Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 13 - Shloka (Verse) 24

व्याख्या -- य एवं वेत्ति ৷৷. न स भूयोऽभिजायते -- पूर्वश्लोकमें देहेऽस्मिन् पुरुषः परः पदोंसे पुरुषको देहसे पर अर्थात् सम्बन्धरहित कहा है? उसीको यहाँ एवम् पदसे कहते हैं कि जो साधक इस तरह पुरुषको देहसे? प्रकृतिसे पर अर्थात् सम्बन्धरहित जान लेता है तथा विकार? कार्य? करण? विषय आदि रूपसे जो कुछ भी संसार दीखता है? वह सब प्रकृति और उसके गुणोंका कार्य है -- ऐसा यथार्थरूपसे जान लेता है? वह फिर वर्ण? आश्रम? परिस्थिति आदिके अनुसार प्राप्त कर्तव्यकर्मको करता हुआ भी पुनर्जन्मको प्राप्त नहीं होता। कारण कि जन्म होनेमें गुणोंका सङ्ग ही कारण है (गीता 13। 21)।यहाँ सर्वथा वर्तमानोऽपि पदोंमें निषिद्ध आचरण नहीं लेना चाहिये क्योंकि जो अपनेको देहके सम्बन्धसे रहित अनुभव करता है और गुणोंके सहित प्रकृतिको अपनेसे अलग अनुभव करता है? उसमें असत् वस्तुओंकी कामना पैदा हो ही नहीं सकती। कामना न होनेसे उसके द्वारा निषिद्ध आचरण होना असम्भव है क्योंकि निषिद्ध आचरणके होनेमें कामना ही हेतु है (गीता 3। 37)।भगवान् यहाँ साधकको अपना वास्तविक स्वरूप जाननेके लिये सावधान करते हैं? जिससे वह अच्छी प्रकार,जान ले कि स्वरूपमें वस्तुतः कोई भी क्रिया नहीं है। अतः वह किसी भी क्रियाका कर्ता नहीं है और कर्ता न होनेके कारण वह भोक्ता भी नहीं होता। साधक जब अपनेआपको अकर्ता जान लेता है? तब उसका कर्तापनका अभिमान स्वतः नष्ट हो जाता है और उसमें क्रियाकी फलासक्ति भी नहीं रहती। फिर भी उसके द्वारा शास्त्रविहित क्रियाएँ स्वतः होती रहती हैं। गुणातीत होनेके कारण वह पुनर्जन्मको प्राप्त नहीं होता। सम्बन्ध -- पूर्वश्लोकमें भगवान्ने जन्मरहित होनेमें प्रकृतिपुरुषको यथार्थ जानना कारण बताया। अब यह जिज्ञासा होती है कि क्या जन्ममरणसे रहित होनेका और भी कोई उपाय है इसपर भगवान् आगेके दो श्लोकोंमें चार साधन बताते हैं।

इस प्रकार उस उपर्युक्त लक्षणोंसे युक्त आत्माको --, उस पुरुषको जो मनुष्य उपर्युक्त प्रकारसे अर्थात् साक्षात् आत्मभावसे कि यही मैं हूँ इस प्रकार जानता है और उपर्युक्त अविद्यारूप प्रकृतिको भी? अपने विकाररूप गुणोंके सहित? विद्याद्वारा निवृत्त की हुई -- अभावको प्राप्त की हुई जानता है। वह सब प्रकारसे बर्तता हुआ भी? इस विद्वत्शरीरके नाश होनेपर फिर दूसरे शरीरमें जन्म नहीं लेता अर्थात् दूसरे शरीरको ग्रहण नहीं करता। अपि शब्दसे यह अभिप्राय है कि अपने वर्णाश्रमधर्मके अनुकूल बर्तनेवाला पुनः उत्पन्न नहीं होता? इसमें तो कहना ही क्या है पू0 -- यद्यपि ज्ञान उत्पन्न होनेके पश्चात् पुनर्जन्मका अभाव बतलाया गया है? तथापि ज्ञान उत्पन्न होनेसे पहले किये हुए? ज्ञानोत्पत्तिके पश्चात् किये जानेवाले और अनेक भूतपूर्व जन्मोंमें किये हुए जो कर्म हैं? फल प्रदान किये बिना उनका नाश मानना युक्तियुक्त नहीं है? अतः ( ज्ञान प्राप्त होनेके बाद भी ) तीन जन्म और होने चाहिये। अभिप्राय यह है कि सभी कर्म समान हैं? उनमें कोई भेद प्रतीत नहीं होता? अतः फल देनेके लिये प्रवृत्त हुए जन्मारम्भ करनेवाले प्रारब्ध कर्मोंके समान ही किये हुए अन्य कर्मोंका भी ( बिना फल दिये ) नाश ( मानना ) उचित नहीं? सुतरां तीनों प्रकारके कर्म तीन जन्मोंका आरम्भ करेंगे अथवा सब मिलकर एक जन्मका ही आरम्भ करेंगे ( ऐसा मानना चाहिये )। नहीं तो किये हुए कर्मोंका ( बिना फल दिये ) नाश माननेसे? सर्वत्र अविश्वासका प्रसंग आ जायगा और शास्त्रकी व्यर्थता सिद्ध हो जायगी। अतः यह कहना कि वह फिर जन्म नहीं लेता ठीक नहीं है। उ0 -- यह बात नहीं क्योंकि इसके समस्त कर्म क्षय हो जाते हैं ब्रह्मको जाननेवाला ब्रह्म ही हो जाता है उसके ( मोक्षमें ) तभीतककी देर है अग्निमें तृणके अग्रभागकी भाँति उसके समस्त कर्म भस्म हो जाते हैं इत्यादि सैकड़ों श्रुतियोंद्वारा विद्वान्के सब कर्मोंका दाह होना कहा गया है। यहाँ गीताशास्त्रमें भी यथैधांसि इत्यादि श्लोकमें समस्त कर्मोंका दाह कहा गया है और आगे भी कहेंगे। युक्तिसे भी यही बात सिद्ध होती है क्योंकि अविद्या? कामना आदि क्लेशरूप बीजोंसे युक्त हुए ही कारणरूप कर्म अन्य जन्मरूप अंकुरका आरम्भ किया करते हैं। यहाँ गीताशास्त्रमें भी भगवान्ने जगहजगह कहा है कि अहंकार और फलाकाङ्क्षायुक्त कर्म ही फलका आरम्भ करनेवाले होते हैं? अन्य नहीं। तथा जैसे अग्निमें दग्ध हुए बीज फिर नहीं उगते? वैसे ही ज्ञानसे दग्ध हुए क्लेशोंद्वारा आत्मा पुनः शरीर,ग्रहण नहीं करता ऐसा भी ( शास्त्रोंका वचन है )। पू0 -- ज्ञान होनेके पश्चात् किये हुए कर्मोंका ज्ञानद्वारा दाह हो सकता है क्योंकि वे ज्ञानके साथ होते हैं। परंतु इस जन्ममें ज्ञान उत्पन्न होनेसे पहले किये हुए और भूतपूर्व अनेक जन्मोंमें किये हुए कर्मोंका? ज्ञानद्वारा नाश मानना उचित नहीं। उ0 -- यह कहना ठीक नहीं क्योंकि सारे कर्म ( दग्ध हो जाते हैं ) ऐसा विशेषण दिया गया है। पू0 -- यदि ऐसा मानें कि ज्ञानके पश्चात् होनेवाले सब कर्मोंका ही ( ज्ञानद्वारा दाह होता है तो ) उ0 -- यह बात नहीं है। क्योंकि ( इस प्रकारके ) संकोचका ( कोई ) कारण नहीं सिद्ध होता। तुमने जो कहा कि जैसे ज्ञान हो जानेपर भी? वर्तमान जन्मका आरम्भ करनेवाले? फल देनेके लिये प्रवृत्त हुए प्रारब्धकर्म नष्ट नहीं होते? वैसे ही जिनका फल आरम्भ नहीं हुआ है? उन कर्मोंका भी नाश ( मानना ) युक्तियुक्त नहीं है? सो ऐसा कहना भी ठीक नहीं। क्योंकि वे प्रारब्ध कर्म छोड़े हुए बाणकी भाँति फल देनेके लिये प्रवृत्त हो चुके हैं? इसलिये ( उनका फल अवश्य होता है? पर अन्यका नहीं )। जैसे पहले लक्ष्यका वेध करनेके लिये धनुषसे छोड़ा हुआ बाण? लक्ष्यवेध हो जानेके पश्चात् ही आरम्भ हुए वेगका नाश होनेपर गिरकर ही शान्त होता है? वैसे ही शरीरका आरम्भ करनेवाले प्रारब्ध कर्म भी? शरीरस्थितिरूप प्रयोजनके निवृत्त हो जानेपर भी? जबतक संस्कारोंका वेग क्षय नहीं हो जाता? तबतक पहलेकी भाँति बर्तते ही रहते हैं। वही बाण? जिसका प्रवृत्तिके लिये वेग आरम्भ नहीं हुआ है -- जो छोड़ा नहीं गया है? यदि धनुषपर चढ़ा भी लिया गया हो तो भी उसको रोका जा सकता है? वैसे ही जिन कर्मोंके फलका आरम्भ नहीं हुआ है? वे अपने आश्रयमें स्थित हुए ही ज्ञानद्वारा निर्बीज किये जा सकते हैं। अतः इस विद्वत्शरीरके गिरनेके पीछे वह फिर उत्पन्न नहीं होता यह कहना उचित ही है? यह बात सिद्ध हुई।

By 'That which is to be known' etc., the meaning of the word 'That' (Tat) and the meaning of the word 'Thou' (Tvam) were purified immediately after, and their unity also was stated by 'Know the Knower of the Field also as Me'; now He states the causes for the vision of That according to qualification -- 'Here'.

He asks what is the form of the means named Meditation -- 'Meditation indeed'. Stating its form, he gives the answer -- 'From sound etc.'. Withdrawing with one-pointedness -- this is the connection. The contemplation which is on the inner conscious Self -- is the connection with the previous. When asked 'What is that contemplation?', he elaborates on meditation through an example and with the support of Sruti -- 'So'. In accordance with the intended meditation; they see the Self as the Supreme Self -- this is to be supplied. By 'Some', the best qualified aspirants are grasped.

He indicates the middling aspirants -- 'Others'. When asked 'What is the name of the means denoted by the word Sankhya?', knowledge born of enquiry; that very knowledge, being similar to Yoga because of being a cause, is denoted by the word Yoga, he says -- 'Sankhya'.

He accepts the lowest aspirants -- 'Action' (Karma). One-pointedness of mind is 'Yoga'; action, being the cause of purification, is for the sake of that; therefore, by secondary usage, action is denoted by the word Yoga, he says -- 'Qualitatively'. 'Others' see the Self by the self -- accepting the connection as before, he says -- 'By that'.

Having explained and concluded the Self-principle set forth in 'Know the Knower of the Field also as Me', now He praises the knowledge of the Self-principle, which is the unity of the purified meanings (Tat and Tvam) described before, by stating the fruit -- 'He who'.

Thus, in the manner stated, 'he who knows' the Person -- the substratum of all imaginations like Jiva and Ishvara -- knows directly 'I am the Person of described characteristics'; and (knows) Nature -- beginningless, indefinable, the limiting adjunct causing all evil -- along with Gunas, i.e., her own modifications, as reduced to non-existence by the knowledge of unity stated before -- this is the connection.

He, even if acting by transgressing Varna and Ashrama duties in every way, 'again', upon the fall of this body, is not born for another body, is not produced.

The imagination that 'Even returning (to birth), he is not born again in every way' is external to the Commentary (Bhashya) and should not be respected. Because there is no fruit in the statement 'Returning' etc.

'And his actions perish when that Higher and Lower is seen', 'He who knows Brahman becomes Brahman indeed', 'For him there is delay only as long as he is not liberated', 'And like the reed-cotton all actions are burnt'; 'As a blazing fire reduces fuel to ashes, O Arjuna, so the fire of knowledge reduces all actions to ashes', 'Just as seeds burnt by fire do not sprout again, so the Self does not come into being (rebirth) again with afflictions burnt by knowledge'.

Actions which have seeds of ignorance, desire, and affliction as their cause, which are initiators of fruit, which possess the capacity to initiate the sprout of another birth -- when the said seeds are burnt by the fire of knowledge, their capacity to initiate the sprout of birth does not hold -- this has been stated by reasons of Sruti and Smriti. Intending the absence of birth for the wise, it is stated by the Lord 'He is not born again'.

By this -- the doubt 'Destruction of actions done before the rise of knowledge, of those occurring in future, and of those done in many past births, without yielding fruit, like Prarabdha Karma, is not proper; because action does not perish without being enjoyed even in hundreds of crores of Kalpas -- etc.; therefore even the three types of actions should initiate three births, or combined together all should initiate one birth; otherwise, if there is destruction of what is done, there would be contingency of lack of confidence everywhere and uselessness of scripture' -- is refuted. Because of the qualification 'All actions' (Sarva karmani). Because it is proper to speak of the burning of all actions.

(Objection): Well, let there be burning of all actions done after the rise of knowledge by that (knowledge) because they coexist with knowledge, but not of others. And thus there is no futility of the adjective (All) -- if this is said, No. Because there is no proof for restriction.

Since Prarabdha actions have started yielding fruit like released arrows, their similarity with other actions which are like arrows whose force has not begun is not logical; therefore 'upon the fall of this wise man's body, he is not born again' is indeed rightly stated -- this is established.

Thus, regarding Self-knowledge characterized as described, He states the fruit -- 'He who thus'.

With Gunas -- with her own modifications. 'In whatever way' -- even existing/acting by prescribed or prohibited action. 'He is not born again' -- he does not attain rebirth, he becomes liberated, this is the meaning.

Some who are accomplished in Yoga see the 'Self' situated 'in the self', i.e., in the body, 'by the self', i.e., by the mind, 'through Meditation', i.e., through Bhakti Yoga.

And others who are not accomplished in Yoga, 'through Sankhya Yoga', i.e., through Jnana Yoga, having made the mind fit for Yoga, see the Self.

'Others' -- who are unqualified for Yoga etc., the means of seeing the Self; who are not qualified for Jnana Yoga; and those who are qualified for it but are attached to easier means; and those who are distinguished -- 'through Karma Yoga' -- which contains knowledge within it -- having attained fitness for Yoga through the mind, see the Self.

Thus He praises the knower of the discrimination between Nature and Person -- 'He who thus'.

Thus, he who knows the Person in the form of Onlooker etc.; and who knows Nature along with Gunas -- with modifications like pleasure, pain, etc.;

that Person 'in whatever way' -- even existing by transgressing injunctions -- is not born again. He is liberated indeed, this is the meaning.

Now, to speak of the mode of inquiry into discrimination, for great respect towards it, its fruit is first shown by the verse 'He who this' (Ya enam).

'Anvadesha' (reference to what has been mentioned) refers to the distinct form mentioned earlier, so he says 'of described nature'. Prakriti also was mentioned earlier, so modifying 'Enam' (this masculine) to 'Enam' (this feminine), he says 'of described nature' (feminine). Gunas were merely indicated before, but elaboration is in Chapter 14, so he says 'endowed with natures to be described'. Since Prakriti and Purusha are principal and Gunas are secondary, 'with Gunas' is said. Though Purusha is mentioned together with Prakriti, the word Guna here refers only to the Gunas of Prakriti elaborated before and after, to make this known, he says 'with Sattva etc.'.

Doubting that knowing (Purusha) associated with Prakriti and her Gunas might be impure knowledge, he explains the intent of 'knows this' as 'knows properly with discrimination'.

To remove the doubt of acting against scripture (uchchhhastra), by 'in whatever way' (sarvatha), the connection with various afflictions opposed to Yoga caused by contact with various bodies is intended, so he says 'gods, humans, etc.'. This is what is said -- Even if the knower of Truth experiences current afflictions due to Prarabdha karma, future birth cannot be inferred by similarity with other persons. The word 'Api' (even) suggests a fortiori (kaimutya) for those in unafflicted states.

'He is not born, nor does he die' [Katha 1.2.18] - by this itself birth of the Self's nature is denied; so here, there is no occasion for that (birth of Self), and the word 'again' (bhuyah) would not connect there; so the birth characterized by contact with the body mentioned in 'births in good and bad wombs' [13.22] is denied here, so he says 'He does not deserve contact with Nature again'. In states like dissolution, though there is absence of birth characterized by connection with a body for one whose body has perished, there is fitness for connection with a body again (after dissolution); but for this one, since karma is burnt by the fire of knowledge, even that (fitness) does not exist, so the word 'arhati' (deserves/is fit) is used. Expressing unfitness only, he states the culmination in the attainment of the desired which implies the cessation of the undesired like rebirth etc., with 'Unlimited' etc. Since ignorance and karma are destroyed without remainder, there is no fitness for connection with a body, so the two adjectives 'characterized by unlimited knowledge' and 'free from sin'. He states what is intended by the word 'again' (bhuyah) -- 'at the time of the end of that body'.

अब तक किये गये विवेचन का सारांश यह है कि पुरुष स्वस्वरूप से नित्यमुक्त होते हुए भी प्रकृति के साथ तादात्म्य के कारण जीव बनकर संसार के दुखों को भोगता है। इसी तादात्म्य के कारण उत्पन्न वासनाओं के अनुरूप विभिन्न योनियों में उसे जन्म लेना पड़ता है।परन्तु? जो साधक साधन सम्पन्न होकर गुरु के उपदेश से प्रकृति? पुरुष उनके परस्पर सम्बन्ध तथा प्रकृति के विविध प्रकार के प्रभाव रखने वाले गुणों को तत्त्वत जान लेता है? वही वास्तव में ज्ञानी पुरुष है? जो सदा के लिए संसार के बन्धनों से मुक्त हो जाता है।किसी वस्तु को पूर्णत जानने के लिए हमें उससे विलग रहना चाहिए। यदि हम स्वयं ही किसी परिस्थिति में उलझे हुए हों? तो हम उसका वस्तुनिष्ठ अध्ययन नहीं कर सकते। अत प्रकृति के विकारों (देहादि) और गुणों (सुखदुखादि) को जानने के लिए हमें उन सबका द्रष्टा बनकर स्थित होना चाहिए? तभी हम सर्वाधिष्ठान परमात्मा का साक्षात्कार कर सकते हैं। इस अनन्तस्वरूप ब्रह्म को अपने आत्मस्वरूप से जानने का अर्थ ही अविद्या को नष्ट करना है। ऐसे पूर्ण ज्ञानी पुरुष का पुन प्रकृति के साथ मिथ्या तादात्म्य होने के लिए कोई कारण ही नहीं रह जाता है। इसलिए यहाँ भगवान् कहते हैं कि? सब प्रकार से रहते हुए भी उसका पुन जन्म नहीं होता है। इसका अभिप्राय यह है कि ज्ञानी पुरुष जगत् में कर्म करता हुआ भी सामान्य मनुष्यों के समान नईनई वासनाओं को उत्पन्न करके उनके बन्धन में नहीं आता है क्योंकि उसका अहंकार सर्वथा नष्ट हो चुका होता है।ब्रह्मवित् ब्रह्म ही बन जाता है और उसके समस्त कर्म नष्ट हो जाते हैं यह सभी उपनिषदों के द्वारा प्रतिपादित सत्य है।अब? आत्मदर्शन के लिए अनेक उपाय बताते हैं

And so He says -- 'He who thus'.

'Thus' (Evam) -- by this vision of Brahman in the form of non-difference of all. The Yogi who knows Prakriti, Purusha, and Gunas, i.e., their modifications. 'In whatever way' (Sarvena prakarena) -- acting in whatever manner. He is liberated indeed, this is the meaning.

So thus, 'And who he is and of what power' has been explained; now, he concludes what was stated as 'Knowing which one attains immortality' -- with 'He who thus'.

He who thus, in the stated manner, knows the Person -- directly realizes 'I am this'. And knows Prakriti -- Avidya -- along with Gunas -- her modifications -- as false, sublated by Self-knowledge, thinking 'My ignorance and its effects have ceased'. He, in whatever way, acting even by transgressing injunctions like Indra due to Prarabdha karma force, is not born again.

Upon the fall of this wise man's body, he does not take a body again. Because when Avidya is destroyed by Vidya, the impossibility of its effect has been stated in many ways. The logic: 'Upon the attainment of that, there is non-clinging and destruction of later and earlier sins, because of that designation'.

By the word 'Api' (even), it implies: what to say of one who acts without transgressing injunctions, situated in his own duty, that he is not born again.

Thus translating/restating, he states the absence of Samsara for such a knower -- 'He who thus'.

'Thus', in the previously stated manner, he who 'knows', understands, the Person and Nature along with Gunas as forms of the Lord. Having known, even existing in that way in every way, who becomes of such conduct;

'he is not born again' -- is not produced in Samsara. But becomes liberated indeed, this is the meaning.

He who thus -- in the manner stated -- knows the Person directly as 'I am this'; and Nature -- described as characterized by Avidya -- along with Gunas, i.e., her own modifications, as ceased, reduced to non-existence by Knowledge (Vidya); 'in whatever way' -- in every mode -- even existing/acting, 'he, again', upon the fall of this body of the wise man, 'is not born' for another body, is not produced; meaning he does not take another body. By the word 'Api' (even), the intention is: what to say of one established in his own duty, that he is not born.

But, even if the non-occurrence of rebirth after the origination of Knowledge has been stated, still, the destruction of actions done prior to the origination of Knowledge, and those that will happen subsequently, and those performed in numerous past births, without yielding their results, is not logical. Therefore, three births might occur, for the destruction of what has been done is certainly not logical, just as in the case of actions that have begun to yield results and initiated the present birth. No distinction among actions is understood. Hence, actions of all three kinds might begin three births, or all of them together might begin one birth. Otherwise, if what has been done is destroyed, there would be a consequence of lack of trust everywhere, and the scriptures would be meaningless. Therefore, this statement, "he is not born again," is improperly made.

The complete destruction of all actions of the knowing person has been declared by hundreds of Śrutis, such as, "His actions do not perish," "He who knows Brahman becomes Brahman itself," "For him there is delay only so long," and "All actions are burnt up like cotton on a reed." Here too, the destruction of all actions has been stated by the phrase, "Just as fire..." etc., and it will be stated further. Also, due to logic: actions which have ignorance, desire, and affliction as their seeds and causes initiate the sprout of another birth. Here too, the Lord has stated repeatedly that only actions accompanied by ego and expectation of results initiate fruits, and not others. And also: "Just as seeds scorched by fire do not sprout again, similarly, the Self, through afflictions burnt by Knowledge, is not born again."

Let there be the destruction by Knowledge of actions done subsequent to the origination of Knowledge, because they coexist with Knowledge. But the destruction of actions done prior to the origination of Knowledge in this life, and those done in past lives, is not logical. If it is said that the specification 'sarva-karmāṇi' (all actions) refers only to all actions occurring subsequent to Knowledge, we say no, because there is no reason to restrict the meaning.

The argument that 'just as actions initiating the present birth are not destroyed even when Knowledge is present, because they are already active in yielding results, so also the destruction of actions whose results have not yet begun is not logical,' — that is false. How so? Because those (Prārabdha actions) are engaged in yielding results, like an arrow that has been released. Just as an arrow released from the bow earlier to pierce the target ceases only through falling due to the exhaustion of its initial momentum, even after piercing the target; similarly, the action initiating the body continues as before until the momentum (saṃskāra) is exhausted, even when the purpose of the body's existence is finished. Just as that same arrow, when its momentum has not been initiated by the cause of propulsion, is withdrawn even when placed in the bow; similarly, the actions whose fruits have not begun are rendered seedless by Knowledge while they reside in their own repository. Therefore, the statement, "he is not born again upon the fall of this body of the wise man," is rightly made—this is established.

Here are stated these alternative means, such as meditation (dhyāna), for the realization of the Self—

यः who? एवम् thus? वेत्ति knows? पुरुषम् Purusha? प्रकृतिम् Prakriti? च and? गुणैः alities? सह with? सर्वथा in all ways? वर्तमानः living? अपि also? न not? सः he? भूयः again? अभिजायते is born.Commentary One who knows the Soul and Nature with its alities? whatever his conduct may be? frees himself from the cycle of births and deaths. Such is the advantage he gains from the discriminative knowledge of Spirit and Matter. He knows that he is eternal and changeless and that all changes are due to the modifications of Nature on account of its alities. The self through ignorance identifies itself with the body and suffers rirth.In whatsoever condition he may be? whether he is engaged in prescribed or forbidden acts (like Indra who killed the Purohita Visvarupa and many Sannyasins)? he is not born again? because the,actions (which are the seeds of rirth)? of one who knows the Spirit and Matter? who has gained the knowledge of the Self? are burnt by the fire of that knowledge. Just as the seeds that are fried in fire do not sprout again? so also the actions burnt in the fire of knowledge cannot produce new bodies or further births. In his case they are Karmabhasa (mere semblance of Karma). They are not effective causes and cannot produce further births. A burnt cloth cannot serve the purpose of the cloth.Those actions which are done with egoism and desire (expectation of fruits) will produce fruits or results. In the case of a wise man? the seeds of evil? viz.? ignorance? egoism? attachment? etc.? are burnt by the fire of knowledge. Therefore he cannot have rirths.The Karmas (Prarabdha) which have already started their operation by producing this present birth do not perish? notwithstanding the dawn of the knowledge of the Self. When an arrow is once sent out from a bow at a mark? it pierces the mark and continues to act till it falls to the ground when the full force with which it was dischared is exhausted. Even so the Prarabdha Karma which has given rise to the body continues to act till the inherent force is fully exhausted? although the sage has attained Selfrealisation through his body. But he is not in the least affected by this? because he has no identification with the body? and as he has identified himelf with Brahman or the Absolute. If a carbuncle or cancer arises in the body on account of Prarabdha Karma? he will not suffer a bit as he has risen above bodyconsciousness? and as he stands as a witness of his body. But a bystander or a spectator wrongly imagines that the liberated sage is also suffering like an ordinary worldly man. This is a serious and sad mistake. From the viewpoint of the liberated sage he has neither body nor Prarabdha Karma.An arrow that is placed ready on the bow but not discharged with force can be withdrawn. Similarly? the Karmas which have not begun to generate their fruits or effects can be neutralised or destroyed by the knowledge of the Self. Therefore it is proper to say that the liberated sage is not born again. He will not take another body when the body through which he attained knowledge perishes. As ignorance? the cause of this body? is destroyed by the knowledge of the Self? birth? the effect of ignorance? is also destroyed. As one takes birth through virtuous and vicious actions? a sage will not take birth as his virtuous and visiouc actions (the whole Sanchita or accumulated Karmas of his previous births) are destroyed by the knowledge of the Self. The Karmas done by him after he has attained Selfrealisation cannot touch him at all as he has neither egoism (agency) nor desires. (Cf.XIII.32)

Sah yah, he who; vetti, knows, in the manner described; the purusam, Person, that Self possessed of the characteristics stated above, as 'I myself (am That)'; and knows prakrtim, Nature as described above, which is characterized as ignorance; to have been eradicated by Knowledge, saha, along with; gunaih, the alities which are its modifications; na abhijayate, will not be born; bhuyah, again-after the fall of this body of the man of realization, he does not become born again for (taking) another body, i.e. he does not take up another body; sarvatha api, in whatever way; vartamanah, he may live. From the word api it is understood that, it goes without saying that one who is firm in his own duty is not rorn.
Objection: Though it has been said that there is absence of rirth after the dawn of Knowledge, still is not illogical that actions done (in the present life) before the rise of Knowledge and those done subseently, as also those done in the many past lives, should be destroyed without yielding their results? Hence there should be three births! For destruction of acired merit is not logical, to the same extent as actions that have produced the present birth and are yielding their proper results (cannot be destroyed). Besides, it is not understood that actions have distinctions [Since all actions arise from ignorance, they are on the same level so far so they are opposed to Knowledge; i.e., there can be no such distinction among actions as 'those which have started yielding results' and 'those that have not'.]. Therefore, the actions of the three kinds, without exception, will produce three births or they all collectively will produce one birth. Otherwise, if the acired merits become destroyed, it will lead to loss of faith everywhere as well as to the purposelessness of scriptures. Therefore it has been illogical to say, 'he will not be born again.'
Reply: No, for the burning away of all the actions of the man of knowledge has been stated in hundreds of Upanisadic texts such as:
'And all one's actions become dissipated' (Mu. 2.2.8);
'Anyone who knows (that supreme) Brahman, becomes Brahman' (op. cit. 3.2.9);
'For him the delay is for so long only (as he does not become freed)' (Ch. 6.14.2);
'As the fibres at the tip of a blade of reed (become completely burnt৷৷.,' so) all actions 'get completely burnt' (op. cit. 5.24.3).
Here too the burning of all actions has been stated in, 'as a blazing fire reduces pieces of wood to ashes,৷৷.'etc. (4.37), and He will also say so (later) [See 18.66: 'I shall free you from all sins,' etc.-Tr.].
This accords with reason also. Verily, actions, which arise from the seed of evils [Klesas, evils-see note under 8.19-Tr.] like ignorance and desires, germinate the sprout of rirth. Here also it has been said by the Lord in various places that actions which are associated with egoism and desire for results bear fruits, not the others. And there is also the verse: 'As seeds burnt by fire do not germinate, so also the Self does not acire another body due to evils that have been burnt by Knowledge (cf. Mbh. Va. 199. 107).
Objection: It may be granted for the present that actions performed after the rise of Knowledge are burnt by Knowledge, since they coexist with Knowledge. But the burning away of actions done in this life prior to the rise of Knowledge and those done in the many past lives is not reasonable.
Reply: No, because of the alification, 'all actions' (4.37).
Objection: May it not be that 'all actions' means those that are undertaken after Illumination?
Reply: No, for there is no reason for the restriction (of the meaning). On the other hand, as for the statement, 'just as actions that have produced the present birth and are already active in producing their results do not get dissipated even after Illumination, similarly it is not reasonable that actions which have not commenced producing their results should get dissipated,'-that is wrong.
Objection: Why?
Reply: Since they have already begun producing results, like an arrow that has been shot: As an arrow, freed earlier from a bow for hitting a target, even after piercing through the target comes to a stop only after falling down as a result of the dissipation of its initial momentum, similarly, actions that produced the (present) body verily continue, even after fulfilling the purpose of maintaining the body, to exist as before until the dissipation of their inherent tendencies. But, as that very arrow, when it has not acired the momentum, needed for action, when it has not been shot even though fixed on the bow, can be withdrawn, similarly, actions which have not begun yielding their results may be rendered unproductive by Knowledge, even while existing in their receptacle. [The internal organ bearing the reflection of Consciousness.] Hence, it is established that , it has been reasonable to state that on the fall of the present body of an enlightened person, 'He is not born again.'
Here are being presented these meditation etc. which are the alternative means for the realization of the Self:

He who 'understands', namely, knows truly with discrimination, the self to be thus, and also the Prakrti as having the aforesaid nature along with Sattva and other Gunas, whose nature will be later examined, is never born again, i.e., is never rorn conjointly with Prakrti again in 'whatever state he may be placed,' i.e., in whatever painful condition he may be placed in the bodies of divinities, men etc. The meaning is that at the time when the body ceases to exist, the self will attain the purified state characterised by boundless knowledge devoid of evil.