Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 13 - Shloka (Verse) 21

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।

प्रकृतिसे उत्पन्न हुए वे विकार और गुण कौनसे हैं --, कार्य शरीरको कहते हैं और उसमें स्थित ( मन? बुद्धि? अहंकार तथा दश इन्द्रियाँ -- ये ) तेरह कारण हैं। इनके कर्त्तापनमें ( हेतु प्रकृति है )। शरीरको उत्पन्न करनेवाले पाँच भूत और शब्द आदि पाँच विषय ये पहले कहे हुए प्रकृतिजन्य दश विकार तो यहाँ कार्यके ग्रहणसे ग्रहण किये जाते हैं और सुखदुःख? मोह आदिके रूपमें परिणत हुए प्रकृतिजन्य समस्त गुण बुद्धि आदि कारणोंके आश्रित होनेके कारण करणोंके ग्रहणसे ग्रहण किये जाते हैं। उन कार्य और करणोंका जो कर्तापन अर्थात् उनको उत्पन्न करनेका भाव है उसका नाम कार्यकरण कर्तृत्व है? उन कार्यकरणोंके कर्तृत्वमें आरम्भ करनेवाली होनेसे प्रकृति कारण कही जाती है। इस प्रकार कार्यकरणोंको उत्पन्न करनेवाली होनेसे प्रकृति संसारकी कारण है। कार्यकारणकर्तृत्वे ऐसा पाठ माननेसे भी यही अर्थ होगा कि जो जिसका परिणाम है? वह उसका कार्य अर्थात् विकार है? और कारण विकारी -- विकृत होनेवाला -- है। उन विकारी और विकाररूप कारण और कार्योंके उत्पन्न करनेमें ( प्रकृति हेतु है )। अथवा सोलह विकार तो कार्य और सात प्रकृति विकृति कारण हैं? इस प्रकार ये ( तेईस तत्त्व ) ही कार्यकारणके नामसे कहे जाते हैं। इनके कर्तापनमें प्रारम्भकत्वसे ही प्रकृति हेतु कही जाती है। पुरुष भी जिस प्रकार संसारका कारण होता है? सो कहा जाता है -- पुरुष अर्थात् जीव? क्षेत्रज्ञ? भोक्ता इत्यादि जिसके पर्याय शब्द है? वह सुखदुःख आदि भोगोंके भोक्तापनमें,अर्थात् उनका उपभोग करनेमें हेतु कहा जाता है। पू0 -- परंतु इस कार्यकरणके कर्तापनसे और सुख दुःखके भोक्तापनसे प्रकृति और पुरुष दोनोंको संसारका कारण कैसे बतलाया जाता है उ0 -- कार्यकरण और सुखदुःखादिरूप हेतु और फलके आकारमें प्रकृतिका परिणाम न होनेपर तथा चेतन पुरुषमें उन सबका भोक्तापन न होनेसे संसार कैसे सिद्ध होगा। जब कार्यकरणरूप हेतु और फलके आकारमें परिणत हुई भोग्यरूपा प्रकृतिके साथ उससे विपरीत धर्मवाले पुरुषका? भोक्ता भावसे अविद्यारूप संयोग होगा? तभी संसार ( प्रतीत ) होगा। इसलिये प्रकृतिके कार्यकरणविषयक कर्तापन और पुरुषके सुख दुःखविषयक भोक्तापनको लेकर जो उन दोनोंका संसारकारणत्व प्रतिपादन किया गया? वह उचित ही है। पू0 -- तो यह संसारनामक वस्तु क्या है उ0 -- सुख दुःखोंका भोग ही संसार है और पुरुषमें जो सुखदुःखोंका भोक्तृत्व है? यही उसका संसारित्व है।

He introduces the next verse as a question and answer -- 'If'. To state the cause, first he says that his transmigratory state is due to superimposition of identity with ignorance -- 'Person'. Since he has attained Nature as the Self, therefore he enjoys -- this is the construction. He enacts enjoyment regarding the Gunas -- 'Happy'.

Doubting 'Since ignorance is the cause of enjoyment, what is the need for seeking a cause?', he says -- 'Even though true'. He states the proof for attachment being the principal cause in Samsara characterized by birth etc. -- 'He just as'. Introducing the second half regarding the stated meaning, he explains -- 'That this' etc. He states another construction supplying words -- 'Or'.

Distinguishing good and bad wombs, he explains -- 'Good wombs'. By the mention of two wombs, the intermediate human wombs are also implied, he says -- 'By force'.

Doubting 'If attachment is the cause of Samsara, ignorance is not its cause, since it is accounted for by one cause alone', he says -- 'This'. Avidya is the material cause, attachment is the efficient cause, thus the causality of both is established, this is the meaning. He states the intended result of stating the twofold cause -- 'And that'.

Doubting 'Since ignorance with attachment does not cease by itself, its remover must be stated', he says -- 'Of this'. Renunciation when there is dispassion, and knowledge preceded by that, is the remover of ignorance with attachment, this is the meaning. He states the proof regarding the stated knowledge -- 'Gita'. And he says that the knowledge stated at the beginning of the chapter is illustrated -- 'And that'. That very knowledge is stated by 'Knowing which' etc. ending with 'neither Sat nor Asat' by negating others, and by 'With hands and feet everywhere' etc. by superimposition of non-Self properties -- he says 'Knowing which'.

Know that Prakriti and Purusha both are mutually conjoined (anyonyasamsṛṣṭau) and beginningless (anādī).

Know that the modifications (vikārān) which are causes of bondage—desire (icchā), hatred (dveṣa) etc.—and the qualities (guṇān) which are causes of liberation—humility (amānitva) etc.—are born of Prakriti (prakṛtisambhavān).

This Prakriti, conjoined with Purusha, functioning from beginningless time, and modified into the form of the Field, becomes the cause of Purusha's bondage through its own modifications like desire, hatred, etc.

That very (Prakriti), through its own modifications like humility etc., becomes the cause of the Purusha's liberation (apavarga);

this is the meaning.

He states the difference in the effects of the conjoined Prakriti and Purusha—

'Effect' is the body. "The body is called the effect" -- this is the definition. 'Causes' are the senses; 'Enjoyment' is experience.

For he experiences because of being of the nature of consciousness. And Nature transforms because of being inert.

"In the agency of cause and effect, the wise know Nature as the cause; in the experiencership of pleasure and pain, (they know) the Person who is beyond Nature" -- thus in Bhagavata [3.26.8].

Regarding both being causes towards Samsara, he states the means -- 'Effect'. 'Effect' is the body, the elements originating it, and objects. 'Cause' is the thirteen senses and the qualities consisting of pleasure, pain, and delusion dependent on them. Even in the reading 'Karana' (instrument), the meaning is the same. In the 'agency' of these effect and cause -- when being the efficient cause -- meaning by agency. 'Cause' -- Nature becomes the cause of Samsara. Similarly, the Person is the cause of Samsara by experiencership of pleasure and pain.

For if Nature did not transform in the form of effect, cause, pleasure, pain, cause and fruit, then what would the Person experience? Or without experiencing, how would he be a transmigratory being? Or where would Nature, having no experiencer, be useful? Therefore, the conjunction of the experienced and the experiencer is the cause of Samsara -- this is explained as per the Bhashya.

Or else, in the effect-ness, cause-ness, and agency of the Person, Nature alone, having attained identity with the Person, becomes the cause. Just as iron having attained identity with fire becomes the cause for the fire's squareness etc. Similarly, in the pleasure-pain-experiencership of Nature, the Person is the cause by bestowing his reflection, like fire is (the cause) in the burning capacity of iron by bestowing its reflection.

Thus indeed, effect-ness etc., being properties of the material body, senses, and intellect, are superimposed on the conscious Self as 'I am fair, I am son of so-and-so, I am one-eyed, I am lame, I do, I did'. Similarly, the intellect having attained the reflection of consciousness thinks 'I am conscious, I experience pleasure, pain etc.'. This mutual superimposition of properties of Nature and Person is established as the cause of Samsara.

The experiencership of the Person accepted by Sankhyas is also refuted. Otherwise, 'Nature is the doer, Person is the enjoyer' -- thus there would be distinct loci for doership and enjoyership. And it is not possible to say that the enjoying Person is changeless -- this is detailed elsewhere. Since the word heard at the end of a Dvandva compound relates to each member, the suffix 'tva' relates to the preceding ones also, so the analysis is 'effect-ness, cause-ness, and agency'; and the singular number of the Dvandva is like in 'Pratipadikartha...' etc.

The word 'Guna' is metaphorical for its effects. The Person, whose sole happiness is self-experience by nature, situated in Nature -- associated with Nature -- enjoys, experiences the Gunas born of Nature -- which are conditioned by contact with Nature, which are effects of Gunas Sattva etc., i.e., pleasure, pain, etc.

He states the cause of contact with Nature -- This Person situated in specific wombs like gods, humans, etc. which are forms of previous modifications of Nature, attached to pleasure, pain, etc. consisting of Sattva etc. Gunas prompted by those respective wombs, engages in meritorious and sinful actions which are the causes of means to those. Then, for the experience of the fruit of those merits and sins, he is born in good and bad wombs, in virtuous and non-virtuous wombs.

And from that he commences action; and from that he is born; as long as he does not resort to qualities like Humility etc. which are means to attain the Self, so long indeed he transmigrates. That very thing is said -- 'The cause is his attachment to Gunas in births in good and bad wombs.'

Showing that modifications are born of Nature, He shows the nature of the Person as the cause of Samsara -- 'Effect and Cause' etc. 'Effect' is the body; 'Causes' are the senses, the means of pleasure and pain; in their 'agency', meaning transformation into that form, Nature is said to be the cause by Kapila and others. The Person, the Jiva, is said to be the cause in the experiencership of pleasure and pain created by that.

This is the sense: Although independent agency is not possible for insentient Nature; similarly experiencership is not possible for the changeless Person either; still, agency means being the accomplisher of action; and that is possible even for the insentient due to the unseen force (Adrishta) of the sentient and being presided over by Consciousness. Like the upward burning of fire; the sideways movement of wind; the flowing of breast milk due to the unseen force of the calf, etc.

Therefore, due to the proximity of the Person, the agency of Nature is spoken of. And experiencership is the sensation of pleasure and pain. And that is a property of the sentient alone, so due to proximity, the experiencership of the Person is spoken of -- thus.

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 nivartente' (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—

कार्य और कारण के कर्तृत्व में हेतु प्रकृति है यहाँ प्रयुक्त कार्य शब्द से ये तेरह तत्त्व सूचित किये गये हैं पंचमहाभूत? पंच ज्ञानेन्द्रियाँ? मन? बुद्धि और अहंकार। समष्टि पंचतत्त्वों के जो शब्द स्पर्शादि पंच गुण हैं? वे ही व्यष्टि में पंच ज्ञानेन्द्रियों के रूप में स्थित हैं। इसका विवेचन हम पूर्व में भी कर चुके हैं।पाँचो इन्द्रियाँ भिन्नभिन्न विषय ग्रहण करती हैं? जिनका एकत्रीकरण करना मन का कार्य है। तत्पश्चात् अपनी प्रतिक्रिया व्यक्त करने के लिए एक ऐसे तत्त्व की आवश्यकता होती है? जो ग्रहण किये गये विषय के स्वरूप को समझकर अपनी प्रतिक्रिया को निश्चित करे। और वह तत्त्व है बुद्धि। अब? इन सब क्रियाओं विषय ग्रहण? उनके एकत्रीकरण और निर्णय में एक अहंभाव सतत बना रहता है? जैसे मैं देखता हूँ? मैं निर्णय लेता हूँ इत्यादि। यह अहंभाव ही अहंकार कहलाता है? जो आत्मा के इन इन्द्रियादि उपाधियों के साथ तादात्म्य के कारण उत्पन्न होता है। ये तेरह तत्त्व यहाँ कार्य शब्द से सूचित किये गये हैं।यह सम्पूर्ण कार्य जगत् व्यक्त है? और इनका अव्यक्त रूप ही कारण कहलाता है। ये कार्य और कारण प्रकृति ही हैं।पुरुष सुखदुख का भोक्ता है जो चेतन तत्त्व इस कार्यकारण रूप प्रकृति को प्रकाशित करता है? वह आत्मा या पुरुष है।यहाँ आत्मा को पुरुष के रूप में सुखदुख का भोक्ता कहा गया है? वह उसका औपाधिक रूप है? वास्तविक नहीं। सुख और दुख हमारे मन की प्रतिक्रियायें हैं। अनुकूल परस्थितियों में इष्ट की प्राप्ति होने पर सुख और अनिष्ट की प्राप्ति से दुख होता है। प्रत्येक अनुभव उसके अन्तिम विश्लेषण में सुख या दुख के रूप में ही निश्चित किया जाता है। चैतन्य ही इन सब अनुभवों को प्रकाशित करता है? जिसके बिना अनुभवधारा रूप यह जीवन ही सम्भव नहीं हो सकता है। इसलिए? यहाँ कहा गया है कि पुरुष सुखदुख के भोग का हेतु है। क्षेत्र की उपाधि में क्षेत्रज्ञ के रूप में कार्य कर रहा आत्मा ही संसार का भोक्ता बनता है। जो व्यक्ति सूर्य की प्रखर धूप में खड़ा रहेगा उसे सूर्य का ताप सहन करना होगा? यदि वह व्यक्ति सघन छाया में चला जाता है? तो उसे शीतलता का आनन्दानुभव होगा।इस श्लोक में पुरुष को सुखदुखरूप संसार का भोक्ता कहा गया है। इस संसार का कारण क्या है उत्तर में भगवाने कहते हैं

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).

Since causes are also effects, separate mention is useless; therefore, resorting to convention, he explains the words 'effect' and 'cause' -- 'Effect' etc.

In 'Experiencership', the radical meaning 'enjoyment' regarding objects like food, pleasure, etc. is not possible; therefore he says -- 'Enjoyment'. Meaning direct perception as one's own.

Enjoyment belongs to Nature alone, not to the Person; therefore "The Person is the cause in the experiencership of pleasure and pain" -- how is this said? -- thus the Sankhyas. To that he says -- 'For he'. But not Nature; because of insentience -- this is to be supplied.

(Objection): Well, "Nature is the cause in the agency of effect and cause" is said; and agency is the connection with knowledge, desire, and effort; then how is enjoyment impossible for Nature? To this he says -- 'And Nature'. 'Cha' (and) is in the sense of 'Tu' (but); because of being the transformative cause, agency is ascribed metaphorically, this is the sense.

He states the agreement of the Purana regarding the meaning of the verse -- 'Effect' etc. 'They know as the cause' follows in the second half.

Distinguishing the origin of modifications from Nature, He shows the nature of the Person as the cause of Samsara -- 'Effect' etc. 'Effect' is the body; 'Instruments' (Karana) are the senses and the thirteen elements situated in them originating the body. And objects are grasped here by the taking of 'Effect'. And qualities (Gunas) consisting of pleasure, pain, and delusion, being dependent on instruments, are grasped by the taking of 'Instrument'. In the 'agency' of those effects and instruments -- in the transformation into that form -- the 'hetu', meaning cause, is said to be Nature by great sages. Even in the long vowel reading 'Karya-karana' (Cause and Effect), the meaning is the same.

Thus having explained the causality of Nature in Samsara, He states what kind is that of the Person also -- 'Person'. The Person is the Knower of the Field, explained before as the Higher Nature; he is said to be the cause in the 'experiencership' -- in the perception colored by mental modification -- of 'pleasure and pain', of all objects of enjoyment consisting of pleasure, pain, and delusion.

He clarifies this very thing -- 'Effect' etc. Of the 'effect' -- which consists of the experience of one's own Rasa -- the 'causes' are body, qualities, etc.; in their 'agency' -- in making manifest -- the cause is said to be 'Nature', the power of the previously described form.

Similarly, the 'Person' is said to be the 'hetu', meaning cause, in the 'experiencership' -- in being the knower of that Rasa -- of 'pleasure and pain' -- consisting of union, separation, etc.

'In the agency of effect and instrument' -- 'Effect' is the body; 'instruments' are the thirteen situated in it. The five elements originating the body and objects, which are modifications born of Nature stated earlier, are grasped here by the taking of 'effect'. And qualities born of Nature consisting of pleasure, pain, and delusion, being dependent on instruments, are grasped by the taking of 'instrument'. The 'agency' of those effects and instruments -- the state of being the producer which is that -- is 'agency of effect and instrument'; in that agency of effect and instrument, the 'hetu', meaning cause, Nature is said to be, by being the originator. Thus Nature is the cause of Samsara by the agency of effects and instruments.

Even in this reading 'Karya-karana-kartrtve' (In the agency of Effect and Cause) -- 'Effect' is that which is a transformation of something, that is its effect, modification; the modifying agent is the cause; in the 'agency' of those two, the modification and the modifier, i.e., effect and cause. Or, the sixteen modifications are 'Effect'; the seven nature-modifications are 'Cause'; those very things are called Effect and Cause; in their agency, Nature is said to be the cause, by being the originator only. And how the Person becomes the cause of Samsara, that is said -- 'Person' -- Jiva, Knower of the Field, Enjoyer, these are synonyms; is said to be the cause in the 'experiencership', meaning perceivership, of 'pleasure and pain', i.e., objects of enjoyment.

How again is the causality of Nature and Person in Samsara stated by this agency of effect-instrument and experiencership of pleasure-pain? -- Here it is said -- If there were no transformation of Nature in the form of effect, instrument, pleasure, and pain, i.e., as cause and fruit; and if there were no perceivership of that for the sentient Person; whence would Samsara be? When again regarding the experiencership of the Person, who is opposite to that, with Nature, which is the object of enjoyment transformed in the nature of effect, instrument, pleasure, and pain, i.e., cause and fruit, would there not be a connection of the nature of Avidya? Then Samsara would be. Therefore, that the causality of Nature and Person in Samsara is stated by agency of effect-instrument and experiencership of pleasure-pain, that is proper.

What again is this so-called Samsara? The experience of pleasure and pain is Samsara. And the state of being an experiencer of pleasure and pain for the Person is the state of transmigratory existence. That experiencership of pleasure and pain of the Person which was stated as the transmigratory state, what is the cause of that for him, is being said --

In creation, He states the difference in function of those two -- 'Effect' etc. 'Effect' is of the nature of bondage and liberation; its cause-forms are modifications and Gunas; in the 'agency' -- productiveness -- of these, Nature presided over by the Person is the cause; because it was stated 'born of Nature' [13.20].

But for the Person, only the status of being the inner awakener relative to that is additional; the agency of the Person is accepted like the material (agency), which consists only of being the cause of effort in presiding over the Field, as stated in Sutras like 'The agent, on account of scripture having a purport' [Br. Su. 2.3.33]. But he, associated with that, is the cause in the 'experiencership' of pleasure and pain born from that, meaning the locus of experience of pleasure, pain, etc.

Although it should be said that both are properties of the Field, still, because modification ends in the inert, the Field is predominant (in agency), and because enjoyment is seen to end in consciousness, the Sentient is predominant (in experiencership), this is the meaning.

कार्यकारणकर्तृत्वे in the production of the effect? and the cause? हेतुः the cause? प्रकृतिः Prakriti? उच्यते is said (to be)? पुरुषः Purusha? सुखदुःखानाम् of pleasure and pain? भोक्तृत्वे in the experience? हेतुः the cause? उच्यते is said (to be).Commentary Pleasure and pain are the fruits of virtuous and vicious actions. The force of desire acts on the mind and the mind impels the senses to act to get the objects of desire. Good and evil actions proceed from Nature and lead to happiness or misery. Evil actions produce misery and sorrow. Virtuous actions cause happiness and joy. The soul is the enjoyer. The wife works and prepares nice? palatable dishes the huand silently enjoys the fruits of her labour. He sits ietly and eats them to his hearts content. Even so Nature works and the soul experiences the fruits of Her labour? viz.? pleasure and pain.When harmony predominates? virtuous actions are performed. When there is a preponderance of Rajas? both virtuous and vicious actions are performed. When Tamas predominates? sinful? unlawful and unrighteous actions are done.In the place of Kaarana (कारण) which means cause? some read Karana (करण) which means instrument such as the five organs of knowledge? five organs of action? mind? intellect and egoism (thirteen principles located in the body).Karya The effect? viz.? the physical body. The five elements which form the body and the five senses? and which form the senseobjects which are born of Nature come under the term effect. All alities? such as pleasure and pain and delusion which are born of Nature? come under the term instruments because these alities reside in the instruments? the senses.In the production of the body? the senses and their sensations Nature is said to be the cause. Thus Nature is the cause of Samsara.Sugarcane is the cause. Sugarcane juice? sugar and sugarcandy are the effects or modifications of sugarcane. Milk is the cause. Curd? butter and ghee (meleted butter) are the modifications of milk. Whatever is a modification of something is its effect? and that from which the modifications come is their cause. Nature is the source or cause of all modifications. She generates everything. The ten organs? mind and the five objects of the senses are the sixteen modifications or effects.Mahat (intellect) is born of Mulaprakriti. From Mahat Ahamkara (egoism) is born. Mahat is the effect of Mulaprakriti and the cause of Ahamkara. Therefore Mahat is called PrakritiVikriti. Mahat? Ahamkara and the five Tanmatras (rootelements of matter) are the seven PrakritiVikriti. Each of these is a modification of its predecessor and is in turn the cause of its successor. The five rootelements generate the five gross elements. They are the subtle elements. These seven are both Nature and modification (Prakriti and Vikriti)? cause and effect? and are included under the term cause.The functions of the body? senses? lifeforce? mind and intellect are superimposed on the pure Self. So the ignorant man says I am black I am fat I am hungry I am angry I am deaf I am blind I am the son of so and so? I know? I am the doer? I am the enjoyer? etc.The intellect is very subtle. It is in close contact with the most subtle Self. The Consciousness of the Self is reflected in the intellect (Chidabhasa) and so the intellect which has the semblance of,the Consciousness feels I am pure consciousness or Chaitanya. I experience pleasure and pain. The attributes of the pure Self are superimposed on the intellect. There is mutual superimposition between the intellect and the Self? Nature and Spirit. This is the cause of Samsara.Purusha? Jiva? Kshetrajna and Bhokta are all synonymous terms. Purusha here referred to is not the Supreme Self. He is the conditioned soul? the soul subject to transmigration who experiences pleasure and pain. The Self or the Absolute is ever free from Samsara and is unchanging.Prakriti and Purusha are the cause of Samsara. Nature generates the body? lifeforce? mind? intellect and the senses. The soul experiences pleasure and pain. Samsara is the experience of pleasure and pain. The soul is the Samsarin. He is the experiencer of pleasure and pain. (Cf.XV.9)

Karya-karana-kartrtve, with regard to the source of body and organs: Karya is the body, and karana are the thirteen [Five sense organs, five motor organs, mind, intellect and ego.] organs existing in it. Here, by the word karya are understood the aforesaid elements that produce the body as also the objects which are modifications born of Nature. And since the alities-which are born of Nature and manifest themselves as happiness, sorrow and delusion-are dependent on the organs, (therefore) they are implied by the word karana, organs. The kartrtvam, (lit) agentship, with regard to these body and organs consists in being the source of the body and organs. With regard to this source of the body and organs, prakrtih, Nature; ucyate, is said to be; the hetuh, cause, in the sense of being the originator. Thus, by virtue of being the source of body and organs, Nature is the cause of mundane existence.
Even if the reading be karya-karana-kartrtva, karya (effect, modification) will mean anything that is the transformation of something; and karana (cause) will be that which becomes transformed. So the meaning of the compund will be: 'with regard to the source of the effect and the cause'.
Or, karya means the sixteen [The eleven organs (five sensory, five motor, and mind) and the five objects (sound etc.).] modificaitons, and karana means the seven [Mahat, egoism, and the five subtle elements.] transformations of Nature. They themselves are called effect and cuase. So far as the agentship with regard to these is concerned Nature is said to be the cause, because of the same reason of being their originator.
As to how the soul can be the cause of mundane existence is being stated: Purusah, the soul, the empirical being, the knower of the field-all these are synonymous; is the hetuh, cause; bhoktrtve, so far as enjoyership, the fact of being the perceiver; sukha-duhkhanam, of happiness and sorrow-which are objects of experience, is concerned.
How, again, is it asserted with respect to Nature and soul that, they are the causes of mundane existence by virtue of this fact of their (respectively) being the source of body and organs, and the perceiver of happiness and sorrow?
As to this the answer is being stated: How can there be any mundane existence if there be no modification of Nature in the form of body and organs, happiness and sorrow, and cause and effect, and there be no soul, the conscious being, to experience them? On the other hand, there can be mundane existence when there is a contact, in the form of ignorance, between Nature-modified in the form of body and organs, and cause and effect as an object of experience and the soul opposed to it as the experiencer. Therefore it was reasonable to have said that, Nature and soul become the cause of mundane existence by (respectively) becoming the originators of the body and organs, and the perceiver of happiness and sorrow.
What again is this that is called worldly existence? Worldly existence consists in the experience of happiness and sorrow; and the state of mundane existence of the soul consists in its being the experiencer of happiness and sorrow.
It has been asserted that the state of mundane existence of the soul consists in its being the experiencer of happiness and sorrow. How does it come about? This is being answered:

The 'Karya' means the body, the 'Karanas' mean the instruments, i.e., the senses of perception and action plus the Manas. In their operations, the Prakrti, subservient to the self, is alone the causal factor. The sense is that their operations, which are the means of experience, have their foundation in the Prakrti, which has developed in the form of the body subservient to the self. In regard to this, the authority is the aphorism, 'The self is an agent, on account of the scriptures having the purpose' (B. S., 2.3.33) etc. The agency of the self means that the self is the cause of the will (effort) to support the body. The self (Purusa) associated with the body is the cause for experiencing pleasures and pains. The meaning is that It is the seat of those experiences.
Thus, has been explained the difference in the operations of the Prakrti and of the self when they are mutually conjoined. He now proceeds to explain how, though the self, which in Its pristine nature experiences Itself by Itself as nothing but joy, becomes the cause of experiencing both pleasure and pain derived from sense objects when It is conjoined with a body.
The term Guna figuratively represents effects. The self (in Its pristine nature) experiences Itself by Itself, as nothing buy joy. But when dwelling in the body, i.e., when It is in conjunction with the Prakrti, It experiences the alities born of Prakrti, namely, happiness, pain etc., which are the effects of Gunas like Sattva etc.
He explains the cause of conjunction with the Prakrti: