Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 15 - Shloka (Verse) 3

व्याख्या -- न रूपमस्येह तथोपलभ्यते -- इसी अध्यायके पहले श्लोकमें संसारवृक्षके विषयमें कहा गया है कि लोग इसको अव्यय (अविनाशी) कहते हैं और शास्त्रोंमें भी वर्णन आता है कि सकामअनुष्ठान करनेसे लोकपरलोकमें विशाल भोग प्राप्त होते हैं। ऐसी बातें सुनकर मनुष्यलोक तथा स्वर्गलोकमें सुख? रमणीयता और स्थायीपन मालूम देता है। इसी कारण अज्ञानी मनुष्य काम और भोगके परायण होते हैं और इससे बढ़कर कोई सुख नहीं है -- ऐसा उनका निश्चय हो जाता है (गीता 2। 42 16। 11)। जबतक संसारसे तादात्म्य? ममता और कामनाका सम्बन्ध है? तबतक ऐसा ही प्रतीत होता है। परन्तु भगवान् कहते हैं कि विवेकवती बुद्धिसे संसारसे अलग होकर अर्थात् संसारसे सम्बन्धविच्छेद करके देखनेसे उसका जैसा रूप हमने अभी मान रखा है? वैसा उपलब्ध नहीं होता अर्थात् यह नाशवान् और दुःखरूप प्रतीत होता है।नान्तो न चादिर्न च सम्प्रतिष्ठा -- किसी वस्तुके आदि? मध्य और अन्तका ज्ञान दो तरहका होता है -- देशकृत और कालकृत। इस संसारका कहाँसे आरम्भ है? कहाँ मध्य है और कहाँ इसका अन्त होता है -- इस प्रकारसे संसारके देशकृत आदि? मध्य? अन्तका पता नहीं और कबसे इसका आरम्भ हुआ है? कबतक यह रहेगा और कब इसका अन्त होगा -- इस प्रकारसे संसारके कालकृत आदि? मध्य? अन्तका भी पता नहीं।मनुष्य किसी विशाल प्रदर्शनीमें तरहतरहकी वस्तुओंको देखकर मुग्ध हुआ घूमता रहे? तो वह उस प्रदर्शनीका आदिअन्त नहीं जान सकता। उस प्रदर्शनीसे बाहर निकलनेपर ही वह उसके आदिअन्तको जान सकता है। इसी तरह संसारसे सम्बन्ध मानकर भोगोंकी तरफ वृत्ति रखते हुए इस संसारका आदिअन्त कभी जाननेमें नहीं आ सकता।मनुष्यके पास संसारके आदिअन्तका पता लगानेके लिये जो साधन (इन्द्रियाँ? मन और बुद्धि) हैं? वे सब संसारके ही अंश हैं। यह नियम है कि कार्य अपने कारणमें विलीन तो हो सकता है? पर उसको जान नहीं सकता। जैसे मिट्टीका घड़ा पृथ्वीको अपने भीतर नहीं ला सकता? ऐसे ही व्यष्टि इन्द्रियाँमनबुद्धि समष्टि,संसार और उसके कार्यको अपनी जानकारीमें नहीं ला सकते। अतः संसारसे (मन? बुद्धि? इन्द्रियोंसे भी) अलग होनेपर संसारका स्वरूप (स्वयंके द्वारा) ठीकठीक जाना जा सकता है।वास्तवमें संसारकी स्वतन्त्र सत्ता (स्थिति) है ही नहीं। केवल उत्पत्ति और विनाशका क्रममात्र है। संसारका यह उत्पत्तिविनाशका प्रवाह ही स्थितिरूपसे प्रतीत होता है। वास्तवमें देखा जाय तो उत्पत्ति भी नही है? केवल नाशहीनाश है। जिसका स्वरूप एक क्षण भी स्थायी न रहता हो? ऐसे संसारकी प्रतिष्ठा (स्थिति) कैसी संसारसे अपना माना हुआ सम्बन्ध छोड़ते ही उसका अपने लिये अन्त हो जाता है और अपने वास्तविक स्वरूप अथवा परमात्मामें स्थिति हो जाती है।विशेष बातइस संसारके आदि? मध्य और अन्तका पता आजतक कोई वैज्ञानिक नहीं लगा सका और न ही लगा सकता है। संसारसे सम्बन्ध रखते हुए अथवा सांसारिक भोगोंको भोगते हुए संसारके आदि? मध्य और अन्तको ढूँढ़ना चाहें? तो कोल्हूके बैलकी तरह उम्रभर रहनेपर भी कुछ हाथ आनेका नहीं।वास्तवमें इस संसारके आदि? मध्य और अन्तका पता लगानेकी जरूरत भी नहीं है। जरूरत संसारसे अपने माने हुए सम्बन्धका विच्छेद करनेकी ही है।संसार अनादिसान्त है या अनादिअनन्त है अथवा प्रतीतिमात्र है? इत्यादि विषयोंपर दार्शनिकोंमें अनेक मतभेद हैं परन्तु संसारके साथ हमारा सम्बन्ध असत् है? जिसका विच्छेद करना आवश्यक है -- इस विषयपर सभी दार्शनिक एकमत हैं।संसारसे सम्बन्धविच्छेद करनेका सुगम उपाय है -- संसारसे प्राप्त (मन? बुद्धि? इन्द्रियाँ? शरीर? धन? सम्पत्ति आदि) सम्पूर्ण सामग्रीको अपनी और अपने लिये न मानते हुए उसको संसारकी ही सेवामें लगा देना।सांसारिक स्त्री? पुत्र? मान? बड़ाई? धन? सम्पत्ति? आयु? नीरोगता आदि कितने ही प्राप्त हो जायँ यहाँतक कि संसारके समस्त भोग एक ही मनुष्यको मिल जायँ? तो भी उनसे मनुष्यको तृप्ति नहीं हो सकती क्योंकि जीव स्वयं अविनाशी है और सांसारिक भोग नाशवान् हैं। नाशवान्से अविनाशी कैसे तृप्त हो सकता हैअश्वत्थमेनं सुविरूढमूलम् -- संसारको सुविरूढमूलम् कहनेका तात्पर्य यह है कि तादात्म्य? ममता और कामनाके कारण यह संसार (प्रतिष्ठारहित होनेपर भी) दृढ़ मूलोंवाला प्रतीत हो रहा है।व्यक्ति? पदार्थ? क्रिया आदिमें राग? ममता होनेसे सांसारिक बन्धन अधिकसेअधिक दृढ़ होता चला जाता है। जिन पदार्थों? व्यक्तियोंमें राग? ममताका घनिष्ठ सम्बन्ध हो जाता है? उनको मनुष्य अपना स्वरूप ही मानने लग जाता है। जैसे? धनमें ममता होनेसे उसकी प्राप्तिमें मनुष्यको बड़ी प्रसन्नता होती है और मैं बड़ा धनवान् हूँ -- ऐसा अभिमान हो जाता है। धनके नाशसे वह अपना नाश मानने लग जाता है। लोभ बढ़नेसे धनकी प्राप्तिके लिये वह अन्याय? पाप आदि न करनेलायक काम भी कर बैठता है। फिर इतना लोभ बढ़ जाता है कि उसके भीतर यह दृढ़ निश्चय हो जाता है कि झूठ? कपट? बेईमानी आदिके बिना धन कमाया ही नहीं जा सकता। उसे यह विचार ही नहीं होता कि पापसे धन कमाकर मैं यहाँ कितने दिन ठहरूँगा पापसे कमाया धन तो शरीरके साथ यहीँ छूट जायगा किंतु धनके लिये किये झूठ? कपट? बेईमानी? चोरी आदि पाप तो मेरे साथ जायँगे (टिप्पणी प0 748)? जिससे परलोकमें मेरी कितनी दुर्गति होगी आदि। इतना ही नहीं? वह दूसरोंको भी प्रेरणा करने लग जाता है कि धन कमानेके लिये पाप करनेमें कोई खराबी नहीं यह तो व्यापार है? इसमें झूठ बोलना? ठगना आदि सब उचित है इत्यादि। इस दुर्भावका होना ही तादात्म्य? ममता और कामनारूप मूलोंका दृढ़ होना है। इस प्रकारके दूषित भावोंके दृढ़मूल होनेसे मनुष्य वैसा ही बन जाता है (गीता 17। 3)।ये तादात्म्य? ममता और कामनारूप मूल अन्तःकरणमें इतनी दृढ़तासे जमे हुए हैं कि पढ़ने? सुनने तथा विचारविवेचन करनेपर भी सर्वथा नष्ट नहीं होते। साधक प्रायः कहा करते हैं कि सत्सङ्गचर्चा सुनते समय तो इन दोषोंके त्यागकी बात अच्छी और सुगम लगती है परन्तु व्यवहारमें आनेपर ऐसा होता नहीं। इनको छोड़ना तो चाहते हैं? पर ये छूटते नहीं। इन दोषोंके न छूटनेमें खास कारण है -- सांसारिक सुख लेनेकी इच्छा। साधकसे भूल यह होती है कि वह सांसारिक सुख भी लेना चाहता है और साथ ही दोषोंसे भी बचना चाहता है। जैसे लोभी व्यक्ति विषयुक्त लड्डुओंकी मिठासको भी लेना चाहे और साथ ही विषसे भी बचना चाहे ऐसा कभी सम्भव नहीं है। संसारसे कभी किञ्चिन्मात्र भी सुखकी आशा न रखनेपर इसका दृढ़मूल स्वतः नष्ट हो जाता है।दूसरी बात यह है कि तादात्म्य? ममता और कामनाका मिटना बहुत कठिन है -- साधककी यह मान्यता ही इन दोषोंको मिटने नहीं देती। वास्तवमें तो ये स्वतः मिट रहे हैं। किसी भी मनुष्यमें ये दोष सदा नहीं रहते उत्पन्न और नष्ट होते रहते हैं किंतु अपनी मान्यताके कारण ये स्थायी दीखते हैं। अतः साधकको चाहिये कि वह इन दोषोंके मिटनेको कभी कठिन न माने।असङ्गशस्त्रेण दृढेन छित्त्वा -- भगवान् कहते हैं कि यद्यपि इस संसारवृक्षके अवान्तर मूल बहुत दृढ़ हैं? फिर भी इनको दृढ़ असङ्गतारूप शस्त्रके द्वारा काटा जा सकता है। किसी भी स्थान? व्यक्ति? वस्तु? परिस्थिति आदिके प्रति मनमें आकर्षण? सुखबुद्धिका होना और उनके सम्बन्धसे अपनेआपको बड़ा तथा सुखी मानना पदार्थोंके प्राप्त होने अथवा संग्रह होनेपर प्रसन्न होना -- यही सङ्ग कहलाता है। इसका न होना ही असङ्गता अर्थात् वैराग्य है। वैराग्यके दो प्रकार हैं -- (1) साधारण वैराग्य और (2) दृढ़ वैराग्य। दृढ़ वैराग्यको उपरति अथवा पर वैराग्य भी कहते हैं।वैराग्यसम्बन्धी विशेष बात वैराग्यके अनेक रूप हैं? जो इस प्रकार हैं -- पहला वैराग्य धन? मकान? जमीन आदि पदार्थोंसे होता है। इन पदार्थोंका स्वरूपसे त्याग कर देनेपर भी अगर मनमें उनका महत्त्व बना हुआ है और मैं त्यागी हूँ -- ऐसा अभिमान है? तो वास्तवमें यह वैराग्य नहीं है। अन्तःकरणमें जडपदार्थोंका किञ्चिन्मात्र भी महत्त्व और आकर्षण न रहे -- यही वैराग्य है। दूसरा वैराग्य अपने कहलानेवाले माता? पिता? स्त्री? पुत्र? भाई? भौजाई आदि(परिवार)से होता है। उनकी सेवा करने या उनको सुख पहुँचानेके लिये ही उनसे अपना सम्बन्ध मानना चाहिये। अपने सुखके लिये उनसे किञ्चिन्मात्र भी अपना सम्बन्ध न मानना ही बन्धुबान्धवोंसे वैराग्य है।तीसरा और वास्तविक वैराग्य अपने शरीरसे होता है। अगर शरीरसे सम्बन्ध बना हुआ है तो सम्पूर्ण संसारसे सम्बन्ध बना हुआ है क्योंकि शरीर संसारका ही बीज अथवा अंश है। शरीरसे तादात्म्य न रहना ही शरीरसे वैराग्य है।तादात्म्य (शरीरके साथ मानी हुई एकता अर्थात् अहंता) का नाश करनेके लिये साधकको पहले मान? प्रतिष्ठा? पूजा? धन आदिकी कामनाका त्याग करना चाहिये। इनकी कामनाका त्याग करनेपर भी (शऱीरके) नाम में ममता रहनेके कारण यश? कीर्ति? बड़ाई आदिकी कामना रह जाती है। इसके कारण मरनेके बाद,भी अपने नामकी कीर्ति? अपना स्मारक बननेकी चाह आदि सूक्ष्म कामनाएँ रह जाती हैं। इन सब कामनाओंका नाश करना आवश्यक है। कहींकहीं साधकके भीतर दूसरोंकी प्रशंसा सुनकर? दूसरेकी बड़ाई देखकर ईर्ष्याका भाव जाग्रत् हो जाता है। अतः इसका भी नाश करना आवश्यक है।उपर्युक्त कामनाओंका नाश करनेके बाद शरीरमें ममता रह जाती है। यह ममताका सम्बन्ध मृत्युके बाद भी बना रहता है। इसी कारण मृत शरीरको जला देनेके बाद भी हड्डियोंको गङ्गाजीमें डालनेसे जीव(जिसने शरीरमें ममता की है)की आगे गति होती है। विवेक (जडचेतन? प्रकृतिपुरुष अथवा शरीरशरीरीकी भिन्नताका ज्ञान) जाग्रत् होनेपर ममताका नाश हो जाता है। कामना और ममता -- दोनोंका नाश होनेके बाद तादात्म्य (अहंता) नष्टप्राय हो जाता है अर्थात् बहुत सूक्ष्म रह जाता है। तादात्म्यका अत्यन्ताभाव भगवत्प्रेमकी प्राप्ति होनेपर होता है।जब मनुष्य स्वयं यह अनुभव कर लेता है कि मैं शरीर नहीं हूँ शरीर मेरा नहीं है? तब कामना? ममता और तादात्म्य -- तीनों मिट जाते हैं। यही वास्तविक वैराग्य है।,जिसके भीतर दृढ़ वैराग्य है उसके अन्तःकरणमें सम्पूर्ण वासनाओँका नाश हो जाता है। अपने स्वरूपसे विजातीय (जड) पदार्थ -- शरीर? इन्द्रियाँ? मन? बुद्धि? आदिसे किञ्चिन्मात्र भी अपना सम्बन्ध न मानकर -- सबका कल्याण हो? सब सुखी हों? सब नीरोग हों? कभी किसीको किञ्चिन्मात्र भी दुःख न हो (टिप्पणी प0 750.1) -- इस भावका रहना ही दृढ़ वैराग्यका लक्षण है।यह(इदम्) रूपसे जाननेमें आनेवाले स्थूल? सूक्ष्म और कारणशरीरसहित सम्पूर्ण संसारको जाननेवाला,मैं? (अहम्) कहलाता है। यह? (जाननेमें आनेवाला दृश्य) और मैं (जाननेवाला द्रष्टा) कभी एक नहीं हो सकते -- यह नियम है। इस प्रकार संसार और शरीर नष्ट होनेवाले हैं और मैं (स्वयं) अविनाशी है -- इस विवेकका आदर करते हुए अपनेआपको संसार और शरीरसे सर्वथा अलग अनुभव करना ही असङ्गशस्त्रके द्वारा संसारवृक्षका छेदन करना है। इस विवेकको महत्त्व न देनेके कारण ही संसार दृढ़ मूलोंवाला प्रतीत होता है।सांसारिक वस्तुओंका अत्यन्ताभाव अर्थात् सर्वथा नाश तो नहीं हो सकता? पर उनमें रागका सर्वथा अभाव हो सकता है। अतः छेदन का तात्पर्य सांसारिक वस्तुओंका नाश करना नहीं? प्रत्युत उनसे अपना राग हटा लेना है। संसारसे सम्बन्धविच्छेद होनेपर संसारका अपने लिये सर्वथा अभाव हो जाता है? जिसे,आत्यन्तिक प्रलय भी कहते हैं। जो हमारा स्वरूप नहीं है तथा जिसके साथ हमारा वास्तविक सम्बन्ध नहीं है? उसीका त्याग (छेदन) होता है। हम स्वरूपतः चेतन और अविनाशी हैं एवं संसार जड और विनाशी है अतः संसारसे हमारा सम्बन्ध अवास्तविक और भूलसे माना हुआ है। स्वरूपसे हम संसारसे असङ्ग ही हैं। पहलेसे ही जो असङ्ग है? वही असङ्ग होता है -- यह नियम है। अतः संसारसे हमारी असङ्गता स्वतःसिद्ध है -- इस वास्तविकताको दृढ़तासे मान लेना चाहिये। संसार कितना ही सुविरूढमूल क्यों न हो? उसके साथ अपना सम्बन्ध न माननेसे वह स्वतः कट जाता है क्योंकि संसारके साथ अपना सम्बन्ध है नहीं? केवल माना हुआ है। अतः संसारके साथ अपना सम्बन्ध न माननेसे उसका छेदन हो जाता है -- इसमें साधकको सन्देह नहीं करना चाहिये चाहे (आरम्भमें) व्यवहारमें ऐसा दिखायी दे या न दे।जीवने अपनी भूलसे शरीरसंसारसे सम्बन्ध माना था। इसलिये इसका छेदन करनेकी जिम्मेवारी भी जीवपर ही है। अतः भगवान् इसे ही छेदन करनेके लिये कह रहे हैं। संसारसे सम्बन्धविच्छेदके कुछ सुगम उपाय(1) कुछ भी लेनेकी इच्छा न रखकर संसारसे प्राप्त सामग्रीको संसारकी सेवामें ही लगा देना।(2) सांसारिक सुख(भोग और संग्रह) की कामनाका सर्वथा त्याग करना।(3) संसारके आश्रयका सर्वथा त्याग करना।(4) शरीरसंसारसे मैं और मेरापनको बिलकुल हटा लेना।(5) मैं भगवान्का हूँ भगवान् मेरे हैं -- इस वास्तविकतापर दृढ़तासे डटे रहेना।(6) मुझे एक परमात्माकी तरफ ही चलना है -- ऐसे दृढ़ निश्चय(व्यवसायात्मिका बुद्धि) का होना।(7) शास्त्रविहित अपनेअपने कर्तव्यकर्मों(स्वधर्म) का तत्परतापूर्वक पालन करना (टिप्पणी प0 750.2) (गीता 18। 45)।(8) बचपनमें शरीर? पदार्थ? परिस्थिति? विद्या? सामर्थ्य आदि जैसे थे? वैसे अब नहीं हैं अर्थात् वे सबकेसब बदल गये? पर मैं स्वयं वही हूँ? बदला नहीं -- अपने इस अनुभवको महत्त्व देना।(9) संसारसे माने हुए सम्बन्धका सद्भाव (सत्ताभाव) मिटाना। सम्बन्ध -- संसारवृक्षका छेदन करनेके बाद साधकको क्या करना चाहिये -- इसका विवेचन आगेके श्लोकमें करते हैं।

यह जो वर्णन किया हुआ संसारवृक्ष है --, इसका स्वरूप जैसा यहाँ वर्णन किया गया है? वैसा उपलब्ध नहीं होता क्योंकि यह स्वप्नकी वस्तु? मृगतृष्णाके जल और मायारचित गन्धर्वनगरके समान होनेसे? देखतेदेखते नष्ट होनेवाला है। इसी कारण इसका अन्त अर्थात् अन्तिमावस्थाअवसान या समाप्ति भी नहीं है। तथा इसका आदि भी नहीं है? अर्थात् यहाँसे आरम्भ होकर यह संसार चला है? ऐसा किसीसे नहीं जाना जा सकता और इसकी संप्रतिष्ठास्थिति भी नहीं है यानी आदि और अन्तके बीचकी अवस्था भी किसीको उपलब्ध नहीं होती। इस उपर्युक्त सुविरूढमूल यानी जिसकी मूलें -- जड़ें अत्यन्त दृढ़ हो गयी हैं -- भली प्रकार संगठित हो चुकी हैं? ऐसे संसाररूप अश्वत्थको? असङ्गशस्त्रसे छेदन करके यानी पुत्रैषणा? वित्तैषणा और लोकैषणादिसे उपराम हो जाना ही असङ्ग है? ऐसे असङ्गशस्त्रसे जो कि परमात्माके सम्मुख होनारूप निश्चयसे दृढ़ किया हुआ है और बारंबार विवेकाभ्यासरूप पत्थरपर घिसकर पैना किया हुआ है? इस संसारवृक्षको बीजसहित उखाड़कर।

Since attachment etc. are active again and again, due to beginninglessness, the Samsara-tree is not cut off by itself, nor can it be cut by anyone—doubting this, He says—"Yastu" etc.

As described before and as well-known in the world, its form is not perceived here—is inferred from scripture; and thus its removal by knowledge is appropriate, He says—"Yatha" etc.

He states the reason for its unprovability with "Svapna" (dream) etc.

Regarding its similarity to dream etc., he makes "the nature of being seen and lost" the reason—"Drishta" etc. "Immeasurability" is the remaining part.

Making that very immeasurability the reason, its end also does not appear, He says—"Ata eva" (Therefore) etc. Without knowledge, due to delusion, Vasana, and action being mutual causes, there is no end—this is the meaning.

Its "first-ness" (origin) also cannot be defined, He says—"Tatha" (Similarly) etc.

Being possessed of beginning and end, its "middle" also is not authentic, He says—"Madhyam" etc.

Doubting that for the Samsara-tree called "Ashvattha," which is momentary, cutting might happen by itself so one need not strive for its cutting, He says—"Ashvattham" etc.

"Vyutthana"—monasticism preceded by dispassion. He clarifies the state of being "hardened" (of the weapon) as being preceded by discrimination with "Punah punah" (Again and again) etc.

'Who truly knows, who can here declare, whence born, whence this manifold creation? The gods came after its production; then who knows whence it arose?' — stating the inexpressibility of Samsara as taught by such Shruti, it implies that it is not appropriate to be intent on knowing it (Samsara), but rather on destroying it — with 'Na' (Not), etc. The form of this described Samsara-tree is not perceived here in the Shastra as it has been described. Or, its having roots upwards etc. is not perceived by living beings situated here in Samsara as it has been described.

Because of its nature of being seen and then vanishing, it is similar to a dream, mirage-water, magic (Maya), city of Gandharvas, snake in a rope, silver in a shell, and the second moon. And thus, just as dreams etc. are immeasurable (unknowable as real objects) due to being inexplicable as either real or unreal, so is this Samsara; this is the idea. Precisely because of being immeasurable, the 'end' of this Samsara — 'when will this end?' — such a termination is not perceived; because it is endless without knowledge. Similarly, 'starting from here, this proceeded' — such a 'beginning' of it is not perceived, not comprehended by anyone, due to being beginningless. Nor is its 'sampratishtha' (foundation/stability). Is the nature of its 'middle' perceived by anyone? Because that depends on the knowledge of the beginning and end, (its middle is also not perceived). Therefore, this aforesaid Ashvattha, the tree of Samsara, which causes all evil; whose roots — in the form of Avidya, desire, action, and latent impressions — are firmly grown, gone into expansion, and very strong; that (tree), which is difficult to cut due to having firmly grown roots, with the sword of 'Asanga' (non-attachment) — 'Sanga' (attachment) is the desire for son, wealth, worlds, etc., the abandonment of that is 'Asanga'; that alone is the sword, the means of cutting the tree of Samsara — with that strong (sword), strengthened by the determination of turning towards the Supreme Self, made sharp by the whetstone of repeated practice of discrimination, 'Chittva' (having cut), meaning having uprooted the tree of Samsara along with its impurities; 'Tatah' (thereafter) that 'Padam' (State) is 'Parimargitavyam', meaning it is to be sought and known; this is the meaning.

'He is to be sought, He is to be desired to be known' — according to the Shruti. What is that? To this He says. In which 'Padam' (State), the Supreme State; that is to be sought and known; this is the meaning. 'He is to be sought, He is to be desired to be known' — according to the Shruti. What is that? To this He says. In which State 'Gatah' (gone/entered), 'Bhuyah' meaning again 'Na nivartante', meaning they do not return for Samsara; 'He does not return again, he does not return again' — such is the Shruti. How is that to be sought? Regarding this expectation, He says — 'Tam' (Him), etc. He who is spoken of by the word 'Yat', to that very First Being (Adyam Purusham) existing in the beginning, the Full/Infinite, 'Prapadye' meaning 'I seek refuge', 'I have taken shelter'; thus by taking refuge in Him, it is to be sought; this is the meaning.

And so says the Shruti: 'He who creates Brahma first, who indeed sends the Vedas to him; to that God, the illuminator of the self-intellect, I, desirous of liberation, verily seek refuge.' 'Having encompassed the beings, having encompassed the worlds, having encompassed all the intermediate directions and directions; having worshipped the First-born of Truth (Amrita), he has fully entered into the Self by the self', etc. Fully realizing 'I am in all beings and all beings are in Me'. Thus further on also — 'He fully entered/took refuge in the First-born Speech (Vak), the Self/Nature of the Truth (Rita), i.e., of Sri Vishnu'; this is the meaning. Who is that Purusha? To this He says. 'Yatah' (From whom), from whom the 'Pravritti' (activity/streaming forth) of the Maya-consisting Samsara-tree has 'Prasrita' (spread out), issued forth; like the activity of a Maya-tree from a magician etc. It is not possible to say 'it started from here', with this intention He says — 'Purani', meaning ancient.

As for what (someone) said — 'For the accomplishment of the tendency towards liberation of transmigratory beings, the Lord, though Himself non-transmigratory, manifests the Self which is to be directly realized and attained, which is beyond Avidya, in the form of a goal even for Himself (as a refuge)...' etc.; (and regarding) 'Yatah' meaning 'where' (in which state) 'Apurani' meaning 'new' (activity is); — that is not acceptable. Because it is not in accordance with the Lord's words like 'There is nothing else higher than Me, O Dhananjaya', 'For I am the Abode of Brahman... and of the Eternal and the Immortal', 'There is no end nor beginning', etc.

As it stands, so it is not perceived. "Anta" (End) and "Adi" (Beginning) is Vishnu. "You are the beginning, the end, and the middle of this universe"—in the Bhagavata. "The beginningless and endless Supreme Brahman, neither gods nor seers know"—and in the Mokshadharma.

"Asangashastrena"—by knowledge accompanied by absence of attachment. "By the sword of knowledge sharpened by worship" [11.12.17]—in the Bhagavata.

And "cutting" is investigation (Vimarsha) alone. And from that, it becomes non-binding for him alone. For indeed, Brahman situated at the root is perceived.

And that is stated in that very Shruti—"Investigation indeed is its cutting; he binds not that, and binds others" [...].

(Objection:) If it is said that it is unfit to stay even tomorrow and is imperishable, then is this Samsara of the nature of a stream of momentarily perishing consciousness, or is it eternal as a flow like paddy etc.? Then it is hard to cut, because the mutual causality of Vasanas and actions, like seed and sprout, is unavoidable—having doubted thus, relying on the view that 'this is indescribable as existent or non-existent,' He answers—'Na rupam' etc.

Like a rope-snake, its form, being looked at with right vision, is not perceived as existing. 'Iha'—in the living body indeed. As it was before in the state of ignorance, so it is not perceived in the state of knowledge. By this, its falsity is said to be knowable only by experience. By this statement of unperceived form, the similarity to self-luminous consciousnesses and to formed seeds etc. is excluded.

Then would this be non-existent like a hare's horn? To this He says—'Na anto na cadih' (Neither end nor beginning). Because the material cause, root ignorance, is devoid of beginning and end, this too is devoid of beginning and end—this is the meaning.

Then it would be unavoidable like the Self? Doubting this, He says—'Na ca sampratishtha.' There is no place of dissolution called 'Pratishtha' (foundation) for this tree, like the ground for a tree. Nor is this a modification of Brahman so that it would merge there alone. Nor is this acceptable, because of the contingency of breaking the immutability of Brahman. What then? 'Tuccha' (insubstantial) ignorance is its material cause; and when that is destroyed by knowledge, the cutting of this along with its root occurs. And the insubstantiality of ignorance is established by the Shruti 'That which was hidden by the void (Tuccha)...' and by the experience of its non-perception in the dissolution of its effect, the rope-snake etc. Therefore, 'Its foundation is not perceived'—this is indeed rightly said.

That very Ashvattha—due to the firmness of Vasanas, 'Suvirudhamulam'—having very firmly grown roots, even so; 'Asangashastrena'—'Sanga' is the idea of identity with body etc., the abandonment of that is 'Asanga' (detachment); that alone is the 'Shastra' (weapon)—having cut with that firm—mature—(weapon). 'Tatah padam tat parimargitavyam'—this is the connection with the subsequent (verse). Although detachment from the gross and subtle Samsara occurs by itself in deep sleep, and by that, the Self's detachment even from their root Vasanas is inferred; yet, since ignorance, the root of Vasanas, is not cut by knowledge (in that state), the intellect of detachment does not become firm; therefore, by the practice of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, detachment from the causal body also must be accomplished. And by that weapon of detachment, the cutting of this—the cutting of the root—must be done in the form of dissolution like salt-water or like a rope-snake. Not merely the abandonment of something existing by nature, as for the Sankhyas.

As the form of this tree is described—having its root above as the Four-faced (Brahma) etc., having branches below as humans through the lineage succession of that, and having branches spread below and above again due to actions performed in the state of manhood which are the roots—so it is not perceived by transmigrating beings. 'I am a human, son of Devadatta, father of Yajnadatta, and have family corresponding to that'—only this much is perceived. Similarly, 'the end—destruction—of this tree is caused by detachment regarding Guna-consisting enjoyments'—this is not perceived; similarly, 'attachment to Gunas alone is its origin'—this is not perceived. And its foundation 'ignorance in the form of pride of Self in the non-Self'—this is not perceived; for 'it stands on this very thing'—thus ignorance alone is its foundation.

Having cut this Ashvattha of the described nature, 'Suvirudhamulam'—having roots grown well and diversely—with the strong weapon called detachment from Guna-consisting enjoyments, which has right knowledge as its root; 'Tatah'—due to detachment from objects—'Tat padam parimargitavyam'—that Abode must be sought, having gone to which they do not return again.

How does the attachment to Guna-consisting enjoyments, active since beginningless time, and its root, contrary knowledge, cease? Here He says—To remove ignorance etc., 'I seek refuge in that very Primal Person,' the origin of all—one should seek refuge in Him alone. 'Yatah'—from whom, the Creator of all, this 'Purani'—ancient—'activity of attachment to Guna-consisting enjoyments' has spread. For this was said by Me alone before—'For this divine Maya of Mine consisting of Gunas is hard to overcome...' [Gita 7.14].

Or the reading is 'Prapadye iyatah pravrittih.' 'Tam eva ca adyam purusham prapadya'—Having sought refuge in that very Primal Person, 'Iyatah'—from Him, the activity which is the means for 'this whole' cessation of ignorance etc., 'Purani'—ancient—has spread. The activity of ancient seekers of liberation is 'Purani'; for ancient seekers of liberation, having sought refuge in Me alone, became free from bondage—this is the meaning.

Moreover—'Na rupam asya' etc. By living beings situated here in Samsara, the form of this Samsara-tree in the manner of 'rooted above' etc. is not perceived.

'Na ca antah'—nor the end, because of having no limit. 'Na ca adih'—nor the beginning, because of being beginningless. 'Na ca sampratishtha'—foundation/staying; 'how does it stand?' is also not perceived.

Since this Samsara-tree of such nature is hard to cut and productive of evil, therefore having cut this with the strong weapon of dispassion, one should strive for knowledge of Reality—He says with 'Ashvattham enam' and the half verse.

'Enam'—this 'Suvirudhamulam'—extremely deep-rooted Ashvattha; 'Asangah'—absence of attachment, abandonment of I-ness and My-ness; with that strong weapon—with right enquiry—'Chittva'—having cut, having separated.

Objection: In this Samsara which is agreed upon as perceptible by all, praising someone by saying 'who knows it' is inappropriate—to this it is said 'Na rupam asya' (Its form is not...) etc. Here, the statement of non-perception of form does not purport to the absence of form, because that would contradict the described form—with this intention He says—'Asya vrikshasya' (Of this tree). Even though there is perception of Samsara by all, there is no perception in the described manner; thus he explains the intended meaning of the word 'Tatha' (So/Thus)—with 'Chaturmukhaditvena' (Beginning with the Four-faced Brahma) etc. 'By transmigratory beings'—meaning those devoid of knowledge useful for liberation; this is the idea. Or, among the transmigratory beings, he who knows it thus is practically liberated.

Since root, branch, sprout etc. are seen even in the world in the form of ancestors, fathers, sons etc., to this he says—'Manushyo'ham' (I am a human). They have knowledge useful for the acceptance of Samsara, even though it is to be abandoned, but not for its abandonment; this is the idea.

He states the connection of the word 'Tatha' (So/Thus) even in 'Na antah' (No end) etc.—with 'Tatha asya' (So its...) etc. He states the meaning of the word 'Anta' (End) in accordance with its being cut by the weapon of detachment mentioned together—'Vinasha' (Destruction). Absolute dissolution accomplished by detachment is intended here by the word 'Anta'; and the non-perception of that is in terms of its nature and its cause; for only constant dissolution (death) is seen by transmigratory beings—with this intention he says—'Gunamayabhogeshu asangakritah' (Caused by detachment regarding Guna-consisting enjoyments). The word 'Bhoga' here refers to objects of enjoyment. To dispel the delusion of the negation of the very nature of End, Beginning, and Foundation which are established by proof, the word 'Upalabhyate' (is perceived) is connected. Since intermediate beginnings like the womb etc. are perceived, the primary beginning is intended here—so he says—'Gunasanga eva' (Attachment to Gunas alone).

Here, the statement of 'Paramatman' (Supreme Self) by others for the word 'Pratishtha' is inappropriate; because it is improper to designate Him—who is the object of attachment for the detached ones—as the foundation of a tree that is to be cut by the weapon of detachment. Therefore, 'Ignorance,' standing as the Field (Kshetra) etc., which is the root cause even of the attachment that is the beginning (Adi), is called 'Pratishtha' here due to propriety of meaning—so he says—'Anatmani atmabhimanarupam' (The form of self-identification in the non-self). By this, the explanation of 'Sampratishtha' as 'Middle' is also refuted.

How does the word 'Pratishtha' apply to ignorance? To this he says—'Pratitishthati' (It stands firm/is founded) etc. The idea is this—Pratishtha is the ground of the root's position for a tree; and Karma is mentioned as the root of the Samsara-tree; and that [Karma], due to the statement 'Karma accumulated by Avidya' [Vishnu Purana 2.13.70], is situated in Ignorance; because its performance depends on that. And since Ego alone is the bulb (root) even of My-ness (Mamakara) which is the cause of Karma, that [Ego/Ignorance] is the 'Pratishtha' of the Samsara-tree here.

'Enam' (This)—this refers to the diversity of Prakriti which is the abode of attachment—so he says—'Uktaprakaram' (Of the described manner). 'Sushthutvam' (Well-ness/Firmness)—being impossible to be cut by others due to having firm and deep-rooted Vasanas. 'Vividhatvam' (Diversity/Manifoldness)—even when a single root called Karma is cut by expiation etc., the infinite variety of curious actions related to injunctions and prohibitions, performed consciously and unconsciously by mind, speech, and body for beginningless time, are accumulated. Detachment ('Asanga') also happens sometimes due to temporary afflictions like disease, but that is not firm; therefore 'Sammyagjnanamulena' (By that which has right knowledge as its root) is said. The word 'Tatah' (Then) is to make known that detachment must be continued even in the state of searching for the Self, just as in the state of abandoning objects. Therefore, the other explanation 'Tatah param' (Beyond that) by supplying the word 'Param' is inappropriate—with this intention he says—'Tato vishayasangad hetoh' (Then, due to the cause of detachment from objects). To suggest 'One should search for the Self' [Jabala Up. 6] etc., he says 'Anveshaniyam' (To be searched for). With the idea that 'Nivartanti' is Parasmaipada (active voice) due to Vedic usage (Chandasa) to comply with the meter, he himself used the Atmanepada (middle voice).

See Commentary under 15.4

"Na rupam" (Not the form) etc. ending with "Avyayam tat" (That imperishable).

"Having cut that"—The action being predicated regarding the object (Visheshya) takes up the qualifying term (Visheshana) here due to force of implication (Samarthya), like the rule "The Dandi (staff-holder) should recite the Praisha mantras." Therefore—"One should cut its roots grown below"—(is the meaning).

"Tat padam" (That abode) is tranquil; the "Avyayam padam" (imperishable abode) is that very thing.

If it is said 'Its form is not perceived', there would be contradiction with valid knowledge (pramana-badha)? Therefore it is said -- 'Tatha' (Like that/So). Since that (perception) is relative, he completes it -- with 'Yatha' (As). Meaning, as characterized by mutability etc.

Since the limitation of the world by space and time is perceived, the statement 'no end' etc. is incorrect? To this he says -- 'Antadi' (End and beginning...). Due to being the destroyer etc. -- is to be supplied.

He states the concurrence here -- 'Tvam' (You). 'Madhya' (Middle) means the doer of sustenance. Regarding its non-perception, he states the evidence -- 'Anadi' (Beginningless). Devoid of beginning and end.

The interpretation that non-attachment itself is the weapon is incorrect; with this idea he says -- 'Asanga' (Non-attachment). 'Asanga' is the absence of attachment; knowledge accompanied by that is the 'Asanga-shastra' (Weapon of Asanga). Like 'Dadhyodana' (curd-rice) etc. (it is a compound). Since 'association' (sahitya) is included in the compound function (vritti), it is not used (separately); this is the idea.

Why not the apparent meaning (weapon of dispassion)? Because knowledge alone is stated as the cause there (for liberation); to this he says -- 'Jnana' (Knowledge).

Regarding 'Chittva' (Having cut), the interpretation (by Shankara) as 'having uprooted along with the seed' is incorrect; with this idea he says -- 'Chedashca' (And the cutting...). 'Ca' is in the sense of 'Tu' (indeed/only); (cutting means) 'Vimarsha' (reflection/investigation), i.e., discrimination.

What is the reason for this interpretation by abandoning other interpretations? To this he says -- 'Tatashca' (And therefore...). Because reflection alone is the 'cutting' of the universe consisting of Prakriti etc., and not total uprooting/destruction. For that very reason, it is logical that for that one person alone this (Samsara) becomes non-binding. Otherwise, if the cutting (destruction) were done by one, there would be 'Sarva-mukti' (liberation of all); this is the idea.

And for this reason also, this alone is the cutting, he says -- 'Tatha hi' (For thus...). Here, by 'Having cut this Ashvattha... then that Supreme State is to be sought' [15.4], the cutting of the universe is stated as the means to the realization of Brahman. To explain -- when there is reflection on the universe as being an effect etc.; since an effect requires a cause; since origination is impossible from a material cause not presided over by a sentient being; and since dependent entities cannot logically be the principal presiders; the 'Brahman' presiding over the material cause situated at the root is perceived/realized; not in the destruction of the universe. Therefore, by force of compatibility/fitness, it is understood that reflection alone is the 'cutting', not destruction; this is the meaning.

If you say knowledge of the falsity of the universe alone is the cutting? No; because that is false knowledge; and because of the agreement of Shruti, it is exactly thus (reflection/devotion); he says -- 'Tacca' (And that...). 'Tam vai prapadye yam vai prapadye' (I seek refuge in Him indeed, in whom I seek refuge) -- thus it is in the Shruti itself; therefore He is indeed the cutter.

'Na rupam' (Not the form). This Samsara-tree which has been described—by living beings situated here in Samsara, the form of this Samsara-tree as described, having roots above etc., 'Tatha'—in that manner—is not perceived; because of its nature of being seen and lost due to falsity like a dream, mirage-water, magic, or a city of Gandharvas.

Therefore, its 'Anta'—end—is not perceived, that 'in this much time it will come to completion,' because it is limitless. Nor is its 'Adi' (beginning) perceived, that 'starting from here it proceeded,' because it is beginningless. Nor is 'Sampratishtha'—the state/staying of the middle—perceived, because that depends on beginning and end.

Since this Samsara-tree of such nature is hard to cut and is the cause of all evil, therefore, 'Enam'—this aforementioned Ashvattha, 'Suvirudhamulam'—having extremely fixed roots due to beginningless ignorance; 'Asangashastrena'—'Sanga' is desire; 'Asanga' is dispassion opposed to attachment, in the form of abandonment of craving for son, wealth, and worlds; that alone is the 'Shastra' (weapon) because it is opposed to Samsara consisting of attachment and aversion; with that weapon of detachment—which is 'firm,' hardened by the eagerness for the knowledge of the Supreme Self, and sharpened by the repeated practice of discrimination—'Chittva'—having cut, having uprooted it along with its roots, having performed renunciation of all actions (Sannyasa) through the wealth of dispassion, control of mind (Shama), control of senses (Dama), etc.—this is the meaning.

Objection: How is creation through them? To this He says—'Na rupam' etc.

'Iha'—in this worldly Samsara, for those attached to action, even though its state of being His branches is true, 'Tatha'—the supernatural form consisting of divine Play (Lila)—is not found (perceived). And 'no end'—because it is eternal as divine Play. And 'no beginning'—because it is beginningless due to having Purushottama as its root. And nor again 'Sampratishtha'—foundation/staying.

Therefore, having cut the tree consisting of worldly Samsara, the search for the supernatural must be done again—He says 'Ashvattham' etc.

'Enam'—this visible worldly Ashvattha—which is perishable, 'Suvirudhamulam'—firm; 'Dridhena'—resolute—'Asangashastrena'—with the weapon of 'Asanga' (non-attachment) consisting of the absence of attachment resulting from considering the defects of corrupt objects etc. falling within this, which is skilled in cutting this—'Chittva'—having cut, meaning having made it separate.

"Na rupam asya" (Its form is not...)—Here, as it is described, so it is not perceived; for being similar to a dream, mirage-water, magic, or a city of Gandharvas, it is indeed of a nature that is seen and lost; therefore "Na antah"—there is no end, limit, fixity, or conclusion. "Tatha na cha adih" (Similarly, no beginning)—"Starting from here this proceeded"—this is not grasped by anyone. "Na cha sampratishtha"—the staying, the middle—of this is not perceived by anyone.

"Ashvattham enam" (This Ashvattha)—as described, "Suvirudhamulam"—whose roots are well-grown, have gone deep, are very firm, that one having well-grown roots; "Asangashastrena"—"Asanga" (non-attachment) is the rising above desires for son, wealth, and worlds; with that weapon of detachment—which is firm, strengthened by the resolution of facing the Supreme Self, and sharpened on the stone of repeated practice of discrimination—having cut, having uprooted the Samsara-tree along with its seed.

Moreover, "Na rupam" etc. Here, by disputants deluded by Maya, its true nature—reality—is not perceived "Tatha"—in the manner stated by the Veda—"It is mere Maya, because its nature is not fully manifest" [Brahma Sutra 3.2.3].

Moreover, "Na antah"—no decision/conclusion; "Na cha adih"—and no beginning; "Na cha sampratishtha"—and no foundation either. By that, the world imagined by one's own ignorance is called unstable and unreal. And He will say in the characteristic of the demoniac Mayavadins—"They say the world is unreal, unstable, and without God" [16.8].

Therefore, this world is not unreal; but this "evil part" called Samsara, which acts as a covering over it, created by the Jiva, which is an effect like gold and water (?), appearing as non-different due to the statement of the Hamsa (swan?)—therefore "Sutaram virudhani mulani"—where roots created by the Jiva, consisting of Vasanas, of the form of defects, have grown excessively—that (evil part); "Asangashastrena"—with the weapon of detachment in the form of firm dispassion, through absence of attachment due to unworthiness of worship—having cut, having separated; "Tatah"—"Padam"—the Abode which is of the nature of the Self, the abode of the Lord, the Imperishable Brahman; "Parimargitavyam"—must be sought—this is the connection with the interval (subsequent verse).

And it should not be said that here only the destruction of the world created by the Jiva is to be stated as heard (in scripture), because of the description of remaining (Shishtatva)? (Answer:) Just as when the staff is destroyed, the man is no longer a "Dandin" (staff-bearer), there is no contradiction.

न not? रूपम् form? अस्य its? इह here? तथा as such? उपलभ्यते is perceived? न not? अन्तः (its) end? न not? च and? आदिः (its) origin? न not? च and? संप्रतिष्ठा foundation or resting place? अश्वत्थम् Asvattha? एनम् this? सुविरूढमूलम् firmrooted? असङ्गशस्त्रेण with the axe of nonattachment? दृढेन strong? छित्त्वा having cut asunder.Commentary The idea is continued in the next verse.So long as one is under the sway of ignorance? he cannot understand the form of this tree? its end? origin and foundation (middle). O Arjuna Thou mayest perhaps consider that such a huge tree cannot be uprooted by any means whatever. It is not so. However firmly rooted it may be? it can be cut by the powerful axe of nnattachment or dispassion within the twinkling of an eye.After cutting this tree you will have to look within? meditate on the Self and behold the Supreme.Tatha As such As described above. Is it necessary to pull down castles in the air or to break the horns of a hare or to pluck a flower growing in the sky or to get butter from the milk of a tortoise or oil from stone Similarly? O Arjuna? there is no reality in this tree. Therefore why should you entertain any fear as to whether it may be uprooted or not Its form as such is not perceived by anybody here it is like a dream or a mirage or an imaginary city in the sky formed by the clouds or caused by a juggler. It appears and disappears. This tree has DrishtaNashtaSvarupa like the mirage. That object which is destroyed when one beholds it is DrishtaNashta. Nobody has perceived the end? the origin or the foundation of this illusory tree. No one can say that it has arisen from such and such a place or point.Samsara or the peepul tree is inveterately deeprooted. You will have to struggle hard to uproot it with its seed or the selfreproducing deep root.Asanga Dispassion? freedom from attachment to children? wealth and the world.Dridhena Strong. You will have to cut the tree with a strong axe which is sharpened again and again on the whetstone of the practice of discrimination. Further your mind should be turned towards the Supreme Being with the strong determination that you can attain eternal bliss only in Him and that He is the ony Reality.The desire for sensual pleasure is Sanga. Its opposite (dispassion) is Asanga. Renunciation of the three kinds of Eshanas (desires)? viz.? children? wealth and the world (PutraVittaLokeshana) is Asanga. Just as the axe cuts the tree? so also dispassion cuts this tree of Samsara. Hence dispassion is termed an axe. Cutting the tree of Samsara is annihilation of egoism? ignorance? latent tendencies? and renunciation of the fruits of all actions? through the practice of dispassion? control of the mind and the senses? etc. (Cf.VII.14)

But, asya, its-of this Tree of the World which has been described; rupam, form, as it has been presented; na, is not at all; upalabhyate, perceived; iha, here; tatha, in that way. For, being like a dream, water in a mirage, jugglery, an imaginary city seen in the sky, it is by nature destroyed no sooner than it is seen. Therefore, na, there exists neither; its antah, end, limit, termination; so also, neither; its beginning. It is not comprehended by anyone that it comes into existence beginning from any definite point. Its sampratistha, continuance, the middle state, too, is not perceived by anyone.
Chittva, after felling, uprooting, together with its seeds; enam, this, above described; asvattham, Peepul, the Tree of the World; suvirudha-mulam, whose roots (mula) are well (su) developed (virudham); drdhena, with the strong-hardened by a resolute mind directed towards the supreme Self, and sharpened on the stone of repeated practice of discrimination; asanga-sastrena, sword of detachment-detachment means turn ing away from the desire for progeny, wealth and the worlds; with that sword of detachment-.

The form of this tree, having its origin above, i.e., in the four-faced Brahma and branches below in the sense that man forms the crest through continual lineage therefrom, and also having its branches extended above and below by actions done in the human state and forming secondary roots - that form of the tree is not understood by people immersed in Samsara. Only this much is perceived: 'I am a man, the son of Devadatta, the father of Yajnadatta; I have property appropriate to these conditions'. Likewise, it is not understood that its destruction can be brought about by detachment from enjoyments which are based on Gunas. Similarly it is not perceived that attachment to the Gunas alone is the beginning of this (tree). Again, it is not perceived that the basis of this tree is founded on ignorance which is the misconception of self as non-self. Ignorance alone is the basis of this tree, since in it alone the tree is fixed.
This Asvattha, described above, firm-rooted, i.e., the roots of which are firm and manifold, is to be cut off by the strong axe of detachment, namely, detachment from the sense objects composed of the three Gunas. This can be forged through perfect knowledge. As one gains detachment from sense-objects, one should seek and find out the goal from which nobody ever returns.
How does this attachment to sense-objects, which consists of the Gunas and erroneous knowledge forming its cause, cease to exist?
Sri Krsna now answers:
One should seek 'refuge (Prapadyet) in the Primal Person' alone in order to overcome this ignorance. One should seek refuge (Prapadyeta) in Him who is primal, namely, the beginning of all entities, as stated in the following text: 'With Me as the Lord, the Prakrti gives birth to all that which moves, and that which does not move' (9.10), 'I am the origin of all; from Me proceed everything' (10.8), and 'There is nothing higher than Me, O Arjuna' (7.7). From Me, the creator of everything, has streamed forth this ancient activity, continuing from time immermorial, of attachment to sense-objects consisting of Gunas. This has been declared already by Me: 'For this divine Maya of Mine consisting of the Gunas is hard to break through. But those who take refuge in me alone shall pass beyond this Maya' (7.14).
Or a variant of this stanza is 'prapadya iyatah pravrttih' (in place of 'prapadyet yatah pravrittih'). This gives the sense that this discipline of taking refuge in the Supreme Person for dispelling of ignorance has continued from a distant past. The tendencies of ancient persons seeking liberation are also ancient. The purport is this: The ancient liberation-seekers, taking refuge in Me alone, were released from bondage. [This can be taken to mean that Prapatti or taking refuge in the Lord had originated in the Bhakti tradition of the Sri-Vaisnavites from ancient sages i.e., from the Alvars who preceded Ramanuja by several centuries. It is not a creation of Ramanuja].