Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 13 - Shloka (Verse) 16

व्याख्या -- [ज्ञेय तत्त्वका वर्णन बारहवेंसे सत्रहवें श्लोकतक -- कुल छः श्लोकोंमें हुआ है। उनमेंसे यह पन्द्रहवाँ श्लोक चौथा है। इस श्लोकके अन्तर्गत पहलेके तीन श्लोकोंका और आगेके दो श्लोकोंका भाव भी आ गया है। अतः यह श्लोक इस प्रकरणका सार है।]बहिरन्तश्च भूतानामचरं चरमेव च -- जैसे बर्फके बने हुए घड़ोंको समुद्रमें डाल दिया जाय तो उन घड़ोंके बाहर भी जल है? भीतर भी जल है और वे खुद भी (बर्फके बने होनेसे) जल ही हैं। ऐसे ही सम्पूर्ण चरअचर प्राणियोंके बाहर भी परमात्मा हैं? भीतर भी परमात्मा हैं और वे खुद भी परमात्मस्वरूप ही हैं। तात्पर्य यह हुआ कि जैसे घड़ोंमें जलके सिवाय दूसरा कुछ नहीं है अर्थात् सब कुछ जलहीजल है? ऐसे ही संसारमें परमात्माके सिवाय दूसरा कोई तत्त्व नहीं है अर्थात् सब कुछ परमात्माहीपरमात्मा हैं। इसी बातको भगवान्ने महात्माओंकी दृष्टिसे वासुदेवः सर्वम् (गीता 7। 19) और अपनी दृष्टिसे सदसच्चाहम् (गीता 9। 19) कहा है।दूरस्थं चान्तिके च तत् -- किसी वस्तुका दूर और नजदीक होना तीन दृष्टियोंसे कहा जाता है -- देशकृत? कालकृत और वस्तुकृत। परमात्मा तीनों ही दृष्टियोंसे दूरसेदूर और नजदीकसेनजदीक हैं जैसे -- दूरसेदूर देशमें भी वे ही परमात्मा हैं और नजदीकसेनजदीक देशमें भी वे ही परमात्मा हैं (टिप्पणी प0 690) पहलेसेपहले भी वे ही परमात्मा थे? पीछेसेपीछे भी वे ही परमात्मा रहेंगे और अब भी वे ही परमात्मा हैं सम्पूर्ण वस्तुओंके पहले भी वे ही परमात्मा हैं? वस्तुओंके अन्तमें भी वे ही परमात्मा हैं और वस्तुओंके रूपमें भी वे ही परमात्मा हैं।उत्पत्तिविनाशशील पदार्थोंके संग्रह और सुखभोगकी इच्छा करनेवालेके लिये परमात्मा (तत्त्वतः समीप होनेपर भी) दूर हैं। परन्तु जो केवल परमात्माके ही सम्मुख है? उसके लिये परमात्मा नजदीक हैं। इसलिये साधकको सांसारिक भोग और संग्रहकी इच्छाका त्याग करके केवल परमात्मप्राप्तिकी अभिलाषा जाग्रत् करनी चाहिये। परमात्मप्राप्तिकी उत्कट अभिलाषा होते ही परमात्माकी प्राप्ति हो जाती है अर्थात् परमात्मासे नित्ययोगका अनुभव हो जाता है।सूक्ष्मत्वात्तदविज्ञेयम् -- वे परमात्मा अत्यन्त सूक्ष्म होनेसे इन्द्रियाँ और अन्तःकरणका विषय नहीं है अर्थात् वे परमात्मा इनकी पकड़में नहीं आते। अब प्रश्न उठता है कि जब जाननेमें नहीं आते? तो फिर उनका अभाव होगा उनका अभाव नहीं है। जैसे परमाणुरूप जल सूक्ष्म होनेसे नेत्रोंसे नहीं दीखता? पर न दीखनेपर भी,उसका अभाव नहीं है। वह जल परमाणुरूपसे आकाशमें रहता है और स्थूल होनेपर बूँदें? ओले आदिके रूपमें दीखने लग जाता है। ऐसे ही परमात्मा अत्यन्त सूक्ष्म होनेसे इन्द्रियाँ? मन? बुद्धि आदिके द्वारा जाननेमें नहीं आते क्योंकि वे इनसे परे हैं? अतीत हैं।जीवोंके अज्ञानके कारण ही वे परमात्मा जाननेमें नहीं आते। जैसे? कहीं पर श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता शब्द लिखा हुआ है। जो पढ़ालिखा नहीं है? उसको तो केवल लकीरें ही दीखती हैं और जो पढ़ालिखा है? उसको श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता दीखती है। संस्कृत पढ़े हुएको यह शब्द किस धातुसे बना हुआ है? इसका क्या अर्थ होता है -- यह दीखने लग जाता है। गीताका मनन करनेवालेको गीताके गहरे भाव दीखने लग जाते हैं। ऐसे ही जिन मनुष्योंको परमात्मतत्त्वका ज्ञान नहीं है? उनको परमात्मा नहीं दीखते? उनके जाननेमें नहीं आते। परन्तु जिनको परमात्मतत्त्वका ज्ञान हो गया है? उनको तो सब कुछ परमात्माहीपरमात्मा दीखते हैं।उस परमात्मतत्त्वको ज्ञेय (13। 12? 17) भी कहा है और अविज्ञेय भी कहा है। इसका तात्पर्य यह है कि वह स्वयंके द्वारा ही जाना जा सकता है? इसलिये वह ज्ञेय है और वह इन्द्रियाँमनबुद्धिके द्वारा नहीं जाना जा सकता? इसलिये वह अविज्ञेय है।सर्वत्र परिपूर्ण परमात्माको जाननेके लिये यह आवश्यक है कि साधक परमात्माको सर्वत्र परिपूर्ण मान ले। ऐसा मानना भी जाननेकी तरह ही है। जैसे (बोध होनेपर) ज्ञान(जानने) को कोई मिटा नहीं सकता? ऐसे ही परमात्मा सर्वत्र परिपूर्ण हैं इस मान्यता(मानने) को कोई मिटा नहीं सकता। जब सांसारिक मान्यताओं -- मैं ब्राह्मण हूँ? मैं साधु हूँ आदिको (जो कि अवास्तविक हैं) कोई मिटा नहीं सकता? तब पारमार्थिक मान्यताओंको (जो कि वास्तविक हैं) कौन मिटा सकता है तात्पर्य यह है कि दृढ़तापूर्वक मानना भी एक साधन है। जाननेकी तरह माननेकी भी बहुत महिमा है। परमात्मा सर्वत्र परिपूर्ण हैं -- ऐसा दृढ़तापूर्वक मान लेनेपर यह मान्यता मान्यतारूपसे नहीं रहेगी? प्रत्युत इन्द्रियाँमनबुद्धिसे परे जो अत्यन्त सूक्ष्म परमात्मा हैं? उनका अनुभव हो जायगा।

तथा --, अविद्याद्वारा आत्मभावसे कल्पित शरीरको त्वचापर्यन्त अवधि मानकर उसीकी अपेक्षासे ज्ञेयको उसके बाहर बतलाते हैं। वैसे ही अन्तरात्माको लक्ष्य करके तथा शरीरको ही अवधि मानकर ज्ञेयको उसके भीतर ( व्याप्त ) बतलाया जाता है। बाहर और भीतर व्याप्त है -- ऐसा कहनेसे मध्यमें उसका अभाव प्राप्त हुआ? इसलिये कहते हैं -- चर और अचररूप भी वही है अर्थात् रज्जुमें सर्पकी भाँति प्रतीत होनेवाले जो चरअचररूप शरीरके आभास हैं? वह भी उस ज्ञेयका ही स्वरूप है। यदि चर और अचररूप समस्त व्यवहारका विषय वह ज्ञेय ( परमात्मा ) ही है? तो फिर वह यह है इस प्रकार सबसे क्यों नहीं जाना जा सकता इस पर कहते हैं -- ठीक है? सारा दृश्य उसीका स्वरूप है? तो भी वह ज्ञेय आकाशकी भाँति अति सूक्ष्म है। अतः यद्यपि वह आत्मरूपसे ज्ञेय है? तो भी सूक्ष्म होनेके कारण अज्ञानियोंके लिये अविज्ञेय ही है। ज्ञानी पुरुषोंके लिये तो? यह सब कुछ आत्मा ही है यह सब कुछ ब्रह्म ही है इत्यादि प्रमाणोंसे वह सदा ही प्रत्यक्ष रहता है। वह ज्ञेय अज्ञात होनेके कारण और हजारोंकरोड़ों वर्षोंतक भी प्राप्त न हो सकनेके कारण अज्ञानियोंके लिये बहुत दूर है? किंतु ज्ञानियोंका तो वह आत्मा ही है अतः उनके निकट ही है।

He states another reason for the existence of the Knowable -- 'Moreover'.

For That is One in every body like the sky; because of the absence of proof for Its difference, and if different, the contingency of being non-Self like a pot would arise; therefore, to say that the Knowable, which is without a second and exists as the Inner Self everywhere, does not exist is extreme rashness; He says -- 'And undivided'.

How then is there the cognition of difference of body etc.? Doubting this, He says it is by imagination -- 'In beings'. The reason for that is -- 'In bodies'.

And because It is the cause of sustenance of effects, the Knowable exists, He says -- 'Supporter of beings'.

And because It is the cause in their dissolution and origin by being the efficient and material cause, It exists, He says -- 'Dissolving' (and generating).

Then, since the cause-effect relationship is real, there is no non-duality? Doubting this, he says -- 'Just as'.

Because of this also the existence of the Knowable Brahman should be known—with this intent, he says, "Outside." The body up to the skin, which is imagined by ignorance as the Self, is taken as the limit, and with that as the boundary, "Outside" is stated. Then, taking the inner Self (pratyagātman) as the reference, and the body as the boundary, "Inside" is stated. Thus, it means that the Knowable is outside the elements, meaning it is external, consisting of objects, etc., and it is within the moving and non-moving elements, being inherent (pratyagbhūta).

He refutes the non-existence that might be assumed in the middle. It is unmoving, and moving also. That Knowable, even though it appears as various embodied forms consisting of elements in the middle, is itself the Knowable. Just as a serpent appearing on a rope is only the rope, similarly, what appears in the Knowable is only the Knowable.

If this is so, why is it not known by everyone as "This"? To this, he replies: Due to subtlety, it is unknowable. Just as when a form (rūpa) residing in a mango, etc., is seen by the eye, the taste (rasa), etc., residing therein is not seen by the eye due to unsuitability, similarly, even though the Knowable is the Self of all, and all things are known, that Knowable is unknowable because it is beyond the senses (atīndriya), like space.

By this, the doubt that knowledge of a pot, etc., would also lead to the knowledge of Brahman, since Brahman constitutes the pot, etc., is also dispelled. Therefore, for the ignorant who lack the means of attaining it, it is far away (dūrastha) due to being unknown, and unattainable even in a billion years. And it is near (antike ca tat). For the knowledgeable, however, through authoritative texts like "All this is the Self only," "All this is Brahman only," etc., it is eternally known, and because it is their own Self, it is without obstruction.

And thus says the Shruti: "That moves, That moves not; That is far off, That is nigh. That is within all this, and That is outside all this." And "Farther than the distant is That; here indeed it is near, placed in the cave, for those who see."

(Objection): Well, if unattached and unconnected, how can it be perceived? In apprehension of this, he says: 'Bahiḥ' (Outside). The eleven sense organs of beings (Bhūtānāṁ Prāṇinām) and the gross elements (Sthūlabhūtāni) are called 'outside' because they are remote (Vyavahitatvāt) as mere transformations (Kevalavikāratvena). The Mahat, Ahaṁkāra, the five Tanmātrās, and the Unmanifest (Avyakta) are called 'inside' because they are proximate (Saṁnihitatvāt) as the nature of Prakṛti. 'Carācaram' (Moving and Non-moving): The persons (Puruṣāḥ), who are inferior to both and are characterized by the limiting adjuncts of the moving and the non-moving, are referred to by 'Caram' (moving) and 'Acaram' (non-moving). There, the identity of Puruṣas with the knowable Brahman is stated by the apposition (Sāmānādhikaraṇyāt) 'Carācaraṁ Jñeyam' (the moving and non-moving is the knowable). The connection of the Knowable with the sixteen transformations and the eight aspects of Prakṛti is stated by 'Bahiśca Antaśca Jñeyam' (knowable both outside and inside). And that connection, following the maxim 'As the Yakṣa, so the offering (Bali)', is superimposed (Adhyasta Eva) because it is determined by the superimposed Prakṛti and its transformations. Thus, since the Puruṣa, whose essence is mere consciousness/perception (Upalabdhimātraśarīrasya), possesses a superimposed connection (Adhyāsikasambandhasattvāt) with the Guṇas, the state of being the perceiver of the Guṇas (Guṇopalabdhtvaṁ) is justified. Just as the illumination (Prakāśayitṛtvaṁ) of the sun (Raveḥ), whose nature is mere light (Prakāśamātrasvarūpasya), depends on its connection with the object to be illuminated (Prakāśyasambandhāpekṣaṁ)—so too, is the meaning.

(Objection): Well, if the Puruṣa is eternally immediate (Nityāparokṣaḥ) and connected with Prakṛti and its transformations, then why is it not grasped by all? Apprehending this, he says: That knowable (Tajjñeyaṁ) is subtle (Sūkṣmatvāt) and difficult to perceive (Durlakṣyatvāt). It is unknowable (Avijñeyaṁ), difficult to know (Durvijñeyam). Just as the whiteness (Śauklyaṁ) of a crystal (Sphaṭikasya) when placed next to a hibiscus flower (Japākusumopahitasya), though present (Sannihitam Api), is obscured by the superimposition of another color (Rūpāntaravikṣepeṇa Tirohitaṁ Sat) and is not grasped; similarly, Brahman, though eternally immediate and unattached, cannot be grasped as distinct (Viviktatayā Na Grahītuṁ Śakyaṁ) due to the superimposition of the limiting adjunct (Upādhyupadhānāt), but rather, it is grasped by the deluded (Mūḍhaiḥ) only as endowed with the properties of the limiting adjuncts (Aupādhikadharmopetam Eva). The meaning is that by the wise (Vidvadbhiḥ), it is easily grasped (Sugraham) through the dissolution of the limiting adjuncts (Upādhipravilāpanena).

He explains this very point: 'Dūrasthaṁ ca Antike ca Tat' (It is far away and also near). Just as a foolish person considers the sun reflected in the water (Jalasūryaṁ) to be distant from the original solar disk (Bimbasūryāt); but the wise person, knowing clearly that the rays of the eye, hindered by the limiting adjunct (Upādhipratihatanayanaraśmīnām) and rising above it (Uparyutplutya Gatānāṁ), grasp the original disk (Bimbagrahitvaṁ Spaṣṭam), and knowing that the perception of the disk being below (Bimbasyādhasthatvagrahaṇaṁ Tu) depends on previous ingrained downward-directed impressions (Pūrvapravṛttādhōmukhavṛttisaṁskārāpekṣamiti Jānan), sees the reflection (Pratibimbaṁ Paśyati) exactly at the place of the disk (Bimbadeśe Eva). Only by superimposing the quality of being situated in the water (Jalasthatvam Adhyasya) onto the disk (Bimbe Eva) does one then refer to the reflection as being in the water (Tena Tu Jale Pratibimba Iti). This is due to the principle of simplicity (Lāghavāt) in postulating the mere superimposition of the contact of the object with the limiting adjunct (Viṣayasyopādhisamsargamātrādhyāsakalpane), rather than postulating the superimposition of the substrate (Dharmyadhyāsakalpanāto) onto the limiting adjunct (Upādhau). Similarly, Brahman, which is the original disk (Bimbabhūtaṁ Brahma), is far removed (Viprakṛṣṭaṁ) from the reflection-like individual soul (Pratibimbabhūtāt Jīvāt) for the deluded (Mūḍhānāṁ), but is extremely proximate (Atyantaṁ Saṁnikṛṣṭamiti) for the wise (Viduṣām Tu).

The Self-entity situated everywhere in beings like gods, humans, etc., is 'undivided' by the single form of knowership; and, for those who are ignorant, it appears as if divided by the forms of gods, etc., (thinking) 'This is a god, this is a man.'

Even though it is conceived co-extensively with the body, as 'I am a god,' 'I am a man,' it can be known as something distinct from the body by virtue of its knowership—this was stated earlier by the verse, 'He who knows this (Gita 13.1).'

Now, He says that it can be known as something distinct from the body through other characteristics as well: 'and the supporter of beings.' That which supports beings, (that is,) the elements like earth, etc., consolidated into the form of a body, is the object of knowledge distinct from the beings (which are) supported. It means that it can be known as distinct.

Similarly, 'the devourer'—the devourer of food, etc., which are material elements. It can be known as something distinct from the beings that are being devoured, by virtue of its being the devourer. And 'the originator'—and the cause of origination. It is the cause of the origination of the devoured food, etc., which have transformed into another form. It means that it can be known as distinct from them.

Since devouring, origination, etc., are not observed in a dead body, it is ascertained that the Kṣetra (field), which is the composite of elements, is not the cause of devouring, origination, or support.

Moreover -- 'Outside' etc. Of beings -- of moving and unmoving effects of Itself -- outside and inside is That alone; like gold of bracelets, ear-rings, etc.; like water inside and outside of water-waves. 'Unmoving' stationary, 'Moving' mobile -- whatever group of beings exists, is That alone; because the effect consists of the cause.

Even so, 'because of subtlety' -- due to being devoid of form etc. -- 'That is unknowable' -- it is not fit for clear knowledge as 'This is That'. Therefore indeed, for the ignorant, It is as if separated by a hundred thousand Yojanas, 'and far away'; because of being beyond the modified Prakriti.

But for the wise, being the Inner Self, 'and near'; That is eternally proximate.

And so the Mantra: 'That moves, That moves not; That is far, That is near. That is inside all this, That indeed is outside all this.' 'Ejati' moves, 'naijati' does not move, 'tat u antike' (That indeed is near) -- this is the word-split.

"Existence inside elements/beings happens indeed in the state of being embodied, so since the liberated one is bodiless, existence outside them is logical, but how is there existence inside them?" -- to this he says -- 'Eating/Playing' etc. The connection is: in independent functions, He exists inside them also.

And this embodied-ness is not caused by Karma; because that is stated for one whose true nature has manifested as per "He is accomplished in his own form" [Cha. U. 8.12.2]; and because of the statement "He becomes a self-ruler" [Cha. U. 7.25.2] due to his having shaken off merit and sin. Intending this very thing -- "In independent functions" is said. "If he becomes desirous of the world of fathers" [Cha. U. 8.2.1], "Traversing these worlds, having food at will, taking forms at will" [Tai. U. 3.10.5] -- such texts are grasped by the word 'etc.'.

For the Self who is essentially changeless, becoming threefold etc., eating/playing etc., and (going to) the world of fathers etc. is not reasonable without accepting a body; and his body is indeed an aggregate of elements, natural (Prakrita) or supernatural (Aprakrita), so existence inside elements is established, this is the intention.

The connection of unmoving-ness and moving-ness is not in the pure state as being distinct from moving and unmoving (beings); therefore "Outside and Inside" -- the stated bodiless-ness and embodied-ness are the causes for that (unmoving and moving nature), thus he shows -- "By nature unmoving, and moving in the state of being embodied". Movement dependent on feet etc. and absence of that are intended here.

To remove the obstruction of 'non-perception of a fit object', it is said 'Because of subtlety That is unknowable'. Regarding "In what form is there unknowability for one who is eternally perceived as 'I'?", he says -- "Thus endowed with all powers, omniscient". This meaning is referred to by the word 'That' (Tat).

To indicate the doubt of fitness (for perception), as an implication of the absence of other causes of non-perception like distance etc., "Though existing in this Field" is said. Since there is separate perception of air etc. which are subtle compared to earth etc., to reject that (possibility here), it is said "Due to extreme subtlety". "I know" -- even though there is this perception of Self, the impossibility of knowing It as distinct is 'Unknowability'; to show that this is intended by the negation with the prefix (Vi-jneyam: distinct knowledge), "As distinct from the body" is said.

If separateness is never perceived by anyone at any time, It would indeed be unproven like a hare's horn? And the injunction for the practice of Yoga would be meaningless? Regarding this, it is said "By transmigratory beings" (Samsaris). Since even Yogis do not have uninterrupted clearest perception like the liberated, it is said generally "By Samsaris". Or, those devoid of Yoga are intended here by the word Samsari; because Yogis are practically liberated due to imminent liberation.

By "And far away and near is That", pervasion is not intended; because that was already stated earlier as "Enveloping all It stands" [13.14]; therefore here, to remove the doubt "How is there an injunction for that very thing to be known by them, which is unknowable by Samsaris due to subtlety?", he states that it refers to being difficult to grasp or easy to grasp based on the difference in qualification -- "Humility etc.".

परमात्मा की सर्वव्यापकता को यहाँ उपनिषदों की अननुकरणीय शैली में इंगित किया गया है।वह भूतमात्र के अन्तर्बाह्य है सभी व्यष्टि उपाधियों में व्यक्त चेतन तत्त्व सर्वव्यापी है। अन्तर्बाह्य से तात्पर्य है कि जहाँ शरीरादि उपाधियाँ हैं? वहाँ तो वह विशेष रूप से व्यक्त हुआ विद्यमान रहता ही है? परन्तु जहाँ कोई उपाधि नहीं है वहाँ भी वह केवल सत्य रूप से स्थित रहता है। जिस प्रकार? जहाँ रेडियो है वहाँ ध्वनि तरंगों का अस्तित्व स्पष्ट ज्ञात होता है? परन्तु जहाँ रेडियो नहीं है? वहाँ उन तरंगों का अभाव नहीं कहा जा सकता।वह चर है और अचर भी जो अपनी स्वेच्छा से विचरण करता रहता है? वह चर प्राणी है? तथा गतिहीन वस्तु अचर वर्ग में आती है। इस वाक्य का अर्थ इस प्रकार भी किया जाता है कि आत्मतत्त्व अचर होते हुये भी चर है इसका तात्पर्य यह है कि आत्मा सर्वव्यापी होने से स्वस्वरूप की दृष्टि से अचर है? परन्तु वही आत्मा गतिमान् उपाधियों से अवच्छिन्नसा होकर चरवत् प्रतीत होता है। उदाहरणार्थ? किसी गतिमान वाहन में कोई व्यक्ति स्वयं अपने स्थान पर बैठा हुआ (अचर) ही मीलों लम्बी यात्रा तय कर लेता है इस प्रकार? हमारे व्यक्तित्व का सारभूत तत्त्व एक? सनातन व परिपूर्ण है जो अन्तर्बाह्य सर्वत्र व्याप्त है। उसके बिना कोई भी क्रिया संभव नहीं है ? इसलिये वह सभी क्रियाओं में विद्यमान है। वह सत्स्वरूप से सर्वत्र ही स्थित है। तब? फिर क्या कारण है कि हम उसे इन्द्रियों द्वारा नहीं देख सकते? या मन और बुद्धि से अनुभव नहीं कर पाते भगवान् कहते हैं कि? वह अत्यन्त सूक्ष्म होने से अविज्ञेय है।गुणवान् वस्तु स्थूल होती है। जिस वस्तु में अधिक गुण होते हैं वह उतनी ही अधिक स्थूल होती है और एकाधिक इन्द्रियों के द्वारा ग्रहण की जा सकती है। जैसे? पृथ्वी का ज्ञान पाँचों इन्द्रियों के द्वारा होता है। जबकि वायु का केवल श्रोत्र और स्पर्शेन्द्रिय से। अत पृथ्वी स्थूलतम तत्त्व है और आकाश में केवल शब्द गुण होने से वह सूक्ष्मतम है।कार्य की अपेक्षा कारण सदैव सूक्ष्म होता है। आकाश तत्त्व सृष्ट वस्तु होने से उसका भी कारण होना आवश्यक है। आकाश का भी कारण वह नित्य अधिष्ठान ब्रह्म है जिससे पंच महाभूतों की उत्पत्ति होती है। स्वाभविक ही है कि वह ब्रह्म आकाश से भी सूक्ष्म होने के कारण हमारे उपलब्ध प्रमाणों के द्वारा दृश्य रूप में नहीं जाना जा सकता है वह अविज्ञेय है।वह दूरस्थ और समीपस्थ है एक साकार परिच्छिन्न वस्तु को किसी स्थान विशेष पर यहाँ या वहाँ स्थित बताया जा सकता है। उन वस्तुओं के द्रष्टा की स्थिति से उनकी दूरी नापी जाकर उन्हें दूरस्थ या समीपस्थ कहा जा सकता है। परन्तु जो सर्वव्यापी है वह एक ही समय यहाँ होगा और वहाँ भी होगा और इसलिये वह दूरस्थ और समीपस्थ भी है। इन दो शब्दों की व्याख्या इस प्रकार भी की जा सकती है कि परमात्मा सर्व नामरूपों की उपाधियों से मुक्त दूरस्थ है किन्तु वही परमात्मा इन नामरूपों में भी समीपस्थ है। श्रीशंकराचार्य अपने भाष्य में लिखते हैं कि यह आत्मा अज्ञानियों को अत्यन्त दूर स्थित हुआ भासता है? जबकि ज्ञानी जन तो उसे अत्यन्त समीप से आत्मरूप से ही अनुभव करते हैं।संक्षेप में? विरोधाभास की भाषा की सुन्दरता से युक्त यह श्लोक उन पाठकों को सहसा जगा देता है? जो केवल बौद्धिक ज्ञान से ही सन्तुष्ट हो जाते हैं। यह श्लोक उन्हें मनन या ध्यान के द्वारा परमात्मा के सर्वव्यापक एवं सर्वातीत स्वरूप का साक्षात् अनुभव करने के लिए प्रेरित करता है।इसी ज्ञेय के विषय में भगवान् आगे कहते 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?

'Of beings' -- of all imagined effects having the nature of becoming (origination), the unimagined substratum is One alone. 'Outside and inside' -- like the rope for the snake, water-stream, etc. imagined in itself, It is the pervader in all respects, this is the meaning.

Therefore indeed, 'Unmoving' stationary, 'Moving' mobile, and the group of beings is 'That alone'; because of being of the nature of the substratum. The imagined things are not at all distinct from That, this is the meaning.

Thus, even being the Self of all, 'because of subtlety' -- due to being devoid of form etc. -- 'That is unknowable' -- It is not fit for clear knowledge as 'This is thus'. Therefore indeed, for those devoid of the means of Self-knowledge, because of being unattainable even in thousands of crores of years, 'And far away' -- That is as if separated by lakhs of crores of Yojanas.

But for those endowed with the means of knowledge, 'And near is That' -- extremely unseparated indeed, because of being the Self. From Srutis like 'Farther than the far, and here near, for those seeing, here indeed placed in the cave'.

Thus, when the quality of being the enjoyer (bhoktritvam) contradicts all-pervasiveness, He says—with 'Bahih' (Outside). Outside the beings (Bhūtānām)—moving and non-moving—by being the enjoyer (Bhoktritvena)? Inside (Antaḥ) in that form, i.e., in the form of the Self, or that very thing (the enjoyer)? Thus, even though existing outside and inside, fearing the loss of all-pervasiveness due to difference, He says—'Acaram' (Non-moving) i.e., stationary? And 'Carameva ca' (And moving only) i.e., mobile. By the particle 'Eva', the mobile nature is co-existent with the non-moving nature, and the non-moving nature is co-existent with the mobile nature; thereby, the dependence on contradictory attributes is indicated.

That being so, it would be the knowable of all. What is the distinction among those possessing the previously mentioned means?—to this He says—'Sūkṣmatvāt' (Due to subtlety). That Brahman, due to being subtle in the form of play/Lila here and there, is 'Avijñeyam' (unknowable) in the absence of means; meaning impossible to know specifically.

He says this very thing: 'Dūrastham cāntike ca tat' (That is far and near); far for those turned outwards (Bahirmukhānām); and 'Antike' (near) for devotees. By the two 'Ca' particles, the nature of both these states as Lila is indicated. Or else, far for those established in Maryada (Vedic path); near for those established in Pushti (Grace path).

Or else, for those of the Pushti path, being foremost in the extreme heat of the state of separation (Viraha), and that too is far in the manner of Viraha; near, in the heart, by way of non-direct perception. And being near for the sake of their living due to ignorance of Him. The purport is in the manner of "Hidden from the one worshipping Me indirectly" (Bhagavatam 10.32.21).

Outside -- relative to the body extending up to the skin which is imagined as the Self by ignorance, making that the limit, 'outside' is said. Similarly, relative to the inner Self, making the body the limit, 'inside' is said.

When 'outside and inside' is said, if non-existence in the middle is obtained? This is said -- 'Unmoving and moving indeed'. Whatever moving and unmoving appearance of body exists, that is the Knowable alone, like the appearance of a snake in a rope.

If the unmoving and moving indeed were It, then everything that is an object of behavior would be the Knowable? Why is it said that It is not known by all as 'This'? -- True, That appears as all, still It is subtle like the sky.

Therefore, because of subtlety, though That is the Knowable by Its own nature, It is unknowable to the ignorant. But to the wise, by proofs like "The Self alone is all this" (Cha. U. 7.25.2), "Brahman alone is all this" (Bri. U. 2.5.1), It is eternally known.

Being unknown, It is 'far away', because It is unattainable by the ignorant even in a thousand million years. 'And near is That', because of being the Self of the wise.

Moreover --

He states His very nature of consisting of the world -- 'Unmoving and moving indeed'. "For all that would be of two forms, the One is distinct from that."

'Unmoving' is inert, That. From proofs like the Sruti "Existence alone was this in the beginning, O Somya" [Cha. U. 6.2.1], "All this is indeed Brahman" [Cha. U. 3.14.1].

'Moving' is mobile and of the form of Jiva. From the Sruti "That Thou Art, O Shvetaketu" [Cha. U. 6.8.16]. Because of subtlety That is unknowable, That is far away and That is near.

And so the Mantra: "That moves, That moves not, That is far, That is near. That is inside all this, That indeed is outside all this" [Iso. 5].

बहिः without? अन्तः within? च and? भूतानाम् of (all) beings? अचरम् the unmoving? चरम् the moving? एव also? च and? सूक्ष्मत्वात् because of Its subtlety? तत् That? अविज्ञेयम् unknowable? दूरस्थम् is far? च and? अन्तिके near? च and? तत् That.Commentary Brahman is subtle like the ether. It is incomprehensible to the unillumined on account of Its extreme subtlety. It is unknowable to the man who is not endowed with the four means of salvation.Brahman is known or realised by the wise. It is realised by the first class aspirant who is eipped with these means. It is near to the wise man or the illumined because It is his very Self. It is very far to the ignorant man who is drowned in worldliness or sensual pleasures. It is not attainable by the ignorant or unenlightened even in millions of years.Near and far away This expression is found in the Isavasya Upanishad (5) and the Mundaka Upanishad (3.17).

Existing, bahih, outside- the word bahih is used with reference to the body including the skin, which is misconceived through ignorance to be the Self, and which is itself taken as the boundary. Similarly, the word antah, inside, is used with reference to the indwelling Self, making the body itself as the boundary. When 'outside' and 'inside' are used, there may arise the contingency of the nonexistence of That in the middle. Hence this is said: acaram caram eva ca, moving as well as not moving-even that which appears as the body, moving or not moving, is nothing but the Knowable, in the same way as the appearance of a snake on a rope (is nothing but the rope).
In all empirical things, moving as also non-moving, be the Knowable, why should It not be known by all as such? In answer it is said: It is true that It shines through everything; still it is subtle like space. Therefore, although It is the Knowable, tat, It; is avijneyam, incomprehensible to the ignorant people; suksmatvat, due to Its intrinsic subtleness. But to the enlightened It is ever known from the valid means of knowledge such as (the texts), 'All this is verily the Self' (Ch. 7.25.2), 'Brahman alone is all this' (Nr. Ut.7), etc. It is durastham, far away, since, to the unenlightened, It is unattainable even in millions of years. And tat, That; is antike, near, since It is the Self of the enlightened.

Abandoning the elements like earth etc., It can exist outside the body. It can exist within them while performing spontaneous activities as established in the Srutis: 'Eating, playing, enjoying with partners or with vehicles' (Cha. U., 8.12.3). 'It is unmoving and yet moving' - it is by nature, unmoving, It is moving when It has a body. It is so subtle that none can comprehend It. Although existing in a body, this principle, possessed of all powers and omniscient, cannot be comprehended by bound ones because of Its subtlety and Its distinctiveness from the body. It is far away and yet It is very near - though present in one's own body, It is far away from those who are devoid of modesty and other alities (mentioned above) as also to those who possess contrary alities. To those who possess modesty and such other alities, the same self is very near.