Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 18 - Shloka (Verse) 55

भक्त्या मामभिजानाति -- जब परमात्मतत्त्वमें आकर्षण? अनुराग हो जाता है? तब साधक स्वयं उस परमात्माके सर्वथा समर्पित हो जाता है? उस तत्त्वसे अभिन्न हो जाता है। फिर उसका अलग कोई (स्वतन्त्र) अस्तित्व नहीं रहता अर्थात् उसके अहंभावका अतिसूक्ष्म अंश भी नहीं रहता। इसलिये उसको प्रेमस्वरूपा प्रेमाभक्ति प्राप्त हो जाती है। उस भक्तिसे परमात्मतत्त्वका वास्तविक बोध हो जाता है।,ब्रह्मभूतअवस्था हो जानेपर संसारके सम्बन्धका तो सर्वथा त्याग हो जाता है? पर मैं ब्रह्म हूँ? मैं शान्त हूँ? मैं निर्विकार हूँ? ऐसा सूक्ष्म अहंभाव रह जाता है। यह अहंभाव जबतक रहता है? तबतक परिच्छिन्नता और पराधीनता रहती है। कारण कि यह अहंभाव प्रकृतिका कार्य है और प्रकृति पर है इसलिये पराधीनता रहती है। परमात्माकी तरफ आकृष्ट होनेसे? पराभक्ति होनेसे ही यह अहंभाव मिटता है (टिप्पणी प0 949.1)। इस अहंभावके सर्वथा मिटनेसे ही तत्त्वका वास्तविक बोध होता है।यावान् -- सातवें अध्यायके आरम्भमें भगवान्ने अर्जुनको समग्ररूप सुननेकी आज्ञा दी कि मेरेमें जिसका मन आसक्त हो गया है? जिसको मेरा ही आश्रय है? वह अनन्यभावसे मेरे साथ दृढ़तापूर्वक सम्बन्ध रखते हुए मेरे जिस समग्ररूपको जान लेता है? उसको तुम सुनो। यही बात भगवान्ने सातवें अध्यायके अन्तमें कही कि जरामरणसे मुक्ति पानके लिये जो मेरा आश्रय लेकर यत्न करते हैं? वे ब्रह्म? सम्पूर्ण अध्यात्म और सम्पूर्ण कर्मको अर्थात् सम्पूर्ण निर्गुणविषयको जान लेते हैं और अधिभूत? अधिदैव और अधियज्ञके सहित मुझको अर्थात् सम्पूर्ण सगुणविषयको जान लेते हैं।इस प्रकार निर्गुण और सगुणके सिवाय राम? कृष्ण? शिव? गणेश? शक्ति? सूर्य आदि अनेक रूपोंमें प्रकट होकर परमात्मा लीला करते हैं? उनको भी जान लेना -- यही पराभक्तिसे यावान् अर्थात् समग्ररूपको जानना है।यश्चास्मि तत्त्वतः -- वे ही परमात्मा अनेक रूपोंमें? अनेक आकृतियोंमें? अनेक शक्तियोंको साथ लेकर? अनेक कार्य करनेके लिये बारबार प्रकट होते हैं? और वे ही परमात्मा अनेक सम्प्रदायोंमें अपनीअपनी भावनाके अनुसार अनेक इष्टदेवोंके रूपमें कहे जाते हैं। वास्तवमें परमात्मा एक ही हैं। इस प्रकार मैं जो हूँ -- इसे तत्त्वसे जान लेता है।ततो मां तत्त्वतो ज्ञात्वा विशते तदनन्तरम् -- ऐसा मुझे तत्त्वसे जानकर तत्काल (टिप्पणी प0 949.2) मेरेमें प्रविष्ट हो जाता है अर्थात् मेरे साथ भिन्नताका जो भाव था? वह सर्वथा मिट जाता है।तत्त्वसे जाननेपर उसमें जो अनजानपना था? वह सर्वथा मिट जाता है और वह उस तत्त्वमें प्रविष्ट हो जाता है। यही पूर्णता है और इसीमें मनुष्यजन्मकी सार्थकता है।विशेष बातजीवका परमात्मामें प्रेम (रति? प्रीति या आकर्षण) स्वतः है। परन्तु जब यह जीव प्रकृतिके साथ सम्बन्ध जोड़ लेता है? तब वह परमात्मासे विमुख हो जाता है और उसका संसारमें आकर्षण हो जाता है। यह आकर्षण ही वासना? स्पृहा? कामना? आशा? तृष्णा आदि नामोंसे कहा जाता है।इस वासना आदिका जो विषय (प्रकृतिजन्य पदार्थ) है? वह क्षणभङ्गुर और परिवर्तनशील है तथा यह जीवात्मा स्वयं? नित्य और अपरिवर्तनशील है। परन्तु ऐसा होते हुए भी प्रकृतिके साथ तादात्म्य होनेसे यह परिवर्तनशीलमें आकृष्ट हो जाता है। इससे इसको मिलता तो कुछ नहीं? पर कुछ मिलेगा -- इस भ्रम? वासनाके कारण यह जन्ममरणके चक्करमें पड़ा हुआ महान् दुःख पाता रहता है। इससे छूटनेके लिये भगवान्ने योग बताया है। वह योग जडतासे सम्बन्धविच्छेद करके परमात्माके साथ नित्ययोगका अनुभव करा देता है।गीतामें मुख्यरूपसे तीन योग कहे हैं -- कर्मयोग? ज्ञानयोग और भक्तियोग। इन तीनोंपर विचार किया जाय तो भगवान्का प्रेम तीनों ही योगोंमें है। कर्मयोगमें उसको कर्तव्यरति कहते हैं अर्थात् वह रति कर्तव्य होती है -- स्वे स्वे कर्मण्यभिरतः (18। 45)। [कर्मयोगकी यह रति अन्तमें आत्मरतिमें परिणत हो जाती है (गीता 2। 55 3। 17) और जिस कर्मयोगीमें भक्तिके संस्कार हैं? उसकी यह रति भगवद्रतिमें परिणत हो जाती है।] ज्ञानयोगमें उसी प्रेमको आत्मरति कहते हैं अर्थात् वह रति स्वरूपमें होती है -- योऽन्तःसुखोऽन्तरारामः (5। 24)। और भक्तियोगमें उसी प्रेमको भगवद्रति कहते हैं अर्थात् वह रति भगवान्में होती है (टिप्पणी प0 950.1) -- तुष्यन्ति च रमन्ति च (10। 9)। इस प्रकार इन तीनों योगोंमें रति होनेपर भी गीतामें भगवद्रति की विशेषरूपसे महिमा गायी गयी है।तपस्वी? ज्ञानी और कर्मी -- इन तीनोंसे भी योगी (समतावाला) श्रेष्ठ है (गीता 6। 46)। तात्पर्य यह है कि जडतासे सम्बन्ध रखते हुए बड़ा भारी तप करनेपर? बहुतसे शास्त्रोंका (अनेक प्रकारका) ज्ञानसम्पादन करनेपर और यज्ञ? दान? तीर्थ आदिके बड़ेबड़े अनुष्ठान करनेपर जो कुछ प्राप्त होता है? वह सब अनित्य ही होता है? पर योगीको नित्यतत्त्वकी प्राप्ति होती है। अतः तपस्वी? ज्ञानी और कर्मी -- इन तीनोंसे योगी श्रेष्ठ है। इस प्रकारके कर्मयोगी? ज्ञानयोगी? हठयोगी? लययोगी आदि सब योगियोंमें भी भगवान्ने भक्तियोगी को सर्वश्रेष्ठ बताया है (गीता 6। 47)। यही भक्तियोगी भगवान्के समग्ररूपको जान लेता है। सांख्ययोगी भी पराभक्तिके द्वारा उस समग्ररूपको जान लेता है। उसी समग्ररूपका वर्णन यहाँ यावान् पदसे हुआ है (टिप्पणी प0 950.2)।इस प्रकरणके आरम्भमें अन्तःकरणकी शुद्धिरूप सिद्धिको प्राप्त हुआ साधक जिस प्रकार ब्रह्मको प्राप्त होता है -- यह कहनेकी प्रतिज्ञा की और बताया कि ध्यानयोगके परायण होनेसे वह वैराग्यको प्राप्त होता है। वैराग्यसे अहंकार आदिका त्याग करके ममतारहित होकर शान्त होता है। तब वह ब्रह्मप्राप्तिका पात्र होता है। पात्र होते ही उसकी ब्रह्मभूतअवस्था हो जाती है। ब्रह्मभूतअवस्था होनेपर संसारके सम्बन्धसे जो रागद्वेष? हर्षशोक आदि द्वन्द्व होते थे? वे सर्वथा मिट जाते हैं तो वह सम्पूर्ण प्राणियोंमें सम हो जाता है। सम होनेपर,पराभक्ति प्राप्त हो जाती है। वह पराभक्ति ही वास्तविक प्रीति है। उस प्रीतिसे परमात्माके समग्ररूपका बोध हो जाता है। बोध होते ही उस तत्त्वमें प्रवेश हो जाता है -- विशते तदनन्तरम्।अनन्यभक्तिसे तो मनुष्य भगवान्को तत्त्वसे जान सकता है? उनमें प्रविष्ट हो सकता है और उनके दर्शन भी कर सकता है (गीता 11। 54) परन्तु सांख्ययोगी भगवान्को तत्त्वसे जानकर उनमें प्रविष्ट तो होता है? पर भगवान् उसको दर्शन देनेमें बाध्य नहीं होते। कारण कि उसकी साधना पहलेसे ही विवेकप्रधान रही है? इसलिये उसको दर्शनकी इच्छा नहीं होती। दर्शन न होनेपर भी उसमें कोई कमी नहीं रहती अतः कमी माननी नहीं चाहिये।यहाँ उस तत्त्वमें प्रविष्ट हो जाना ही अनिर्वचनीय प्रेमकी प्राप्ति है। इसी प्रेमको नारदभक्तिसूत्रमें प्रतिक्षण वर्धमान कहा है (टिप्पणी प0 951)। इस प्रेममें सर्वथा पूर्णता हो जाती है अर्थात् उसके लिये करना? जानना और पाना कुछ भी बाकी नहीं रहता। इसलिये न करनेका राग रहता है? न जाननेकी जिज्ञासा रहती है? न जीनेकी आशा रहती है? न मरनेका भय रहता है और न पानेका लालच ही रहता है।जबतक भगवान्में पराभक्ति अर्थात् परम प्रेम नहीं होता? तबतक ब्रह्मभूतअवस्थामें भी मैं ब्रह्म हूँ यह सूक्ष्म अहंकार रहता है। जबतक लेशमात्र भी अहंकार रहता है? तबतक परिच्छिन्नताका अत्यन्त अभाव नहीं होता। परन्तु मैं ब्रह्म हूँ यह सूक्ष्म अहंभाव तबतक जन्ममरणका कारण नहीं बनता? जबतक उसमें प्रकृतिजन्य गुणोंका सङ्ग नहीं होता क्योंकि गुणोंका सङ्ग होनेसे ही बन्धन होता है -- कारणं गुणसङ्गोऽस्य सदसद्योनिजन्मसु (गीता 13। 21)। उदाहरणार्थ -- गाढ़ नींदसे जगनेपर साधारण मनुष्यमात्रको सबसे पहले यह अनुभव होता है कि मैं हूँ। ऐसा अनुभव होते ही जब नाम? रूप? देश? काल जाति आदिके साथ स्वयंका सम्बन्ध जुड़ जाता है? तब मैं हूँ यह अहंभाव शुभअशुभ कर्मोंका कारण बन जाता है? जिससे जन्ममरणका चक्कर चल पड़ता है। परन्तु जो ऊँचे दर्जेका साधक होता है अर्थात् जिसकी निरन्तर ब्रह्मभूतअवस्था रहती है? उसके सात्त्विक ज्ञान (18। 20) में सब जगह ही अपने स्वरूपका बोध रहता है। परन्तु जबतक साधकका सत्त्वगुणके साथ सम्बन्ध रहता है? तबतक नींदसे जगनेपर तत्काल मैं ब्रह्म हूँ अथवा सब कुछ एक परमात्मा ही है -- ऐसी वृत्ति पकड़ी जाती है और मालूम होता है कि नींदमें यह वृत्ति छूट गयी थी? मानो उसकी भूल हो गयी थी और अब पीछे उस तत्त्वकी जागृति हो गयी है? स्मृति आ गयी है। गुणातीत हो जानेपर अर्थात् गुणोंसे सर्वथा सम्बन्धविच्छेद होनेपर विस्मृति और स्मृति -- ऐसी दो अवस्थाएँ नहीं होतीं अर्थात् नींदमें भूल हो गयी और अब स्मृति आ गयी -- ऐसा अनुभव नहीं होता? प्रत्युत नींद तो केवल अन्तःकरणमें आयी थी? अपनेमें नहीं? अपना स्वरूप तो ज्योंकात्यों रहा -- ऐसा अनुभव रहता है। तात्पर्य यह है कि निद्राका आना और उससे जगना -- ये दोनों प्रकृतिमें ही हैं? ऐसा उसका स्पष्ट अनुभव रहता है। इसी अवस्थाको चौदहवें अध्यायके बाईसवें श्लोकमें कहा है कि प्रकाश अर्थात् नींदसे जगना और मोह अर्थात् नींदका आना -- इन दोनोंमें गुणातीत पुरुषके किञ्चिन्मात्र भी रागद्वेष नहीं होते। सम्बन्ध -- पहले श्लोकमें अर्जुनने संन्यास और त्यागके तत्त्वके विषयमें पूछा तो उसके उत्तरमें भगवान्ने चौथेसे बारहवें श्लोकतक कर्मयोगका और इकतालीसवेंसे अड़तालीसवें श्लोकतक कर्मयोगका तथा संक्षेपमें भक्तियोगका वर्णन किया और तेरहवेंसे चालीसवें श्लोकतक विचारप्रधान सांख्ययोगका तथा उन्चासवेंसे पचपनवें श्लोकतक ध्यानप्रधान सांख्ययोगका एवं संक्षेपमें पराभक्तिकी प्राप्तिका वर्णन किया। अब भगवान् शरणागतिकी प्रधानतावाले भक्तियोगका वर्णन आरम्भ करते हैं।

उसके बाद उस ज्ञानलक्षणा --, भक्तिसे मैं जितना हूँ और जो हूँ? उसको तत्त्वसे जान लेता है। अभिप्राय यह है कि मैं जितना हूँ? यानी उपाधिकृत विस्तारभेदसे जितना हूँ और जो हूँ? यानी वास्तवमें समस्त उपाधिभेदसे रहित? उत्तमपुरुष और आकाशकी तरह ( व्याप्त ) जो मैं हूँ? उस अद्वैत? अजर? अमर? अभय और निधनरहित मुझको तत्त्वसे जान,लेता है। फिर मुझे इस तरह तत्त्वसे जानकर तत्काल मुझमें ही प्रवेश कर जाता है। यहाँ ज्ञात्वा विशते तदनन्तरम् इस कथनसे ज्ञान और उसके अनन्तर प्रवेशक्रिया? यह दोनों भिन्नभिन्न विवक्षित नहीं हैं। तो क्या है फलान्तरके अभावका ज्ञानमात्र ही विवक्षित है क्योंकि क्षेत्रज्ञ भी तू मुझे ही समझ ऐसे कहा गया है। पू0 -- यह कहना विरुद्ध है कि ज्ञानकी जो परा निष्ठा है उससे मुझे जानता है। यदि कहो कि विरुद्ध कैसे है तो बतलाते हैं? जब ज्ञाताको जिस विषयका ज्ञान होता है? वह उसी समय उस विषयको जान लेता है? ज्ञानकी बारम्बार आवृत्ति करनारूप ज्ञाननिष्ठाकी अपेक्षा नहीं करता। इसलिये वह ( ज्ञेय पदार्थको ) ज्ञानसे नहीं जानता? ज्ञानावृत्तिरूप ज्ञाननिष्ठासे जानता है यह कहना विरुद्ध है। उ0 -- यह दोष नहीं है क्योंकि अपनी उत्पत्ति और परिपाकके हेतुओंसे युक्त एवं विरोधरहित ज्ञानका जो अपने स्वरूपानुभवमें निश्चयरूपसे पर्यवसान -- स्थित हो जाना है? उसीको निष्ठा शब्दसे कहा गया है। अभिप्राय यह है कि ज्ञानकी उत्पत्ति और परिपाकके हेतु? जो विशुद्धबुद्धि आदि और अमानित्वादि सहकारी कारण हैं? उनकी सहायतासे? शास्त्र और आचार्यके उपदेशसे उत्पन्न हुआ? जो मैं कर्ता हूँ? मेरा यह कर्म है इत्यादि कारकभेदबुद्धिजनित समस्त कर्मोंके संन्याससहित क्षेत्रज्ञ और ईश्वरकी एकताका ज्ञान है? उसका जो अपने स्वरूपके अनुभवमें निश्चयरूपसे स्थित रहना है? उसे परा ज्ञाननिष्ठा कहते हैं। वही यह ज्ञाननिष्ठा आर्त आदि तीन भक्तियोंकी अपेक्षासे चतुर्थ परा भक्ति कही गयी है। उस,( ज्ञाननिष्ठारूप ) परा भक्तिसे भगवान्को तत्त्वसे जानता है जिससे उसी समय ईश्वर और क्षेत्रज्ञविषयक भेदबुद्धि पूर्णरूपसे निवृत्त हो जाती है। इसलिये ज्ञाननिष्ठारूप भक्तिसे मुझे जानता है यह कहना विरुद्ध नहीं होता। ऐसा मान लेनेसे वेदान्त? इतिहास? पुराण और स्मृतिरूप समस्त निवृत्तिविधायक शास्त्र? सार्थक हो जाते हैं अर्थात् उन सबका अभिप्राय सिद्ध हो जाता है। आत्माको जानकर ( तीनों तरहकी एषणाओंसे ) विरक्त होकर फिर भिक्षाचरण करते हैं? पुरुषार्थका अन्तरंग साधन होनेके कारण संन्यास ही इन सब तपोंमें अधिक कहा गया है? अकेला संन्यास ही उन सबको उल्लंघन कर जाता है? कर्मोंके त्यागका नाम संन्यास है? वेदोंको तथा इस लोक और परलोकको परित्याग करके? धर्मअधर्मको छोड़ इत्यादि शास्त्रवाक्य हैं। तथा यहाँ भी ( संन्यासपरक ) बहुतसे वचन दिखाये गये हैं। उन सब वचनोंको व्यर्थ मानना उचित नहीं और अर्थवादरूप मानना भी ठीक नहीं क्योंकि वे अपने प्रकरणमें स्थित हैं। इसके सिवा अन्तरात्माके अविक्रियस्वरूपमें निश्चयरूपसे स्थित हो जाना ही मोक्ष है। इसलिये भी,( पूर्वोक्त बात ही सिद्ध होती है ) क्योंकि पूर्वसमुद्रपर जानेकी इच्छावालेका उसके प्रतिकूल पश्चिमसमुद्रपर जानेकी इच्छावालेके साथ समान मार्ग नहीं हो सकता। अन्तरात्मविषयक प्रतीतिका निरन्तरता रखनेके आग्रहका नाम ज्ञाननिष्ठा है। उसका कर्मोंके साथ रहना,( पूर्वकी ओर जानेकी इच्छावालेके लिये ) पश्चिमसमुद्रकी ओर जानेकी मार्गकी भाँति विरुद्ध है। प्रमाणवेत्ताओने उनका पर्वत और राईके समान भेद निश्चित किया है। सुतरां यह सिद्ध हुआ कि सर्वकर्मसंन्यासपूर्वक ही ज्ञाननिष्ठा करनी चाहिये।

Objection: What unprecedented result is attained by the knowledge which is achievable through Samadhi and is of the nature of supreme devotion? To this, he answers -- 'Tatah' (Then/Thereby). By the devotion born of Samadhi, he knows Me—oriented towards Brahman as the innermost Self—meaning he pervades (attains) Me.

He explains that very knowledge, which is dependent on devotion -- 'Yavan' (as much as I am). (My nature possesses) the quality of being like space, limitlessness, and non-attachment. He refutes the dependency of consciousness on objects -- with the word 'Advaitam' (Non-dual). To those who consider the Self to be of the nature of both substance and knowledge, it is said -- 'Chaitanyamatra' (Pure Consciousness only). Even regarding the Self as that alone (consciousness), against those who accept other attributes and thus a relationship of attribute-and-possessor-of-attribute, he answers -- 'Ekarasam' (Of one homogeneous essence). By stating the absence of all modifications, he establishes the immutability (Kautasthya) of the Self -- with 'Ajam' (Unborn). Regarding the absence of the stated modifications, he states the lack of connection with their cause, ignorance, as the reason -- 'Abhayam' (Fearless).

Having restated the knowledge of Reality, he presents its fruit, disembodied liberation (Videha Kaivalya) -- with 'Tatah' (Then). He refutes the implication that the knowledge of Reality and the subsequent act of 'entering' are distinct -- 'Na atra' (Not here). If there is no difference, what is the explanation for the statement of difference? Doubting this, he states its figurative nature -- 'Kim tarhi' (What then?). The word 'Pravesha' (entry) is to be supplied. Doubting that the attainment of Brahman is a separate fruit, he states that since there is no difference between Brahman and the Self, that attainment is not distinct from knowledge -- referring to 'Kshetrajnam cha' (And the knower of the field).

He challenges the statement that one knows Me through supreme devotion characterized by steadfastness in knowledge -- with 'Nanu' (But/Objection). To illustrate the contradiction, he asks -- 'Katham' (How?). He sets out to clarify the contradiction -- 'Uchyate' (It is stated). There, he states that the object is revealed by the very rise of knowledge -- with 'Yada' (When). He indicates what is refuted by the word 'Eva' (only/itself) -- 'Na jnana' (Not knowledge...). The phrase 'Thus it is established between us two' is implied.

Even if the object is revealed by the mere rise of knowledge, why is there an idea of contradiction in the present context? Doubting this, he says -- 'Tatashcha' (And therefore). The word 'Viruddham' (contradictory) is implied. He refutes the suspected contradiction -- 'Na esha doshah' (This is not a defect). He elaborates on the stated reason itself -- 'Shastra' (Scripture etc.). For knowledge arises from the instruction of a teacher that follows the scriptures, as per the Shruti text: 'A man who has a teacher knows'. And its maturity -- meaning the destruction of obstacles like doubt -- depends on the auxiliary causes of that very instruction, such as the purity of the intellect; the state of resting in one's own Self, free from all projections, as a fruit of that knowledge of Oneness generated from that very instruction, accompanied by the renunciation of all actions which are based on the idea of distinction of factors of action -- that state is referred to by authorities as the 'Supreme Steadfastness in Knowledge' (Jnana-para-nishtha).

If the supreme steadfastness in knowledge is as described, then how is it called the 'fourth devotion'? To this he says -- 'Seyam' (She is this). He says that by the described devotion, the knowledge of the reality of God is perfected -- with 'Taya' (By that). He states the fruit of the knowledge of Reality -- 'Yad anantaram' (Immediately after which). Since devotion to God in the form of steadfastness in knowledge is not different from the knowledge of Reality, and since its fruit—the cessation of ignorance—is nothing but that (knowledge), and since the mention of difference is figurative, he concludes that the sentence in question is not contradictory -- with 'Atah' (Therefore).

Regarding the meaning that the knowledge of Unity born of instruction—accompanied by the renunciation of all actions and consisting of resting in one's own nature—is the means to the supreme goal of human life, he cites an authority -- 'Atra cha' (And here). He quotes that very scripture -- beginning with 'Viditva' (Having known). The sentences shown are like 'Sarvakarmani manasa' (Renouncing all actions mentally), etc. Objection: Since these sentences are not intended to convey literal meaning, they lack validity in their own sense. Doubting this, he says it is not so, because Vedic sentences are included in the mandatory injunction for study, and others follow them -- 'Na cha' (And not). Still, doubting that like the sentence 'So'rodit' (He cried), they have no validity in their literal sense, he says -- 'Na cha arthavadatvam' (And they are not mere eulogies).

And for this reason too, the seeker of liberation—who is steadfast in the knowledge that is the means to the desired liberation—has the qualification for renunciation, not for steadfastness in action; thus he says -- 'Pratyak' (Inner...). Concerning the point that steadfastness in action is contradictory for one steadfast in knowledge, he gives an example -- 'Na hi' (Indeed not). Having restated the nature of steadfastness in knowledge, he states the illustrated conclusion that its coexistence with steadfastness in action is contradictory -- 'Pratyagatma' (Inner Self). How is there an understanding of contradiction between knowledge and action? Doubting this, he says that since the removability of actions by knowledge is established in Shruti and Smriti -- 'Parvata' (Mountain, etc.). 'Antaravan' (possessing a gap/difference) means possessing a distinction that ensures the absence of mixture (confusion) that would result from both residing in the same subject. Regarding the non-combination of knowledge and action, he concludes with the resultant meaning -- 'Tasmat' (Therefore).

And then, by the devotion characterized by knowledge, he fully knows Me... 'How great I am'—having differences of states created by adjuncts; and 'Who I am'—having all differences of adjuncts destroyed, the Supreme Person, unattached like space, changeless; that Me, who is non-dual, pure consciousness, of one essence, unaging, immortal, fearless, and deathless, he knows in reality through devotion; then, having known Me thus in reality, immediately after that he enters Me alone, (meaning) he attains Me.

Here, the actions of knowing and entering are not intended to be distinct. The statement of difference is merely figurative; this should be understood. The attainment of Brahman is not distinct from knowledge. Because the non-difference between Brahman and the Self has been stated in 'Know Me also as the Knower of the Field' (Kshetrajnam chapi mam viddhi).

Some say: By devotion of the nature of Nididhyasana (profound meditation), he knows—realizes—Me, the non-dual Self; 'Tadanantaram' (after that) means after the fall of the body caused by the exhaustion of strong Prarabdha karma, and not immediately after knowledge itself. Because that (sequence) is established by the 'Ktva' suffix itself (in 'Jnatva' - having known), the phrase 'Tadanantaram' (after that) would become redundant; so say some.

Others, however, say that it should be explained by connecting with the subsequent verse: 'Vishati' (enters) -- implying that having known (realized) in order to uproot the ignorance which is the root of all evil and is 'entering' (superimposed) on the Self via an indescribable relation for its own establishment, along with its projections; 'Tadanantaram' (after that) he attains the eternal, imperishable abode which is devoid of 'Antara' (difference/gap). Having known 'Tattvatah'—meaning in reality, as it is—and having realized, 'Tatah' (then) he becomes pervaded, meaning he attains the state of Being Brahman. As per the Shruti: 'He who knows Brahman becomes Brahman indeed.'

Or, by 'Tatah', the attainment of the state of Causal Brahman, which is of the nature of universal selfhood, is stated first. 'Anantaram' (Afterwards)—meaning immediately after attaining the causal state—he enters that Brahman, the Pure Brahman denoted by the word 'Tat'. The meaning is like a reflection entering the original object when the mirror etc., is removed; so say others.

These three explanations are to be ignored, having been abandoned by the all-knowing Acharya (Shankara), intending that: since Nididhyasana was already stated in 'Dhyanayogo paro nityam', the word 'Bhakti' and the adjective 'Param' (supreme) would be rendered useless; and noting the impropriety of bad hypotheses filled with the defects of referring to irrelevant things by the word 'Tat', and the strain of remote syntax connection and supplying missing words.

And this is the meaning: According to the Shruti 'A man who has a teacher knows', knowledge arises from the instruction of a teacher that is in accordance with the scriptures. And regarding its maturity—the destruction of impossibilities (doubts) etc.—depending on the auxiliary causes of that very instruction, such as the purity of intellect and virtues like humility (Amanitva); the state of resting in one's own Self, free from all projections, in the form of self-experience, resulting from the knowledge of the unity of the Knower of the Field and the Supreme Self generated from that very instruction, accompanied by the renunciation of all actions based on the notion of distinction of factors—that is called the 'Supreme Steadfastness in Knowledge'.

This very steadfastness in knowledge, having been described as the 'Supreme Fourth Devotion' in comparison to the three types of devotion of the distressed etc., is the means by which he knows the Lord in reality; immediately after which the idea of difference between the Lord and the Knower of the Field ceases completely. To teach that the sequence expressed by the 'Ktva' suffix is 'immediate' (without gap), and not separated by even a slight interval, the word 'Anantaram' (immediately after) is used.

'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.

That this establishment in knowledge is stated with its mode — 'Buddhyā'. 'Viśuddhayā' — by intellect void of all doubt and error; by the modification of intellect born of Vedanta sentence 'I am Brahman', 'yuktaḥ' — always endowed with that; 'dhṛtyā' — by fortitude 'ātmānam' — controlling the aggregate of body and senses, preventing from engagement in wrong path and making prone to Self.

By the word 'ca', other means stated in Yoga scripture are collected. 'Śabdādīn' — objects sound, touch, form, taste, smell etc. — causes of bondage through enjoyment, by implication those not useful for the sole purpose of maintenance of body for establishment in knowledge, even if not prohibited — 'tyaktvā'; and in those meant only for maintenance of body, 'vyudasya' — abandoning — attachment and aversion; by 'ca' abandoning other distractors of knowledge also.

In 'Viviktasevī', supplying 'syāt' (should be), the connection is with the end 'Brahmabhūyāya kalpate'.

He states that very thing — 'Buddhyā'. 'Viśuddhayā' — by intellect devoid of all attachment and having single devotion in Me, 'yuktaḥ'; 'dhṛtyā' — even in appearance of pain etc. in knowledge of My will, by fortitude of the nature of knowledge of My Lila, 'ātmānam' — the soul/Jiva 'niyamya' — controlling — by 'ca' making immovable — 'śabdādīn' objects from senses 'tyaktvā'; 'ca' — again attachment and aversion — of the form of knowledge of friend and enemy — 'vyudasya' — removing; connection is with the third verse 'Brahmabhūyāya kalpate'.

"He states the fruit"—"immediate and mediate" is the remainder [to be supplied]. With the intention of the Substratum named "Lord of All," indicated by the causality of the world mentioned in previous texts, he states the meaning of "Yah" (Who) as—"in terms of essential nature." The connection with attributes defining the essential nature, which are determined by purifying sentences of injunctions and prohibitions and are to be contemplated in all meditations, is indicated by "Svabhavatah" (in terms of nature). In the absence of attributes defining the essential nature, the object would be indeed without a nature, due to its essential nature being undefined. Some say that the word "Svarupa" refers to attributes defining the nature, while the word "Svabhava" refers to accessibility (Saulabhya).

परमात्मा से परम प्रेम अर्थात् पूर्ण तादात्म्य ही परा भक्ति है। उस परा भक्ति से ही साधक भक्त परमात्मा को तत्त्वत समझ सकता है। शास्त्र के श्रवण? अध्ययन आदि से प्राप्त किया गया ज्ञान प्राय परोक्ष होता है। जब वह ज्ञान? विज्ञान अर्थात् स्वानुभव बन जाता है? केवल तभी परमात्मा का यथार्थ बोध होता है।यावान् (मैं कितना हूँ) इसका अर्थ यह है कि परा भक्ति के द्वारा एक भक्त भगवान् के उपाधिकृत विस्तार को समझ लेता है। भगवान् की विभूतियों का वर्णन दसवें अध्याय में किया जा चुका है।यश्च अस्मि (मैं क्या हूँ) एक परम भक्त यह भी जान लेता है कि भगवान् का वास्तविक स्वरूप समस्त उपाधियों से वर्जित? निर्गुण? निर्विशेष है। सारांशत? भगवान् को तत्त्वत जानने का अर्थ उनके सर्वव्यापक एवं सर्वातीत इन दोनों ही स्वरूप को जानना है।हमें यह स्मरण रखना चाहिए कि सम्पूर्ण गीता में भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण अपने लिए जो मैं शब्द का प्रयोग करते हैं? वह अपने परमात्म स्वरूप की दृष्टि से ही कहते हैं? वसुदेव के पुत्र के रूप में नहीं। अत जब वे कहते हैं वह (साधक) मुझमें प्रवेश करता है? तब उसका अर्थ किसी गृह में प्रवेश के समान न होकर साधक की आत्मानुभूति से है। भक्त का आत्मस्वरूप भगवान् के परमात्मस्वरूप से भिन्न नहीं है। यहाँ कथित प्रवेश ऐसा ही है? जैसे स्वप्न द्रष्टा जाग्रत् पुरुष में प्रवेश करता है। इस श्लोक का तात्पर्य यह है कि एक साधन सम्पन्न उत्तम अधिकारी निदिध्यासन के द्वारा परमात्मा का अनुभव आत्मरूप से ही करता है? उससे भिन्न रहकर नहीं।जगत् के प्राणियों की सेवा के बिना ईश्वर की सेवा पूर्ण नहीं होती। भगवान् कहते हैं

Thus, by this much, the threefold nature of each of the six [topics], and of firmness (Dhriti) etc., has been established. Among them, one existing in the Sattvic group, having attained divine wealth, is qualified for knowledge here; and "You are of that kind"—thus Arjuna has been encouraged.

But now this is stated—If, on the one hand, you engage in action with this understanding of knowledge, then due to engagement in one's own duty and due to being purified by special knowledge, you have no connection with action [bondage]. On the other hand, if you do not accept this? Then necessarily there must be activity on your part, because the species [nature/caste] itself remains in such a state. Because everyone is controlled by nature (Variant: controlled by one's own nature); even having had that nature obscured for some time due to some fault, upon the departure of that obscurer, one indeed obtains the nature which has attained manifestation. Similarly, such is the nature of the Varnas (castes). Thus, in the inevitably occurring activity, there would be a sharing of the fruit from that.

That He says—beginning with "Brahmana" etc. ending with "even helplessly, that." Regarding the description of the division of actions of Brahmanas etc., the nature certainly does not transgress (Variant: transgresses [omitting 'not']); thus, for you who are of Kshatriya nature, even if unwilling, 'Prakriti' named 'Svabhava' (nature) resorts to the state of being the instigator without deviation. Only for one instigated by that, there is connection with merit and sin. Therefore, perform actions by placing the authority of the special knowledge spoken by Me in front. That being so, bondage will cease. This is the purport of constructing the preparation for this meaning of the Great Sentence. The meaning of the intermediate sentences is clear.

"Briefly" (samasena) (Verse 50)—[means] in brief. Of knowledge?—Of that mentioned before. "Consummation" (nishtham)—He states the ascertained [state] by avoiding the web of words. "With a pure intellect" (buddhya vishuddhaya) etc.—all this is practically explained (already), so effort is not made again (Variant: is not begun again).

"Through devotion" (bhaktya). And then, through devotion, which is of the nature of steadfastness in knowledge (Jnana-nishtha) consisting of deep meditation (nididhyasana), he "knows" (abhijanati), i.e., directly realizes, Me, the non-dual Self.

"How great" (yavan)—all-pervading and eternal; "and who" (yascha)—the mass of perfect Truth, Knowledge, and Bliss, always devoid of all limiting adjuncts, the indivisible one essence, the One; "that much" (tavantam) he knows. "Then" (tatah), having known Me thus in reality, having realized "I am the indivisible Bliss, the non-dual Brahman," he "enters" (vishate); upon the cessation of ignorance and its effects, due to being devoid of all limiting adjuncts, he becomes of the nature of Being itself.

"After that" (tadanantaram)—meaning, after the falling of the body caused by the enjoyment of powerful Prarabdha karma, but not immediately after knowledge itself. Because if the attainment of that were by the suffix 'ktva' itself (in 'jnatva' - having known), the phrase "after that" would become liable to futility. Therefore, the meaning of the Sruti "For him there is delay only as long as I am not liberated; then I will attain perfection" (Chandogya 6.14.2) is what is shown here by the Lord.

He states that very mode of attaining Brahman by three [verses] — 'Buddhyā'. 'Buddhyā' — by intellect born of ripening of hearing and reflection on Vedanta, of the form of indirect determination 'I am Brahman', 'viśuddhayā' — fully purified by feelings of friendship etc. towards all beings. 'Dhṛtyā' — by fortitude, by absence of distraction caused by acquisition and preservation etc. 'Ātmānam' — controlling the aggregate of body and senses. Being firm in posture, this is the meaning. By 'ca', controlling Prana also. Abandoning 'sound etc. objects'. Then withdrawing the senses, this is the meaning. Even one with withdrawn senses remembers objects within by mind alone, abandoning that

He states — 'Rāgadveṣau vyudasya ca'. Abandoning resolve (Sankalpa), this is the meaning. For that (resolve) alone imagines the object and generates attachment therein, this is well known. And so is the aphorism of Akshapada Acharya — 'Forms etc. objects caused by defects are created by resolve'. Defect is attachment etc. By 'ca', abandoning the notion 'this is I' also, this should be known. Then 'brahmabhūyāya' — for state of Brahman — to attain That — 'kalpate' — becomes fit — thus is the connection with the third [verse].

Through devotion he knows Me—'how great I am'—having the extent of diversity created by adjuncts (upadhis); and 'who I am'—having all differences of adjuncts destroyed, the Supreme Person, like space; he knows Me in reality as that non-dual, homogeneous essence of pure consciousness alone, unaging, fearless, and deathless. Then, having known Me thus in reality, he enters Me 'immediately after that'—meaning immediately after knowledge. Here, in the phrase 'having known, he enters afterwards', the acts of knowing and entering are not intended as distinct. What then? Since there is no other fruit, it is knowledge alone (that is meant). Because it has been stated: 'Know Me also as the Knower of the Field' (Gita 13.2).

Objection: This statement is contradictory: 'Through that supreme steadfastness in knowledge, he knows Me' (Gita 18.50). If asked 'How is it contradictory?', it is said -- (Objector's view): Exactly when knowledge arises in the knower regarding a subject, then the knower knows that subject; so it does not depend on 'steadfastness in knowledge' (Jnana-nishtha) defined as the repetition of knowledge; and therefore (you imply) he does not know by knowledge, but knows by steadfastness in knowledge which is repetition.

(Answer): This is not a defect; because the culmination of knowledge—which is endowed with the causes of its own origin and maturity and is devoid of obstacles—into the firm conviction of Self-experience, is what is denoted by the word 'Nishtha' (steadfastness). The state of remaining in the form of a firm conviction of Self-experience—of the knowledge of the unity of the Knower of the Field and the Supreme Self, which is generated relying on the instruction of the scripture and the teacher and on the auxiliary causes for the rise of knowledge such as purity of intellect and virtues like humility, and which is accompanied by the renunciation of all actions based on the notion of distinction in factors like agentship—that is called the 'Supreme Steadfastness in Knowledge'. This very steadfastness in knowledge is spoken of as the 'supreme fourth devotion' in relation to the three devotions of the distressed, etc. By that supreme devotion, he knows the Lord in reality; immediately after which the notion of difference between the Lord and the Knower of the Field ceases entirely. Therefore, the statement 'He knows Me by devotion characterized as steadfastness in knowledge' is not contradictory.

And in this view, all scriptures enjoining renunciation—characterized by Vedanta, Itihasa, Purana, and Smriti, and established by logic—become meaningful; such as 'Having known... having risen above, they wander as mendicants' (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3.5.1), 'Therefore they say renunciation surpasses these austerities' (Narayana Upanishad 2.79), 'Renunciation alone excelled' (Narayana Upanishad 2.78). Sannyasa is the renunciation of actions; 'Abandoning the Vedas, this world and the next' (Apastamba Dharma Sutra 1.23.13), 'Abandon Dharma and Adharma' (Mahabharata Shanti Parva 329.40), etc. And the sentences shown here (in the Gita). And it is not proper for those sentences to be meaningless, nor to be mere eulogies (Arthavada), because they are situated in their own context, and because liberation relies on the immutable nature of the Inner Self. For indeed, a common path is not possible for one wishing to go to the Eastern Ocean and one wishing to go to the Western Ocean in the opposite direction. And steadfastness in knowledge is the absorption in practicing a continuous flow of perception regarding the Inner Self; and that is opposed to co-existence with action, like going to the Western Ocean. The contradiction is distinct (vast) like that between a mountain and a mustard seed; this is determined by the knowers of evidence. Therefore, it is established that steadfastness in knowledge is to be practiced only by the renunciation of all actions.

The fruit of the Yoga of devotion through the worship of the Lord with one's own duties is the attainment of perfection—which is the fitness for steadfastness in knowledge. That Yoga of devotion to the Lord, by which is caused the steadfastness in knowledge that ends in the fruit of liberation, is now praised in this section concluding the purport of the scripture, for the sake of firmness in the conviction of the scripture's meaning --

'Buddhyā viśuddhayā' — endowed with [intellect] concerning the reality of Self as it is; 'dhṛtyā' — and 'ātmānaṃ niyamya' — making the mind fit for Yoga by turning away from objects; 'tyaktvā' — making distant — sound etc. objects; and 'vyudasya' (casting aside) attachment and aversion caused by them; 'viviktasevī' — living in a place solitary/free from all obstructions to meditation; 'laghvāśī' — free from over-eating and non-eating; 'yatavākkāyamānasaḥ' — with activities of body, speech and mind directed towards meditation; 'dhyānayogaparaḥ nityam' — becoming thus, devoted to Dhyana Yoga day by day until death; 'vairāgyaṃ samupāśritaḥ' — increasing dispassion therein by considering defects in objects other than the object of meditation; 'ahaṅkāram' — pride of Self in non-Self, 'balam' — strength of Vasana which is cause of its increase, 'darpam' — arrogance caused by that, desire, anger, possessions — 'vimucya'; 'nirmamaḥ' — devoid of notion of 'mine' in all non-Self things; 'śāntaḥ' — whose sole happiness is experience of Self; doing Dhyana Yoga thus 'brahmabhūyāya kalpate' — becomes fit for state of Brahman — being freed from all bonds, experiences the Self as It is, this is the meaning.

भक्त्या by devotion? माम् Me? अभिजानाति (he) knows? यावान् what? यः who? च and? अस्मि (I) am? तत्त्वतः in truth? ततः then? माम् Me? तत्त्वतः in truth? ज्ञात्वा having known? विशते (he) enters? तत् that? अनन्तरम् afterwards.Commentary My devotee? O Arjuna? who has attained to union with Me through singleminded and unflinching devotion is verily My very Self. Devotion culminates in knowledge. Devotion begins with two and ends in one. ParaBhakti (supreme devotion) and Jnana are one. Devotion is the mother. Knowledge is the son. By devotion he knows that I am allpervading pure,consciousness he knows that I am nondual? unborn? decayless? causeless? selfluminous? indivisible? unchanging he knows that I am destitute of all the differences caused by the limiting adjuncts he knows that I am the support? source? womb? basis? and substratum of everything he knows that I am the ruler of all beings he knows that I am the Supreme Purusha? the controller of Maya? and that this world is a mere appearance. Thus knowing Me in truth or in essence? he enters into Me soon after attaining Selfknowledge.The act of knowing and the act of entering are not two distinct acts. Knowing is becoming. Knowing is attaining Selfknowledge. To know That is to become That. Entering is knowing or beoming That. Entering is the attainment of Selfknowledge or Selfrealisation. These are all jugglery of words only. Knowing and entering are synonymous terms. It is very difficult to understand or comprehend transcendental spiritual matters. The teachers use various terms or expressions? analogies? similes? parables? stories? etc. to make the aspirant grasp the matter clearly and lucidly. Words are imperfect and languages are defective. They cannot fully express the inner spiritual experiences. The teacher somehow or other expresses to the students or aspirants these spiritual ideas. The aspirant himself will have to realise the Self. That is beyond the reach of words of expressions or analogies of similes. How can there be similes for that nondual Brahman These words are a sort of help or prop for the aspirants to lean upon in the beginning to understand spiritual matters. When he realises the Self? these words are of no value to him. He himself becomes an embodiment of knowledge.

Bhaktya, through devotion, through that devotion described as Knowledge; abhijanati, he knows; mam, Me; tattvatah, in reality; as to yavan, what I am, with the extensive differences created by limiting adjuncts; and yah asmi, who I am when all distinctions create by the limiting adjuncts are destroyed-Me who am the supreme Person comparable to space [In points of all-pervasiveness and non-attachment.] and one-without-a-second, absolute, homogeneous Consciousness, birthless, ageless, immortal, fearless and deathless.
Tatah, then; jnatva, having known; mam, Me, thus; tattvatah, in truth; visate, he enters into Me, Myself; tadanantaram, immediately after that (Knowledge). Here, by saing, 'having known, he enters without delay', it is not meant that the acts of 'knowing' and 'entering immediately after' are different. What then? What is meant is the absolute Knowledge itself that has to no other result, [In place of phalantarabhava-jnana-matram eva, Ast. reads 'phalantarbhavat jnanamatram eva, absolute Knowledge itself, since there is no other result'.-Tr.] for it has been said, 'And৷৷.understand Me to be the "Knower of the field", (13.2).
Opponent: Has it not been contradictory to say, he knows Me through that which is the supreme steadliness (nistha) in Knowledge?
Vedantin: If it be asked, How it is contradictory?
Opponent: The answer is: Whenever any Knowledge of something arises in a knower, at that very moment the knower knows that object. Hence, he does not depend on steadfastness in Knowledge which consists in the repetition of the act of knowing. And therefore, it is contradictory to say one knows not through knowledge, but through steadfastness in knowledge which is a repetition of the act of knowing.
Vedantin: There is no such fault, since the culmination of Knowledge-which (Knowledge) is associated with the causes of its unfoldment and maturity, and which has nothing to contradict it- in the conviction that one's own Self has been realized is what is referred to by the word nistha (consummation): When knowledge-which concerns the identity of the 'Knower of the field' and the supreme Self, and which remains associated with the renunciation of all actions that arise from the perception of the distinction among their accessories such as agent etc., and which unfolds from the instruction of the scriptures and teachers, depending on purity of the intellect etc. and humility etc. which are the auxiliary cuases of the origin and maturity of Knowledge-continues in the form of the conviction that one's own Self has been realized, then that continuance is called the supreme steadfastness (nistha) in Knowledge.
This steadfastness in Knowledge that is such has been spoken of as the highest, the fourth kind of devotion in relation to the three other devotions viz of the afflicted, etc. (cf. 7.16). Through that highest devotion one realizes the Lord in truth. Immediately after that the idea of difference between the Lord and the Knower of the field vanishes totally. There-fore the statement, 'one knows Me through devotion in the form of steadfastness in Knowledge', is not contradictory. And, in this sense, all the scriptures-consisting of Vedanta (Upanisads etc.), History, Mythology and Smrtis-, as for instance, 'Knowing (this very Self the Brahmanas) renounce৷৷.and lead a mendicant's life' (Br. 3.5.1), 'Therefore they speak of monasticism as excellent among these austerities' (Ma. Na. 24.1), 'Monasticism verily became supreme' (ibid. 21.2), which enjoin renunciation become meaningful. Thus, monasticism means renunciation of rites and duties. There are also the texts, 'Having renounced the Vedas as well as this world and the next' (Ap. Dh. Su. 2.9.13), and 'Give up religion and irreligion' (Mbh. Sa. 329.40; 331.44), etc. And here (in the Gita) also various relevant) passages have been pointed out. In is not porper that those texts should be meaningless. Nor are they merely eulogistic, since they occur in their own contexts. Besides, Liberation consists in being established in the changeless real nature of the indwelling Self. Indeed, it is not possible that one who wants to go to the eastern sea and the other who wants to go in the opposite direction to the western sea can have the same course!
And steadfastness in Knowledg consists in being totally absorbed in maintaining a current of thought with regard to the indwelling Self. And that is opposed to coexistence with duties, like going to the western sea. It has been the conclusion of those versed in the valid means of knowledge that the difference between them is as wide as that between a mountain and a mustard seed! Therefore it is established that one should have recourse to steadfastness in Knowledge only, by relinishing all rites and duties.
The fruit of the attainment of success from the Yoga of Devotion consisting in worshiping the Lord with one's own actions is the ability to remain steadfast in Knowledge, from which, follows stead-fastness in Knowledge, culminating in the result, Liberation. That Yoga of Devotion to the Lord is now being praised in this concluding section dealing with the purport of the Scripture, with a veiw to generating a firm conviction with regard to it (the purport of the Scripture):

Through such devotion, he knows 'who I am,' i.e., knows My own essence and My nature, and 'what I am,' i.e., in My attributes and glory. Knowing Me truly, he rises to a higher level than this Bhakti, and aciring knowledge of the truth, enters into Me through devotion. The meaning is that he attains Me by means of infinite and unsurpassed Bhakti which develops subseent in time to the vision of the nature, attributes and glory of the Lord in reality. Here the term 'Tatah' (through) denotes that devotion is the cause of attainment; for it has been stated to be the cause of entrance n the text, 'But by singel-minded devotion it is possible ৷৷.' (11.54).
In this way, the crowning development has been told starting from the disinterested performance of periodical and occasional rites suitable for the various stations and stages of life, which are to be performed to propitiate the Supreme Person. Sri Krsna now explains that even for actions meant for attaining desired objects (Kamya-karmas) the crowning stage is the same as for these described above, provided they too are done not for fulfilling one's desires but as offerings to propitiate the Supreme Person.