Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 2 - Shloka (Verse) 29

व्याख्या-- 'आश्चर्यवत्पश्यति कश्चिदेनम्'-- इस देहीको कोई आश्चर्यकी तरह जानता है। तात्पर्य यह है कि जैसे दूसरी चीजें देखने सुनने पढ़ने और जाननेमें आती हैं वैसे इस देहीका जानना नहीं होता। कारण कि दूसरी वस्तुएँ इदंतासे ( यह करके) जानते हैं अर्थात् वे जाननेका विषय होती हैं पर यह देही इन्द्रिय मनबुद्धिका विषय नहीं है। इसको तो स्वयंसे अपनेआपसे ही जाना जाता है। अपनेआपसे जो जानना होता है वह जानना लौकिक ज्ञानकी तरह नहीं होता प्रत्युत बहुत विलक्षण होता है।
'पश्यति' पदके दो अर्थ होते हैं नेत्रोंसे देखना और स्वयंके द्वारा स्वयंको जानना। यहाँ 'पश्यति' पद स्वयंके द्वारा स्वयंको जाननेके विषयमें आया है (गीता 2। 55 6। 20 आदि)।
जहाँ नेत्र आदि करणोंसे देखना (जानना) होता है वहाँ द्रष्टा (देखनेवाला) दृश्य (दीखनेवाली वस्तु) और दर्शन (देखनेकी शक्ति) यह त्रिपुटी होती है। इस त्रिपुटीसे ही सांसारिक देखनाजानना होता है। परन्तु स्वयंके ज्ञानमें यह त्रिपुटी नहीं होती है अर्थात् स्वयंका ज्ञान करणसापेक्ष नहीं है। स्वयंका ज्ञान तो स्वयंके द्वारा ही होता है अर्थात् वह ज्ञान करणनिरपेक्ष है। जैसे मैं हूँ ऐसा जो अपने होनेपन ज्ञान है इसमें किसी प्रमाणकी या किसी करणकी आवश्यकता नहीं है। इस अपने होनेपनको इदंता से अर्थात् दृश्यरूपसे नहीं देख सकते। इसका ज्ञान अपनेआपको ही होता है। यह ज्ञान इन्द्रियजन्य या बुद्धिजन्य नहीं है। इसलिये स्वयंको (अपनेआपको) जानना आश्चर्यकी तरह होता है।
जैसे अँधेरे कमरेमें हम किसी चीजको लाने जाते हैं तो हमारे साथ प्रकाश भी चाहिये और नेत्र भी चाहिये अर्थात् उस अँधेरे कमरेमें प्रकाशकी सहायतासे हम उस चीजको नेत्रोंसे देखेंगे तब उसको लायेंगे। परन्तु कहीं दीपक जल रहा है और हम उस दीपकको देखने जायँगे तो उस दीपकको देखनेके लिये हमें दूसरे दीपककी आवश्यकता नहीं पड़ेगी क्योंकि दीपक स्वयंप्रकाश है। वह अपनेआपको स्वयं ही प्रकाशित करता है। ऐसे ही अपने स्वरूपको देखनेके लिये किसी दूसरे प्रकाशकी आवश्यकता नहीं है क्योंकि यह देही (स्वरूप) स्वयंप्रकाश है। अतः यह अपनेआपसे ही अपनेआपको जानता है।
स्थूल सूक्ष्म और कारण ये तीन शरीर हैं। अन्नजलसे बना हुआ स्थूलशरीर है। यह स्थूलशरीर इन्द्रियोंका विषय है। इस स्थूलशरीरके भीतर पाँच ज्ञानेन्द्रियों पाँच कर्मेन्द्रियाँ पाँच प्राण मन और बुद्धि इन सत्रह तत्त्वोंसे बना हुआ सूक्ष्मशरीर है। यह सूक्ष्मशरीर इन्द्रियोंका विषय नहीं है प्रत्युत बुद्धिका विषय हैं। जो बुद्धिका भी विषय नहीं है जिसमें प्रकृति स्वभाव रहता है वह कारणशरीर है। इन तीनों शरीरोंपर विचार किया जाय तो यह स्थूलशरीर मेरा स्वरूप नहीं है क्योंकि यह प्रतिक्षण बदलता है और जाननेमें आता है। सूक्ष्मशरीर भी बदलता है और जाननेमें आता है अतः यह भी मेरा स्वरूप नहीं है। कारणशरीर प्रकृतिस्वरूप है पर देही (स्वरूप) प्रकृतिसे भी अतीत है अतः कारणशरीर भी मेरा स्वरूप नहीं है। यह देही जब प्रकृतिको छोड़कर अपने स्वरूपमें स्थित हो जाता है तब यह अपनेआपसे अपनेआपको जान लेता है। यह जानना सांसारिक वस्तुओंको जाननेकी अपेक्षा सर्वथा विलक्षण होता है इसलिये इसको 'आश्चर्यवत् पश्यति' कहा गया है।
यहाँ भगवान्ने कहा है कि अपनेआपका अनुभव करनेवाला कोई एक ही होता है 'कश्चित्' और आगे सातवें अध्यायके तीसरे श्लोकमें भी यही बात कही है कि कोई एक मनुष्य ही मेरेको तत्त्वसे जानता है 'कश्चिन्मां वेत्ति तत्त्वतः'। इन पदोंसे ऐसा मालूम होता है कि इस अविनाशी तत्त्वको जानना बड़ा कठिन है दुर्लभ है। परन्तु वास्तवमें ऐसी बात नहीं है। इस तत्त्वको जानना कठिन नहीं है दुर्लभ नहीं है प्रत्युत इस तत्त्वको सच्चे हृदयसे जाननेवालेकी इस तरफ लगनेवालेकी कमी है। यह कमी जाननेकी जिज्ञासा कम होनेके कारण ही है।
'आश्चर्यवद्वदति तथैव चान्यः'-- ऐसे ही दूसरा पुरुष इस देहीका आश्चर्यकी तरह वर्णन करता है क्योंकि यह तत्त्व वाणीका विषय नहीं है। जिससे वाणी भी प्रकाशित होती है वह वाणी उसका वर्णन कैसे कर सकती है जो महापुरुष इस तत्त्वका वर्णन करता है वह तो शाखाचन्द्रन्यायकी तरह वाणीसे इसका केवल संकेत ही करता है जिससे सुननेवालेका इधर लक्ष्य हो जाय। अतः इसका वर्णन आश्चर्यकी तरह ही होता है।
यहाँ जो 'अन्यः' पद आया है उसका तात्पर्य यह नहीं है कि जो जाननेवाला है उससे यह कहनेवाला अन्य है क्योंकि जो स्वयं जानेगा ही नहीं वह वर्णन क्या करेगा अतः इस पदका तात्पर्य यह है कि जितने जाननेवाले हैं उनमें वर्णन करनेवाला कोई एक ही होता है। कारण कि सबकेसब अनुभवी तत्त्वज्ञ महापुरुष उस तत्त्वका
विवेचन करके सुननेवालेको उस तत्त्वतक नहीं पहुँचा सकते। उसकी शंकाओंका तर्कोंका पूरी तरह समाधान करनेकी क्षमता नहीं रखते। अतः वर्णन करनेवालेकी विलक्षण क्षमताका द्योतन करनेके लिये ही यह अन्यः पद दिया गया है।
'आश्चर्यवच्चैनमन्यः श्रृणोति'-- दूसरा कोई इस देहीको आश्चर्यकी तरह सुनता है। तात्पर्य है कि सुननेवाला शास्त्रोंकी लोकलोकान्तरोंकी जितनी बातें सुनता आया है उन सब बातोंसे इस देहीकी बात विलक्षण मालूम देती है। कारण कि दूसरा जो कुछ सुना है वह सबकासब इन्द्रियाँ मन बुद्धि आदिका विषय है परन्तु यह देही इन्द्रियों आदिका विषय नहीं है प्रत्युत यह इन्द्रियों आदिके विषयको प्रकाशित करता है। अतः इस देहीकी विलक्षण बात वह आश्चर्यकी तरह सुनता है।
यहाँ 'अन्यः' पद देनेका तात्पर्य है कि जाननेवाला और कहनेवाला इन दोनोंसे सुननेवाला (तत्त्वका जिज्ञासु) अलग है।
'श्रुत्वाप्येनं वेद न चैव कश्चित्'-- इसको सुन करके भी कोई नहीं जानता। इसका तात्पर्य यह नहीं है कि उसने सुन लिया तो अब वह जानेगा ही नहीं। इसका तात्पर्य यह है कि केवल सुन करके (सुननेमात्रसे) इसको कोई भी नहीं जान सकता। सुननेके बाद जब वह स्वयं उसमें स्थित होगा तब वह अपनेआपसे ही अपनेआपको जानेगा (टिप्पणी प0 69) ।
यहाँ कोई कहे कि शास्त्रोँ और गुरुजनोंसे सुनकर ज्ञान तो होता ही है फिर यहाँ सुन करके भी कोई नहीं जानता ऐसा कैसे कहा गया है इस विषयपर थोड़ी गम्भीरतासे विचार करके देखें कि शास्त्रोंपर श्रद्धा स्वयं शास्त्र नहीं कराते और गुरुजनोंपर श्रद्धा स्वयं गुरुजन नहीं कराते किन्तु साधक स्वयं ही शास्त्र और गुरुपर श्रद्धाविश्वास करता है स्वयं ही उनके सम्मुख होता है। अगर स्वयंके सम्मुख हुए बिना ही ज्ञान हो जाता तो आजतक भगवान्के बहुत अवतार हुए हैं बड़ेबड़े जीवन्मुक्त महापुरुष हुए हैं उनके सामने कोई अज्ञानी रहना ही नहीं चाहिये था। अर्थात् सबको तत्त्वज्ञान हो जाना चाहिये था पर ऐसा देखनेमें नहीं आता। श्रद्धाविश्वासपूर्वक सुननेसे स्वरूपमें स्थित होनेमें सहायता तो जरूर मिलती है पर स्वरूपमें स्थित स्वयं ही होता है। अतः उपर्युक्त पदोंका तात्पर्य तत्त्वज्ञानको असम्भव बतानेमें नहीं प्रत्युत उसे करणनिरपेक्ष बतानेमें है। मनुष्य किसी भी रीतिसे तत्त्वको जाननेका प्रयत्न क्यों न करे पर अन्तमें अपनेआपसे ही अपनेआपको जानेगा। श्रवण मनन आदि साधन तत्त्वके ज्ञानमें परम्परागत साधन माने जा सकते हैं पर वास्तविक बोध करणनिरपेक्ष (अपनेआपसे) ही होता है।
अपनेआपसे अपनेआपको जानना क्या होता है एक होता है करना एक होता है देखना और एक होता है जानना। करनेमें कर्मेन्द्रियोंकी देखनेमें ज्ञानेन्द्रियोंकी और जाननेमें स्वयंकी मुख्यता होती है।
ज्ञानेन्द्रियोंके द्वारा जानना नहीं होता प्रत्युत देखना होता है जो कि व्यवहारमें उपयोगी है। स्वयंके द्वारा जो जानना होता है वह दो तरहका होता है एक तो शरीरसंसारके साथ मेरी सदा भिन्नता है और दूसरा परमात्माके साथ मेरी सदा अभिन्नता है। दूसरे शब्दोंमें परिवर्तनशील नाशवान् पदार्थोंके साथ मेरा किञ्चिन्मात्र भी सम्बन्ध नहीं है और अपरिवर्तनशील अविनाशी परमात्माके साथ मेरा नित्य सम्बन्ध है। ऐसा जाननेके बाद फिर स्वतः अनुभव होता है। उस अनुभवका वाणीसे वर्णन नहीं हो सकता। वहाँ तो बुद्धि भी चुप हो जाती है।
सम्बन्ध -- अबतक देह और देहीका जो प्रकरण चल रहा था उसका आगेके श्लोकमें उपसंहार करते हैं।

जिसका प्रकरण चल रहा है यह आत्मतत्त्व दुर्विज्ञेय है। सर्वसाधारणको भ्रान्ति करा देनेवाले विषयमें केवल एक तुझे ही क्या उलाहना दूँ यह आत्मा दुर्विज्ञेय कैसे है सो कहते हैं पहले जो नहीं देखा गया हो अकस्माद् दृष्टिगोचर हुआ हो ऐसे अद्भुत पदार्थका नाम आश्चर्य है उसके सदृशका नाम आश्चर्यवत् है इस आत्माको कोई ( महापुरुष ) ही आश्चर्यमय वस्तुकी भाँति देखता है। वैसे ही दूसरा ( कोई एक ) इसको आश्चर्यवत् कहता है अन्य ( कोई ) इसको आश्चर्यवत् सुनता है एवं कोई इस आत्माको सुनकर देखकर और कहकर भी नहीं जानता। अथवा जो इस आत्माको देखता है वह आश्चर्यके तुल्य है जो कहता है और जो सुनता है वह भी ( आश्चर्यके तुल्य है )। अभिप्राय यह कि अनेक सहस्रोंमेंसे कोई एक ही ऐसा होता है। इसलिये आत्मा बड़ा दुर्बोध है।

Having shown the reproach towards Arjuna, but considering that 'reproach towards him is not possible because the Self under discussion is difficult to know,' He (the Commentator) says "Durvijneya" (Difficult to know).

And thus, 'since the delusion caused by ignorance of the Self is common (to all), there is no room for extraordinary (individual-specific) reproach'—so He says "Kim tvameva" (Why [blame] you alone?).

He doubts that 'the Self's difficulty of being known is unproven, since It is known by the concept "I" (ego),' saying "Katham" (How?).

(Resolution:) 'Although the qualified Self (associated with body/mind) is observed through the concept "I", yet due to the absence of that (concept) regarding the Absolute (Pure) Self, there is indeed difficulty in knowing It'—thus He introduces the verse, saying "Aha" (He says).

By the first quarter (pada) beginning with "Ashcharyavat," showing the rarity of the vision regarding the Self, the rarity of the 'Seer' is stated. And by the second, through the statement of the rarity of speaking (instruction) about It, the similar nature (rarity) of Its 'Instructor' is told. By the third, through the rarity of hearing about It, the scarcity of the 'Hearer' is intended. Even in the presence of statements about hearing and seeing, the fact that the direct realization of that Object is obtainable only with extreme effort is intended by the fourth (quarter)—this is the division (of the verse's meaning).

Through the rarity of the vision etc. regarding the Self, He establishes the incomprehensibility of the Self, (explaining the term) "Ashcharyavat" (Like a wonder).

Now (in the alternative explanation), by stating the rarity of the Seer, Speaker, Hearer, and Realizer regarding the Self, He speaks of Its incomprehensibility, saying "Athava" (Or).

He states the conclusion (resultant meaning) in both interpretations, saying "Atah" (Therefore).

Because the connection and separation of the body are inevitable, and because the Self is similar in nature to the Lord (Ishvara) and thus there is a complete absence of destruction [of the Self], grief should not be felt—to conclude this, He demonstrates the Lord's power again with the verse 'ascharyavat' (like a wonder).

The meaning is 'due to rarity'. For that is indeed a wonder in the world.

The seer of that [Self] is rare, due to the Self being similar to the Lord and being subtle.

Objection: How can the expanse of the world (Prapancha) consisting of ether (Akasha) etc., which is distinct and solid like a 'diamond cage' (Vajra-panjara) and established by all proofs, be called utterly trivial (unreal) like a rope-snake merely due to being born of ignorance? Or, how can the Self's agency in sacrifices etc. and agency in hearing etc., which are required by the Karma-Kanda and Jnana-Kanda respectively, be denied?
Answering this doubt, He says "Ashcharyavat" (Like a wonder).

Some knower of the Self-truth sees "Enam"—i.e., the aggregate of elements/beings (Bhutagrama) mentioned in the preceding and succeeding verses—as "Ashcharyavat". "Ashcharya" means a marvel, like a dream, Maya (illusion), or magic; "Ashcharyavat" means like that—he sees it in that manner (as illusory).
Similarly, someone speaks of "Enam" (this world) as a wonder—that is, he explains it in a form not well-known in the world, as "Anirvachaniya" (Ineffable/Indefinable), which is impossible to describe as either Real (Sat) or Unreal (Asat). (Logic:) For, like the rope-snake, if the world were Real, it would not be sublated by the Shruti "Here there is no modify/multiplicity whatsoever"; and if it were Unreal (like a sky-flower), it would not be perceived. Therefore, it is Ineffable. This demonstration of the falsity (Mithyatva) of the world, which is the ground of all transaction, is indeed a great wonder.

Similarly, another hears of "Enam" (this world) as a wonder. "These worlds, these gods, these Vedas, all this is what this Self is" (Brihadaranyaka 2.4.6)—to hear that the world, which is perceived directly as non-Self, is non-different from the Inner Self, is an extreme wonder. This Shruti is not metaphorical like "The sacrificer is the stone." If the world were separate from the Self, the proposition "By the seeing, hearing, thinking, and knowing of the Self, all this becomes known"—which promises the knowledge of all through the knowledge of One—would be contradicted. Nor is this proposition metaphorical, because it would contradict the illustration heard elsewhere: "Just as, O dear one, by one clod of clay all that is made of clay becomes known" (Chandogya 6.1.4). Therefore, since the Proposition, Illustration, and Conclusion must be syntactically consistent, the world is not different from the Self. And yet, due to the contradiction with perception which grasps difference, one hears it like a wonder.

And some, having heard of "Enam" (this world) as non-different from the Inner Self, and—implied by the word 'api'—having spoken of it, establishing it through illustrations like dreams, and having seen it, i.e., realized it through meditation, still "na veda" (does not know) it in truth. For, as will be said later, wisdom even when attained is lost by one possessing intense mental distraction (vikshepa). Therefore, due to the oneness of the Self, the triviality (unreality) of the world, comparable to a rope-snake, is indeed possible.

Yadva (Alternatively - Second Interpretation): He realizes directly "Enam" (this Self)—which is well-known as possessing attributes like agency, enjoyership, sorrow, impermanence, inertness, attachment, and limitation—as non-agent, non-enjoyer, a mass of Bliss, of the nature of Truth and Consciousness, unattached, and infinite, through the mental modification taking the form of Brahman (Brahmakara-vritti) called 'Brahma-Vidya', arising from the scripture "Tat Tvam Asi" (That Thou Art). This is a great wonder.
"Yat pashyati tad ashcharyavat"—here "Ashcharyavat" can be an adverb modifying the action. (Meaning:) Even the vision (knowledge), which is of the nature of Avidya (being a modification), removes Avidya and itself, just as the clearing-nut (Kataka) powder removes dirt and settles down itself.
Or, "Yah pashyati sa ashcharyavat"—here it is an adjective modifying the agent. Because the single Knower experiences two mutually contradictory states—the Brahman-hood of the Self (in Samadhi) and the Jiva-hood (in output/Vyutthana)—until the Prarabdha Karma is exhausted; (this is a wonder).

Similarly, that he speaks by speech of the Self which is beyond speech and mind, is also a wonder. Through the word 'api' (even/also) taking a connection not explicitly stated: just as a sleeping person is awakened. As stated in the Vartika (by Sureshwaracharya): "Without even grasping the relation between the word and its meaning, those awakened by others in deep sleep wake up, abandoning sleep. For, unlike a waking person, no one in deep sleep understands the word (semantically). Therefore, when ignorance is destroyed by knowledge (born of sound), the fruit 'I am Brahman' results. The intellect 'I am Brahman' arises from words which destroy Avidya, and it perishes along with Avidya, just as medicine perishes after destroying the disease."

Similarly, he who hears is also "Ashcharyavat," meaning extremely rare. This captures the meaning of the Shruti: "He who is not available to be heard by many." The second quarter of the Shruti, "whom many, even while hearing, do not know," is captured by "Shrutvapyenam..." (Even having heard, one does not know this). The second half of the Shruti verse ("Wonderful is the expounder...") is captured by the first half of the Gita verse. The purport is: This Self is difficult to know, therefore you must strive for Its knowledge.

Among infinite living beings, someone—whose sins have been destroyed and merits accumulated through great austerity—sees this [Self], which possesses the nature described thus and exists 'like a wonder' due to being distinct in class from all objects other than itself. Similarly, someone of such nature speaks [of It] to another. In the same way, only someone hears [of It]. And even after hearing, no one knows this [Self] in reality as It is situated.

By the word 'cha' (and), it is implied that true seeing, true speaking, and true hearing are rare even among the seers, speakers, and hearers.

'Why then do even the learned grieve in the world?'—'Solely due to ignorance of the Self'—with this intention, He speaks of the difficulty in knowing the Self with the verse 'ascharyavat' (like a wonder).

Someone, seeing this Self through the instruction of scriptures and the teacher, sees It like a wonder. Because the Self—which is all-pervading and of the nature of eternal knowledge and bliss—is transcendental (supernatural), he sees It with amazement, as if seeing an impossible occurrence like magic, being overpowered by a sense of improbability.

Similarly, another speaks of It like a wonder, and hears of It [like a wonder]. Yet another, being overpowered by contrary notions, does not know It at all even after hearing. From the word 'cha' (and), it should be understood that even after speaking [about It], one does not know [It] properly.

Having concluded the 'Anvaruhyavada' (argument derived by accepting the opponent's view for the sake of argument), He praises His own 'Svasiddhanta' (established doctrine)—previously stated—by describing the rarity of those qualified for it in this world which is soiled by the series of sins rooted in the delusion of body-as-Self. This is stated [in the Ramanuja Bhashya] with 'evam' (thus), etc.

This verse beginning with 'ascharyavat' is indeed the Upanishadic verse (Katha Upanishad 1.2.7), qualified by a few specific words. 'Evamuktasvabhavam' (Possessing the nature described thus)—this is the meaning of the word 'enam' (this). Regarding the distinctness (vaijatya) stated by 'avyakto'yam' etc., to establish it as the cause for being a 'wonder', [Ramanuja] says 'svetara...' (other than itself...), etc. To dispel the delusion that the word 'ascharyavat' (like a wonder) acts as an adverb modifying the verbs 'sees' (pashyati), etc., [Ramanuja] stated 'ascharyavadavasthitam' (situated/existing like a wonder). The purport is that it is appropriate here to describe the distinctiveness of the Self (and not the manner of seeing). By this, the 'other interpretation' stated by Shankara—taking it as an illustration for the agent (seer)—is also refuted.

'Kashchit' (Someone)—to indicate the sense of determination (restriction), he says 'ananteshu' (among infinite) etc. To demonstrate the equality of men devoid of knowledge with animals, the word 'jantushu' (among creatures) is used. He states the purport of 'kashchit' with 'mahata...' (by great austerity...), etc. And so it is said: 'When the impurities (kashaya) are ripened (destroyed) by actions, then knowledge proceeds' (Mahabharata, Anushasana Parva). The word 'anya' (other) here has the same meaning as the word 'kashchit' found in the preceding and succeeding clauses. 'Parasmai' (to another)—this is an expression obtained from the meaning [of the verb 'vadati' - speaks].

Objection: 'By saying "even after hearing, one does not know," there would be faults like "contradiction" (vyaghata) and the "futitily of commencing the scripture"?'—Anticipating this, it is said 'yathavadavasthitam tattvatah' (as it is situated, in reality). The meaning is: [Knowing] the Self endowed with all forms established by valid proofs, in a manner that is not superimposed.

The purport here is merely regarding the rarity of the 'Knower of Reality' (Tattvavedin). He states that the word 'cha' (and) in the sentence 'shrutvapi...' (even after hearing...) implies the conjunction of things not explicitly mentioned; he lists what is to be conjoined with 'chakarat' (from the word 'cha'), etc. The intention is: First of all, a 'seer' of the Self distinct from the body is rare; what then to say of a 'seer of it as it truly is'? Even if such (seers) exist, a 'speaker' is rare; what then to say of a 'speaker of all its secrets'? Even if such (speakers) exist, a 'hearer' is rare; what then to say of a 'hearer of it as it truly is'—like you—endowed with all external and internal qualities of a disciple?

The sequence is: First 'Hearing' (Shravana); then from Reflection (Manana), the 'conviction of the Self dependent on hearing'; then 'fitness for speaking'; there too, by long practice etc., 'fitness for speaking of it as it truly is'; then from Meditation (Nididhyasana), 'Vision' (Darshana); then like (an expert in) the reality of gems, through the impression (samskara) of long observation, 'Specific/Distinct Vision' (Savisesha Darshana).

Here, the difficulty of knowing (durjnanatva) is stated to remove the doubt: 'If the Self is distinct from the body, why is it not perceived as such?' The purport is: regarding an object that is impossible to be known by all, why should I blame you alone?

परमार्थ तत्त्व का वर्णन करते हुए कहा जाता है कि वह अनन्त सर्वज्ञ और आनन्दस्वरूप है जबकि हमारा अपने ही विषय में अनुभव यह है कि हम परिच्छिन्न अज्ञानी और दुखी हैं। इस प्रकार जो हमारा वास्तविक आत्मस्वरूप है उससे सर्वथा भिन्न हमारा प्रत्यक्ष अनुभव है। पारमार्थिक स्वरूप और प्रत्यक्ष अनुभव इन दोनों का अन्तर शीत और उष्ण प्रकाश और अंधकार के अन्तर के समान प्रतीत हो रहा है। क्या कारण है कि हम अपने शुद्ध आत्मस्वरूप का साक्षात् अनुभव नहीं कर पाते हैं अज्ञान अवस्था में जब हम सत्य को जानना चाहते हैं तब हमारी यह धारणा होती है कि वह सत्य एक ऐसा लक्ष्य है जो कहीं दूर स्थान में स्थित है जिसकी प्राप्ति किसी काल विशेष में ही होगी। परन्तु यदि हम भगवान के उपदेश पर विश्वास करें तो यह ज्ञात होगा कि हम उस सत्य से कभी भी दूर नहीं हैं क्योंकि वह तो हमारा स्वरूप ही है। एक र्मत्य जीव अमरत्व से उतना ही दूर है जितना कि स्वप्नद्रष्टा जाग्रत पुरुष से।जो मनुष्य अपने आत्मस्वरूप के वैभव के प्रति जागरूक है वही ईश्वर है और स्वस्वरूप के वैभव से विस्मृत ईश्वर ही मोहित जीव हैप्रथम तो इस जीव को शरीर मन और बुद्धि के परे स्थित आत्मा के अस्तित्व के विचार को ही समझना कठिन होता है और जब वह आत्मविकास की साधना का अभ्यास करके अपने आनन्दस्वरूप को पहचानता है तब वह उस इन्द्रियातीत अनन्त आनन्दस्वरूप का अनुभव कर आश्चर्यचकित रह जाता है।आश्चर्य की भावना जब मन में उठती है तब उसमें यह सार्मथ्य होती है कि क्षण भर के लिए आश्चर्यचकित व्यक्ति को और कुछ सूझता ही नहीं और वह उस क्षण उस भावना के साथ तदाकार हो जाता है। प्रयोग के तौर पर आप किसी व्यक्ति को अचानक आश्चर्यचकित कर दें और फिर उसके मुख के भावों को देखें। मुँह खुला हुआ कुछ न देखती हुई बाहर निकली हुई आँखें प्रत्येक शिरा तनाव से खिंची हुई वह व्यक्ति पुतले के समान क्षण भर के लिए अपने ही स्थान पर किंकर्त्तव्य विमूढ़ खड़ा रह जाता है।इसी प्रकार आत्मानुभव का भी वह आनन्द है जब आत्मा ही आत्मा के साथ आत्मा में ही रमण कर रही होती है। और इसीलिए महान ऋषियों ने इस अनुभव को आश्चर्य शब्द से सूचित किया जब अहंकार जीव समाप्त होकर शुद्ध अनन्तस्वरूप मात्र रह जाता है।अज्ञानी पुरुष समझता है कि मैं शरीर हूँ जिसमें आत्मा का वास है परन्तु ज्ञानी पुरुष जानता है कि मैं आत्मा हूँ जिसने शरीर धारण किया है । जो साधक सम्यक् प्रकार से इस उपदेश का श्रवण करते हैं उनको आगे उसी पर मनन करने को उत्साहित किया जाता है और तत्पश्चात् जब तक यथार्थ में आत्मसाक्षात्कार नहीं हो जाता तब तक उसके लिए ध्यान करने का उपदेश किया गया है। इस श्लोक से अज्ञानी पुरुष को भी श्रवण मनन और निदिध्यासन के द्वारा इस विरले प्रकार के श्रेष्ठ ज्ञान को प्राप्त करने की प्रेरणा मिल सकती है। आत्मतत्त्व को विषय के रूप में नहीं जाना जा सकता। इसीलिए यहाँ कहा गया है कि इसको सुनकर कोई भी व्यक्ति इसे नहीं जानता।अगले श्लोक में इस प्रकरण का उपसंहार करते हुए भगवान् कहते हैं

Moreover, [regarding the verse] 'avyaktadini' (unmanifest in the beginning), etc. Let them [beings] be eternal or non-eternal; for the one who grieves for them, this [being] is unmanifest in the beginning and unmanifest in the end. In the middle, its 'manifestation' is a modification. On the contrary, one should grieve regarding the modification [if at all], not regarding the [intrinsic] nature.

Furthermore, that which is accepted as their 'root cause'—being of a nature that is diverse and without sequence—displays within itself the diversity of those infinite creations, sustenances, and dissolutions; it is indeed 'Eternal'. Given that such is the nature [of the root cause], what is the cause for grief regarding this [manifestation]?

Since the relevance of the verse 'ascharyavat' to the context is not apparent, and the subsequent verse also appears repetitive, [Acharya Madhva] says 'dehayoga...' (connection of body...) etc. This [compound 'deha-yoga-viyogasya'] is a 'Dvandva-ekavadbhava' (a singular form of a Dvandva compound).

'Sarvatha' (In every way)—meaning due to the absence of destruction of the Bimba (Original/God), and by all other modes, [the Self has no destruction]—to conclude this, [it is stated] by the subsequent verse. Anticipating the doubt—'Even if it is similar to Ishvara, how is there non-destruction?'—since this verse serves as the reason for resolving this, it is said 'to conclude' (upasamhartum). Since it was already stated earlier by 'aprameyasya' (of the immeasurable) etc., the word 'punah' (again) is used [in the commentary: 'shows the Lord's power again'].

Thus, having stated 'he who sees sees like a wonder,' etc., in the first three quarters, the fourth quarter establishes/justifies it; [Acharya] explains that with 'durlabhatvena' (due to rarity). The meaning is that 'rarity' is the cause for the usage of the word 'ascharya' (wonder). 'How is that?'—To this, he says 'taddhi' (for that indeed...). By the word 'hi', he indicates the Smriti (grammar rule) 'ascharyamanitye' (wonder regarding the unusual/rare...)—Ashtadhyayi 6.1.147.

Objection: 'Since everyone is a seer of the self (having the sense of "I"), how can a seer of the Self be rare, such that it is called a wonder?'—To this, he says 'durlabho'pi' (though rare...). The purport is that a seer of the Self as having the nature of similarity to Ishvara etc., is rare. By this, it is stated that 'wonder' (ascharya) itself is expressed as 'like a wonder' (ascharyavat).

(The implication is): If the seer of the 'Jiva'—who is the reflection—is so rare, then what to describe of the power of That (Ishvara/Bimba)!—This is the 'demonstration of the Lord's power'.

By the statement 'dehayogaviyogasya...' etc., the (subsequent) verse 'dehi nityam' (2.30) is (also) explained. The verses beginning with 'svadharmam' (2.31) up to 2.38 are not explained [in the Bhashya] because their meaning is 'not concealed' (obvious). Similarly in the future [sections].

"But many learned people also grieve. Why do you repeatedly blame me like this? Moreover, according to the maxim [that ignorance is natural], my failure to understand the meaning of your words is not a fault." To this, [the Lord replies]: "The grief of others, like yours, is due only to ignorance of the Self. And your failure to understand the meaning of the scriptures which teach about the Self is due to the inherent defects of your own mind, just like others." Thinking thus, that neither of these two faults applies (as they are universal), He explains the extreme difficulty of knowing the Self.

This embodied being (the Self) under discussion, appearing as something amazing, comparable to a wonder, possessing various contradictory attributes due to ignorance (avidyā)—as existent yet seemingly non-existent; as self-luminous consciousness yet seemingly inert; as concentrated bliss yet seemingly miserable; as changeless yet seemingly changing; as eternal yet seemingly transient; as shining yet seemingly non-shining; as non-different from Brahman yet seemingly different; as liberated yet seemingly bound; as non-dual yet seemingly dual—is seen by someone as the object of varied and wonderful manifold perceptions.

One who is endowed with the means (like control of mind and senses—śama and dama), whose last body remains, realizes this Self directly through the maturity of concentration (samādhi). This realization reflects in the mental modification (vṛtti) produced by the great Vedānta sentences, which is the fruit of all good deeds, having the form of the mere nature of the Supreme Self, through the negation of all dualities caused by ignorance, attained by the instructions of the scriptures and the teacher. It is only some rare person, not everyone. Similarly, the fact that someone sees the Self ('kaścid enam yat paśyati') is an adverbial modifier (āścaryavat/wonderfully) of the action. The vision of the Self is itself wonderful because, though false in its essential nature, it reveals the Truth; though caused by avidyā, it destroys avidyā; and by destroying avidyā and its effects, it destroys itself.

Alternatively, "He who sees the Self is wonderful (āścaryavat)" is an adjective modifying the agent (the seer). Because although he has overcome ignorance and its effects, due to the strength of accumulated prārabdha karma (karma already set in motion), he behaves as if he still possesses them. Even though he is constantly established in samādhi, he reverts to ordinary consciousness; and even having reverted, he again experiences samādhi. Thus, due to the variety of prārabdha karma, his conduct is strange, and having attained knowledge that is extremely difficult to obtain, he becomes desirable to all people; hence, he is indeed like a wonder. Thus, the meaning is that the Self is supremely difficult to know, and how could you know the Self effortlessly—this Self, Its knowledge, and Its knower, all three of which are wonderful.

Similarly, the Self is difficult to know due to the absence of a teacher. Indeed, only one who knows the Self can certainly speak of It to another, since an ignorant person cannot be a teacher. And how can one who knows, who is usually established in concentration, speak? Even if he is in an ordinary state (vyutthita-citta), he is difficult for others to understand. Even if somehow known, since he is indifferent to fruits like gain, worship, or fame, he does not speak at all. If he speaks purely out of compassion, he is extremely rare, like the Supreme Lord Himself. Thus, He says, "and likewise another speaks of Him wonderfully."

He speaks exactly as he knows. The word 'cha' (and) draws in the word 'enam' (Him). That other person (the speaker) is distinct from all ordinary knowledgeable people, yet he is not different from the one who sees, otherwise there would be a contradiction. Here also, 'wonderfully' (āścaryavat) must be applied to the object, the action, and the agent. The wonderful nature of the object and the agent has already been explained; now the action is being explained. The speech concerning the pure Self, which is inexpressible by any word, is wonderful. And thus, the Śruti (scripture) says, "from whence words return, without reaching It, along with the mind."

The meaning is that the teaching about the pure Self, which is inexpressible by any word, through a word possessing a specific power (lakṣaṇā, secondary meaning), by means of the exclusion/non-exclusion (jahad-ajahat-lakṣaṇā), by means of an assumed connection, and even without the distinguishing feature of the intended meaning (lakṣyatāvacchedaka), which culminates in non-conceptual direct realization (nirvikalpaka sākṣātkāra), is extremely wonderful. Alternatively, when the truth of the Self is taught by statements like 'Tat tvam asi' (That thou art), without primary power (śakti), without secondary power (lakṣaṇā), and without any other connection, just like the sentence that wakes someone up from deep sleep, that is wonderful. This is because the power of sound is unthinkable. And [it cannot be argued that] teaching without a connection leads to over-extension (atīprasanga), because the same applies to the theory of secondary meaning (lakṣaṇā), as the connection to the primary meaning is generally manifold. If it is argued that the rule is based on specific intention (tātparya), no, because that intention is not specific to everyone. If it is said that only certain people ascertain the specific intention and not everyone, then alas! some inherent quality of the person, such as faultlessness, must be the regulator. And that faultlessness is not barred even in this theory (of direct transmission). Thus, if you accept that a person with a purified mind, through investigation of intention and secondary meaning, gains knowledge of the sentence's meaning, then what is inconsistent if, for such a person, a specific word alone generates the integral direct realization even without a connection? In this theory (where the Self is taught directly), it is even more readily established that "from whence words return," because the Self is not the object of verbal function (śabda-vṛtti).

This intention of the Bhagavan has been elaborated by the Vārtikakāra (Sureśvarācārya) in the text beginning with: "Because avidyā is weak, because the Self is characterized by pure consciousness, and because the power of sound is unthinkable, we know Him by the cessation of delusion. Without grasping the connection between the expresser and the expressed, those awakened by others from deep sleep wake up, leaving behind their sleep. Since no one knows the word in deep sleep as they do in the waking state, therefore, when ignorance is destroyed by knowledge, the result is the realization 'I am Brahman.' When the intellect 'I am Brahman' arises from the words which destroy avidyā, it perishes along with avidyā, just as medicine destroys a disease and then exhausts itself."

Thus, having stated the difficulty of knowing the Self due to the exceedingly wonderful nature of the object of speech, the speaker, and the act of speaking, He then states the difficulty due to the rarity of the hearer: "and likewise another hears Him wonderfully, and having heard Him, too, knows Him." That 'other' person is a seeker of liberation (mumukṣu), distinct from the one who sees and the one who speaks (who are liberated), who, having duly approached the speaker (the knower of Brahman), hears Him, meaning he makes the Self the object of inquiry called listening (śravaṇa). That is, he ascertains the settled meaning of the Vedānta sentences. And having heard, he knows Him, meaning he directly realizes Him, through the maturity of reflection (manana) and deep contemplation (nididhyāsana)—and that too, wonderfully. This is explained similarly to "One sees Him wonderfully."

Here also, the wonderful nature of the agent (the hearer/knower) is due to his rarity, which comes from the cleansing of the impurity of the mind by good deeds performed over many births. And thus, He will say later: "Among thousands of men, one strives for perfection; and among those successful strivers, only one knows Me in essence." And also because of the Śruti: "He is not obtained even for hearing by many; many who hear do not know Him. Wonderful is His speaker; skillful is His obtainer; wonderful is the knower, having been instructed by the skillful one." Thus, the wonderful nature of the act of hearing and the object to be heard should be explained as before.

If it is asked, "If one performs listening, reflection, etc., what is so wonderful that he knows the Self?" He replies, "and verily none knows Him." The particle 'cha' (and) is used to draw in the words relating to the action and the object. Even performing listening, etc., "none knows Him." What need is there to mention that one who does not perform them does not know Him? This follows the maxim: "The knowledge is for this life [where the means are pursued] if there is no obstacle, for such is seen [in scripture]." And the Vārtikakāra has said: "If it is asked where that knowledge comes from, it is from the complete removal of bonds. This removal is either past, future, or present." Even for those who perform listening, etc., knowledge arises only from the complete removal of obstacles; otherwise, it does not. And that removal of obstacles may be past for some, like Hiraṇyagarbha; future for some, like Vāmadeva; or present for some, like Śvetaketu. Thus, due to the extreme rarity of the destruction of obstacles, and due to the Smṛti statement, "Knowledge arises in men from the destruction of sinful karma," the conclusive meaning is that this Self is difficult to know.

If the line were interpreted as "and having heard Him, none verily knows Him," then there would be no agreement with the Śruti sentence: "Wonderful is the knower, having been instructed by the skillful one." There would also be a contradiction with the Bhagavan's statement: "Among those successful strivers, only one knows Me in essence." May my impertinence be forgiven by the learned. Alternatively, the phrase "and verily none knows Him" connects everywhere. Five types are mentioned: one who does not see Him; one who does not speak of Him; one who does not hear of Him; and one who, having heard, still does not know Him. (In contrast, others are): one who only sees but does not speak; one who sees and speaks; one who hears his speech and knows its meaning; one who hears but does not know; and one who is completely external to all these paths. On the side of the ignorant, the similarity to a wonder in seeing, speaking, and hearing is due to being overcome by the feelings of impossibility and contrary conviction (asaṁbhāvanā and viparīta-bhāvanā)—thus the verse is explained clearly. In the fourth quarter (of the verse), the sequence of interpretation is "having seen, having spoken, and having heard."

Objection: 'If it is so, then how do the learned grieve due to the possibility of hell from sinful deeds?'—anticipating this doubt, He says 'āścaryavat' (like a wonder), etc. Someone sees 'enam' (this one) 'like a wonder'; knowing it as eternal and having unmanifest beginning etc. from knowledge of scriptural meaning, yet seeing the states of birth etc., he sees it like a wonder, like a magic show created by Maya; this is the meaning. 'Their states of birth etc. are by My will, for the sake of My sport'—thus it is said 'like a wonder'. And exactly so, deluded by My Maya, someone speaks 'like a wonder'—teaches others, this is the meaning. And another listener, devoid of knowledge by himself, hears 'like a wonder'. Even having heard, saying 'this is true', he does not know this one. 'Vai'—with certainty—among these three, no one knows, has not known; therefore, due to ignorance, they too grieve—this is the idea.

'Āścaryavat'—a wonder is something never seen before, marvelous, suddenly being seen; equal to that is 'āścaryavat'—like a wonder—someone sees 'enam' (this) Self. Like a wonder, another speaks of this one. And like a wonder, another hears of this one. Having heard, seen, and spoken too, no one indeed knows this Self. Or, he who sees this Self is equal to a wonder; he who speaks and he who hears is only someone among many thousands. Therefore, the Self is difficult to understand—this is the intention. Now, concluding the meaning of the section, He speaks—

Since this very Self is unmanifest, He speaks of it as 'like a wonder' with the verse 'ascharyavat'.

(The meaning is that) he sees It as if It were un-inferable (inconceivable), etc.

आश्चर्यवत् as a wonder? पश्यति sees? कश्चित् sone one? एनम् this (Self)? आश्चर्यवत् as a wonder? वदति speaks of? तथा so? एव also? च and? अन्यः another? आश्चर्यवत् as a wonder? च and? एनम् this? अन्यः another? श्रृणोति hears? श्रुत्वा having heard? अपि even? एनम् this? वेद knows? न not? च and? एव also? कश्चित् any one.Commentary The verse may also be interpreted in this manner. He that sees? hears and speaks of the Self is a wonderful man. Such a man is very rare. He is one among many thousands. Thus the Self is very hard to understand.

'This Self under discussion is inscrutable. Why should I blame you alone regarding a thing that is a source of delusion to all!' How is this Self inscrutable? [It may be argued that the Self is the object of egoism. The answer is: Although the individualized Self is the object of egoism, the absolute Self is not.] This is being answered in, 'Someone visualizes It as a wonder,' etc.
Kascit, someone; pasyati, visualizes; enam, It, the Self; ascaryavat, as a wonder, as though It were a wonder a wonder is something not seen before, something strange, something seen all on a sudden; what is comparable to that is ascarya-vat; ca, and; tatha, similarly; eva, indeed; kascit, someone; anyah, else; vadati, talks of It as a wonder. And someone else srnoti, hears of It as a wonder. And someone, indeed, na, does not; veda, realize It; api, even; srutva, after hearing, seeing and speaking about It.
Or, (the meaning is) he who sees the Self is like a wonder. He who speaks of It and the who hears of It is indeed rare among many thousands. Therefore, the idea is that the Self is difficult to understand.
Now, in the course of concluding the topic under discussion, [viz the needlessness of sorrow and delusion,from the point of view of the nature of things.] He says, 'O descendant of Bharata, this embodied Self', etc.

Among innumerable beings, someone, who by great austerity has got rid of sins and has increased his merits, realises this self possessing the above mentioned nature, which is wonderful and distinct in kind from all things other than Itself. Such a one speaks of It to another. Thus, someone hears of It. And even after hearing of It, no one knows It exactly that It really exists. The term 'ca' (and) implies that even amongst the seers, the speakers and hearers, one with authentic percepetion, authentic speech and authentic hearing, is a rarity.