Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 13 - Shloka (Verse) 15

व्याख्या -- सर्वेन्द्रियगुणाभासं सर्वेन्द्रियविवर्जितम् -- पहले परमात्मा हैं? फिर परमात्माकी शक्ति प्रकृति है। प्रकृतिका कार्य महत्तत्त्व? महत्तत्त्वका कार्य अहंकार? अहंकारका कार्य पञ्चमहाभूत? पञ्चमहाभूतोंका कार्य मन एवं दस इन्द्रियाँ और दस इन्द्रियोंका कार्य पाँच विषय -- ये सभी प्रकृतिके कार्य हैं। परमात्मा प्रकृति और उसके कार्यसे अतीत हैं। वे चाहे सगुण हों या निर्गुण? साकार हों या निराकार? सदा प्रकृतिसे अतीत ही रहते हैं। वे अवतार लेते हैं? तो भी प्रकृतिसे अतीत ही रहते हैं। अवतारके समय वे प्रकृतिको अपने वशमें करके प्रकट होते हैं।जो अपनेको गुणोंमें लिप्त? गुणोंसे बँधा हुआ मानकर जन्मतामरता था? वह बद्ध जीव भी जब परमात्माको प्राप्त होनेपर गुणातीत (गुणोंसे रहित) कहा जाता है? तो फिर परमात्मा गुणोंमें बद्ध कैसे हो सकते हैं वे तो सदा ही गुणोंसे अतीत (रहित) हैं। अतः वे प्राकृत इन्द्रियोंसे रहित हैं अर्थात् संसारी जीवोंकी तरह हाथ? पैर? नेत्र? सिर? मुख? कान आदि इन्द्रियोंसे युक्त नहीं हैं किन्तु उनउन इन्द्रियोंके विषयोंको ग्रहण करनेमें सर्वथा समर्थ है (टिप्पणी प0 689)। जैसे -- वे कानोंसे रहित होनेपर भी भक्तोंकी पुकार सुन लेते हैं? त्वचासे रहित होनेपर भी भक्तोंका आलिङ्गन करते हैं? नेत्रोंसे रहित होनेपर भी प्राणिमात्रको निरन्तर देखते रहते हैं? रसनासे रहित होनेपर भी भक्तोंके द्वारा लगाये हुए भोगका आस्वादन करते हैं? आदिआदि। इस तरह ज्ञानेन्द्रियोंसे रहित होनेपर भी परमात्मा शब्द? स्पर्श आदि विषयोंको ग्रहण करते हैं। ऐसे ही वे वाणीसे रहित होनेपर भी अपने प्यारे भक्तोंसे बातें करते हैं? चरणोंसे रहित होनेपर भी भक्तके पुकारनेपर दौड़कर चले आते हैं? हाथोंसे रहित होनेपर भी भक्तके दिये हुए उपहारको ग्रहण करते हैं? आदिआदि। इस तरह कर्मेन्द्रियोंसे रहित होनेपर भी परमात्मा कर्मेन्द्रियोंका सब कार्य करते हैं। यही इन्द्रियोंसे रहित होनेपर भी भगवान्का इन्द्रियोंके विषयोंको प्रकाशित करना है।असक्तं सर्वभृच्चैव -- भगवान्का सभी प्राणियोंमें अपनापन? प्रेम है? पर किसी भी प्राणीमें आसक्ति नहीं है। आसक्ति न होनेपर भी वे ब्रह्मासे चींटीपर्यन्त सम्पूर्ण प्राणियोंका पालनपोषण करते हैं। जैसे मातापिता अपने बालकका पालनपोषण करते हैं? उससे कई गुना अधिक पालनपोषण भगवान् प्राणियोंका करते हैं। कौन प्राणी कहाँ है और किस प्राणीको कब किसी वस्तु आदिकी जरूरत पड़ती है? इसको पूरी तरह जानते हुए भगवान् उस वस्तुको आवश्यकतानुसार यथोचित रीतिसे पहुँचा देते हैं। प्राणी पृथ्वीपर हो? समुद्रमें हो? आकाशमें हो अथवा स्वर्गमें हो अर्थात् त्रिलोकीमें कहीं भी कोई छोटासेछोटा अथवा बड़ासेबड़ा प्राणी हो? उसका पालनपोषण भगवान् करते हैं। प्राणिमात्रके सुहृद् होनेसे वे अनुकूलप्रतिकूल परिस्थितियोंके द्वारा पापपुण्योंका नाश करके प्राणिमात्रको शुद्ध? पवित्र करते रहते हैं।निर्गुणं गुणभोक्तृ च -- वे परमात्मा सम्पूर्ण गुणोंसे रहित होनेपर भी सम्पूर्ण गुणोंके भोक्त हैं। तात्पर्य है कि जैसे मातापिता बालककी मात्र क्रियाओंको देखकर प्रसन्न होते हैं? ऐसे ही परमात्मा भक्तके द्वारा की हुई मात्र क्रियाओंको देखकर प्रसन्न होते हैं? अर्थात् भक्तलोग जो भी क्रियाएँ करते हैं? उन सब क्रियाओंके भोक्ता भगवान् ही बनते हैं।

उपाधिरूप हाथ? पैर आदि इन्द्रियोंके अध्यारोपसे किसीको ऐसी शङ्का न हो कि ज्ञेय उन उपाधियोंवाला है? इस अभिप्रायसे यह श्लोक कहते हैं --, वह ज्ञेय समस्त इन्द्रियोंके गुणोंसे अवभासित ( प्रतीत ) होनेवाला है। यहाँ श्रोत्रादि ज्ञानेन्द्रियाँ? वाक् आदि कर्मेन्द्रियाँ तथा मन और बुद्धि ये दोनों अन्तःकरण -- इन सबका सर्व इन्द्रियोंके नामसे ग्रहण है क्योंकि अन्तःकरण भी ज्ञेयकी उपाधिके रूपमें अन्य इन्द्रियोंके समान ही है? बल्कि श्रोत्रादिका भी उपाधित्व अन्तःकरणरूप उपाधिके द्वारा ही है। इसलिये यह अभिप्राय है कि उपाधिरूप अन्तःकरण और बाह्यकरण? इन सभी इन्द्रियोंके गुण जो निश्चय? संकल्प? श्रवण और भाषण आदि हैं? उनके द्वारा वह ज्ञेय प्रतिभासित होता है अर्थात् उन इन्द्रियोंकी क्रियासे वह क्रियावान्सा दिखलायी देता है। ध्यान करता हुआसा? चेष्टा करता हुआसा इस श्रुतिसे भी यही सिद्ध होता है। तो फिर उस ज्ञेयको स्वयं क्रिया करनेवाला ही क्यों नहीं मान लिया जाता इसपर कहते हैं -- वह ज्ञेय समस्त इन्द्रियोंसे रहित है अर्थात् सब करणोंसे रहित है। इसलिये वह इन्द्रियोंके व्यापारसे ( वास्तवमें ) व्यापारवाला नहीं होता। यह जो मन्त्र है कि वह ( ईश्वर ) बिना पैर और हाथके चलता और ग्रहण करता है? बिना चक्षुके देखता और बिना कानोंके सुनता है सो इस अभिप्रायको दिखानेके लिये है कि वह ज्ञेय समस्त इन्द्रियरूप उपाधियोंके गुणोंकी अनुरूपता प्राप्त करनेमें समर्थ है? उसे साक्षात् गमनादि क्रियाओँसे युक्त बतलानेके लिये यह मन्त्र नहीं है। अन्धेने मणि प्राप्त की इत्यादि मन्त्रोंके अर्थकी भाँति उस मन्त्रका अर्थ है वह ज्ञेय समस्त इन्द्रियोंसे रहित है? इसलिये संगरहित है अर्थात् सब प्रकारके सम्बन्धोंसे रहित है। यद्यपि यह बात है तो भी वह ज्ञेय सबको धारण करनेवाला है। सत्बुद्धि सर्वत्र व्याप्त है? अतः सत् ही,सबका अधिष्ठान है। मृगतृष्णिकादि मिथ्या पदार्थ भी बिना अधिष्ठानके नहीं होते? इसलिये वह ज्ञेय सबका धारण करनेवाला है। उस ज्ञेयकी सत्ताको बतलानेवाला यह दूसरा साधन भी है। वह ज्ञेय निर्गुण यानी सत्त्व? रज और तम इन तीनों गुणोंसे अतीत है तो भी गुणोंका भोक्ता है अर्थात् वह ज्ञेय सुखदुःख और मोहके रूपमें परिणत हुए तीनों गुणोंका शब्दादिद्वारा भोग करनेवाला -- उन्हें उपलब्ध करनेवाला है।

'Because of this also' the Knowable Brahman exists, he says -- 'Moreover'. Taking 'Outside' which is to be explained, he explains -- 'Skin' etc. Outside the beings means consisting of external objects etc., this is the meaning. How is there self-hood for the non-self itself by imagination? To this he says -- 'As the Self'.

He states the meaning of the word 'Inside' -- 'Similarly'. Inside, in the middle of moving and non-moving beings, existing as the Inner Self, this is the meaning. Introducing the second foot, he explains -- 'Outside' etc. That which appears in the middle as the nature of elements in the form of various kinds of bodies, that also is the Reality (Tattva) 'Sat' included in the Knowable, this is the meaning. How is the aggregate of elements consisting of moving and non-moving the Knowable? To this he says -- 'Just as'. Just as the imagined snake etc. is included in the substratum rope, so too because the appearance of the body is included in the Knowable, the non-existence of the Knowable in the middle should not be suspected, this is the meaning.

If the Knowable is the Self of all, why is it not grasped by all as 'This'? He doubts -- 'If'. Because of the absence of fitness to be grasped as 'This', no, he says -- 'It is said'. (If) It shines as the Self of all objects, how is there unfitness for that? Doubting this, he says -- 'True'. Even if subtle, what would happen? Doubting this, he says -- 'Therefore'. Subtlety means being beyond senses; if that is unknowable, how is there liberation from its knowledge? To this he says -- 'To the ignorant'. He states the fruit of the qualification -- 'But to the wise'.

If it is known as the Self by them, how is it far away? Doubting this, he says -- 'By being unknown'. How then is its inwardness? To this he says -- 'And near'. Relative to the difference between the wise and the ignorant, 'Farther than the far, and here near', this Sruti, its meaning is translated here by context, this is the meaning.

To refute the delusion of the Knowable possessing those directly without the superimposition of adjuncts like hands etc., He says -- 'All' etc. 'And all those senses' -- ears, speech etc., organs of knowledge and organs of action; because the status of being an adjunct of the Knowable is equal, and because ears etc. are adjuncts only through the adjunct of the internal organ, by taking 'all senses', the internal organ -- intellect and mind -- are also grasped. From that, the activity of the internal and external organs is implied, this is the meaning of the Sruti.

To refute the delusion that Brahman is indeed active, He says. 'Devoid of all senses' -- specifically devoid of all instruments in all three times, therefore not active in reality by the functions of the instruments, that Knowable, this is the meaning.

(Objection): Well, by the Mantra "Without hands and feet He is fast and grasping, He sees without eyes, He hears without ears; He knows the knowable and there is no kno wer of Him, Him they call the foremost Person, the Great" etc., since the possession of actions like moving fast etc. is understood for the Knowable directly, why is it not explained that He is indeed active by the functions of the instruments? (Answer): If you say so; according to the Sruti "Meditates as if", the Mantra also is for the purpose of showing only that the Knowable has the power to partake of conformity to the qualities of all sense-adjuncts; like the Arthavada (eulogy) in the Mantra "A blind man found a jewel", since this Arthavada has no purport in the meaning of the form of possessing actions like running etc. directly heard, there is no contradiction to the context.

Because of being devoid of all instruments, (He is) said to be 'Free from all attachment', from the Sruti "For (this Person) is unattached". Although devoid of all attachment in reality, He is the substratum of all, He says. 'And supporter of all indeed' -- by His own existence alone, as the substratum, He nourishes everything, this is the meaning.

And so is this syllogism: The disputed (world) is superimposed on the Real, because each is known by a cognition permeated by That (Real), like the difference in moons known by cognition permeated by the (one) moon. And so, because the entire aggregate of transactional and illusory objects is not without a locus, and when examined they have the Real (Sat) as locus, the Knowable is the 'Supporter of all', this is the meaning.

Even while being the substratum of all, he states His attributelessness in reality. 'Attributeless' -- devoid of qualities Sattva, Rajas, Tamas, that Knowable. Although thus, still 'And enjoyer of qualities' -- of qualities Sattva etc. transformed into the forms of pleasure, pain, and delusion through sound etc., the Knowable Brahman is the Enjoyer, the Perceiver -- this is the connection.

Illuminates all senses and qualities, thus 'Shining by the functions of all senses' (Sarvendriyagunabhasam).

The meaning of 'devoid of senses' etc. has been stated before.

(Objection): Well, like the sacrificial post and Ahavaniya fire, Brahman, though transcendental, is indeed varied, qualified by the world of cause and effect; this is supported by the scripture "That has hands and feet everywhere" etc. as being subsidiary to action. And it should not be said that scripture intent on meditation is not capable of propounding the variety of Brahman. Because by the logic of the section on Deities, like the bodily form of deities etc., Its variety is also established as the subject of intermediate purport. And it should not be said that the existence of forms of deities etc. is only transactional, not ultimate, because it is sublated by the knowledge of Brahman. Because the twofold nature of existence is not well-known. Therefore, Brahman's possessing hands and feet everywhere etc. is indeed real, so it does not deserve negation—raising this doubt, He says—'All senses' etc.

All internal and external senses -- named mind, intellect, egoism, and memory (chitta), and ears etc. -- thus the 'grasper' alone is collected. And 'Gunas' are objects; by that 'graspable' alone is grasped. It shines 'as if' possessing all objects and subjects, but is not of the nature of object and subject, (nor) varied. Just as the sun in water appears as if situated below, as if trembling, but is not in reality situated below nor does it tremble; similarly, the Self's having the form of object and subject is false, this is the meaning. Why is this? Because 'Devoid of all senses'; 'senses' is an implication for 'qualities' (objects) also. For in Brahman there is nothing graspable like form etc., nor grasper like mind etc. From scriptures like "Soundless, touchless, formless, undecaying", "For He is breathless, mindless, pure", "That which is invisible, ungraspable, without eyes and ears, That is without hands and feet". Therefore, Brahman is not varied, qualified by the world.

How then is the scripture "All is Brahman"? Raising this doubt, He says -- 'Unattached and supporter of all indeed'. Here by 'Supporter of all', stating the status of being the substratum of all, it is stated to be distinct from everything. Is the supporter-supported relationship of all with Brahman by inherence relation like pot and color? Or by conjunction relation like bowl and berries? Doubting this, He says 'Unattached', meaning Brahman is the supporter of all even without relation. (Objection): Well, this is contradictory -- 'Unattached' and 'Supporter of all'? (Answer): This is not a defect. For barren land is not attached to mirage-water, and yet it becomes its substratum also; like that this will be.

(Objection): Well, in this way the falsity of the world follows. And thus the injunctions of action and meditation would be obstructed. (Answer): No. Because as long as duality is not sublated by the knowledge of the oneness of Brahman and the Self, the truth of all transactions involving action, actor, etc. is accepted. Even by the Sruti "Pranas are indeed the Truth, He is the Truth of them", having stated the transactional truth of the entire world implied by Prana, Brahman who is the Ultimate Truth greater even than that is shown. And Truth is non-sublatability; that exists for Pranas for some time, but for Brahman it is universal; just as when "King of Kings" is said, the distinction created by the smallness and greatness of lordship is clear, so here also it should be seen. Therefore, the qualified nature of Brahman is only before the realization of the partless Self, not after; thus it is necessarily capable of being sublated by the knowledge of Truth; so the unconditioned Brahman cannot be brought to the state of being subsidiary to action by anyone. Because upon its attainment, due to the destruction of duality of action, agent, etc., the distinction of object of worship, worshipper, and worship is sublated. Therefore, it was rightly said that the form created by adjuncts is false.

Moreover, 'Attributeless and enjoyer of qualities'. Though devoid of the subject-object relationship, when the subjects (graspers), i.e., intellect etc., have transformed into the form of pleasure etc. due to connection with objects, merely by being the illuminator of that, the enjoyership of qualities is also reasonable for this One in the form of reflected consciousness. Just as movement etc. created by the adjunct (appear) in the sun in the form of reflection. And so the Sruti: "Meditates as if, moves as if". When the intellect meditates, the reflected consciousness entered there 'meditates as if' on objects. When the intellect moves -- goes to the region of objects -- he also 'moves as if', but does not meditate or move by himself -- thus it propounds. By this, "Without hands and feet He is fast and grasping, sees without eyes, He hears without ears" -- this also should be explained only by Brahman's possessing the power to partake of conformity with the qualities of adjuncts. "This one, though without feet, becomes fast when the foot is fast" -- thus. And the group of statements like "The blind man found the jewel" should be considered here. Therefore, "Attributeless and enjoyer of qualities" is rightly said. But in the Commentary, it is explained as: 'Attributeless' -- though devoid of qualities Sattva etc., yet 'Enjoyer' -- meaning Perceiver -- of those qualities transformed into the nature of pleasure, pain, and delusion.

Abandoning the elements earth etc., being bodiless, He exists outside and exists inside them. In the independent functions established by Sruti like "Eating, playing, enjoying with women or vehicles", 'Unmoving and moving indeed' -- by nature unmoving, and moving when embodied.

'Because of subtlety That is unknowable'; thus endowed with all powers, omniscient, That Self-principle, though existing in this Field, is unknowable by transmigratory beings as distinct from the body due to extreme subtlety.

'And far away and near is That'; for men devoid of the stated qualities like humility etc. and possessing contrary qualities, though existing in their own body, It is very far away; similarly for those endowed with qualities like humility etc., That very thing exists near.

Moreover -- 'All senses' etc. In the 'qualities', i.e., functions having forms like color etc., of all senses like eyes etc., It shines in those respective forms, thus (It is called) so. Or, It illuminates all senses and 'qualities', i.e., their respective objects.

And 'devoid of all senses'; and so the Sruti: "Without hands and feet He is fast and grasping, He sees without eyes, He hears without ears" etc.

'Unattached' means void of attachment. Still, because It supports all, It is 'Supporter of all', the substratum of all.

That very thing is 'Attributeless', devoid of qualities like Sattva etc. 'Enjoyer of qualities', the enjoyer and protector of qualities like Sattva etc.

(Objection): Well, senses alone are instruments, not qualities of senses? To this he says -- 'Sense qualities mean functions of senses'. How can the self-luminous nature of the Self have manifestation through functions of senses? Even if illumination of objects is intended, in the context of the pure nature, how is sensory knowledge mentioned? To this he says -- 'Even by functions of senses'. To reject the statement of others like "The nature shines by qualities of senses", he says -- "Whose shining is by qualities of senses". The fitness exists even in the pure state, this is the sense.

By this, Shankara's extra-textual imagination that "The Knowable is as if engaged in functions of all senses" is refuted. How can one who possesses senses at some time be 'devoid of all senses'? To this he says -- 'By nature'.

If all senses are negated, knowledge dependent on them is absent, so the contingency of being like a stone stated by others is removed by what was said before -- 'Without indeed'. Since even the liberated one is not the support of the world, and does not support bodies of all species simultaneously/alternatively, the power for that is intended here too. And natural absence of attachment is called 'Unattached', he says -- 'By nature... of gods etc.'.

He shows the capacity by the effect existing in the pure state -- 'He becomes onefold'. Since the nature of Self is not breakable, and due to Sruti like "eating" etc., the statement of becoming threefold etc. is indeed through (assuming) bodies, this is the sense. By this, the one saying "Supporter of all means being the substratum of all superimposition" (Shankara) is refuted.

In 'Attributeless', inherence of qualities like Sattva etc. is not negated; because there is no occasion for that even in the impure state (for the Self), and because it is not of the form of a counter-entity to "and enjoyer of qualities". Therefore, here the rejection of the enjoyment of material qualities caused by Karma is done, so there is no room for the doctrine of attributelessness (Nirvishesha-vada) -- with this intention he says -- 'By nature devoid of qualities Sattva etc.'. By 'by nature', the contradiction with 'enjoyer of qualities' is avoided. In 'capable of enjoyment' also, the intention is as before. Enjoyment of qualities is due to adjuncts; by nature there is absence of that; but the mere capacity for that is eternal, so there is no contradiction.

अनिर्देश्य परम ब्रह्म का आत्मरूप से निर्देश करने की एक विधि यह है कि उसे विरोधाभास की भाषा में इंगित करे। एक वाक्य को सुनकर जब बुद्धि उसके विषय में कोई धारणा बना लेती है? तब दूसरा वाक्य उस धारणा का खण्डन कर देता है। इस प्रकार स्वाभाविक है कि वह बुद्धि कल्पना शून्य होकर अपने निर्विकल्प स्वरूप के अनुभव में स्थित हो जाती है। यह विरोधाभास की भाषा आध्यात्मिक ग्रन्थों की विशेषता है। परन्तु शास्त्रों का सतही अध्ययन करने वाले लोग? शास्त्रोपदेश की विधि के मर्म को न समझ कर? अपने अविश्वास या नास्तिकता को न्यायोचित सिद्ध करने के लिए इस प्रकार के श्लोक उद्धृत करते हैं। यह श्लोक उपनिषद् से लिया गया है।आत्मचैतन्य के सम्बन्ध से ही समस्त इन्द्रियाँ अपनाअपना व्यापार करती हैं। परन्तु ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि उनसे अवच्छिन्न आत्मा ही कार्य करता है तथा वह इन इन्द्रियों से युक्त है। किन्तु विश्लेषण करने पर ज्ञात होता है कि इन्द्रियाँ भौतिक पदार्थ हैं और नाशवान भी हैं? जबकि उनमें व्यक्त होकर उन्हें चेतनता प्रदान करने वाला आत्मा सनातन और अविकारी है। संक्षेप में? उपाधियों की दृष्टि से आत्मा उनका धारक प्रतीत होता है? किन्तु स्वस्वरूप से वह सर्वेन्द्रिय विवर्जित है।विद्युत् शक्ति न तो बल्ब का प्रकाश है और न हीटर की उष्णता तथापि इन उपकरणों में व्यक्त होकर विद्युत् ही प्रकाश और उष्णता के रूप में प्रतीत होती है।वह असक्त किन्तु सबको धारण करने वाला है ब्रह्म को अनासक्त धारक के रूप में समझ पाना प्रारम्भिक विद्यार्थियों के लिए सरल नहीं है। तथापि अपने देश के महान् आचार्यों द्वारा इसे दृष्टान्तों और उपमाओं के द्वारा समझाने का प्रयत्न किया गया है। कोई भी तरंग सम्पूर्ण समुद्र नहीं है समस्त तरंगे सम्मिलित रूप में भी समुद्र नहीं है। हम यह नहीं कह सकते हैं कि समुद्र उन तरंगों में आसक्त है? क्योंकि वह तो उन सबका स्वरूप ही है। असक्त होते हुए भी उन सबको धारण करने वाला समुद्र के अतिरिक्त और कोई नहीं होता। कपास सभी वस्त्रों में है? किन्तु वस्त्र कपास नहीं है। तथापि? कपास ही वस्त्र को धारण करने वाला होता है। इसी प्रकार? विविधता की यह सृष्टि चैतन्य ब्रह्म नहीं है? परन्तु ब्रह्म ही सर्वभृत है।वह निर्गुण? किन्तु गुणों का भोक्ता है मनुष्य का मन सदैव सत्त्व? रज और तम इन तीन गुणों के प्रभाव में कार्य करता है। इन तीनों गुणों के प्रभावों को आत्मा सदा प्रकाशित करता रहता है। प्रकाशक प्रकाश्य के धर्मों से मुक्त होने के कारण आत्मा गुणरहित है। किन्तु एक चेतन मन ही इन गुणों का अनुभव कर सकता है? इसलिए यहाँ कहा गया है कि आत्मा स्वयं निर्गुण होते हुए भी मन की उपाधियों के द्वारा गुणों का भोक्ता भी है।इस प्रकार इस श्लोक में आत्मा का सोपाधिक (उपाधि सहित) और निरुपाधिक (उपाधि रहित) इन दोनों दृष्टिकोणों से निर्देश किया गया है।इतना ही नहीं? वरन् एक व्यष्टि उपाधि में व्यक्त आत्मा ही सर्वत्र समस्त प्राणियों में स्थित है

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?

Regarding the impossibility of meaning in the explanation "I am Supreme Power to whom", someone spoke otherwise -- "Because here It is desired to be made known only by the negation of all specifics of Brahman. Propounding possession of power is contradictory."

That is incorrect; because possession of specifics is seen here -- with this intention he says -- 'All' etc. Illuminates, i.e., makes known qualities, their objects; or knows. From the root 'Bhas' (to shine), the affix 'ac' (from pacadi class). Similarly "With hands and feet everywhere" [13.14], "Supporter of all, and enjoyer of qualities" etc. should also be cited as examples.

How then is "Devoid of all senses", "Attributeless", "Unmoving" etc. said? To this he says -- 'Sense' etc. After the word 'Adi' (etc.), the word 'Shabda' (sound/word) should be supplied. Before, in the second (chapter/verse).

Following the maxim "By superimposition and negation, the Worldless is expounded", "Beginningless Supreme Brahman" was explained by superimposition of the entire world. Now, by negating that, "Neither Sat nor Asat is That called" -- thus He begins to explain for the knowledge of the unconditioned nature -- 'All senses' etc.

In reality 'devoid of all senses'; by Its Maya 'Shining by the functions of all senses' -- by the qualities, i.e., determination, resolve, hearing, speaking etc., of all external organs like ears etc. and internal organs intellect and mind, It appears as if in the form of respective objects, as if engaged in the functions of all senses -- that Knowable Brahman; from the Sruti "Meditates as if, Moves as if". Here 'meditation' is an indication of the function of the organ of intellect (Buddhi). 'Movement' (Lelayana) is for the indication of the function of the organ of action.

Similarly, in reality 'Unattached', devoid of all relations indeed; by Maya 'And Supporter of all', by the Self as Reality, It holds and nourishes all that is imagined, thus Supporter of all; because illusion without a substratum is impossible.

Similarly, in reality 'Attributeless', devoid of qualities Sattva, Rajas, Tamas indeed; 'And Enjoyer of qualities', meaning the Enjoyer, the Perceiver, of qualities Sattva, Rajas, Tamas transformed into the forms of pleasure, pain, and delusion through sound etc. -- that Knowable is Brahman, this is the meaning.

Moreover -- 'Shining by the functions of all senses'. Shining in the qualities -- forms etc. -- of all senses -- eyes etc. By this it is made known that wherever there is any beauty etc., that is indeed due to the connection with the Lord.

(Objection): Then He would be endowed with worldly senses etc.? To this He says -- 'Devoid of all senses', meaning without. By this, the supernatural nature of the previously mentioned senses is made known.

He distinguishes this very thing -- with 'Unattached' etc. 'Unattached' means devoid of attachment everywhere; by that absence of association is indicated.

'And' again just like that, 'Supporter of all' means being the substratum of all. Doubting possession of qualities due to supporting all, He says -- 'Attributeless', meaning devoid of qualities Sattva etc.

Thus doubting the futility of qualities, He says -- 'And enjoyer of qualities', meaning standing in the qualities He experiences them. By the word 'cha' (and), it is made known that He is their protector also.

'Shining by the functions of all senses' -- And all those senses -- ears etc. called organs of knowledge and organs of action; and in the internal organ, intellect and mind; because the status of being an adjunct of the Knowable is equal, they are grasped by taking 'all senses'. Moreover, since the status of ears etc. as adjuncts is only through the adjunct of the internal organ, therefore by the 'qualities of all senses' which are the adjuncts of internal and external organs, i.e., by determination, resolve, hearing, speaking etc., 'It shines', thus 'Shining by the functions of all senses'; meaning that Knowable is as if engaged in the activities of all senses; because of the Sruti 'Meditates as if, moves as if' (Bri. U. 4.3.7).

For what reason again is it not accepted that It is engaged indeed? To this He says -- 'Devoid of all senses', meaning devoid of all instruments. Therefore, that Knowable is not engaged in the activities of instruments. As for this Mantra -- 'Without hands and feet He is fast and grasping, He sees without eyes, He hears without ears' (Sve. U. 3.19) etc.; that is for the purpose of showing that the Knowable possesses the power to partake of conformity with the qualities of the adjuncts of all senses; not for the purpose of showing possession of actions like running etc. directly. The meaning of that Mantra is like the meaning of the Mantra 'A blind man found a jewel' (Tai. A. 1.11) etc.

Since the Knowable is devoid of all instruments, therefore 'Unattached', devoid of all contact. Although so, still 'And Supporter of all indeed'. For everything has the Real (Sat) as its locus, because the cognition of 'Sat' follows everywhere. For even mirages etc. are not without a locus. Therefore 'Supporter of all', meaning It supports all.

And this another means for understanding the existence of the Knowable may be -- 'Attributeless' -- qualities are Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas; devoid of them is that Knowable; 'And yet enjoyer of qualities' -- meaning 'Enjoyer', i.e., Perceiver, of qualities -- Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas -- transformed into the forms of pleasure, pain, and delusion through sound etc.; is that Knowable, this is the meaning. Moreover --

The purpose of limitation everywhere has indeed been explained in 'Infinite' [11.47] and 'Unmanifest' [13.6].

By this, the performance of functions of eyes etc. everywhere is stated; because from 'Without hands and feet He is fast and grasping, He sees without eyes, He hears without ears' [Sve. 3.19; Na. Pa. U. 9.14] and 'With eyes everywhere and with faces everywhere' [Rig. 4.7.27.1; M. Na. 2.2; Sve. U. 3.3], the supernatural (aprakrita) is heard preceded by the negation of the natural (prakrita).

He states the status of being the locus of contradictory attributes -- 'Shining by the functions of all senses'.

सर्वेन्द्रियगुणाभासम् shining by the functions of all senses? सर्वेन्द्रयविवर्जितम् (yet) without the senses? असक्तम् unattached? सर्वभृत् (yet) supporting all? च and? एव even? निर्गुणम् devoid of alities? गुणभोक्तृ (yet) experiencer of the alities? च and.Commentary Brahman sees without eyes? hears without ears? smells without nose? eats without mouth? feels without skin? grasps without hands? walks without feet. He is the unseen seer? the unheard hearer? the unthought thinker. Other than Him there is no seer? no hearer? no thinker. He is the Self? the Inner Ruler? the Immortal. (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad III.7.23) He is free from the,alities of Nature and yet He is the enjoyer of the alities.All the senses The five organs of knowledge and the five organs of action? the inner senses? mind and intellect come under the term all the senses. The organs of action and those of knowledge perform their functions in conjunction with the mind and the intellect. They cannot function independently. Therefore? the mind and the intellect are included in the term all the senses.Brahman is transcendental and unmanifest? but It manifests Itself through the limiting adjuncts of the extrnal and the internal senses. As It is destitute of the senses It is unattached and yet It supports all. It is the support or substratum of everything. It is destitute of the alities of Nature and yet It is the enjoyer of those alities. Brahman is really mysterious.This verse is taken from the Svetasvataropanishad 3.17.

Sarvendriya-guna-abhasam, shining through the functions of all the organs: By the use of the words all the organs are understood ears etc., known as the sense-organs and motor-organs, as also the internal organs-the intellect and the mind, for they are eally the limiting adjuncts of the Knowable. Besides, the organs of hearing etc. become the limiting adjuncts from the very fact of the internal organ becoming so. Hence, the Knowable gets expressed through determination, thinking, hearing, speaking, etc. that are the functions of all the organs, internal and external, which are the limiting adjuncts. In this way, It is manifest through the functions of all the organs. The idea is that, that Knowable appears to be as though active owing to the functions of all the organs, as it is said in the Upanisadic text, 'It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were' (Br. 4.3.7). For that reason, again, is It not perceived as being actually active? In answer the Lord says: It is sarva-indriya-varjitam, devoid of all the organs, i.e. bereft of all the instruments of action. Hence the Knowable is not active through the functioning of the instruments of action. As for the Upanisadic verse, 'Without hands and feet He moves swiftly and grasps; without eyes He sees, without ears He hears' (Sv. 3.19), etc.-that is meant for showing that that Knowable has the power of adapting Itself to the functions of all the organs which are Its limiting adjuncts; but it is not meant to show that It really has such activity as moving fast etc. The meaning of that verse is like that of the Vedic text, 'The blind one discoverd a gem' (Tai, Ar. 1.11). [This is an artha-veda (see note on p.530), which is not to be taken literally but interpreted in accordance with the context.] Since the Knowable is devoid of all the instruments of actions, therefore It is asaktam, unattached, devoid of all associations. Although It is of this kind, yet it is ca eva, also verily; the sarva-bhrt, supporter of all. Indeed, everything has existence as its basis, because the idea of 'existence' is present everywhere. Verily, even mirage etc. do not occur without some basis. Therefore, It is sarva-bhrt, the supporter of all-It upholds everything. There can be this other organs as well for the realization of the existence of the Knowable: Nirgunam, without ality-the alities are sattva, rajas and tamas; that Knowable is free from them; and yet It is the guna-bhoktr, perceiver of alities; i.e., that Knowable is the enjoyer and experiencer of the alities, sattva, rajas and tamas, which, assuming the forms of sound etc., transform them-selves into happiness, sorrow, delusion, etc. Further,

Sarvendriya-gunabhasam i.e., shining by the functions of the senses - means that which is shedding light on the functions of all the senses. The 'Gunas' of the senses means the activities of the senses. The meaning is that the self is capable of knowing the objects with the functioning of the senses. 'Yet devoid of the senses' i.e., It is capable by Itself, of knowing everything. Such is the meaning. It is 'detached', namely, It is free, by nature, from attachment to the bodies of gods etc. 'Yet supporting all,' yet capable of supporting all bodies, such as of gods etc., as declared in the Sruti. 'It is one, is threefold ৷৷.' (Cha. U., 7.26.2). It is devoid of Gunas, i.e., by nature It is devoid of Sattva etc., and yet It is the experiencer of the Gunas' - It has the capability to experience Sattva etc.