc. (Objection): Well, Humility etc. are Yamas and Niyamas. The Knowable is not known by them. For Humility etc. are not seen to be determiners of any object.

And everywhere, indeed, the knowledge which has a specific object is seen to be the determiner of that knowable. For one thing is not perceived by knowledge having another object; like fire by knowledge of a pot. (Answer): This is not a defect; for we have indeed said that it is called 'Knowledge' because it is the cause of knowledge, and because it is a cooperative cause of knowledge --

This declared 'Knowledge' is the effect of Vidya.

What is otherwise than this, that 'Ignorance' is the effect of Avidya, this is asserted.

अध्यात्मज्ञाननित्यत्वम् constancy in Selfknowledge? तत्त्वज्ञानार्थदर्शनम् perception of the end of true knowledge? एतत् this? ज्ञानम् knowledge? इति thus? प्रोक्तम् declared? अज्ञानम् ignorance? यत् which? अतः from it? अन्यथा opposed.Commentary The liberated sage has constant awareness of the Self. He knows that knowledge of the Self alone is permanent and all other learning relating to this world is ignorance. He knows that the knowledge which leads to the realisation of the Self is the only truth.These attributes beginning with humility are declared to be knowledge? because they are conducive to knowledge they are the means to knowledge. They are secondary or auxiliary causes of knowledge. The fruit of this knowledge of the Self is deliverance from the round of births and deaths. The spiritual aspirant should always keep the end of knowledge in view. Only then will he attempt to develop the various virtues which are conducive to the attainment of knowledge of the Self. What is opposed to knowledge? viz.? lust? anger? greed? pride? hypocrisy? attachment? cunningness? diplomacy? injuring others? is ignorance. These evil traits which are the products of ignorance bind a man to Samsara. If you wish to attain the knowledge of the Self you will have to eradicate these evil traits which stand as stumbling blocks on the path of salvation. If you cultivate the opposite virtues? the evil traits will die by themselves just as the plants which are deprived of water in a garden die by themselves. It is difficult to eradicate the evil traits by fighting against them.

Adhyatma-jnana-nityatvam, steadfastness in the knowledge of the Self: adhyatma-jnanam is the knowledge of the Self, etc.; constant dwelling in that is nityatvam.
Tattva-jnanartha-darsanam, contemplating on the Goal of the knowledge of Reality: Tattva-jnanam is that (realization of Truth) which arises from the fruition of application to the disciplines like humility etc. which are the means to knowledge. Its Goal (artha) is Liberation, the cessation of mundane existence. Contemplation (darsana) on that is tattva-jnana-artha-darsanam. For, when one engages in contemplation on the result of the knowledge of Reality, one gets the urge to undertake the disciplines which are its means.
Etat, this-those that have been stated from 'humility' etc. to 'contemplation on the Goal of the knowledge of Reality'; proktam, is spoken of; iti, as; jnanam, Knowledge, because they are meant to lead one to Knowledge. Ajnanam, ignorance; is yat, that which is; anyatha, other; atah, than this-what has been stated above.
Contrarily, arrogance, pretentiousness, cruelty, revenge, insincerity, etc. are to be known as ignorance so that, since they are the cause of the origination of worldly existence, they can be avoided.
To the estion as to what is to be known through the aforesaid Knowledge, the Lord says, 'I shall speak of that which is to be known,' etc.
Objection: Do not humility etc. constitute yama and niyama [See fn. on p. 239.-Tr.]? The Knowable is not known through them. For humility etc. are not seen to determine the nature of anything. Moreover, everywhere it is observed that whatever knowledge reveals its own object, that itself ascertains the nature of that object of knowledge (the knowable). Indeed, nothing else is known through a knowledge concerning some other object. As for instance, fire is not known through the knowledge of a pot.
Reply: This is not a defect, for we have said that they are called 'Knowledge' because they lead one to Knowledge, and because they are auxiliary causes of Knowledge.

'Adhyatma-jnana' is the knowledge that pertains to the self. Reflection for the attainment of knowledge of the truth, namely, being always intent in the thought having for its object the knowledge of the truth. 'Knowledge' is that by which the self is realised. The meaning is that it is the means for the knowledge of the self. The group of attributes mentioned before, beginning with modesty etc., are those that are favourable for the knowledge of the self in association with the body. All the evolutes of Ksetra, which are different from those mentioned above, constitute ignorance, as they are antagonistic to the knowledge of the self.
Now, the nature of Ksetrajna, characterised as the knower in the stanza, 'He who knows it' (13.1), is examined: