Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 2 - Shloka (Verse) 66

व्याख्या-- [यहाँ कर्मयोगका विषय है। कर्मयोगमें मन और इन्द्रयोंका संयम करना मुख्य होता है। विवेकपूर्वक संयम किये बिना कामना नष्ट नहीं होती। कामनाके नष्ट हुए बिना बुद्धिकी स्थिरता नहीं होती। अतः कर्मयोगी साधकको पहले मन और इन्द्रियोंका संयम करना चाहिये। परन्तु जिसका मन और इन्द्रियाँ संयमित नहीं है, उसकी बात इस श्लोकमें कहते हैं।]

उस प्रसन्नताकी स्तुति की जाती है अयुक्त पुरुषमें अर्थात् जिसका अन्तःकरण समाहित नहीं है ऐसे पुरुषमें आत्मस्वरूपविषयक बुद्धि नहीं होती अर्थात् नहीं रहती और उस अयुक्त पुरुषमें भावना अर्थात् आत्मज्ञानमें प्रगाढ प्रवेश अतिशय प्रीति भी नहीं होती। तथा भावना न करनेवालेको अर्थात् आत्मज्ञानके साधनमें प्रीतिपूर्वक संलग्न न होनेवालेको शान्ति अर्थात् उपशमता भी नहीं मिलती। शान्तिरहित पुरुषको भला सुख कहाँ क्योंकि विषयसेवनसम्बन्धी तृष्णासे जो इन्द्रियोंका निवृत्त होना है वही सुख है विषयसम्बन्धी तृष्णा कदापि सुख नहीं है वह तो दुःख ही है। अभिप्राय यह कि तृष्णाके रहते हुए तो सुखकी गन्धमात्र भी नहीं मिलती।

'Does the mentioned wisdom succeed merely by purity of Sattva?'—He says no with 'Seyam'. 'Mere intellect appears to be produced even for the uncollected'—suspecting this, he qualifies it with 'Atmasvarupa'. 'For the intellect regarding the nature of the Self cannot arise for one with a distracted mind'—regarding this he states the reason with 'Na ca'. 'When Self-knowledge arises superficially from the word, the generation of a stream of memory, the adherence for the sake of realization, is called 'Bhavana'.' 'And that does not succeed for one of distracted intellect'—intending this meaning of the reason, he says 'Atmajnana'. 'Even in the absence of realization through Bhavana, what is the loss?'—Raising this doubt, he says 'Tatha'. Meaning: like the absence of Bhavana for the uncollected. 'When the Self is known superficially, for one not extending the memory in the form of repetition of hearing etc., does cessation of evil succeed due to absence of direct wisdom?'—(No), he says 'Upashama'. For one whose evil has not ceased, separated from the ocean of supreme bliss, merged in the ocean of Samsara, the manifestation of happiness is not possible; he says 'Ashantasya'. 'Even for him, objective happiness is possible from the service of objects?'—Raising this doubt, he says 'Indriyanam hi'. The word 'Hi' is to say that the happiness of the destruction of thirst is well-known in scriptures and experiential. 'Even by the thirst for service of objects, happiness is obtained through enjoyment of objects?'—Raising this doubt, he says 'Duhkham eva'. There too the word 'Hi' illuminates experience. He clarifies that very thing with 'Na' etc.

Objection: Is clarity of mind itself the direct means to the establishment of wisdom or indirectly?—In this expectation, to say that it is through Nididhyasana, clarifying the purport of the previous statement that 'without clarity of mind that does not arise,' by praising clarity, He says 'Nasti'. As for the view that 'the defect in the non-restraint of the senses along with the mind was stated; what is the defect in the non-establishment of the intellect? To this He says'—that is questionable. Because by the statement 'There is no wisdom for the uncontrolled,' the praise of clarity of mind is clearly understood, so raising it in that way is inappropriate. 'Ayuktasya'—of one with uncollected mind. Meaning: of one with unclear mind. 'Buddhi'—wisdom having the knowledge of the nature of the Self as its object, of the form of unity of Brahman and Atman; (does not exist). Why? He says 'Na ca'. 'Na ca ayuktasya bhavana'—And for the uncontrolled, even if hearing and reflection exist for the sake of worship, fame, etc., 'Bhavana'—adherence, Nididhyasana, the means to wisdom—does not exist. 'Na ca abhavayatah'—and for one not meditating—not performing the rejection of dissimilar cognitions, i.e., contemplation on objects—'Shanti'—cessation, the absence of thirst which is a synonym for desire—does not exist. 'Ashantasya kutah sukham'—For the unpeaceful, whence happiness? Due to the absence of the realization of Truth which causes the absence of thirst etc. born of ignorance through the cessation of ignorance, Brahman-bliss indeed does not exist for him; to indicate that even objective happiness does not exist for him, the word 'Kutah' is used. 'Objection: Although acquisition and destruction of objects are means of misery, enjoyment of objects will be a cause of happiness?' If you say this, no. Because even at that time, due to the existence of thirst which is the root of all misery, the existence of even a scent of happiness is unreasonable. The nature of thirst as a cause of misery is stated in the Vasistha: 'Whatever these endless, hard to digest, and high fruits of the creeper of thirst are here, they are miseries, O Raghava. As the rise of desire is misery, as the cessation of desire is happiness; so is not experienced in hell nor even in Brahmaloka. As much as the desire of a living being arises, so much the handful of seeds of misery sprouts...' etc.

He states the defect arising from the absence of prasada (tranquility/grace) in the following two verses. Indeed, in the absence of prasada, there is no yukti, meaning control of the mind (chitta-nirodha).

And for the ayukta (the undisciplined one), there is no buddhi (intellect) and no right knowledge.

He explains that very point with 'na chayuktasya' (and not for the undisciplined), etc.

'Shanti' (Peace) is liberation; because of the statement that "Shanti, Moksha, and Nirvana [are synonyms]."

The defect in the non-restraint of the senses along with the mind was stated; what is the defect in the non-stabilization of the intellect? To this He says 'Nasti'. 'Ayuktasya'—of one not attached to hearing and reflection—'Buddhi'—certainty of the unity of Brahman and Atman—does not exist. Because of the non-removal of the impossibility regarding the means of knowledge (Pramana) and the impossibility regarding the object of knowledge (Prameya). Similarly, 'Ayuktasya'—of one with uncollected mind—'Bhavana'—the stream of mental modifications in the form of Brahman—does not exist. Because of the unsteadiness of the intellect due to the unsteadiness of the mind. 'Abhavayatah'—of one not performing meditation—'Shanti'—cessation of all misery—and (also) does not exist. Because misery is inevitable due to the unsteadiness of the mind. 'Ashantasya'—of one for whom all misery has not ceased—'Kutah sukham'—whence is happiness—of the nature of inner non-dual bliss? Not from anywhere. Because of being miserable indeed. The first word 'Ayuktasya' is a form of (the root) 'Yujir yoge'. The second is of 'Yuj samadhau'. Therefore, stabilization of the intellect is necessary.

For one who is devoid of a mind surrendered unto Me and is engaged in controlling the senses by his own effort, the intellect having the distinct (vivikta) Self as its object will never be accomplished. Therefore, indeed, the contemplation (bhavana) of That (Self) is not possible for him.

For one not contemplating the distinct Self, peace—meaning (the cessation of) desire for objects—does not occur. For the unpeaceful one, who is endowed with desire for objects, whence can there be the attainment of eternal and unsurpassed happiness?

Again, He states the disaster befalling one who does not perform sense-control in the manner described.

He justifies the restraint of senses as the means to the state of steady wisdom through the negative method with 'Nasti'. 'Ayuktasya'—of one with uncontrolled senses—'Nasti buddhih'—there is no wisdom; wisdom regarding the Self does not even arise from the instruction of scripture and teacher; whence his establishment or even the talk (of it)? 'Why?' To this He says. 'Na ca ayuktasya bhavana'—and for the uncontrolled, there is no meditation. For by meditation, the establishment of the intellect in the Self occurs. And since that does not exist for the uncontrolled. 'Na ca abhavayatah'—and for one not performing meditation on the Self—there is no 'Shanti'—cessation of the mind in the Self. 'Ashantasya'—for the unpeaceful—'Kutah sukham'—whence is happiness—meaning the bliss of liberation.

शास्त्रों में मन की शान्ति पर बल देने का कारण यहाँ स्पष्ट किया गया है। मन शान्ति के अभाव के कारण बुद्धि में सांस्कृतिक एवं आध्यात्मिक विकास के लिये आवश्यक विचार करने की क्षमता नहीं होती। शान्ति के न होने पर जीवन की समस्याओं को समझने की बौद्धिक तत्परता का अभाव होता है और तब जीवन का सही मूल्यांकन कर आत्मज्ञान एवं ध्यान के लिए अवसर ही नहीं रहता। ध्रुव तारे के समान जीवन में महान लक्ष्य के न होने पर हमारा जीवन समुद्र में खोये जलपोत के समान भटकता हुआ अन्त में किसी विशाल चट्टान से टकराकर नष्ट हो जाता है।लक्ष्यहीन दिशाहीन पुरुष को कभी शान्ति नहीं मिलती और ऐसे अशान्त पुरुष को सुख कहाँ जीवन सिन्धु की शान्त अथवा विक्षुब्ध तरंगों में सुख या दुख के समय संयम से रहने के लिये परमार्थ का लक्ष्य हमारी दृष्टि से कभी ओझल नहीं होना चाहिये। एक मृदंग वादक के बिना नर्तकी के पैर लय और गति को नियन्त्रित नहीं रख सकते।अयुक्त (संयमरहित) पुरुष को ज्ञान क्यों नहीं होता सुनो

(Covering the section) Beginning with 'ragadvesha' and ending with 'pratishthita'.

The purport is that he who is the controller of the mind is not overpowered by the surging waves (kallola) of anger and the like, even while enjoying objects; he alone is the sthitaprajna (one of steady wisdom) Yogi.

Since what was to be said has been said, for what purpose is 'Nasti buddhih' etc.? To this he says 'Prasada'. 'Since direct knowledge of Brahman is established by meditation assisted by hearing and reflection alone, what is the use of this clarity for which victory over senses is required?'—Suspecting this, is the remainder. 'Objection: Here it is not said 'In the absence of clarity this would happen'; so how is this said?' To this, he supplies what is obtained from the context with 'Na hi'. 'Objection: Those devoid of clarity infer?' To this he says 'Citta'. Meaning one-pointedness. When such supply is made, 'Nasti buddhih' is connected; with this idea he says 'Ayuktasya'. 'Mere knowledge is useless to the context and incorrect'—to this he says 'Samyag'. Meaning direct knowledge of Brahman. 'By this much the defect in the absence of clarity is stated; then why 'Na ca ayuktasya'?' To this he says 'Tadeva'. 'Since knowledge is produced by meditation alone, how is there no wisdom for the uncontrolled?'—Suspecting this, is the remainder. 'Bhavana' is meditation. Therefore indeed 'And no knowledge for the non-meditating'. 'And no peace for the ignorant'—thus it should be construed. 'Objection: Shanti is clarity; since it was stated as a means to knowledge, how is it said to be subsequent to knowledge?' To this he says 'Shantih'. And this is stated incidentally to make known that not only is there destruction of all misery in liberation, but also supreme happiness unobtainable by transmigratory beings. Looking at this very thing, it was said by the Bhashyakara 'Than the status of Brahma etc.'

He strengthens this very meaning by way of contrast (vyatireka). For the ayukta—one with an unconquered mind (ajitachitta)—there is no buddhi (intellect/wisdom) regarding the Self, which is born of the Vedantic inquiry named shravana (hearing) and manana (reflection); meaning, it does not arise.

In the absence of that buddhi, there is no bhavana (contemplation) for the ayukta—which is of the nature of nididhyasana (meditative absorption) and consists of a flow of similar cognitions uninterrupted by dissimilar cognitions.

Everywhere, the negative particle 'na' is connected with 'asti' (is).

And for the abhavayatah—one not contemplating the Self—there is no shanti (peace)—which is of the nature of the cessation of ignorance (avidya) along with its effects, and is the direct realization of the unity of Brahman and the Atman produced by Vedantic statements. For the ashanta—one devoid of Self-realization—whence can there be sukham (happiness)—meaning the bliss of liberation (mokshananda)? This is the meaning.

Objection: Since even for the one established in Samadhi, only the state of Sthitaprajna is stated, then what is the distinction? To this He says 'Nasti buddhih'. For the 'Ayukta'—one devoid of Yoga in Me—there is no Buddhi (wisdom) at all. This is the meaning: If Yoga in Me does not occur after wisdom, then he is not a Sthitaprajna at all. Therefore, in the absence of union with the Lord who is established in Samadhi, even the state of Sthitaprajna is useless; this is the meaning. Objection: What is the fruit even by the Yoga of being established in Samadhi? Raising this doubt, He says 'Na ca'. For the 'Ayukta'—devoid of relationship with the Lord—'Bhavana'—desire for a body suitable for the Rasa (bliss) of the Lord—does not occur. Objection: What even by mere Bhavana? Hence He says 'Na ca'. For the 'Abhavayatah'—one not performing Bhavana—'Shanti'—attainment of a body suitable for the Rasa of the Lord—does not occur. For such an embodied one, direct experience of Bliss does not occur, He says 'Ashantasya'. For the 'Ashanta' (one lacking that peace/body), whence can there be the 'Sukham'—experience of the bliss of worship consisting of direct relationship—belonging to one free from heat (suffering) by the attainment of such a body? This is the meaning.

'Nasti'—means does not exist, does not come to be. (What?) 'Buddhi'—the intellect regarding the nature of the Self. Of whom? Of the 'ayukta'—one whose antahkarana (inner mind) is not composed (asamahita). And for the 'ayukta', there is no 'bhavana'—meaning intense devotion (abhinivesha) to Self-knowledge.

Similarly, for the 'abhavayatah'—one not practising intense devotion to Self-knowledge—there is no 'shanti'—meaning upashama (cessation/calmness).

For the unpeaceful one, whence can there be happiness? Indeed, that which is the cessation of the thirst for serving objects by the senses is 'sukham' (happiness); the thirst for objects is not happiness. For that (thirst) is indeed misery alone. While thirst exists, not even a trace (scent) of happiness is possible; this is the meaning.

Why the ayukta has no buddhi is stated [next].

He explains the status of mind-control as a means to sthitaprajnata (state of steady wisdom) by way of contrast (vyatireka) with 'nasti' etc. For the 'ayukta'—meaning the asat (unrighteous/undisciplined) one, or one devoid of the yoga of restraint (nirodha)—there is no single 'vyavasayatmika' (resolute/determinate) intellect. Nor is there 'bhavana'—meaning contemplation of the Truth (tattva-chintana).

The rest is clear.

न not? अस्ति is? बुद्धिः knowledge (of the Self)? अयुक्तस्य of the unsteady? न not? च and? अयुक्तस्य of the unsteady? भावना meditation? न not? च and? अभावयतः of the unmeditated? शान्तिः peace? अशान्तस्य of the peaceless? कुतः whence? सुखम् happiness.Commentary The man who cannot fix his mind in meditation cannot have knowledge of the Self. The unsteady man cannot practise meditation. He cannot have even intense devotion to Selfknowledge nor can he have burning longing for liberation or Moksha. He who does not practise meditation cannot possess peace of mind. How can the man who has no peace of mind enjoy happinessDesire or Trishna (thirsting for senseobjects) is the enemy of peace. There cannot be an iota or tinge of happiness for a man who is thirsting for sensual objects. The mind will be ever restless? and will be hankering for the objects. Only when this thirsting dies? does man enjoy peace. Only then can he meditate and rest in the Self.

Ayuktasya, for the unsteady, for one who does not have a concentrated mind; na asti, there is no, i.e. there does not arise; buddhih, wisdom, with regard to the nature of the Self; ca, and; there is no bhavana, meditation, earnest longing [Longing to have a continuous remembrance of the knowledge of Brahman which arises in the mind from hearing the great Upanisadic sayings (maha-vakyas).] for the knowledge of the Self; ayuktasya, for an unsteady man. And similarly, abhavayatah, for an unmeditative man, who does not ardently desire the knowledge of the Self; there is no santih, peace, restraint of the senses. Kutah, how can there be; sukham, happiness; asantasya, for one without peace? That indeed is happiness which consists in the freedom of the senses from the thirst for enjoyment of objects; not the thirst for objects that is misery to be sure.
The implication is that, so long as thirst persists, there is no possibility of even an iota of happiness!
It is being stated why a man without concentration does not possess wisdom:

In him who does not focus his mind on Me but is engaged only in the control of senses by his own exertion, the Buddhi or the right disposition that is concerned with the pure self never arises. Therefore he fails in the practice of meditation on the self. In one who cannot think of the pure self, there arises the desire for sense objects; in him serenity does not arise. How can eternal and unsurpassed bliss be generated in him who is not serene but is attached to sense-objects? [The idea is that without the aid of devotion to God, the effort to control the senses by one's will power alone will end in failure.]
Sri Krsna speaks again of the calamity that befalls one who does not practise the control of the senses in the way prescribed above: