Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 13 - Shloka (Verse) 20

व्याख्या -- [इसी अध्यायके तीसरे श्लोकमें भगवान्ने क्षेत्रके विषयमें यच्च (जो है)? यादृक् च (जैसा है)? यद्विकारि (जिन विकारोंवाला है) और यतश्च यत् (जिससे जो उत्पन्न हुआ है) -- ये चार बातें सुननेकी आज्ञा दी थी। उनमेंसे यच्च का वर्णन पाँचवें श्लोकमें और यद्विकारि का वर्णन छठे श्लोकमें कर दिया। यादृक् च का वर्णन आगे इसी अध्यायके छब्बीसवेंसत्ताईसवें श्लोकोंमें करेंगे। अब यतश्च यत् का वर्णन करते हुए प्रकृतिसे विकारों और गुणोंको उत्पन्न हुआ बताते हैं। इसमें भी देखा जाय तो विकारोंका वर्णन पहले छठे श्लोकमें इच्छा द्वेषः आदि पदोंसे किया जा चुका है। यहाँ गुण प्रकृतिसे उत्पन्न होते हैं -- यह बात नयी बतायी है।बारहवेंसे अठारहवें श्लोकतक ज्ञेय तत्त्व(परमात्मा) का वर्णन है और यहाँ उन्नीसवेंसे चौंतीसवें श्लोकतक पुरुष(क्षेत्रज्ञ) का वर्णन है। वहाँ तो ज्ञेय तत्त्वके अन्तर्गत ही सब कुछ है और यहाँ पुरुषके अन्तर्गत सब कुछ है अर्थात् वहाँ ज्ञेय तत्त्वके अन्तर्गत पुरुष है और यहाँ पुरुषके अन्तर्गत ज्ञेय तत्त्व है। तात्पर्य यह है कि ज्ञेय तत्त्व (परमात्मा) और पुरुष (क्षेत्रज्ञ) -- दोनों तत्त्वसे दो नहीं हैं? प्रत्युत एक ही हैं।]प्रकृतिं पुरुषं चैव विद्ध्यनादी उभावपि -- यहाँ प्रकृतिम्पद सम्पूर्ण क्षेत्र(जगत्)की कारणरूप मूल प्रकृतिका वाचक है। सात प्रकृतिविकृति (पञ्चमहाभूत? अहंकार और महत्तत्त्व) तथा सोलह विकृति (दस? इन्द्रियाँ? मन और पाँच विषय) -- ये सभी प्रकृतिके कार्य हैं और प्रकृति इन सबकी मूल कारण है।पुरुषम् पद यहाँ क्षेत्रज्ञका वाचक है? जिसको इसी अध्यायके पहले श्लोकमें क्षेत्रको जाननेवाला कहा गया है।प्रकृति और पुरुष -- दोनोंको अनादि कहनेका तात्पर्य है कि जैसे परमात्माका अंश यह पुरुष (जीवात्मा) अनादि है? ऐसे ही यह प्रकृति भी अनादि है। इन दोनोंके अनादिपनेमें फरक नहीं है किन्तु दोनोंके स्वरूपमें फरक है। जैसे -- प्रकृति गुणोंवाली है और पुरुष गुणोंसे सर्वथा रहित है प्रकृतिमें विकार होता है और पुरुषमें विकार नहीं होता प्रकृति जगत्की कारण बनती है और पुरुष किसीका भी कारण नहीं बनता प्रकृतिमें कार्य एवं कारणभाव है और पुरुष कार्य एवं कारणभावसे रहित है।उभौ एव कहनेका तात्पर्य है कि प्रकृति और पुरुष -- दोनों अलगअलग हैं। अतः जैसे प्रकृति और पुरुष अनादि हैं? ऐसे ही उन दोनोंका यह भेद (विवेक) भी अनादि है।इसी अध्यायके पहले श्लोकमें आये इदं शरीरं क्षेत्रम् पदोंसे मनुष्यशरीरकी तरफ ही दृष्टि जाती है अर्थात् व्यष्टि मनुष्यशरीरका ही बोध होता है और क्षेत्रज्ञः पदसे मनुष्यशरीरको जाननेवाले व्यष्टि क्षेत्रज्ञका ही,बोध होता है। अतः प्रकृति और उसके कार्यमात्रका बोध करानेके लिये यहाँ प्रकृतिम् पदका और मात्र क्षेत्रज्ञोंका बोध करानेके लिये यहाँ पुरुषम् पदका प्रयोग किया गया है।इसी अध्यायके दूसरे श्लोकमें क्षेत्रज्ञकी परमात्माके साथ एकता जाननेके लिये विद्धि पदका प्रयोग किया था और यहाँ पुरुषकी प्रकृतिसे भिन्नता जाननेके लिये विद्धि पदका प्रयोग किया गया है। तात्पर्य है कि मनुष्य स्वयंको और शरीरको एक समझता है? इसलिये भगवान् यहाँ विद्धि पदसे अर्जुनको यह आज्ञा देते हैं कि ये दोनों सर्वथा अलगअलग हैं -- इस बातको तुम ठीक तरहसे समझ लो।विकारांश्च गुणंश्चैव विद्धि प्रकृतिसम्भवान् -- इच्छा? द्वेष? सुख? दुःख? संघात? चेतना और धृति -- इन सात विकारोंको तथा सत्त्व? रज और तम -- इन तीन गुणोंको प्रकृतिसे उत्पन्न हुए समझो। इसका तात्पर्य यह है कि पुरुषमें विकार और गुण नहीं हैं।सातवें अध्यायमें तो भगवान्ने गुणोंको अपनेसे उत्पन्न बताया है (7। 12) और यहाँ गुणोंको प्रकृतिसे उत्पन्न बताते हैं। इसका तात्पर्य यह है कि वहाँ भक्तिका प्रकरण होनेसे भगवान्ने गुणोंको अपनेसे उत्पन्न बताया है और गुणमयी मायासे तरनेके लिये अपनी शरणागति बतायी है। परन्तु यहाँ ज्ञानका प्रकरण होनेसे गुणोंको प्रकृतिसे उत्पन्न बताया है। अतः साधक गुणोंसे अपना सम्बन्ध न मानकर ही गुणोंसे छूट सकता है।कार्यकरणकर्तृत्वे हेतुः प्रकृतिरुच्यते -- आकाश? वायु? अग्नि? जल और पृथ्वी तथा शब्द? स्पर्श? रूप? रस और गन्ध -- इन दस(महाभूतों और विषयों)का नाम कार्य है। श्रोत्र? त्वचा? नेत्र? रसना? घ्राण? वाणी? हस्त? पाद? उपस्थ और गुदा तथा मन? बुद्धि और अहंकार -- इन तेरह(बहिःकरण और अन्तःकरण)का नाम करण है। इन सबके द्वारा जो कुछ क्रियाएँ होती हैं? उनको उत्पन्न करनेमें प्रकृति ही हेतु है।जो उत्पन्न होता है? वह कार्य कहलाता है और जिसके द्वारा कार्यकी सिद्धि होती है? वह करण कहलाता है अर्थात् क्रिया करनेके जितने औजार (साधन) हैं? वे सब करण कहलाते हैं। करण तीन तरहके होते हैं -- (1) कर्मेन्द्रियाँ? (2) ज्ञानेन्द्रियाँ और (3) मन? बुद्धि एवं अहंकार। कर्मेन्द्रियाँ स्थूल हैं? ज्ञानेन्द्रियाँ सूक्ष्म हैं और मन? बुद्धि एवं अहंकार अत्यन्त सूक्ष्म हैं। कर्मेन्द्रियों और ज्ञानेन्द्रियोंको बहिःकरण कहते हैं तथा मन? बुद्धि और अहंकारको अन्तःकरण कहते हैं। जिनसे क्रियाएँ होती है? वे कर्मेन्द्रियाँ हैं और कर्मेन्द्रियों तथा ज्ञानेन्द्रियोंपर जो शासन करते हैं? वे मन? बुद्धि और अहंकार हैं। तात्पर्य है कि कर्मेन्द्रियोंपर ज्ञानेन्द्रियोंका शासन है? ज्ञानेन्द्रियोंपर मनका शासन है? मनपर बुद्धिका शासन है और बुद्धिपर अहंकारका शासन है। मन? बुद्धि और अहंकारके बिना कर्मेन्द्रियाँ और ज्ञानेन्द्रियाँ काम नहीं करतीं। ज्ञानेन्द्रियोंके साथ जब मनका सम्बन्ध हो जाता है? तब विषयोंका ज्ञान होता है। मनसे जिन विषयोंका ज्ञान होता है? उन विषयोंमेंसे कौनसा विषय ग्राह्य है और कौनसा त्याज्य है? कौनसा विषय ठीक है और कौनसा बेठीक है -- इसका निर्णय बुद्धि करती है। बुद्धिके द्वारा निर्णीत विषयोंपर अहंकार शासन करता है।अहंकार दो तरहका होता है -- (1) अहंवृत्ति और (2) अहंकर्ता। अहंवृत्ति किसीके लिये कभी दोषी नहीं होती? पर उस अहंवृत्तिके साथ जब स्वयं (पुरुष) अपना सम्बन्ध जोड़ लेता है? तादात्म्य कर लेता है? तब वह अहंकर्ता बन जाता है। तात्पर्य है कि अहंवृत्तिसे मोहित होकर? उसके परवश होकर स्वयं उस अहंवृत्तिसे मोहित होकर? उसके परवश होकर स्वयं उस अहंवृत्तिमें अपनी स्थिति मान लेता है तो वह कर्ता बन जाता है -- अहंकारविमूढात्मा कर्ताहमिति मन्यते (गीता 3। 27)।प्रकृतिका कार्य बुद्धि (महत्तत्त्व) है और बुद्धिका कार्य अहंवृत्ति (अहंकार) है। यह अहंवृत्ति है तो बुद्धिका कार्य? पर इसके साथ तादात्म्य करके स्वयं बुद्धिका मालिक बन जाता है अर्थात् कर्ता और भोक्ता बन जाता है -- पुरुषः प्रकृतिस्थो हि भुङ्क्ते प्रकृतिजान्गुणान् (गीता 13। 21)। परन्तु जब तत्त्वका बोध हो जाता है? तब स्वयं न कर्ता बनता है और न भोक्ता ही बनता है -- शरीरस्थोऽपि कौन्तेय न करोति न लिप्यते (गीता 13। 31)। फिर कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वरहित पुरुषके शरीरद्वारा जो कुछ क्रियाएँ होती हैं? वे सब क्रियाएँ अहंवृत्तिसे ही होती हैं। इसी अहंवृत्तिके द्वारा होनेवाली क्रियाओंको गीतामें कई तरहसे बताया गया है जैसे -- प्रकृतिके द्वारा ही सब क्रियाएँ होती हैं। (13। 29) प्रकृतिके गुणोंद्वारा ही सब क्रियाएँ होती हैं (3। 27) गुण ही गुणोंमें बरत रहे हैं (3। 28) गुणोंके सिवाय दूसरा कोई कर्ता नहीं है (14। 19) इन्द्रियाँ ही अपनेअपने विषयोंमें बरत रही हैं (5। 9) आदि। तात्पर्य है कि बहिःकरण और अन्तःकरणके द्वारा जो क्रियाएँ होती हैं? वे सब प्रकृतिसे ही होती हैं।पुरुषः सुखदुःखानां भोक्तृत्वे हेतुरुच्यते -- अनुकूल परिस्थितिके आनेपर सुखी (राजी) होना -- यह सबका भोग है और प्रतिकूल परिस्थितिके आनेपर दुःखी (नाराज) होना -- यह दुःखका भोग है। यह सुखदुःखका भोग पुरुष(चेतन)में ही होता है -- प्रकृति(जड)में नहीं क्योकि जड प्रकृतिमें सुखीदुःखी होनेकी सामर्थ्य नहीं है। अतः सुखदुःखके भोक्तापनमें पुरुष हेतु कहा गया है। अगर पुरुष अनुकूलप्रतिकूल परिस्थितियोंसे मिलकर राजीनाराज न हो तो वह सुखदुःखका भोक्ता नहीं बन सकता।सातवें अध्यायके चौथेपाँचवें श्लोकोंमें भगवान्ने अपरा (जड) और परा (चेतन) नामसे अपनी दो प्रकृतियोंका वर्णन किया है। ये दोनों प्रकृतियाँ भगवान्के स्वभाव हैं? इसलिये ये दोनों स्वतः ही भगवान्की ओर जा रही हैं। परन्तु परा प्रकृति (चेतन)? जो परमात्माका अंश है और जिसकी स्वाभाविक रुचि परमात्माकी ओर जानेकी ही है? तात्कालिक सुखभोगमें आकर्षित होकर अपरा प्रकृति(जड)के साथ तादात्म्य कर लेता है। इतना ही नहीं? प्रकृतिके साथ तादात्म्य करके वह प्रकृतिस्थ पुरुषके रूपमें अपनी एक स्वतन्त्र सत्ताका निर्माण कर लेता है (गीता 13। 21)? जिसको अहम् कहते हैं। इस अहम् में जड और चेतन दोनों हैं। सुखदुःखरूप जो विकार होता है? वह जडअंशमें ही होता है? पर जडसे तादात्म्य होनेके कारण उसका परिणाम ज्ञाता चेतनपर होता है अर्थात् जडके सम्बन्धसे सुखदुःखरूप विकारको चेतन अपनेमें मान लेता है कि मैं सुखी हूँ? मैं दुःखी हूँ। जैसे? घाटा लगता है दूकानमें? पर दूकानदार कहता है कि मुझे घाटा लग गया। ज्वर शरीरमें आता है? पर मान लेता है कि मेरेमें ज्वर आ गया। स्वयंमें ज्वर नहीं आता (टिप्पणी प0 696)? यदि आता तो कभी मिटता नहीं।सुखदुःखका परिणाम चेतनपर होता है? तभी वह सुखदुःखसे मुक्ति चाहता है। अगर वह सुखीदुःखी न हो? तो उसमें मुक्तिकी इच्छा हो ही नहीं सकती। मुक्तिकी इच्छा जडके सम्बन्धसे ही होती है क्योंकि जडको स्वीकार करनेसे ही बन्धन हुआ है। जो अपनेको सुखीदुःखी मानता है? वही सुखदुःखरूप विकारसे अपनी मुक्ति चाहता है और उसीकी मुक्ति होती है। तात्पर्य है कि तादात्म्यमें मुक्ति(कल्याण) की इच्छामें चेतनकी मुख्यता और भोगोंकी इच्छामें जडकी मुख्यता होती है? इसलिये अन्तमें कल्याणका भागी चेतन ही होता है? जड नहीं।विकृतिमात्र जडमें ही होती है? चेतनमें नहीं। अतः वास्तवमें सुखीदुःखी होना चेतनका धर्म नहीं है? प्रत्युत जडके सङ्गसे अपनेको सुखीदुःखी मानना ज्ञाता चेतनका स्वभाव है। तात्पर्य है कि चेतन सुखीदुःखी होता नहीं? प्रत्युत (सुखाकारदुःखाकार वृत्तिसे मिलकर) अपनेको सुखीदुःखी मान लेता है। चेतनमें एकदूसरेसे विरुद्ध सुखदुःखरूप दो भाव हो ही कैसे सकते हैं दो रूप परिवर्तनशील प्रकृतिमें ही हो सकते हैं। जो परिवर्तनशील नहीं है? उसके दो रूप नहीं हो सकते। तात्पर्य यह है कि सब विकार परिवर्तनशीलमें ही हो सकते हैं। चेतन स्वयं ज्योंकात्यों रहते हुए भी परिवर्तनशील प्रकृतिके संगसे उसके विकारोंको अपनेमें आरोपित करता रहता है। यह सबका अनुभव भी है कि हम सुखमें दूसरे तथा दुःखमें दूसरे नहीं हो जाते। सुख और दुःख दोनों अलगअलग हैं? पर हम एक ही रहते हैं इसीलिये कभी सुखी होते हैं और कभी दुःखी होते हैं। सम्बन्ध -- पूर्वश्लोकमें भगवान्ने पुरुषको सुखदुःखके भोगनेमें हेतु बताया। इसपर प्रश्न होता है कि कौनसा पुरुष सुखदुःखका भोक्ता बनता है इसका उत्तर अब भगवान् आगेके श्लोकमें देते हैं।

सातवें अध्यायमें ईश्वरकी क्षेत्र और क्षेत्रज्ञरूप अपरा और परा -- दो प्रकृतियाँ बतलायी गयी हैं तथा यह भी कहा गया है कि ये दोनों प्रकृतियाँ समस्त प्राणियोंकी योनि ( कारण ) हैं। अब यह बात बतलायी जाती है कि वे क्षेत्र और क्षेत्रज्ञरूप दोनों प्रकृतियाँ सब भूतोंकी योनि किस प्रकार हैं --, प्रकृति और पुरुष जो कि ईश्वरकी प्रकृतियाँ हैं? उन दोनोंको ही तू अनादि जान। जिनका आदि न हो उनका नाम अनादि है। ईश्वरका ईश्वरत्व नित्य होनेके कारण उसकी दोनों प्रकृतियोंका भी नित्य होना उचित ही है क्योंकि इन दोनों प्रकृतियोंसे युक्त होना ही ईश्वरकी ईश्वरता है। जिन दोनों प्रकृतियोंद्वारा ईश्वर जगत्की उत्पत्ति स्थिति और प्रलयका कारण है? वे दोनों अनादिसिद्ध ही संसारकी कारण हैं। कोईकोई टीकाकार जो आदि ( कारण ) नहीं हैं वे अनादि कहे जाते हैं? इस प्रकार यहाँ तत्पुरुषसमासका वर्णन करते हैं ( और कहते हैं कि ) इससे केवल ईश्वर ही जगत्का कारण है? यह बात,सिद्ध होती है। यदि प्रकृति और पुरुषको नित्य माना जाय तो संसार उन्हींका रचा हुआ माना जायगा? ईश्वर जगत्का कर्ता सिद्ध न होगा। किंतु ऐसा मानना ठीक नहीं क्योंकि ( यदि प्रकृति और पुरुषको नित्य न माने तो ) प्रकृति और पुरुषकी उत्पत्तिसे पूर्व शासन करने योग्य वस्तुका अभाव होनेसे ईश्वरमें अनीश्वरताका प्रसङ्ग आ जाता है। तथा संसारको बिना निमित्तके उत्पन्न हुआ माननेसे उसके अन्तके अभावका प्रसङ्ग? शास्त्रकी व्यर्थताका प्रसङ्ग और बन्धमोक्षके अभावका प्रसङ्ग प्राप्त होता है? ( इसलिये भी उपर्युक्त अर्थ ठीक नहीं है। ) परंतु ईश्वरकी इन दोनों प्रकृतियोंको नित्य मान लेनेसे यह सब व्यवस्था ठीक हो जाती है। कैसे ( सो कहते हैं -- ) विकारोंको और गुणोंको तू प्रकृतिसे उत्पन्न जान अर्थात् बुद्धिसे लेकर शरीर और इन्द्रियोंतक अगले श्लोकमें बतलाये हुए विकारोंको तथा सुखदुःख और मोह आदि वृत्तियोंके रूपमें परिणत हुए तीनों गुणोंको तू प्रकृतिसे उत्पन्न हुए जान। अभिप्राय यह है कि विकारोंकी कारणरूपा जो ईश्वरकी त्रिगुणमयी माया शक्ति है? उसका नाम प्रकृति है। वह जिन विकारों और गुणोंको उत्पन्न करनेवाली है? उन विकारों और गुणोंको तू प्रकृतिजनित -- प्रकृतिके ही परिणाम समझ।

To determine the nature of modifications (vikāra), qualities (guṇa), and Prakriti through expectation, He introduces the first half of the subsequent verse—with 'Ke punah' (Who again). He states the causality of bondage due to the beginninglessness of Purusha—with 'Purushah' (Purusha).

He explains the first half—with 'Karyam' (Effect) etc. The five senses of knowledge, the five senses of action, Mind, Intellect, and Ego—these are the thirteen instruments (kāraṇāni). Still, since the elements and objects are grasped, how are they modifications of Prakriti?—anticipating this, He says—'Deha' (Body) etc. Still, since qualities are not grasped here, it is not a modification of Prakriti?—to that He says—'Gunah cha' (And qualities also). He states the meaning resulting from the said method—with 'Evam' (Thus).

Restating another reading, and explaining, He states the non-difference in meaning—with 'Karyam' etc. He states another explanation—with 'Athava' (Or else). Eleven senses and five objects—thus the sixteen modifications are the meaning of the word 'Karya' here? Mahat, Ego, and the subtle elements (Tanmatras)—these seven modifications of Prakriti are the cause? The fundamental Prakriti is the source due to being the originator and doer of them; this is the meaning.

He states the purport of the second half—with 'Purushah cha' (And Purusha). He excludes its nature as the Supreme Self—with 'Jivah' (Jiva). He states its sentience which is the cause of sustaining life, and for that purpose—with 'Kshetrajnah' (Knower of the Field). He excludes its unconditional nature—with 'Bhokta' (Enjoyer).

To establish the causality of Samsara for both (Prakriti and Purusha), He raises a doubt—with 'Katham' (How). He says that both are so due to Anvaya and Vyatireka (positive and negative concomitance)—with 'Atra' (Here). He shows the Vyatireka (negative concomitance) there—with 'Karya' (Effect) etc. Meaning, the eternally liberated Self does not have Samsara by itself. Now He states the Anvaya (positive concomitance)—with 'Yada' (When). He concludes the fruit of Anvaya etc.—with 'Atah' (Therefore).

He objects that the transmigration of the non-active Self is improper—with 'Kah punah' (Who again). The realization of either pleasure or pain is enjoyment; and that is the Samsara of the non-active seer (Drastu); and such enjoyership is his transmigratory nature—He answers—with 'Sukha' (Pleasure) etc. The word 'Iti' marks the completion of the commentary on the verse.

In the seventh (chapter), having set forth the Lord's two Natures, higher and lower, characterized as Field and Knower of the Field, it was stated 'Beings have these as their womb'. There, in this chapter begun to ascertain the two Natures, having indicated the nature of the two Prakritis characterized as Field and Knower by the two (verses) 'This body' etc., and having propounded that by 'That Field and what and what like' etc.; then having propounded 'And what and what like' by 'Great elements' etc., and to propound 'And who he is and of what power' -- the Purusha -- with two (verses); initially to ascertain 'Beings have these as their womb', He propounds 'What modifications and from what, what' -- with two (verses) 'Nature' etc.

Prakriti is indeed the Lord's power which is the cause of modification, consisting of three Gunas, the Maya -- from Sruti and Smriti 'Know Maya as Prakriti, and the Wielder of Maya as the Great Lord', 'For this Divine Maya of Mine consisting of Gunas is difficult to cross'. Purusha is the higher Nature characterized as the Knower of the Field. Know both those, Prakriti and Purusha, as indeed Beginningless (Anadi), not having a beginning (Sadi). 'Both indeed' is said to confirm that not even one has a beginning. Those whose 'Adi', i.e., cause, does not exist are 'Anadi'. Because of the eternity of the Lord, it is proper for His Natures also to be so.

Being possessed of those two Natures whose beginninglessness is useful for producing Samsara, since the Lord attains the status of being the cause of origin, sustenance, and dissolution of the world, that indeed is His Lordship. (Objection): Well, if Nature and Purusha are beginningless, the world-creatorship belongs to them only, not to the Lord; but if they have a beginning, the Lord's creatorship of that is established; therefore the Tatpurusha compound 'Not beginning' (Na Adi) should be stated (meaning not the first)? (Answer): No. Because before the origin of Nature and Purusha, due to the absence of anything to be ruled, there would be the contingency of the Lord being non-Lord. If Samsara were causeless, since the attainment of Samsara would not be negated even for the liberated, there would be the contingency of non-liberation, leading to the uselessness of Scripture. And if they were effects, due to the absence of bondage before their rise, there would be absence of liberation which consists of cessation of that; thus the contingency of absence of bondage and liberation.

If Nature and Purusha are beginningless, since modifications and Gunas are effects of Prakriti, the changelessness and attributelessness of the Self is established. Intending this very thing, He says. Know the 'modifications' -- to be described, ending with intellect, body, and senses -- and indeed 'qualities' (Gunas) -- transformed into forms of cognitions of pleasure, pain, and delusion, named Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas -- as 'born of Prakriti', transformations of Maya consisting of three Gunas.

And know the Purusha; by the repetition of words like Purusha in 'Viddhi' (know), the second half should be connected with the relation of 'Viddhi'. Therefore, since the nature of eternal Knowledge is intended, and the word Purusha is well-known for the aggregate of body and senses, and since that (aggregate) has a beginning, the doubt 'How is it beginningless?' does not arise; so the strained imagination (klishta-kalpana) -- since the absence of this doubt is already established by the propounding of the distinctness of Purusha from the aggregate with great effort earlier -- 'How could the Omniscient Acharyas do this?', their deficiency should not be suspected (in not addressing this non-existent doubt).

To speak of 'And from what, what' [13.4], He speaks of Prakriti, modifications, and Purusha briefly.

Gunas are Sattva etc. Their very slight distinction from Laya (dissolution) to Sarga (creation) is why modifications are mentioned separately.

'Action, Non-action, and Gunas are the three from which the slight birth (creation) of beings (occurs)' -- thus in the Madhuchhandasa Shakha.

Thus the Field named body, the Unmanifest, has been stated; and its modes Mahat etc. twenty-three, its modifications desire etc., designated as Knowledge and Ignorance (like) humility and pride etc., and the Purusha have been stated.

Now, between the Field and Knower of the Field, 'from what what is born' and 'what is the power of the Knower of the Field' -- these two are to be stated; there He explains the first with three (verses) -- 'Nature' etc.

In the seventh chapter, the eightfold Nature which was stated as lower, that is Nature (Prakriti) here. And the higher Nature which was stated as having become the Jiva, that is spoken of here by the word Purusha. For these two, joined together, generate Samsara. And their separation is Liberation.

There, know both of them as beginningless. If they had a beginning, there would be the contingency of Samsara being accidental (causeless), and the contingency of loss of earned (actions) and accrual of unearned (results) etc. -- the detail is elsewhere.

Know modifications -- desire etc., and Gunas -- senses of knowledge etc., as born of Nature.

'Effect' (Karyam) is the body; 'Causes' (Karanam) are the senses consisting of knowledge and action along with the mind; in the performance of their actions, Nature (Prakriti) presided over by the Person (Purusha) is indeed the cause; meaning the action which is the means of enjoyment, residing in Nature transformed into the form of the Field presided over by the Person.

But for the Person, only the status of being the presider is additional relative to that; 'The agent, on account of scripture having a purport' (Br. Su. 2.3.33) etc. has been stated; for the agency of the Person is indeed being the cause of the effort of presiding over the body.

The Person associated with Nature is the cause in the experiencership of pleasure and pain; meaning the locus of the experience of pleasure and pain. Thus, the difference in function of Nature and Person associated with each other has been stated; now regarding the Person, who is by nature solely happy in self-experience, being the cause of enjoyment of objective pleasure and pain, He says --

So thus, 'That Field and what and what like' -- this much has been elaborated. Now, however, 'Having what modifications and from what, what; And who he is and of what power' -- this which was promised before, He elaborates by stating the causality of Nature and Person in Samsara -- with 'Nature' etc. in five (verses).

There, if Nature and Person had a beginning, there would have to be another Nature (cause) for them also, thus infinite regress would occur. Therefore know both of them as beginningless. Since Nature is the power of the beginningless Lord, it is beginningless; the Person also, being His part, is indeed beginningless.

And here, the beginninglessness and eternity of the Supreme Lord and His powers have been established with great composition by the reverend commentator Sri Shankara, so it is not expanded by us due to (fear of) bulkiness of the book.

And know modifications -- body, senses, etc., and Gunas -- transformations of Gunas like pleasure, pain, delusion etc., as born of Nature.

Now, regarding the meaning collected by 'Cause of bondage', beginning with 'Nature and Person', he discriminates the meaning prior to the inquiry into discrimination -- 'Now'.

'And the cause of connection' means the cause of the connection which is beginningless like a stream. In 'Both beginningless', he shows the specific meaning obtained by the particle 'cha' (and) implying mutual conjunction in 'Nature and Person' -- 'Nature and Person both mutually connected'. Relative to that, the use of the dual ending is appropriate. In 'Prakritipurushau', by 'The gender is like the latter member in Dvandva and Tatpurusha' [Ashta. 2.4.26], there is masculine gender. Being adjectives to that, 'Ubhavapi' (both also) and 'Anadi' (beginningless) also have that very gender.

'Desire, hatred' etc. and 'Humility' [13.7-8] etc. indicated are translated by the words 'modifications' and 'qualities' respectively -- thus he shows 'Causes of bondage'. In the introduction of the context 'That Field and what and what like and having what modifications' [13.4], the word 'modification' refers only to the effects of the Field; and due to recognition of that, here too the word 'modification' has that subject. Therefore, on the strength of context, it does not refer to modifications like Mahat etc. And due to association with that, it is appropriate that the word 'Guna' (quality) also refers to the contextual meaning; so referring to qualities Sattva etc. is incorrect, this is the sense.

To make known the basis of the separate mention as 'Modifications and Qualities', the statement is in the form of cause of bondage and liberation. The instruction of the two groups of qualities to be abandoned and accepted is purposeful for the sake of abandoning and accepting; but what is the purpose of instructing that they are born of Nature? -- regarding this doubt, regarding the object to be known as it is being spoken, he states what is intended by the additional statement 'Know' -- 'By the Person'. The instruction of being born of That (Nature) is for making known the nature of being abandonable or acceptable through the difference in form of Nature alone, this is the sense.

Speaking of Humility etc. as modifications by 'With its own modifications' is to indicate the logic of 'Cattle and Bull' (Go-balivarda - generic and specific) due to the non-difference of having Nature as the cause stated in 'Born of Nature'.

इसके पूर्व सातवें अध्याय में भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण ने अपनी दो प्रकृतियों अपरा और परा का वर्णन करते हुए कहा था कि ये दोनों प्रकृतियाँ ही सृष्टि की योनि अर्थात् कारण हैं। इन दोनों का ही निर्देश यहाँ क्षेत्र और क्षेत्रज्ञ के रूप में किया गया है।उक्त विचार को ही दूसरी शब्दावली में बताते हुए भगवान् कहते हैं कि प्रकृति (क्षेत्र) और पुरुष (क्षेत्रज्ञ) दोनों ही अनादि हैं। ये दोनों ही परमात्मा के ही दो रूप हैं। परमेश्वर नित्य है? इसलिए उसके इन दो रूपों का भी अनादि होना? उचित ही है। प्रकृति और पुरुष ही परस्पर सम्बन्ध के द्वारा इस जगत् की उत्पत्ति? स्थिति और लय के कारण हैं। इस प्रकार? यद्यपि संसार के कारण ये दोनों हैं? तथापि इनका अधिष्ठान ज्योतियों की ज्योतिस्वरूप ब्रह्म ही है।भगवान् आगे कहते हैं कि समस्त देह? इन्द्रिय? मन और बुद्धि ये विकार और सुखदुख? मोहादिक ये गुण जिनका वर्णन गीता में ही आगे किया जाने वाला है प्रकृति से उत्पन्न होते हैं और आत्मा स्वयं अविकारी रहते हुए इन विकारों को प्रकाशित करता है।प्रकृति से उत्पन्न वे गुण और विकार क्या हैं सुनो

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—

(Objection): Well, 'Know Nature and Person indeed' etc. which was not promised, why is it spoken? (Answer): Do not say so. Because of the statement of the Field with its modes promised by 'And what like' [13.4]; (Objection): Following the order of that promise, why was it not spoken earlier indeed? To this he says -- 'And from what'.

The nature of the impeller promised by 'And from what, what' [13.4] was due to be spoken after 'Power'. There, the description of the nature of the impeller requires knowledge of the impelled. And the impelled is the Field with its modes; to speak of the nature of the impeller, the Field with its modes which is to be impelled is spoken of by this. If that were spoken earlier also, there would be heaviness (repetition), this is the sense.

Then how is 'Nature' etc. said? Everything distinct from the Lord, the group of sentient and insentient, is called the Field. There, by the word 'Nature', the twenty-four principles stated by 'Great elements' [13.6] etc. are grasped. By the word 'modification', all modifications like the three Gunas etc. indicated by desire etc., though included in the Field, are taken separately due to specific intention. By the word 'Person', the Jiva (is grasped).

Since it will be stated again by 'Whatever is born' [13.27] etc., to avoid the defect of repetition, 'Briefly' is said. He says: He describes (Nature and Person) with their modes. 'Gunas are pleasure, pain, and delusion' -- (so says) someone [Shankara]. The connection is 'characterized by effect and cause' (Karya-karana); refuting both of those, he explains -- 'Gunas'.

(Objection): Well, since Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas are also modifications of Nature, what is the purpose of separate mention as 'Modifications and Gunas'? To this he says -- 'Of them'. 'To make known' is to be supplied. 'Modifications are spoken separately' means modifications and Gunas are spoken separately. 'Action and Non-action' (Karyakarya) means those (Gunas). 'Three' (Tisrah). By this, it is also indicated that if pleasure etc. were accepted (as meaning of Guna), their separate mention from modifications would be improper.

So by this text, 'That Field and what and what like' [13.4] has been explained. Now 'Having what modifications and from what, what; and who he is and of what power' [13.4] is to be explained.

There, by stating the causality of Nature and Person in Samsara, 'Having what modifications and from what, what' is elaborated by two (verses) beginning with 'Nature' etc. But 'And who he is and of what power' is (elaborated) by two (verses) beginning with 'Person' (verse 22) etc. -- this is the distinction.

There, in the seventh (chapter), having set forth the Lord's two Natures, higher and lower, characterized as Field and Knower of the Field, and stating 'Beings have these as their womb'; therein the lower Nature is characterized as the Field, and the higher characterized as Jiva -- thus having stated the beginninglessness of those two, the origin of beings from both of them is stated. 'Nature' (Prakriti) -- Nature named Maya, consisting of three Gunas, the Supreme Lord's power, characterized as Field, which was earlier called the lower Nature. But the higher Nature named Jiva mentioned earlier, he is called 'Person' (Purusha) here; thus there is no contradiction between earlier and later.

Know Nature and Person, both indeed as beginningless. Those whose 'Adi', i.e., cause, does not exist are they two. Similarly, the beginninglessness of Nature is due to being the cause of the whole world; for if it also required a cause, there would be the contingency of infinite regress. The beginninglessness of the Person is due to being prompted by his Dharma and Adharma; because for the whole world born, joy, sorrow, and fear are perceived; otherwise there would be the contingency of loss of earned (actions) and accrual of unearned (results).

Since Nature is beginningless, therefore its being the womb of beings stated earlier is reasonable, he says -- 'Modifications'. And know the 'modifications' -- the sixteen, five great elements and eleven senses; and 'Gunas' -- of the form of Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas -- pleasure, pain, and delusion -- as born of Nature indeed, having Nature alone as their cause.

Thus what was promised earlier 'That Field and what and what like' [13.4] has been described. Doubting 'Since they are His parts, how is there the designation of Field and Knower of the Field there?', He describes the nature of both promised earlier indeed by 'Having what modifications' [13.4] etc. -- with five verses beginning with 'Nature' etc.

Know 'Nature' -- capable of generating everything, endowed with attributes like pervasiveness etc., beginningless because of being the Lord's power; and the 'Person' -- the enjoyer of that Rasa, the form of the enjoyer-part, beginningless because of being the Lord's part; thus (know) both indeed as 'beginningless'. Here the sense is -- Earlier having manifested in the form of Brahman, Nature, and Person for the enjoyment of the three wonderful Rasas, then He created everything; for the purpose of informing the Jivas who are His parts, there due to connection with Maya of deluding nature, otherwise the connection happens through knowledge; for the absence of that (delusion), by the knowledge of beginningless-ness of His own Divine Power and Divine Part etc., delusion would not occur, this is the meaning.

Thus knowing those two as beginningless, know the 'modifications' -- body, senses, etc. useful for service, and 'Gunas' -- consisting of pleasure, pain, delusion -- as born of Nature indeed.

Here the sense is -- by His own nature situated in some state, for the experience of His own Rasa, He manifests bodies etc. consisting of existence (Sat) through power; similarly He manifests Gunas consisting of attachment to experience of union-joy and separation-sorrow bliss and delusion; therefore know them so.

Thus the purpose of knowledge will also become clear later.

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).

Now, intending to tell the principle of Purusha promised earlier as 'And who he is and of what power' [13.4], He states the universal causality along with the fruit of Nature and Self who are of extremely distinct natures (but) non-different from the nature of the Cause -- in five (verses).

There, Nature is distinct from the Self and eternal like the Person in the view of a section of Sankhyas. But in the Bhagavad-Sankhya (Lord's Sankhya), it is the Lord's power. For Sankhya scripture does not make the Lord its object, because He is the impeller of that and the controller of that. Because the operation of that scripture is only below the Imperishable (Akshara), the concept is fivefold: Beginningless Purushottama, Akshara, Time, Nature, and Person. Relying on this view, the Sankhya doctrine proceeds here, not relying on the natural (material Sankhya).

Thus -- 'Nature'. 'Person'. In both places, singular number is used with the intention of the collective form of all. And this He unifies in meaning with the Bhagavata sentence 'That Lord, All-pervading, accepted the subtle Divine Nature consisting of Gunas which approached by chance/will, for sport. Seeing Nature creating beings similar to herself, variegated by Gunas, He was immediately deluded here by knowledge-concealing (power)' [Bhag. 3.26.4-5].

There, Nature is twofold as effect and cause; the effect form is the adjunct of Jiva, endowed with Avidya; the cause form is Maya of the Supreme Self. Similarly, Purusha is also twofold: the Cause, the Whole (Amshi), the Root-Purusha-Self; His effect are the parts, Jiva-Purushas.

There, that very Person accepted Nature by Lila, for the purpose of sport. What kind of Nature? 'Approached by chance indeed', meaning by the Lord's will indeed. Her and Him, know both these -- being understood after a long time, being My parts, of the nature of Sat and Chit, being non-different from the nature of the Cause -- as Beginningless indeed. Know 'modifications' which are causes of bondage like desire, hatred, etc., and modifications starting with Humility; and 'Gunas', the causes of immortality like Sattva etc., or born of Nature, beginningless.

At the time of creation, My unconscious Nature consisting of Maya-part and Gunas, united with the Person who is the part of the root-Akshara, having the form of Mahat, Egoism, Earth, etc., transformed in the form of the Field, superimposed by the inner creation, the Avidya of the form of mist -- (this) Nature with modifications desire, hatred, etc. is the cause of bondage for the Person. That very (Nature), understood through Vidya created by Maya, becomes the cause of immortality for the Person through her own modifications like Humility etc., this is the meaning.

प्रकृतिम् matter? पुरुषम् spirit? च and? एव even? विद्धि know? अनादी beginningless? उभौ both? अपि also? विकारान् modifications? च and? गुणान् alities? च and? एव even? विद्धि know? प्रकृतिसंभवान् born of Prakriti.Commentary Steps are necessary to reach the top floor of a building. Even so? steps are necessary to reach the summit of the knowledge of the Self. That is the reason why Lord Krishna took Arjuna to the summit of knowledge step by step. He first taught Arjuna the nature of the field? then knowledge? ignorance or nonwisdom? and ultimately the knowable. When a child is to be fed,the intelligent mother divides the food into small portions and feeds the child little by little. Even so Lord Krishna fed His spiritual child Arjuna with the spiritual food little by little.Lord Krishna says O Arjuna I will give you the same teaching in another form by the description of the Spirit and Nature.Till now the Lord expounded the knowledge of the field and the Self in accordance with the philosophy of the Upanishads. Now He explains the same knowledge in accordance with the Sankhya philosophy? but without accepting its dual nature in the form of discrimination between the Spirit and Nature.Vikaras Modifications from the MahatTattva or intellect down to the physical body the twentyfour principles of the Sankhyas. The Self within is changeless. All changes take place in Nature. Mulaprakriti (the Primordial Nature? the Unmanifested) becomes modified into Mahat? egoism? mind? the great elements and other minor modifications.Just as coolness and ice? the day and the night? are inseparable? so also matter and Spirit are inseparable. The three alities Sattva? Rajas and Tamas are born of Nature (matter). All actions proceed from the mind? the lifeforce? the senses and the physical body.According to the Sankhya philosophy? Prakriti and Purusha are not only eternal and beginningless but also independent of each other and selfcreated. According to Vedanta philosophy? Prakriti or Maya originates from Brahman and is? therefore? neither selfcreated nor independent. Isvara has Maya under His perfect control. Maya is His causal body. Maya is His illusory power.Matter and Spirit are the Natures of Isvara. Know that these two are beginningless. That which has no beginning is Anadi. As Isvara is eternal? His two Natures also should be eternal. (This is according to the Sankhyas.)Isvara possesses these two Natures (superior and inferior) by which He causes the creation? preservation and destruction of the universe. Therefore He has the Lordship and rules over the universe. The two Natures have no beginning. Therefore they are the cause of Samsara.The inferior Nature (Apara Prakriti) which consists of the eightfold division of Nature referred to in chapter VII? verse 4? is the Prakriti of chapter XIII? verse 19. The superior Nature (Para Prakriti) referred to in chapter VII? verse 5? is the Purusha of chapter XIII? verse 19. Purusha here means Jiva (the individual soul).Even a child smiles and experiences exhilaration? grief? fear? anger? pleasure and pain. Who taught it The impressions of the virtuous and vicious actions of this birth cannot be the cause of these. The impressions of the previous birth alone are the cause of all these. They (the impressions) must have a support. From this we can clearly infer the existence of the individual soul in the previous birth and that the individual soul is beginningless. If you do not accept that the individual soul is beginningless? the two defects of Kritanasa (nonfruition of actions performed) and Akritabhyagama (causeless effect) will creep in. Pleasure and pain which are the fruits of virtuous and vicious actions done previously will pass away without being experienced. This is the defect of Kritanasa. So also? one will have to enjoy pleasure and pain? the fruits of good and bad actions which were not done by him previously. This is the defect of Akritabhyagama. In order to get rid of these two defects we will have to accept that the individual soul is beginningless. The scriptures,also emphatically declare that the soul is beginningless.

Viddhi, know; ubhau, both; prakrtim Nature; and also the purusam, individual soul;-these two; Nature and the soul. the aspects of God-to be api, verily; anadi, without beginning. Those two that have no beginning (adi), are anadi. Since the godhood of God is eternal, therefore it is logical that even His aspects also should have eternality. For God's god-hood consists verily in having the two aspects. Those two aspects through which God becomes the cause of creation, continuance and dissolution of the Universe, and which are beginningless, are the sources of mundane existence.
Some interpret the phrase anadi in the tatpurusa [Tatpurusa: Name of a class of compounds in which the first member determines the sense of the other members, or in which the last member is defined or alified by the first, without losing its original independence.-V.S.A.] sense of na adi, not primeval (not cause). (According to them) thery indeed is established the causality of God. Again, if Nature and soul themselves be eternal, the mundane existence would surely be their creation, and the causality of the mundane existence would not be God's.
That is wrong because, there being nothing to rule over before the emergence of Nature and soul, there will arise the contingency of God ceasing to be God! And if the mundane state be uncaused [Uncaused, i.e. not caused by Nature and soul, but by God independently of those two aspects.] there arises the contingency of the absence of Liberation, [If God were. Himself the sole cause of mundane existence, independently of His two aspects, then it would be endless because there would be nothing to prevent liberated souls from being put under bondage again.] the scriptures becoming useless, and the absence of bondage and freedom. On the other hand, all these become justifiable if God and the two aspects be eternal.
How?
Viddhi, know; the vikaran, modifications that will be spoken of-the intellect etc., the body and the organs; ca eva, as also; gunan, the alities (sattva etc.)-manifest in the form of the mental states of happiness, sorrow and attachment; as prakriti-sambhavan, born of Nature. Nature, Maya, is the power of God, which is the cause of the modifications and which consists of the three alities. Those modifications and alities, which have that Nature as their source,-know those modifications and alities as 'born of Nature', as transformations of Nature.
Which again, are those modifications and alities born of Nature?

Know this Prakrti and Purusa (self) are uncreated and are beginningless. Know that the modifications, desire, hatred etc., which cause bondage, and the alities of modesty etc., which cause release, originate from Prakrti. The Prakrti, having no beginning, develops into the form of the body, and conjoint with the self, causes bondage through its own transformations such as desire and hatred. The same Prakrti, through its transformations like modesty etc., causes release. Such is the meaning.
The difference in the functions of Prakrti and Purusa in combination is stated -