Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 14 - Shloka (Verse) 6

व्याख्या -- तत्र सत्त्वं निर्मलत्वात् -- पूर्वश्लोकमें सत्त्व? रज और तम -- इन तीनों गुणोंकी बात कही। इन तीनों गुणोंमें सत्त्वगुण निर्मल (मलरहित) है। तात्पर्य है कि रजोगुण और तमोगुणकी तरह सत्त्वगुणमें मलिनता नहीं है? प्रत्युत यह रजोगुण और तमोगुणकी अपेक्षा निर्मल? स्वच्छ है। निर्मल होनेके कारण यह परमात्मतत्त्वका ज्ञान करानेमें सहायक है।प्रकाशकम् -- सत्त्वगुण? निर्मल? स्वच्छ होनेके कारण प्रकाश करनेवाला है। जैसे प्रकाशके अन्तर्गत वस्तुएँ साफसाफ दीखती हैं? ऐसे ही सत्त्वगुणकी अधिकता होनेसे रजोगुण और तमोगुणकी वृत्तियाँ साफसाफ दीखती हैं। रजोगुण और तमोगुणसे उत्पन्न होनेवाले काम? क्रोध? लोभ? मद? मात्सर्य आदि दोष भी साफसाफ दीखते हैं अर्थात् इन सब विकारोंका साफसाफ ज्ञान होता है।सत्त्वगुणकी वृद्धि होनेपर इन्द्रियोंमें प्रकाश? चेतना और हलकापन विशेषतासे प्रतीत होता है? जिससे प्रत्येक पारमार्थिक अथवा लौकिक विषयको अच्छी तरह समझनेमें बुद्धि पूरी तरह कार्य करती है और कार्य करनेमें बड़ा उत्साह रहता है।सत्त्वगुणके दो रूप हैं -- (1) शुद्ध सत्त्व? जिसमें उद्देश्य परमात्माका होता है? और (2) मलिन सत्त्व? जिसमें उद्देश्य सांसारिक भोग और संग्रहका होता है (टिप्पणी प0 716)। शुद्ध सत्त्वगुणमें परमात्माका उद्देश्य होनेसे परमात्माकी तरफ चलनेमें स्वाभाविक रुचि होती है। मलिन सत्त्वगुणमें पदार्थोंके संग्रह और सुखभोगका उद्देश्य होनेसे सांसारिक प्रवृत्तियोंमें रुचि होती है? जिससे मनुष्य बँध जाता है।मलिन सत्त्वगुणमें भी बुद्धि सांसारिक विषयको अच्छी तरह समझनेमें समर्थ होती है। जैसे? सत्त्वगुणकी वृद्धिमें ही वैज्ञानिक नयेनये आविष्कार करता है किन्तु उसका उद्देश्य परमात्माकी प्राप्ति न होनेसे वह अंहकार? मानबड़ाई? धन आदिसे संसारमें बँधा रहता है।अनामयम् -- सत्त्वगुण रज और तमकी अपेक्षा विकाररहित है। वास्तवमें प्रकृतिका कार्य होनेसे यह सर्वथा निर्विकार नहीं है। सर्वथा निर्विकार तो अपना स्वरूप अथवा परमात्मतत्त्व ही है? जो कि गुणातीत है। परमात्मतत्त्वकी प्राप्तिमें सहायक होनेसे भगवान्ने सत्त्वगुणको भी विकाररहित कह दिया है।सुखसङ्गेन बध्नाति ज्ञानसङ्गेन चानघ -- जब अन्तःकरणमें सात्त्विक वृत्ति होती है? कोई विकार नहीं होता है? तब एक सुख मिलता है? शान्ति मिलती है। उस समय साधकके मनमें यह विचार आता है कि ऐसा सुख हरदम बना रहे? ऐसी शान्ति हरदम बनी रहे? ऐसी निर्विकारता हरदम बनी रहे। परन्तु जब ऐसा सुख? शान्ति? निर्विकारता नहीं रहती? तब साधकको अच्छा नहीं लगता। यह अच्छा लगना और अच्छा न लगना ही सत्त्वगुणके सुखमें आसक्ति है? जो बाँधनेवाली है।जब सत्त्व? रज और तम -- इन तीनों गुणोंका? इनकी वृत्तियोंका? विकारोंका साफसाफ ज्ञान होता है और साधकको ऐसी बहुतसी आश्चर्यजनक बातोंकी जानकारी होती है? जो पहले कभी जानी हुई नहीं होती? तब साधकके मनमें आता है कि यह ज्ञान हरदम बना रहे। यह ज्ञानमें आसक्ति है? जो बाँधनेवाली है। मैं दूसरोंकी अपेक्षा अधिक (विशेष) जानता हूँ -- यह अभिमान भी बाँधनेवाला होता है।इस तरह सत्त्वगुण सुख और ज्ञानके सङ्ग(आसक्ति) से साधकको बाँध देता है अर्थात् उसको गुणातीत नहीं होने देता। यह सङ्ग ही रजोगुण है जो बाँधनेवाला है (गीता 13। 21)। यदि साधक सुख और ज्ञानका सङ्ग न करे तो सत्त्वगुण उसको बाँधता नहीं? प्रत्युत उसको गुणातीत कर देता है। तात्पर्य है कि यदि सङ्ग न हो तो साधक सत्त्वगुणसे भी ऊँचा उठ जाता है और अपने गुणातीत स्वरूपका अनुभव कर लेता है।सत्त्वगुणसे सुख और ज्ञान होनेपर साधकको यह सावधानी रखनी चाहिये कि यह सुख और ज्ञान मेरा लक्ष्य नहीं है। ये मेरे भाग्य नहीं हैं। ये तो लक्ष्यकी प्राप्तिमें कारण हैं। मेरेको तो उस लक्ष्यको प्राप्त करना है? जो,इस सुख और ज्ञानको भी प्रकाशित करनेवाला है।सुख? ज्ञान आदि सभी सत्त्वगुणकी वृत्तियाँ हैं। ये कभी घटती हैं? कभी बढ़ती हैं कभी आती हैं? कभी जाती हैं। परन्तु अपना स्वरूप निरन्तर एकरस रहता है। उसमें कभी घटबढ़ नहीं होती। अतः साधकको सत्त्वगुणकी वृत्तियोंसे सदा तटस्थ? उदासीन रहना चाहिये। उनका उपभोग नहीं करना चाहिये। इससे वह सुख और ज्ञानकी आसक्तिमें फँसेगा नहीं।अगर साधक सत्त्वगुणसे होनेवाले सुख और ज्ञानका सङ्ग न करे? तो उसको शीघ्र ही परमात्मप्राप्ति हो जाती है। परन्तु अगर वह इनके सङ्गका त्याग न करे तो (परमात्मप्राप्तिका लक्ष्य होनेसे) समय पाकर उसकी इस सुख और ज्ञानसे स्वतः अरुचि हो जाती है और वह परमात्मप्राप्ति कर लेता है। सम्बन्ध -- रजोगुणका स्वरूप और उसके बाँधनेका प्रकार क्या है -- इसको आगेके श्लोकमें बताते हैं।

उन सत्त्व आदि तीन गुणोंमेंसे पहले? सत्त्वगुणका लक्षण बतलाया जाता है -- सत्त्वगुण स्फटिकमणिकी भाँति निर्मल होनेके कारण? प्रकाशशील और उपद्रवरहित है ( तो भी ) वह बाँधता है। कैसे बाँधता है सुखकी आसक्तिसे। (वास्तवमें ) विषयरूप सुखका विषयी आत्माके साथ मैं सुखी हूँ इस प्रकार सम्बन्ध जो़ड़ देना यह आत्माको मिथ्या ही सुखमें नियुक्त कर देना है। यही अविद्या है। क्योंकि विषयके धर्म विषयीके ( कभी ) नहीं होते और इच्छासे लेकर धृतिपर्यन्त सब धर्म विषयरूप क्षेत्रके ही हैं -- ऐसा भगवान्ने कहा है। सुतरां यह सिद्ध हुआ कि जो आरोपितभावसे आत्माकी स्वकीय धर्मरूपा हो रही है और विषयविषयीका अज्ञान ही जिसका स्वरूप है? ऐसी अविद्याद्वारा ही सत्त्वगुण अनात्मस्वरूप सुखमें ( आत्माको ) मानो,नियुक्त -- आसक्त कर देता है? यानी जो ( वास्तवमें ) सुखके सम्बन्धसे रहित है? उसे सुखीसा कर देता है। इसी प्रकार ( यह सत्त्वगुण उसे ) ज्ञानके सङ्गसे भी ( बाँधता है )। ज्ञान भी सुखका साथी होनेके कारण? क्षेत्र अर्थात् अन्तःकरणका ही धर्म है? आत्माका नहीं -- क्योंकि आत्माका धर्म मान लेनेपर उसमें आसक्त होना और उसका बाँधना नहीं बन सकता। इसलिये हे निष्पाप अर्थात् व्यसनदोष -- रहित अर्जुन सुखकी भाँति ही ज्ञान आदिके सङ्ग को भी ( बन्धन करनेवाला ) समझना चाहिये।

Upon the expectancy: what is the definition of the quality, by what does it bind? He says -- 'Tatra' etc. He explains the locative case as having the sense of determination -- 'Tatra Sattvadinam' (Among them, of Sattva etc.).

Again 'Tatra' is merely a restatement? 'Nirmalatvam' means clarity, capability to remove covering? Therefore 'Prakashakam' (illuminating)? Manifesting consciousness? 'Nirupadravam' means pure, manifesting existent happiness, this is the meaning.

He asks by what means it binds the Self -- 'Katham' (How). The answer is it binds by attachment to happiness; he explains that very thing -- 'Sukhyaham' (I am happy) etc.

Here, the modification of Sattva which manifests the principal happiness is spoken of as happiness born of objects. He clarifies the causing of the connection itself -- 'Mrisha eva' (falsely indeed).

Doubting why the qualification 'falsely indeed' is used, since attachment could be real, he says -- 'Sa esha' etc.

Objection: Desire, attachment, and deep adherence are one meaning; there, since desire etc. are attributes of the Self, what is the need for Avidya? Doubting this, and stating that desire etc. are attributes of the mind and hence not attributes of the Self, he says -- 'Na hi' etc.

Doubting what is the proof for desire etc. being attributes of the non-Self, he says -- 'Icchadi cha' etc. Since it is impossible for it to be an attribute of the Self, he states the result -- 'Atah' etc. The completion is: Sattva binds as it were.

He states the reason for using the word 'iva' -- 'Avidyaya' (by Avidya).

In reality, it has no connection with the Self, yet due to the absence of another relatum and due to lack of independence, attributing it as a quality of the Self, he mentions it as being seen -- 'Svakiya' etc.

Since the internal organ possessing modifications is an object, and since the Self is the accomplisher, even though it is the object of that, Avidya is the non-discrimination of that; thus he states its nature -- 'Vishaya' etc.

This is the greatness of the said Avidya that it effects attachment in what is not one's nature and in what is not one's attribute, he says -- 'Asva' etc. He clarifies that -- 'Saktam iva' (attached as it were).

He states the binding nature of Sattva in another way -- 'Tatha' etc. 'That by which it is known' is knowledge, a modification of Sattva; by that, by the inverted conceit 'I am a knower', Sattva binds the Self, he says -- 'Jnanam' etc.

He states the defect in the opposite view -- 'Atma' etc. Since it would be obtained as natural, and connection with it would be automatic there, and if bondage were through that, its cessation would be impossible; therefore it is not an attribute of the Self, this is the meaning.

Regarding knowledge, lordship etc. also which are attributes of the Field, he indicates that attachment is due to Avidya as before -- 'Sukha iva' (like happiness).

He indicates that only one free from defects like sin etc. has competence in this scripture -- 'Anagha' (O sinless one).

What is the definition of the quality? By what attachment does it bind? Upon this expectancy, He says -- "Tatra" etc. Among those qualities like Sattva etc., "Sattva", due to its purity, being clear like a crystal, is "Prakashakam", manifesting consciousness, (and) "Anamayam", free from trouble. Such Sattva binds by "Sukha-sangena" (attachment to happiness), by falsely causing the connection of happiness, which is an object, with the inner Self, the subject, [in the form of the thought] "I am happy". For indeed, by Avidya alone is the attribute of one superimposed on another; desire etc. up to fortitude are stated by the Lord to be attributes of the Field; therefore, by Avidya alone, which constitutes its own nature and is characterized by non-discrimination between object and subject, it unites as it were with happiness which is not the nature of the Self, making the unattached attached as it were. The unhappy as happy as it were. And thus, this is the greatness of the said Avidya that it effects attachment in what is not one's nature and in what is not one's attribute.

He states the cause of Sattva's binding in another way -- "and by attachment to knowledge". "That by which it is known" is knowledge, a modification of Sattva; by that, by the inverted conceit "I am a knower", Sattva binds the Self; "Jnana" (knowledge). Because of association with happiness. They are attributes of the Field alone, the internal organ, not of the Self; because if they were attributes of the Self, attachment would not be possible and bondage would not be possible; attachment in knowledge etc. should be considered just like in happiness,

O "Anagha", free from sin, free from vice? Addressing as "Anagha" (sinless), He indicates that due to the abundance of absence of vices like [attachment to] happiness etc., you do not deserve the bondage employed by Sattva. Some say: He illuminates that only one free from defects like sin etc. has competence in this scripture.

There, who binds by what attachment is said -- "Tatra" etc.

"Tatra", among those qualities, "Sattva", due to purity, i.e., freedom from impurities called pain and delusion, is "Prakashakam", revealing all objects like light. Because it is "Anamayam", unsubjugated by Rajas and Tamas.

It binds the man, whose essential knowledge and bliss are obscured by ignorance, through attachment to happiness and attachment to knowledge, by superimposing happiness and knowledge, which are attributes of the modification of the internal organ, onto the Self through the conceit "I am happy, I am a knower".

O "Anagha", O one free from vices.

"Tatra", among Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas, the nature of Sattva is such -- "Illuminating due to purity". Purity is the state of being free from the nature of covering light and happiness; because of its nature being invariably to generate light and happiness, it is the cause of light and happiness; this is the meaning. "Prakasha" is the understanding of the true nature of things. "Anamayam": the effect called "Amaya" (illness) does not exist? Thus "Anamayam", meaning the cause of health.

This quality named Sattva binds this embodied one by "Sukha-sangena" (attachment to happiness) and "Jnana-sangena" (attachment to knowledge)? Meaning it generates attachment to happiness and attachment to knowledge for the Person. For when attachment to knowledge and happiness arises, one engages in their means, secular and Vedic? And from that, one is born in wombs which are the means for experiencing the results of those [actions]; thus Sattva binds the Person through attachment to happiness and knowledge. It is said that Sattva is the generator of knowledge and happiness, and again the generator of attachment to them.

There, He states the definition of Sattva and the mode of binding -- "Tatra" etc. "Tatra", among those qualities, "Sattva", "Nirmalatvat", due to clearness, like a crystal, is "Prakashakam" (illuminating), shining? And "Anamayam", free from trouble. Meaning peaceful.

Therefore, due to being peaceful, it binds by the attachment to its effect, happiness.

And due to being illuminating, it binds by the attachment to its effect, knowledge. O "Anagha", sinless one? "I am happy and a knower"—these are attributes of the mind; meaning it unites them with the Knower of the Field who identifies with them.

He states the connection of the three verses beginning with 'Tatra' to the context -- 'Sattva' etc. 'Akara' (Form)? Meaning the defining nature. 'Tatra' is a collective reference with the sense of determination, he says -- 'Among Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas'.

Objection: Luminosity is not seen in pure things like crystal beads etc.; to this he says -- 'Prakasha' etc. The word 'Mala' (impurity) here refers to the form which obstructs light, constituting the nature of Tamas; this is the meaning. 'Happiness' is mentioned here due to reference to what will be described later.

Even for Akasha, Vayu, etc., which are devoid of the nature of covering, there is no luminosity; to this he says -- 'By the nature of invariably generating light and happiness'. Since Rajas and Tamas mixed with Sattva will be described as causes of specific delusive cognitions, how is it that here Sattva alone is the generator of light? To this he says -- 'Light is the understanding of the true nature of things'. The idea is that even in Rajasic and Tamasic cognitions, the illumination of the nature of the substratum etc. is the part of Sattva.

Since there is no contingency of 'Amaya' (disease/defect) in Sattva, its negation is not appropriate; to this he says -- 'The effect called Amaya does not exist'. Here, in the other Guna mentioned together, there is a connection with Amaya as an effect? That (Amaya) which is contingent here is negated; this is the idea. The negation of the effect called Amaya here is intended to effectively prescribe another contrary effect, he says -- 'Cause of health'.

'It binds'—just like in the next two verses, here too he states the division of the sentence by defining the nature and defining the causality of bondage -- 'Esha' etc. The third case (instrumental) merely establishes the instrumentality of attachment to happiness etc. which is established from elsewhere, and that is not correct? Because another cause is not mentioned. To this he says -- 'Of the Person'. The idea is that the intermediate operation of bondage is intended here. Bondage is indeed connection with the body for experiencing fruits of Action, and that is rooted in Action? How is that from attachment to happiness etc.? To this he says -- 'Of knowledge and happiness'.

Objection: It is correct that the performance of Vedic means happens only by obtaining a (specific) womb? But secular means would be for visible results only or not, but not for accomplishing another birth etc. Even as an example of activity, taking the secular is of weak purpose. Here we say -- Here by the word 'secular' (Laukika), Smarta (actions) are grasped? Or forbidden (actions) are grasped; for violence etc. being a means to happiness is secular; but by invisible power, it accomplishes sinful births etc. -- thus. And in (the commentary on) Rajas he will say 'And those actions are of the nature of merit and sin'.

If Sattva alone generates light and happiness by itself? Then, when those two are established, attachment which is the cause of activity would not arise; to this he says -- 'Knowledge and happiness'. Meaning, by the logic of seed and sprout, Sattva is the accomplisher of the subsequent attachment and its objects. With the intention that 'attachment is not yours', who speaks like 'I do not desire victory' [1.31] etc., the word 'Anagha' (sinless) is used.

विज्ञान की सभी शाखाओं में इस तथ्य को स्वीकार किया गया है कि किसी वस्तु के लक्षणों का वर्णन किये बिना उसे परिभाषित नहीं किया जा सकता है। किसी रोग या किसी भावना के विषय में भी यही बात सत्य है। इसी प्रकार इन गुणों की भी अपने आप में कोई परिभाषा नहीं दी जा सकती। आगे के श्लोकों में यह वर्णन किया गया है कि इन गुणों के लक्षण क्या हैं तथा जब कभी कोई गुण अधिक प्रबल हो जाता है? तब उससे प्रभावित व्यक्ति का व्यवहार किस प्रकार होता है। निसन्देह? यह लक्षणात्मक वर्णन हम साधकों के लिए अधिक सहायक होगा? क्योंकि हम अपने मन में उठने वाले विचारों एवं भावनाओं का निरीक्षण और विश्लेषण कर यह निश्चित कर सकेंगे कि किसी क्षण विशेष में हम कौन से गुण के वश में हैं। इस प्रकार? उस प्रभाव के बन्धन से मुक्त होने का प्रयत्न भी हम कर सकेंगे।निर्मल होने से सत्त्वगुण प्रकाशमय है जिस प्रकार जल स्वत शुद्ध होता है? परन्तु अन्य मिश्रणों से अशुद्ध बन जाता है। उसी प्रकार सत्त्वगुण भी स्वत निर्मल होने से प्रकाशक अर्थात् आत्मचैतन्य को स्पष्ट प्रतिबिम्बित करने वाला है। उसमें न रजोगुण का विक्षेप है न तमोगुण का घोर अज्ञान।अनामय इस शब्द का अर्थ है उपद्रवरहित अर्थात् दोषरहित। आत्मस्वरूप का अज्ञान तथा उससे उत्पन्न अहंकार और स्वार्थ ही मूल दोष हैं? जिनसे अन्य अनर्थों की उत्पत्ति होती है। ये दोष रजोगुण और तमोगुण से ही उत्पन्न होते हैं। इसलिये यहाँ कहा गया है कि सत्त्वगुण स्वत इन दोषों से रहित है। यद्यपि सत्त्वगुण निर्मल है तथापि वह भी बन्धनकारक होता है। उससे उत्पन्न होने वाले बंधनों का निर्देश यहाँ किया गया है।सत्त्वगुण सुख और ज्ञान की आसक्ति से जीव को बांधता है अपने आनन्दस्वरूप को न जानकर जीव सदैव विषयों में ही सुख की खोज करता रहता है। यह अज्ञान तमोगुण का लक्षण है तथा विषयों में सुख की कल्पना और विक्षेप रजोगुण का लक्षण है। प्रयत्नों के फलस्वरूप जब कभी इष्ट विषय की प्राप्ति होती है? तब क्षणभर के लिये विक्षेपों की शान्ति हो जाती है। उस शान्त स्थिति में आत्मा का आनन्द अभिव्यक्त होता है। परन्तु जीव यही समझता है कि वह सुख उसे विषय से प्राप्त हुआ है और मन की उस सुख वृत्ति के साथ तादात्म्य करके कहता है? मैं सुखी हूँ। इस प्रकार? विषयोपभोग से उत्पन्न यह सुखवृत्ति क्षेत्र का धर्म होने पर भी उसे अपना धर्म समझ कर उसमें आसक्त होना ही सत्त्वगुण से उत्पन्न हुआ बंधन है।सत्त्वगुण प्रधान बुद्धि स्वभावत स्थिर होती है। इसलिये उसमें चैतन्य का प्रकाश स्पष्टरूप से प्रतिबिम्बित होता है। इस प्रतिबिम्बित प्रकाश को ही हम बुद्धि का प्रकाश कहते हैं? जिसके द्वारा हमें विषयों का ज्ञान होता है। यही कारण है कि इस गुण के न्यूनाधिक्य के कारण ही सभी व्यक्तियों की बौद्धिक क्षमता एक समान नहीं होती।इस प्रकार? बुद्धि के इस प्रकाश से प्रकाशित होकर विषय के ज्ञान की वृत्ति अन्तकरण में उदित होती है मनुष्य इसी वृत्ति के साथ तादात्म्य करके अभिमानपूर्वक कहता है? मैं इस वस्तु का ज्ञाता हूँ। यहाँ भी क्षेत्र के धर्म के साथ तादात्म्य है और यही ज्ञान से आसक्ति का बन्धन है।इन दोनों का सरल अर्थ यह भी है कि जब मनुष्य को सूक्ष्मतर सुख या ज्ञान का अनुभव हो जाता है? तब उसका मन उसी में इतना अधिक आसक्त होकर रमता है कि उसका ध्यान सूक्ष्मतम वस्तु की ओर सहसा आकर्षित ही नहीं होता। यह सत्त्वगुण का बन्धन है। यह स्वर्ण की शृंखला है? परन्तु है तो शृंखला हीभगवान् कहते हैं कि सत्त्वगुण सुख संग और ज्ञान के साथ आसक्ति से बांध देता है। एक बार जब कोई व्यक्ति रचनात्मक चिन्तन तथा सदाचार और ज्ञान के अनुप्राणित जीवन के सात्त्विक आनन्द का अनुभव कर लेता है? तब उसमें वह इतना आसक्त हो जाता है कि फिर उसके लिये वह अपने सर्वस्व का भी त्याग करने के लिये तत्पर रहता है। विज्ञान को अपना जीवन समर्पित किये हुये प्रयोगशाला में कार्यरत एक सच्चा वैज्ञानिक क्षुधा और व्याधि से दुर्बल अपनी चित्रशाला में चित्रांकन कर रहा चित्रकार समाज द्वारा बहिष्कृत सार्वजनिक उद्यानों में रहकर अपनी कल्पनाओं? भावों और शब्दों के ही आनन्द में निमग्न एक कवि क्रूर उत्पीड़न को सहने वाले देशभक्त दीर्घकाल तक देश निष्कासन का जीवन जीने वाले राजनीतिज्ञ मृत्यु का आलिंगन करने वाले पर्वतारोही ये सब उदाहरण ऐसे पुरुषों के हैं? जिन्हें सात्त्विक आनन्द का अनुभव होता है और जो उसी में आसक्त हो जाते हैं? जैसे स्थूल बुद्धि के लोग धन तथा अन्य भौतिक वस्तुओं के परिग्रह में आसक्त रहते हैं।रजोगुण का बन्धन निम्न प्रकार से होता है

The nature of these is stated in order -- from 'Tatra' etc. up to 'Bharata'. Sattva is pure. From which is the origin of attachment to thirst (is Rajas).

'Pramada' (negligence) is the wasting in vain of human life, which is the sole cause for attaining liberation, even though it is difficult to obtain and obtained by hundreds of merits accumulated over a very long time.

For it is said -- 'A single moment of life cannot be obtained even by all jewels. By whom it is spent in vain, he is negligent, the lowest of men. ||14||

(Or as in Srimad Bhagavata -- Age is stolen by sleep at night and by sex. And by day by desire for wealth, O King, or by maintaining the family. ||1|| Even though body, children, wife etc., who are one's own army, are impermanent; the negligent one, seeing their destruction, does not see. ||2|| -- Bhagavata Purana 2.1.3-4. Also -- What is the use of many years unknown to the negligent one here? Better is a moment known, from which one strives for the highest good. ||3|| -- ibid 12. This very negligence is determined by the Lord as suicide in the eleventh Skandha there itself, as -- The human body is the primal boat, easily obtained (yet) very difficult to obtain, well-made, with the Guru as the helmsman; propelled by Me as the favorable wind; the man who would not cross the ocean of existence (with it), he is a killer of the self. ||4|| -- ibid 11.20.17.)

'Alasya' (Laziness) is regarding auspicious duties. 'Nidra' (Sleep) is the state of complete 'Dranam', a bad state.

There, which Guna binds by which attachment, is stated — 'Tatra' (There). 'Tatra', meaning among those Gunas, Sattva is 'Prakashakam' (illuminating); it is the remover of the covering created by the Tamas Guna over Consciousness; due to being 'Nirmala' (pure), due to being transparent. The import is: because it is capable of catching the reflection of Consciousness (Chit-bimba). It is not only the revealer of Consciousness, but 'Anamayam'. 'Amaya' means sorrow; it is the revealer of happiness which is opposed to that (sorrow); this is the meaning.

That (Sattva) binds the Embodied one by attachment to happiness and by attachment to knowledge, O Anagha (Sinless one). The intention of the addresses everywhere should be remembered as stated before.

Here, by the words happiness and knowledge, the modifications of the internal organ (antahkarana) which manifest them are spoken of. Because in 'Desire, hatred, pleasure, pain, aggregate, intelligence, fortitude', happiness and intelligence (knowledge) are also read as properties of the Field (Kshetra) like desire etc.

There, the 'Sanga' (attachment) is the superimposition of happiness and knowledge — which are properties of the internal organ — onto the Self; such as 'I am happy', 'I know'. For indeed, the attribute of the object cannot belong to the subject. Therefore, all this is merely Avidya; this has been stated hundreds of times before.

Now He states the method of bondage of the three along with definitions -- 'Tatra' etc. 'Tatra', in the triad of Gunas, 'Sattva', 'Nirmalatvat', due to purity by being the cause of the stability of objects consisting of the Lord's will, is 'Prakashakam', capable of revealing the nature of all which consists of the Lord's play, (and) 'Anamayam', free from defects like attachment etc. which are obstacles to the service of the Lord?

Therefore, it binds 'Sukha-sangena', by attachment to the excellence of the body etc. which generate the happiness of service which is the means to the Lord. 'Cha' (And) again, it binds 'Jnana-sangena', by being the accomplisher of the origin of knowledge.

By the address 'Anagha' (Sinless), it is made known that 'due to being distinguished by My grace, there is no bondage for you'.

Due to purity, like a crystal bead, illuminating and 'Anamayam', free from trouble, Sattva binds. How? 'Sukha-sangena' (By attachment to happiness); causing the connection of happiness, which is an object, with the Self, the subject, in the form 'I am happy', is attachment to happiness, falsely indeed. This is that Avidya.

For the attribute of the object does not belong to the subject. And 'Desire etc. up to fortitude' are attributes of the Field alone, the object—thus it has been said by the Lord. Therefore, by Avidya alone, which is its own nature and characterized by non-discrimination between object and subject, it unites as it were with happiness which is not the nature of the Self? It makes him attached as it were? It makes the unattached attached as it were? The non-happy as happy as it were.

Similarly 'by attachment to knowledge' also? 'Knowledge', due to association with happiness, is an attribute of the Field alone, the object, the internal organ? Not of the Self; because if it were an attribute of the Self, attachment would not be possible? And bondage would not be possible. Attachment in knowledge etc. should be considered just like in happiness. O 'Anagha', O one free from vice.

Speaking there in order the definition of the Gunas and the mode of bondage, first of Sattva, He states that -- "Tatra" etc. Sattva, due to being born of Prakriti, binds by worldly "attachment to happiness" and "attachment to knowledge"? Meaning it generates attachment in happiness and knowledge for the Person.

When attachment to knowledge and happiness is born, the Person's activity occurs in their means, secular and Vedic? And from that, he is born in wombs which are the means for experiencing the results of those actions; thus Sattva binds the Person by the rule, through that means.

Exactly so elsewhere. The definition is indeed stated in the root text itself as "due to purity"? Similarly, the definition of the other two also is clear in the root text. And thus, it is said that the natural Sattva is binding by generating attachment to knowledge and happiness in the form "I am that happy one and the knower of sound etc."

तत्र of these? सत्त्वम् purity? निर्मलत्वात् from its stainlessness? प्रकाशकम् luminous? अनामयम् healthy? सुखसङ्गेन by attachment to happiness? बध्नाति binds? ज्ञानसङ्गेन by attachment to knowledge? च and? अनग O sinless one.Commentary Sattva is stainless like the crystal. It lays for one the trap of happiness and knowledge. It is a golden fetter. A Sattvic man compares himself with others and rejoices in his excellence. He is puffed up with his knowledge. His heart is filled with pride when he thinks that he,has more comforts or more pleasant experiences. He thinks? I am happy I am wise? and so he is bound as it were. These ideas really belong to the field but they are transferred through superimposition to the Self on account of the force of SattvaGuna.Rajas and Tamas are pitfalls on the path of knowledge.This attachment to happiness is an illusion. This is ignorance. An attribute of the object cannot belong to the subject. All the alities from desire to firmness (Cf.XIII.6) belong to the field. From ignorance? nondiscrimination is born and so the individual self is not able to discriminate between the permanent and the impermanent? the subject and the object.Knowledge is an attribute of the Antahkarana (inner instrument? viz.? mind? intellect? the unconscious and the ego) but not of the Self. It if were an attribute of the Self? it could not produce attachment and bondage. Sattva binds the soul to knowledge through attachment.

Tatra, among them, among sattva etc.;-the characteristics of sattva itself is being stated first-sattva, nirmalatvat, being pure like a crystal stone;is prakasakam, an illuminator; and anamayam, harmless. Anagha, O sinless one; badhnati, it binds. How? Sukhasangena, through attachment to happiness. Bringing about the association of happiness, which is the object, with the Self, which is the subject, in the form of the idea, 'I am happy', is certainly an unreal contact with happiness. This as such is nescience, for the ality of an object cannot belong to a subject. And it has been said by the Lord that all the alities, from 'desire' to 'fortitude' (see 13.6), are, indeed, of the field, which is the object. Therefore, it is certainly through nescience, which is an attribute [In reality, though nescience has no connection with the Self, yet, since there is none other with which it can become associated and since it has no independence, therefore the Commentator imagines it as an attribute of the Self.] of the Self and has the characteristics of non-discrimination between object and subject, that sattva apparently brings about the association with happiness, which is not the Self. It makes (the Self) attached, as it were; [Here Ast. adds 'asangam saktam iva, (makes) the Unattached attached, as it were'.-Tr.] makes one not possessed of happiness as though possessed of it!
Similarly, it binds also jnana-sangena, through attachment to knowledge. [Jnana, derived in the sense of 'that through which one knows,' means an instrument of knowledge, and not Consciousness.
(S.: Knowledge arising from the study of the import of various scriptures; or, jnanam, means the scriptures, through which the supreme God is known and which leads to devotional practices, but not to steadfastness in (the absolute) Brahman.] Because of its concomitance with happiness, knowledge here is an attribute of the internal organ, the field, but not of the Self. Were it an attribute [If knowledge were a natural attribute of the Self, then there can be no estion of the latter again becoming bound through association with the former.] of the Self, there could be no contact (between it and the Self), and 'bondage' would become illogical. Association with knowledge etc. should be understood in the same sense as with happiness.

Of 'these', i.e., of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas, the characteristic nature of the Sattva is this: it illuminates on account of its being pure. What is called purity is to be bereft of alities which veil light and happiness. Because its nature is solely the generation of light and happiness, it constitutes the cause of light and happiness. 'Light' or illumination is enlightenment about a thing as it is. It is 'not morbid,' i.e., an effect called morbidity (disease) does not exist in its presence. The meaning is, that Sattva is the cause of health.
The Guna, called Sattva, however, binds the self by attachment to happiness and knowledge. The meaning is that it causes attachment to happiness and knowledge. When attachment to knowledge and happiness is born, one engages oneself in secular and Vedic means for securing them. Conseently, one is born in such bodies which constitute the means for realising such fruits. Hence the Sattva binds the self through attachment to happiness and knowledge. What is said is this: Sattva generates knowledge and happiness; again it generates attachment to them.