Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 2 - Shloka (Verse) 15

व्याख्या-- 'पुरुषर्षभ'-- मनुष्य प्रायः परिस्थितियोंको बदलनेका ही विचार करता है, जो कभी बदली नहीं जा सकतीं और जिनको बदलना सम्भव ही नहीं। युद्धरूपी परिस्थितिके प्राप्त होनेपर अर्जुनने उसको बदलनेका विचार न करके अपने कल्याणका विचार कर लिया है। यह कल्याणका विचार करना ही मनुष्योंमें उनकी श्रेष्ठता है।
'समदुःखसुखं धीरम्'-- धीर मनुष्य सुखदुःखमें सम होता है। अन्तःकरणकी वृत्तिसे ही सुख और दुःख ये दोनों अलगअलग दीखते हैं। सुख-दुःखके भोगनेमें पुरुष (चेतन) हेतु है और वह हेतु बनता है प्रकृतिमें स्थित होनेसे (गीता 13। 2021)। जब वह अपने स्वरूपमें स्थित हो जाता है तब सुख-दुःखको भोगनेवाला कोई नहीं रहता। अतः अपने-आपमें स्थित होनेसे वह सुख-दुःखमें स्वाभाविक ही सम हो जाता है।

शीतउष्णादि सहन करनेवालेको क्या ( लाभ ) होता है सो सुन सुखदुःखको समान समझनेवाले अर्थात् जिसकी दृष्टिमें सुखदुःख समान हैं सुखदुःखकी प्राप्तिमें जो हर्षविषादसे रहित रहता है ऐसे जिस धीर बुद्धिमान् पुरुषको ये उपर्युक्त शीतोष्णादि व्यथा नहीं पहँचा सकते अर्थात् नित्य आत्मदर्शनसे विचलित नहीं कर सकते। वह नित्य आत्मदर्शननिष्ठ और शीतोष्णादि द्वन्द्वोंको सहन करनेवाला पुरुष मृत्युसे अतीत हो जानेके लिये यानी मोक्षके लिये समर्थ होता है।

Objection: "The qualification of 'Titikshu' (forbearing) for the aspirant is not useful, because by itself it does not cause the Human Goal (Moksha)?" Raising this doubt (implied in connection with verse 14), He answers (in verse 15) implying "Listen." Combined with discrimination (Viveka), dispassion (Vairagya), etc., it (titiksha) leads to that (Moksha) through Knowledge which is the cause of Moksha.

He makes the one practicing endurance realize the intended gain with "Yam hi" etc.

By "free from joy and grief," endowment with means like "Shama" (control of mind) etc. is expressed by the word "Dhimantam" (Dhira/Wise). Possessing discrimination between the Eternal and Non-eternal, and this (Shama etc.)—both imply Vairagya etc.

Having reiterated the eligible aspirant who has the vision of the Eternal Self (knowledge of 'Tvam-padartha') and possesses the four-fold means (Sadhana-chatushtaya), He states the fitness of that knower of the 'Tvam' entity for the knowledge of the 'Sentence-meaning' (Vakyartha/Identity with Brahman) conducive to Liberation with "Sa nitya..." (He becomes fit for immortality).

He states the fruit of endurance (Titiksha) with "Yam" etc. That "Dhira"—wise one, knower of the eternal Self—to whom pleasure and pain are equal, is not shaken (distressed) by these cold, heat, etc. due to the knowledge of the eternal Self. Although it would be proper to say "these Matrasparshah" (contacts), since they do not afflict without giving cold etc., the Commentator (Shankara) has referred to them as "these cold etc." with the word "Ete." He (the aspirant), endowed with the four-fold means and established in the vision of the eternal Self, becomes capable of "Amritatva"—Moksha. Implying "They do not afflict a 'Purusha' (hero/person), and you are a 'Purusharshabha' (Bull among men)," He addresses him as such.

Here, some describe (referencing Sankhya/Vaisheshika views): "We do not dispute the eternality and all-pervasiveness of the Self, but we cannot tolerate 'oneness in every body.' For Vaisheshikas believe that Selves are distinct in each body, eternal, and all-pervading, possessing nine specific qualities like intellect, pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, effort, merit, demerit, and tendencies. Logicists and Mimamsakas also accept this view. Sankhyas, though disagreeing on the Self possessing qualities (gunas), do not disagree on the distinction of Self per body; otherwise, there would be a mixture (sankara) of pleasure, pain, etc.

Thus, anticipating Arjuna's view—'Even if I, distinct from Bhishma etc., am eternal and all-pervading, being connected with pleasure and pain etc., upon the separation of the bodies of kinsmen like Bhishma, separation from pleasure and contact with pain will indeed occur; so how are grief and delusion improper?'—(they say) He teaches the discrimination of the Subtle Body (Linga Sharira) with 'Matra' etc. Matra-sparshah give pleasure and pain via cold etc. only to the Antahkarana (inner organ) which has origin and destruction, not to the eternal all-pervading Self. Thus, due to the distinction of Antahkaranas, the 'mixture' objection of Sankhyas does not arise. And Vaisheshikas etc. have accepted mutability and distinction in the Self only due to delusion—this is the meaning.

Since the Antahkarana is non-eternal and an object of perception (drishya), and you are the eternal Seer (Drik), those Matra-sparshas generating pleasure etc. for that which is distinct from you are also non-eternal; 'Titikshasva'—endure them. Ignore them with the discrimination 'These do nothing to me.' Do not consider yourself miserable by identifying with the miserable (mind)—this is the meaning.

(Addressing an objection to this view): "If Antahkarana is the locus of pleasure etc., it must be accepted as sentient (chetana) due to agency etc. Then, there being no proof for a 'Enjoyer' (Bhokta) distinct from it and illuminating it, the dispute (about Self) would be in name only. And if admitted, there would be 'different loci' (vaiyadhikaranya) for Bondage and Liberation—since Antahkarana would be bound (having pleasure/pain) and the Self distinct from it would be (ever) free." To remove this doubt of Arjuna, He says "Yam" etc.

"Yam"—the "Purusha" established by itself as self-luminous—sleeping in the "Puri" (body) due to fullness; to whom pleasure and pain are "Same" (equal)—being attributes of the non-Self and being objects of perception; that "Dhira"—derived as 'one who impels the intellect' (dhiyam irayati)—meaning the Witness of the intellect, who impels it through the superimposition of identity via the reflection of consciousness (chidabhasa). By this, the 'contingency of bondage' is shown. These Matra-sparshas giving pleasure and pain, "Yasmat" (since) they do not afflict him—do not cause modification in reality—that Purusha becomes fit for Immortality.

Therefore, "Bondage" is the appearance of connection with attributes due to adjuncts (Upadhis) in the Self which is actually untouched by all attributes. "Moksha" is the natural "Kaivalya" (Aloneness/Purity) of the pure, self-luminous, supremely blissful, and full Self, when the ignorance of its nature and its effects (adjuncts like intellect) are removed by Self-knowledge, and the entire illusion caused by it ceases, washing away the coloring of all perceived objects. Thus, there is no objection of different loci for Bondage and Liberation. Hence, the "dispute in name only" is refuted, because the unity of the Illumined (Object) and Illuminator (Subject) is impossible.

Addressing him as "Purusharshabha," He suggests: "Being self-luminous consciousness, you are 'Purusha'; and being supreme bliss, the 'Rishabhatva' (Bull-ness/Superiority) of the Self—its superiority over all duality—you grieve only because you do not know this. Therefore, cessation of your grief is easy simply by knowledge of the Self, as per the Shruti 'The knower of Self crosses over grief'.

Note here: "Giving pleasure and pain through cold and heat" is inconsistent. Because cold and heat are not the medium for all sense-contacts to give pleasure etc. (like sound/form). Mention of cold/heat is to illustrate the three kinds of pleasure/pain; cold and heat are sometimes pleasant, sometimes painful, but pleasure and pain are never reversed, hence their separate mention—(interpreting otherwise) contradicts His own and others' texts. If one says "Through cold/heat AND directly give pleasure/pain," then this meaning is included in the Bhashya itself. Therefore, the Commentator's (Shankara's) explanation "They give cold AND heat AND pleasure AND pain" is straightforward.

By this, the view "Of the transient Antahkarana" is also refuted. For when the sentence meaning is perfectly possible, supplying a substantive (Antahkarana) is improper. And it would lead to abandoning the primary meaning of the remainder "Titikshasva" (Endure). By this, the (alternative) explanation of the next verse is also refuted; for if "Yam purusham" alone sufficed, the two adjectives "Same..." etc. would become useless. The 'contingency of bondage' is also obtained simply by the word "Purusha" meaning "He lies in the bodies having made superimposition of identity." Since pleasure etc. will be described as attributes of the Field (Kshetra) later, one should not suspect a deficiency in the Commentators for not giving this (Sankhya/Viveka) explanation here. Similarly, other imaginations outside the text and Bhashya should be refuted after proper consideration. We do not raise and refute them for fear of prolixity.

Therefore, He states the purpose (of endurance) with "Yam hi" etc. That (Purusha) whom these Matrasparshas do not afflict.

Being "Purishaya" (sleeping in the body) indeed (they don't afflict him), because in the absence of connection with the body, there is no affliction for anyone; hence the qualification "Purusham" (embodied person) is used.

Why do they not afflict him? "Sama-duhkha-sukhatvat" (Because of being equal in pain and pleasure). How is that? "Dhairyena" (Through patience/fortitude).

The fruit of endurance is indeed direct/visible—He says this with "Yam hi" etc. These Matra-sparshas—of all three kinds as explained before—do not "Vyathayanti" (afflict/shake) "Yam" (whom) in waking, dream, or Asamprajnata Samadhi—meaning, do not displace him from his natural state (Svasthya).

"Purusham"—He who dwells in the eight "Puris" (cities) is Purusha; him. The cities are well-known: "The five organs of action, the five organs of knowledge, the four including mind (inner organ), the five Pranas etc., the elements like Ether etc., Desire, Karma, and the eighth city is Tamas (Ignorance)." Alternatively, since others are included within the Gross and Subtle adjuncts, here "Pur" should be understood as "Tamas" (Causal body) alone. By this, the distinctness of the Self even from the Causal Adjunct is shown.

"Purusharshabha"—implies "You too are fit to experience this because you are the best of men." "Same duhkha-sukhe yasya"—Whose pain and pleasure are equal—due to the abandonment of the three Upadhis. For cold and heat contacts do not cause pleasure or pain to one established in Samadhi—this constitutes his "equality in pain and pleasure."

"Dhiram"—The meditative Yogis—they (contacts) do not afflict. He "Kalpate" (becomes fit) for "Amritatva"—Moksha.

That "Purusham" (person)—endowed with patience, who considers unavoidable pain as equal to pleasure, and who performs actions like war suited to his Varna as a means to Immortality without attachment to fruit—whom the soft and harsh contacts like the falling of weapons included in that (duty) "Na vyathayanti" (do not afflict); he alone achieves Immortality, not one intolerant of pain like you—this is the meaning.

Therefore, since Selves are eternal, "this much" (endurance) is the duty here—this is the meaning.

However, regarding the statement that the eternality of Selves and the natural perishability of bodies are reasons for not grieving—as stated in "The wise do not grieve for the dead and living" (2.11)—He begins to substantiate/prove that:

Enduring them is more appropriate than even trying to counteract them, because it yields great fruit—He says this with "Yam" etc.

These "Matrasparshah"—contacts with sense-objects—do not "Vyathayanti"—afflict or overwhelm—that "Purusham" (person).

Him to whom pain and pleasure are equal.

He, not being distracted by them, becomes "Kalpate"—fit/eligible—for "Amritatvaya"—Moksha—through the knowledge of Dharma.

Why that endurance? Is it for a seen (worldly) goal? Or for an unseen (other-worldly) goal? Or is it unavoidable because it flows naturally? Not the first, because it is perceived as painful. Not the second, because it abounds in unrighteousness like killing Gurus and destroying the family. Not the third, because by desisting from war, the falling of weapons etc. would be absent—this is the sentiment (of the objection).

The word "Dhiram" is used to indicate fitness for endurance. Dispelling the delusion of ignorance regarding the inequality of pleasure and pain, and the delusion regarding their equal measure etc., and answering the doubt "For what purpose?", He says "Avarjaniyam..." (Considering unavoidable pain as pleasure - in Ramanuja's commentary).

Just as one desiring health undertakes the suffering of bitter medicine etc. considering it as pleasure because it is a means to pleasure; and just as a seeker of wealth undertakes the suffering of crossing the ocean etc.; similarly, one desiring the cessation of the three miseries and supreme bliss would consider the suffering inherent in its means as pleasure itself—this is the idea.

To exclude mere endurance of opposites—which is possible even in thieves etc.—from being the cause of Moksha, He says "Amritatva-sadhanataya" (As a means to Immortality). To show the purport of "Ete" (These) and their unavoidability, He says "Tadantargatah" (Included therein).

"Vyathayanti" means "move/shake by distress caused by the idea of getting the undesirable," not merely "give pain." "Mridu-krura-sparshah" (Soft and harsh contacts)—to include the endurance of soft contacts (pleasures) as well.

By the indirect reference using "Yat-Tat" (He who... that one...), and by the reverse-intonation (viparita-kaku) in "Purusharshabha" (Bull among men), He states the resultant meaning: "Sa eva" (He alone). Meaning: Not one like you, agitated by misplaced affection etc.

To introduce the meaning of the subsequent verse and to show the irrelevance of trying to counteract the destruction of the Self, He concludes with "Atmanam nityatvat" (Because Selves are eternal...). "Etavat"—meaning only endurance, not grief etc. "Atra"—meaning, upon the arrival of pains like falling weapons etc., which are transient, whose flow will be stopped by Knowledge, and which are unavoidably present in the performance of the means to the Supreme Goal (Moksha).

"Kartavyam"—if not done, there would be the absence of the fruit of Liberation, sin from abandoning one's duty, and infamy due to lack of courage etc.—this is the sentiment.

सुख और दुख को शान्त भाव से सहन करने का नाम तितिक्षा है जो उपनिषदों के अनुसार आत्मसाक्षात्कार के लिये एक आवश्यक गुण है। इसी को ध्यान में रखकर भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण कहते हैं कि इस प्रकार की तितिक्षा से सम्पन्न व्यक्ति मोक्ष का अधिकारी बन जाता है।यहाँ मोक्ष का तात्पर्य अमृतत्व शब्द से किया है। इस शब्द से स्थूल शरीर का मोक्ष नहीं समझना चाहिये। यहाँ इस शब्द का उपयोग उसके व्यापक अर्थ में किया गया है। शरीर मन और बुद्धि तथा इनके द्वारा प्राप्त सभी अनुभव र्मत्य और अनित्य ही हैं। इन उपाधियों के साथ हमारा तादात्म्य होने से इनके जन्ममरणादि धर्मों से हम प्रभावित होकर दुखी होते हैं। अमृतत्व का अर्थ है जो पुरुष अपने नित्य आत्मस्वरूप को पहचान लेता है वह इन सब अनुभवों को प्राप्त कर उनके मध्य रहता हुआ भी शोकमोह को प्राप्त नहीं होता। उसे अपने अमृतस्वरूप का विस्मरण नहीं होता।गीता के द्वारा महान् कवि व्यास जी भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण के माध्यम से हमें हमारे जीवन का लक्ष्य बताते हैं पूर्णत्व की प्राप्ति। अल्पकाल के लिये प्राप्त इस जीवन में हमको इस लक्ष्य प्राप्ति के लिये प्रयत्न करना चाहिये। चिन्तित हुये बिना प्रसन्नतापूर्वक जीवन में आने वाले सुखदुखादि कष्टों को सहन करने की सर्वोच्च साधना करने का इन परिस्थितियों में हमें अवसर मिलता है।तितिक्षा का अर्थ निराश उदास भाव से जो हो रहा है उसको सहन करना ऐसा नहीं है। यहाँ विशेष रूप से कहा है कि शीतोष्णादि द्वन्द्वों में जिसका मन समभाव में स्थित रहता है वह धीर पुरुष मोक्ष का अधिकारी होता है। यहाँ प्रयोजन निराश व्यक्ति की सहनशक्ति से नहीं बल्कि जगत् के परिर्वतनशील स्वभाव को अच्छी प्रकार समझ लेने से है। विवेकी पुरुष में यह सार्मथ्य आ जाती है कि सुख में उसे हर्षातिरेक नहीं होता और न दुख में अत्यन्त विषाद।जब तक देह के साथ हमारी अत्यन्त आसक्ति रहती है तब तक उसमें होने वाली पीड़ाओं से हम विलग नहीं हो सकते और हम व्यथित हो जाते हैं। हृदय में प्रेम अथवा घृणा के भाव के प्रादुर्भाव से यदि शारीरिक कष्ट सहने की आवश्यकता पड़ती है तो वह क्षमता हममें आ जाती है। पुत्र के प्रति प्रेम के कारण उसको शिक्षा आदि देने के लिए आवश्यकता पड़ने पर हम बड़ी प्रसन्नता से अपनी शारीरिक सुख सुविधाओं का त्याग करने के लिए तैयार हो जाते हैं। वह असुविधा हमें कष्ट नहीं पहुँचाती। इसी प्रकार बुद्धिनिष्ठ आदर्शों की प्राप्ति के लिए शरीर और मन के आरामों को भी हम त्याग देते हैं। विश्व के अनेक देशभक्त क्रान्तिकारियों ने अपने देश की स्वतन्त्र्ाता के आदर्शों को प्राप्त करने के लिए अनेक कष्ट सहन करके अपने प्राणों की आहुति दी है।निम्नलिखित कारणों से भी तुम्हारे लिए उचित है कि शोक और मोह को छोड़ कर तुम शान्तिपूर्वक शीतादि को सहन करो। क्योंकि

"Matra" etc. Those who are "Adhira" (impatient/unwise) grieve even over those states of cold, heat, pleasure, pain etc. which are created by the "Sparsha" (contacts/connections) of the objects denoted by the word "Matra" with the Self through the senses, and which are "Anitya" (impermanent); but the "Dhiras" (wise) do not do so—He says this.

Alternatively, the contact of these is through "Matras" (senses), not directly with the Supreme Self.

"Agama"—origin, "Apaya"—destruction; "Titikshasva"—endure those (states) possessed of these.

Therefore, what is your purpose in rendering the sense-contacts fruitless?—He answers this with "Atah" (Therefore). "Since the absence of pain is possible simply by not fighting, what is the use of doing that (fighting) and then abandoning attachment to avoid the ensuing pain?"—to resolve this doubt (is this verse); this is the completion.

In the previous verse, some interpreted "Titikshasva" as "Sahasva" (Endure); that is incorrect. Because in its reiteration (in this verse as "Na vyathayanti"), the meaning of "rendering fruitless" (neutralizing effect) is apparent—with this idea, he explains the first quarter with "Yam" etc. "Na vyathayanti"—do not shake/move, do not make him possess inequality in the form of cold/heat and pleasure/pain—this is the meaning.

"Since immortality is heard of even in women like Maitreyi who possess such qualities, the qualification 'Purusham' (male) is improper"—anticipating this, he explains differently: "Puri" etc. Being related to the body, yet seeing the body (as witness)—this is the meaning.

"Why this qualification either?"—To this, he says "Sharira..." etc. In deep sleep etc., even for all common/ignorant people, there is absence of affliction due to absence of ego; thus there would be the contingency of (them attaining) immortality—to remove this doubt (the qualification is used)—this is the meaning.

Objection: "It is said that for one who has no attachment to the body etc., there is no pleasure and pain; so how can the two adjectives 'Sama-duhkha-sukham' (equal in pain and pleasure) and 'Dhiram' (wise) apply to him? For this belongs to the previous stage (of practice)?" Answer: Anticipating this, and saying "This is a reiteration of the previous state to show the means to that (non-affliction)," he asks and explains the intent with "Katham" etc. By which abandonment of attachment the sense-contacts do not afflict, "Katham" (how/by what means) does that happen? This is the meaning.

Just as pain is unacceptable because it is not a human goal, so too sensual pleasure is unacceptable to whom because it opposes immortality—he is "Sama-duhkha-sukha." When such a state exists, how can there be "Abhimana" (attachment) characterized by "superimposition of beauty/goodness" (shobhana-adhyasa) in causes of pleasure, or "aversion" in their opposites?—this is the sentiment.

That very "equality in pain and pleasure"—how does it happen? "Dhairyena" (By patience/fortitude). Meaning, by the effort that arrests the effects of pleasure and pain, namely elation (utseka) and despondency (vishada), when they occur.

(Addressing the objection regarding the relation of Self, Mind, Bondage and Liberation): To remove this doubt of Arjuna, the Lord says "Yam" (Whom).

"Yam"—The self-luminous, self-evident (Self)—Shruti says "Here this Purusha is self-luminous." "Purusham"—Lying in the "Puri" (body) due to fullness—Shruti says "He, this Purusha, is lying in all bodies; nothing is uncovered by Him." "Sama-duhkha-sukham"—To whom pain and pleasure are equal—being attributes of the non-Self and being objects of perception; that changeless, self-luminous One. Mention of pleasure/pain is to illustrate all modifications of the inner organ. Because the Shruti "This is the eternal glory of the Brahmana, it does not increase or decrease by action" negates pleasure and pain which are forms of increase and decrease. "Dhiram"—Derived as 'one who impels the intellect'—meaning the Impeller of the intellect via superimposition of identity through the reflection of consciousness (chidabhasa). Meaning: The Witness of the intellect. Shruti says "That Dhira, becoming dream, transcends this world." By this, the 'contingency of bondage' is shown. It is said: "From whom the means of knowledge are established, and the three states like waking, and the division of existence and non-existence; He is taught as 'I am Brahman'."

These Matra-sparshas giving pleasure and pain, "Hi" (indeed), "Yasmat" (since) they do not "Vyathayanti" (afflict) him—do not cause modification in reality; because being the Illuminator of all modifications, He is unfit for modification. "Just as the Sun, the eye of the whole world, is not tainted by external defects seen by the eye; so the One Inner Self of all beings is not tainted by the misery of the world, being external to it"—so says the Shruti. Therefore, "Sa Purushah"—that person—"Kalpate" (becomes fit) for "Amritatva" (Immortality/Moksha)—which is self-luminous, supreme bliss, untainted by any duality, and characterized by the cessation of ignorance (the material cause of all sorrow) and its effects—through the knowledge of the oneness of Brahman and Atman which is his own nature.

If the Self were the locus of natural bondage, then the natural attributes could not cease without the cessation of the substance (Self), so he would never be liberated. As stated: "If the Self is by nature an agent etc., then do not hope for liberation; for the nature of things does not depart from them, like heat from the sun." For the simultaneous cessation of all specific qualities (which don't have antecedent non-existence) is seen to be inseparable from the cessation of the substance. Objection: "Bondage in the Self is not natural, but caused by adjuncts like Intellect? Shruti says 'The wise call the Self united with senses and mind the Enjoyer.' Thus, even while the Substance (Self) exists, liberation is reasonable by the cessation of that (adjunct)?" Answer: "Alas! Then, since you accept that 'An Upadhi is that which makes its own attribute appear as belonging to another', it follows that the Upadhi (Intellect etc.) makes its own attribute (agency/pain) appear as residing in the Self.

Thus you have come to the (right) path, for this implies accepting the 'falsity' of bondage. The redness in a crystal caused by the proximity of a hibiscus flower is not real. Therefore, Bondage is merely the appearance of connection with those (attributes) due to Upadhis in the Self which is actually untouched by all worldly attributes. By Self-knowledge, however—upon the cessation of Self-ignorance and its effects (Upadhis), and the cessation of all delusion caused by it—due to the washing away of the coloring of all perceived objects, the natural 'Kaivalya' (Aloneness) of the pure, self-luminous, blissful, full Self is Moksha. Thus, there is no objection of different loci for Bondage and Liberation.

Hence, the 'dispute in name only' is refuted, because the unity of the Illumined (Object) and Illuminator (Subject) is impossible." Objection: "'The miserable one is illumined by something other than himself; because he is an object of illumination; like a pot'—by this inference (Self is proven). But the illumined is not seen to be the illuminator. And for one thing to be both illumined and illuminator contradicts the subject-object distinction. So how about the Self?" Answer: "No. Because only 'Illuminatorship' is accepted for Him. Being the illuminator of the Ego (Ahankara) associated with the modification 'I am miserable', He never enters the category of the Illumined. Therefore, the inference 'The miserable one does not depend on an illuminator other than himself, because he is an illuminator, like a lamp' is also invalid. Because it is countered by the proof that establishes an illuminator distinct from himself due to his being illumined. And what is 'Illuminatorship'? Is it being an instrument of knowledge, or being of the nature of self-luminous knowledge? In the first case—even if independent of another instrument like a lamp, the miserable one's dependence on a knowledge distinct from himself is not contradicted. Otherwise, the example (lamp) would lack the property to be proved. In the second case—the reason is unestablished; thus the reason 'being illumined' wins due to greater strength, because you do not accept knowledge distinct from mental modification?

(Vedantin's reply): If you say 'Intellect itself is the nature of knowledge'? No. Because Knowledge (Chaitanya) is pervading all space and time and devoid of differentiating attributes; whereas (Intellect) is non-eternal, limited, and of the nature of modification into many forms; thus their identity is impossible. The perception of origin and destruction (of knowledge) is explicable as having for its object the 'connection with the object' (which must be assumed). Otherwise, imagining the origin, destruction, difference etc. of those respective knowledges would lead to 'excessive heaviness' (logical complexity)—this is detailed elsewhere. Also Shruti says: 'There is no loss of the sight of the Seer, for it is imperishable', 'All-pervading like space and eternal', 'Great Being, endless, shoreless, a mass of Consciousness only', 'That Brahma is without prior, without posterior, without interior, without exterior; this Self is Brahman, the experiencer of all'—such texts show the Self as all-pervading, eternal, self-luminous Knowledge.

By this, its distinction even from the Upadhi characterized as Avidya is established. Therefore, 'Liberation is the cessation of the illusion of bondage (caused by false Upadhis) through true Self-knowledge'—all this is clear/pure. By the address 'Purusharshabha', He suggests: 'You grieve only because you do not know the 'Purushatva' (being Purusha) as self-luminous consciousness, and the 'Rishabhatva' (Superiority) of the Self as supreme bliss superior to all duality. Therefore, cessation of your grief is easy simply by Self-knowledge—as per Shruti 'The knower of Self crosses grief'.' Here, by the singular word 'Purusham', the Sankhya view is refuted. For they accept the plurality of Purushas.

Objection: "What is the fruit of enduring these?"—In response to this, He says "Yam hi" etc.

"O Purusharshabha"—Best of men, capable in the cause of the independent means to Moksha! "Yam Purusham"—That person; "Sama-duhkha-sukham"—to whom pain and pleasure, separation and union, are equal; such a "Dhiram"—one capable of enduring them; "Ete matrasparshah"—these sense-contacts "Na vyathayanti"—do not afflict, do not defeat; "Sa Purushah"—that person "Kalpate"—becomes fit—for "Amritatvaya"—Moksha.

Or (Second meaning)—He becomes fit for "Moksha-bhava"—meaning Bhakti (Devotion). He becomes eligible for the attainment of Bhakti—this is the meaning.

By "Sama-duhkha" (equal in pain), it is suggested that by His (Lord's) will, everything appears indeed as the form of Bliss.

For, the person whom—to whom pain and pleasure are equal, [meaning] one who is equipoised in pain and pleasure; who is free from elation and dejection upon the attainment of pleasure and pain; that wise (intelligent) one—these aforementioned cold, heat, etc., do not torment (do not disturb) [due to his realization of the eternal Self];

he, established in the vision of the nature of the eternal Self and enduring the dualities, becomes fit for immortality—for the state of deathlessness, meaning for liberation.

And for this reason also, enduring cold, heat, etc., without entertaining grief and delusion is proper, because...

He states that endurance alone is the cause of immortality with the words yam hi (whom indeed).

The wise one whom they [the dualities] do not afflict becomes capable of immortality.

यम् whom? हि surely? न व्यथयन्ति afflict not? एते these? पुरुषम् man? पुरुषर्षभ chief among men? समदुःखसुखम् same in pleasure and pain? धीरम् firm man? सः he? अमृतत्वाय for immortality? कल्पते is fit.Commentary -- Dehadhyasa or identification of the Self with the body is the cause of pleasure and pain. The more you are able to identify yourself with the immortal? allpervading Self? the less will you be affected by the pairs of opposites (Dvandvas? pleasure and pain? etc.)Titiksha or the power of endurance develops the willpower. Calm endurance in pleasure and pain? and heat and cold is one of the alifications of an aspirant on the path of Jnana Yoga. It is one of the Shatsampat or sixfold virtues. It is a condition of right knowledge. Titiksha by itself cannot give you Moksha or liberation? but still? when coupled with discrimination and dispassion? it becomes a means to the attainment of Immortality or knowledge of the Self. (Cf.XVII.53)

What will happen to one who bears cold and heat? Listen: Verily, the person৷৷.,'etc.
(O Arjuna) hi, verily; yam purusam, the person whom; ete, these, cold and heat mentioned above; na, do not; vyathayanti, torment, do not perturb; dhiram, the wise man; sama-duhkha-sukham, to whom sorrow and happiness are the same, who is free from happiness and sorrow when subjected to pleasure and pain, because of his realization of the enternal Self; sah, he, who is established in the realization of the enternal Self, who forbears the opposites; kalpate, becomes fit; amrtattvaya, for Immortality, for the state of Immortality, i.e. for Liberation.

That person endowed with courage, who considers pain as inevitable as pleasure, and who performs war and such other acts suited to his station in life without attachment to the results and only as a means of attaining immortality - one whom the impact of weapons in war etc., which involve soft or harsh contacts, do not trouble, that person only attains immortality, not a person like you, who cannnot bear grief. As the selves are immortal, what is to be done here, is this much only. This is the meaning.
Because of the immortality of the selves and the natural destructibility of the bodies, there is no cause for grief. It was told (previously): 'The wise grieve neither for the dead nor for the living' (2. 11). Now the Lord elucidates the same view.