Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 13 - Shloka (Verse) 13

व्याख्या -- ज्ञेयं यत्तत्प्रवक्ष्यामि -- भगवान् यहाँ ज्ञेय तत्त्वके वर्णनका उपक्रम करते हुए प्रतिज्ञा करते हैं कि जिसकी प्राप्तिके लिये ही मनुष्यशरीर मिला है? जिसका वर्णन उपनिषदों? शास्त्रों और ग्रन्थोंमें किया गया है? उस प्रापणीय ज्ञेय तत्त्वका मैं अच्छी तरहसे वर्णन करूँगा।ज्ञेयम् (अवश्य जाननेयोग्य) कहनेका तात्पर्य है कि संसारमें जितने भी विषय? पदार्थ? विद्याएँ? कलाएँ आदि हैं? वे सभी अवश्य जाननेयोग्य नहीं हैं। अवश्य जाननेयोग्य तो एक परमात्मा ही है। कारण कि सांसारिक विषयोंको कितना ही जान लें? तो भी जानना बाकी ही रहेगा। सांसारिक विषयोंकी जानकारीसे जन्ममरण भी नहीं मिटेगा। परन्तु परमात्माको तत्त्वसे ठीक जान लेनेपर जानना बाकी नहीं रहेगा। सांसारिक विषयोंकी जानकारीसे जन्ममरण भी नहीं मिटेगा। परन्तु परमात्माको तत्त्वसे ठीक जान लेनेपर जानना बाकी नहीं रहेगा और जन्ममरण भी मिट जायगा। अतः संसारमें परमात्माके सिवाय जाननेयोग्य दूसरा कोई है ही नहीं।यज्ज्ञात्वामृतमश्नुते -- उस ज्ञेय तत्त्वको जाननेपर अमरताका अनुभव हो जाता है अर्थात् स्वतःसिद्ध तत्त्वकी प्राप्ति हो जाती है? जिसकी प्राप्ति होनेपर जानना? करना? पाना आदि कुछ भी बाकी नहीं रहता।वास्तवमें स्वयं पहलेसे ही अमर है? पर उसने मरणशील शरीरादिके साथ एकता करके अपनेको जन्मनेमरनेवाला मान लिया है। परमात्मतत्त्वको जाननेसे यह भूल मिट जाती है और वह अपने वास्तविक स्वरूपको पहचान लेता है अर्थात् अमरताका अनुभव कर लेता है।अनादिमत् -- उससे यावन्मात्र संसार उत्पन्न होता है? उसीमें रहता है और अन्तमें उसीमें लीन हो जाता है। परन्तु वह आदि? मध्य और अन्तमें ज्योंकात्यों विद्यमान रहता है। अतः वह अनादि कहा जाता है।परं ब्रह्म -- ब्रह्म प्रकृतिको भी कहते हैं? वेदको भी कहते हैं? पर परम ब्रह्म तो एक परमात्मा ही है। जिससे बढ़कर दूसरा कोई व्यापक? निर्विकार? सदा रहनेवाला तत्त्व नहीं है? वह परम ब्रह्म कहा जाता है।न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते -- उस तत्त्वको सत् भी नहीं कह सकते और असत् भी नहीं कह सकते। कारण कि असत्की भावना(सत्ता) के बिना उस परमात्मतत्त्वमें सत् शब्दका प्रयोग नहीं होता? इसलिये उसको सत् नहीं कह सकते और उस परमात्मतत्त्वका कभी अभाव नहीं होता? इसलिये उसको असत् भी नहीं कह सकते। तात्पर्य है कि उस परमात्मतत्त्वमें सत्असत् शब्दोंकी अर्थात् वाणीकी प्रवृत्ति होती ही नहीं -- ऐसा वह करणनिरपेक्ष तत्त्व है।जैसे पृथ्वीपर रात और दिन -- ये दो होते हैं। इनमें भी दिनके अभावको रात और रातके अभावको,दिन कह देते हैं। परन्तु सूर्यमें रात और दिन -- ये दो भेद नहीं होते। कारण कि रात तो सूर्यमें है ही नहीं और रातका अत्यन्त अभाव होनेसे सूर्यमें दिन भी नहीं कह सकते क्योंकि दिन शब्दका प्रयोग,रातकी अपेक्षासे किया जाता है। यदि रातकी सत्ता न रहे तो न दिन कह सकते हैं? न रात। ऐसे ही सत्की अपेक्षासे असत् शब्दका प्रयोग होता है और असत्की अपेक्षासे सत् शब्दका प्रयोग होता है। जहाँ परमात्माको सत् कहा जाता है? वहाँ असत्की अपेक्षासे ही कहा जाता है। परन्तु जहाँ असत्का अत्यन्त अभाव है? वहाँ परमात्माको सत् नहीं कह सकते और जो परमात्मा निरन्तर सत् है? उसको असत् नहीं कह सकते। अतः परमात्मामें सत् और असत् -- इन दोनों शब्दोंका प्रयोग नहीं होता। जैसे सूर्य दिनरात दोनोंसे विलक्षण केवल प्रकाशरूप है? ऐसे ही वह ज्ञेय तत्त्व सत्असत् दोनोंसे विलक्षण है (टिप्पणी प0 687.2)।दूसरी बात? सत्असत्का निर्णय बुद्धि करती है और ऐसा कहना भी वहीं होता है? जहाँ वह मन? वाणी और बुद्धिका विषय होता है। परन्तु ज्ञेय तत्त्व मन? वाणी और बुद्धिसे सर्वथा अतीत है अतः उसकी सत्असत् संज्ञा नहीं हो सकती। सम्बन्ध -- पूर्वश्लोकमें वह तत्त्व न सत् कहा जा सकता है? न असत् -- ऐसा कहकर ज्ञेय तत्त्वका निर्गुणनिराकाररूपसे वर्णन किया। अब आगेके श्लोकमें उसी ज्ञेय तत्त्वका सगुणनिराकाररूपसे वर्णन करते हैं।

उ0 -- यह दोष नहीं है। क्योंकि हम पहले ही कह चुके हैं कि यह अमानित्वादि सद्गुण ज्ञानके साधन होनेसे और उसके सहकारी कारण होनेसे ज्ञान नामसे कहे गये हैं --, जो जाननेयोग्य है उसको भली प्रकार यथार्थ रूपसे कहूँगा। वह ज्ञेय कैसे फलवाला है यह बात? श्रोतामें रुचि उत्पन्न करके उसे सम्मुख करनेके लिये कहते हैं -- जिस जाननेयोग्य ( परमात्माके स्वरूप ) को जानकर ( मनुष्य ) अमृतको अर्थात् अमरभावको लाभ कर लेता है? फिर नहीं मरता। वह ज्ञेय अनादिमत् है। जिसकी आदि हो वह आदिमत् और जो आदिमत् न हो वह अनादिमत् कहलाता है। वह कौन है वही परम -- निरतिशय ब्रह्म जो कि इस प्रकरणमें ज्ञेयरूपसे वर्णित है। यहाँ कई एक टीकाकार अनादि मत्परम् इस प्रकार पदच्छेद करते हैं। ( कारण यह बतलाते हैं कि ) बहुव्रीहि समासद्वारा बतलाये हुए अर्थमें मतुप् प्रत्ययके प्रयोगकी निरर्थकता है? अतः वह अनिष्ट है। वे ( टीकाकार ऐसा पदच्छेद करके ) अलग अर्थ भी दिखाते हैं कि मैं वासुदेव कृष्ण ही जिसकी परम शक्ति हूँ वह ज्ञेय मत्पर है। ठीक है? यदि उपर्युक्त अर्थ सम्भव होता तो ऐसा पदच्छेद करनेसे पुनरुक्तिके दोषका निवारण हो सकता था? परंतु यह अर्थ ही सम्भव नहीं है क्योंकि यहाँ ब्रह्मका स्वरूप न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते आदि वचनोंसे सर्व विशेषणोंके प्रतिषेधद्वारा ही बतलाना इष्ट है। ज्ञेयको किसी विशेष शक्तिवाला बतलाना और विशेषणोंका प्रतिषेध भी करते जाना यह परस्परविरुद्ध है। सुतरां ( यही समझना चाहिये कि ) मतुप् प्रत्ययका और बहुव्रीहि समासका समान अर्थ होनेपर भी यहाँ श्लोकपूर्तिके लिये यह प्रयोग किया गया है। जिसका फल अमृतत्व है ऐसा ज्ञेय मेरेद्वारा कहा जाता है इस कथनसे रुचि उत्पन्न कर ( अर्जुनको ) सम्मुख करके कहते हैं -- उस ज्ञेयको न सत् कहा जा सकता है और न असत् ही कहा जा सकता है। पू0 -- कटिबद्ध होकर बड़े गम्भीर स्वरसे यह घोषणा करके कि मैं ज्ञेय वस्तुको भली प्रकार बतलाऊँगा फिर यह कहना कि वह न सत् कहा जा सकता है और न असत् ही उस घोषणाके अनुरूप नहीं है। उ0 -- यह नहीं? भगवान्का कहना तो प्रतिज्ञाके अनुरूप ही है क्योंकि वाणीका विषय न होनेके कारण सब उपनिषदोंमें भी ज्ञेय ब्रह्म ऐसा नहीं? ऐसा नहीं स्थूल नहीं? सूक्ष्म नहीं इस प्रकार विशेषोंके प्रतिषेधद्वारा ही लक्ष्य कराया गया है? ऐसा नहीं कहा गया कि वह ज्ञेय अमुक है। पू0 -- जो वस्तु अस्ति शब्दसे नहीं कही जा सकती? वह है भी नहीं। यदि ज्ञेय अस्ति शब्दसे नहीं कहा जा सकता तो वह भी वास्तवमें नहीं है। फिर यह कहना अति विरुद्ध है कि वह ज्ञेय है और अस्ति शब्दसे नहीं कहा जा सकता। उ0 -- वह ( ब्रह्म ) नहीं है? सो नहीं क्योंकि वह नहीं है इस ज्ञानका भी विषय नहीं है। पू0 -- सभी ज्ञान अस्ति या नास्ति इन बुद्धियोंमेंसे ही किसी एकके अनुगत होते हैं। इसलिये ज्ञेय भी या तो अस्ति ज्ञानसे अनुगत प्रतीतिका विषय होगा या नास्ति ज्ञानसे अनुगत प्रतीतिका विषय होगा। उ0 -- यह बात नहीं है। क्योंकि वह ब्रह्म इन्द्रियोंसे अगोचर होनेके कारण दोनों प्रकारके ही ज्ञानयसे अनुगत प्रतीतिका विषय नहीं है। इन्द्रियोंद्वारा जाननेमें आनेवाले जो कोई घट आदि पदार्थ होते हैं? वे ही या तो अस्ति इस ज्ञानसे अनुगत प्रतीतिके या अस्ति इस ज्ञानसे अनुगत प्रतीतिके विषय होते हैं। परंतु यह ज्ञेय ( ब्रह्म ) इन्द्रियातीत होनेके कारण? केवल एक शब्दप्रमाणसे ही प्रमाणित हो सकता है?,इसलिये घट आदि पदार्थोंकी भाँति यह है नहीं है इन दोनों प्रकारके ही ज्ञानोंके अनुगत प्रतीतिका विषय नहीं है? सुतरां वह न तो सत् कहा जा सकता है और न असत् ही कहा जा सकता है। तथा तुमने जो यह कहा कि ज्ञेय है किंतु वह न सत् कहा जाता है और न असत् कहा जाता है? यह कहना विरुद्ध है? सो विरुद्ध नहीं है क्योंकि वह ब्रह्म जाने हुएसे और न जाने हुएसे भी अन्य है इस श्रुतिप्रमाणसे यह बात सिद्ध है। पू0 -- यदि यह श्रुति भी विरुद्ध अर्थवाली हो तो अर्थात् जैसे यज्ञके लिये यज्ञशाला बनानेका विधान करके वहाँ कहा है कि उस बातको कौन जानता है कि परलोकमें यह सब है या नहीं इस श्रुतिके समान यह श्रुति भी विरुद्धार्थयुक्त हो तो उ0 -- यह बात नहीं है क्योंकि यह जाने हुएसे और न जाने हुएसे विलक्षणत्व प्रतिपादन करनेवाली श्रुति निस्सन्देह अवश्य ही ज्ञेय पदार्थका होना प्रतिपादन करनेवाली है और यह सब परलोकमें है या नहीं इत्यादि श्रुतिवाक्य विधिके अन्तका अर्थवाद है ( अतः उसके साथ इसकी समानता नहीं हो सकती )। युक्तिसे भी यह बात सिद्ध है कि ब्रह्म सत्असत् आदि शब्दोंद्वारा नहीं कहा जा सकता क्योंकि अर्थका प्रकाश करनेके लिये वक्ताद्वारा बोले जानेवाले और श्रोताद्वारा सुने जानेवाले सभी शब्द जाति? क्रिया? गुण और सम्बन्धद्वारा संकेत ग्रहण करवाकर ही अर्थकी प्रतीति कराते हैं? अन्य प्रकारसे नहीं। कारण? अन्य प्रकारसे प्रतीति होती नहीं देखी जाती। जैसे गौ या घोड़ा यह जातिसे? पकाना या पढ़ना यह क्रियासे? सफेद या काला यह गुणसे और धनवान् या गौओंवाला यह सम्बन्धसे ( जाने जाते हैं। इसी तरह सबका ज्ञान होता है )। परंतु ब्रह्म जातिवाला नहीं है? इसलिये सत् आदि शब्दोंद्वारा नहीं कहा जा सकता निर्गुण होनेके कारण वह गुणवान् भी नहीं है? जिससे कि गुणवाचक शब्दोंसे कहा जा सके और क्रियारहित होनेके कारण क्रियावाचक शब्दोंसे भी नहीं कहा जा सकता। ब्रह्म कलारहित? क्रियारहित और शान्त है इस श्रुतिसे भी यही बात सिद्ध होती है। तथा एक? अद्वितीय? इन्द्रियोंका अविषय और आत्मरूप होनेके कारण ( वह ब्रह्म ) किसीका सम्बन्धी भी नहीं है। अतः यह कहना उचित ही है कि ब्रह्म किसी भी शब्दसे नहीं कहा जा सकता। जहाँसे वाणी निवृत्त हो जाती है इत्यादि श्रुतिप्रमाणोंसे भी यही बात सिद्ध होती है।

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 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.

To the expectation 'What is the Knowable?' -- which is to be known by the means of knowledge described before and denoted by the word 'Knowledge' -- He says -- 'The Knowable' etc. 'The Knowable' is the object of the modification of direct realization obtained by the maturity of the stated means of knowledge. And it is not that in this way, by being the object of the mental modification, Brahman becomes an object of perception (Drishya); because even though It is the Knowable by being the object of the modification, due to the absence of being the object of the fruit (Phala-vyapti, illumination by reflected consciousness), there is absence of being an object of perception. And so the Sruti: 'He knows the knowable, but there is no knower of Him', 'By what should one know the Knower, O dear?', etc.

'What is the Knowable', I shall speak of 'That' excellently, as it is. By showing the fruit, He makes the listener interested and attentive. Knowing 'which Knowable', one 'attains' 'Immortality', meaning liberation characterized by non-return. One becomes liberated, this is the meaning.

Supreme Brahman -- this is said regarding what was promised as 'And who he is' [13.4].

The other 'Of what power' [13.4] -- (regarding this) 'Anadimat' means devoid of a body possessing a beginning (adimat). Otherwise, it would just be 'Anadi'.

Thus having explained the Field, He explains the nature of the Knower of the Field mentioned as 'And who he is and of what power' and his power consisting of Maya -- with 'The Knowable' etc. I shall declare that which is to be known by these means of knowledge. Knowing which knowable, one 'attains' 'immortality', i.e., liberation.

First He states His nature -- 'Anadimat'. 'Adimat' is the Unmanifest; because of the Smriti of its origin 'From Him the Unmanifest was born'. Distinct from that is 'Anadimat'. If only 'Anadi' (beginningless) were said, since eternal flow belongs to Avyakta etc. also, and thus their beginninglessness would obtain, to negate that, 'Anadimat' is said. Or, 'Adimat' (beginning-ed) and 'Param' (superior) to that 'Cha' (also) 'Adimat' -- are 'Adimat-pare' i.e. effect and cause; distinct from those two is 'Anadimat-param'.

Therefore indeed 'Param' means Attributeless, not 'Aparam' (lower) which is with attributes. Brahman is devoid of the three kinds of limitations. 'Not Sat' -- It is not called Sat like Pradhana, atoms, etc. 'Nor Asat' -- It is not called Asat either, like the Void. And so the Sruti: 'There was not Asat, nor was there Sat, there was no Rajas then, nor the Sky (Vyoma) which is beyond' -- thus. It shows the negation before creation of the Void denoted by the word Asat, of the Pradhana denoted by the word Sat, of the atoms denoted by the word Rajas, and even of the Avyakta accepted by us denoted by the word Supreme Sky (Para Vyoma).

'With hands and feet everywhere' -- that pure nature of the Self is capable of the functions of hands and feet everywhere; similarly 'With eyes, heads, and mouths everywhere', having ears everywhere, performing the functions of eyes etc. everywhere. 'Without hands and feet he is fast and grasping, he sees without eyes, he hears without ears' (Sve. U. 3.19) -- thus for the Supreme Brahman, even though devoid of hands and feet, the agency of actions of hands and feet etc. everywhere is heard.

For the pure individual Self (Pratyagatman) also, by attaining similarity with Him, the agency of actions of hands and feet etc. everywhere is indeed established by Sruti. 'Then the knower, shaking off merit and demerit, stainless, attains supreme equality' (Mun. U. 3.1.3) -- thus indeed it is heard. 'Resorting to this knowledge, they have attained unity of nature with Me' (Gita 14.2) -- thus also it will be said.

'Exists covering everything in the world' -- whatever aggregate of things exists in the world, pervading all that, the pure nature exists; being devoid of limitations of space etc., it is all-pervading, this is the meaning.

He states what is to be known by these means -- with 'The Knowable' etc. in six (verses). I shall declare that which is to be known. He shows the fruit of knowledge to establish respect in the listener. Knowing which, which is to be described, one attains 'immortality', i.e., liberation.

What is that? 'Anadimat' -- it is not 'Adimat' (having a beginning), so it is 'Anadimat'. 'Param' -- the unsurpassed Brahman. Even though having no beginning is established by the Bahuvrihi compound 'Anadi' alone, the use of the 'Matup' suffix again is Vedic. Or, 'Anadi' and 'Matparam' are two words. Meaning Brahman is the attributeless form 'Param' (superior) to 'Mat' (Me), Vishnu.

He states that very thing. 'Is called neither Sat nor Asat'. The object of valid knowledge through positive injunction is called by the word 'Sat'. But the object of negation is called by the word 'Asat'. But this is distinct from both of those, because of being not an object, this is the meaning.

The Knower was indeed indicated before -- 'And who he is and of what power' [13.4] thus? He alone is referred to again; then how is it said 'I shall declare that which is to be known' -- to this he says -- 'Now' (Atha). The status of being a knower was indeed stated before as a characteristic of the Self, which is a specific object of knowledge, this is the sense. Therefore, the delusion that 'That which is to be known' etc. refers to the Supreme Brahman is refuted; because of the introduction 'Knowledge of Field and Knower of the Field' [13.3]; because it will be concluded with 'Thus the difference between the Field and Knower of the Field by the eye of knowledge' [13.35]; and in the middle because of the description of those two alone as 'Nature and Person indeed' [13.20]; and because of statements regarding enjoyment dependent on senses, departure, subjection to Gunas, etc.

By the word 'nature' (Svarupa), the intention of neuter gender designation is indicated, or the neuter gender is due to expectation of the word 'Brahman' to be spoken of. For a definition is that which distinguishes from all that is other than itself. There, if it is said: "What other purification of nature is there for the nature distinguished by the definition of knowership?" -- That is not so; for by a definition only distinctness is perceived; not indeed all modes of nature like existence and non-existence; just as in 'Earth possesses smell' [Tarka Sangraha 2], only the distinction from water etc. is established by that form; not indeed possessing colors produced by baking etc. Similarly here too, even by the statement of the definition of knowership, the discrimination regarding that knower's status as effect or non-effect etc. would not be established; therefore that must be spoken, with this intention he states the connection indicated by 'Knowable' as 'By Humility etc.'. 'Pravakshyami' means I shall speak excellently as it is, this is the meaning.

The division of the word as 'anādimat' (possessed of no beginning) is not appropriate, since the meaning is accomplished by the Bahuvrīhi compound even without the suffix mat. With this intention, he says 'ādi r y asya' (whose beginning is). 'Anādi' (beginningless) means without cause. This meaning is established in the section 'The Self is not [created] because of scriptural statement' [Brahma Sutra 2.3.18]. With this intention, he says, 'For this [Self].' He states that this is also the reason for the immortality mentioned before: 'For that very reason.' He states the scriptural authority for both points: 'And scripture.'

If the word division 'anādimat' is used here, the Brahman being indicated must be qualified by the word para (Supreme), and that is inappropriate because it is out of context. Therefore, he states the meaning of the word division that is appropriate to the context: 'whose supreme is I.' With the intention that this is indeed a summary of what was stated before, he says 'But other than this.' Here the word para refers to the Master (Śeṣin). He quotes the scripture successively for the status of being the body and the status of being subsidiary: 'And thus.' By this, the statement of Śankara is refuted that in the division mat-param (whose supreme is I), since the meaning is impossible, the use of the mat suffix, even though it has the same meaning as the Bahuvrīhi compound, is only for metrical completion.

Objection: Even without being qualified by the word para, the word Brahman is primarily used for the Supreme Self. How then can this refer to the individual soul (Jīva)? To this, he says: 'possessed of the quality of vastness (Bṛhattvam).' How can the contracted knowledge of the Jīva, which is proven by scripture to be atomic, have vastness? To this, he says: 'Than the body etc.' 'Unrestricted' means without contraction of the knowledge which is naturally capable of comprehending all objects. He states that vastness is proven by scripture in the state of the manifestation of its true nature: 'And that.' Regarding the objection that infinitude (anantyam) must be figurative since a being whose nature is infinite cannot be limited, he says: 'And the limitation by the body.' The sense is that it is due to an adjunct (upādhi) and is not inconsistent since there is a difference in state. He states the well-known usage of the word Brahman even when it is figurative: 'Even in the Self.' The intention is that this is why the qualification 'Supreme Brahman' is meaningful.

He shows the usage of the word Brahman for the individual self in many places in this scripture itself: 'He the Gunas.' 'For becoming Brahman' (Brahmabhūyāya) means for becoming Brahma-like. The sense is that even the liberated Jīva does not become Brahman directly, due to contradiction with statements like 'they attain to My nature' [14.2]. In 'For I am the foundation of Brahman' [14.27], 'I' refers to the Supreme Brahman, and the Brahman which is founded upon Him must be something else, this is the sense. In 'Having become Brahman' [18.54], the state of having become Brahman occurs in that verse even before the manifestation of devotion which is the means for attaining the Supreme Brahman, and thus it is not the nature of the Supreme Brahman, this is the sense.

In 'Neither Sat nor Asat is said,' there is no rejection of the state of being an object of statement for all modes, because that would contradict His own statement. Nor is it a denial of existence (Sattva) and non-existence (Asattva), because according to the maxim, 'Where there is mutual contradiction, there is no third kind of state.' Nor is it a distinction from objects designated as Sat and Asat, because those two are unestablished. Nor is it a distinction between auspiciousness and inauspiciousness, because the denial of auspiciousness is improper. Therefore, to the question of what is being stated here, he says: 'Of the effects and causes.' It is stated 'nature of the Self' to indicate that this is regarding the pure aspect.

'In the state of effect.' He shows the usage related to the Supreme Self etc., in scripture based on that: 'And thus.' That which is denoted by the word asat (non-existent) in 'Non-existent, indeed, was this' is called the cause by the word tataḥ (from that), and the effect is called sat (existent) by 'Existent arose.' In another scripture of similar meaning, 'That, indeed, was this,' the words asat etc., are interpreted respectively as the relinquishing of name and form and the attainment of them. Objection: The two states mentioned, such as 'Non-existent, indeed, was this in the beginning,' exist for the Jīva as well; otherwise, the previous statement of its status as Prakṛti (Nature) would be inappropriate. And it is established by the scripture 'He created the Jīvas with water on the earth' [Mahanarayana 1.4]. To this, he says: 'Of the effects and causes.' The two states are indeed conditioned by karma, and not inherent. The meaning is that the inherent nature is spoken of here. Objection: In the section 'Because the designated one is mentioned [in connection with] causality also, in the case of ākāśa etc.' [Brahma Sutra 1.4.14], it is determined that all words related to the cause statements, such as sat, asat, avyākṛta, refer to the Supreme Self. How then is there a context for the Jīva through the word asat here? To this, he says: 'Although.' The words sat and asat here refer to the Supreme Self indirectly (through a medium); therefore, the status of being denoted by them is established in the Jīva, which is the medium, this is the sense.

If so, the word asat would apply even in the pure state because of the absence of the distinction of name and form due to effects. To this, he says: 'Of the Knower of the Field.' The intention here is the denial of the two states created by karma, this is the sense.

पूर्व के पाँच श्लोकों में ज्ञान को बताने के पश्चात्? अब भगवान् ज्ञेय वस्तु को बताने का वचन देते हैं। परन्तु? प्रथम वे इसे जानने का फल बताते हैं? जिसकी कुछ लोग आलोचना करते हैं। किन्तु? यह आलोचना उपयुक्त नहीं है? क्योंकि ज्ञान के फल की स्तुति करने से उसके साधन के अनुष्ठान में प्रवृत्ति? रुचि और उत्साह उत्पन्न होता है।जिसे जानकर? साधक अमृत्व को प्राप्त होता है जड़ पदार्थ का धर्म है मरण। इन जड़ उपाधियों के साथ तादात्म्य के कारण अमरणधर्मा आत्मा इनसे अवच्छिन्न हुआ व्यर्थ ही मिथ्या परिच्छिन्नता और मरण का अनुभव करता है। आत्मानात्मविवेक के द्वारा अपने आत्मस्वरूप को पहचान कर उसमें दृढ़ स्थिति प्राप्त करने से मरण का यह मिथ्या भय समाप्त हो जाता है और अमृतस्वरूप आत्मा के परमानन्द का अनुभव होता है। ऐसे श्रेष्ठतम लक्ष्य को पाने के लिए पूर्व वर्णित गुणों के द्वारा हमको अपने अन्तकरण को साधन सम्पन्न बनाना चाहिए।अनादिमत्परं ब्रह्म किसी नित्य अधिष्ठान के सन्दर्भ में ही किसी वस्तु के अनादि अर्थात् प्रारम्भ की कल्पना और गणना की जा सकती है। जो परमात्मा काल का भी अधिष्ठान है? उसकी उत्पत्ति नहीं मानी जा सकती।ब्रह्म को न सत् कहा जा सकता है और न असत्। सामान्य दृष्टि से जो वस्तु प्रमाणगोचर होती है? उसे हम सत् कहते हैं। परन्तु जो चैतन्य द्रष्टा है? वह कभी भी इन्द्रिय? मन और बुद्धि का ज्ञेय नहीं हो सकता? इसलिए कहा गया है कि वह सत् नहीं है। चैतन्य तत्त्व समस्त वस्तुओं का प्रकाशक होते हुए स्वयं समस्त अनुभवों के अतीत है।यदि वह सत् नहीं है? तो हम उसे असत् समझ लेगें? इसलिए यहाँ उसका भी निषेध किया गया है। अत्यन्त अभावरूप वस्तु को असत् कहते हैं? जैसे आकाश? पुष्प? बन्ध्यापुत्र इत्यादि। ब्रह्म को असत् नहीं कह सकते. क्योंकि वह सम्पूर्ण जगत् का कारण है। उसका ही अभाव होने पर जगत् की सिद्धि कैसे हो सकती है इसलिए? उपनिषदों में उसे नेति? नेति (यह नहीं) की भाषा में निर्देशित किया गया है।शंकराचार्य जी कहते हैं? जाति और गुण से रहित होने के कारण ब्रह्म को सत् नहीं कहा जा सकता? और समस्त शरीरों में चैतन्य रूप में व्यक्त होने के कारण असत् भी नहीं कहा जा सकता है।सत् अर्थात् वस्तु है यह वृत्ति तथा असत् अर्थात् वस्तु नहीं है यह वृत्ति भी बुद्धि में ही उठती है। जो आत्मचैतन्य इन दोनों वृत्तियों का प्रकाशक है? वह दोनों से ही भिन्न है। इस तथ्य की पुष्टि यहाँ पर की गयी है।उपर्युक्त कथन से कोई व्यक्ति उसे शून्य न समझ ले? इसलिए समस्त प्राणियों की उपाधियों के द्वारा ब्रह्म के अस्तित्व का बोध कराते हुए भगवान् कहते हैं

By this knowledge, that which is to be known is stated -- beginning with 'The Knowable' etc. ending with 'situated' (verse 17).

By adjectives like 'Beginningless Supreme Brahman' etc., He states the non-separateness from the consciousness mentioned in all doctrines, which favors the suggestion of the nature of Brahman.

And these adjectives have been explained before indeed, so what is the use of fruitless repetition?

It is indicated that the sentence "That which is to be known" etc. is for propounding the two meanings promised. There, by which (word) what is said? To this he says -- 'Supreme'. By stating the name (Param) thus, the rest 'Beginningless' etc. is the propounder of what was promised as 'Of what power' [13.4], this is the meaning.

In the explanation "That which has a beginning is Adimat, not Adimat is Anadimat", seeing the defect of futility of the suffix 'Matup' because the intended meaning is established merely by resorting to the Bahuvrihi compound "Beginning of this does not exist, thus Anadi", some split the words as 'Anadi' and 'Matparam' and explain "I, the Supreme Power named Vasudeva, belong to whom, that is Matparam"; that is incorrect; because the meaning is impossible. For there is no difference whatsoever between 'Brahman' and 'Vasudeva'. And it is said that there is no higher and lower status among incarnations -- with this idea,

he explains in such a way that Matup is not futile -- 'Adimat'. Those which have a beginning are 'Adimanti'; he in whom 'Adimanti' (things with beginning) do not exist is 'Anadimat'. By force (of context), those (Adimanti) are body, senses, qualities, actions, etc., this is the meaning. Or, the analysis is the same as mentioned before. And there is no futility of Matup -- for one thinking there might be a Vedic change of gender or dropping of case-ending (in 'Anadi'), a doubt might arise "Is this a Bahuvrihi or a Nañ-samasa (Negative Tatpurusha)?". And thus, it might be suspected that Brahman Itself is not a cause? To remove that, the Nañ-samasa is resorted to with the word 'Adi' ending in Matup.

But those who, without stating such a purpose, said that the use of Matup is for filling the verse, them he refutes -- 'Otherwise'. Meaning, in the non-acceptance of the two purposes stated by us. Because filling the verse is possible with another meaningful word, this is the sense.

(Objection): Well, if relying on Bahuvrihi, using Matup again would be a defect? And it is not so, but this is a different word altogether? Then how is this a defect? Otherwise, there would be a contingency of defect in 'Yadvikari' [13.4] also. (Answer): Not so; because resorting to great effort (heavier word) when it is possible to propound the intended meaning with a shorter word while intending a Bahuvrihi is stated to be a defect. Because in 'Yadvikari' there is absence of heaviness.

Regarding the expectation "What is to be known by these means denoted by the word 'Knowledge'?", He says -- 'That which is to be known' etc. in six (verses). That which is the 'Knowable' by the seeker of liberation, 'I shall declare that'; I will speak 'excellently' (prakarshena), with clarity. To make the listener attentive, praising it by the fruit, He says -- 'Which'. Knowing 'which' -- the Knowable to be described -- one 'attains' 'immortality' (amrita). Meaning, he is liberated from Samsara.

What is that? 'Anadimat' -- it is not 'Adimat' (possessing a beginning), so it is 'Anadimat'. 'Param' -- the unsurpassed Brahman, the Supreme Self reality unlimited on all sides. Here, although the meaning is obtained by the Bahuvrihi compound 'Anadi' alone, the use of 'Matup' (suffix) is for excessiveness or constant connection. Some desire the words (split) as 'Anadi' and 'Matparam'. Meaning the attributeless form of Brahman 'Param' (superior) to 'Mat' -- the Saguna Brahman. But "I, the Supreme Power named Vasudeva, belong to whom" is a wrong explanation. Because, due to the attributeless Brahman being the subject to be propounded, speaking of possessing power there is inappropriate.

He states the attributelessness by "Neither being nor non-being is That called". The object of valid knowledge through positive injunction is called by the word 'Sat'; but the object of valid knowledge through negation is called by the word 'Asat'. But this is distinct from both of those, because of being attributeless and because of being of the nature of self-luminous consciousness. From the Sruti "From where words return along with the mind, not attaining" etc. Since that Brahman is not 'Sat', i.e., the locus of genus/existence, nor 'Asat', i.e., the locus of non-existence, therefore It is not expressed by any word by the primary power (of the word). Because the causes for the application of words are impossible there.

For instance, a word conveys meaning by genus like 'cow', 'horse'; or by action like 'cooks', 'reads'; or by quality like 'white', 'black'; or by relation like 'wealthy', 'cattle-owner'. Here, every property distinct from action, quality, and relation, whether of the nature of genus or of the nature of limiting adjunct, is collected by the term 'genus' (Jati); even an arbitrary word like Dittha, Davittha etc. functions by making some property or its own form the cause (basis), so that is also a genus-word. Similarly, the word Akasha also functions by keeping in front some property like being the locus of sound etc. accepted by Logicians (Tarkikas). In our view, however, since individuals of Akasha are many like earth etc. due to being created, 'Akasha-ness' is also indeed a genus, so that is also a genus-word. And there is no Direction (Dik) distinct from Akasha, and Time (Kala) is not distinct from Ishvara. Or if there is distinction, the words Dik and Kala also have specific limiting adjuncts as the basis of application, so they are indeed genus-words. Therefore, because the basis of application is fourfold, the word is indeed fourfold.

There, "Neither Sat nor Asat" is the negation of genus, and is for the purpose of implying the negation of action, quality, and relation also. "One alone without a second" is the negation of genus, because that (genus) existing in many individuals is impossible in one; "Attributeless, Actionless, Peaceful" is the negation of qualities, actions, and relations in order. And "For this Person is unattached". And "Now therefore the instruction, Not this, not this" is total negation. Therefore, it is proper to say that Brahman is not expressed by any word. Then how is "I shall declare" said, or how the Sutra "Because of being the source of Scripture" (fits)? Understand that it is by propounding through word somehow by implication (Lakshana). And the mode of propounding has been explained in "Someone sees this as a wonder". The detail should be seen in the Commentary (Bhashya).

Thus having stated the nature of knowledge... by that He states the nature of the Knowable -- in six verses starting with 'The Knowable'.

That which is to be known by its own quality-forms, thus by the previously stated means, I will speak 'excellently', meaning fully endowed with all parts; I will tell, this is the meaning. He states the purpose of telling that -- knowing which one 'attains' 'immortality', liberation.

Thus having promised to tell, He states its nature -- 'Beginningless'. Of which there is no beginning, meaning origin, such; 'Matparam' -- I alone am Supreme to whom, (meaning) Brahman which is My abode (or manifestation), vast and all-pervading.

He states that very thing -- 'Not Sat', it does not become existent (sat). Then does it become non-existent (asat)? Doubting this He says -- 'That is not called Asat'. By the statement of uncertainty as Sat or Asat, Brahman-hood is propounded through its unknowability.

The Knowable (Jñeyam), which is to be known, that I shall declare (pravakṣyāmi), distinctly, exactly as it is. 'What is the fruit of that?'—in order to turn the listener towards (the topic) by this commendation, He says: 'Knowing that Knowable, one attains Amṛtam (Immortality), does not die again,' this is the meaning. 'Anādimat': 'That of which there is a beginning (ādi) is ādimat; Not ādimat is Anādimat.' What is that? The Supreme, unsurpassable Brahman; the Knowable (Jñeyam) is the subject here.

(Objection) Here, some split the word into 'Anādi matparam' (Beginningless, having Me as Supreme), arguing that if it were a single word (Anādimat), the possessive suffix matup would be useless since the meaning 'not having a beginning' is conveyed by the Bahuvrīhi compound, and its being useless would be undesirable. They also show a specific meaning: 'That whose supreme power is named Vāsudeva is Matparam.' True, thus there would be no repetition, if the meaning were possible. But the meaning is not possible; because Brahman is intended to be made known only by the negation of all specific attributes, as stated by 'Na sat tat na asad ucyate' (It is said neither to be existence nor non-existence). The demonstration of possessing specific power and the negation of specific attributes are contradictory. Therefore, even if matup has the same meaning as the Bahuvrīhi compound, the usage is for completing the verse.

Having turned the listener towards (the topic) by the commendation that the Knowable leading to immortality is declared by Me, He says: 'Na sat tat jñeyam ucyate' (That Knowable is not called existence), and 'Na api asat tat ucyate' (Nor is that called non-existence).

(Objection) Now, announcing loudly with great preparation, 'I shall declare the Knowable' is inconsistent with the statement 'Na sat tat na asad ucyate'. (Answer) No, it is said consistently. How? For in all Upanishads, the Knowable Brahman is designated only by the negation of specific attributes like 'Neti Neti' (Not this, Not this - Br. Up. 4.4.22), 'Asthūlam anaṇu' (Not gross, not subtle - Br. Up. 3.8.8); and not as 'This is That,' because it is beyond speech.

(Objection) Now, an entity which is not spoken of by the word 'asti' (is) does not exist. Or, if it is not spoken of by the word 'asti', that Knowable is non-existent. And it is contradictory: 'That Knowable' and 'It is not spoken of by the word asti.' (Answer) It is not non-existent, because it is not the object of the non-existence notion.

(Objection) Now, all cognitions are pervaded by the existence-notion or the non-existence-notion. That being so, the Knowable also must be the object of the existence-notion or the non-existence-notion. (Answer) No, because of being beyond the senses (Atīndriyatvena), it is not the object of both existence and non-existence notions. For the sense-perceptible object like a pot may be the object of either the existence-notion or the non-existence-notion. But this Knowable, due to being supersensible and attainable only by the Veda (Shabdaika-pramāṇagamyatvāt), is not the object of both existence and non-existence notions like a pot; therefore 'Na sat tat na asat' is said.

As to the statement, 'It is said contradictorily, that the Knowable is said neither to be existence nor non-existence'—it is not contradictory, because of the Shruti 'Anyadeva tad viditād atho aviditād adhi' (That is indeed different from the known, and is beyond the unknown - Kena Up. 1.3). (Objection) If the Shruti also has contradictory meaning—just as 'When establishing the hall for the sacrifice, if it exists or not in the other world' is said—(Answer) No; because the Shruti stating difference from the known and unknown is solely intended to propound the entity that must be known. The statement 'If it exists in the other world' is merely a subsidiary eulogy (Arthavāda). And by reason also, Brahman is not spoken of by words like Sat and Asat.

For every word, used to reveal an object, when heard by listeners, makes them understand the object only by means of grasping the convention through species, action, quality, or relation, and not otherwise, due to not being perceived. For instance: 'cow', 'horse' is by species; 'cooks', 'reads' is by action; 'white', 'black' is by quality; 'rich', 'cow-owner' is by relation. But Brahman does not possess species; therefore it is not denoted by words like Sat. Nor does it possess quality, by which it might be expressed by a quality-word, due to being attributeless (Nirguṇatvāt). Nor is it expressible by an action-word, due to being actionless (Niṣkriyatvāt) —from the Shruti 'Niṣkalam niṣkriyaṁ śāntam' (Partless, actionless, peaceful - Śvet. Up. 6.19). Nor is it related, due to being one. And due to non-duality, non-objectness, and being the Self, it is proper that it is not spoken of by any word—and also from Shrutis like 'Yato vāco nivartante' (From which words return - Tait. Up. 2.4.9). Fearing non-existence due to its not being the object of the existence-notion, He states the existence of the Knowable through the medium of the organs and adjuncts of all creatures, and to remove that fear, He says—

He states the nature of the Knowable in six (verses) along with its own quality-forms -- 'The Knowable'. Attainable by the wise through scripture. He states the fruit of knowledge as 'immortality'.

He indicates the Knowable by definition of name and form -- 'Beginningless Supreme Brahman'. Which is propounded by all Vedanta. Or, 'That Imperishable from whom I am Higher'.

And He says that it is the locus of contradictory attributes -- 'Neither Sat nor Asat'. Asat-ness and Sat-ness are contradictory attributes; the locus of them... "There is no contradiction of both in the Lord who possesses countless groups of qualities" -- this is said by Bhagavata sentences etc.

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

Pravaksyami, I shall speak of, fully describe just as it is; tat, that; yat, which; is jenyam, to be known. In order to interest the hearer through inducement, the Lord speaks of what its result is: Jnatva, by realizing; yat, which Knowable; asnute, one attains; amrtam, Immortality, i.e.; he does not die again. Anadimat, without beginning-one having a beginning (adi) is adimat; one not having a beginning is anadimat. What is that? The param, supreme, unsurpassable; brahma, Brahman, which is under discussion as the Knowable.
Here, some split up the phrase anadimatparam as anadi and matparam because, if the word anadimat is taken as a Bahuvrihi compound, ['That which has no (a), beginning (adi) is anadi.' Matup is used to denote possession. Since the idea of possession is a already implied in anadi, therefore matup, if added after it, becomes redundant.] then the suffix mat (matup) becomes redundant, which is undesirable. And they show a distintive meaning: (Brahman is anadi, beginningless, and is) matparam, that of which I am the supreme (para) power called Vasudeva. Trully, the redundance could be avoided in this way if that meanig were possible. But that meaning is not possible, because what is intended is to make Brahman known only through a negation of all attributes by saying, 'It is called neither being nor non-being.' It is contradictory to show a possession of a distinctive power and to negate attributes. Therefore, although matup and a bahuvrihi compound convey the same meaning of 'possession', its (matup's) use is for completing the verse. [The Commentator accepts anadimat as a nan-tatpurusa compund. If, however, the Bahuvrihi is insisted on, then the mat after anadi should be taken as completing the number of syllables needed for versification. So, nat need not be compounded with param.]
Having aroused an interest through inducement by saying, 'The Knowable which has Immortality as its result is beeing spoken of by Me,' the Lord says: Tat, that Knowable; ucyate, is called; na sat, neither being; nor is it called asat, non-being.
Objection: After strongly girding up the loins and declaring with a loud voice, 'I shall speak of the Knowable,' is it not incongruous to say, 'That is called neither being nor non-being'?
Reply: No. What has been said is surely consistent.
Objection: How?
Reply: For in all the Upanisads, the Knowable, i.e. Brahman, has been indicated only by negation of all attributes-'Not this, not this' (Br. 4.4.22), 'Not gross, not subtle' (op. cit. 3.3.8), etc.; but not as 'That is this', for It is beyond speech.
Objection: Is it not that a thing which cannot be expressed by the word 'being' does not exist? Like-wise, if the Knowable cannot be expressed by the word 'being', It does not exist. And it is contradictory to say, 'It is the Knowable', and 'It cannot be expressed by the word "being".'
Counter-objection: As to that, no that It does not exist, because It is not the object of the idea, 'It is non-being.'
Objection: Do not all cognitions verily involve the idea of being or non-being? This being so, the Knowable should either be an object of a cognition involving the idea of existence, or it should be an object of a cognition involving the idea of non-existence.
Reply: No, because, by virtue of Its being super-sensuous, It is not an object of cognition involving either, of the two ideas. Indeed, any object perceivable by the senses, such as pot etc., can be either an object of cognition involving the idea of existence, or it can be an object of cognition involving the idea of non-existence. But this Knowable, being supersensuous and known from the scriptures, which are the sole means of (Its) knowledge, is not, like pot etc., an object of cognition involving either of the two ideas. Therefore It is called neither being nor non-being.
As for your objection that it is contradictory to say, 'It is the Knowable, but it is neither called being nor non-being,'-it is not contradictory; for the Upanisad says, 'That (Brahman) is surely different from the known and, again, It is above the unknown' (Ke. 1.4).
Objection: May it not be that even the Upanisad is contradictory in its meaning? May it not be (contradictory) as it is when, after beginning with the topic of a shed for a sacrifice, [Cf. 'Pracinavamsam karoti, he constructs (i.e. shall construct) (the sacrificial shed) with its supporting beam turned east-ward' (Tai, Sam.; also see Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Monier Williams).-Tr.] it is said, 'Who indeed knows whether there exists anything in the other world or not!' (Tai. Sam. 6.1.1)?
Reply: No, since the Upanisad speaking of something that is different from the known and the unknown is meant for establishing an entity that must be realized. [The Upanisadic text is not to be rejected on the ground that it is paradoxical, for it is meant to present Brahman as indentical with one's own inmost Self.] But, '৷৷.whether there exists anything in the other world,' etc. is merely an arthavada [See note on p. 40. Here, the passage, '৷৷.whether there exists৷৷.,' etc. is to be interpreted as an arthavada emphasizing, the need of raising a shed, irrespective of any other consideration.-Tr.] connected with an injunction.
From reason who it follows that Brahman cannot be expressed by such words as being, non-being, etc. For, every word used for expressing an object, when heard by listeners, makes them understand its meaning through the comprehension of its significance with the help of genus, action, ality and relation; not in any other way, because that is not a matter of experience. To illustrate this: a cow, or a horse, etc. (is comprehended) through genus; cooking or reading, through action; white or black, through ality; a rich person or an owner of cows, through relation. But Brahman does not belong to any genus. Hence it is not expressible by words like 'being' etc.; neither is It possessed of any alitity with the help of which It could be expressed through alifying words, for It is free from alities; nor can It be expressed by a word implying action, It being free from actions-which accords with the Upanisadic text, 'Partless, actionless, calm' (Sv. 6.19). Nor has It any relation, since It is one, non-dual, not an object of the senses, and It is the Self.
Therefore it is logical that It cannot be expressed by any word. And this follows from such Upanisadic texts as, 'From which, words trun back' (Tai. 2.4.1), etc.
Therefore it is logical that It cannot be expressed by any word. And this follows from such Upanisadic texts as, 'From which, words turn back' (Tai. 2.4.1), etc.
Since the Knowable (Brahman) is not an object of the word or thought of 'being', there arises the apprehension of Its nonexistence. Hence, for dispelling that apprehension by establishing Its existence with the help of the adjuncts in the form of the organs of all creatures, the Lord says:

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