Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 18 - Shloka (Verse) 21

पृथक्त्वेन तु (टिप्पणी प0 904.1) यज्ज्ञानं नानाभावान् पृथग्विधान् -- राजस ज्ञानमें राग की मुख्यता होती है -- रजो रागात्मकं विद्धि (गीता 14। 7)। रागका यह नियम है कि वह जिसमें आ जाता है? उसमें किसीके प्रति आसक्ति? प्रियता पैदा करा देता है और किसीके प्रति द्वेष पैदा करा देता है। इस रागके कारण ही मनुष्य? देवता? यक्षराक्षस? पशुपक्षी? कीटपतङ्ग? वृक्षलता आदि जितने भी चरअचर प्राणी हैं? उन प्राणियोंकी विभिन्न आकृति? स्वभाव? नाम? रूप? गुण आदिको लेकर राजस ज्ञानवाला मनुष्य उनमें रहनेवाली एक ही अविनाशी आत्माको तत्त्वसे अलगअलग समझता है।वेत्ति सर्वेषु भूतेषु तज्ज्ञानं विद्धि राजसम् -- इसी तरह जिस ज्ञानसे मनुष्य अलगअलग शरीरोंमें अन्तःकरण? स्वभाव? इन्द्रियाँ? प्राण आदिके सम्बन्धसे प्राणियोंको भी अलगअलग मानता है? वह ज्ञान राजस कहलाता है। राजस ज्ञानमें जडचेतनका विवेक नहीं होता। सम्बन्ध -- अब तामस ज्ञानका वर्णन करते हैं।

और जो ज्ञान? सम्पूर्ण भूतोंमें भिन्नभिन्न प्रकारके भिन्नभिन्न भावोंको? आत्मासे अलग विलक्षण पृथक्रूपसे देखता है? अर्थात् प्रत्येक शरीरमें अलगअलग अपनेसे दूसरा आत्मा समझता है? उस ज्ञानको तू राजस यानी रजोगुणसे उत्पन्न हुआ जान। ज्ञानमें कर्तापन होना असम्भव है? इसलिये जो ज्ञान देखता है इसका आशय यह है कि जिस ज्ञानके द्वारा मनुष्य देखता है।

Even some views of duality are born of Sattva and are correct—having raised this doubt, He says—'Yani' (Which), etc. He states the reason for their incorrectness—with 'Rajasani' (Rajasic).

By which knowledge one knows the Selves as distinct due to difference in every body, that knowledge is Rajasic; thus he explains—with 'Bhedena' (by difference).

Doubting that 'separateness' (prithaktvam) and 'of various kinds' (prithagvidhatvam) are a repetition, and intending a distinction based on cause and effect, he says—'Bhinna' (distinct), etc.

Doubting that the agency of knowing [attributed] to knowledge is improper, he says—'Yena' (by which), etc.

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. which have divisions like white, long 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.

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.

जब हम इन्द्रिय? मन और बुद्धि के माध्यम से जगत् का अवलोकन करते हैं? तब? निसन्देह उसमें हमें असंख्य प्रकार के भेद दृष्टिगोचर होते हैं। परन्तु जो वस्तु जिस रूप में दिखाई देती है? उसके उसी रूप को सत्य समझ लेना अविवेक का लक्षण है। राजसी पुरुष का मन सदैव चंचल और अस्थिर रहने के कारण वह कभी शान्त मन से विचार नहीं कर पाता और यही कारण है कि वह दृष्टिगोचर भेद? जैसे वनस्पति? पशु? मनुष्य आदि को परस्पर सर्वथा भिन्न और सत्य मान लेता है। ऐसे ज्ञान को राजस ज्ञान कहते हैं।

There (S adds 'in the body' after 'there'), by the three verses beginning with "in all beings" (sarvabhuteshu) etc. (Verses 20-22), the threefold nature of the instrument of knowledge has been stated. Therefore, "by which" (yena) is in the instrumental case. And by this much, the nature of the general instrument of knowledge (N records an alternative reading 'of the power' [samarthyasya] for 'of the general' [samanyasya] by saying 'in another copy it is samarthyasya') has been stated.

By the three verses beginning with "Ordained" (niyatam) etc. (Verses 23-25), the twofold nature of action which is of the form of the knowable effect [is stated]; by the three verses beginning with "Free from attachment" (muktasangah) etc. (Verses 26-28), indeed, the nature of the twofold doer in brief [is stated];

for the purpose of explaining the difference in the nature of the specific instrument, [by the three verses beginning with "Action/Path" (pravrittim) etc. (30-32)], the threefold nature of the intellect has been described (S -- [three]foldness is implied). Through that, the threefold nature of other instruments is also implied.

And since the instrument requires 'Itikartavyata' (procedure/method), and although Itikartavyata consists of a pentad of Dhriti (firmness) etc.; since faith (Shraddha) has been stated earlier; and since Vividisha (desire to know) and Avividisha (lack of desire to know) are implied by firmness (Dhriti) and happiness (Sukha); the threefold nature of those two [Dhriti and Sukha] is stated by "by which firmness" (dhritya yaya) [in three verses (33-35)] and by "but happiness now" (sukham tvidanim) [in three verses (36-39)].

That He states—beginning with "in all beings" etc. ending with "is exemplified" (samudahritam). "In the divided" (vibhakteshu)? [Meaning] as gods, humans, etc. "Separately/By distinctness" (prithaktvena)? [Meaning] by the understanding "here is my affection, here is my aversion", etc. "Without cause" (ahetukam)? [Meaning] without considering the cause at all, due to the force of obstinate attachment (abhinivesha), the adoption of anger, attachment, etc. that occurs—that is named Tamasic.

'Pṛthaktveneti'. The word 'tu' is to show distinction from the previously mentioned Sattvic [knowledge].

'Pṛthaktvena' — distinctly — in all beings — in body etc. which are situated separately — 'nānābhāvān' — other selves in each body — 'pṛthagvidhān' — mutually distinct in the form of possessing pleasure, pain etc.

It should have been said 'by which knowledge one knows', [but it is said] 'which knowledge knows', so by metaphorical application of agency to the instrument, like 'fuel cooks'; or because the agent ego is non-different from that modification (Vritti), know that knowledge as 'rājāsam'. Thus the word 'knowledge' again refers to knowledge of difference of selves and knowledge of difference of non-self.

By this, the mutual difference of selves, their difference from God, and from them the difference of God and mutually of the inanimate group — thus the knowledge of the five unconditional differences belongs to bad logicians and is indeed Rajasic, this is the intention.

He states the Rajasic [knowledge] — 'Pṛthaktveneti'. Since knowledge is [by nature] Sattvic, the word 'tu' is to indicate that the knowledge to be described is similar only in word.

'Pṛthaktvena' — due to absence of the One playful Lord — 'tu' — [seeing] 'nānābhāvān' — manifold Jivas, 'pṛthagvidhān' — of forms with various desires, happy, unhappy etc., in all beings like animals, birds, humans, grass, clumps etc. — by which one sees, know that knowledge as Rajasic — of the nature of a distracted mind.

'Pṛthaktvena tu' — by difference, by otherness in each body — which knowledge 'nānābhāvān' — different selves — 'pṛthagvidhān' — of different kinds, of different characteristics, this is the meaning

'vetti' — knows — which knowledge in all beings; since agency is impossible for knowledge, 'by which knowledge one knows' is the meaning

know that knowledge as 'rājasam' — accomplished by Rajo-guna.

'Pṛthaktvena' etc. is clear.

पृथक्त्वेन as different from one another? तु but? यत् which? ज्ञानम् knowledge? नानाभावान् various entities? पृथग्विधान् of distinct kinds? वेत्ति knows? सर्वेषु (in) all? भूतेषु in beings? तत् that? ज्ञानम् knowledge? विद्धि know? राजसम् Rajasic.Commentary Knowledge which sees As knowledge cannot be an agent? this should be interpreted to mean knowledge by which one sees.Entities Selves or souls.Different from one another Regarding them as different in different bodies.The knowledge that is led by the idea of separateness is passionate. Enveloping as it does the manifold creation with the veil of separateness? it deludes even the wise man. Owing to passionate knowledge? beings appear to be separate and the perception of unity is also lost sight of. That knowledge which beholds multiplicity in created objects and differentiates them as being small or great? according to their form and size? is of passionate nature and tainted. A man with passionate knowledge sees diversity everywhere. He beholds the many only.Now I will explain to thee? O Arjuna? knowledge that is of the ality of darkness? in order that thou mayest avoid it.

Tu, but; viddhi, know; tat, that; jnanam, knowledge; to be rajasam, originating from rajas; yat, which; sarvesu bhutesu, amidst all things; vetti, apprehends-since knowledge cannot be an agent of hends-since knowledge cannot be an agent of action, therefore the meaning implied is, 'that, knowledge৷৷.through which one apprehends৷৷.'-; nana-bhavan, the different entities; prthagvidhan, of various kinds, i.e., those possessing diverse characteristics and different from oneself; prthakrvena, as distinct, as separate in each body.

Whatever knowledge perceives in Brahmana etc., at the time of work, the entity known as the Atman as of diverse nature because the bodies of those beings are tall or fair and are fit to attain the fruits of work - know that knowledge to be Rajasika. The point is this: It is not a condemnation of the plurality of Atman. The Atman, though distinct, is uniform everywhere. The bodily attributes do not affect it. The knowledge lacking this understanding is stigmatised as Rajasa.