Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 18 - Shloka (Verse) 20

सर्वभूतेषु येनैकं ৷৷. अविभक्तं विभक्तेषु -- व्यक्ति? वस्तु आदिमें जो है पन दीखता है? वह उन व्यक्ति? वस्तु आदिका नहीं है? प्रत्युत सबमें परिपूर्ण परमात्मका ही है। उन व्यक्ति? वस्तु आदिकी स्वतन्त्र सत्ता ही नहीं है क्योंकि उनमें प्रतिक्षण परिवर्तन हो रहा है। कोई भी व्यक्ति? वस्तु आदि ऐसी नहीं है? जिसमें परिवर्तन न होता हो परन्तु अपनी अज्ञता(बेसमझी)से उनकी सत्ता दीखती है। जब अज्ञता मिट जाती है? ज्ञान हो जाता है? तब साधककी दृष्टि उस अविनाशी तत्त्वकी तरफ ही जाती है? जिसकी सत्तासे यह सब सत्तावान् हो रहा है।ज्ञान होनेपर साधककी दृष्टि परिवर्तनशील वस्तुओंको भेदकर परिवर्तनरहित तत्त्वकी ओर ही जाती है (गीता 13। 27)। फिर वह विभक्त अर्थात् अलगअलग वस्तु? व्यक्ति? परिस्थिति? घटना आदिमें विभागरहित एक ही तत्त्वको देखता है (गीता 13। 16)। तात्पर्य यह है कि अलगअलग वस्तु? व्यक्ति आदिका अलगअलग ज्ञान और यथायोग्य अलगअलग व्यवहार होते हुए भी वह इन विकारी वस्तुओंमें उस स्वतःसिद्ध निर्विकार एक तत्त्वको देखता है। उसके देखनेकी यही पहचान है कि उसके अन्तःकरणमें रागद्वेष नहीं होते।तज्ज्ञानं विद्धि सात्त्विकम् -- उस ज्ञानको तू सात्त्विक जान। परिवर्तनशील वस्तुओं? वृत्तियोंके सम्बन्धसे ही इसे सात्त्विक ज्ञान कहते हैं। सम्बन्धरहित होनेपर यही ज्ञान वास्तविक बोध कहलाता है? जिसको भगवान्ने सब साधनोंसे जाननेयोग्य ज्ञेयतत्त्व बताया है -- ज्ञेयं यत्तत्प्रवक्ष्यामि यज्ज्ञात्वामृतमश्नुते (गीता 13। 12)।मार्मिक बातसंसारका ज्ञान इन्द्रियोंसे होता है? इन्द्रियोंका ज्ञान बुद्धिसे होता है और बुद्धिका ज्ञान मैंसे होता है। वह मैं बुद्धि? इन्द्रियाँ और विषय -- इन तीनोंको जानता है। परन्तु उस मैंका भी एक प्रकाशक है? जिसमें मैंका भी भान होता है। वह प्रकाश सर्वदेशीय और असीम है? जब कि मैं एकदेशीय और सीमित है। उस प्रकाशमें जैसे मैंका भान होता है? वैसे ही तू? यह और वह का भी भान होता है। वह प्रकाश किसीका भी विषय नहीं है। वास्तवमें वह प्रकाश निर्गुण ही है परन्तु व्यक्तिविशेषमें रहनेवाला होनेसे (वृत्तियोंके सम्बन्धसे) उसे सात्त्विक ज्ञान कहते हैं।इस सात्त्विक ज्ञानको दूसरे ढंगसे इस प्रकार समझना चाहिये -- मैं? तू? यह और वह -- ये चारों ही किसी प्रकाशमें काम करते हैं। इन चारोंके अन्तर्गत सम्पूर्ण प्राणी आ जाते हैं? जो विभक्त हैं परन्तु इनका जो प्रकाशक है? वह अवभिक्त (विभागरहित) है।बोलनेवाला? मैं? उसके सामने सुननेवाला तू और पासवाला यह तथा दूरवाला वह कहा जाता है अर्थात् बोलनेवाला अपनेको मैं कहता है? सामनेवालेको तू कहता है? पासवालेको यह कहता है और दूरवालेको वह कहता है। जो तू बना हुआ था? वह मैं हो जाय तो मैं बना हुआ तू हो जायगा और यह तथा वह वही रहेंगे। इसी प्रकार यह कहलानेवाला अगर मैं बन जाय तो तू कहलानेवाला यह बन जायगा और मैं कहलानेवाला तू बन जायगा। वह परोक्ष होनेसे अपनी जगह ही रहा। अब वह कहलानेवाला मैं बन जायगा तो उसकी दृष्टिमें मैं? तू और यह कहलानेवाले सब वह हो जायँगे (टिप्पणी प0 903)। इस प्रकाशमें मैं? तू? यह और वह का भान हो रहा है। दृष्टिमें चारों ही बन सकते हैं।इससे यह सिद्ध हुआ कि मैं? तू? यह और वह -- ये सब परिवर्तनशील हैं अर्थात् टिकनेवाले नहीं हैं? वास्तविक नहीं हैं। अगर वास्तविक होते तो एक ही रहते। वास्तविक तो इन सबका प्रकाशक और आश्रय है? जिसके प्रकार मैं? तू? यह और वह -- ये यारों ही एकदूसरेकी उस प्रकाशमें मैं? तू? यह और वह -- ये चारों ही नहीं हैं? प्रत्युत उसीसे इन चारोंको सत्ता मिलती है। अपनी मान्यताके कारण मैं? तू? यह? वह का तो भान होता है? पर प्रकाशकका भान नहीं होता। वह प्रकाशक सबको प्रकाशित करता है? स्वयंप्रकाशस्वरूप है और सदा ज्योंकात्यों रहता है। मैं? तू? यह और वह -- यह सब विभक्त प्राणियोंका स्वरूप है और जो वास्तविक प्रकाशक है? वह विभागरहित है। यही वास्तवमें सात्त्विक ज्ञान है।विभागवाली? परिवर्तनशील और नष्ट होनेवाली जितनी वस्तुएँ हैं? यह ज्ञान उन सबका प्रकाशक है और स्वयं भी निर्मल तथा विकाररहित है -- तत्र सत्त्वं निर्मलत्वात् प्रकाशकमनामयम् (गीता 14। 6)। इसलिये इस ज्ञानको सात्त्विक कहा जाता है।वास्तवमें यह सात्त्विक ज्ञान प्रकाश्यकी दृष्टि(सम्बन्ध)से प्रकाशक और विभक्तकी दृष्टिसे अविभक्त कहा जाता है। प्रकाश्य और विभक्तसे रहित होनेपर तो यह निर्गुण? निरपेक्ष वास्तविक ज्ञान ही है। सम्बन्ध -- अब राजस ज्ञानका वर्णन करते हैं।

पहले ( तीन श्लोकोंद्वारा ) ज्ञानके तीन भेद कहे जाते हैं। जिस ज्ञानके द्वारा मनुष्य? अव्यक्तसे लेकर स्थावरपर्यन्त समस्त भूतोंमें एकभाव -- एक आत्मवस्तु? जो कि अपने स्वरूपसे या धर्मसे कभी क्षय नहीं होता? ऐसा अविनाशी और कूटस्थ नित्यतत्त्व देखता है। यहाँ भाव शब्द वस्तुवाचक है। तथा ( जिस ज्ञानके द्वारा ) उस आत्मतत्त्वको अलगअलग प्रत्येक शरीरमें विभागरहित अर्थात् आकाशके समान समभावसे स्थित देखता है? उस ज्ञानको अर्थात् अद्वैतभावसे आत्मसाक्षात्कार कर लेनेको तू सात्त्विक ज्ञान पूर्ण ज्ञान जान। जो द्वैतदर्शनरूप अयथार्थ ज्ञान है? वे राजसतामस हैं? अतः वे संसारका उच्छेद करनेमें साक्षात् हेतु नहीं हैं।

Having promised that the threefold nature of each of knowledge etc. is to be known, he introduces three verses for the threefold nature of knowledge — 'Jñānasya' etc. There he presents the Sattvic knowledge — 'Sarva' etc.

'Bhūtāni' (beings) are aggregates of adjuncts of the nature of cause and effect? The non-dual, indivisible, homogenous, inner Self, the uncontradicted Reality is intended as the object of knowledge, thus he says — 'Ekam' etc.

He summarizes the intended imperishability — 'Kūṭastha' etc.

He clarifies what was said as undivided in each body — 'Vibhakteṣu' etc.

He explains 'Tajjñānam' etc. — 'Advaita' etc.

There, dividing the threefold nature of knowledge, first He states its Sattvic nature —

'Sarvabhūteṣu' — from the Unmanifest down to the immovable; in 'vibhakteṣu' — in those having divisions due to differences of body etc.; 'ekam' — one non-dual 'bhāvam' — the supreme reality, of the nature of Existence-Consciousness-Bliss; 'avyayam' — it does not change by its own nature or attribute, hence avyayam — immutably eternal; 'avibhaktam' — devoid of division in each body, continuous like space;

'yena jñānena' — by which knowledge born of Upanishadic doctrine — the non-dualist sees; know that non-dual vision of Self, the right knowledge, as 'sāttvikam'.

'Ekaṃ bhāvam' — Vishnu.

Thus having promised to state the threefold nature of the triad of knowledge etc., He states the threefold nature of knowledge first — 'Sarvabhūteṣu' etc.

Just as when bracelets, earrings etc. are distinct, the discrimination of truth sees 'this is gold indeed'.

Similarly, by which knowledge one 'īkṣate' — sees — in 'sarvabhūteṣu vibhakteṣu' — in [beings] distinct by differences of manifold names and forms — the 'avyayam' — changeless 'ekam bhāvam' — the form of pure Consciousness — sees that 'all this is Brahman indeed'; know that knowledge as Sattvic.

Knowledge of the oneness of Self alone is Sattvic, this is the meaning.

In 'sarveṣu bhūteṣu' — in all beings qualified for action — 'vibhakteṣu' — divided as Brahmana, Kshatriya, Brahmachari, Grihastha etc.; by which knowledge one 'īkṣate' — sees — at the time of qualification for action, the entity named 'Self' of one form; even there 'avibhaktam' — the Self of the one form of knowledge, devoid of division even in beings of many forms like Brahmanahood etc.

'avyayam' — undecaying — unmodified and unfit for attachment to fruit etc. even in bodies like Brahmana etc. which are of decaying nature;

know that knowledge as Sattvic.

There He states the threefold nature of knowledge as Sattvic etc. — by the three [verses] starting 'Sarvabhūteṣu'.

In 'sarveṣu bhūteṣu' — from Brahma down to the immovable; 'vibhakteṣu' — mutually distinct; 'avibhaktam' — pervading/inherent; 'ekam avyayam' — changeless 'bhāvam' — the reality of Supreme Self; by which knowledge one 'īkṣate' — considers/sees; know that knowledge as Sattvic.

The statement of Sattvic knowledge etc. is to indicate the dependence on Gunas in agency. He states the external variety intended by the word 'all beings' and contemplated by knowers of non-Self — by 'Brāhmaṇa' etc.

Since the word 'knowledge' here refers to the knowledge occurring at the time of performance of action connected with the contextual impulse to action, 'beings' are qualified as 'in those qualified for action'. The word 'bhāva' here is a synonym for object/entity.

'Ekam' — this is said intending unity of class (Jati); because plurality of selves has been established before; because the statement of others that 'non-dual vision is Sattvic knowledge' is baseless; and because plurality is stated immediately after by 'Nānābhāvān' [18.21]; because the expansion of contemplation of equality is recognized here; and because of the propriety of the subject being the contextual inner Self (Jivatma) as 'Agent', it is inappropriate to refer to the Supreme Self — with this intention he says — 'Ātmākhyam' (Named Self).

By 'Sitadīrgha' (white, long) etc. — the Shruti 'Of cows of many colors, milk is of one color' [Amritabindu 19] etc. is indicated. Here, since by the word 'all beings' class like Brahmanahood etc. is grasped, the word 'undivided' refers to internal divisions like Gunas etc., this is the idea.

In what form is there unity? To this he says — 'Jñānākāre' (In the form of knowledge).

He states the occasion for the decay being prohibited — 'Vyayasvabhāveṣvapi' (Even in those of decaying nature). The previously mentioned absence of modification in the form of attachment to fruit etc. is also included by the word 'avyaya' referring to unmodifiedness, he says — 'Phalādisaṅgānarhaṃ ca' (And unfit for attachment to fruit etc.). 'Saṅga' here means connection, experience. Even if it refers to desire, enjoyment is implied.

Because it is the result of knowledge connected with impulse to action, 'karmādhikāravelāyām' (at the time of qualification for action) is said. 'This is to be done by me' — in this state of contemplation, this is the meaning. 'Yena jñāneneakṣate' — makes an object [of knowledge], this is the meaning.

प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में ज्ञान? कर्म और कर्ता का जो त्रिविध वर्गीकरण किया जा रहा है? उसका उद्देश्य अन्य लोगों के गुणदोष को देखकर उनका वर्गीकरण करने का नहीं है। यह तो साधक के अपने आत्मनिरीक्षण के लिए है। आत्मविकास के इच्छुक साधक को यथासंभव सत्त्वगुण में निष्ठा प्राप्त करने का प्रयत्न करना चाहिए। आत्मनिरीक्षण के द्वारा हम अपने अवगुणों को समझकर उनका तत्काल निराकरण कर सकते हैं।सात्त्विक ज्ञान के द्वारा हम भूतमात्र में स्थित एक अव्यय सत्य को देख सकते हैं। यद्यपि उपाधियाँ असंख्य हैं? तथापि उनका सारभूत आत्मतत्त्व एक ही है। ध्यान देने योग्य बात यह है कि यहाँ द्वैत्प्रपंच के अदर्शन को सात्त्विक ज्ञान नहीं कहा गया है? वरन् समस्त भेदों को देखते हुए भी उनके एक मूलस्वरूप को पहचानने को सात्त्विक ज्ञान कहा गया है। उदाहरणार्थ? तरंगों को नहीं देखना जल का ज्ञान नहीं कहा जा सकता? बल्कि विविध तरंगों को देखते हुए भी उनके एक जलस्वरूप को पहचानना ज्ञान है।यद्यपि विभिन्न एवं विभक्त उपाधियों के कारण प्रतिदेह आत्मतत्त्व भिन्न प्रतीत होता है? किन्तु वास्तव में आत्मतत्त्व एक? अखण्ड और अविभाज्य है। कैसे जैसे? विभिन्न घट उपाधियों के कारण सर्वगत आकाश विभक्त हुआ प्रतीत होता है? परन्तु स्वयं आकाश सदैव अखण्ड और अविभक्त ही रहता है। जिस ज्ञान के द्वारा हम उस एकमेव अद्वितीय परमात्मा के इस विलास को समझ पाते हैं? वही ज्ञान सात्त्विक है।

There, by the three verses 'Sarvabhūteṣu' etc. (Verses 20-22), the three forms of the instrument of knowledge are stated. Therefore 'yena' (by which) is in instrumental case. By this much the nature of the general instrument of knowledge (or capacity) is stated.

By the three verses 'Niyatam' etc. (Verses 23-25), the two (three?) kinds of Action — of the form of knowable effect; by the three verses 'Muktasaṅgaḥ' etc. (Verses 26-28), the nature of the two (three?) forms of Agent briefly; to explain the difference in nature of specific instruments, by the three verses 'Pravṛttim' etc. (30-32), the threefold nature of Intellect is described (implied). Through that, the threefold nature of other instruments is also implied.

Since the instrument requires procedure (Itikartavyata), and procedure consists of the pentad like fortitude etc., but since Faith (Shraddha) was stated before, and since desire to know and lack of desire to know are implied by fortitude and pleasure, their threefold nature is stated by 'Dhṛtyā yayā' [three verses (33-35)] and by 'Sukhaṃ tvidānīm' [three verses (36-39)].

He states that — from 'Sarvabhūteṣu' etc. up to 'Samudāhṛtam'. 'Vibhakteṣu' — as gods, men etc. 'Pṛthaktvena' — by the intellect 'here is my love, here is my hatred' etc. 'Ahetukam' — without considering the cause, merely by force of absorption in adherence, the grasping of anger, attachment etc., that is named Tamasic.

'Ekaṃ bhāvam' was said generally; who is that 'one Bhava'? In this expectation he says — 'Ekam'.

Thus, having promised that knowledge, action, and the doer are each to be known as threefold, He first describes the threefold nature of knowledge in three verses; among them, He states the Sattvic knowledge of the non-dualists—with 'in all beings' (sarvabhuteshu), etc.

'In all beings'—named Avyakrita (Unmanifest), Hiranyagarbha, and Virat; in the forms of seed (causal), subtle, and gross; consisting of the aggregate (macrocosm) and the individual (microcosm). Although the sense would have been conveyed just by 'in all' (sarveshu), by the word 'in beings' (bhuteshu), the quality of 'becoming' (having origin) is expressed; thereby, in the class of seen objects which are prone to creation and destruction, which are divided, mutually excluded, and of various essences—[seeing] the 'Imperishable' (avyayam), i.e., devoid of all modifications like creation and destruction, unseen, undivided, not excluded, threaded through everywhere as the substratum and as the limit of sublation; the 'One' (ekam), i.e., non-dual; 'Being' (bhavam), i.e., in the form of absolute existence, the Self which is self-luminous bliss—'by which' (yena), i.e., by which specific modification of the internal organ, brought about by inquiry into the sentences of Vedanta, one 'sees' (ikshate), i.e., directly realizes; know that knowledge—which is the vision of the non-dual Self that sublates the false universe—to be 'Sattvic', the cause of the uprooting of all transmigratory existence (Samsara).

The intention is that the vision of duality is Rajasic and Tamasic, and the cause of Samsara, not Sattvic.

Having promised that the threefold nature of each of knowledge etc. is to be known, He introduces three verses for the threefold nature of knowledge — 'Jñānasya' etc. There He presents the Sattvic knowledge — 'Sarva' etc.

'Bhūtāni' (beings) are aggregates of adjuncts of the nature of cause and effect? The non-dual, indivisible, homogenous, inner Self, the uncontradicted Reality is intended as the object of knowledge, thus He says — 'Ekam' etc. He summarizes the intended imperishability — 'Kūṭastha' etc. He clarifies what was said as undivided in each body — 'Vibhakteṣu' etc. He explains 'Tajjñānam' etc. — 'Advaita' etc.

There, dividing the threefold nature of knowledge, first He states its Sattvic nature — 'Sarvabhūteṣu' — from the Unmanifest down to the immovable; in 'vibhakteṣu' — in those having divisions due to differences of body etc.; 'ekam' — one non-dual 'bhāvam' — the supreme reality, of the nature of Existence-Consciousness-Bliss; 'avyayam' — it does not change by its own nature or attribute, hence avyayam — immutably eternal;

'avibhaktam' — devoid of division in each body, continuous like space; 'yena jñānena' — by which knowledge born of Upanishadic doctrine — the non-dualist sees; know that non-dual vision of Self, the right knowledge, as 'sāttvikam'.

'Sarvabhuteshu' (In all beings...) etc. By which knowledge, even in those qualified for action who are divided into forms like Vipra (Brahmin), Kshatriya, Brahmachari, Householder etc.; in the forms of Brahminhood etc.; in the manifold qualities; in the manifold (beings); one 'samikshate' (sees/perceives) the one uniform entity named Atman (Self); and yet 'avyayam' (imperishable) -- unchanging even amidst those of perishable nature; unfit for attachment to fruits etc. even at the time of qualification for action; know that knowledge to be Sattvic.

Therefore it is said in Srimad Bhagavatam [6.16.9] -- 'This one is eternal, imperishable, subtle; this one is the refuge of all, self-seeing (self-luminous)'.

Here, 'the refuge of all is the one Self alone, the atomic Jiva is imperishable' -- this knowledge is Sattvic.

सर्वभूतेषु in all beings? येन by which? एकम् one? भावम् reality? अव्ययम् indestructible? ईक्षते (one) sees? अविभक्तम् inseparable? विभक्तेषु in the separated? तत् that? ज्ञानम् knowledge? विद्धि know? सात्त्विकम् Sattvic (pure).Commentary That knowledge that sees no difference in all objects that are perceived? is pure. The seer beholds the one allpervading imperishable substance or essence behind the seeming diversity of the objects. He beholds unity in diversity? one in many? all in one. He sees that all the diverse objects are rooted in the One.Bhavam Reality The One Self.Sarvabhuteshu In all beings From the Unmanifested down to the insentient and unmoving objects.Avyayam Indestructible inexhaustible unchangeable that which cannot be exhausted either in itself or in its properties immutable.Just as the ether is indivisible? so also the Self is indivisible. The Self is the same in all bodies. It is the common consciousness in all bodies. It is not different in different bodies. It is one homogeneous indivisible essence or substance in all bodies? in all beings. Know thou? O Arjuna? this direct and right perception of the nondual Self as Sattvic (pure). (Cf.IV.35VI.29XIII.16?28XVIII.30)

Viddhi, know; tat, that; jnanam, knowledge, realization of the Self as non-dual, complete realization; to be sattvikam, originating from sattva; yena, through which knowledge; iksate, one sees; ekam, a single; avyayam, undecaying-that which does not undergo mutation either in itself or by the mutation of its alities-' i.e. eternal and immutable; bhavam, Entity-the word bhava is used to imply an entity-, i.e. the single Reality which is the Self; sarvabhutesu, in all things, in all things begining from the Unmanifest to the unmoving things; and through which knowledge one sees that Entity to be avibhaktam, undivided; in every body, vibhaktesu, in all the deversified things, in the different bodies. The idea is: that Reality which is the Self remains, like Space, undivided.
Being based on rajas and tamas, those that are the dualistic philosophies are incomplete, and hence are not by themselves adeate for the eradication of worldly existence.

The self (Atman), which is of the form of knowledge, is alike and uniform, though distinct, in all beings, even though they may externally, and from the point of view of duty, be distinguished as Brahmanas, Ksatriyas, householders, celibates, fair, tall etc. The immutable selves in all these perishing forms or bodies are unaffected by the fruits of actions. Such knowledge of the immutability of the self in all changing beings, is Sattvika.