Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 13 - Shloka (Verse) 23

व्याख्या -- उपद्रष्टानुमन्ता च भर्ता भोक्ता महेश्वरः -- यह पुरुष स्वरूपसे नित्य है? सब जगह परिपूर्ण है? स्थिर है? अचल है? सदा रहनेवाला है (गीता 2। 24)। ऐसा होता हुआ भी जब यह प्रकृति और उसके कार्य शरीरकी तरफ दृष्टि डालता है अर्थात् उनके साथ अपना सम्बन्ध मानता है? तब इसकी उपद्रष्टा संज्ञा हो जाती है।यह हरेक कार्यके करनेमें सम्मति? अनुमति देता है। अतः इसका नाम अनुमन्ता है।यह एक व्यष्टि शरीरके साथ मिलकर? उसके साथ तादात्म्य करके अन्नजल आदिसे शरीरका पालनपोषण करता है शीतउष्ण आदिसे उसका संरक्षण करता है। अतः इसका नाम भर्ता हो जाता है।यह शरीरके साथ मिलकर अनुकूल परिस्थितिके आनेसे अपनेको सुखी मानता है और प्रतिकूल परिस्थितिके आनेसे अपनेको दुःखी मानता है। अतः इसकी भोक्ता संज्ञा हो जाती है।यह अपनेको शरीर? इन्द्रियाँ? मन? बुद्धि तथा धन? सम्पत्ति आदिका मालिक मानता है। अतः यह महेश्वर नामसे कहा जाता है।परमात्मेति चाप्युक्तो देहेऽस्मिन् पुरुषः परः -- पुरुष सर्वोत्कृष्ट है? परम आत्मा है? इसलिये शास्त्रोंमें इसको परमात्मा नामसे कहा गया है। यह देहमें रहता हुआ भी देहके सम्बन्धसे स्वतः रहित है। आगे इसी अध्यायके इकतीसवें श्लोकमें इसके विषयमें कहा गया है कि यह शरीरमें रहता हुआ भी न करता है और न लिप्त होता है।इस श्लोकमें एक ही तत्त्वको भिन्नभिन्न उपाधियोंके सम्बन्धसे उपद्रष्टा आदि पदोंसे सम्बोधित किया गया है? इसलिये इन पृथक्पृथक् नामोंसे पुरुषके ही स्वरूपका वर्णन समझना चाहिये। वास्तवमें उसमें किसी प्रकारका भेद नहीं है। जैसे एक ही व्यक्ति देश? काल? वेश? सम्बन्ध आदिके अनुसार भिन्नभिन्न (पिता? चाचा? नाना? भाई आदि) नामोंसे पुकारा जाता है? ऐसे ही पुरुष भिन्नभिन्न नामोंसे पुकारा जानेपर भी वास्तवमें एक ही है। सम्बन्ध -- उन्नीसवें श्लोकसे बाईसवें श्लोकतक प्रकृति और पुरुषका विवेचन करके अब आगेके श्लोकमें उन दोनोंको तत्त्वसे जाननेका फल बताते हैं।

उसीका फिर साक्षात् निर्देश किया जाता है --, ( यह आत्मा ) उपद्रष्टा है अर्थात् स्वयं क्रिया न करता हुआ पासमें स्थित होकर देखनेवाला है। जैसे कोई यज्ञविद्यामें कुशल अन्य पुरुष स्वयं यज्ञ न करता हुआ? यज्ञकर्ममें लगे हुए पुरोहित और यजमानोंद्वारा किये हुए कर्मसम्बन्धी गुणदोषोंको तटस्थभावसे देखता है? उसी प्रकार कार्य और करणोंके व्यापारमें स्वयं न लगा हुआ उनसे अन्यविलक्षण आत्मा उन व्यापारयुक्त कार्य और करणोंको समीपस्थ भावसे देखनेवाला है। अथवा देह? चक्षु? मन? बुद्धि और आत्मा -- ये सभी द्रष्टा हैं? उनमें बाह्य द्रष्टा शरीर है और उससे लेकर उन सबकी अपेक्षा अन्तरतम -- समीपस्थ द्रष्टा अन्तरात्मा है। जिसकी अपेक्षा और कोई आन्तरिक द्रष्टा न हो? वह अतिशय सामीप्य भावसे देखनेवाला होनेके कारण उपद्रष्टा होता है ( अतः आत्मा उपद्रष्टा है )। अथवा ( यों समझो कि ) यज्ञके उपद्रष्टाकी भाँति सबका अनुभव करनेवाला होनेसे आत्मा उपद्रष्टा है। तथा यह अनुमन्ता है -- क्रिया करनेमें लगे हुए अन्तःकरण और इन्द्रियादिकी क्रियाओंमें सन्तोषरूप अनुमोदनका नाम अनुमनन है? उसका करनेवाला है। अथवा यह इसीलिये अनुमन्ता है कि कार्यकरणकी प्रवृत्तिमें स्वयं प्रवृत्त न होता हुआ भी उनके अनुकूल प्रवृत्त हुआ सा दीखता है। अथवा अपने व्यापारमें लगे हुए अन्तःकरण और इन्द्रियादिको उनका साक्षी होकर भी कभी निवारण नहीं करता? इसलिये अनुमन्ता है। तथा यह भर्ता है? चैतन्यस्वरूप आत्माके भोग और अपवर्गकी सिद्धिके निमित्तसे संहत हुए चेतन्यके आभासरूप शरीर? इन्द्रिय? मन और बुद्धि आदिका स्वरूप धारण करना भी भरण है और वह चैतन्यरूप आत्माका ही किया हुआ है? इसलिये आत्माको भर्ता कहते हैं। आत्मा भोक्ता है। अग्निके उष्णत्वकी भाँति नित्यचैतन्य आत्मसत्तासे समस्त विषयोंमें पृथक्पृथक् होनेवाली जो बुद्धिकी सुखदुःख और मोहरूप प्रतीतियाँ हैं? वे सब चैतन्य आत्माद्वारा ग्रस्त की हुईसी दीखती हैं? अतः आत्माको भोक्ता कहा जाता है। आत्मा महेश्वर है। वह सबका आत्मा होनेके कारण और स्वतन्त्र होनेके कारण महान् ईश्वर है? इसलिये महेश्वर है। वह परमात्मा है। अविद्याद्वारा प्रत्यक् आत्मारूप माने हुए जो शरीरसे लेकर बुद्धिपर्यन्त ( आत्मशब्दवाच्य पदार्थ ) हैं। उन सबसे उपद्रष्टा आदि लक्षणोंवाला आत्मा परम ( श्रेष्ठ ) है -- इसलिये वह परमात्मा है। श्रुतिमें भी वह भीतर व्यापक परमात्मा है इन शब्दोंसे उसका वर्णन किया गया है। ऐसा आत्मा कहाँ है वह अव्यक्तसे पर पुरुष इसी शरीरमें है जो कि उत्तमः पुरुषस्त्वन्यः परमात्मेत्युदाहृतः इस प्रकार आगे कहा जायगा और जो क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि इस प्रकार पहले कहा जा चुका है तथा जिसकी व्याख्या करके उपसंहार किया गया है।

By the stated manner means by being the substratum of all imaginations like Jiva, Ishvara etc., meaning directly as immediate perception (Aparoksha). Nature as stated means beginningless, indefinable, the limiting adjunct causing all evil. The connection is: 'He who knows' Prakriti of the form of Avidya, along with its effects, as reduced to non-existence by knowledge (Vidya) which has the previously stated Unity as its object. In all ways means by prescribed or prohibited (actions). The repetition of 'na' (not) is for the sake of connection. He states the logic indicated by the particle (Api) – 'Even'.

He objects to the statement 'He is not born again' – 'Objection' (Nanu). Doubting that there would be no objection if one accepts that there is no beginning of a body again since absence of birth after the rise of knowledge is stated, he says – 'Although'. Still, there would be three births, this is the connection.

In the current body, since actions done before and after knowledge cannot perish without yielding fruit, two births are necessary; and even regarding actions done in many past bodies, since Smriti says 'Action does not perish without being enjoyed', and they do not perish without yielding fruit, there is a third birth also – he says 'Prior'. He states the defect if actions perish even without yielding fruit – 'Loss of earned'. Thinking it is not proper, destruction of action without yielding fruit is not (possible) – this is to be supplied.

The disputed actions do not perish without yielding fruit, because they are Vedic actions, like Prarabdha Karma – thinking thus he says – 'Just as'. Destruction is not by knowledge – this is to be supplied. Objection: It is proper that unbegun (Sanchita/Agami) actions are destroyed by knowledge because they have not started yielding fruit; but started (Prarabdha) actions, being strong due to having started yielding fruit, their cessation is not by knowledge – he says 'And not'. Since both arise from ignorance and are equally opposed to knowledge, the status of having started or not started yielding fruit is irrelevant, this is the sense. He states the result if actions do not perish without yielding fruit – 'Therefore'.

Objection: Since actions are many, why only three births as fruits? If you say because initiating actions are of three types, no, because they can be of one type as 'unbegun' – to this he says 'Combined'. Knowledge does not have an invariable fruit – this is to be supplied. Restating the defect mentioned before if the said actions do not initiate birth, he states its over-application – 'Otherwise'. 'Everywhere' means even in Prarabdha actions. 'Anashvasa' (Lack of confidence) means uncertainty regarding generating fruit. He states another defect, the futility of the ritual section, if actions do not initiate birth – 'Scripture'. He states the result if unbegun actions certainly initiate another birth even when knowledge exists – 'Therefore'.

He refutes it with the support of Sruti – with 'No' etc. He states the Lord's agreement also regarding the burning of unbegun actions by knowledge – 'Here also'. Regarding the burning of all actions dependent on knowledge, the sentence remainder 'Abandoning all Dharmas' also becomes proof – he says 'And will say'. He says logic can also be stated for the destruction of all unbegun actions by knowledge – 'And because of reasoning'. He explains that very logic – 'Ignorance'.

For the ignorant, the seeds of all evil consisting of afflictions named ignorance, egoism, attachment, aversion, and clinging to life – taking these as the cause, whatever righteous and unrighteous actions exist, they initiate another birth; but for the wise whose seeds of affliction are burnt by knowledge, actions which have a body of mere appearance are not initiators of a body, because of the absence of capacity for purposeful action like a burnt cloth, this is the meaning. Regarding the meaning that semblance of actions having a body of mere appearance do not initiate fruit, he states the Lord's agreement – 'Here also'. He cites another sentence also as proof regarding apparent afflictions not initiating a body through action after knowledge of Truth – 'Seeds'.

He accepts the burning by knowledge of actions occurring after knowledge – 'Let it be'. He states the reason that origin is only of those seized by the opposite – 'Knowledge'. But of actions occurring before knowledge in this birth or another birth, there is no burning from that (knowledge) because they proceeded without the opponent – he says 'But not'.

Because of contradiction with Sruti and Smriti, it is not so – he refutes with 'No' etc. Because of hearing the word 'all'. Doubts restriction (of the word 'all') – 'Knowledge'. Due to absence of restrictors like context etc., it is not so, he says – 'No'.

He restates the inference stated during the objection stage – 'As for'. He faults it saying this is not a valid proof due to being fallacious (Abhasa) – 'That is incorrect'. Asks how is it fallacious when pervasion (Vyapti) etc. exist – 'How'. Because the pervasion of the reason is broken by the limiting condition (Upadhi) of 'having started yielding fruit', there is the understanding of fallacy – he says 'Of them'.

He elaborates that very thing – with 'Just as' etc. Just as an arrow released from a bow does not fall in the middle in the absence of a strong obstacle, similarly without a strong obstacle, for actions that have started yielding fruit, there is no destruction without enjoyment; and knowledge of Truth is not such an obstacle, because its power is obstructed at the very origin by the previously started action, this is the meaning.

Even if there is the concomitance 'Where there is non-combustibility by knowledge, there is the state of having started fruit', doubting that 'Where there is the state of not having started fruit, there is combustibility by knowledge' is not established by negative concomitance (Vyatireka), he says – 'He alone'. Analysis is: by whom the force (Vega) which is the cause of activity has not begun. Situated in their locus means abiding in the internal organ with reflection (of consciousness). The disputed (actions) are removed by the cause of knowledge of Truth, because their cause is removed by that, like the rope-snake etc. – thus negative concomitance is established, this is the sense. Upon the fall of the current body of the wise, due to absence of cause for a body, knowledge of Truth has an invariable fruit, he concludes – 'Fallen'.

He indicates the Person himself directly -- 'Onlooker' (Upadrashta) etc. Just as among priests and sacrificers engaged in the act of sacrifice, another person standing apart, engaged (as a witness), skilled in the science of sacrifice, is the viewer of the merits and defects of that activity; similarly, standing near the active body and organs, being himself inactive, the Seer is their witness merely by proximity.

Or, the body, eye, mind, intellect, and self are seers; of them, the body is the external seer; starting from that, the innermost and closest to the interior (pratyak) Self is the Seer, beyond whom there is no other Seer; He would be 'Upadrashta' (Onlooker) because of being the Seer with excessive proximity.

Or, like the supervisor of a sacrifice, He is 'Upadrashta' because He objectifies everything.

Those who are themselves acting and active, while they are acting, regarding those actions of theirs, the satisfaction of one standing by is 'Anumananam' (permitting), meaning approval (anumodanam); the doer of that merely by proximity is 'Anumanta' (Permitter). Or, even though Himself not engaged in the activities of the body and organs, appearing as if engaged, He is perceived as favorable to them, therefore He is 'Anumanta'? Or, being the witness of those engaged in their own activities, He never prevents them at any time, thus He is 'Anumanta'?

Of the body, senses, mind, and intellect combined together, since the determination of the nature of the reflections of consciousness is done by the Conscious Self which is the efficient cause for the sake of the Conscious Self (pararthya), He is called 'Bharta' (Supporter) and 'Atma' (Self).

'Bhokta' (Enjoyer): perceiving the modifications of the intellect consisting of pleasure, pain, and delusion, which cover all objects, as distinct by His eternal nature of Consciousness; therefore He is called Enjoyer and Self because of being the Self of all and being independent.

And He is Great and Lord, thus 'Maheshvara' (Great Lord). Regarding body etc. up to intellect which are imagined by ignorance as the individual Self, He is Supreme (Parama) and characterized by being the Onlooker etc. and is the Self (Atma), thus by this word 'Paramatma' (Supreme Self) also He is spoken of, stated in the Sruti.

The Supreme Self who is spoken of in the Sruti, He alone is the Supreme Person in this body; 'But the Supreme Person is another, called the Supreme Self' -- thus He will be described. Sruti: 'Witness, Conscious, Absolute, and Attributeless', 'This is the Lord of beings, this is the Ruler of the world, this is the Protector of the world', 'Ruler of what has been and what is to be', 'Having created that, He entered that very thing', 'Having entered by this Jiva Self, let me differentiate name and form', 'The Person is higher than the Unmanifest' etc.

Regarding 'and from where and what' [13.4], He says—'Upadrashta' (The Overseer) etc. 'Anumanta' (The Permitter) means the one who specifically defines or ascertains following after. 'Purushah sukhaduhkhanam' (Purusha of pleasures and pains)—by this the Jiva (individual soul) is mentioned. In 'Purusham Prakritim' (Purusha and Prakriti), the Jiva and Ishvara are spoken of together. Otherwise, there would be a contradiction with the 'Mahatatparya' (Great Purport). For the Great Purport lies in the Excellence (of the Lord). Thus indeed the Saukarayana Shruti says: 'Because of the greatness in the Inexpressible Excellence, the Great Purport of all words and all logics is in That (the Lord). Of Vishnu, the Infinite, higher than the high, That (Excellence) indeed exists, and there is no doubt here. Therefore, whatever measure (proof) is opposed to this here, whether it be sensory perception or logic, the wise do not call that a valid means of knowledge, nor is logic [valid] because vision (perception) is of lower intelligence.'

Therefore, the denial of this even by logics is not proper. Therefore, the logic by which one hypothesizes non-existence etc., that too is of the nature of fallacy (Abhasa); thus it is established that Greatness is always spoken of by the Vedas. And a secondary purport exists therein. It is said there itself—'And secondary purport is in the Sattva (Jiva), or due to greatness, or due to the oneness of the two in the Infinite?' And due to the mention of dark color etc. And is the fallaciousness of logic etc. imagined by the Purusha (human) reasonable? Because of the possibility of ignorance. But there is no fallaciousness of the Veda which is an independent valid means of knowledge. And non-perception is indeed possible due to the ignorance of even many men. 'Then there would be error even in the Shruti etc. not studied by us'—this should not be said. Because right there He says—'Neither words opposed to this, nor logics opposed to this'—thus indeed Prajapati said, Prajapati said. And that which is opposed to that, and the identity of the Jiva [with the Lord], is said to be mere fallacy.

Janamejaya said—'Are there many Purushas, O Brahman, or only one? Who indeed is the best Purusha here, or which source (Yoni) is spoken of here? You deserve to tell me about that best Purusha.' Sri Vaishampayana said—'They do not desire (accept) one Purusha, O scion of the Kuru race. For just as one source is spoken of for many Purushas, so will I describe that Purusha who pervades the universe and is superior in qualities'—in the Mokshadharma [Mahabharata 12.350.13].

And all that is not like a dream or magic, and 'due to difference in nature, it is not like dreams etc.'—this is the statement of the Bhagavan (Vyasa/Sutra). Nor do we see any proof for the [world] being imagined by a single Jiva like a dream. And proofs for the contrary have been stated in the Second [chapter/book]. And it is stated in the Ayasya branch—'Verily this is a dream due to fickleness; and it is not a dream, for there is no break (discontinuity) in this.'

This is not a defect. For the identity of the Jiva with Ishvara is not stated; indeed, the identity of the Jiva [belonging] to Ishvara is to be meditated upon. Is even that not without conditions? Therefore, unity is not opposed to the state of being a reflection. And so says the Madhuchhandasa Shruti—'The Sages speak of the unity of the Jiva with Vishnu through reflection indeed.' And the excellence of fruit in the 'Ahamgraha' (I am He) meditation is established by the Agniveshya Shruti. 'The Ahamgraha worshipper attains similarity with Him, indeed closeness; there is no doubt here.' 'The knowledge that 'I am His' is called Ahamgraha'—thus in the Vamana [Purana]. 'But due to being under His control, [the idea] 'I am He' is held by servants only? Not inherently.' The sentiment is 'I am He and a servant' through reflection. For thus in the Ayasya branch—'And I am a servant, and through reflection I am He—thus indeed He is to be worshipped, that Supreme Purusha.' And reflection is that similarity only.

"And who he is and of what power" -- thus the Knower of the Field and his power were promised to be explained; there the Knower of the Field has been described earlier indeed; now He states his power -- 'Onlooker' (Upadrashta) etc. There, earlier it was stated that attachment to Gunas is the cause of birth.

There, attachment is of four kinds: by denying the Person or including Him therein, with predominance of Gunas alone; or with predominance of Gunas (while accepting Person); or with equal predominance of Gunas; or with non-predominance (of Gunas). There, in the first -- seeing the aggregate of Gunas in the form of body, senses, mind etc. as the Self itself, one becomes the 'Enjoyer' (Bhokta); like the Charvaka etc. In the second -- due to predominance of Gunas, by the pride of real agency etc. in the Self, he becomes the 'Supporter' (Bharta), the accumulator of fruits of action; like the Tarkika (Logician) etc. In the third -- by equal predominance of Gunas, he permits (anumanyate) the experiencership existing in the Gunas even in the unattached Self, like the mark of a marking-nut on a cloth; like the Sankhya. In the fourth -- not seeing the transfer of properties of Gunas to the Self at all in any way, being of the nature of indifferent awareness, seeing the movement of Gunas, he becomes the 'Onlooker' (Upadrashta); like our Witness (Sakshi).

Among these four attached to Gunas, Upadrashta is best. Anumanta is middling. Bharta is low. Bhokta is lowest. That same one, having controlled the Gunas, when he sports, is called 'Great Lord' (Maheshvara). He who is the doer of creation, maintenance, and end, the Lord, the Inner Controller of the world, He alone, abandoning Gunas, when situated, is 'Supreme Self' (Paramatma) -- thus He is also spoken of.

Although the Upadrashta also, having abandoned Gunas, stands as their witness, still, since he is conditioned by the aggregate (body) and lacks the quality of seeing the movement of other aggregates, but this one (Paramatma) sees the movement of all aggregates, being superior to all, this is the Supreme Self. Him He will describe as "But the Supreme Person is another, called the Supreme Self. Who entering the three worlds supports them, the Immutable Lord." These two also are associated with Gunas.

Thus One alone existing in this body, the Supreme, beyond Gunas, having dissolved Gunas in Himself, situated as the indivisible one essence Self, becomes sixfold by association with Gunas. This indeed is His power. There, by the three forms Anumanta, Bharta, and Bhokta, he is bound. But by the forms Upadrashta, Maheshvara, and Paramatma, He is eternally free, One alone -- this should be known. Here the meaning of the Bhashya should also be considered, but due to fear of expansion it is not shown.

He who knows 'this' Person of described nature, and Nature of described nature, along with Gunas Sattva etc. endowed with natures to be described -- knows properly with discrimination; he, in whatever way, even existing in bodies of gods, men etc. in an extremely afflicted manner, is not born again; he does not deserve contact with Nature again;

he attains the Self characterized by unlimited knowledge, free from sin, at the time of the end of that body, this is the meaning.

Therefore in this manner, due to non-discrimination from Nature, the Person has Samsara, not by his own nature -- with this intention He states his nature -- 'Onlooker' etc. Even though existing in this body which is an effect of Nature, the Person is 'Para' -- distinct indeed, and is not conjoined with its qualities, this is the meaning.

There the reasons are -- Because He is 'Upadrashta' (Onlooker) -- being distinct, standing near, He is the Seer; similarly 'Anumanta' (Permitter) -- the approver only, the favorer merely by proximity; from Sruti "Witness, Conscious, Absolute, and Attributeless" etc.

Similarly, by His lordly form, He is called 'Bharta' (Supporter), the sustainer; and 'Bhokta' (Enjoyer/Protector), the protector; and He is Great and Lord, thus (Maheshvara); He is the overlord of Brahma etc.; and called 'Paramatma' (Supreme Self), the Inner Controller by Sruti. And so the Sruti: "This is the Lord of beings, this is the Ruler of the world, this is the Protector of the world" etc.

He speaks of the natures of the Person occurring immediately after birth in good and bad wombs -- with 'Upadrashta' (Onlooker). In the verse, a 'Drashta' (Seer) is one who shows objects through proofs etc.; an 'Upadrashta' (Onlooker) is one who, without acting properly himself, observes the one acting; due to similarity with those respective functions, the word 'Upadrashta' is used here -- thus he says 'in the form of will etc. favorable to the activity of the body'. By the word 'etc.' (in will etc.), impelling is included. Or, intending the distinction that the 'Permitter' (Anumanta) is the impeller of one already engaged, the word 'etc.' is used.

Since being an onlooker, permitter, etc. depends on a counter-correlate (object), although the body is proximate as the locus, it deserves connection by implication as the counter-correlate also -- with this intention 'of the body' is said. To show the division of controllership, supportersip, and mastership which are characteristics of the Self relative to the body, the onlooker-ship and permitter-ship regarding activity are combined into one sentence, and the sentence split with 'similarly' (tatha) etc. is made.

'Supporter' (Bharta) means sustainer. He says that his status as 'Great Lord' (Maheshvara) has the stated causes and refers only to the proximate body etc. -- with 'Thus'. By stating the experiencership of fruit generated by the body, since the body is for his sake, the mastership of the embodied one results -- with this intention he says 'and by being the master of the body'.

He shows the usage of the word 'Ishvara' (Lord) regarding the Jiva alone who partakes of birth and death dependent on Karma, as having a limited subject -- with 'And so'. To justify the usage of the word 'Supreme Self' (Paramatma) regarding the individual self itself due to pervasion by knowledge, he states the connection with the proximate restrictor -- 'In this body'. The sense is that if it referred directly to the (actual) Supreme Self, 'In this body' would be inconsistent.

Here, in 'body, senses, and mind', the separate mention of the mind is to show that it is the object of the use of the word 'Atma' (Self). Regarding the objection that referring to the Jiva is unreasonable because there is nothing to be excluded by the word 'Supreme' (Parama) -- he says 'In the body and mind'. This usage need not be searched for in another work, but is in this very context with an interval of just one verse (13.24). Therefore, the proximity of what is to be excluded also establishes that the meaning is only the exclusion of that -- with this intention 'Immediately after indeed' is said.

That the word 'Maheshvara' also refers to the subject delimited by the proximate restrictor, like the word 'Paramatma', is understood even by the word 'api' (also) which has a subject additional to 'cha' (and) -- thus he says 'From the word api'. By 'Stated' (ukta), it is indicated that this word 'Supreme Self' etc. is relative when applied to the non-Supreme Self.

In 'The Person is Supreme', regarding the word 'Supreme' also referring to a delimited subject as before, he shows the purport of the designation of the body and the designation of relative Great Lordship etc., the division of subject and predicate in the verse, and the condensed meaning -- with 'Beginningless' etc. 'Stated by Beginningless Supreme [13.13] etc.' is a statement of the absence of absolute Supremacy. 'Possessing unlimited power of knowledge' is just a demonstration of superiority (relative to the body). By 'This' (Ayam), it is shown that the verse 'Upadrashta' etc., falling in the middle of that (context), also has That (Jiva) as its subject, thus the context is regarding the Jiva. By 'In this body', intending that the previously stated cause is implied, it is said 'due to attachment to qualities caused by beginningless connection with Nature'.

इस भ्रमित दुखी क्षेत्रज्ञ पुरुष से भिन्न? क्षेत्रोपाधि से असंस्पृष्ट शुद्ध परम पुरुष है। प्रत्येक प्रतिबिम्ब के अस्तित्व के लिये एक बिम्बभूत सत्य वस्तु की आवश्यकता होती है। प्रतिबिम्ब की स्थिति दर्पण या जल आदि की सतह पर निर्भर करती है? किन्तु बिम्बभूत सत्यवस्तु को उस सतह का स्पर्श तक नहीं होता। जैसे? चन्द्रमा का प्रतिबिम्ब पात्र के जल पर निर्भर करता है? किन्तु चन्द्रमा अपने प्रकाशस्वरूप में ही स्थित रहता है।चित्स्वरूप आत्मा क्षेत्र की उपाधि से क्षेत्रज्ञ बनता है। इससे सिद्ध होता है कि आत्मा अपने स्वरूप से निरुपाधिक अर्थात् सर्व उपाधिरहित है।,इस श्लोक में? वैज्ञानिक पद्धति से अध्ययन और विश्लेषण करने की दृष्टि से? भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण उक्त दो प्रकार के पुरुषों सोपाधिक और निरुपाधिक का निर्देश करते हैं। यहाँ इस बात का स्मरण रहे कि वस्तुत पुरुष एक ही है।यहाँ विभिन्न नामों के द्वारा एक ही परमात्मा को इंगित किया गया है। ये विभिन्न नाम जीव की मनस्थिति अर्थात् अज्ञान आवरण की सघनता और विरलता की दृष्टि से दिये गये हैं। आत्मस्वरूप के विषय में पूर्ण अज्ञानी तथा रागद्वेषादि वृत्तियों से पूर्ण मन वाले व्यक्ति में आत्मा मानो केवल उपद्रष्टा बनकर रहता है अर्थात इस पुरुष के अपराधपूर्ण कार्यों को भी साक्षीभाव से प्रकाशित मात्र करता है वैसे भी आत्मा सममस्त प्राणियों की वृत्तियों का उपद्रष्टा मात्र है। परन्तु जब उस व्यक्ति का चित्त कुछ मात्रा में शुद्ध होता है और वह सत्कर्म में प्रवृत्त हौता है? तब परमात्मा मानो अनुमन्ता बनता है? अर्थात् उसके सत्कर्मों को अपनी अनुमति प्रदान करता है।अन्तकरण के और अधिक शुद्ध होने पर वह व्यक्ति जब अपने दिव्य स्वरूप के प्रति जागरूक हो जाता है तब ईश्वर उसके कर्मों को पूर्ण करने वाला भर्ता बन जाता है। अर्पण की भावना से किये गये कर्मों में ईश्वर की कृपा से सफलता ही प्राप्त होती है। ऐसा प्रतीत होता है? मानो? ईश्वर उस साधक के अल्प प्रयत्नों को भी पूर्णता प्रदान करता है।जब वह साधक अपने अहंकार को भुलाकर पूर्णतया योगयुक्त हो जाता है? तब ऐसे व्यक्ति के हृदय में आत्मा ही भोक्ता बनी प्रतीत होती है। इस श्लोक की समाप्ति इस कथन के साथ होती है कि आत्मा ही महेश्वर है। वही इस देह में परम पुरुष है।प्रकृति और पुरुष के तत्त्व को जानने वाले साधक के विषय में कहते हैं कि

Having established this definition, the examination is undertaken—beginning with 'Prakriti' up to 'Para'. Prakriti also is beginningless (variant: causal Prakriti is also beginningless) because of the absence of another cause. Modifications are cloth etc. 'Prakriti' is the cause in the cause-effect relationship. But 'Purusha' is the enjoyer due to preeminence.

The activity of Prakriti and Purusha is mutually dependent like the lame and the blind. Therefore, His [Purusha's] form is designated by the authors of the Shastras by names of various forms like 'Upadrashta' (Overseer) etc.

This is the purport here—Prakriti, its modification (the fourteen-fold creation), and Purusha—all this is beginningless and eternal; being pervaded by the Brahma-principle, it is non-different from It.

To say 'And from what, what' [13.4] -- it was said thus; by whom is that said? To this he says -- 'And from what'. This is what was promised -- this is to be supplied. 'Anumanta' (Permitter) means the one who gives permission -- thus some say. That is incorrect; because upon attaining indifference, there would be contradiction with (being) Supporter, Enjoyer etc. -- with this intention he explains -- 'Anumanta'. The word 'Anu' is in the sense of 'again' (punah/repeatedly), and repetition of action is its meaning -- to make this known is the double statement. Specifically -- this is the meaning of the suffix 'trun'. The ascertainer, the reflector on duty.

Regarding "He who knows this Person", to explain the word 'Person', he states the introduction -- 'Person'. From the sign of being the enjoyer of pleasure and pain, this is the sense. "In the experiencership of pleasure and pain" -- in enjoyment -- the cause is the agent -- this explanation is accepted, thus it was stated. But in another explanation, the Lord alone is the Person here; "For the Person situated in Nature" [13.22] -- this is the Jiva. This (Jiva) is the implied object (lakshya); by 'Onlooker' (Upadrashta) etc. the Lord is spoken of, this also should be seen. What follows from that? To this he says -- 'Person'. Since in this way both are in context, therefore in "He who knows this Person" [13.24], by the word Person both Jiva and Ishvara are grasped; because reference to both is possible. Then there should be dual number for the two? To this it is said -- 'Together indeed', meaning by 'Tantra' (simultaneous application).

Here someone [Shankara] explained the unity of Jiva and Ishvara by supplying words in "He who knows this Person directly as 'I am this'?" He refutes that -- 'Elsewhere'. In the unity of Jiva and Ishvara, there is contradiction with the fact that all Vedas propound (distinction) principally. How? To this he says -- 'For in excellence'. The great purport of all Scriptures (Agamas) is indeed in the total supremacy of the Lord, this is the meaning. From where is that? From the previously stated logic and Sruti, he says -- 'For thus'. In the total supremacy spoken of as indescribable due to the very greatness of Vishnu, of all Vedic words, of all logics -- meaning of the Mimamsa Shastra which generates logic -- there is great intentness, (which is) the Great Purport.

Granted that there is Great Purport in supremacy. Still, where is the reality (sattva) of that supremacy? For even if a Jaina statement has Great Purport somewhere, its reality does not exist -- to this he says -- 'And that too'. Not only is there purport there, but that greatness also certainly exists. The meaning of 'hi' (for) is because the validity of perceptions is intrinsic. Even if the validity is intrinsic, the object's unreality arises from a sublation (badhaka). He says that this is also not present here -- 'Nor here'. Doubt. That is, the sublater which is the cause of doubt. How is there absence of a sublater? To this he says -- 'Therefore'. 'Therefore' is connected later. Regarding that, concerning the total supremacy of Ishvara, the contradictory proof that might be doubted -- is that in direct perception (Akshaja) or elsewhere? One of the two: direct perception or Scripture (Agama). Or is it logic (Yukti)? He refutes the first -- 'Not that'. 'Kavayah' means knowers of Nyaya (logic). Why? Because of contradiction with the Veda which is the basis (upajivya). By this, the second (Agama) is also refuted. Still, to state the distinction, he says -- 'Nor'. Logic is also certainly not proof, because intellect that is inferior to perception (Drishti) and Scripture (Shruti) generates weak knowledge by nature. The meaning obtained from the latter part of the Shruti quoted regarding the Great Purport of all Agamas being in the excellence of the Lord, is also relevant to the present context.

Since, in the absence of the reality of supremacy, there is no contradiction of the unity of Jiva and Ishvara, therefore he states this even by his own sentence -- 'Therefore'. 'By logic' is illustrative. The denial of this is the imagination that the Lord's excellence does not exist, etc. He clarifies the meaning stated by 'Therefore' -- 'Therefore'. Meaning, because of contradiction with the Veda. By the word 'Adi' (etc.), 'indescribability' is grasped. The Lord's excellence is to be supplied. 'That also' -- by the word 'api' (also), perception (Pratyaksha) etc. are collectively included. The word 'iti' is in the sense of cause, meaning because of the absence of sublation. Although excellence is the subject, 'Mahatmya' (Greatness) was stated to explain the Vedic word 'that' (tat) in 'And that too'. Now, the reality, etc. of what is understood should be established by the absence of sublation, due to intrinsic validity. But the reality of excellence is not understood from the Veda. Because if purport is accepted both in excellence and in its reality, there would be occasion for the fault of splitting the sentence (Vakyabheda) -- to this he says -- 'And secondary'. The word 'cha' is connected with 'and in its reality'. Since there is no Great Purport in both, there is no fault. Why is this? To this he says -- 'And it is stated'. Even if it is accepted in that very Shruti, this is stated. But truly, regarding the reality of excellence, there is also great intentness. Why? Because those two, excellence and its reality, which are related to the Infinite, are one and the same. 'Infinite' is stated because it is already the context. This is what is meant: Proof, when active, is either injunctive or prohibitive, but not indifferent. And if there is no sublation of that, injunction and prohibition characterized by existence and non-existence are established by themselves. Why imagine another purport there?

Now, Brahman is indeed heard to be formless. How then can all Shrutis have Great Purport in the excellence of its qualities? To this he says -- 'In blackness, etc.'. This was elaborated upon in the preceding chapter. Since contradiction with the Veda makes logic etc. liable to be appearance (Abhasa). And ignorance is related to upadhis (limiting adjuncts), contradictions, etc. It was stated that intrinsic proof, being non-authored, is proof independent of the qualities of the author (Purusha). That is improper, because of the absence of a regulator. Since the opposite can also easily be stated, he says -- 'And it is proper'. 'Yuktam' (proper) means possible. Because of the possibility of ignorance, meaning the possibility of being rooted in ignorance. And ignorance is related to upadhis, contradictions, etc. Since the possibility that the logic for intrinsic proof, which is proof independent of the qualities of the author because of being non-authored, is rooted in ignorance, is groundless -- to this he says -- 'And non-perception'. 'Sambhavati' (possible) means deserving of doubt. This is what is meant: When Veda and logic, etc. contradict each other, since the validity of both is impossible, and one must be deemed an appearance, it is the logic, etc. that should be deemed so, because it is possible. But not the Veda, because it is impossible. Because it is seen that what has no scope for interpretation is sublated by what has scope. He prevents the over-extension that is feared by those who doubt non-perception among persons -- 'Then'. The opposite is stated by the very Shruti that all words refer to the excellence of the Lord's qualities.

When the refutation is established, he states another one -- 'Because'. In that very Shruti, the Veda-Purusha says: 'Contradictory to this' means contradictory to the excellence of the Lord's qualities. He concludes what was stated by 'For in excellence', etc. -- 'That'. The Great Purport of all Vedas in the excellence of the Lord's qualities which was stated, is contradicted by the identity (Satmya) of the Jiva, meaning the oneness of the Jiva with Ishvara, and is contradicted by Sutras and Itihasas, he says -- 'Appearance'. Even in the view that there are many, are all equal, or is one superior? If the second, who is that best among these Persons? And how is he best? (How) should one describe him so? This is in this universe, but there are many. Among those many Persons, He who is the source (Yoni), He who is the fundamental cause, is the best. And thus I will explain that Person so. 'Vishvam' means pervaded.

Let this be so. Some say that the entire universe is imagined by a single ignorance, like a dream. Others say it is imagined by multiple ignorances, like magic. And excellence is relative to inferiority. And thus, since the inferior universe is false, how can the reality of excellence exist? And how can all Vedas have Great Purport in it? To this he says -- 'Nor'. Meaning, this is the word of the Lord. He says it is so from this also -- 'Nor'. When the universe is imagined, it must be said to be imagined even by many Jivas in this way. In the contrary case (Viparyaye), reality. Then how is the world said to be similar to a dream, etc., in the Puranas? To this he says -- 'And it is stated'. This world is said to be like a dream because of its fickleness, impermanence, and changeability, but it is not a dream, meaning it is not directly false. Why? Because the cessation (Viccheda), meaning the sublation of this, is not found. Although a dream is real, this is a statement based on acceptance, or because of the prevalence of false objects.

Now, the worship of identifying the self (Ahamgrahopasana) by the Jiva with Brahman, (saying) 'I am Brahman' [Bri. U. 1.4.1], must be performed. And the Jiva is not totally supreme. Then how can the Ishvara, who has become one with him, have total supremacy? To this he says -- 'This one is not'. Why is 'this one' a reference to the one in the intellect? To this he says -- 'For not'. What then is being said? To this he says -- 'For of the Jiva'. This fault would occur if the non-supreme Jiva’s unity were stated concerning Ishvara in 'I am Brahman,' etc. But it is not so; rather, the Jiva’s unity with Ishvara is stated concerning the Jiva. Otherwise, Brahman would become self-related, incurring the fault of definition. That is true, that the Jiva’s unity with Ishvara is stated. Still, the stated fault is not removed. If Ishvara were truly totally supreme, how could the Jiva have unity with Him, since the Jiva is experienced to be non-supreme based on what is heard? Therefore, the total supremacy of Ishvara must be accepted as false, due to the inevitability of that worship of self-identification (Ahamgrahopasana) of the Jiva with Brahman -- to this he says -- 'That'. The unity of the Jiva with Ishvara that is stated is also not unqualified (Nirupadhikam) or non-metaphorical (Nirupacharitam); rather, it is stated through metaphor only. He states the cause of the metaphor with reason -- 'Therefore'. Since direct unity is not the meaning, therefore the unity stated in 'I am Brahman,' etc. is not contrary to the state of being a reflection (Pratibimbatva), meaning it is nothing other than the state of being a reflection, but is the state of being a reflection itself. Now, why is direct unity not the meaning? And why is the metaphor based on the state of being a reflection? To this he says -- 'And thus'. The unity of the Jiva with Vishnu, which the sages speak of, is indeed caused by the reflection only, this is the meaning.

He says that the worship of self-identification is metaphorical for this reason also -- 'I'. The excess fruit (Phalādhikyam), meaning the main fruit, the ultimate purpose of the worship of self-identification, is stated by the Shruti to be the attainment of similarity (Sārūpya) with Ishvara alone. And if unqualified unity were the object of worship, that would not be proper, based on the Shruti, 'As one worships Him, so he becomes,' this is the sense. 'Abhyāsha' means proximity. Meaning, in a short time. He says that the worship of self-identification is metaphorical for this reason also -- 'His own'. The worship is performed by the servants alone, this is to be supplied. 'Svatas' means from direct unity. Now, a metaphor like 'The boy is fire' is seen to be accompanied by the knowledge of distinction. And that is not present in the current case. How then can the worship of self-identification be metaphorical? Therefore, affirming that knowledge of distinction is present here too, he says with proof -- 'By the state of reflection'. Now, if the state of being the original image (Bimbatva) is accepted, then unity itself is proper? To this he says -- 'And the state of reflection'. Dependence on Him must also be grasped, because 'I am His own' was stated. The word 'eva' (alone/indeed) is for the purpose of excluding unity. By this, the misinterpretation of 'And know Me also as the Knower of the Field' [13.3] etc. is refuted.

So thus, it has been stated that the transmigratory existence (Samsara) of the Purusha is due to false identification with Prakriti, not in his own nature. In anticipation of the question 'What then is his nature where Samsara is not possible?', directly pointing out his nature, He says—'Upadrashta' etc.

Even while existing in the body, which is a modification of Prakriti, in the form of the Jiva, the Purusha is 'Para' (Supreme), untouched by the qualities of Prakriti, in reality a non-transmigrator in his own nature—this is the meaning. Because he is 'Upadrashta' (The Overseer)—like what? Just as when the priests and the sacrificer are engaged in the sacrificial rituals, another person standing near them, himself unengaged, being skilled in the science of sacrifice, is the observer of the merits and defects of the activities of the priests and the sacrificer; similarly, the Purusha, himself unengaged in the activities of the body and senses, being distinct [from them], standing near those body and senses which are engaged in activity, is the Seer, not the doer. 'Whatever he sees there, he is not followed (affected) by that, for this Purusha is unattached'—thus says the Shruti.

Or, among the seen objects like the body, eye, mind, and intellect, disregarding the external body etc., the Seer Self who is most proximate (immediate) is the 'Upadrashta'. Because the prefix 'Upa' has the meaning of proximity, and that culminates in the indwelling Self alone which is immediate (without interval).

And 'Anumanta' (The Permitter)—even though himself not acting in the activities of the body and senses, he is 'Anumanta' because he appears as if active and is favorable to them merely by proximity. Or, he does not ever prevent the body, senses, etc., engaged in their own activities, being the witness of that—thus he is the 'Anumanta'. 'The Permitter and the Witness'—thus the Shruti.

'Bharta' (The Supporter)—the sustainer and nourisher of the aggregate of body, senses, mind, and intellect, which are qualified by the superimposition of consciousness, through his own existence and manifestation (illumination).

'Bhokta' (The Enjoyer)—he illuminates the concepts of the intellect consisting of pleasure, pain, and delusion with his own essential consciousness; thus, being the perceiver, he is changeless indeed.

'Maheshvara' (The Great Lord)—being the Self of all and being independent, he is Great and he is the Lord, thus Maheshvara. 'Paramatma' (The Supreme Self)—he is Supreme in relation to the non-sentient things starting from the body and ending with the intellect which are imagined as the Self through ignorance; being distinguished by the previously mentioned attributes like being the Upadrashta etc., he is the Self, the 'Paramatma'—he is spoken of by this word also in the Shruti. By the word 'cha' (and/also), it is implied that by words like Upadrashta etc. also, that very Supreme Purusha, 'But the Supreme Purusha is another, called the Paramatma', is cited; this will be said later also.

Thus, having stated the desire for enjoyment of Rasa as the cause, there, seeing the enjoyment etc. of the Jiva consisting of ignorance who is a small part entered into the body etc., regarding the doubt 'How is there enjoyment for the Person? How is the Samsara of the Jiva by that?' He resolves -- 'Onlooker' etc.

The 'Supreme Person', Purushottama, in this body is the 'Upadrashta' (Onlooker) -- 'Upa' (near), Seer, Witness; similarly 'Anumanta' (Permitter), the Approver; 'Bharta' (Supporter), the Sustainer; 'Bhokta' (Enjoyer), the Protector; 'Maheshvara' (Great Lord) -- He is Great and Lord. Similarly 'Paramatma' (Supreme Self). By the word 'cha' (and/also), Prana, Jiva etc. are also spoken of, this is the meaning.

This is the sense -- Having offered everything, body etc., to the Lord, of the one (Jiva) who performs enjoyment useful for service as a grace given by Him, He is the Witness -- in the main service, the Causer of its utility. Similarly indeed, in the joy of the offering made, 'Anu' (after/following) He is the Approver (Modita). Similarly indeed 'Bharta' (Supporter) -- meaning Sustainer and Nourisher by being the Husband/Master. Similarly indeed, by 'Experiencership' (Bhoktritva) -- by the knowledge of 'being His own' -- He is the Protector. Similarly indeed 'Maheshvara' (Great Lord) -- the Master even of creators like Brahma etc.; by that, the Creator of such objects, this is the meaning. Similarly indeed 'Paramatma' (Supreme Self) -- the form of a Friend of one possessing such attributes, this is the meaning.

'Onlooker' (Upadrashta) -- being situated near, the Seer, himself unengaged. Just as among priests and sacrificers engaged in the act of sacrifice, another person standing apart, unengaged, skilled in the science of sacrifice, is the viewer of the merits and defects of the activities of the priests and sacrificers; similarly indeed, unengaged in the activities of the body and organs, another, distinct from them, seeing all the activities of those body and organs by proximity, is the 'Upadrashta'. Or, the body, eye, mind, intellect, and Self are seers; of them, the external seer is the body; starting from that, the innermost and closest to the interior (pratyak) Self is the Seer, beyond whom there is no other innermost Seer, He would be 'Upadrashta' because of being the Seer with excessive proximity. Or, like the supervisor of a sacrifice, He is 'Upadrashta' because of objectifying everything.

'And Permitter' (Anumanta) -- 'Anumodanam' (approval) is 'Anumananam' (permitting), satisfaction in their actions while they are acting; the doer of that is 'Anumanta' also. Or, 'Anumanta' -- even though Himself not engaged in the activities of the body and organs, appearing as if engaged, He is perceived as favorable to them, by that He is 'Anumanta'. Or, being the witness of those engaged in their own functions, He never prevents them at any time, thus He is 'Anumanta'.

'Supporter' (Bharta) -- 'supporting' means the sustenance of the form of the reflections of consciousness of the body, senses, mind, and intellect combined together, which is caused by the purpose of the Conscious Self; that is done by the Conscious Self alone, thus the Self is called 'Supporter'.

'Enjoyer' (Bhokta) -- like fire and heat, by the nature of eternal Consciousness, the modifications of the intellect consisting of pleasure, pain, and delusion, which cover all objects, appearing as if grasped by the Conscious Self, are perceived distinctly, thus the Self is called 'Enjoyer'.

'Great Lord' (Maheshvara) -- because of being the Self of all and because of being independent, He is Great and Lord, thus 'Great Lord'.

'Supreme Self' (Paramatma) -- regarding body etc. up to intellect which are imagined as the inner self by ignorance, He is Supreme (Parama) and characterized by being the Onlooker etc. and is the Self (Atma), thus 'Supreme Self'. 'He is inside', by this word 'Paramatma' also, He is spoken of, stated in the Sruti. Where is He? 'In this body', the Person 'Supreme' to the Unmanifest; 'But the Supreme Person is another, called the Supreme Self' (Gita 15.17), who will be described thus. 'Know the Knower of the Field also as Me' (Gita 13.2) thus set forth, explained, and concluded; regarding that very Self of described characteristics --

Moreover -- 'Onlooker' etc. In this body which is metaphorical of a tree, 'Two birds, united companions, clasp the same tree. Of the two, one eats the sweet Pippala (fruit); without eating, the other looks on' [Rig. 2.3.17.5; Mun. U. 3.1.1; Sve. U. 4.6] -- by the unity of meaning with this Mantra, another Supreme Self, the Inner Controller Person, is spoken of by the Lord; 'unattached' is understood from the context.

Therefore indeed the word 'And Supreme Self' is given, and 'Supreme Person'. He is also called 'Onlooker', Witness, in reality independent of contact with the enjoyment of effect and cause; by Himself indeed the main Enjoyer and Doer, from the sentence 'The Lord of six qualities smells the sixfold (objects)'.

Unknown, and Permitter, and Great Lord, Controller, and Impeller, even though He exists in this body, still He is unstained because of not eating. But this supporter of life (Jiva) is stained due to eating. Whosoever knows the Person of such nature existing in this body, of both kinds, in reality having the power of the Imperishable, the Knower of the Field, the conscious Person who is a part of Brahman, who is of the nature of Swan (Hamsa), distinct by nature and attributeless; and whosoever knows Nature existing with Gunas; he, whether existing with Gunas or not, is not born again in any way, does not partake of the Samsara of the stream of Gunas, but is liberated, this is the meaning.

उपद्रष्टा the spectator? अनुमन्ता the permitter? च and? भर्ता the supporter? भोक्ता the enjoyer? महेश्वरः the great Lord? परमात्मा the Supreme Self? इति thus? च and? अपि also? उक्तः is called? देहे in the body? अस्मिन् (in) this? पुरुषः Purusha? परः Supreme.Commentary Upadrashta A spectator? a witness? a lookeron? a bystander? one who sits near. When the priests and the sacrificer perform the sacrificial rites? an expert who has good experience in sacrifical matters sits by their side. He does not take any part at all in the sacrifice. He sits as a silent witness. He guides them. He points out their defects and corrects them. Even so the Supreme Self does not act. It does not take any part in the activities of the body? the mind and the senses. It is entirely distinct from them. It is a silent witness of their activities. It sits near Nature and silently watches Her actions.It may be explained in another way. The body? the eyes? the mind? the intellect and the Self are the,seers. Of these the body is the most external seer the Self is the most internal and nearest seer. Beyond the Self there is no other internal seer.Anumanta Permitter. The Supreme Self gives consent. It expresses Its approval or satisfaction regarding the actions done by the senses? the mind and the intellect. The King consents and says Yes. The Prime Minister and the other officers carry out his orders. Even so the Supreme Self consents or gives permission the body? the mind? the intellect? and the senses perform their respective functions. Or? though It Itself does not work while the senses? the mind and the intellect work? It appears to be engaged in action? it seems to cooperate with them. As It is an onlooker or mere witness? It never stands in the way of the activities of the body? the mind? the intellect and the senses.Bharta Supporter. Just as the husband is the supporter of his wife? so also the Self is the supporter of this body? mind? intellect? lifeforce and the senses. It is different from them? just as the father who supports the children is different from them.Bhokta Enjoyer the Self? of the nature of eternal intelligence. Just as heat is the inherent nature of fire? so also eternal intelligence is the inherent nature of the Self. All the states of the mind such as pleasure? pain and delusion are permeated and illumined by the intelligent Self. Just as Govindan who takes the food is different from the foo? so also the Self is different from the intellect? the mind and the senses.Mahesvarah The great Lord. As He is the soul or essence of everything and as He is independent of all? He is Mahesvara. The sky is very big. Mahesva is bigger than even the sky? and so He is called Mahesvara. Just as the king is different from his subjects? so also the Self is different from Nature and the effects or modifications of Nature.Paramatma The Supreme Self. It is supreme because It is superior to all those things? from the Unmanifested to the physical body? which are mistaken for the Self on account of ignorance. Just as an iron piece moves in the presence of a magnet so also the mind and the intellect which are insentient move and function in the presence of the Supreme Self. Just as the moon borrows its light from the sun? so also the mind and the intellect borrow their light from the Supreme Self. The Supreme Self is selfluminous. Mind and intellect have no selfluminosity. In the Vedas also He is called the Supreme Self. Lord Krishna says in verse 17 of the fifteenth chapter But distinct is the Highest Purusha spoken of as the Supreme Self.Do thou also know Me as the knower of the field in all the fields? has been described in detial and the subject is concluded in this verse.

He who is the upadrasta, Witness, who while staying nearby does not Himself become involved: As when the priests and the performer of a sacrifice remain engaged in duties connected with the sacrifice, there is another (called Brahma) remaining nearby who is unengaged, is versed in the science of sacrifices and witnesses the merit or demerit of the activities of the priest and the performer of the sacrifice, similarly, He who is not engaged in the activities of and is different from the body and organs, who has characteristics other than theirs, and is the proximate (upa) observer (drasta) of the body and organs engaged in their duties, is the upa-drasta.
Or: The observers are the body, eyes, mind, intellect and the soul. Of them the body is the external observer. Proceeding inwards from that (body), the Self is the inmost as also the proximate observer, compared with which there is no other higher and inner observer. The Self, because of being the most proximate observer, is the upadrasta. Or, It is the upadrasta since, like the non-looker of a sarifice, It witness everything.
And He is the anu-manta, Permitter: Anumananam, approval, means satisfaction with those performers (viz body and organs) as also their perfomances. The agent of that (approval) is the anumanta. Or, He is the anumanta since, even though Himself not engaged in the activities of the body and organs, He appears to be favourably disposed towards and engaged in them. Or, He is the anumanta because, when the body and organs are engaged in their own functions, He remains as a witness and never dissuades them.
It is the bharta, Sustainer: Bharanam means the continuance in their own state of the body, organs, mind and intellect, which reflect consciousness and have become aggregated owing to the need of serving the purpose [Viz enjoyment, or Liberation.-Tr.] of some other entity, viz the conscious Self. And that (continuance) is verily due to the consciousness that is the Self. In this sense the Self is said to be the Sustainer.
It is the bhokta, Experiencer: As heat is by fire, similarly, the experiences of the intellect-in the form of happiness, sorrow and delusion in relation to all objects-, when born as though permeated by the consciousness that is the Self, are manifested differently by the Self which is of the nature of eternal Consciousness. In this sense the Self is said to be the Experiencer.
He is maheswarah, the great God, because, as the Self of all and independent, He is the great Ruler.
He is paramatma, the transcendental Self, because He is the Self which has the characteristics of being the supreme Witness etc. of (all) those-beginning from the body and ending with the intellect-which are imagined through ignorance to be the indwelling Self. He is api ca, also; uktah, spoken of, referred to, in the Upanisads; iti, as, with the words; 'He is the indwelling One, the paramatma, the transcendental Self.' [Ast reads atah in place of antah. So the translation of the sentence will be: Therefore He is also referred to as the transcendental Self in the Upanisads.-Tr.] Where is He? The parah, suprem; purusah, Person, who is higher than the Unmanifest and who will be spoken of in, 'But different is the supreme Person who is spoken of as the transcendental Self' (15.17); is asmin, in this; dehe, body.
What has been presented in, '৷৷.also understand Me to be the Knower of the field' (2), has been explained and conclude.

The self existing in the body becomes the 'spectator and approver' of this body by means of the will in consonance with the functioning of the body. Likewise, It is the 'supporter' of the body, Similarly, It becomes 'experiencer' of the pleasure and pain resulting from the activities of the body. Thus, by virtue of ruling and supporting the body and by making the body completely subservient, It becomes 'the great lord' (Mahesvara) in relation to the body, the senses and the mind. Sri Krsna will further declare: 'When the lord acires the body, and when he leaves it and goes on his way, he takes these as the wind carries scents from their places' (15.8). In the body, It is said to be the 'supreme self' in relation to the body, the senses and the mind. The word 'self' (Atman) is applied to the body and the mind subseently. It is said afterwards: 'Some perceive the self by means of the self through meditation' (13.24). The particle 'also' (api) indicates that the self is the 'supreme lord'? in relation to the body just as It is the supreme self. The supremacy of the self has been described in the text beginning with 'It is the beginningless brahman having Me for the Highest' (13.12). It is true that the self (in Its emancipated state) has limitless power knowledge. But It becomes the great lord and the supreme self only in relation to the body. Such lordship and supremacy is the result of attachment to the Gunas arising from the beginningless conjunction with Prakrti.