Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 15 - Shloka (Verse) 6

व्याख्या -- [छठा श्लोक पाँचवें और सातवें श्लोकोंको जोड़नेवाला है। इन श्लोकोंमें भगवान् यह बताते हैं कि वह अविनाशी पद मेरा ही धाम है? जो मेरेसे अभिन्न है और जीव भी मेरा अंश होनेके कारण मेरेसे अभिन्न है। अतः जीवकी भी उस धाम(अविनाशी पद) से अभिन्नता है अर्थात् वह उस धामको नित्यप्राप्त है।यद्यपि इस छठे श्लोकका बारहवें श्लोकसे घनिष्ठ सम्बन्ध है? तथापि पाँचवें और सातवें श्लोकोंको जोड़नेके लिये इसको यहाँ दिया गया है। इस श्लोकमें भगवान्ने दो खास बातें बतायी हैं -- (1) उस धामको सूर्यादि प्रकाशित नहीं कर सकते (जिसका कारणरूपसे विवेचन भगवान्ने इसी अध्यायके बारहवें श्लोकमें किया है) और (2) उस धामको प्राप्त हुए जीव पुनः लौटकर संसारमें नहीं आते (जिसका कारणरूपसे विवेचन भगवान्ने इसी अध्यायके सातवें श्लोकमें किया है)।]न तद्भासयते सूर्यो न शशाङ्को न पावकः -- दृश्य जगत्में सूर्यके समान तेजस्वी? प्रकाशस्वरूप कोई चीज नहीं है। वह सूर्य भी उस परमधामको प्रकाशित करनेमें असमर्थ है फिर सूर्यसे प्रकाशित होनेवाले चन्द्र और अग्नि उसे प्रकाशित कर ही कैसे सकते हैं इसी अध्यायके बारहवें श्लोकमें भगवान् स्पष्ट कहेंगे कि सूर्य? चन्द्र और अग्निमें मेरा ही तेज है। मेरेसे ही प्रकाश पाकर ये भौतिक जगत्को प्रकाशित करते हैं। अतः जो उस परमात्मतत्त्वसे प्रकाश पाते हैं? उनके द्वारा परमात्मस्वरूप परमधाम कैसे प्रकाशित हो सकता है (टिप्पणी प0 757) तात्पर्य यह है कि परमात्मतत्त्व चेतन है और सूर्य? चन्द्र तथा अग्नि जड (प्राकृत) हैं। ये सूर्य? चन्द्र और अग्नि क्रमशः नेत्र? मन और वाणीको प्रकाशित करते हैं। ये तीनों (नेत्र? मन और वाणी) भी जड ही हैं। इसलिये नेत्रोंसे उस परमात्मतत्त्वको देखा नहीं जा सकता? मनसे उसका चिन्तन नहीं किया जा सकता और वाणीसे उसका वर्णन नहीं किया जा सकता क्योंकि जड तत्त्वसे चेतन परमात्मतत्त्वकी अनुभूति नहीं हो सकती। वह चेतन (प्रकाशक) तत्त्व इन सभी प्रकाशित पदार्थोंमें सदा परिपूर्ण है। उस तत्त्वमें अपनी प्रकाशकताका अभिमान नहीं है।चेतन जीवात्मा भी परमात्माका अंश होनेके कारण स्वयं प्रकाशस्वरूप है अतः उसको भी जड पदार्थ (मन? बुद्धि? इन्द्रियाँ आदि) प्रकाशित नहीं कर सकते। मन? बुद्धि? इन्द्रियाँ आदि जडपदार्थोंका उपयोग (भगवान्के नाते दूसरोंकी सेवा करके) केवल जडतासे सम्बन्धविच्छेद करनेमें ही है।एक बात ध्यान देनेकी है कि यहाँ सूर्यको भगवान् या देव की दृष्टिसे न देखकर केवल प्रकाश करनेवाले पदार्थोंकी दृष्टिसे देखा गया है। तात्पर्य है कि सूर्य तैजसतत्त्वोंमें श्रेष्ठ है अतः यहाँ केवल सूर्यकी बात नहीं? प्रत्युत चन्द्र आदि सभी तैजसतत्त्वोंकी बात चल रही है। जैसे? दसवें अध्यायके सैंतीसवें श्लोकमें भगवान्ने कहा कि वृष्णिवंशियोंमें मैं वासुदेव हूँ (गीता 10। 37)? तो वहाँ वासुदेवका भगवान्के रूपसे वर्णन नहीं? प्रत्युत वृष्णिवंशके श्रेष्ठ पुरुषके रूपसे ही वर्णन है।यद्गत्वा न निवर्तन्ते तद्धाम परमं मम -- जीव परमात्माका अंश है। वह जबतक अपने अंशी परमात्माको प्राप्त नहीं कर लेता? तबतक उसका आवागमन नहीं मिट सकता। जैसे नदियोंके जलको अपने अंशी समुद्रसे मिलनेपर ही स्थिरता मिलती है? ऐसे ही जीवको अपने अंशी परमात्मासे मिलनेपर ही वास्तविक? स्थायी शान्ति मिलती है। वास्तवमें जीव परमात्मासे अभिन्न ही है? पर संसारके (माने हुए) सङ्गके कारण उसको ऊँचनीच योनियोंमें जाना पड़ता है।यहाँ परमधाम शब्द परमात्माका धाम और परमात्मा -- दोनोंका ही वाचक है। यह परमधाम प्रकाशस्वरूप है। जैसे सूर्य अपने स्थानविशेषपर भी स्थित है और प्रकाशरूपसे सब जगह भी स्थित है अर्थात् सूर्य और उसका प्रकाश परस्पर अभिन्न हैं? ऐसे ही परमधाम और सर्वव्यापी परमात्मा भी परस्पर अभिन्न हैं।भक्तोंकी भिन्नभिन्न मान्यताओँके कारण ब्रह्मलोक? साकेत धाम? गोलोक धाम? देवीद्वीप? शिवलोक आदि सब एक ही परमाधामके भिन्नभिन्न नाम हैं। यह परमधाम चेतन? ज्ञानस्वरूप? प्रकाशस्वरूप और परमात्मस्वरूप है।यह अविनाशी परमपद आत्मरूपसे सबमें समानरूपसे अनुस्यूत (व्याप्त) है। अतः स्वरूपसे हम उस परमपदमें स्थित हैं ही परन्तु जडता(शरीर आदि) से तादात्म्य? ममता और कामनाके कारण हमें उसकी प्राप्ति अथवा उसमें अपनी स्वाभाविक स्थितिका अनुभव नहीं हो रहा है। सम्बन्ध -- पूर्वश्लोकमें भगवान्ने अपने परमधामका वर्णन करते हुए यह बताया कि उसको प्राप्त होकर जीव लौटकर संसारमें नहीं आते। उसके विवेचनके रूपमें अपने अंश जीवात्माको भी (परमधामकी ही तरह) अपनेसे अभिन्न बताते हुए? जीवसे क्या भूल हो रही है कि जिससे उसको नित्यप्राप्त परमात्मस्वरूप परमधामका अनुभव नहीं हो रहा है -- इसका हेतुसहित वर्णन आगेके श्लोकमें करते हैं।

वही पद फिर अन्य विशेषणोंसे बतलाया जाता है --, तत् शब्दका आगेवाले -- व्यवधानयुक्त धाम शब्दके साथ सम्बन्ध है। उस तेजोमय धामको यानी परमपदको? सूर्य -- आदित्य सबको प्रकाशित करनेकी शक्तिवाला होनेपर भी प्रकाशित नहीं कर सकता। वैसे ही शशाङ्क -- चन्द्रमा और पावक -- अग्नि भी प्रकाशित नहीं कर सकता। जिस परमधामको यानी वैष्णवपदको पाकर मनुष्य पीछे नहीं लौटते और जिसको सूर्यादि ज्योतियाँ प्रकाशित नहीं कर सकतीं? वह मुझ विष्णुका परमधाम -- पद है। पू0 -- जहाँ जाकर फिर नहीं लौटते यह बात कही गयी। परंतु सभी गतियाँ? अन्तमें पुनरागमनयुक्त होती हैं और सभी संयोग अन्तमें वियोगवाले होते हैं? यह बात प्रसिद्ध है। फिर यह बात कैसे कही जाती है कि उस धामको प्राप्त हुए पुरुषोंका पुनरागमन नहीं होता

If that Abode is an object of knowledge (Vedya), then the object being different from the agent, duality would result; and if it is not an object of knowledge (Avedya), then being not a human goal, its desirability would not be established—doubting this, He says—'Tadeva' (That very) etc.

Objection: Does 'Gacchanti' (they go) mean they attain by going to a different, distant place, or do they attain something close, like a pot covered by darkness, by the removal of the covering? Not the first; because of contradiction with statements like 'By whom all this is pervaded.' (If the second,) duality would result; and if it is unknowable (Avedya), then being not a human goal, its desirability would not be established—such is the doubt.

To refute this—Even though it is unknowable by being illuminable by the sun etc., the Dhama (Abode) is of the nature of Light and illuminates everything; so when the non-Self is negated, it shines by itself; therefore, being a human goal, it is not undesirable—to establish this, He distinguishes that very Abode again—'Na' (Not) etc.

That Dhama is of the nature of Light and the illuminator of the sun etc.; the sun etc. do not illuminate It, because it is impossible for what is illuminated by It to be Its illuminator. 'Shashankah'—Moon. 'Pavakah'—Fire. And so is the Shruti: 'There the sun does not shine, nor the moon and stars, nor these lightnings shine, whence then this fire? Everything shines after Him shining; by His light all this shines.'

That Vaishnava Abode, having gone to—attained—which they do not return, and which is not illuminated by sun etc., that Dhama is self-luminous, all-illuminating, Supreme—excellent, best of all—'Mama'—of Me, Sri Vishnu.

The Genitive case ('My') is used with the intention of a metaphorical relationship like 'Rahu's head' (Rahu is the head), in accordance with Shrutis like 'That supreme abode of Vishnu' and 'Knowing the bliss of Brahman, he fears nothing,' and not with the intention of difference. Because of Shrutis like 'One only without a second,' 'Brahman is Knowledge and Bliss,' 'From death to death he goes who sees here as if manifold.'

Some, however, describe it thus: 'Its unknowability is stated here by its not being illuminable by the sun etc.; but its direct self-evidence by being the illuminator of all will be stated in 'Yad adityagatam tejo' [15.12]. Thus, by both verses, the two parts of the Shruti are explained; this should be seen.'

By 'The sun does not illuminate,' the cessation of all external senses is implied, because being devoid of form etc., it is unfit for the eye etc. By 'Nor the moon,' the cessation of the mind (is implied) through the negation of the moon, the favorer of the mind. By 'Nor fire,' the cessation of speech. From the Shruti 'Not grasped by the eye,' 'That which one does not think by the mind,' 'That which is not uttered by speech.' But in this explanation of others, the fault of implication (Lakshana) should be observed.

He states the nature—with 'Na tad' (Not that) etc.

(Doubt:) If they go to that higher Abode, then falling from there is also inevitable due to the logic 'Elevations end in falls.' And therefore 'having gone where they do not return' is inconsistent—doubting this, He states the nature of that Abode—'Na tad' etc.

The sun does not illuminate that Abode. Because of unfitness for the eye due to being devoid of form etc. By this, the cessation of all external senses [is implied]. For indeed, what possesses form and is fit for the eye is illuminated by the sun, the favorer of the eye; but this is not so—this is the meaning. Nor does 'Shashanka'—the moon—illuminate. That object which is graspable by the mind is illuminated by the moon, the favorer of the mind; but this is not so. Because of the negation of its graspability by the mind by the Shruti 'That which one does not think by the mind.' Nor does 'Pavaka' (fire) illuminate. For indeed, what is graspable by speech is illuminated by 'Pavaka,' the favorer of that; but this is not so. Because of the negation of its being an object of speech by the Shruti 'That which is not uttered by speech.' And there is another Shruti 'Not grasped by the eye, nor by speech' etc.

And since it is inaccessible to eye, mind, and speech, therefore it transcends the gross, subtle, and causal manifestation, is the Innermost, Non-dual; that which is propounded as devoid of all distinctions by Shrutis like 'Not inwardly conscious, not outwardly conscious,' 'Not gross, not minute' etc.—'Tat'—that is 'Mama'—My 'Paramam Dhama'—Supreme Light/Abode—Consciousness-only, a Light different from the lower knowledge in the form of mental modifications (Vritti). The relationship 'My' is metaphorical like 'Rahu's head.' Meaning the Light non-different from Me, self-luminous.

Therefore, 'Yat'—having 'Gatva'—gone to, attained, meaning known which; 'Na nivartante'—they do not return, due to the absence of root ignorance, the cause of return. For indeed, in this explanation, the conformity with the meaning of the Shruti 'When indeed he finds fearless support in this invisible, bodiless (Anatmya), undefined, abode-less one, then he becomes fearless' is seen. By 'Invisible,' being illuminable by the sun is excluded due to unfitness for vision. 'Anatmya'—'Atmya' is what is fit for the 'Atman' i.e., mind; in what is other than that, 'Anatmya'—being illuminable by the moon is rejected due to unfitness for the mind also. 'Anilayana'—everything gross and subtle dissolves in this, so 'Nilayana' is the Cause; in what is different from that. Therefore 'Anirukta'—unfit for definition; meaning beyond the scope of words. By that, being not illuminable by fire is established.

But those who explain it as a non-material Vaishnava abode existing eternally in another place, not illuminable by sun etc., attainable by the path of light etc., having gone to which they do not return again—for them, because of the insubstantiality of the 'seen' (Drishya) stated in 'Its form is not perceived here so,' the insubstantiality of such [a place] is unavoidable, because of the non-distinction of being an object of perception. Therefore, the meaning of the verse is exactly as stated.

That is the Light of the Self; neither the sun illuminates it, nor the moon, nor fire. For Knowledge alone is the illuminator of everything. External lights are helpful through the removal of darkness that opposes the contact between object and sense.

And the illuminator of this is Yoga; and the opponent of that is beginningless Karma. And the removal of that has been stated as detachment etc. rooted in surrender to the Lord. Having gone where they do not return again, 'Tat'—that 'Paramam Dhama'—Supreme Light is 'Mama'—Mine, belonging to Me, being a manifestation of Me, My portion—this is the meaning.

Its supremacy is due to being the illuminator even of the sun etc. For lights like the sun etc. are not illuminators of the Light of Knowledge; for Knowledge alone is the illuminator of everything.

He distinguishes that very Abode to be attained—with 'Na tad' etc. Which Abode the sun etc. do not illuminate; attaining which the Yogis do not return; 'Tad Dhama'—Nature/Form—is 'Paramam Mama' (My Supreme).

By this, due to not being an object of the light of the sun etc., the contingency of defects like inertness, cold, heat etc. is refuted.

To indicate independence from other illuminators, he states what is intended by the word 'Tat'—'Atmajyoti' (Light of the Self). The idea is this: Since it is natural for the word 'Tat' to refer to the context, and the pure nature of the Self was the context in 'Padam avyayam tat' [15.5], and in the subsequent verse also 'Mamaivansho jivaloke...' [15.7] refers to that very thing, and here too because of the use of the word 'Dhama' indicating the self-luminosity established in Shruti, this verse is about the Jiva.

He establishes the state of not being illuminable by sun etc. by the contrariety of nature—'Jnanameva hi' (For Knowledge alone) etc. 'Of all'—meaning of the class of objects to be illuminated? The idea is: even of the lights like sun etc. which are considered illuminators of that. If knowledge is the illuminator of all? Then regarding external objects also, what is the need for sun etc., and how is the usage of 'illuminator' applied to them? To this he says—'Bahyani tu' (External ones, however) etc.

'Opponent of contact'—this is said intending the specific form of contact falling within the causal aggregate. For darkness is not an obstruction like a wall etc.? Because things situated in light separated by darkness are perceived. Thus, why does the self-light, the illuminator of all, not shine by itself, or by what else is it to be illuminated? To this he says—'Asya cha' (And of this).

'Cha' has the meaning of 'Tu' (but), for the purpose of removing doubt. The idea is that even for the self-luminous, Yoga alone is the means for transmigrators to grasp the entire form as it is. By rejecting other illuminators, the doubt of the negation of being an object of knowledge is also removed by this. The idea is that specific negation implies permission for the remainder.

Why is Yoga not accomplished for all? To this he says—'Tadvirodhi' (Opponent of that). Transmigratory action is the obstacle to the arising of Yoga, this is the meaning. Then, upon the doubt that it would not be accomplished for anyone, he answers with the context—'Tannivartanam cha' (And the removal of that).

'Gatva' means having attained. The word 'Dhama' here is not about the place of control as before, but rather denotes 'Light', since the nature's form as light is established by the rejection of the need for sun etc. Therefore, the connection 'My supreme light' is weak. The predication of self-relation as 'Mine' ('Mama') is meaningful by avoiding the suspected independence in the state of supreme equality occurring in the liberated state—with this intention he says—'Param jyotirmama madiyam' (Supreme Light is Mine, belonging to Me).

Suggesting that the cause of what will be said as 'My own portion' [15.7] is intended here, he restricts the general relation expressed by the genitive case to a specific one—'Madvibhutibhutah' (Being My manifestation). And being a manifestation is not like a householder having a house etc.? But rather as being a part in the form of an inseparable attribute—so he says 'Mamamshah' (My portion).

This is the intention—The designation of 'part' is not in a single partless nature? Because the relation of part and whole depends on difference, the part being a portion of a single substance. Otherwise, in one thing, who is the part and who is the whole? Even a deluded person would not say 'He himself is his part.' Nor is difference-cum-non-difference possible? Because of the contingency of contradiction and violating all Shrutis. The status of being a part, perceived in Shrutis like 'A quarter of Him are all beings' [Rig Veda 10.90.3 / Yajur Veda 31.3], 'But by His constituent-beings all this world is pervaded' [Shvet. Up. 4.10], 'Just as tiny sparks issue forth from fire, so from this Self all Selves (all Pranas, all worlds, all gods, all beings) issue forth' [Brihad. Up. 2.1.20], is as an adjective-part in the qualified (entity)—this is determined in the Adhikarana 'Amsho nanavyapadeshat' [Brahma Sutra 2.3.43] in the Sutra 'Prakashadivattu naivam parah' [Brahma Sutra 2.3.46]. Therefore, among many things considered as one by some condition, one being defined is designated as a 'part'. This is indeed so in cloth etc. and heaps etc. And that is similar in designations like 'adjective-part' in the unity of the qualified, even when situated in the relation of adjective and substantive. Therefore here, due to the unity of the qualified through the relation of manifestation and possessor of manifestation between the totally different Jiva and Supreme, the Jiva being the adjective, when extracted and designated, is designated as 'part' relative to the Principal.

Here, the supremacy qualifying the Light designated by the word 'Dhama', which refers to a subject different from the Supreme Self possessing unchecked supremacy, is relative to proximate lights—stating the result of this, he says 'Adityadinamapi' (Even of the sun etc.).

आध्यात्मिक जीवन का लक्ष्य है संसार में अपुनरावृत्ति। इसे विशेष बल देकर पूर्व के श्लोकों में प्रतिपादित किया गया था और इस श्लोक में पुन उसे दोहराया जा रहा है। धर्मशास्त्र के सभी ग्रन्थों में किसी विशेष सिद्धान्त पर बल देने के लिये पुनरुक्ति का ही प्रयोग किया जाता है। निसंदेह इस उपाय का सर्वत्र उपयोग नहीं किया जाता है। तर्क की परिसीमा में आने वाले प्रमेयों की सिद्धि केवल तर्कों के द्वारा ही की जा सकती है। परन्तु आत्मज्ञान का क्षेत्र इन्द्रिय अगोचर होने से प्रारम्भ में केवल आचार्य का ही वहाँ प्रवेश होता है? शिष्यों का नहीं। अत अज्ञात अनन्तस्वरूप के अनुभव के सम्बन्ध में शिष्यों को विश्वास कराने का एकमात्र उपाय पुनरुक्ति ही है? जिसका उपयोग ऋषियों ने अपने उपदेशों में किया है।सम्पूर्ण गीता में इस गौरवमयी पूर्णत्व की स्थिति को साधकों की परा गति के रूप में इंगित किया गया है। यद्यपि यह स्थिति मन और वाणी के परे हैं? तथापि उसे इंगित करने का यहाँ समुचित प्रयत्न किया गया है।सूर्य? चन्द्र और अग्नि उसे प्रकाशित नहीं कर सकते हैं। यहाँ प्रकाश के उन स्रोतों का उल्लेख किया गया है जिनके प्रकाश में हमारे चर्मचक्षु दृश्य वस्तु को देख पाते हैं। वस्तु को देखने का अर्थ उसे जानना है और किसी वस्तु को देखने के लिए वस्तु का नेत्रों के समक्ष होना तथा उसका प्रकाशित होना भी आवश्यक है। प्रकाश के माध्यम में ही नेत्र रूप और रंग को देख सकते हैं। इसी प्रकार? हम अन्य इन्द्रियों के द्वारा शब्द? स्पर्श? रस और गन्ध को? तथा मन और बुद्धि के द्वारा क्रमश भावनाओं और विचारों को भी जानते हैं। जिस प्रकाश से हमें इन सबका भान होकर बोध होता है? वह चैतन्य का प्रकाश है।यह चैतन्य का प्रकाश भौतिक जगत् के प्रकाश के स्रोतोंसूर्य? चन्द्र और अग्निके द्वारा प्रकाशित नहीं किया जा सकता। वस्तुत ये सभी प्रकाश के स्रोत चैतन्य के दृश्य विषय है। यह नियम है कि दृश्य अपने द्रष्टा को प्रकाशित नहीं कर सकता तथा कभी भी और किसी भी स्थान पर द्रष्टा और दृश्य एक नहीं हो सकते। जिस चैतन्य के द्वारा हम अपने जीवन के सुखदुखादि अनुभवों को जानते हैं वह चैतन्य ही सनातन आत्मा है और इसे ही भगवान् अपना परम धाम कहते हैं। यही जीवन का परम लक्ष्य है।वह मेरा परम धाम है यहाँ धाम शब्द से तात्पर्य स्वरूप से है? न कि किसी स्थान विशेष से। पूर्व श्लोक में वर्णित गुणों से सम्पन्न साधक ध्यानाभ्यास के द्वारा मन और बुद्धि के विक्षेपों से परे परमात्मा के धाम में पहुँचकर सत्य से साक्षात्कार का समय निश्चित कर अनन्तस्वरूप ब्रह्म से भेंट कर सकता है।हम सब लोग उपयोगितावादी है। अत हम पहले ही जानना चाहते हैं कि क्या सत्य का अनुभव इतने अधिक परिश्रम के योग्य है क्या उसे प्राप्त कर लेने के पश्चात् पुन इस दुखपूर्ण संसार में लौटने की आशंका या संभावना नहीं है यह भय निर्मूल है। भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण पुन तीसरी बार हमें आश्वासन देते हैं? मेरा परम धाम वह है जहाँ पहुँचने पर साधक पुन लौटता नहीं है।यह सर्वविदित तथ्य है कि ज्ञान की किसी शाखाविशेष में प्रवीणता प्राप्त कर लेने के पश्चात् उस प्रवीण पुरुष द्वारा अपने ज्ञान में त्रुटि करना प्राय असंभव हो जाता है। किसी महान् संगीतज्ञ का जानबूझकर राग और ताल में त्रुटि करना उतना ही कठिन है? जितना कि एक नवशिक्षित गायक का सुस्वर में गायन। कोई भाषाविद् पुरुष अपने संभाषण में व्याकरण की त्रुटियाँ नहीं कर सकता। यदि लौकिक जगत् के अपूर्ण ज्ञान के क्षेत्र में भी एक सुसंस्कृत? शिक्षित और कलाकार पुरुष पुन असभ्य और अशिक्षित पुरुष के स्तर तक नहीं गिरता है? तो एक पूर्ण ज्ञानी पुरुष का पुन अज्ञानजनित भ्रान्तियों को लौटना कितना असंभव होगा विश्व के आध्यात्मिक साहित्य का यह एक अत्यन्त विरल श्लोक है? जिसमें इतनी सरल शैली में निरुपाधिक? शुद्ध परमात्मा का इतना स्पष्ट निर्देश किया गया है।हिन्दू धर्म में पुनर्जन्म के सिद्धान्त का प्रतिपादन किया गया है। इस सिद्धान्त के अनुसार? जीव एक देह का त्याग करने के पश्चात् अपने कर्मों के अनुसार पुन नवीन देह धारण करता है। ये शरीर देवता? मनुष्य? पशु आदि के हो सकते हैं। इसका अर्थ यह हुआ कि एक देह को त्यागने पर जीव का मोक्ष न होकर वह पुन संसार को ही प्राप्त होता है। परन्तु? इस श्लोक में तो यह कहा गया है? जहाँ पहुँचकर जीव पुन लौटता नहीं? वह मेरा परम धाम है। अत यहाँ इन दोनों सिद्धान्तों में विरोध प्रतीत होता है।इस विरोध का परिहार करने के लिये भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण अगले श्लोकों में जीव के स्वरूप पर प्रकाश डालते हैं

"Na tat" (Not that) etc. There is no scope for the sun etc. therein. [Because] they are limited by time etc.; are objects of knowledge; and are helpers of the senses.

But for That—there is no limitation by space, time etc.; It is the Knower; It Is the impeller of the senses; and It transcends them.

Since the connection of the subsequent sentences is not apparent, suggesting that, he says—"Svarupam" (Nature) etc.

By this, upon the expectation "What kind is that Abode, the attainment of which is the human goal?", this is said—this is what is meant.

By "Svarupam" (Nature), the meaning of what was called 'Pada' and what will be called 'Dhama' is also stated, because of the inapplicability of (physical) place and light.

He distinguishes that very Abode to be attained—"Na tad" etc. That Vaishnava Abode, having gone to which Yogis do not return, that Abode the sun, even though possessing the power to illuminate everything, does not illuminate.

Doubting that the moon is seen as an illuminator even when the sun sets, He says—"Na shashankah" (Nor the moon). Doubting that fire is seen as an illuminator even when both sun and moon set, He says—"Na pavakah" (Nor fire); this connects to both places.

Why do sun etc. have incapacity to illuminate there? To this He says—"Tat" etc. That "Dhama"—Light, self-luminous, the illuminator of all inert lights like the sun etc., Supreme—excellent—is the Abode consisting of the nature of "Mama"—Me, Vishnu. For indeed, that which is illuminated by something is not capable of illuminating that which illuminates it. And so the Shruti: "There the sun does not shine, nor the moon and stars, nor these lightnings shine, whence then this fire? Everything shines after Him shining; by His light all this shines."

By this, [the dilemma] is that Abode knowable or not? In the first case, duality results because of the dependence on a knower different from the known. In the second, the objection of it being not a human goal results—this is refuted. Because even though unknowable [as an object], it is self-evident (Aparoksha). There, unknowability is stated here by "not being illuminable by sun etc."; but self-evidence due to being the illuminator of all will be stated in "Yad adityagatam tejo" [15.12] etc. Thus, it should be seen that by both verses, the two parts of the Shruti are explained.

Now He states the nature of that Abode—"Na tad" etc. The sun does not "Bhasayate"—illuminate—that Abode. By this, self-luminosity is stated.

"Na shashankah"—nor the moon—illuminates with coolness etc. preceded by removal of heat. "Na pavakah"—fire—does not illuminate by removing coldness etc.

Moreover, having gone to which Abode they do not "Nivartante"—do not come back again. Why? To this He says. That is "Mama"—My—"Paramam"—excellent—"Dhama"—meaning house form.

"Tat Dhama"—It connects with the remote word "Dhamna". That "Dhama"—the Abode of the form of Light—the sun, the Aditya, does not illuminate, even though possessing the power to illuminate everything. Similarly, "Na shashankah"—the moon; "Na pavakah"—nor even fire. Which Abode—the Vaishnava Abode—having gone to—attained—they do not return; and which the sun etc. do not illuminate; "Tat Dhama"—Abode—is the Supreme Abode "Mama"—of Me, Vishnu; "having gone where they do not return" (Gita 15.6)—this has been said.

Objection: Indeed, it is well known that "All going ends in coming", "Unions end in separation". How is it said that for those who have gone to that Abode, there is no return? Listen to the reason there—

He distinguishes that very thing—"Na tad bhasayate" etc. "That Supreme Abode of Vishnu" [Rig Veda 1.22.20]; from the Bhagavata statement "The Imperishable, and in the Chedi (king) and in the foot of the Lord of Satvatas, entered..." [...], having become a 'Pada' (Abode/Foot); and from the Nibandha statement "In the manifestation of Hari as the Lord, but appearance as having a world (Loka)", being famous as consisting of a World—the world-famous sun etc. do not illuminate (it); and having gone where Yogis do not return;

"Tat"—that Supreme, most excellent—"Dhama"—Supreme Light-form, all-illuminating, nature of spiritual knowledge—of "Mama"—Me, Purushottama; because of the description "Where there is no Maya", it is to be known as the substratum of Maya (?), the root of all selves, consisting of incomparable glory.

न not? तत् that? भासयते illumines? सूर्यः the sun? न not? शशाङ्कः the moon? न not? पावकः fire? यत् to which? गत्वा having gone? न not? निवर्तन्ते (they) return? तत् that? धाम Abode? परमम् Supreme? मम My.Commentary That supreme abode is selfillumined for Brahman is selfluminous. It existed before the sun? the moon and the fire came into existence during creation. It remains even after they dissolve into the Unmanifested during the dissolution of the world.This verse is taken from the Kathopanishad The sun does not shine there? nor do the moon and the stars? nor does this lightning shine and much less this fire. When It shines? everything shines after It? by Its light? all these shine (Chap.II?5.15). The same idea occurs in the Svetasvatara Upanishad (6.14) and the Mundaka Upanishad (II.2.10). The sun? the moon? etc.? derive their light from Para Brahman. Nothing else is needed for illuminating the Supreme Being because It is selfluminous.Dhama paramam Supreme abode or superexcellent seat or Para Brahman.Though the sun is endowed with the power of illumining all? it cannot illumine the Supreme Being.यत् धाम वैष्णवं पदं गत्वा प्राप्य न निवर्तन्ते यत् च सूर्यादिभिः न भासयते तत् धाम पदं परमं मम विष्णोः।That abode? to which having gone? none returns? and which the sun? moon? stars? lightning and fire do not illumine? is the highest abode of Vishnu.(Cf.VIII.21)

Na suryah, niether the sun-though possessed of the power of illumining everything; so also, na sasankah, nor the moon; na pavakah, nor even fire; bhasayate, illumines; tat, That [-this (word) refers to the remote word dhama (Abode) at the end of the verse-], that Abode which is of the nature of light. That abode, the State of Visnu, gatva, reaching, attaining; yat, which; they na, do not; nivartante, return, and which the sun etc. do not illumine; tat, that; is mama, My, Visnu's; paramam, supreme; dhama, Abode, State.
Objection: It has been said, 'reaching which they do not return'. Is it not well known that all goings end, verily, in returning, and unions are followed by separations? How is it said that there is no return for those who come to that Abode?
Reply: As to that, listen to the reason:

The sun cannot illumine the light of the self, nor moon, nor fire. For, knowledge is indeed that which illumines them all. External lights, however, are helpful only in removing the darkness which hinders the contact between the senses and the objects. It is the intelligence of the self that reveals such external lights. What reveals this (i.e., the self) is Yoga (i.e., meditation) only. Beginningless Karma is the hindrance. It has been taught that the way for the erasing of Karma is self-surrender to the Lord through detachment etc. That supreme light, reaching which they do not return any more is the self, which is My glory (Vibhuti) and therefore belongs to Me and is a part of Myself. Such is the meaning. The supremacy of this light (i.e., individual self) consists in its capacity to illumine the light of knowledge. Knowledge alone can illuminate all things (including the light of the sun which sheds only physical light on objects.).