Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 2 - Shloka (Verse) 11

व्याख्या-- [मनुष्यको शोक तब होता है, जब वह संसारके प्राणी-पदार्थोंमें दो विभाग कर लेता है कि ये मेरे हैं और ये मेरे नहीं हैं; ये मेरे निजी कुटुम्बी हैं और ये मेरे निजी कुटुम्बी नहीं हैं; ये हमारे वर्णके हैं और ये हमारे वर्णके नहीं हैं; ये हमारे आश्रमके हैं और ये हमारे आश्रमके नहीं हैं; ये हमारे पक्षके हैं और ये हमारे पक्षके नहीं हैं। जो हमारे होते हैं, उनमें ममता, कामना, प्रियता, आसक्ति हो जाती है। इन ममता, कामना आदिसे ही शोक, चिन्ता, भय, उद्वेग, हलचल, संताप आदि दोष, पैदा होते हैं। ऐसा कोई भी दोष, अनर्थ नहीं है, जो ममता, कामना आदिसे पैदा न होता हो--यह सिद्धान्त है।
गीतामें सबसे पहले धृतराष्ट्रने कहा कि मेरे और पाण्डुके पुत्रोंने युद्धभूमिमें क्या किया? यद्यपि पाण्डव धृतराष्ट्रको अपने पितासे भी अधिक आदर-दृष्टिसे देखते थे, तथापि धृतराष्ट्रके मनमें अपने पुत्रोंके प्रति ममता थी। अतः उनका अपने पुत्रोंमें और पाण्डवोंमें भेदभावपूर्वक पक्षपात था कि ये मेरे हैं और ये मेरे नहीं हैं।
जो ममता धृतराष्ट्रमें थी, वही ममता अर्जुनमें भी पैदा हुई। परन्तु अर्जुनकी वह ममता धृतराष्ट्रकी ममताके समान नहीं थी। अर्जुनमें धृतराष्ट्रकी तरह पक्षपात नहीं था अतः वे सभीको स्वजन कहते हैं--
'दृष्ट्वेमं स्वजनम्' (1। 28) और दुर्योधन आदिको भी स्वजन कहते हैं--'स्वजनं हि कथं हत्वा सुखिनः स्याम माधव' (1। 37)। तात्पर्य है कि अर्जुनकी सम्पूर्ण कुरुवंशियोंमें ममता थी और उस ममताके कारण ही उनके मरनेकी आशंकासे अर्जुनको शोक हो रहा था। इस शोकको मिटानेके लिये भगवान्ने अर्जुनको गीताका उपदेश दिया है, जो इस ग्यारहवें श्लोकसे आरम्भ होता है। इसके अन्तमें भगवान् इसी शोकको अनुचित बताते हुए कहेंगे कि तू केवल मेरा ही आश्रय ले और शोक मत कर--'मा शुचः' (18। 66)। कारण कि संसारका आश्रय लेनेसे ही शोक होता है और अनन्यभावसे मेरा आश्रय लेनेसे तेरे शोक, चिन्ता आदि सब मिट जायँगे।]
'अशोच्यानन्वशोचस्त्वम्'-- संसारमात्रमें दो चीजें हैं सत् और असत्, शरीरी और शरीर। इन दोनोंमें शरीरी तो अविनाशी है और शरीर विनाशी है। ये दोनों ही अशोच्य हैं। अविनाशीका कभी विनाश नहीं होता, इसलिये उसके लिये शोक करना बनता ही नहीं और विनाशीका विनाश होता ही है, वह एक क्षण भी स्थायीरूपसे नहीं रहता, इसलिये उसके लिये भी शोक करना नहीं बनता। तात्पर्य हुआ कि शोक करना न तो शरीरीको लेकर बन सकता है और न शरीरोंको लेकर ही बन सकता है। शोकके होनेमें तो केवल अविवेक (मूर्खता) ही कारण है।
मनुष्यके सामने जन्मना-मरना, लाभ-हानि आदिके रूपमें जो कुछ परिस्थिति आती है, वह प्रारब्धका अर्थात् अपने किये हुए कर्मोंका ही फल है। उस अनुकूल-प्रतिकूल परिस्थितिको लेकर शोक करना, सुखी-दुःखी होना केवल मूर्खता ही है। कारण कि परिस्थिति चाहे अनुकूल आये, चाहे प्रतिकूल आये, उसका आरम्भ और अन्त होता है अर्थात् वह परिस्थिति पहले भी नहीं थी और अन्तमें भी नहीं रहेगी। जो परिस्थिति आदिमें और अन्तमें नहीं
होती वह बीचमें एक क्षण भी स्थायी नहीं होती। अगर स्थायी होती तो मिटती कैसे और मिटती है तो स्थायी कैसे ऐसी प्रतिक्षण मिटनेवाली अनुकूल-प्रतिकूल परिस्थितिको लेकर हर्ष-शोक करना, सुखी-दुःखी होना केवल मूर्खता है।
'प्रज्ञावादांश्च भाषसे'-- एक तरफ तो तू पण्डिताईकी बातें बघार रहा है, और दूसरी तरफ शोक भी कर रहा है। अतः तू केवल बातें ही बनाता है। वास्तवमें तू पण्डित नहीं है; क्योंकि जो पण्डित होते हैं, वे किसीके लिये भी कभी शोक नहीं करते।
कुलका नाश होनेसे कुल-धर्म नष्ट हो जायगा। धर्मके नष्ट होनेसे स्त्रियाँ दूषित हो जायँगी, जिससे वर्णसंकर पैदा होगा। वह वर्णसंकर कुलघातियोंको और उनके कुलको नरकोंमें ले जानेवाला होगा। पिण्ड और पानी न मिलनेसे उनके पितरोंका भी पतन हो जायगा--ऐसी तेरी पण्डिताईकी बातोंसे भी यही सिद्ध होता है कि शरीर नाशवान् है और शरीरी अविनाशी है। अगर शरीर स्वयं अविनाशी न होता, तो कुलघाती और कुलके नरकोंमें जानेका भय नहीं होता, पितरोंका पतन होनेकी चिन्ता नहीं होती। अगर तुझे कुलकी और पितरोंकी चिन्ता होती है, उनका पतन होनेका भय होता है तो इससे सिद्ध होता है कि शरीर नाशवान् है और उसमें रहनेवाला शरीरी नित्य है। अतः शरीरोंके नाशको लेकर तेरा शोक करना अनुचित है।
'गतासूनगतासूंश्च'-- सबके पिण्ड-प्राणका वियोग अवश्यम्भावी है। उनमेंसे किसीके पिण्ड-प्राणका वियोग हो गया है और किसीका होनेवाला है। अतः उनके लिये शोक नहीं करना चाहिये। तुमने जो शोक किया है, यह तुम्हारी गलती है।
जो मर गये हैं, उनके लिये शोक करना तो महान् गलती है। कारण कि मरे हुए प्राणियोंके लिये शोक करनेसे उन प्राणियोंको दुःख भोगना पड़ता है। जैसे मृतात्माके लिये जो पिण्ड और जल दिया जाता है, वह उसको परलोकमें मिल जाता है, ऐसे ही मृतात्माके लिये जो कफ और आँसू बहाते हैं वे मृतात्माको परवश होकर खाने-पीने पड़ते हैं (टिप्पणी प0 48) । जो अभी जी रहे हैं, उनके लिये भी शोक नहीं करना चाहिये। उनका तो पालन-पोषण करना चाहिये, प्रबन्ध करना चाहिये। उनकी क्या दशा होगी! उनका भरण-पोषण कैसे होगा! उनकी सहायता कौन करेगा! आदि चिन्ता-शोक कभी नहीं करने चाहिये; क्योंकि चिन्ता-शोक करनेसे कोई लाभ नहीं है।
मेरे शरीरके अङ्ग शिथिल हो रहे हैं मुख सूख रहा है, आदि विकारोंके पैदा होनेमें मूल कारण है--शरीरके साथ एकता मानना। कारण कि शरीरके साथ एकता माननेसे ही शरीरका पालन-पोषण करनेवालोंके साथ अपनापन हो जाता है, और उस अपनेपनके कारण ही कुटुम्बियोंके मरने की आशंकासे अर्जुनके मनमें चिन्ता-शोक हो रहे हैं, तथा चिन्ता-शोकसे ही अर्जुनके शरीरमें उपर्युक्त विकार प्रकट हो रहे हैं इसमें भगवान्ने 'गतासून' और 'अगतासून्' के शोकको ही हेतु बताया है। जिनके प्राण चले गये हैं, वे 'गतासून्' हैं और जिनके प्राण नहीं चले गये हैं, वे 'अगतासून्' हैं। पिण्ड और जल न मिलनेसे पितरोंका पतन हो जाता है' (1। 42) यह अर्जुनकी 'गतासून' की चिन्ता है। और 'जिनके लिये हम राज्य, भोग और सुख चाहते हैं, वे ही प्राणोंकी और धनकी आशा छोड़कर युद्धमें खड़े हैं' (1। 33) यह अर्जुनकी 'अगतासून्' की चिन्ता है। अतः ये दोनों चिन्ताएँ शरीरको लेकर ही हो रही है; अतः ये दोनों चिन्ताएँ धातुरूपसे एक ही हैं। कारण कि 'गतासून' और 'अगतासून' दोनों ही नाशवान् हैं।
'गतासून्' और 'अगतासून'-- इन दोनोंके लिये कर्तव्य-कर्म करना चिन्ताकी बात नहीं है। 'गतासून' के लिये पिण्ड-पानी देना, श्राद्ध-तर्पण करना--यह कर्तव्य है, और 'अगतासून' के लिये व्यवस्था कर देना, निर्वाहका प्रबन्ध कर देना--यह कर्तव्य है। कर्तव्य चिन्ताका विषय नहीं होता, प्रत्युत विचारका विषय होता है। विचारसे कर्तव्यकाबोध होता है, और चिन्तासे विचारनष्ट होता है।
'नानुशोचन्ति पण्डिताः'-- सत्-असत्-विवेकवती बुद्धिका नाम 'पण्डा' है। वह 'पण्डा' जिनकी विकसित हो गयी है अर्थात् जिनको सत्- असत् स्पष्टतया विवेक हो गया है वे पण्डित हैं। ऐसे पण्डितोंमें सत्-असत् को लेकर शोक नहीं होता; क्योंकि सत्को सत् माननेसे भी शोक नहीं होता और असत्को असत् माननेसे भी शोक नहीं होता। स्वयं सत्-स्वरूप है, और बदलनेवाला शरीर असत्-स्वरुप है। असत्को सत् मान लेनेसे ही शोक होता है अर्थात् ये शरीर आदि ऐसे ही बने रहें, मरें नहीं--इस बातको लेकर ही शोक होता है। सत्को लेकर कभी चिन्ता-शोक होते ही नहीं।
सम्बन्ध -- सत्-तत्तवको लेकर शोक करना अनुचित क्यों है--इस शंकाके समाधानके लिये आगेके दो श्लोक कहते हैं।

इस प्रकार धर्मके विषयमें जिसका चित्त मोहित हो रहा है और जो महान् शोकसागरमें डूब रहा है ऐसे अर्जुनका बिना आत्मज्ञानके उद्धार होना असम्भव समझकर उस शोकसमुद्रसे अर्जुनका उद्धार करनेकी इच्छावाले भगवान् वासुदेव आत्मज्ञानकी प्रस्तावना करते हुए बोले जो शोक करने योग्य नहीं होते उन्हें अशोच्य कहते हैं भीष्म द्रोण आदि सदाचारी और परमार्थरूपसे नित्य होनेके कारण अशोच्य हैं। उन न शोक करने योग्य भीष्मादिके निमित्त तू शोक करता है कि वे मेरे हाथों मारे जायँगे मैं उनसे रहित होकर राज्य और सुखादिका क्या करूँगा तथा तू प्रज्ञावानोंके अर्थात् बुद्धिमानोंके वचन भी बोलता है अभिप्राय यह है कि इस तरह तू उन्मतकी भाँति मूर्खता और बुद्धिमत्ता इन दोनों परस्परविरुद्ध भावोंको अपनेमें दिखलाता है। क्योंकि जिनके प्राण चले गये हैं जो मर गये हैं उनके लिये और जिनके प्राण नहीं गये जो जीते हैं उनके लिये भी पण्डित आत्मज्ञानी शोक नहीं करते। पाण्डित्यको सम्पादन करके इस श्रुतिवाक्यानुसार आत्मविषयक बुद्धिका नाम पण्डा है और वह बुद्धि जिनमें हो वे पण्डित हैं। परंतु परमार्थदृष्टिसे नित्य और अशोचनीय भीष्म आदि श्रेष्ठ पुरुषोंके लिये तू शोक करता है अतः तू मढ है। यह अभिप्राय है।

The Lord illustrates that very statement. By saying 'of the preceding context,' etc., intending the meaning arising from the words, he elucidates the division of sentences within that very text—'Dṛṣṭvā tu,' etc. The first verse beginning with 'Dharma-kṣetre Kuru-kṣetre' is one sentence; because it culminates in relating the connection of the scripture's story. From 'dṛṣṭvā' up to 'tūṣṇīṃ babhūva ha' is one sentence. From here onwards up to 'idaṃ vacaḥ' is the text which forms another sentence—this is the division. Objection: It is proper for the first verse to be a single sentence because it indicates the avatar (introduction) of the subject scripture in the Mahabharata, and the last part is also possibly a single sentence as it proceeds to console Arjuna; but how can the middle portion be a single sentence? Anticipating this doubt, he says 'because of the unity of meaning'—'prāṇinām' (of living beings), etc. 'Shoka' means mental heat (grief); 'Moha' means absence of discrimination. The word 'ādi' (etc.) is for their internal varieties. That very thing is the defect which is the seed of samsara, which is of the nature of suffering; the cause of its origin is egoism (I-ness) and attachment (mine-ness), and the cause of that is ignorance (avidya)—it is for the purpose of demonstrating this; this is the construction. He expands on the meaning summarized (in the Bhashya)—'tathā hi' (Thus indeed), etc. Kingdom is the duty of a king, protection etc. Worship-worthy gurus are Bhishma, Drona, etc. Sons are self-begotten, Saubhadra (Abhimanyu), etc. Those who are objects of affection without any other relationship are called by the word 'mitra' (friend), like the guru's son, etc. 'Suḥṛdaḥ' (well-wishers) are those like the Lord and others who do good naturally without expecting return and who possess love in their hearts. 'Svajana' (kinsmen) are relatives like Duryodhana etc. 'Sambandhinaḥ' (relatives) are fathers-in-law, brothers-in-law, etc., like Drupada, Dhrishtadyumna, etc. 'Bāndhavāḥ' are kings who cherish love traditionally towards fathers and grandfathers. Making the aforementioned notion (of 'mine') regarding them the cause, that grief and that separation from them, and that sin in killing them, and that public censure—all of which is the cause for the grief and delusion of the self—how those two are the seeds of samsara is shown by 'katham' (how), etc. Again (Objection): How is the possibility of these seeds of samsara appropriate in Arjuna? For, in him who is of celebrated great glory, possessed of discriminating knowledge, and engaged in his own duty, grief and delusion—the causes of evil—are not likely. Anticipating this doubt, he says that due to the overpowering of discrimination, since they (grief and delusion) are the causes for the non-performance of prescribed duties and the performance of prohibited actions, they are producers of evil; hence their possibility exists in him—'śokamohābhyām' (by grief and delusion), etc. Living by alms means sustaining life; by the word 'ādi,' wandering mendicancy (Parivrajya) characterized by the renunciation of all actions, and contemplation on the Self, etc., are grasped. Moreover, the grief and delusion seen in Arjuna are the seed of samsara, because they are grief and delusion, like the grief and delusion existing in us and others—thus the observed grief and delusion should be inferred by making each a subject (paksha); so he says—'tathā ca' (and thus), etc. By the word 'ādi' in 'śokamohādi,' false pride, affection, censure, etc., are grasped; 'naturally' (svabhāvataḥ) means due to the power of the defect of the mind. (Objection): Even for us and others engaged in our own duty, since there is no non-performance of prescribed duties etc., grief etc. are not the seed of samsara; thus the example is 'sādhyavikala' (lacking the probandum)? If this is said, he says—'svadharme' (in one's own duty), etc. By the word 'ādi' in 'kāyādīnām' (of body etc.), the remaining senses are taken. 'Phalābhisandhi' is desire regarding that object; 'Ahaṃkāra' is the pride of doership and enjoyership. When the activity of speech etc. occurs in the manner described before, what is accomplished? To this he says—'tatra' (there), etc. By the performance of good deeds, through the accumulation of dharma, there is desired birth as a god etc., and from that, attainment of happiness. By the performance of evil deeds, through the accumulation of adharma, there is undesired birth as animals etc., and from that, attainment of misery. By the performance of mixed deeds, through both dharma and adharma, there is human birth, and from that, happiness and misery occur. Thus the samsara of such nature continues incessantly—this is the meaning. Having propounded that grief and delusion are the seed of samsara for Arjuna and others, he concludes—'ityataḥ' (therefore), etc. Thus, having shown that the first chapter, together with a portion of the second chapter, purports to demonstrate the seed of samsara named 'grief and delusion,' which arises from ignorance of the Self and is to be removed, he now shows the purport of the context to be described (the rest of the Gita) in the instruction of right knowledge which removes samsara along with its cause—'tayośca' (and of those two), etc. The relation is: 'upadid kṣuḥ' means desiring to teach that aforesaid knowledge, the Lord spoke. (Objection): It is improper that the Lord desires to teach the aforesaid knowledge 'for the benefit of all worlds,' because the instruction is only for Arjuna? Anticipating this, he says—'Arjunam' (Arjuna), etc. Indeed, in that state, it was not the Lord's desire to teach the aforesaid knowledge to Arjuna, but intending that it should be after the purification of the intellect through the performance of one's own duty, He said 'making him the occasion/pretext' (nimittīkṛtya). The meaning of the Gita scripture intended by himself—that 'Attainment of Kaivalya is only from Self-knowledge preceded by the renunciation of all actions'—has been explained. Now, to refute the view intended by the Vrittikaras (other commentators), he restates it—'tatra' (here), etc. The determined meaning of the scripture is referred to by the locative absolute (sati-saptamī). Explaining their very statement, he first rejects the accepted tenet of the Siddhanta—'sarvakarma' (all actions), etc. The word 'mātra' (merely) is to exclude the combination (samuccaya) with Vedic action. The limitation (evakāra - 'only') is to refute the combination with Smarta action. He shakes off the connection of superimposition (adhyāsa)—'kevalāt' (from mere), etc. The word 'eva' is connected as 'naiva' (not indeed). (Objection): In what way then is Knowledge the cause for the attainment of Kaivalya? Anticipating this, he (the opponent) says—'kiṃ tarhi' (what then?), etc. What is the proof in this? Anticipating this, saying 'this scripture itself,' he says—'iti sarvāsu' (thus in all), etc. Just as Darshapurnamasa etc. are means to heaven only when assisted by Prayaja, Anuyaja, etc., so Brahma-knowledge accomplishes Kaivalya only when assisted by Shruti and Smarta actions. The disputed (Knowledge) accomplishes its fruit only when accompanied by subsidiary rites (itikartavyatā), because it is an instrument (karaṇa), like Darshapurnamasa etc. Thus, the scripture purports to the combination of Knowledge and Action—this is the meaning. The word 'iti' is connected with the preceding 'āhuḥ' (they say). (Objection): Upon reviewing the preceding and following, the scripture's purport of combination is not determined? Anticipating this, he says—'jñāpakaṃ ca' (and the indicator), etc. Not only is Knowledge the cause of liberation, but (Knowledge) combined (with action)—the indicator (liṅga) of this meaning is the force of the statement regarding the accrual of sin upon non-performance of one's own duty; this is the meaning. Saying that, like the indicator (liṅga), the sentence (vākya) is also proof in the scripture being for combination, he says—'karmaṇyeva' (in action alone), etc. There itself, he cites another sentence—'kuru karma' (perform action), etc. Objection: Since violence etc. are understood to be causes of evil because they are prohibited by 'One should not harm any being,' etc., Vedic action endowed with that is for adharma and cannot be performed; and thus its combination with Knowledge in liberation is not established—anticipating this Sankhya view, he refutes it—'hiṃsādi' (violence etc.), etc. By the word 'ādi,' eating remnants (leftovers) is grasped. To the expectation 'Why should the aforesaid doubt not be raised?', he gives the reason—'katham' (how), etc. By the word 'sva' (own), Kshatriya is intended. Since sin (pratyavāya) is heard of for a Kshatriya upon non-performance of war, and since its obligatory nature is understood for him as 'nitya' (eternal/daily duty), even action involving violence to gurus etc., though extremely cruel, is not for adharma—he gives another reason—'tadakaraṇe ca' (and in its non-performance), etc. By saying that war, though involving violence to teachers etc. and being extremely cruel, is not for adharma, it is clearly taught by the Lord that even for Shruti actions involving violence etc., there is not even remotely any unrighteousness (adharmatva); because the general scripture is for the prohibition of useless violence, and the violence enjoined in the context of a sacrifice (kratu) is not its subject; so where is the impropriety in the performance of Vedic actions? This is the meaning. The word 'iti' is to conclude 'that Kaivalya is established from the combination of Knowledge and Action.' (Siddhantin's Reply): The inference that 'Brahma-knowledge accomplishes its fruit accompanied by subsidiary rites, because it is an instrument'—he faults that: 'tadasat' (that is false), etc. Indeed, the knowledge of the mother-of-pearl etc. does not depend on any auxiliary for its fruit, which is the removal of ignorance; and thus, due to deviation (vyabhicāra), 'instrumentality' (karaṇatva) is not a prover (asādhaka)—this is the meaning. And regarding the assertion that the Gita scripture propounds only combination (samuccaya), that too is contrary to the statement of division—he says 'jñāna' (knowledge), etc. Sankhya-buddhi and Yoga-buddhi are the two understandings; there, to explain the commitment to knowledge (Jnananishtha) based on Sankhya-buddhi, he states the meaning of the word 'Sankhya'—with 'aśocyān ityādinā' (beginning with 'not to be mourned'), etc. The sentence beginning with 'aśocyān' up to 'svadharmam api cāvekṣya'—by that much text, the absolute reality of the Self which has been determined by the Lord, as it is rightly related/revealed, that Vedic right understanding is 'Sankhya'; the subject matter in question which is to be revealed by that is 'Sankhya'—this is the meaning. Having stated the meaning of the word Sankhya, he explains the understanding revealing it and the Sankhyas who possess it—'tadviṣayā' (regarding that), etc. The understanding regarding that is Sankhya-buddhi—this is the connection. He reveals that very thing—'ātmanaḥ' (of the Self), etc. Through the determination of the meaning of the context 'is not born nor dies', etc., because of the absence of the six modifications of being in the Self, the understanding that arises that 'He is immutable' is Sankhya-buddhi; those devoted to that, the Sannyasis, are Sankhyas—this is the meaning. Now, desiring to explain the commitment to action (Karmanishtha) based on Yoga-buddhi, he states the meaning of the word 'Yoga'—'etasyā' (of this), etc. Since action is inappropriate due to the very contradiction in the rise of the aforesaid (Sankhya) understanding, and since that (understanding) is the remover of that (action/ignorance); before its rise, determining dharma and adharma with reliance on the Self being distinct from the body etc., by that action in the form of worship of the Lord, a person 'is yoked' (yujyate)—becomes fit—for liberation; by that, 'Yoga' is the performance of the aforesaid dharma which is a means in the sequence for the establishment of liberation—this is the meaning. Now dividing Yoga-buddhi, he divides the Yogis—'tadviṣayā' (regarding that), etc. He shows the Lord's agreement in the two aforementioned understandings—'tathā ca' (and thus), etc. That the commitment to Knowledge based on Sankhya-buddhi is also accepted by the Lord, he says—'tayośca' (and of those two), etc. Knowledge itself is Yoga—Jnana Yoga; by that, indeed, one is yoked with Brahman, i.e., attains identity; by that, the 'nishtha'—the state of certainty or conclusion in purport—of the Sannyasis; extracting it from the commitment to action, as distinct between the two commitments, the Lord will state—this is the plan. He translates by meaning the sentence 'In this world a twofold commitment was spoken by Me of old, O sinless one; by the Yoga of Knowledge for the Sankhyas...' which relates to the said meaning—'purā' (formerly), etc. He shows the Lord's permission also regarding the commitment to action based on Yoga-buddhi—'tathā ca' (and thus), etc. Action itself is Yoga—Karma Yoga; by that indeed, through the purification of the intellect, a man is yoked to Knowledge which is the cause of liberation; by that, the Lord will state the commitment of the workers (karmis) as distinct from the commitment to Knowledge, with 'karmayogena', etc.—this is the plan. He concludes the fact that the two commitments based on two understandings have been spoken of separately by the Lord—'evam' (thus), etc. Again, due to what incompatibility did the Lord speak of the two commitments separately? Anticipating this, he says—'jñānakarmaṇoḥ' (of knowledge and action), etc. Action relies on the understanding of multiplicity like doership etc., while Knowledge relies on the understanding of non-doership and unity; those two, being thus achievable by contradictory means, are not possible in a person of a single state; therefore, the statement of their division is indeed proper—this is the meaning. He cites Shruti as the root of the Lord's statement of division—'yathā' (just as), etc. There he recites the sentence regarding commitment to Knowledge—'etameva' (this very), etc. Desiring to know the contextual Self—which is of the nature of eternal Consciousness—those who possess dispassion towards the threefold fruit of action, having renounced all actions, become committed to Knowledge—thus accepting the fifth tense (Let/Vidhiling - potential mood) and intending the injunction of renunciation, by the eulogy (arthavada) subsidiary to that very injunction 'What shall we do with progeny,' etc., the Knowledge having the fruit of liberation is stated—this is the meaning. Objection: The objection (rejection) of progeny is not appropriate in the absence of fruit, because the conquest of this world by a son is established by another sentence? Anticipating this—since for the wise, the human world achievable by progeny does not exist apart from the Self, and the Self is not achievable (by progeny), the rejection is logical—intending this, he says 'yeṣām' (for whom), etc. 'Iti'—knowledge is shown—this is the remainder. In that very Brahmana, he shows the sentence regarding commitment to action—'tatraiva' (there itself), etc. 'Prākṛta' means ignorance due to not seeing the Truth; and he, being a Brahmachari, having studied the Veda according to rule near the Guru, having done inquiry into Dharma for the knowledge of meaning, after that, the means for attaining the three worlds—the triad of son etc.—'so'kāmayata' (he desired)—'may I have a wife,' etc., he desired—this is heard (in Shruti)—this is the meaning. He divides wealth—'dviprakāram' (two types), etc. He states the nature of that duality—'mānuṣam' (human), etc. He explains human wealth—'karmarūpam' (in the form of action), etc. He states its culmination in fruit—'pitṛloka' (world of fathers), etc. He divides divine wealth—'vidyāṃ ca' (and knowledge/meditation), etc. He states its residence in fruit also—'deva' (god), etc. He states the purport of the Shruti cited as regarding commitment to action—'avidyā' (ignorance), etc. Actions are shown by 'so'kāmayata' etc. only for the ignorant one qualified by desire—this is the meaning. He shows the purport of the Shruti shown as regarding commitment to Knowledge also—'tebhyaḥ' (from them), etc. Commitment to Knowledge preceded by renunciation is shown by the previously cited Shruti only for one detached from actions—this is the meaning. Since the different qualifications for Knowledge and Action based on the difference in state are heard (in Shruti), and by the Lord's statement of division rooted in that, the proposition that 'the scripture is for combination' is contradicted—this has been proven. Moreover, is the combination of Knowledge intended with Shruti action or with Smarta action? If the first, he says—'tadetat' (that this), etc. If combination were intended, he states another defect, the inappropriateness of the question—'na ca' (nor), etc. He reveals that very inappropriateness—'ekapuruṣa' (single person), etc. If combination were the scriptural meaning intended by the Lord, then the performance of Knowledge and Action by a single person would have been spoken by Him and heard by Arjuna; then how could he (Arjuna) falsely attribute that impossibility, which was neither spoken nor heard, to the Lord the listener? And without that attribution, the question 'Why do You engage me in this extremely cruel action characterized by war?' would not be possible. And thus, by reviewing the question, it appears that combination is not intended as the scriptural meaning by the questioner and the speaker—this is the meaning. Moreover, in the view of combination, the superiority of understanding relative to action was not spoken by the Lord before nor heard by Arjuna; how can he attribute it to Him? And then the restatement would be improper for the listener—he says 'buddheśca' (and of understanding), etc. For this reason too, combination is not possible as the scriptural meaning, otherwise Arjuna's question in the fifth (chapter) etc. would be inappropriate—he says 'kiñca' (moreover), etc. Objection: Although combination was spoken to all, it was spoken to Arjuna (specifically), so his question is appropriate? Anticipating this, he says—'yadi' (if), etc. 'Etayoḥ' (of these two) means of action and its renunciation. Objection: Since Knowledge preceded by renunciation of action is predominant relative to action, and since it is beneficial, a question regarding it is appropriate? If this is said, he says 'no'—'na hi' (not indeed), etc. Similarly, when combination is shown by the Lord as the means to the human goal, a question regarding 'one of the two' does not arise—this is the remainder. Even if combination was spoken by the Lord, due to ignorance of it, Arjuna's question might be appropriate? He doubts this—'atha' (now/if), etc. Even accepting the question as caused by ignorance, he refutes it—'tathāpi' (even so), etc. Because, due to the absence of error in the Lord, connection of the preceding and following is possible—this is the meaning. He reveals that the reply should correspond to the question—'mayā' (by Me), etc. He shows the part to be excluded—'na tu' (but not), etc. He clarifies the non-correspondence of the reply to the question—'pṛṣṭād' (than what was asked), etc. Having rejected the view of the combination of Knowledge with Shruti action, he rejects the other view—'nāpi' (nor also), etc. The statement of division of Knowledge and Action in Shruti and Smriti, the superiority of understanding grasped by the word 'ādi,' the question in the fifth etc., and the Lord's reply—all this would be contradictory if combination of understanding with even Smarta action were intended—this is the meaning. He gives another reason for the impossibility of the second view—'kiñca' (moreover), etc. Because question and answer are impossible in the view of combination, this Gita scripture is not for that—he concludes—'tasmād' (therefore), etc. Pure Knowledge of Brahman-Atman does not depend on any auxiliary for the accomplishment of its fruit, because its fruit is the removal of ignorance, like the knowledge of the reality of the rope etc. Or, bondage is removed by Knowledge independent of help, because it is of the nature of ignorance, like the rope-snake etc.—this is the idea. Objection: Since it will be said later 'The wise man should act, unattached, desiring the welfare of the world,' how is there no combination in the Gita scripture? To that he says—'yasya tu' (but for whom), etc. According to the Codona Sutra (Mimamsa Sutra 1.1.2), only action to be performed by injunction is 'Dharma,' mere activity is not so; and for the Knower of Truth—who is devoid of the pride of Varna and Ashrama—due to the absence of the understanding of qualification, his activities of sacrifice etc. arising from a trace of ignorance are 'semblance of action' (karmābhāsa); therefore, the sentence 'kuryād vidvān' (the wise should act) etc. is not a conveyer of combination—this is the idea. The word 'vā' is in the sense of 'and' (ca). The second 'vā' is for the inclusion of other means situated in the sentence desiring knowledge. He excludes worldly knowledge—'paramārtha' (supreme reality), etc. He enacts that very thing—'ekam' (one), etc. In 'pravṛttirūpam' (form of activity), the taking of 'form' is to show the semblance nature; the combination of semblance of action, being coincidental/random, does not result in liberation—this is the remainder. Moreover, the sacrifice etc. activity of the Knower is not combined with Knowledge or its fruit, because it is activity devoid of desire for fruit, or because it is activity devoid of egoism, like the Lord's activity—he says 'yathā' (just as), etc. (Objection): Anticipating the unestablished nature of the two reasons, he remedies it—'tattvavit' (knower of truth), etc. The wise man thinking 'I am indeed the immutable Brahman' does not see the activity or its fruit as existing in himself—because it is inappropriate for the 'seen' to be a property of the 'seer' like color etc.—but understands activity etc. as existing only in the aggregate of body and organs; therefore, since the egoism and the desire for fruit like satisfaction in the explanation, begging, etc. of the Knower of Truth are mere semblances, the two reasons are not unestablished—this is the meaning. Objection: Just as in the state prior to the rise of knowledge, so too in the later time, since regulated activity etc. is seen, the activity etc. existing in the Seer of Truth is not a semblance? To that he says—'yathā ca' (and just as), etc. Heaven etc. alone being desired is 'kāma' (desire); for the seeker of that, the desirer of heaven etc., who is established having laid the fires for the performance of Agnihotra etc. which are the means for the expected heaven etc., who is engaged in that very optional (kamya) action, if the desire is destroyed by some cause when it is half done, even if he performs that same Agnihotra etc., it does not become 'optional' (kamya). Because the division of Nitya (obligatory) and Kamya (optional) is not natural, but is created by the connection or non-connection of desire. Similarly, for the wise also, due to the absence of qualification by injunction, the activities of sacrifice etc. are 'semblance of action'—this is the meaning. He presents the Lord's agreement regarding the semblance nature of the wise man's activities—'tathā ca' (and thus), etc. Objection: Since the use of the word 'karma' is seen even in the activity of the wise, the semblance nature of his activity is inappropriate, thus combination is established? To that he says—'yacca' (and what), etc. If it is understood that only the combination of Knowledge and Action is the cause of perfection, why does he say 'It should be known by dividing' (pravibhajya vijñeyam)? He asks—'tat katham' (how is that?), etc. There—were Janaka etc. also Knowers of Truth engaged in action, or non-knowers of Truth? Vying this option, he replies to the first—'yadi' (if), etc. If they were Knowers of Truth, how were they engaged in action, since actions are of no consequence (for them)? Anticipating this, he says—'te loka' (they... world), etc. Even for the said purpose (heaven etc.), their activity is not proper, because they are indifferent everywhere? Anticipating this, he says—'guṇāḥ' (gunas), etc. Through the activity of the senses in objects, even if Knowers of Truth are engaged in action, their liberation is by Knowledge alone—he says 'jñānena' (by knowledge), etc. He shows the said meaning briefly—'karma' (action), etc. In 'karmaṇā' etc., by 'sublated continuance' (bādhitānuvṛtti), the semblance of activity is grasped. He translates the second (option)—'atha' (now/or), etc. There he states the sentence meaning—'īśvara' (Lord), etc. 'To be known by dividing'—regarding this stated sentence meaning, he concludes—'iti vyākhyeyam' (thus it is to be explained), etc. In the meaning stated as 'Actions are causes of Knowledge through purification of the mind,' he cites the remainder of the sentence as proof—'etameva' (this very), etc. He translates by meaning the sentence 'Yogis perform action' etc.—'sattva' (purity), etc. In 'svakarmaṇā' etc., will He state the cause of liberation of actions directly? Anticipating this, he says—'svakarmaṇā' (by one's own duty), etc. Through the performance of one's own duty, by the grace of the Lord, fitness for commitment to Knowledge is obtained, then liberation by commitment to Knowledge; thus there is no direct causality of actions for liberation; this will become clear later—this is the meaning. Upon the impossibility of action in the time after Knowledge of Truth, he concludes the result—'tasmād' (therefore), etc. Objection: Although the Gita scripture is a single sentence with Knowledge of Truth as predominant, still the action heard in the middle of it should be accepted as its limb (aṅga) due to the authority of the context; thus combination is established? To that he says—'yathā ca' (and as), etc. By the word 'artha,' 'Self-knowledge alone is the cause of Kaivalya' is grasped. Having refuted the opinion of the Vrittikaras, the scriptural meaning intended by himself was supported.

Thus, Arjuna, as displayed by his words "How shall I fight Bhishma...", due to grief and delusion caused by the unbroken affection arising from the erroneous notion of "I belong to them, they are mine" regarding Gurus and others, desisted from the battle which was his natural Kshatriya duty (Svadharma)—even though he had engaged in it—because his discriminative understanding was overwhelmed; and he proceeded to adopt another's duty (Paradharma) like eating alms. Similarly, for all beings whose minds are possessed by grief and delusion, there is naturally an abandonment of one's own duty and a resort to prohibited actions.

Even those who engage in their own duty perform physical and other three types of actions only with attachment to results and with ego. In such a situation, due to the accumulation of Dharma and Adharma, the 'Samsara'—characterized by the attainment of desired and undesired births and deaths—does not cease. Therefore, wishing to uplift the world (people) submerged in the great ocean of grief and whose minds are bewildered about Dharma; and seeing no cessation of the two (grief and delusion) which are the seeds of Samsara through anything other than pure Knowledge of Truth (Tattva-jnana) obtained from desireless action that generates purity of mind; and wishing to teach the two steadfast paths (Nishthas) which are the means (Karma Yoga) and the goal (Jnana Yoga); making Arjuna the instrument, Lord Vasudeva spoke the verse starting with "Ashochyan."

By this, Arjuna's two kinds of delusion are to be refuted. One is the delusion common to all beings—the appearance of the false Samsara as real and as an attribute of the Self due to the non-discrimination of the Self from the three limiting adjuncts (Upadhis). The other is specific only to Arjuna—the appearance of unrighteousness (Adharma) in his own duty (Svadharma). This is the reply. Since the delusion common to all beings is observed in the world, and since the Commentator (Shankaracharya) has stated "of all beings" in the same way, and it has been established by the Commentators and myself that "Making Arjuna the instrument, the Lord has given instruction for the sake of the world." For those with impure minds, to ascend the stages of Knowledge through the purity of mind described in Yoga-nishtha, verses like "For a Kshatriya, there is no greater good than a righteous war" (2.31) are used; this also resolves any contradiction with his own text in the verse "Loke'smin" (3.3)—this is the direction of thought.

"Ashochyan"—Those not worthy of grief; because they are existent entities (Sadbhuta) and eternal in the absolute sense, yet you have grieved for them. And you speak "Prajnavatam Vadan"—words of the wise/intelligent—like "What use is kingdom to us," "How shall I fight Bhishma," etc. These two behaviors (grieving and speaking wisdom) are like the actions of a madman—this is the intention. Because "Panditas"—Knower of the Self—do not grieve for "Gatasun" (the dead) or "Agatasun" (the living). The meaning is, they do not worry saying "Oh, alas! These have died, these will die." The interpretation by some logicians that "You speak 'Avadan'—unspeakable words—of the 'Prajnan' (Pandits)" should be disregarded, because the suffix 'Ghan' is rare in the sense of 'worthy/deserving' (Arha), and it requires supplying a substantive (visheshya).

There, in the middle of the armies, to Arjuna who was covered by the web of delusion regarding kinsmen and was despairing, the Lord spoke.

"Prajnavadan" means words arising from one's own intellect/imagination.

How can "Gatasun" (those whose breath has gone/dead) be "Ashochyah" (not worthy of grief)? [Implying the Lord explains the eternal nature].

Arjuna has two delusions: the idea of the destruction of the Self with the destruction of the body, and the idea of Unrighteousness (Adharma) in the war which is his duty (Svadharma). Wishing to remove the first of these with twenty verses that serve as aphorisms of Brahma-vidya, the Supreme Lord spoke "Ashochyan," etc.

"Verily, this body dies when deprived of the individual soul, the living soul does not die"—according to this Shruti, even upon the destruction of adjuncts like the body, they (Bhishma etc.) are indestructible like Space (Akasha) and thus "Ashochaniya" (not worthy of grief); yet you have "Anvashochah" (grieved) for them, grieving "How are these Gurus to be killed by me?" or "How shall I live without them?"

Being thus foolish, you still speak "Prajnavadan"—the words/arguments of the wise who know the Self as distinct from the body—such as "Residence in hell is certain," "Their ancestors fall," etc.; but you are not actually wise.

The reason for this is "Gatasun" etc. The wise do not grieve for "Gatasun"—bodies whose life-breaths have departed; on the contrary, they carry them out (for cremation). By this, it is shown that Prana (Life) alone is dear, not the body. And the Shruti says: "Prana is father, Prana is mother, Prana is teacher," etc. Therefore, people say to a man who insults these (fathers etc.) while they have Prana: "You are a slayer of your father, fie on you!"; but they do not say so to one who burns them after the Prana has departed—this is well-known in the world and the Vedas.

Therefore, the Self is distinct from the body because it is sentient (conscious); by contrast, like a pot (which is insentient). The body is not sentient because it is an object of perception (drishya), like a pot. If the body were sentient, consciousness would be found in it even when dead. Therefore, thinking the Self is destroyed with the destruction of the body, you are indeed a fool—this is the meaning.

However, the interpretation by the Logicians (Tarkikas) that "You speak 'Avadan' (unspeakable words) of the 'Prajnan' (Pandits)" is to be rejected because the suffix 'Ghan' is rare in the sense of 'worthy' (Arha) and because it depends on supplying extra words.

The Supreme Lord said. You grieve for "Ashochyan" (those unworthy of grief); and yet you speak "Prajna-nimitta-vadan"—arguments based on the knowledge of the nature of the body and the Self—such as "Their ancestors fall due to lack of offerings" (1.41).

For those who possess knowledge of the nature of the body and the Self, there is no cause for grief here whatsoever. They do not grieve for "Gatasun" (bodies) nor for "Agatasun" (souls), knowing the reality of the nature of both. Therefore, this contradiction is found in you: that you grieve thinking "I will kill them," and yet you speak of Dharma and Adharma based on the knowledge of the Self as distinct from the body.

Thus, you do not know the nature of the body, nor the eternal Self distinct from it, nor the Dharma consisting of war etc. which is the means to attain it. And this war is devoid of attachment to fruits and is the means to attain the true nature of the Self.

Indeed, the Self does not have existence dependent on birth, nor destruction dependent on death, because birth and death are absent in it; therefore, it is not a locus for grief. The body, on the other hand, is insentient and of a mutable nature; association with origin and destruction is natural to it; so it too is not a locus for grief—this is the intention.

First of all, listen to the nature of the Selves.

Since his grief arises thus from the non-discrimination (aviveka) between the Body and the Self, to demonstrate that discrimination, the Supreme Lord spoke "Ashochyan" etc.

You have "Anvashochah"—grieved—for those kinsmen who are truly not objects of grief, with words like "Seeing these kinsmen, O Krishna..." (1.28). In that matter, even though awakened/instructed by Me with "Whence has this delusion come upon you..." (2.2), you again merely speak "Prajnavatam Vadan"—words/arguments of the Pandits (wise)—like "How shall I fight Bhishma in battle" (2.4); but you are not a Pandit.

For they (Pandits) do not grieve for "Gatasun"—dead kinsmen—nor for "Agatasun"—the living ones (worrying "how will they live without kinsmen").

When it is said "Anvashochah" (You grieved for the unworthy), a misconception might arise that "Some unworthy people grieve, and following them (anu) this one also grieves." To remove this, the commentary says "Ashochyan Prati" (Grieving towards/regarding the unworthy).

Objection: The use of the past tense 'Lan' in "Anvashochah" is inappropriate because the grief is current (adyatana), and it creates a mismatch with the present tense verb "Bhashase" (you speak). To this, he answers: It means "Anushochasi" (You are grieving). The past tense with the prefix is used even for current grief to imply its continuity over a long time (chira-anuvrittatva). Or, it is a "change of tense" (lakara-vyatyaya) according to the rule "Suptingupagraha..." treating it as present tense meaning.

Regarding "Prajnavadamscha bhashase" (And you speak words of wisdom): Here, the present tense 'Lat' is used to denote the past according to the rule "Vartamana-samipye vartamanavad va" (Present tense can be used for immediate past), [since he has already finished speaking and become silent]. Thus, there is no contradiction with "Tushnim babhuva ha" (He became silent - 2.9).

Here, the word "Prajna," denoting superior knowledge, refers to the knowledge of the nature of the Body and the Self. "Prajnavadan" means behaviors/arguments based on that Prajna—to suggest this compound meaning, the word "Nimitta" (based on/caused by) is used [in Ramanuja's commentary]. Only when there is knowledge of the distinction between Body and Self can there be faithful practice of rites like offering pinda/water for ancestors and fear of sin from omitting them—to indicate this, verses like "Patanti pitarah" (Ancestors fall) are cited.

He states the resultant meaning with "Dehatma..." (You do not know the nature of body and self).

Pointing out the intended substantive (visheshya) in "Gatasun" etc., and explaining the word "Pandita" as useful for the context, he gives the syntax/meaning with "Gatasun iti." Although the words "Gatasun" and "Agatasun" literally mean "lifeless" (dead) and "with life" (living), that literal meaning is not consistent with the philosophical context. For even Pandits (wise men) are seen grieving for the living and dead in contexts like: "How will you go alone on this path... without food or guide?" or "Creatures are bound by enmity... alas, they are to be pitied by the wise." Therefore, the meaning of "Ashochyan anvashochah" implies that the Eternal Self and the Non-eternal Body are "Ashochaniya" (not to be grieved for), as will be explained in detail later by "Avyakto'yam" (2.25) and "Atha chainam" (2.26). Thus, it is proper to interpret the subject here as Body and Self.

Bodies are not to be grieved for because they are perishable; Selves are also not to be grieved for because they are imperishable. "Panda" is the intellect capable of such reasoning (uha-poha); those who possess it are "Panditas" here.

He describes the ignorance deduced from the contradiction between "words of wisdom" and "grief" with "Ato deha..." (Therefore you do not know...). The sentiment is: The grief is real/established, but the wisdom exists only in words.

Anticipating the doubts—"What is the nature of the body? How is the Self distinct and eternal? How are both not to be grieved for? And how is terrible war a means to attain the Self?"—he explains these three points (Self, Body, War) in the order they appear in the mind with "Idam cha" etc.

"Idam eva" (This very war)—when refined by the specific understanding (buddhi-vishesha)—is the bringer of the true nature of the Self. regarding "Upayabhutam" (is the means): by not using the 'Chvi' suffix (which implies becoming something one wasn't), it is indicated that this is its inherent nature; but it gets obstructed by the attachment to other fruits—this is the idea.

"Atma hi"—the word "Hi" illuminates the fame of the Shruti like "Na jayate" (is not born - Katha Up 2.18). Although birth and death in the form of union and separation with the body exist for the Self, "birth and death in the form of production and destruction" do not exist—with this intention he says "Tasya" (Its).

"Dehastu"—the word "Tu" highlights the distinction of the body from the Self, which is established by perception etc. Being a "body," it is of the nature of accumulation/growth, and being insentient, it has a "mutable nature" (parinama-svabhava) like a pot—this is the meaning.

जब हम अर्जुन के विषाद को ठीक से समझने का प्रयत्न करते हैं तब यह पहचानना कठिन नहीं होगा कि यद्यपि उसका तात्कालिक कारण युद्ध की चुनौती है परन्तु वास्तव में मानसिक संताप के यह लक्षण किसी अन्य गम्भीर कारण से हैं। जैसा कि एक श्रेष्ठ चिकित्सक रोग के लक्षणों का ही उपचार न करके उस रोग के मूल कारण को दूर करने का प्रयत्न करता है उसी प्रकार यहाँ भी भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण अर्जुन के शोक मोह के मूल कारण (आत्मअज्ञान) को ही दूर करने का प्रयत्न करते हैं।शुद्ध आत्मस्वरूप के अज्ञान के कारण अहंकार उत्पन्न होता है। यह अज्ञान न केवल दिव्य स्वरूप को आच्छादित करता है वरन् उसके उस सत्य पर भ्रान्ति भी उत्पन्न कर देता है। अर्जुन की यह अहंकार बुद्धिया जीव बुद्धि कि वह शरीर मन और बुद्धि की उपाधियों से परिच्छिन्न या सीमित है वास्तव में मोह का कारण है जिससे स्वजनों के साथ स्नेहासक्ति होने से उनके प्रति मन में यह विषाद और करुणा का भाव उत्पन्न हो रहा है। वह अपने को असमर्थ और असहाय अनुभव करता है। मोहग्रस्त व्यक्ति को आसक्ति का मूल्य दुख और शोक के रूप में चुकाना पड़ता है। इन शरीरादि उपाधियों के साथ मिथ्या तादात्म्य के कारण हमें दुख प्राप्त होते रहते हैं। हमें अपने शुद्ध आत्मस्वरूप का ज्ञान होने से उनका अन्त हो जाता है।नित्य चैतन्यस्वरूप आत्मा स्थूल शरीर के साथ मिथ्या तादात्म्य के कारण अनेक वस्तुओं और व्यक्तियों के सम्बन्ध में अपने को बन्धन में अनुभव करती है। वही आत्मतत्त्व मन के साथ अनेक भावनाओं का अनुभव करता है मानो वह भावना जगत् उसी का है। फिर यही चैतन्य बुद्धिउपाधि से युक्त होकर आशा और इच्छा करता है महत्वाकांक्षा और आदर्श रखता है जिनके कारण उसे दुखी भी होना पड़ता है। इच्छा महत्वाकांक्षा आदि बुद्धि के ही धर्म हैं।इस प्रकार इन्द्रिय मन और बुद्धि से युक्त शुद्ध आत्मा जीवभाव को प्राप्त करके बाह्य विषयों भावनाओं और विचारों का दास और शिकार बन जाती है। जीवन के असंख्य दुख और क्षणिक सुख इस जीवभाव के कारण ही हैं। अर्जुन इसी जीवभाव के कारण पीड़ा का अनुभव कर रहा था। श्रीकृष्ण जानते थे कि शोकरूप भ्रांति या विक्षेप का मूल कारण आत्मस्वरूप का अज्ञान आवरण है और इसलिये अर्जुन के विषाद को जड़ से हटाने के लिये वे उसको उपनिषदों में प्रतिपादित आत्मज्ञान का उपदेश करते हैं।मनोवैज्ञानिक और आध्यात्मिक विधि के द्वारा मन को पुन शिक्षित करने का ज्ञान भारत ने हजारों वर्ष पूर्व विश्व को दिया था। यहाँ श्रीकृष्ण का गीतोपदेश के द्वारा यही प्रयत्न है। आत्मज्ञान की पारम्परिक उपदेश विधि के अनुसार जगद्गुरु भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण सीधे ही आत्मतत्त्व का उपदेश करते हैं।भीष्म और द्रोण के अन्तकरण शुद्ध होने के कारण उनमें चैतन्य प्रकाश स्पष्ट दिखाई पड़ रहा था। वे दोनों ही महापुरुष अतुलनीय थे। इस युद्ध में मृत्यु हो जाने पर उनको अधोगति प्राप्त होगी यह विचार केवल एक अपरिपक्व बुद्धि वाला ही कर सकता है। इस श्लोक के द्वारा भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण अर्जुन का ध्यान जीव के उच्च स्वरूप की ओर आकर्षित करते हैं।हमारे व्यक्तित्व के अनेक पक्ष हैं और उनमें से प्रत्येक के साथ तादात्म्य कर उसी दृष्टिकोण से हम जीवन का अवलोकन करते हैं। शरीर के द्वारा हम बाह्य अथवा भौतिक जगत् को देखते हैं जो मन के द्वारा अनुभव किये भावनात्मक जगत् से भिन्न होता है और उसी प्रकार बुद्धि के साथ विचारात्मक जगत् का अनुभव हमें होता है।भौतिक दृष्टि से जिसे मैं केवल एक स्त्री समझता हूँ उसी को मन के द्वारा अपनी माँ के रूप में देखता हूँ। यदि बुद्धि से केवल वैज्ञानिक परीक्षण करें तो उसका शरीर जीव द्रव्य और केन्द्रक वाली अनेक कोशिकाओं आदि से बना हुआ एक पिण्ड विशेष ही है। भौतिक वस्तु के दोष अथवा अपूर्णता के कारण होने वाले दुखों को दूर किया जा सकता है यदि मेरी भावना उसके प्रति परिवर्तित हो जाये। इसी प्रकार भौतिक और भावनात्मक दृष्टि से जो वस्तु कुरूप और लज्जाजनक है उसी को यदि बुद्धि द्वारा तात्त्विक दृष्टि से देखें तो हमारे दृष्टिकोण में अन्तर आने से हमारा दुख दूर हो सकता है।इसी तथ्य को और आगे बढ़ाने पर ज्ञात होगा कि यदि मैं जीवन को आध्यात्मिक दृष्टि से देख सकूँ तो शारीरिक मानसिक और बौद्धिक दृष्टिकोणों के कारण उत्पन्न विषाद को आनन्द और प्रेरणादायक स्फूर्ति में परिवर्तित किया जा सकता है। यहाँ भगवान् अर्जुन को यही शिक्षा देते हैं कि वह अपनी अज्ञान की दृष्टि का त्याग करके गुरुजन स्वजन युद्धभूमि इत्यादि को आध्यात्मिक दृष्टि से देखने और समझने का प्रयत्न करे।इस महान् पारमार्थिक सत्य का उपदेश यहाँ इतने अनपेक्षित ढंग से अचानक किया गया है कि अर्जुन की बुद्धि को एक आघातसा लगा। आगे के श्लोक पढ़ने पर हम समझेंगे कि भगवान् ने जो यह आघात अर्जुन की बुद्धि में पहुँचाया उसका कितना लाभकारी प्रभाव अर्जुन के मन पर पड़ा।इनके लिये शोक करना उचित क्यों नहीं है क्योंकि वे नित्य हैं। कैसे भगवान् कहते हैं

Now, the opportunity for commenting on the Gita having arrived, the meaning of the preceding text from "Dharmakshetre" (1.1) to "Ashochyan anvashochah tvam" is explained as it is not immediately obvious—"Tatra" (There/In that context) etc. "Tatra"—meaning "In the Gita"—this is stated by some verses; this is the completion.

Objection: "Here neither Dharma nor Truth (Tattva) is being propounded, so why is it included in the Gita?" Answer: "Not so. To show the relevance/context (prasakti) of the Lord instructing Arjuna, this (introductory) text is intended for that purpose, so its inclusion is justified."

Delusion regarding kinsmen—false notions like "These are mine," "I am theirs," "They will perish because of me," "How shall I be without them?", "I will incur sin," and "Victory is doubtful"—this is "Bandhava-moha" (delusion about kinsmen), or affection for them. Covered by that as if by a net, and therefore "despairing" (vishidantam). "Vishada" is the weakness of mind caused by grief etc. arising from delusion, in the presence of which there is a cessation of all activity.

Objection: "Why did Arjuna's delusion arise only now? Did he not know before that these are his kinsmen, that he made such a great effort for war?" Answer: To this, he says "Senayoh" (In the armies). Even anger that continues due to the memory of great offenses subsides in soft-hearted persons towards kinsmen at the final moment (antakale), and affection arises, followed by delusion—this is indeed well-known; this is the sentiment. Since Arjuna is wise, it should be considered that his being covered by the net of delusion was only slight.

Regarding "Prajnavadan": Someone (Shankaracharya) has interpreted this as "words of the wise/intelligent." This is incorrect (asat). For in Arjuna's words like "Seeing these kinsmen" (1.28), no "words of wisdom" are seen. Wise men do not call the suppression of the haters of Narayana and their followers "Adharma." Nor does something become "words of wisdom" merely by being about Dharma and Adharma; for even in Buddhist and other doctrines, there is discussion of principles (but they are not Prajnavada). With this intent, he explains differently: "Prajnavadan." Those arising from his own intellect (manisha), and not obtained from the instruction of scriptures or teachers. How is this derived? It is said: "Words of (from) intelligence = Prajnavadah." The genitive case implies cause and effect. There is no speech that is not preceded by intelligence. By implication (samarthya), "one's own" is understood. This is emphatic (with restriction), like "Abbhaksha" (one who consumes only water). Otherwise, the repetition would be useless.

"How are they Ashochya (not to be grieved for)?"—to this question, he replies (this is supplied). After "Gatasun," the word "iti" is understood. The meaning is: How are those whose destruction is imminent "Ashochya"? Objection: "Previously, by reiterating the 'Ashochyatva' (state of being unworthy of grief), it was said 'Anvashochah' (you grieved), and not (a direct prescription of) 'Ashochyatva'; so how is this objection valid?" Answer: "Not so. The function of the sentence here is not merely literal (yatha-shruta). For that would lead to the fault of 'translating/reiterating the unestablished and teaching the established.' Rather, (the meaning is): Those for whom you grieved are 'Ashochya'; therefore, grief should not be done for them. And what you speak are 'Prajnavadas' (speculations), so they should not be spoken. Thus, the question or objection 'How are they to be understood as Ashochya?' is indeed appropriate.

There, Arjuna's engagement in his Svadharma called 'War', though naturally arisen, was obstructed by two kinds of delusion and the grief caused by them. Therefore, that two-fold delusion of his must be refuted. One is the delusion common to all beings—the appearance of the false Samsara as real and as an attribute of the Self, due to the non-discrimination of the Self (which is self-luminous Supreme Bliss and untouched by worldly attributes) from the three adjuncts (Upadhis) called gross body, subtle body, and their cause Avidya. The other is the delusion specific to Arjuna alone, rooted in faults like compassion—the appearance of Adharma (unrighteousness) in his Svadharma called 'War' due to the preponderance of violence etc.

Thus, the 'Knowledge of the pure nature of the Self' through discrimination from the three Upadhis is the remover of the first (delusion), which is common to all. For the second, the specific remover is the knowledge that 'War', being Svadharma, lacks Adharmatva (sinfulness) despite containing violence. Grief ceases solely by the cessation of its cause (delusion); it does not require a separate means—with this understanding, reiterating the two errors in order, the Supreme Lord said "Ashochyan" etc.

"Ashochyan"—Those who are inherently unworthy of grief—Bhishma, Drona, etc., along with their Selves—you, even while being a 'Pandit' (learned one), have "Anvashochah" (grieved) for, with words implying "They are dying because of me; separated from them, what shall I do with kingdom's happiness?", such as "Seeing these kinsmen" (1.28). Thus, the delusion of seeing the "worthy of grief" in the "unworthy of grief"—which is common to animals etc.—is improper for you who are extremely learned; this is the meaning.

Also, even when reflection was prompted by My words "Whence has this delusion come upon you" (2.2)—thinking "I have done this improper thing"—you, though being wise yourself, speak "Avadan" (unspeakable/improper words) of the "Prajnan" (Wise)—words improper to be spoken by the wise—like "How shall I fight Bhishma" etc.; you do not become silent out of shame. To indicate "What could be more improper than this?", the word "Cha" (And) is used. The sentiment is: The delusion of Dharma in Adharma, and the delusion of Adharma in Dharma—this specific confusion is not proper for you, an extremely learned person. You "Bhashase" (speak) the "Vadan" (words) of "Prajnavatam" (Pandits), but you do not "Budhyase" (understand). Or, the use of past tense (in Anvashochah) indicates that the grieving was prior to the speaking. And the use of present tense (in Bhashase) indicates that the speaking is subsequent to it and immediate. Or, by the rule of Vedic usage (Change of Tense), "Anushochasi" (You are grieving - present) should be interpreted.

Objection: "Grief at the separation of kinsmen is not improper, for it was done even by great souls like Vasistha?" Anticipating this, He says "Gatasun" etc. Those "Panditas"—who possess the knowledge of the Reality of Self born of inquiry—do not grieve for "Gatasun" (dead) and "Agatasun" (living) bodies which are imagined as kinsmen. They do not become deluded thinking "These have died, gone leaving all equipment, what will they do, where will they stay?" or "These living ones, separated from kinsmen, how will they live?" In the state of Samadhi, the appearance of that (grief/duality) is absent; and even when it appears during the waking state (Vyutthana), it is determined to be false.

For when the snake-delusion is removed by the realization of the rope-reality, the fear and trembling caused by it cannot exist. Nor can one with bile-infected senses, perceiving bitterness in jaggery, proceed to eat it with a desire for bitterness, because the conviction of its sweetness is stronger. Similarly, since the delusion of "worthiness of grief" is rooted in the ignorance of the Self's nature, how can that delusion—which is the effect—remain when the ignorance is removed by the knowledge of the Self? This is the idea. As for Vasistha and others, their acting in such a way due to the force of Prarabdha Karma does not make it a standard of conduct (Shistachara) to be followed by others. For "Good Conduct" (Sadachara) is defined only as that trans-worldly behavior performed by the wise with the specific understanding of it being "Dharma"; otherwise, there would be the contingency of having to perform acts like spitting (because wise men do it). Since this is so, therefore: "You too, becoming a Pandit, do not grieve"—this is the intention.

'First, having made the intellect steady through knowledge of the meaning of scriptures, instruction in devotion should be given'—thus, having first spoken the knowledge stated in all scriptures, while instructing in devotion, for the sake of knowledge of Self and non-Self, the Lord speaks of the knowledge of Self and non-Self with 'aśocyān' (not to be mourned). You 'anvaśocaḥ' (grieved for) those 'aśocyān' (unworthy of grief); because they, possessed by demons, are indeed to be killed by Me for removing the burden of the earth, and they are not devotees. Moreover, having grieved for them, you speak 'prajñāvādān'—words of the wise, of pandits. You speak only their words, but you are not wise. Because those wise pandits possess the knowledge that 'Everything happens only by My (God's) will'; therefore, regarding 'gatāsūn' (those whose life-breaths are gone)—'what will be their fate in the other world?', and 'agatāsūn' (living)—'how will their welfare happen?'—thus they do not grieve. Therefore, the Shruti also says: 'He alone makes him perform good action whom He wishes to lead up; He alone makes him perform bad action whom He wishes to lead down' (Kaushitaki Upanishad 3.8). Therefore, regarding a purpose accomplished by Me, how should grief be done? This is the idea.

"Ashochyan" etc. Those who are not to be grieved for are "Ashochya"—like Bhishma, Drona, etc., because they are of good conduct and, in their absolute nature, are eternal. For those "Ashochyan," you have "Anvashochah" (grieved), thinking "They are dying because of me; separated from them, what shall I do with kingdom's happiness?"

You speak "Prajnavadan"—words and arguments of the "Prajnavatam" (wise/intelligent). Thus, you display in yourself this foolishness (maudhya) and wisdom (panditya)—which are contradictory—like a madman; this is the intention.

Because "Panditas"—Knower of the Self—do not grieve for "Gatasun" (those whose life-breath is gone/dead) nor for "Agatasun" (those whose life-breath is not gone/living). Those who have "Panda"—wisdom regarding the Self—are indeed "Panditas"; for the Shruti says "Having attained Panditya (wisdom)..."

But in reality, you are grieving for those eternal and unworthy-of-grief beings; therefore, you are deluded—this is the meaning. Why are they not to be grieved for? Because they are eternal. How?

Now, for the cessation of man's delusion and grief, He speaks the Sankhya understanding. [Verses: Sankhya is manifold... Therefore, first, through Sankhya-understanding, steadfastness in Dharma is described.] Thus indeed, Hrishikesha, Lord Vasudeva, then not accepting him into His own path, considering 'His grief happens thus due to non-discrimination of the reality of the Self,' to remove that, displaying Sankhya understanding, said 'aśocyān' (not to be mourned). In both ways they are not fit to be grieved for; for them you grieved. And you speak words caused by wisdom of the nature of body and soul, such as 'For their ancestors fall' (1.42), etc.; because for those knowing the nature of body and soul, there is absence of cause for grief. 'Gatāsūn'—those who have reached death; 'Agatāsūn'—those living, their wives etc. 'What will be the fate of the dead in the other world? What will become of the living here?'—thus they do not grieve. Or, 'Gatāsūn'—inert non-Self bodies; 'Agatāsūn'—conscious individual souls; the wise of the intended definition do not grieve (for them). And what kind of wise man are you that you grieve? This is the idea. The uniformity of the Self due to being the sentient imperishable Person to be described, and the impermanence of the body due to being an effect of non-Self Prakriti, is well-known—this is the heart.

अशोच्यान् those who should not be grieved for? अन्वशोचः hast grieved? त्वम् thou? प्रज्ञावादान् words of wisdom? च and? भाषसे speakest? गतासून् the dead? अगतासून् the living? च and? न अनुशोचन्ति grieve not? पण्डिताः the wise.Commentary -- The philosophy of the Gita begins from this verse.Bhishma and Drona deserve no grief because they are eternal in their real nature and they are virtuous men who possess very good conduct. Though you speak words of wisdom? you are unwise because you grieve for those who are really eternal and who deserve no grief. They who are endowed with the knowledge of the Self are wise men. They will not grieve for the living or for the dead because they know well that the Self is immortal and that It is unborn. They also know that there is no such a thing as death? that it is a separation of the astral body from the physical? that death is nothing more than a disintegration of matter and that the five elements of which the body is composed return to their source. Arjuna had forgotten the eternal nature of the Soul and the changing nature of the body. Because of his ignorance? he began to act as if the temporary relations with kinsmen? teachers? etc.? were permanent. He forgot that his relations with this world in his present life were the results of past actions. These? when exhausted? end all relationship and new ones ones crop up when one takes on another body.The result of past actions is known as karm and that portion of the karma which gave rise to the present incarnation is known as prarabdha karma.

Bhisma, Drona and others are not to be grieved for, because they are of noble character and are eternal in their real nature. With regard to them, asocyan, who are not to be grieved for; tvam, you; anvasocah, grieve, (thinking) 'They die because of me; without them what shall I do with dominion and enjoyment?'; ca, and; bhasase, you speak; prajnavadan, words of wisdom, words used by men of wisdom, of intelligence. The idea is, 'Like one mad, you show in yourself this foolishness and learning which are contradictory.'
Because, panditah, the learned, the knowers of the Self panda means wisdon about the Self; those indeed who have this are panditah, one the authority of the Upanisadic text, '৷৷.the knowers of Brahman, having known all about scholarship,৷৷.' (Br. 3.5.1) ['Therefore the knowers of Brahman, having known all about scholorship, should try to live upon that strength which comes of Knowledge; having known all about this strength as well as scholorship, he becomes meditative; having known all about both meditativeness and its opposite, he becomes a knower of Brahman.'] ; na anusocanti, do not grieve for; gatasun, the departed, whose life has become extinct; agatasun ca, and for those who have not departed, whose life has not left, the living. The ideas is, 'Your are sorrowing for those who are eternal in the real sense, and who are not to be grieved for. Hence your are a fool!.'

The Lord said You are grieving for those who do not deserve to be grieved for. You also speak words of wisdom about the nature of the body and the self as follows: 'The ancestors fall degraded, deprived of the ritual oblations of food and water' (I. 42). There is no reason for such grief for those who possess the knowledge of the nature of the body and the self. Those who know the exact truth will not grieve for those bodies from which life has departed and for those from whome the principle of life has not departed. They do not grieve for bodies or souls.
Hence, in you this contradiction is visible - your grief at the thought 'I shall slay them?' and at the same time your talk about righteousness and unrighteousness, as if it were the result of knowledge of the self as distinct from the body. Therefore you do not know the nature of the body nor of the self which is distinct from the body and is eternal. Nor do you know of duties like war etc., which (as duty) constitute the means for the attainment of the self, nor of the fact that this war (which forms a duty in the present context), if fought without any selfish desire for results, is a means for the attainment of the knowledge of the true nature of the self.
The implied meaning is this: This self, verily, is not dependent on the body for Its existence, nor is It subjected to destruction on the death of the body, as there is no birth or death for It. Therefore there is no cause for grief. But the body is insentient by nature, is subject to change, and its birth and death are natural; thus it (body) too is not to be grieved for.
First listen about the nature of the self.