Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 18 - Shloka (Verse) 50

सिद्धिं प्राप्तो यथा ब्रह्म तथाप्नोति निबोध मे -- यहाँ सिद्धि नाम अन्तःकरणकी शुद्धिका है? जिसका वर्णन पूर्वश्लोकमें आये असक्तबुद्धिः? जितात्मा और विगतस्पृहः पदोंसे हुआ है। जिसका अन्तःकरण इतना शुद्ध हो गया है कि उसमें किञ्चिन्मात्र भी किसी प्रकारकी कामना? ममता और आसक्ति नहीं रही? उसके लिये कभी किञ्चिन्मात्र भी किसी वस्तु? व्यक्ति? परिस्थिति आदिकी जरूरत नहीं पड़ती अर्थात् उसके लिये कुछ भी प्राप्त करना बाकी नहीं रहता। इसलिये इसको सिद्धि कहा है।लोकमें तो ऐसा कहा जाता है कि मनचाही चीज मिल गयी तो सिद्धि हो गयी? अणिमादि सिद्धियाँ मिल गयीं तो सिद्धि हो गयी। पर वास्तवमें यह सिद्धि नहीं है क्योंकि इसमें पराधीनता होती है? किसी बातकी कमी रहती है? और किसी वस्तु? परिस्थिति आदिकी जरूरत पड़ती है। अतः जिस सिद्धिमें किञ्चिन्मात्र भी कामना पैदा न हो? वही वास्तवमें सिद्धि है। जिस सिद्धिके मिलनेपर कामना बढ़ती रहे? वह सिद्धि वास्तवमें सिद्धि नहीं है? प्रत्युत एक बन्धन ही है।अन्तःकरणकी शुद्धिरूप सिद्धिको प्राप्त हुआ साधक ही ब्रह्मको प्राप्त होता है। वह जिस क्रमसे ब्रह्मको प्राप्त होता है? उसको मुझसे समझ -- निबोध मे। कारण कि सांख्ययोगकी जो सारसार बातें हैं? वे सांख्ययोगीके लिये अत्यन्त आवश्यक हैं और उन बातोंको समझनेकी बहुत जरूरत है।निबोध पदका तात्पर्य है कि सांख्ययोगमें क्रिया और सामग्रीकी प्रधानता नहीं है। किन्तु उस तत्त्वको समझनेकी प्रधानता है। इसी अध्यायके तेरहवें श्लोकमें भी सांख्ययोगीके विषयमें निबोध पद आया है।समासेनैव कौन्तेय निष्ठा ज्ञानस्य या परा -- सांख्ययोगीकी जो आखिरी स्थिति है? जिससे बढ़कर साधककी कोई स्थिति नहीं हो सकती? वही ज्ञानकी परा निष्ठा कही जाती है। उस परा निष्ठाको अर्थात् ब्रह्मको सांख्ययोगका साधक जिस प्रकारसे प्राप्त होता है? उसको मैं संक्षेपसे कहूँगा अर्थात् उसकी सारसार बातें,कहूँगा। सम्बन्ध -- ज्ञानकी परा निष्ठा प्राप्त करनेके लिये साधनसामग्रीकी आवश्यकता है? उसको आगेके तीन श्लोकोंमें बताते हैं।

पूर्वोक्त स्वधर्मानुष्ठानद्वारा ईश्वरार्चनरूप साधनसे उत्पन्न हुई? ज्ञाननिष्ठाप्राप्तिकी योग्यतारूप सिद्धिको? जो प्राप्त कर चुका है और जिसमें आत्मविषयक विवेकज्ञान उत्पन्न हो गया है? उस पुरुषको? जिस क्रमसे केवल आत्मज्ञाननिष्ठारूप नैष्कर्म्यसिद्धि मिलती है? वह ( क्रम ) बतलाना है? अतः कहते हैं --, सिद्धिको प्राप्त हुआ? अर्थात् अपने कर्मोंद्वारा ईश्वरकी पूजा करके? उसकी कृपासे उत्पन्न हुई शरीर और इन्द्रियोंकी ज्ञाननिष्ठाप्राप्तिका योग्यतारूप सिद्धिको प्राप्त हुआ पुरुष -- यह पुनरुक्ति आगे कहे जानेवाले वचनोंके साथ सम्बन्ध जो़ड़नेके लिये है। वे आगे कहे जानेवाले वचन कौनसे हैं जिनके लिये पुनरुक्ति है सो बतलाते हैं -- जिस ज्ञाननिष्ठारूप प्रकारसे ( साधक ब्रह्मको) -- परमात्माको पाता है? उस प्रकारको ? यानी ज्ञाननिष्ठाप्राप्तिके क्रमको? तू मेरे वचनोंसे निश्चयपूर्वक समझ। क्या ( उसका ) विस्तारपूर्वक ( वर्णन करेंगे ) इसपर कहते हैं कि नहीं। हे कौन्तेय समाससे अर्थात् संक्षेपसे ही? जिस क्रमसे ब्रह्मको प्राप्त होता है? उसे समझ। इस वाक्यसे जिस ब्रह्मप्राप्तिके लिये प्रतिज्ञा की थी? उसे इदंरूपसे ( स्पष्ट ) दिखानेके लिये कहते हैं कि ज्ञानकी जो परानिष्ठा है उसको सुन। अन्तिम अवधिपरिसमाप्तिका नाम निष्ठा है। ऐसी जो ब्रह्मज्ञानकी परमावधि है ( उसको सुन )। वह ( ब्रह्मज्ञानकी निष्ठा ) कैसी है जैसा कि आत्मज्ञान है। वह कैसा है जैसा आत्मा है। वह,( आत्मा ) कैसा है जैसा भगवान्ने बतलाया है तथा जैसा उपनिषद्वाक्योंद्वारा कहा गया है और जैसा न्यायसे सिद्ध है। पू0 -- ज्ञान विषयाकार होता है? परंतु आत्मा न तो कहीं भी विषय माना जाता है और न आकारवान् ही। उ0 -- किंतु आदित्यवर्ण प्रकाशस्वरूप स्वयंज्योति इस तरह आत्माका आकारवान् होना तो श्रुतिमें कहा है। पू0 -- यह कहना ठीक नहीं क्योंकि वे वाक्य तमःस्वरूपत्वका निषेध करनेके लिये कहे गये हैं। अर्थात् आत्मामें द्रव्यगुण आदिके आकारका प्रतिषेध करनेपर जो आत्माके अन्धकाररूप माने जानेकी आशङ्का होती है? उसका प्रतिषेध करनेके लिये ही आदित्यवर्णम् इत्यादि वाक्य हैं क्योंकि अरूपम् आदि वाक्योंसे विशेषतः रूपका प्रतिषेध किया गया है और इसका ( आत्माका ) रूप इन्द्रियोंके सामने नहीं ठहरता? इसको ( आत्माको ) कोई भी आंखोंसे नहीं देख सकता यह अशब्द है? अस्पर्श है इत्यादि वचनोंसे भी आत्मा किसीका विषय नहीं है? यह बात कही गयी है। सुतरां जैसा आत्मा है वैसा ही ज्ञान है यह कहना युक्तियुक्त नहीं है। तब फिर आत्माका ज्ञान कैसे होता है क्योंकि सभी ज्ञान? जिसको विषय करते हैं उसीके आकारवाले होते हैं और आत्मा निराकार है ऐसा कहा है। फिर ज्ञान और आत्मा दोनों निराकार होनेसे उसमें भावना और निष्ठा कैसे हो सकती है उ0 -- यह कहना ठीक नहीं क्योंकि आत्माका अत्यन्त निर्मलत्व? स्वच्छत्व और सूक्ष्मत्व सिद्ध है और बुद्धिका भी आत्माके सदृश निर्मलत्व आदि सिद्ध है? इसलिये उसका आत्मचैतन्यके आकारसे आभासित होना बन सकता है। बुद्धिसे आभासित मन? मनसे आभासित इन्द्रियाँ और इन्द्रियोंसे आभासित स्थूल शरीर है। इसलिये सांसारिक मनुष्य देहमात्रमें ही आत्मदृष्टि करते हैं। देहात्मवादी लोकायतिक? चेतनाविशिष्ट शरीर ही आत्मा है ऐसा कहते हैं? दूसरे? इन्द्रियोंको चेतन कहनेवाले हैं तथा कोई मनको और कोई बुद्धिको चेतन कहनेवाले हैं। कितने ही? उस बुद्धिके भी भीतर व्याप्त? अव्यक्तकोअव्याकृतसंज्ञक अविद्यावस्थ ( चिदाभास ) को आत्मरूपसे समझनेवाले हैं। बुद्धिसे लेकर शरीरपर्यन्त सभी जगह आत्मचैतन्यका आभास ही उनमें आत्माकी भ्रान्तिका कारण है। अतः ( यह सिद्ध हुआ कि ) आत्मविषयक ज्ञान विधेय नहीं है। तो क्या विधेय है नामरूप आदि अनात्मा वस्तुओंका जो आत्मामें अध्यारोप है उसकी निवृत्ति ही कर्तव्य है। आत्मचैतन्यका विज्ञान प्राप्त करना नहीं है क्योंकि ज्ञान? अविद्याद्वारा आरोपित समस्त पदार्थोंके आकारमें ही विशेषरूपसे ग्रहण किया हुआ है। यही कारण है कि विज्ञानवादी बौद्ध विज्ञानसे अतिरिक्त अन्य कोई वस्तु ही नहीं है इस प्रकार मानते हैं और उस ज्ञानको स्वसंवेद्य माननेके कारण प्रमाणान्तरकी आवश्यकता नहीं मानते। सुतरां ब्रह्ममें जो अविद्याद्वारा अध्यारोप किया गया है? उसका निराकरणमात्र कर्तव्य है। ब्रह्मज्ञानके लिये प्रयत्न कर्तव्य नहीं है क्योंकि ब्रह्म तो अत्यन्त प्रसिद्ध ही है। ब्रह्म यद्यपि अत्यन्त प्रसिद्ध? सुविज्ञेय? अति समीप और आत्मस्वरूप है तो भी वह विवेकरहित मनुष्योंको? अविद्याकल्पित नामरूपके भेदसे उनकी बुद्धि भ्रमित हो जानेके कारण? अप्रसिद्ध? दुर्विज्ञेय? अति दूर और दूसरासा प्रतीत हो रहा है। परंतु जिनकी बाह्याकार बुद्धि निवृत्त हो गयी है? जिन्होंने गुरु और आत्माकी कृपा लाभ कर ली है? उनके लिये इससे अधिक सुप्रसिद्ध? सुविज्ञेय? सुखस्वरूप और अपने समीप कुछ भी नहीं है। प्रत्यक्षउपलब्ध धर्ममय इत्यादि वाक्योंसे भी यही बात कही गयी है। कितने ही अपनेको पण्डित माननेवाले यों कहते हैं कि आत्मतत्त्व निराकार होनेके कारण उसको बुद्धि नहीं पा सकती अतः सम्यक् ज्ञाननिष्ठा दुःसाध्य है। ठीक है? जो गुरुपरम्परासे रहित हैं? जिन्होंने वेदान्तवाक्योंको ( विधिपूर्वक ) नहीं सुना है? जिनकी बुद्धि सांसारिक विषयोंमें अत्यन्त आसक्त हो रही है? जिन्होंने यथार्थ ज्ञान करानेवाले प्रमाणोंमें परिश्रम नहीं किया है? उनके लिये यही बात है। परंतु जो उनसे विपरीत हैं? उनके लिये तो? लौकिक ग्राह्यग्राहक भेदयुक्त,वस्तुओंमें सद्भाव सम्पादन करना ( इनको सत्य समझना ) अत्यन्त कठिन है क्योंकि उनको आत्मचैतन्यसे अतिरिक्त दूसरी वस्तुकी उपलब्धि ही नहीं होती। यह ठीक इसी तरह है? अन्यथा नहीं है। यह बात हम पहले सिद्ध कर आये हैं और भगवान्ने भी कहा है कि जिसमें सब प्राणी जागते हैं? ज्ञानी मुनिकी वही रात्रि है इत्यादि। सुतरां आत्मस्वरूपके अवलम्बनमें? बाह्य नानाकार भेदबुद्धिकी निवृत्ति ही कारण है क्योंकि आत्मा कभी किसीके भी लिये अप्रसिद्ध? प्राप्तव्य? त्याज्य या उपादेय नहीं हो सकता। आत्माको अप्रसिद्ध मान लेनेपर तो सभी प्रवृत्तियोंको निरर्थक मानना सिद्ध होगा। इसके सिवा न तो यह कल्पना की जा सकती है कि अचेतन शरीरादिके लिये ( सब कर्म किये जाते हैं ) और न यही कि सुखके लिये सुख है या दुःखके लिये दुःख है क्योंकि सारे व्यवहारका प्रयोजन अन्तमें आत्माके ज्ञानका विषय बन जाना है। इसलिये? जैसे अपने शरीरको जाननेके लिये अन्य प्रमाणकी अपेक्षा नहीं है? वैसे ही आत्मा उससे भी अधिक अन्तरतम होनेके कारण आत्माको जाननेके लिये प्रमाणान्तरकी आवश्यकता नहीं है अतः यह सिद्ध हुआ कि विवेकियोंके लिये आत्मज्ञाननिष्ठा सुप्रसिद्ध है। जिनके मतमें ज्ञान निराकार और अप्रत्यक्ष है उनको भी? ज्ञेयका बोध ( अनुभव ) ज्ञानके ही अधीन होनेके कारण? सुखादिकी तरह ही ज्ञान अत्यन्त प्रसिद्ध है? यह मान लेना चाहिये। तथा ज्ञानको जाननेके लिये जिज्ञासा नहीं होती इसलिये भी ( यह मान लेना चाहिये कि ज्ञान प्रत्यक्ष है ) यदि ज्ञान अप्रत्यक्ष होता? तो अन्य ज्ञेय वस्तुओंकी तरह उसको भी जाननेके लिये इच्छा की जाती? अर्थात् जैसे ज्ञाता ( पुरुष ) घटादिरूप ज्ञेय पदार्थोंका ज्ञानके द्वारा अनुभव करना चाहता है? उसी तरह उस ज्ञानको भी अन्य ज्ञानके द्वारा जाननेकी इच्छा करता? परंतु यह बात नहीं है। सुतरां ज्ञान अत्यन्त प्रत्यक्ष है और इसीलिये ज्ञाता भी अत्यन्त ही प्रत्यक्ष है। अतः ज्ञानके लिये प्रयत्न कर्तव्य नहीं है? किंतु अनात्मबुद्धिकी निवृत्तिके लिये ही कर्तव्य है इसीलिये ज्ञाननिष्ठा सुसंपाद्य है।।50।।

Regarding the one who is qualified for the attainment of knowledge and in whom right knowledge has been born, when the attainment of its fruit, liberation, has been stated, fearing the doubt that 'nothing remains to be said', [Shankara] says—'purvoktena' (by the previously stated), etc. That thing called 'sequence' (krama) is being spoken of.

Why is 'having attained perfection'—which was already said—being repeated (translated) again? Regarding this, he says—'tadanuvada' (its repetition/restatement), etc. He clarifies the subsequent [text] itself preceded by a question—with 'kim tat' (what is that), etc. Fearing that if the sequence of attaining knowledge-steadfastness is spoken of in detail it would be hard to understand, he removes [that fear]—with 'kim' (what/how).

Fearing an inconsistency of the fourth quarter [of the verse] with the preceding, he says—'yatha' (as/how), etc. Since 'steadfastness' (nishtha) is relative (dependent on something), the correlate must be pointed out; thus he says—'kasya' (whose), etc. That which is the supreme steadfastness of Brahma-knowledge, that is the steadfastness of the knowledge in question; thus he says—'Brahma' (Brahman), etc. Considering that 'its supreme steadfastness is not well-known', and thinking it is to be accomplished dependent on the performance of means, he asks—'kidrishi' (of what kind/nature), etc. Following the well-known Self-knowledge, the steadfastness in Brahma-knowledge is easily known; thus he says—'yadrisham' (in which manner), etc. Doubting that even there the 'fame/knowledge' is unproven, he asks—'kidrik' (how/what kind), etc. By the maxim 'distinction is indeed by the object/meaning itself', he gives the answer—'yadrishah' (in which manner), etc. Even regarding that, keeping in mind the lack of fame due to conflicting views, he asks—'kidrishah' (what kind), etc.

Relying on the Lord's words and the Upanishad sentences, he answers—'yadrishah', etc. The sentences are 'He is not born nor does he die', etc. The logic/reasoning is immutability, unattachedness, etc. Since knowledge takes the form of the object, and the Self is not an object and is formless, connection with knowledge of that form is not possible; thus, even if the Self is known, Self-knowledge is not known—doubting this, he says—'nanu' (but/objection), etc. The Siddhantin (proponent) doubts (suggests) that the Self having form is established by Sruti—with 'nanu aditya' (like the sun...), etc. Seeing that the said sentences have another meaning, the Purvavadi (opponent) refutes—with 'na' (no), etc. He expands on the summary sentence—with 'dravya' (substance...), etc. And for this reason also, the Self has no form, he says—'arupam' (formless), etc.

What was said that 'knowledge of It is not possible because the Self is not an object', he explains that—with 'avishayatvat cha' (and because of not being an object), etc. Regarding the Self not being an object, he quotes the Sruti—with 'na' (no), etc. 'Sandrishe' means for the purpose of being an object of right vision, the form of this Self does not stand; this is the meaning. He explains that very thing by its being beyond the scope of the senses—with 'na' (no/not). And because of being void of sound etc., the Self does not become an object, he says—'ashabdam' (soundless), etc. In the absence of the Self being an object or having form, he states the result—'tasmat' (therefore), etc.

If knowledge does not take the form of the Self, the designation 'Self-knowledge' is not established; thus an Ekadeshi (partial proponent) doubts—'katham tarhi' (how then), etc. Fearing 'what is the inconsistency here?', he says—'sarvam hi' (for all), etc. Fearing that 'then the Self would also be an object and knowledge would take its form', he says—'nirakarashcha' (and formless), etc. The meaning of the word 'cha' (and) is the Self's lack of being an object. 'Like the Self, its knowledge also will then be formless'—regarding this, he says—'jnana' (knowledge...), etc. By the word 'tat' (that), Self-knowledge is grasped. Its 'bhavana' means contemplation again and again; its 'nishtha' means completion, i.e., firmness of Self-realization; and all this is not established if the Self or knowledge is formless; this is the meaning.

By presenting the similarity between Knowledge and the Self, the Siddhantin resolves it—with 'na' (no), etc. Following the stated similarity: the Intellect (Buddhi), modifying as knowledge, is pervaded by the reflection of the Self-Consciousness; the Mind is pervaded by the Intellect with the reflection; the Senses are pervaded by the Mind with the reflection; the Gross Body is pervaded by the Senses with the reflection. In this regard, he cites worldly delusion as proof—'atah' (hence), etc. Since the view of the Self is seen only in the body, the pervasion of the reflection of Consciousness there is imagined through the senses; and seeing that view in the senses, the possession of the reflection of Consciousness is established through the mind; and seeing the Self in the mind, the possession of reflection is obtained through the Buddhi; and seeing the Self in the Buddhi, the reflection of Consciousness is established through ignorance (Ajnan); this is the meaning.

Fearing that 'the worldly view of Selfhood in the body is ignored due to lack of logic', he says—'deha' (body...), etc. 'Even so, how is the Selfhood of the senses, which is devoid of logic, accepted?'—fearing this, he says—'tatha' (similarly), etc. 'Even so, the Selfhood of the mind is void of logic'—fearing this, he says—'anya' (other...), etc. He indicates that the Selfhood of the Buddhi is also supported by logic—with 'anye buddhi' (others... intellect), etc. He wards off the rule that 'they understand the Supreme Selfhood only in the body etc., and not elsewhere'—with 'tato'pi' (even than that...), etc. For there, in the Inner Controller with reflection (Avyakta/Cause), the worshippers of the Cause have the understanding of Selfhood; this is the meaning. He states the common cause for the delusion of Selfhood among worldly people and examiners, starting from Buddhi down to the body—'sarvatra' (everywhere), etc.

Since Self-knowledge is well-known to worldly people and examiners, the view desired by others that 'it is a subject of injunction (vidhi)' is also refuted; thus he says—'ityatah' (therefore/from this), etc. If knowledge is not to be enjoined, what is to be done with sentences like 'should be seen' (drashtavya) etc.? fearing this, he says—'kim tarhi' (what then), etc. Regarding Self-knowledge not being enjoinable, he explains the reason expressed by the word 'atah' (hence) mentioned before—'avidya' (ignorance), etc. Consciousness is perceived along with the perceived body, senses, mind, intellect, and unmanifest; otherwise, their perception would not happen because they are inert—in this regard, he cites the delusion of the Vijnanavadis (Buddhist idealists) as proof—'ata eva' (therefore indeed), etc. Everything knowable is known only as pervaded by knowledge, therefore there is no object apart from knowledge; for it is agreed that the object seen in a dream is not apart from knowledge—thus they are deluded; this is the meaning.

Fearing that 'since knowledge is also knowable, another entity, a Knower, must be desired', he says—'pramanantara' (another proof...), etc. The connection is that they accept independence from additional proofs by accepting that knowledge is known by itself. He states the result, given that knowledge in the Brahman-Self is established and thus not enjoinable—'tasmat' (therefore), etc. Here, 'yatna' (effort) means contemplation/meditation (bhavana).

If Brahman and its knowledge are extremely well-known, how is there a different perception among worldly people regarding Brahman? Regarding this, he says—'avidya' (ignorance), etc. Why should Brahman not be just of the nature of being hard to know etc., as it appears? Regarding this, he says—'bahya' (external...), etc.

'Guru-prasada' (Guru's grace) is the unhindered grace arising solely from the excess of compassion of the teacher whose mind is pleased by service, saying 'may he understand the Truth'. 'Atma-prasada' (Self-grace/clarity of mind), however, is the inclination/intentness of the mind (which has turned away from objects) towards the Inner Self with one-pointedness, arising from the inquiry into scriptural reasoning by one who has understood the power of words and the purport of sentences—this is the distinction. He cites the beginning of the sentence as proof that Self-knowledge is well-known through the Self—'tatha cha' (and thus), etc.

Since the Self is formless and the intellect does not proceed into it, steadfastness in right knowledge is not easily accomplished—he raises this view with 'kechit tu' (but some), etc. Is steadfastness in right knowledge regarding Brahman hard to achieve for the extroverted or the introverted? Creating this option, and restating the first, he accepts it—'satyam' (true), etc. Each preceding adjective should be joined as the cause for each succeeding adjective. He refutes the second (option)—'tadviparitanam' (for those opposite to them...), etc. He states the reason why right understanding regarding duality is extremely hard to achieve for those steadfast in Non-duality—'atma' (Self), etc. Fearing 'how is there non-existence of another object apart from That?', he says—'tatha cha' (and thus), etc. The construction is: 'We have spoken in those various chapters in such a way that it is established that the Non-dual alone is the Reality, while duality is caused by ignorance and is not real in any other way.'

Regarding the fact that those who are steadfast within and see non-duality do not have the idea of reality in duality, he cites the agreement of the Lord also—'uktam cha' (and it is said), etc. Having refuted the other view and concluding the present topic, fearing 'if the Self is formless, what is the cause/basis for knowledge having That as its support?', he says—'tasmat' (therefore), etc. 'But if the Self is somehow to be accomplished by the action of right knowledge, then falling into either the category of rejectable or acceptable, it obtains the status of being unknown because it is accomplished by action like heaven etc.'—saying no to this, he says—'na hi' (not indeed), etc. Because it is already obtained as well-known simply by being the Self, and because the status of being rejectable or acceptable (like the non-Self) does not apply to it, it is not accomplished by action; this is the meaning.

If the Self is unestablished without action, then since all actions for prosperity and liberation cannot be for the sake of the Self, and in the absence of a seeker, their 'being for their own sake' would be unauthoritative/invalid; thus he says—'aprasiddhe hi' (for if unestablished...), etc. Doubting that 'actions are for their own sake because they are for the sake of one of the body etc. which is the seeker', but since the inert (like a pot) cannot be a seeker, it is not so; thus he says—'na cha' (and not), etc. Doubting that 'actions, ending in fruit, are for the sake of either pleasure or pain, so they are not for their own sake', regarding that he says—'na cha' (and not), etc. Even if actions are for the sake of pleasure and pain, since those two are not established as being for their own sake, the Self is established as the seeker; this is the meaning.

Moreover, by the logic of 'expectation of all', all transaction culminates in the understanding of the Self. And if the Self is unknown, the transaction of sacrifice etc. cannot be for the sake of knowing It; therefore, the fame/knowledge of the Self must be accepted; thus he says—'atma' (Self), etc. 'But the Self, even if unknown, becomes known through proof (pramana), by the logic that "whatever is established is from proof alone"'; regarding that he says—'tasmat' (therefore), etc. Since it is accepted that all transaction of proof, object of proof, etc., ends in Self-realization, the knowledge of the Self must be accepted even before the operation of proof; this is the meaning. Since Self-realization is thus natural, for the discriminative ones, steadfastness in knowledge is very well-known through the removal of superimposition; thus he concludes—'ityatma' (thus the Self), etc.

'But for those who say "we infer the intellect as formless" and desire the formless to be imperceptible, knowledge is indeed unknown before the understanding of the object'—saying no to this, he says—'yesham' (for whom...), etc. The idea is that knowledge is known by constant experience like pleasure etc., and is not to be inferred; for if it were inferred by the understanding of the object, there would be mutual dependence. And for this reason also knowledge is well-known; otherwise, there would be the contingency of a desire to know it; and the desire to know regarding knowledge is not well-known, and if it were well-known, that (desire) would not apply; thus he says—'jijnasa' (desire to know), etc. He elaborates on that very point—'aprasiddham chet' (if unknown...), etc. He explains the example itself—'yatha' (just as), etc. He explains the illustrated point—'tatha' (so), etc. He refutes the claim that this is an acceptable contingency—'na cha' (and not), etc. The meaning of the word 'etat' (this) is knowledge being knowable by another knowledge. It means there would be infinite regress.

Since the desire to know is not appropriate regarding knowledge, he states the result—'atah' (therefore), etc. Even if knowledge is well-known, what does that imply for the Knower, the Self? He says that—'jnatapi' (the knower also...), etc. Because knowledge does not culminate without a knower; this is the meaning. If knowledge is well-known, there is no injunction synonymous with meditation regarding it; thus he says—'tasmat' (therefore), etc. Then where is the meditation called 'effort'? fearing this, he says—'kim tu' (but), etc. In the absence of difficulty in achieving steadfastness in knowledge regarding the non-objective and formless Self, he concludes with the result—'tasmat' (therefore), etc.

He speaks in order to reveal the process by which the supreme perfection (prakṛṣṭā siddhiḥ) characterized by actionlessness (naiṣkarmyalakṣaṇā), which is steadfastness in absolute Self-knowledge (kevalātmajñānaniṣṭhā), occurs for one who has attained the perfection characterized by fitness for mere knowledge-steadfastness (kevalajñānaniṣṭhāyogyatālakṣaṇāṃ siddhiṃ)—which was generated by the previously mentioned performance of one's own duty in the form of the worship of the Lord (īśvarābhyarjanarupeṇa)—and for whom the discriminative knowledge of the Self (ātmavivekavijñānasya) has arisen.

The one who has attained perfection—the perfection characterized by fitness for knowledge-steadfastness of the body (kāya) etc., which is born of His grace, having worshipped the Lord with his own duty—in which manner (yathā yena prakāreṇa) he attains Brahman, the Supreme Self, in the form of knowledge-steadfastness, that process (taṃ prakāraṃ), the sequence of attaining knowledge-steadfastness (jñānaniṣṭhāprāptikramaṃ), you should surely understand (niścayenāvadhāraya) from My words (me mama vacanāt nibodha).

Is it in detail (vistareṇa)? He says 'no'—only briefly (samāsenai'va), only concisely (saṃkṣepeṇai'va). The address 'O Kaunteya' is for the purpose of indicating that by resorting to the process by which one is not connected with the mother's womb, 'you should know that' (tan nibodha). In order to show the promised attainment of Brahman as 'this' (idantayā), he says—'niṣṭhā' (steadfastness). That which is the attainment of Brahman (brahmāprāptiḥ), is the supreme steadfastness (parā niṣṭhā), the supreme culmination (parā parisamāptiḥ) of knowledge, i.e., Self-knowledge (ātmajñānasya).

The Self (ya ātmā) which is spoken of by the Lord's words, such as 'This is unmanifest, this is unthinkable, this is said to be unchangeable,' and 'Know Me also as the Knower of the Field in all fields, O Bharata,' and 'He is not born nor does he die,' and 'Vāsudeva, this existed alone in the beginning, one without a second,' and 'Brahman is Truth, Knowledge, Infinity,' and 'Thou art That'—and which is also shown by the Upanishad sentences and by the logic of immutability, unattachedness, etc. (kuṭasthātvamasāṅgatvamityādinyāyācca)—knowledge of that (Self) (tasya jñānaṃ tu) is certainly not fit to be like the knowledge whose object is a formful thing (sākāravastuviṣayakajñānavat). Because the Self having form is not desired/accepted (ātmān ākāravattvasyā'niṣṭtvāt). Because of the Sruti (scriptural passage) [saying]: 'His form does not stand in the field of vision, nor does anyone see Him with the eye,' and 'soundless, touchless, formless,' etc. But the sentences like 'of the colour of the sun,' 'of the nature of light,' 'self-luminous,' etc., are for the purpose of refuting the state of the Self being of the nature of darkness, which would otherwise occur when the form of substance, quality, etc., has been negated.

'But if it is so, then how is there knowledge of the formless Self, since that knowledge which has an object takes the form of that [object]? And since both knowledge and the Self are formless, how can bhāvanā (contemplation) which is of the nature of repeated reflection (paunaḥpunyenānusaṃdhānātmikā) become 'steadfastness' (niṣṭhā)?'—if this is asked, then it is said. Knowledge having the Self as its object (ātmaviṣayaṃ jñānaṃ) is not enjoined (na vidhīyate) by [the phrase] 'Self-knowledge' (ātmajñānam), because the Self, being of the nature of Consciousness (caitanyasvarūpasya), is extremely well-known and is not unknown (ajñātatvābhāvāt). It is not possible to say that He is unknown—He whose reflection of Consciousness (caitanyābhāsatā) is the cause of the delusion of Selfhood (ātmavabhrāntikāraṇaṃ) in the intellect, etc., down to the body (budhyādidhante). Therefore, only the cessation (nivṛttiḥ) of the superimposition (adhyāropaṇa) of the non-Self (like name, form, etc.) (nāmarūpādyanātmā) should be done with effort (prayatnena kāryā). Because the cessation of the difference in external forms alone is the cause for resorting to the nature of the Self (ātmasvarūpāvalambane). Not the special knowledge (vijñānaṃ) of the Self-Consciousness, because that is extremely well-known (atyantaprasiddhatvāt).

'But if Brahman, though extremely well-known, easily knowable, nearest, and the very Self, appears to everyone as unknown, difficult to know, very distant, and like something else (anyad iva)—then how is that so?'—if this is asked. Accept that it is because their intellects (buddhitvena) are seized (apahṛta) by the specific forms of name and form (nāmarūpaviśeṣākārā) imagined by ignorance (avidyākalpita), and because of their lack of discrimination (avivekitvāt). But for the discriminating ones (vivekināṃ tu) whose intellects (buddhīnāṃ) are turned away (nivṛtta) from external forms, and who have obtained the grace of the Guru and the Self (labdhagurvā'tmaprasādānāṃ), there is nothing beyond this that is extremely well-known, easily knowable, or so near (svāsannama). And thus it has been said—'Directly experienced (pratyakṣāvagamaṃ), righteous (dharmyaṃ), very easy to perform (susukhaṃ kartum), and imperishable (avyayaṃ)'.

By this, the statement of some who consider themselves learned (paṇḍitaṃmanyānām)—that 'since the reality of the Self is formless (nirākāratvāt), the intellect does not proceed into it (buddhirupaityataḥ), therefore steadfastness in right knowledge (sabhyagjñānaniṣṭhā) is difficult to achieve (duḥsādhyā)'—is refuted (apāstā). For those who possess the tradition of the Guru (gurusampradāyavatāṃ), who have studied the Vedāntas (śrutavedāntānāṃ), whose intellects are unattached to external objects (bahirviṣayeṣvana'saktbuddhīnāṃ), and who have made effort in right means of knowledge (sabhyakpramāṇeṣu kṛtaśramāṇāṃ), there is no existence (saddhiḥ) in the dual objects (dvaitavastuni) of the worldly perceived (grāhya) and perceiver (grāhaka), because of the non-apprehension (anupalabdheḥ) of any other entity (vastvantarasya) apart from the consciousness-Self (caitanyātma'vyatirekeṇa), hence it is extremely difficult to achieve (atyantaduḥsaṃpādyatvāt). And it is said: 'That in which all beings are awake is night for the seeing sage.'

Knowledge also must be accepted as extremely well-known, just like pleasure (sukha), etc. Even for those for whom formless knowledge (nirākāraṃ jñānam) is imperceptible (apratyakṣaṃ), the understanding of the knowable (jñeyā'vagaterdarśanāt) is seen only by the power of knowledge (jñānavaśenaiva). And because the desire to know (jijñāsā) regarding knowledge is inappropriate (anupapatteśca) (as it is) regarding the knowable (jñeyavat). And thus, since knowledge and the knower (jñātuśca) are extremely well-known (atyantaprasiddhatvāt), effort (yatno) should not be made in Self-knowledge (ātmajñāne), but only in the cessation of the idea of Self (ātmabuddhinivṛttau eva) in the non-Self (anātmani); this is the summary (saṃkṣepaḥ).

'Yathā' — by which means — having attained perfection one attains Brahman, 'tathā' — that [listen], know.

Which perfection is the supreme consummation of knowledge.

How one devoted to his own duty finds perfection — this promised topic has been explained. Now, even having attained Naishkarmya-siddhi, how the wandering ascetic possessing dispassion named Vashikara attains Brahman, He promises to state that — 'Siddhim'.

Perfection — Naishkarmya-siddhi — 'nibodha' — know/understand. 'Me' — from My words; 'samāsena' — briefly only, O Kaunteya? 'Yā' — which attainable Brahman [is].

Feminine gender is due to expectation of the predicate (Nishtha). Supreme consummation of knowledge — than which there is no other knowable more internal/intimate, this is the meaning.

'Siddhiṃ prāptaḥ' — having attained perfection of meditation accomplishable by Karma Yoga performed day by day until death; 'yathā' — in which manner existing — he attains Brahman, 'tathā' — so briefly know from Me.

That very Brahman is qualified — 'niṣṭhā jñānasya yā parā'.

Of knowledge — which is of the nature of meditation — what is 'parā niṣṭhā' — supreme goal to be reached — this is the meaning.

He states the mode of becoming Brahman through establishment in knowledge for such a Paramahamsa — by the six [verses] starting 'Siddhiṃ prāptaḥ'.

Having attained Naishkarmya-siddhi, 'yathā' — in which manner — he attains Brahman, 'tathā' — that mode briefly indeed from My words 'nibodha' — know.

'Siddhiṃ prāptaḥ' — he states its nature as restatement of what was said along with indication of cause with mode — by 'Āprayāṇāt' etc.

Since attainment of Brahman is stated for one who has attained Siddhi, to indicate object distinct from that, 'Dhyānasiddhim' (perfection of meditation) is said.

Regarding 'Yathā', according to subsequent text, he states its reference to the mode of obtaining acceptable by human effort — 'Yena prakāreṇa vartamānaḥ' (In which manner existing).

'Me nibodha' — ascertain from Me with certainty, this is the meaning.

The means culminates (ni-tiṣṭhati) in the supreme fruit indeed, therefore that itself being the ground of cessation of means is called 'Niṣṭhā', with this intention he says — 'Tadeva brahma viśeṣyate'.

He states the resting of the word knowledge here in the meditation to be spoken immediately after — 'Dhyānātmakasya'.

पूर्व श्लोक में नैर्ष्कम्य सिद्धि के लक्ष्य को इंगित किया गया है। अब उस साधना के विवेचन का प्रकरण प्रारम्भ होता है? जिसके अभ्यास से परमात्मस्वरूप में दृढ़निष्ठा प्राप्त हो सकती है। इस श्लोक में आगे के कथनीय विषय की प्रस्तावना की गयी है। सिद्धि को प्राप्त पुरुष से तात्पर्य उस साधक से है? जिसने स्वधर्माचरण से अन्तकरण की शुद्धि प्राप्त कर ली है। ऐसा ही साधक ब्रह्मप्राप्ति का अधिकारी होता है। आगे के कुछ श्लोक हमें स्थितप्रज्ञ पुरुष के लक्षणों का स्मरण कराते हैं? जिनका वर्णन गीता के द्वितीय अध्याय में किया गया था।ध्यानाभ्यास का विस्तृत विवेचन षष्ठाध्याय में किया जा चुका है। अत यहाँ केवल संक्षेप में ही वर्णन किया जायेगा।भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण आगे कहते हैं

'Na tadasti'. Thus, of agent, action, instruments, of intellect and fortitude, and of happiness, being distinct by difference of Sattva etc., due to combination of mutual relationship of principal and subsidiary and of sublater and sublated, due to connection (difference) of sequence and simultaneity of modifications etc., due to innumerable varieties, there is capacity to produce diverse fruits. By this, the depth of actions which was briefly stated before is determined in detail with reasons.

And all these from gods down to immovable do not transcend the connection with the three Gunas. For it is said — 'From Brahma down to an insect, no one is happy in reality. Everyone desiring to live creates various modifications'. Thus, in reality happiness belongs to one whose mind has transcended Gunas, not to another, this is the intention.

Thus by this much, the threefold nature of each of the six and of Dhriti etc. has been propounded. Being in the Sattvic heap among them, having obtained divine wealth, one is fit for knowledge here; and you are such, thus Arjuna was encouraged. Now however this is said — If indeed with this wisdom of knowledge you engage in action, then by engagement in one's own duty and by being purified by special knowledge, there is no connection of action for you. But if you do not accept this? Then surely your engagement must indeed happen, because the caste itself is situated in that state. Since everyone is bound by nature, even if having that nature concealed by some defect for some time, upon the removal of that concealer, he indeed obtains the nature which has become manifest. For such is the nature of Varnas. Thus in the inevitable engagement, there would be sharing of fruit from that.

He states that — from 'Brāhmaṇa' etc. up to 'Avaśo'pi tat' (Even helplessly that). The nature of the description of division of actions of Brahmanas etc. surely does not transgress, thus for you of Kshatriya nature, even if unwilling, Prakriti — named Svabhava — resorts to the state of impeller without deviation. Only for one impelled by that there is connection with merit and sin. Therefore, placing the authority of special knowledge spoken by Me in front, perform actions. That being so, bondage will cease.

This is the purport of preparing the equipment for this meaning of the Great Sentence. The meaning of intermediate sentences is clear. 'Samāsena' (briefly) [18.50]. Of knowledge, stated before. He states the consummation (Nishtha) as ascertained by avoiding the web of words. 'Buddhyā viśuddhayā' etc. all this is almost explained, so effort is not made again.

'Siddhiṃ prāptaḥ' — thus after attaining Yoga-perfection, the statement of means in attainment of Brahman is promised — to refute such misunderstanding he explains — 'Yathā'.

'Brahmāpnoti' is mere restatement.

'Tathā' — that means. Why not the apparent meaning itself? If thus [you say]; No, because सिद्धि (perfection) is stated as being of the nature of establishment in knowledge. And because knowledge has no dependence [on anything else] in attainment of Brahman, with this idea he explains 'Niṣṭhā' — 'Yā'.

For the renouncer of all actions endowed with aforementioned means, He states the sequence of means in the rise of Brahman-knowledge — 'Siddhim'.

Worshipping the Lord by one's own action, attaining the perfection born of His grace ending in renunciation of all actions, which is of the nature of fitness for rise of knowledge — purification of mind; 'yathā' — in which manner — he directly realizes the pure Self, 'tathā' — that mode 'nibodha' — 'me' — from My words ascertain to practice.

Is it in great detail? No, He says 'samāsena' — briefly only, not in detail, O Kaunteya?

What happens in ascertaining that, to this He says — 'Niṣṭhā'. 'Niṣṭhā jñānasya yā parā' — the Nishtha — culmination — of knowledge accomplished by inquiry, after which no other means is to be performed. 'Parā' — supreme, or final of all, being the direct cause of liberation.

That Parā Jñāna-niṣṭhā (Supreme establishment in knowledge) of the form of attainment of Brahman, of one who has attained perfection, know briefly, this is the meaning.

Now He states the fruit of attaining perfection — 'Siddhim'. Having attained the aforementioned perfection, 'yathā' — in which manner one attains Brahman, that manner 'me' — from Me — 'samāsena' — briefly only — 'nibodha' — know.

Which attainment is the 'parā' — excellent 'niṣṭhā' — state of knowledge, this is the meaning.

'Siddhim praptah' (Attained perfection)—meaning, having well worshipped the Lord through one's own duty, he has 'attained perfection' characterized by the fitness of the body and senses for steadfastness in knowledge, born of His grace; 'Siddhim praptah'—this repetition of the phrase is for the sake of what follows. What is that which follows? For the sake of which is the repetition? It is said—'Yatha' (How), in which manner, by the form of steadfastness in knowledge, one attains Brahman, the Supreme Self? 'Tatha' (So/That), that manner, the sequence of attaining steadfastness in knowledge, 'Nibodha' (learn/understand) from 'Me', from My words—meaning, ascertain it with certainty. Is it in detail? No, He says—'Samasenaiva', meaning briefly indeed, O son of Kunti, learn how one attains Brahman.

By this, the attainment of Brahman which was promised? To show that as 'this is it', He says—'Nishtha jnanasya ya para' (That which is the supreme consummation of knowledge). 'Nishtha' means culmination or complete perfection. Of what? Of the knowledge of Brahman, which is the supreme. What is it like? Like what Self-knowledge is. What is that like? Like what the Self is. What is He like? Like what has been described by the Lord, and by Upanishadic sentences and logic.

(Objection): But knowledge takes the form of the object. Is the Self not an object of knowledge? Nor is the Self desired to have a form anywhere. (Objection): But by 'Sun-colored', 'Light-formed', 'Self-effulgent'—by these, the having of form is heard regarding the Self. (Response): No, because those sentences are for the purpose of negating the nature of darkness—when forms like substance and quality are negated, and the nature of darkness might obtain for the Self, sentences like 'Sun-colored' (Gita 8.9) are for the purpose of negating that. And because form is specifically negated by 'Formless'. And because it is not an object—'His form does not stand within the range of vision, no one sees Him with the eye' (Shvetashvatara Upanishad 4.20), 'Soundless, touchless' (Katha Upanishad 1.3.15) etc. Therefore, 'Knowledge having the form of the Self' is unreasonable.

(Question): How then is there knowledge of the Self? For all knowledge that has an object takes the form of that object. And it has been said that the Self is formless. (Response): If both Knowledge and Self are formless, how is steadfastness in the contemplation of That possible? No (it is not impossible), because the Self is proven to be extremely pure, extremely clear, and extremely subtle. And because the intellect (Buddhi) is proven to have purity etc. like the Self, it is reasonable that it can take on the semblance/reflection of the form of Self-consciousness. The mind reflects the Buddhi; the senses reflect that (mind); and the body reflects the senses. Therefore, by worldly people, the view of the Self is made merely on the body alone.

And the Lokayatikas (Materialists) who argue for body-consciousness say 'The Purusha is the body qualified by consciousness.' Similarly, others argue for sense-consciousness; others for mind-consciousness; others for intellect-consciousness. More internal than that, the Unmanifest (Avyakta), called the Undifferentiated (Avyakrita), the state of Avidya—some have accepted this as the Self. Everywhere, from the intellect down to the body, the reflection of Self-consciousness is the cause of the delusion of Selfhood; and for this reason, knowledge having the Self as an object does not need to be prescribed (created). (Question): What then is to be done? Is only the removal of the superimposition of the non-Self like names and forms the task? Or is the specific knowledge (Vijnana) of Self-consciousness the task? (Response): (The former), because it (Self) is seen as distinguished by the forms of all objects superimposed by ignorance. That is indeed why the Vijnanavadin Buddhists have accepted that there is no object at all apart from Vijnana (Consciousness); and (they accept) the independence from other means of proof regarding self-awareness, by admitting its reality.

Therefore, only the rejection of what is superimposed by ignorance is to be done regarding Brahman; but no effort (is needed) for the knowledge of Brahman, because it is extremely well-known. To those whose intellects are stolen away by the specific forms of names and forms imagined by ignorance, even though it is extremely well-known, easily known, nearest, and their very Self, it appears as unknown, hard to know, very far, and as if something else, to the undiscriminating. But to those whose intellects have turned away from external forms, who have obtained the grace of the Guru and the Self, there is nothing more happy, well-known, easily known, and nearer than this. And so it has been said—'Directly realizable, righteous' (Gita 9.2) etc.

But some who consider themselves learned say: 'Because it is formless, the intellect does not grasp the Self-entity. Therefore, steadfastness in right knowledge is difficult to achieve.' True, it is so for those devoid of the tradition of the Guru, who have not heard the Vedanta, whose intellects are extremely attached to external objects, and who have not labored in the right means of knowledge. But for those who are opposite to them, the idea of reality in the worldly dualistic objects of grasper and grasped is absolutely difficult to acquire; because of the non-perception of any other object apart from Self-consciousness. And that this is just so, not otherwise, we have said; and it is said by the Lord 'That in which beings are awake, that is night for the seeing sage' (Gita 2.69). Therefore, the cessation of the perception of external differences of form is the only cause for resting on the true nature of the Self.

For the Self is never unknown to anyone at any time, nor is it something to be reached, rejected, or acquired. For if that Self were unknown, all activities (which are) for one's own sake would become meaningless. Nor is it possible to imagine that they (activities) are for the sake of the non-sentient body etc. Nor is pleasure for the sake of pleasure, or pain for the sake of pain. And because all interaction/behavior has the realization of the Self as its culmination. Therefore, just as there is no need for another means of proof to define one's own body, so too, because the Self is even more internal than that, there is no need for another means of proof for its realization; thus it is established that steadfastness in Self-knowledge is very well-known to the discriminating.

Even for those [Logicians] for whom knowledge is formless and imperceptible, even for them, it must be admitted that knowledge is extremely well-known just like pleasure etc., since the understanding of the knowable occurs only through knowledge. And because the desire to know (it) would not be reasonable—if knowledge were unknown, it would be sought after like a knowable object. Just as the knower wishes to pervade (grasp) the knowable characterized by a pot etc. through knowledge, so too he would wish to obtain knowledge as something to be known by another knowledge. This is not the case. Therefore knowledge is extremely well-known; and the Knower is also well-known for this very reason. Therefore, effort is not to be made regarding knowledge; but only regarding the removal of the notion of Self in the non-Self. Therefore steadfastness in knowledge is easily accomplished.

That very supreme consummation of knowledge is being described—how it is to be performed—

The supreme consummation of knowledge which is that perfection, having attained that, even while living here, how by the Self one attains Imperishable Brahman, know that from Me.

सिद्धिम् perfection? प्राप्तः attained? यथा as? ब्रह्म Brahman (the Eternal)? तथा so? आप्नोति obtains? निबोध learn? मे of Me? समासेन in brief? एव even? कौन्तेय O son of Kunti? निष्ठा state? ज्ञानस्य of knowledge? या or? परा highest.Commentary When a man has the good fortune to hear the words of wisdom from a teacher? dualism and egoism vanish and his mind rests in union with the Supreme Being. The need for action no longer exists for such a man. Nothing further remains for him to do. He has become a Kritakritya (a man of total fulfilment? or one who has done all that there is to be done).The aspirant obtains the grace of the Lord by worshipping Hims with his proper duty. The Lord gives him dispassion? discrimination? devotion to knowledge. The Lord removes his veil of ignorance. To these ever harmonious? worshipping in love? I give the Yoga of discrimination by which they come unto Me. Out of My mere compassion for them? I? dwelling within their Self? destroy the darkness born of ignorance by the luminous lamp of knowledge. (X.10and11)The perfection is JnanaNishtha or devotion to knowledge by which he attains Selfrealisation or becomes identical with the Supreme Being when the veil of ignorance is rent asunder. The way to the attainment of this devotion to knowledge will be described only in a succint manner. The process or method of Selfrealisation will be described only in brief in the following verses.The actual technie has to be learnt direct from a Guna.

Nibodha, understand for certain; me, from Me, from My utterance-. Is it elaborately? The Lord says, no, samasena, in brief; eva, indeed, O son of Kunti, how siddhim praptah, one who has achieved success, one who, by worshipping God through one's duties, has achieved success in the form of fitness of the body and organs for steadfastness in Knowledge, which comes from His grace; (-the reiteration of the phrase siddhim praptah is meant for introducing what follows; what is that succeeding subject for which this reiteration stands is being answered:) yatha tatha, that process by which, that process in the form of steadfastness in Knowledge, by which that process of aciring steadfastness in Knowledge by which; apnoti, attains; brahma, Brahman, th supreme Self-.
In order to point out-as 'It is this'-the realization of Brahman which was promised in, 'that process by which one৷৷.attains Brahman,' the Lord says; ya, which; is the para, supreme; nistha, consummation, i.e. the supreme culmination; jnanasya, of Knowledge. Of what? Of the knowledge of Brahman. Of what kind is it? It is of the same kind as the realization of the Self. Of what kind is that? As is the Self. Of what nature is It? As has been described by the Lord and the Upanisadic texts, and established through reason.
Objection: Is it not that knowledge takes the form of its object? But it is not admitted anywhere that the Self is an object, or even that It has form.
Pseudo-Vedantin: Is it not heard of in such texts as, 'radiant like the sun' (Sv. 3.8), 'Of the nature of effulgence' (Ch. 3.14.2) and 'Self-effulgent' (Br. 4.3.9), that the Self has form?
Objection: No, because those sentences are meant for refuting the idea that the Self is of the nature of darkness. When the Self is denied of possessing forms of substance, ality, etc., the contingency arises of the Self's being of the nature of darkness. The sentences, 'radiant like the sun,' etc. are meant for ruting this. And this follows from the specific denial of from by saying, 'Formless' (Ka. 1.3.15), and from such texts as, 'His form does not exist within the range of vision; nobody sees Him with the eye' (Ka. 2.3.9: Sv. 4.20), 'soundless, touchless' (ka. 1.3.15), etc. which show that the Self is not an object of perception. Therefore it remains unproved that there can be any knowledge which takes the form of the Self. How, then, can there be the knowledge of the Self? For, all knowledge that there can be with regard to objects assumes their respective forms. And it has been said that the Self has no form. Moreover, if both knowledge and the Self be formless, then how can there be the consummation [Firmness in Self-realization.] of the (repeated) contemplation on that (knowledge of the Self)?
Vedantin: No. Since it can be established that the Self is supremely taintless, pure and subtle, and it can also be established that the intellect can have taintlessness etc. like the Self, therefore it stands to reason that the intellect can take a form resembling the consciousness of the Self. The mind becomes impressed with the semblance of the intellect; the organs become impressed with the semblance of the mind; and the body becomes impressed with the semblance of hte organs. Hence it is that the idea of the body itself being the Self is held by ordinary people. The Lokayatikas (materialists), who hold that the body is identical with consciousness, say that a person is a body endowed with consciousness; so also there are others who say that the organs are identical with consciousness; there are others who say that the mind is identical with consciousness, and still others who say that the intellect is identical with consciousness. Some accept as the Self the Unmanifest [The inmost Ruler (antaryamin), possessing a semblance of Consciousness.], called the Undifferentiated, which is more internal than that (intellect) and is within the domain of (primordial) ignorance. Indeed, in every case, beginning from the intellect to the body, the cause of mis-conceived Selfhood is the semblance of the Consciousness that is the Self. Hence, knowledge about the Self is not a subject for injunction.
What then? Only the eradication of the superimposition of name, form, etc., which are not the Self, is what has to be undertaken, but not the knowledge of the Self that is Consciousness. For it is the Self which is experienced as possessed of the forms of all the various objects that are superimposed (on It) through ignorance. It is evidently because of this that the Buddhists who uphold the view of (momentary) consciousness have concluded that there is no substance at all apart from (momentary) consciousness, and that it is not in need of any other valid proof since they hold that it is self-cognized. Therefore, what is to be undertaken is only the elimination of the superimposition on Brahman through ignorance, but no effort is needed for knowing Brahman (Consciousness), for It is ite self-evident! It is because the intellect is distracted by particular appearances of name and form imagined through ignorance that Brahman, even though self-evident, easily realizable, nearer than all else and identical with oneself, appears to be concealed, difficult to realize, very far and different, But to those whose intellect has become free from external appearances and who have obtained the grace of a teacher and serenity of mind, there is nothing more blissful, manifest, well known, easily realized and nearer to oneself than this Self. And thus it has been declared, 'directly realizable, righteous,' etc. (9.2).
However, some wiseacres assert that the intellect cannot comprehend the entity called the Self since It is formless; hence, complete steadfastness in Knowledge is impossible. This is truly so for those who have not associated with a traditional line of teachers; who have not heard the Upanisads; whose intellects are too much engrossed with external objects; and who have not applied themselves diligently to the perfect means of knowledge. For those, on the other hand, who are the opposite of these, it is absolutely impossible to have the idea of reality with regard to empirical objects, which are within the realm of duality involving the knower and the known, because in their case there is no perception of any other thing apart from the Consciousness that is the Self. We have already said how this is certainly so and not otherwise. It has been stated by the Lord also, 'That during which creatures keep awake, it is night to the seeing sage' (2.69).
Therefore, the cessation of the perception of differences in the form of external things is alone the cause of resting in the reality of the Self. For, that which is called the Self is never an object which is not well known, attainable, rejectable or acceptable to anyone at any time. Were that Self to be indeed not self-evident, all activities would become meaningless. [According to Ast. the latter portion of this sentence is: svarthah sarvah pravrttayah vyarthah prasajyeran, all activities meant for one's own benefit would become meaningless.-Tr.]. For it cannot be imagined that they could be undertaken for unconscious objects like the body etc. Besides, it cannot be that pleasure is for pleasure's sake, or that sorrow is for sorrow's sake. Moreover, all empirical dealings are meant for culminating in the realization of the Self. [According to B.S. 3.4.26, 'On the strength of the Upanisadic sanction of sacrifices etc. all religious activities as well are necessary৷৷.', sacrifices etc. are meant for leading to the realization of the Self, without which they would become meaningless.] Therefore, just as for knowing one's own body there is no need of any other (external) means of knowledge so also there is no need of any other means of knowledge, for the realization of the Self which is innermost (in relation to the body etc.). Hence it is established that steadfastness in the knowledge of the Self is a fact very well known to the discriminating people.
Even to those who hold that knowledge is formless and not cognized by direct perception, cognition of an object is dependent on knowledge. Hence it has to be admitted that knowledge is as immediate as pleasure etc. And this follows also from the impossibility of a desire to know (knowledge). Had knowledge been not self-evident, it could have been sought for like any object of knowledge. And in that case, as [This is Ast.'s reading; others read tatha.-Tr.] a knower seeks to perceive through knowledge such objects of knowledge as pot etc., similarly the knower would have sought to perceive knowledge through another knowledge! But this is not the case. Therefore knowledge is ite self-revealing, and for the very same reason the knower also is self-revealed. Hence, effort is not needed for knowledge, but only for the removal of the notion of what is not-Self. [In place of anatma-buddhi-nivrttau, Ast. has 'anatmani atma-buddhi-nivrttau, for the termination of thinking what is not the Self as the Self'.-Tr.] Conseently, steadfastness in Knowledge is easy of accomplishment.
It is being stated how this supreme consummation of Knowledge is to be attained:

One who has attained 'perfection', viz., one who has attained perfection in meditation generated by the Karma Yoga performed day after day till death - how, in what way, he attains the brahman, learn this from Me in brief. It is the same Brahman who is described as the supreme consummation of knowledge. The meaning is that the self is the supreme consummation, the supreme end, of knowledge which is of the nature of meditation.