Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 14 - Shloka (Verse) 22

व्याख्या -- प्रकाशं च -- इन्द्रियों और अन्तःकरणकी स्वच्छता? निर्मलताका नाम प्रकाश है। तात्पर्य है कि जिससे इन्द्रियोंके द्वारा शब्दादि पाँचों विषयोंका स्पष्टतया ज्ञान होता है? मनसे मनन होता है और बुद्धिसे निर्णय होता है? उसका नाम प्रकाश है।भगवान्ने पहले (14। 11 में ) सत्त्वगुणकी दो वृत्तियाँ बतायी थीं -- प्रकाश और ज्ञान। उनमेंसे यहाँ केवल प्रकाशवृत्ति लेनेका तात्पर्य है कि सत्त्वगुणमें प्रकाशवृत्ति ही मुख्य है क्योंकि जबतक इन्द्रियाँ और अन्तःकरणमें प्रकाश नहीं आता? स्वच्छतानिर्मलता नहीं आती? तबतक ज्ञान (विवेक) जाग्रत् नहीं होता। प्रकाशके आनेपर ही ज्ञान जाग्रत् होता है। अतः यहाँ ज्ञानवृत्तिको प्रकाशके ही अन्तर्गत ले लेना चाहिये।प्रवृत्तिं च -- जबतक गुणोंके साथ सम्बन्ध रहता है? तबतक रजोगुणकी लोभ? प्रवृत्ति? रागपूर्वक कर्मोंका आरम्भ? अशान्ति और स्पृहा -- ये वृत्तियाँ पैदा होती रहती हैं। परन्तु जब मनुष्य गुणातीत हो जाता है? तब रजोगुणके साथ तादात्म्य रखनेवाली वृत्तियाँ तो पैदा हो ही नहीं सकतीं? पर आसक्ति? कामनासे रहित प्रवृत्ति (क्रियाशीलता) रहती है। यह प्रवृत्ति दोषी नहीं है। गुणातीत मनुष्यके द्वारा भी क्रियाएँ होती हैं। इसलिये भगवान्ने यहाँ केवल प्रवृत्ति को ही लिया है।रजोगुणके दो रूप हैं -- राग और क्रिया। इनमेंसे राग तो दुःखोंका कारण है। यह राग गुणातीतमें नहीं रहता। परन्तु जबतक गुणातीत मनुष्यका दीखनेवाला शरीर रहता है? तबतक उसके द्वारा निष्कामभावपूर्वक स्वतः क्रियाएँ होती रहती हैं। इसी क्रियाशीलताको भगवान्ने यहाँ प्रवृत्ति नामसे कहा है।मोहमेव च पाण्डव -- मोह दो प्रकारका है -- (1) नित्यअनित्य? सत्असत्? कर्तव्यअकर्तव्यका विवेक न होना और (2) व्यवहारमें भूल होना। गुणातीत महापुरुषमें पहले प्रकारका मोह (सत्असत् आदिका विवेक न होना) तो होता ही नहीं (गीता 4। 35)। परन्तु व्यवहारमें भूल होना अर्थात् किसीके कहनेसे किसी निर्दोष व्यक्तिको दोषी मान लेना और दोषी व्यक्तिको निर्दोष मान लेना आदि तथा रस्सीमें साँप दीख जाना? मृगतृष्णामें जल दीख जाना? सीपी और अभ्रकमें चाँदीका भ्रम हो जाना आदि मोह तो गुणातीत मनुष्यमें भी होता है।न द्वेष्टि संप्रवृत्तानि न निवृत्तानि काङ्क्षति -- सत्त्वगुणका कार्य प्रकाश? रजोगुणका कार्य प्रवृत्ति और तमोगुणका कार्य मोह -- इन तीनोंके अच्छी तरह प्रवृत्त होनेपर भी गुणातीत महापुरुष इनसे द्वेष नहीं करता और इनके निवृत्त होनेपर भी इनकी इच्छा नहीं करता। तात्पर्य है कि ऐसी वृत्तियाँ क्यों उत्पन्न हो रही हैं? इनमेंसे कोईसी भी वृत्ति न रहे -- ऐसा द्वेष नहीं करता और ये वृत्तियाँ पुनः आ जायँ ये वृत्तियाँ बनी रहें -- ऐसा राग नहीं करता। गुणातीत होनेके कारण गुणोंकी वृत्तियोंके आनेजानेसे उसमें कुछ भी फरक नहीं पड़ता। वह इन वृत्तियोंसे स्वाभाविक ही निर्लिप्त रहता है।विशेष बातएक तो वृत्तियोंका होना होता है और एक वृत्तियोंको करना (उनमें सम्बन्ध जोड़ना अर्थात् रागद्वेष करना) होता है। होने और करनेमें बड़ा अन्तर है। होना समष्टिगत होता है और करना व्यक्तिगत होता है। संसारमें जो होता है? उसकी जिम्मेवारी हमारेपर नहीं होती। जो हम करते हैं? उसीकी जिम्मेवारी हमारेपर होती है।जिस समष्टि शक्तिसे संसारमात्रका संचालन होता है? उसी शक्तिसे हमारे शरीर? इन्द्रियाँ? मन? बुद्धि(जो कि संसारके ही अंश हैं) का भी संचालन होता है। जब संसारमें होनेवाली क्रियाओंके गुणदोष हमें नहीं लगते? तब शरीरादिमें होनेवाली क्रियाओंके गुणदोष हमें लग ही कैसे सकते हैं परन्तु जब स्वतः होनेवाली क्रियाओंमेंसे कुछ क्रियाओँके साथ मनुष्य रागद्वेषपूर्वक अपना सम्बन्ध जोड़ लेता है अर्थात् उनका कर्ता बन जाता है? तब उनका फल उसको ही भोगना पड़ता है। इसलिये अन्तःकरणमें सत्त्व? रज और तम -- इन तीनों गुणोंसे होनेवाली अच्छीबुरी वृत्तियोंसे साधकको रागद्वेष नहीं करना चाहिये अर्थात् उनसे अपना सम्बन्ध नहीं जोड़ना चाहिये।वृत्तियाँ एक समान किसीकी भी नहीं रहतीं। तीनों गुणोंकी वृत्तियाँ तो गुणातीत महापुरुषके अन्तःकरणमें भी होती हैं? पर उसका उन वृत्तियोंसे रागद्वेष नहीं होता। वृत्तियाँ आपसेआप आती और चली जाती हैं। गुणातीत महापुरुषकी दृष्टि उधर जाती ही नहीं क्योंकि उसकी दृष्टिमें एक परमात्मतत्त्वके सिवाय और कुछ रहता ही नहीं।देखना और दीखना -- दोनोंमें बड़ा फरक है। देखना करने के अन्तर्गत होता है और दीखना होने के अन्तर्गत होता है। दोष देखनेमें होता है? दीखनेमें नहीं। अतः साधकको यदि अन्तःकरणमें खराबसेखराब वृत्ति भी दीख जाय? तो भी उसको घबराना नहीं चाहिये। अपनेआप दीखनेवाली (होनेवाली) वृत्तियोंसे रागद्वेष करना अर्थात् उनके अनुसार अपनी स्थिति मानना ही उनको देखना है। साधकसे भूल यही होती है कि वह दीखनेवाली वस्तुको देखने लग जाता है और फँस जाता है। भगवान् राम कहते हैं -- सुनहु तात माया कृत गुन अरु दोष अनेक। गुन यह उभय न देखिअहिं देखिअ सो अबिबेक।। (मानस 7। 41)साधकको गहराईसे विचार करना चाहिये कि वृत्तियाँ तो उत्पन्न और नष्ट होती रहती हैं? पर स्वयं (अपना स्वरूप) सदा ज्योंकात्यों रहता है। वृत्तियोंमें होनेवाले परिवर्तनको देखनेवाला स्वरूप परिवर्तनरहित है। कारण कि परिवर्तनशीलको परिवर्तनशील नहीं देख सकता? प्रत्युत परिवर्तनरहित ही परिवर्तनशीलको देख सकता है। इससे सिद्ध होता है कि स्वरूप वृत्तियोंसे अलग है। परिवर्तनशील गुणोंके साथ अपना सम्बन्ध मान लेनेसे ही गुणोंमें होनेवाली वृत्तियाँ अपनेमें प्रतीत होती हैं। अतः साधकको आनेजाने वाली वृत्तियोंके साथ मिलकर अपने वास्तविक स्वरूपसे विचलित नहीं होना चाहिये। चाहे जैसे वृत्तियाँ आयें? उनसे राजीनाराज नहीं होना चाहिये उनके साथ अपनी एकता नहीं माननी चाहिये। सदा एकरस रहनेवाले गुणोंसे सर्वथा निर्लिप्त? निर्विकार एवं अविनाशी अपने स्वरूपको न देखकर परिवर्तनशील? विकारी एवं विनाशी वृत्तियोंको देखना साधकके लिये महान् बाधक है।

इस ( उपर्युक्त ) श्लोकमें अर्जुनने गुणातीतके लक्षण और गुणातीत होनेका उपाय पूछा है? उन दोनों प्रश्नोंका उत्तर देनेके लिये श्रीभगवान् बोले कि पहले गुणातीत पुरुष किनकिन लक्षणोंसे युक्त होता है उसे सुन --, सत्त्वगुणका कार्य प्रकाश? रजोगुणका कार्य प्रवृत्ति और तमोगुणका कार्य मोह? ये जब प्राप्त होते हैं अर्थात् भली प्रकार विषयभावसे उपलब्ध होते है? तब वह इनसे द्वेष नहीं किया करता। अभिप्राय यह कि मुझमें तामसभाव उत्पन्न हो गया? उससे मैं मोहित हो गया और दुःखरूप राजसी प्रवृत्ति मुझमें उत्पन्न हुई? उस राजसभावने मुझे प्रवृत्त कर दिया? इसने मुझे स्वरूपसे विचलित कर दिया? यह जो अपनी स्वरूपस्थितिसे विचलित होना है? वह मेरे लिये बड़ा भारी दुःख है तथा प्रकाशमय सात्त्विक गुण? मुझे विवेकित्व प्रदान करके और सुखमें नियुक्त करके बाँधता है? इस प्रकार साधारण मनुष्य अयथार्थदर्शी होनेके कारण उन गुणोंसे द्वेष किया करते हैं? परंतु गुणातीत पुरुष उनकी प्राप्ति होनेपर उनसे द्वेष नहीं करता। तथा जैसे सात्त्विक? राजस और तामस पुरुष? जब सात्त्विक आदि भाव अपना स्वरूप प्रत्यक्ष कराकर निवृत्त हो जाते हैं? तब ( पुनः ) उनको चाहते हैं। वैसे गुणातीत उन निवृत्त हुए गुणोंके कार्योंको नहीं चाहता यह अभिप्राय है। ( परंतु ये 2()৷৷) 2सब लक्षण दूसरोंको प्रत्यक्ष होनेवाले नहीं हैं। तो कैसे हैं अपने आपको ही प्रत्यक्ष होनेके कारण ये स्वसंवेद्य ही हैं क्योंकि अपने आपमें होनेवाले द्वेष या आकाङ्क्षाको दूसरा नहीं देख सकता।

Restating the nature of the question, he shows its answer -- "Gunatitasya" etc. The connection is "Bhagavan was asked". Since the usage of the interrogative is seen three times, "for the sake of two questions" is an indicator (Upalakshana), it should be seen as "for the sake of three questions".

Having introduced the answer, he states the purport of the next verse -- "Yat tavat" etc. To clarify the statement "the right-seer does not hate them", he reveals the hatred of the non-right-seer towards them which is to be negated -- "Mama" etc. He concludes the absence of hatred in the right-seer towards light etc. when they arise -- "Tadevam" etc.

He explains "Na nivrittani" etc. -- "Yatha cha" etc. Seeing them properly as not belonging to the Self, he does not get agitated by superimposing agreeableness or disagreeableness on the Self, nor does he long for them; this is the meaning.

He says the definition of one beyond Gunas, established by one's own experience, has been stated -- "Etat na" etc. He expands on the absence of perceptibility to others -- "Na hi" etc. "Ashraya" means object.

Thus asked, Sri Bhagavan said. There, He answers the question "by what signs does one become beyond Gunas".

"Prakasham cha", the effect of Sattva? "Pravrittim cha", the effect of Rajas? "Moham eva cha", the effect of Tamas. The word "Cha" is to accumulate all effects of Sattva etc. "Iti etani" (These), "Sampravrittani", arisen properly as objects, he "Na dveshti" (does not hate), as an ignorant person does. "A Tamasic idea has arisen in me, by that I am deluded; similarly, a Rajasic activity consisting of pain has arisen in me, by that Rajas I am impelled, moved from my nature; alas for me, this fall from the state of my nature. Similarly, the Sattvic quality, of the nature of light, making me discriminative and attaching me to happiness, binds me" -- thus he hates the arisen effect of Sattva etc.; not so the one beyond Gunas, due to right vision; (nor) does he long for them when ceased; this is the meaning.

"Sarvatah" (From all sides); and just as an ignorant Sattvic etc. person longs for the effects of Sattva etc., light etc., to return to himself when ceased, not so does the one beyond Gunas long for them when ceased; this is the meaning.

"He who is of this kind is called beyond Gunas" -- connection with the fourth (verse). Addressing as "He Pandava", He implies that only such a one has no connection with birth, not another.

Having these signs is a definition of one beyond Gunas for oneself alone, because it is perceptible to oneself. Not perceptible to others, because hatred and longing which are objects of one's own mind are invisible to others.

Mostly he does not hate nor long for. For thus in the Bhallaveya branch of Samaveda -- "He mostly neither hates nor longs for the qualities of Rajas, Tamas, and Sattva when active. Yet he might long for the subtle Sattva quality; if entered (by Tamas?), he should abandon the good Tamas (?).

For gods and sages standing in Sattva, O best of kings. Are not devoid of subtle Sattva, therefore they are considered modifications. How can a modified person attain the Supreme Person?" -- thus in Mokshadharma.

"O tiger among men, one determined for liberation should be Sattvic" -- thus also.

He answers the first of those -- "Prakasham" etc. Light, activity, delusion are effects of Sattva, Rajas, Tamas. In the waking/emergent state, they are "well engaged". Neuter gender in general sense. He does not hate them when engaged. Nor does he long for them when they have ceased in the state of Samadhi.

This one is indeed eternally established in Samadhi, the best of knowers of Brahman; regarding whom it is remembered in Srimad Bhagavata: "The perfected one does not see the perishable body, whether sitting or rising".

Here in Vasistha (Yoga Vasistha), seven stages of Yoga are stated: "Shubheccha is called the first, Vicharana the second, Tanumanasa the third. Sattvapatti is the fourth, then Asamsakti. Padarthabhavani is the sixth, the seventh is known as Turyaga."

There, the wealth of means as described up to desire for liberation is the first. Inquiry consisting of hearing and reflection is the second. Nididhyasana is the third. These are stages of means.

Sattvapatti, consisting of direct realization of Brahman, is the fourth, the fruit. In which, though fulfilled, the Yogi does not experience the bliss of Jivanmukti fully.

The subsequent three are subdivisions of Jivanmukti. Even there, in the fifth stage, standing by himself, he emerges by himself. In the sixth, by others' effort. In the seventh, however, he does not emerge by himself or by others. This one who is eternally established in Samadhi is spoken of by this verse "Prakasham" etc.

Sri Bhagavan said -- In undesirable objects distinct from the Self, he who does not hate the effects of Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas named light, activity, and delusion which have arisen?

Similarly, in desirable objects distinct from the Self, he does not long for them when they have ceased.

Although asked in the second chapter with 'What is the description of the man of steady wisdom', etc., and although answered, knowing that he asks again with a desire to know the specifics, the Blessed Lord spoke about his characteristics etc., in a different way — with 'Prakasham ca' (And light/illumination), etc., in six verses.

There, with one (verse), He states the characteristic. 'Prakasham ca' (And illumination). 'Prakasham ca' — the effect of Sattva stated before as 'in this body through all gates' (14.11); 'Pravrittim ca' (and activity) — the effect of Rajas; 'Moham ca' (and delusion) — the effect of Tamas. This is an implied indication (upalakshana) for Sattva etc.

All effects whatsoever, 'sampravrittani' (when fully present/active), i.e., occurring of their own accord, he who does not hate with the notion of pain; and 'nivrittani' (when ceased/withdrawn), he does not crave with the notion of happiness; he is said to be Gunatita — this construes with the fourth (verse).

"In objects distinct from the Self" etc. -- This is the intention -- Objects distinct from the Self are of two kinds: desirable and undesirable. There, hatred when the undesirable and its means are present, and longing when the desirable and its means have ceased, is established in the world.

There, regarding undesirable ends, he who does not hate the effects of Gunas engaged as means; and regarding desirable ends, does not long for them again when they have ceased after having remained as means.

The instrumentality of light towards the undesirable is manifest in causes of fear etc.; instrumentality towards the desirable in favorable objects. Of activity, in unwholesome medicines etc. Of delusion, regarding favorable things when there is an idea of unfavorableness, or regarding unfavorable things when there is an idea of favorableness -- thus.

The mention of desirable and undesirable is to establish the context for the negation of hatred and longing.

जो उपाधियां या वस्तुएं तीन गुणों का कार्य हैं केवल उन पर ही त्रिगुणों का प्रभाव पड़ सकता है? उनसे परे आत्मतत्त्व पर नहीं। अत आत्मज्ञान होने के पश्चात् भी ये उपाधियां पूर्ववत् व्यवहार करती रहती हैं और उनपर गुणों का प्रभाव भी पड़ सकता है। परन्तु ज्ञानी पुरुष उनसे किसी प्रकार से तादात्म्य नहीं करता। समस्त परिस्थितियों में सदैव समत्व भाव में स्थित रहना अनुभवी पुरुष का प्रमुख लक्षण है और यही पूर्णत्व का सार है।प्रकाश? प्रवृत्ति और मोह ये क्रमश सत्त्व? रज और तमोगुण के कार्य हैं। यहाँ त्रिगुणों का निर्देश उनके कार्यों के द्वारा किया गया है। सामान्यत अज्ञानी मनुष्य के मन में जब रजोगुण के कार्य विक्षेप अथवा तमोगुण के कार्य निद्रा? प्रमाद आदि प्रभावशाली होते हैं? तब वह उनका द्वेष करता है और सत्त्वगुण के कार्य ज्ञान? सुख और शान्ति के होने पर वह उनसे प्रीति रखता है। सत्त्वगुण निवृत्त हो जाय तो वह उसकी इच्छा करके उसके लिये लालायित रहता है। इन सबका कारण त्रिगुणों के साथ अविद्यामूलक तादात्म्य है।ज्ञानी की स्थिति अज्ञानी से सर्वथा भिन्न होती है। वह जानता है कि त्रिगुणों का साक्षी आत्मा उन गुणों तथा उनके कार्यों से सदैव असंगअसंस्पृष्ट रहता है। अत वह रज और तम के प्रवृत्त होने पर न उनसे द्वेष रखता है और न सत्त्वगुण के प्रवृत्त होने की कामना। उसकी सुखशान्ति इन गुणों की प्रवृत्ति अथवा निवृत्ति पर निर्भर नहीं करती। किसी लखपति धनी व्यक्ति को संयोगवशात् पचीस पैसे मिलने या न मिलने से कोई अन्तर नहीं पड़ता। ऐसा हो सकता है कि कभी वह नीचे झुककर उस पैसे के सिक्के को उठा ले? किन्तु उसे वह? हर्षातिरेक नहीं होगा? जो एक दरिद्र व्यक्ति को समान परिस्थिति में होता होगा।इस प्रकार? समस्त उपाधियों के तादात्म्य को त्यागकर आत्मानुभूति में रमा पुरुष ही त्रिगुणातीत या मुक्त कहलाता है। संसार के दुख उसे कदापि विचलित नहीं कर सकते।अब? उस ज्ञानी पुरुष के आचरण का वर्णन करते हैं

Here is the answer -- "Prakasham" etc.

Although light etc. exist in all attributes, yet Yogis do not get attached to those light etc. nor do they become hateful.

But rather, thinking "These exist merely as attributes of the body-lump? They are not capable of agitating me", they become beyond Gunas.

By "Light and activity", it is being said that "for one beyond Gunas, hatred and longing regarding light etc., the effects of Sattva etc. qualities, do not exist at all" -- to refute this wrong understanding, he says -- "Prayah" (Mostly). This is what is said -- The qualities Sattva etc. are of two kinds: gross and subtle. There, from the gross arise worldly light, activity, and delusion; from the subtle, those concerning the Supreme Lord etc. Regarding the former, hatred and longing mostly do not exist for one beyond Gunas. But not entirely, because of occasional possibility due to Prarabdha. But regarding the latter, longing etc. indeed exist; why is this? To this he says -- "Tatha hi" (For thus).

Although "does not hate" etc. has been said? Still, if "Su-tamah", subtle Tamas, should enter him by destiny? Then he should abandon it, should hate it. And regarding the existence of subtle Sattva in those beyond Gunas, he recites the sentence from Bharata -- "Na hi" etc. "If gods and sages were devoid of subtle Sattva? Then they would not be called 'Sattvasthah' (standing in Sattva)? But then the contingency of being considered modifications (Vaikarika) would arise? Then what? 'How can a modified person attain the Supreme Person?' meaning they would not have liberation. And they do have liberation, therefore they are indeed possessed of subtle Sattva, this is the meaning.

'Sattvikah' means possessed of subtle Sattva. 'He, united with subtle Sattva, united with the three imperishables. The Person should go to the Person, the actionless twenty-fifth.' This is from the context of subtle Sattva. 'Moksharthanishchitah', determined on the human goal characterized by liberation.

Although asked with 'What is the description of the man of steady wisdom', etc., and although answered with 'When he completely casts off desires', etc., ascertaining that he is asking being desirous of knowing again in a different way, the Blessed Lord spoke about his characteristics etc., in a different way in five verses —

regarding the question 'endowed with what marks does one become Gunatita', listen to its answer — 'Prakasham ca' (And illumination) — the effect of Sattva; 'Pravrittim ca' (and activity) — the effect of Rajas; 'Moham ca' (and delusion) — the effect of Tamas. This is an implied indication. All effects of Gunas whatsoever, 'sampravrittani' (when fully present), i.e., arisen due to the force of their own causal conditions, even if they are of the nature of pain, he who does not hate with the notion of pain; and 'nivrittani' (when ceased) due to the force of destructive causal conditions, even if they are of the nature of happiness, he 'na kankshati' (does not crave), does not desire with the notion of happiness, due to the conviction of their falsity like a dream; he who is devoid of such hatred and attachment is said to be Gunatita — this construes with the (word) situated in the fourth verse.

And this characteristic, which is directly perceptible to one's own self, is for one's own sake only, not for another's sake. For indeed, another person cannot know the hatred and its absence, and the attachment and its absence, which reside in oneself.

As the answer, to make known that "everything happens by My Gunas alone", the Lord speaks through verses equal in number to the Gunas — "prakāśaṃ ca" etc.

"Light" — [meaning] the worldly form which is imitative of the alaukika (transcendental), established by the alaukika Sattva which is of the nature of My own form, for the accomplishment of alaukika experience through all gates (senses). This very thing is implied by the particle "cha". And again, in the same way, activity? "Cha" is in the sense of "tu" (but/indeed).

And likewise, for the accomplishment of the rasa (taste) of great experience, [he does not hate] "delusion" which is of the nature of separation and dissolution, or merely delusion? Even upon hearing such things, for the absence of fear, "O Pandava", he does not hate the alaukika [states] situated in My will which appear similar to the worldly.

Moreover, in this way, he obtains the three effects starting with Sattva which have become active by My will. Therefore, automatic activity is mentioned. To make known the nature of [His] own will, he does not hate [them] as obstructive due to their worldliness, nor does he make an effort to abandon them. In the same way, he does not desire them when they have ceased in the absence of My will; he is called one who has transcended the Gunas — thus is the connection with the fourth verse.

"Prakasham cha" the effect of Sattva, "Pravrittim cha" the effect of Rajas, "Moham eva cha" the effect of Tamas; "Sampravrittani", arisen properly as objects, he "Na dveshti" (does not hate) -- "A Tamasic idea has arisen in me, by that I am deluded; similarly, a Rajasic activity consisting of pain has arisen in me, by that Rajas I am impelled, moved from my nature; alas for me, this fall from the state of my nature; similarly, the Sattvic quality, of the nature of light, making me discriminative and attaching me to happiness, binds me" -- thus he hates them due to imperfect vision. In that way, one beyond Gunas does not hate them when engaged.

And just as a Sattvic etc. person longs for the effects of Sattva etc., light etc., when they have ceased regarding himself? Not so does the one beyond Gunas long for them when ceased; this is the meaning.

This is not a sign perceptible to others. What then? Being perceptible to oneself, this definition is for oneself alone. For another does not see hatred or longing which are objects of one's own mind.

Now, He speaks the answer to the question "What is the conduct of one beyond Gunas?" --

Then Sri Bhagavan, defining his nature, conduct, and state beyond Gunas, speaks in four verses -- with "Prakasham cha" etc.

Light is Sattvic? Activity is Rajasic? Delusion is Tamasic; these effects of the three Gunas engaged in non-self objects, he does not hate?

If they have ceased, even then he does not long for them?

Or, he does not long for light and actions when ceased?

He does not hate activity of action and delusion?

And even actions when engaged.

प्रकाशम् light? च and? प्रवृत्तिम् activity? च and? मोहम् delusion? एव even? च and? पाण्डव O Arjuna? न not? द्वेष्टि hates? सम्प्रवृत्तानि (when) gone forth? न not? निवृत्तानि when absent? काङ्क्षति longs.Commentary This is the answer to Arjunas first estion. Light is the effect of Sattva? activity of Rajas and delusion of Tamas. The liberated sage does not hate them when they are present. When Sattva shines he is not carried away by pride. He does not think? I am a vey learned man. When the impulse for action is awakened in the body or when there is a divine call for him to do work for the solidarity of the world (Lokasangraha) he does not hate any action and he does not regret it after the action is accomplished. He feels no remorse while performing actions. The work is like the play of a child. While inertia increases in him? he is not deluded by infatuation.Only an ignorant man thinks Tamas has entered into me. I am deluded. I am under the influence of heedlessness? torpor? sloth? laziness and indolence. Now I am under the influence of Rajas. I am forced to do activities. This is painful. I have fallen from my true nature. This gives me a lot of pain. Now Sattva predominates in me. I am attached to happiness and knowledge. I am proud of my learning and better status.The liberated sage who has transcended the Gunas does not thus hate them when they are present.A man of Sattva or Rajas or Tamas longs for light? action or inertia which first manifested themselves and disappeared. But a liberated sage or one who has gone beyond the three alities does not at all long for these states which have vanished. This mark or characteristic is an internal mental state. It cannot be perceived or detected by others. It can be felt by ones own self alone. If one is endowed with clairvoyant vision or the inner eye of intuition? he can directly behold the longins that arise in the mind of another man.In the following three verses the Lord gives His answer to Arjunas second estion What is the conduct of the sage who has crossed over the Gunas

Na dvesti, he neither dislikes these; prakasam, illumination (knowledge), an effect of sattva; pravrttim, activity, an effect of rajas; and moham, delusion, an effect of tamas; sampravrttani, when they appear, when they fully emerge in the form of objects (of experience)-.
'In me has arisen a perception which is a result of tamas; thery I have become deluded'; so also, 'In me has risen (the inclination to) action which is painful and is born of rajas. By that rajas I have been actuated, carried away from my own nature. This is a matter of sorrow to me that there has been a deviation from my own nature'; similarly, 'The ality of sattva, in the form of illumination that is knowledge, binds me by attributing discrimination to me and making me attached to happiness'-(by thinking) in these ways one dislikes them because of his being not fully enlightened. The person who has transcended the alities does not dislike them in this manner.
Unlike a person having sattva etc., who longs for the effects of sattva etc. which withdraw themselves after becoming manifest to him, the person who has gone beyond the alities na kanksati, does not long for them in that way; nivrttani, when they disappear. This is the idea.
This is not an indication that can be perceived by others. What then? Since this characteristic is perceivable to oneself, it is merely subjective. For dislike or longing, which is a subjective experience of a person, is not seen by another.
Now, then, the Lord gives the reply to the estion, 'What is the behaviour of one who has gone beyond the alities?':

The Lord said He does not hate the effects of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas known as illumination, activity and delusion respectively, when they are prevailing in regard to undesired things other than the self; nor longs for them when they cease, i.e., when desired things other than the self become unavailable. Hating things not conducive to the realisations of the self and longing for things conducive thereof, do not come under this law stated in the Verse.