Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 2 - Shloka (Verse) 69

व्याख्या-- 'या निशा सर्वभूतानाम्'--जिनकी इन्द्रियाँ और मन वशमें नहीं हैं, जो भोगोंमें आसक्त है, वे सब परमात्मतत्त्वकी तरफसे सोये हुए हैं। परमात्मा क्या है? तत्त्वज्ञान क्या है? हम दुःख क्यों पा रहे हैं? सन्तापजलन क्यों हो रही है? हम जो कुछ कर रहे हैं? उसका परिणाम क्या होगा?--इस तरफ बिलकुल न देखना ही उनकी रात है, उनके लिये बिलकुल अँधेरा है।
यहाँ 'भूतानाम्' कहनेका तात्पर्य है कि जैसे पशु-पक्षी आदि दिनभर खाने-पीनेमें लगे रहते हैं, ऐसे ही जो मनुष्य रातदिन खाने-पीनेमें, सुख-आराममें, भोगों और संग्रहमें, धन कमानेमें ही लगे हुए हैं, उन मनुष्योंकी गणना भी पशु-पक्षी आदिमें ही है। कारण कि परमात्मतत्त्वसे विमुख रहनेमें पशुपक्षी आदिमें और मनुष्योंमें कोई अन्तर नहीं है। दोनों ही परमात्मतत्त्वकी तरफसे सोये हुए हैं। हाँ, अगर कोई अन्तर है तो वह इतना ही है कि पशु-पक्षी आदिमें विवेक-शक्ति जाग्रत् नहीं है इसिलिये वे खानेपीने आदिमें ही लगे रहते हैं; और मनुष्योंमें भगवान्की कृपासे वह विवेक-शक्ति जाग्रत है, जिससे वह अपना कल्याण कर सकता है, प्राणिमात्रकी सेवा कर सकता है, परमात्माकी प्राप्ति कर सकता है। परन्तु उस विवेक-शक्तिका दुरूपयोग करके मनुष्य पदार्थोंका संग्रह करनेमें एवं उनका भोग करनेमें लग जाते हैं, जिससे वे संसारके लिये पशुओंसे भी अधिक दुःखदायी हो जाते हैं। कारण कि पशु-पक्षी तो बेचारे जितनेसे पेट भर जाय, उतना ही खाते हैं, संग्रह नहीं करते; परन्तु मनुष्यको कहीं भी जो कुछ पदार्थ आदि मिल जाता है, वह उसके काममें आये चाहे न आये, उसका तो वह संग्रह कर ही लेता है और दूसरोंके काममें आनेमें बाधा डाल देता है।
'तस्यां जागर्ति संयमी'-- मनुष्योंकी जो रात है अर्थात् परमात्माकी तरफसे, अपने कल्याणकी तरफसे जो विमुखता है, उसमें संयमी मनुष्य जागता है। जिसने इन्द्रियों और मनको वशमें किया है, जो भोग और संग्रहमें आसक्त नहीं है, जिसका ध्येय केवल परमात्मा है, वह संयमी मनुष्य है। परमात्मतत्त्वको, अपने स्वरूपको, संसारको यथार्थ-रूपसे जानना ही उसका रातमें जागना है।
'यस्यां जाग्रति भूतानि'-- जो भोग और संग्रहमें बड़े सावधान रहते हैं, एक-एक पैसेका हिसाब रखते हैं, जमीनके एक-एक इंचका खयाल रखते है; जितने रूपये अधिकारमें आ जायँ वे चाहे न्यायपूर्वक हों अथवा अन्यायपूर्वक, उसमें वे बड़े खुश होते हैं कि इतनी पूँजी तो हमने ले ही ली है, इतना लाभ तो हमें हो ही गया है--इस तरह वे सांसारिक क्षणभङ्गुर भोगोंको बटोरनेमें और आदर-सत्कार, मान-बड़ाई आदि प्राप्त करनेमें ही लगे रहते हैं, उनमें बड़े सावधान रहते हैं यही उन लोगोंका जागना है।
'सा निशा पश्यतो मुनेः'-- जिन सांसारिक पदार्थोंका भोग और संग्रह करनेमें मनुष्य अपनेको बड़ा बुद्धिमान्, चतुर मानते हैं और उसीमें राजी होते हैं, संसार और परमात्मतत्त्वको जाननेवाले मननशील संयमी मनुष्यकी दृष्टिमें वह सब रातके समान है; बिलकुल अँधेरा है।
जैसे, बच्चे खेलते हैं तो वे कंकड़-पत्थर, काँचके लाल-पीले टुकड़ोंको लेकर आपसमें लड़ते हैं। अगर वह मिल जाता है तो राजी होते हैं कि मैंने बहुत बड़ा लाभ उठा लिया और अगर वह नहीं मिलता तो दुःखी हो जाते हैं कि मेरी बड़ी भारी हानि हो गयी। परन्तु जिसके मनमें कंकड़-पत्थर आदिका महत्त्व नहीं है, ऐसा समझदार व्यक्ति समझता है कि इन कंकड़-पत्थरोंके मिलनेसे क्या लाभ हुआ और न मिलनेसे क्या हानि हुई? इन बच्चोंको अगर कंकड़-पत्थर मिल भी जायँगे, तो ये कबतक उनके साथ रहेंगे? इसी तरह भोग और संग्रहमें लगे हुए मनुष्य भोगोंके लिये लड़ाई-झगड़ा, झूठ-कपट, बेईमानी आदि करते हैं और उनको प्राप्त करके राजी होते हैं, खुशी मनाते हैं कि हमने बहुत लाभ ले लिया। परन्तु संसारको और परमात्मतत्त्वको जाननेवाला मननशील संयमी मनुष्य साफ देखता है कि भोग मिल गये, आदर-सत्कार हो गया, सुखआराम हो गया, खा-पी लिया, खूब श्रृंगार कर लिया तो क्या हो गया? इसमें मनुष्योंको क्या मिला? इनमेंसे इनके साथ क्या चलेगा? ये कबतक इन भोगोंको साथमें रखेंगे? इन भोगोंसे होनेवाली वृत्ति कितने दिनतक ठहरेगी? इस तरह उसकी दृष्टिमें प्राणियोंका जागना रातके समान है।
वह मननशील संयमी मनुष्य परमात्माको, अपने स्वरूपको और संसारके परिणामको तो जानता ही है, वह पदार्थोंको भी अच्छी तरहसे जानता है कि कौन-सा पदार्थ किसके हितमें लग सकता है, इससे दूसरोंको कितना लाभ होगा। वह पदार्थोंका अपनी-अपनी जगह ठीक तरहसे सदुपयोग करता है। उनको दूसरोंकी सेवामें लगाता है।
जैसे नेत्रोंमे दोष होनेपर जब हम आकाशको देखते हैं, तब उसमें जाले-से दीखते हैं और आँखें मीच लेनेपर भी मोर-पंखकी तरह वे जाले दीखते हैं; परन्तु उनके दीखनेपर भी हमारी बुद्धिमें यह अटल निश्चय रहता है कि आकाशमें जाले नहीं है। ऐसे ही इन्द्रियों और अन्तःकरणके द्वारा संसार दीखनेपर भी मननशील संयमी मनुष्यकी बुद्धिमें यह अटल निश्चय रहता है कि वास्तवमें संसार नहीं है, केवल प्रतीतिमात्र है।
सम्बन्ध-- मननशील संयमी मनुष्यको संसार रातकी तरह दीखता है। इसपर यह प्रश्न उठता है कि क्या वह सांसारिक पदार्थोंके सम्पर्कमें आता ही नहीं? अगर नहीं आता तो उसका जीवननिर्वाह कैसे होता है? और अगर आता है तो उसकी स्थिति कैसे रहती है इन बातोंका विवेचन करनेके लिये आगेका श्लोक कहते हैं।

यह जो लौकिक और वैदिक व्यवहार है वह सबकासब अविद्याका कार्य है अतः जिसको विवेकज्ञान प्राप्त हो गया है ऐसे स्थितप्रज्ञके लिये अविद्याकी निवृत्तिके साथहीसाथ ( यह व्यवहार भी ) निवृत्त हो जाता है और अविद्याका विद्याके साथ विरोध होनेके कारण उसकी भी निवृत्ति हो जाती है। इस अभिप्रायको स्पष्ट करते हुए कहते हैं तामस स्वभावके कारण सब पदार्थोंका अविवेक करानेवाली रात्रिका नाम निशा है। सब भूतोंकी जो निशा अर्थात् रात्रि है वह ( निशा ) क्या है ( उ0 ) परमार्थतत्त्व जो कि स्थितप्रज्ञका विषय है ( ज्ञेय है )। जैसे उल्लू आदि रजनीचरोंके लिये दूसरोंका दिन भी रात होती है वैसे ही निशाचरस्थानीय जो सम्पूर्ण अज्ञानी मनुष्य हैं जिनमें परमार्थतत्त्वविषयक बुद्धि नहीं है उन सब भूतोंके लिये अज्ञात होनेके कारण यह परमार्थतत्त्व रात्रिकी भाँति रात्रि है। उस परमार्थतत्त्वरूप रात्रिमें अज्ञाननिद्रासे जगा हुआ संयमी अर्थात् जितेन्द्रिय योगी जागता है। ग्राह्यग्राहकभेदरूप जिस अविद्यारात्रिमें सोते हुए भी सब प्राणी जागते हैं ऐसे कहा जाता है अर्थात् जिस रात्रिमें सब प्राणी सोते हुए स्वप्न देखनेवालोंके सदृश जागते हैं। वह ( सारा दृश्य ) अविद्यारूप होनेके कारण परमार्थतत्त्वको जाननेवाले मुनिके लिये रात्रि है। सुतरां ( यह सिद्ध हुआ कि ) अविद्याअवस्थामें ही ( मनुष्यके लिये ) कर्मोंका विधान किया जाता है विद्यावस्थामें नहीं क्योंकि जैसे सूर्यके उदय होनेपर रात्रिसम्बन्धी अन्धकार दूर हो जाता है उसी प्रकार ज्ञान उदय होनेपर अज्ञान नष्ट हो जाता है। ज्ञानोत्पत्तिसे पहलेपहले प्रमाणबुद्धिसे ग्रहण की हुई अविद्या ही क्रिया कारक और फल आदिके भेदोंमें परिणत होकर सब कर्म करवानेका हेतु बन सकती है अप्रमाणबुद्धिसे ग्रहण की हुई ( अविद्या ) कर्म करवानेका कारण नहीं बन सकती। क्योंकि प्रमाणस्वरूप वेदने मेरे लिये अमुक कर्तव्यकर्मोंका विधान किया है ऐसा मानकर ही कर्ता कर्ममें प्रवृत्त होता है यह सब रात्रिकी भाँति अविद्यामात्र है इस तरह समझकर नहीं होता। जिसको ऐसा ज्ञान प्राप्त हो गया है कि यह सारा दृश्य रात्रिकी भाँति अविद्यामात्र ही है उस आत्मज्ञानीका तो सर्व कर्मोंके संन्यासमें ही अधिकार है प्रवृत्तिमें नहीं। इस प्रकार तद्बुद्धयस्तदात्मानः इत्यादि श्लोकोंसे उस ज्ञानीका अधिकार ज्ञाननिष्ठामें ही दिखलायेंगे। पू0 उस ज्ञाननिष्ठामें भी ( तत्त्ववेत्ताको ) प्रवृत्त करनेवाले प्रमाणका ( विधिवाक्यका ) अभाव है इसलिये उसमें भी उसकी प्रवृत्ति नहीं हो सकती। उ0 यह कहना ठीक नहीं क्योंकि आत्मज्ञान अपने स्वरूपको विषय करनेवाला है अतः अपने स्वरूपज्ञानके विषयमें प्रवृत्त करनेवाले प्रमाणकी अपेक्षा नहीं होती। वह आत्मज्ञान स्वयं आत्मा होनेके कारण स्वतःसिद्ध है और उसीमें सब प्रमाणोंके प्रमाणत्वका अन्त है अर्थात् आत्मज्ञान होनेतक ही प्रमाणोंका प्रमाणत्व है अतः आत्मस्वरूपका साक्षात् होनेके बाद प्रमाण और प्रमेयका व्यवहार नहीं बन सकता। ( आत्मज्ञानरूप ) अन्तिम प्रमाण आत्माके प्रमातापनको भी निवृत्त कर देता है। उसको निवृत्त करता हुआ वह स्वयं भी जागनेके बाद स्वप्नकालके प्रमाणकी भाँति अप्रमाणी हो जाता है अर्थात् लुप्त हो जाता है। क्योंकि व्यवहारमें भी वस्तु प्राप्त होनेके बाद कोई प्रमाण ( उस वस्तुकी प्राप्तिके लिये ) प्रवृत्तिका हेतु होता नहीं देखा जाता। इसलिये यह सिद्ध हुआ कि आत्मज्ञानीका कर्मोंमें अधिकार नहीं है।

The knower of the Self (sthitaprajna) has the qualification for the renunciation of all actions, while the ignorant one, who is the opposite, has the qualification for actions—regarding this meaning, he introduces the immediately following verse with 'Yo'yam' etc.

"If, upon the cessation of ignorance, all actions cease, then how does the cessation of that (ignorance) itself occur?"—Anticipating this doubt, he says 'Avidyayashcha' etc. Clarifying this: There is a mutual contradiction between the outward (parak) and inward (pratyak) activity of the external and internal senses, and the vision of that nature (Self-realization); because the outward vision is the effect of ignorance which veils the beginningless Self, and the vision of the Self is the remover of that (ignorance); therefore, for the sake of Self-realization, one should restrain the senses from objects—this is the construction of what He says.

Regarding "The night of all beings"—he states the reason for this with 'Tamahsvabhavatvat' (Because of its nature as darkness). Having shown the well-known night common to all beings, he explains that very (concept) with a question appropriate to the context, using 'Kim tad' etc.

"How can the Supreme Reality, which is the subject matter of the sthitaprajna and whose sole nature is luminosity, be night with respect to ignorance?"—Anticipating this doubt, he says 'Yatha' (Just as...) etc. He states the reason there: 'Agocharatvat' (Because of not being an object of perception). For those of 'atad-buddhi'—meaning those whose intellects are engaged in the manifold world of duality which is other than the Supreme Reality—because it (Reality) is not perceived, the Supreme Reality is like night for the ignorant; this is the meaning.

He explains 'Tasyam' etc. with 'Tasyam' (In that). In the state described as night—this is the meaning; 'Yogi' means the Knower; he wakes. He divides the second half (of the verse) with 'Yasyam' etc. "Waking of those who are asleep is contradictory"—Anticipating this, he says 'Prasupta iva' (Like those asleep).

For the Renunciate (Sannyasi) who experiences the Supreme Reality and whose ignorance has ceased, the state of duality is night—here he states the reason: 'Avidyarupatvat' (Because it is of the nature of ignorance). Since it is established that the state of Supreme Reality is night for the ignorant, and the state of duality is so (night) for the wise, he states the result with 'Atah' (Therefore). The meaning is that the appearance of the distinction of action, actor, and fruit occurs only in the state of ignorance.

"Even upon the rise of knowledge (vidya), since the appearance of that (distinction) is not different (due to prarabdha), shouldn't actions be enjoined just as before?"—Anticipating this, he says 'Vidyayam' (In knowledge...). Even if the division appears due to the 'badhitanuvritti' (persistence of the sublated) upon the cessation of ignorance, there is no injunction for action (karma-vidhi) because of the absence of firm adherence (abhinivesha) to the division; this is the meaning.

"Actions are only in the state of ignorance"—he clarifies this statement with 'Prag' (Before...). Before the rise of knowledge, due to the absence of a sublater, the un-sublated ignorance—having created the distinction of action etc., and having attained acceptability by the intellect which acts as a valid means of proof—becomes the cause of action; because the false identification with the distinctions of action etc. is the cause of that (action).

"Not in the state of knowledge"—he elaborates on this with 'Na pramana' etc. And when knowledge has arisen, since ignorance has ceased, the understanding arises that "the appearance of distinctions of action etc. is not a valid proof"; grasped in this way, even though possessing the aforementioned divisions, ignorance does not attain the status of being a cause for action; because, being sublated and being a mere appearance, it is unfit to be a cause for that.

He explains the specific distinction stated by the division of knowledge and ignorance with 'Pramanabhutena' etc. "Action is enjoined by the Veda as described for me, who am possessed of desires and life etc., therefore it must be done by me"—thinking thus, the ignorant one becomes qualified for action; because the Veda, which speaks of specific means, is the motivator (pravartaka) for him. But one who thinks "All this is merely ignorance; I should not serve duality" does not engage in action—he states the exclusion with 'Na avidya' etc.

"If the wise one has no qualification for action, then where is his qualification?"—Anticipating this, he says 'Yasya' etc. He cites the remainder of the sentence (vakyashesha) as proof regarding the Self-knower's qualification for Renunciation which is the fruit.

"The injunction (vidhi) is a motivating proof; in its absence, just as in actions, so too for the wise one in the steadfastness of knowledge (jnana-nishtha), since engagement would be impossible, an injunction must be resorted to even for the one with knowledge"—he raises this doubt with 'Tatrapi' etc.

Does Self-knowledge require an injunction, or does the Self? The first is not possible. For that which has its own nature as its object—just like (standard) proof and object of proof—does not depend on an injunction for its origination; so he says 'Na svatma' etc. The second is not possible, so he says 'Na hi'. Because an injunction, termed as a motivating proof, has a thing-to-be-accomplished (sadhya) as its object, while the Self is not a thing-to-be-accomplished; he states the reason: 'Atmatvadeva' (Because of the very nature of being the Self).

"Even if the Self and its knowledge are independent of injunctions, there might be a need for an injunction for the Knower regarding 'behavior/dealing' (vyavahara) for the sake of regulation"—Anticipating this, he says 'Tadantvat cha' (And because it ends there...). The validity of all proofs has the rise of Self-knowledge as its limit/end; once that (knowledge) has arisen, empirical dealing has no scope, therefore there is no injunction for the Knower to regulate it; this is the meaning. He clarifies the same point with 'Na hi'.

"Just as in the comprehension of Dharma, why does the described behavior not occur in the comprehension of the Self?"—Anticipating this, he says 'Pramatritvam hi' (For the status of being a knower/agent...). "Upon the cessation of that (agency), how is there validity of non-dual knowledge?"—Anticipating this, he says 'Nivartayadeva' (While removing indeed...). The removing non-dual knowledge does not remain as a proof after the removal (of ignorance)—he gives an example for this with 'Svapna' etc.

He states another reason for Self-knowledge being independent of injunctions with 'Loke cha' (And in the world...). In the plane of worldly dealing, once the means of knowledge culminates in the result of determining the object, it is not seen to depend on a motivating injunction; similarly, non-dual knowledge is also possessed of proof and does not depend on an injunction, just like the knowledge of a rope etc.; this is the meaning.

For the one possessing Self-knowledge, it is established by the very greatness of knowledge without an injunction for steadfastness in it; therefore, his qualification is in the Renunciation of action, not in action—he concludes this with 'Tasmad' (Therefore).

Thus by the description of the characteristics of the Sthitaprajna, it is stated that restraint of the senses along with the mind must be done with great effort by seekers of liberation for the sake of the state of Sthitaprajna. But for the Sthitaprajna in whom discriminative knowledge has arisen, the restraint of senses along with the mind is indeed self-established. Desiring to state that 'Due to the cessation of all behavior along with its root by knowledge which opposes ignorance,' and indicating that 'Actions are ordained only in the state of ignorance, not in the state of knowledge,' He says 'Ya'. 'Ya'—which is like night, 'Nisha'—night—characterized by the Supreme Reality—for 'Sarvabhutanam'—for all beings standing in the place of owls; 'Tasyam'—in that—the 'Samyami'—Sthitaprajna, Jnana-yogi—awakened from the sleep of ignorance, 'Jagarti'—keeps awake. 'Yasyam'—in which ignorance characterized by the grasper and the grasped—'Bhutani'—beings—'Jagrati'—are awake; 'Sa'—that—is like night, 'Nisha'—night—for the 'Pashyatah Muneh'—seeing sage; this is the meaning.

Consolidating the stated characteristics, He speaks with "Ya nisha," etc. That which is the "night of all beings"—is characterized by the nature of the Supreme Lord (Parameshwara). In that (state), where they are like sleepers knowing nothing, the Jnani (Knower) who is indriyasamyukta (united with disciplined senses/self-controlled) wakes; the meaning is that he sees the Supreme Self directly (aparokshyena) and perfectly.

In that state characterized by sense-objects where beings are awake, he is like one asleep in the night and generally does not know (pay attention). His activity of moving, etc., is like that of an intoxicated person. This has been stated in the two verses "Deham..." and "Dehopi..." (Bhagavatam 3.28.37 and 11.13.37).

"Muni" is one united with reflection (manana). He states the means for "pashyatah" (the seeing one).

Of the cited Sruti 'When the five stand still,' he explains the fourth quarter 'That they call the supreme goal' with 'Ya nisha'. 'Ya'—which is like night, 'Nisha'—night—'Sarvesham bhutanam'—of all ignorant beings; in which, like owls at midday, all living beings, though not blind, become blind indeed; 'Tasyam'—in that—in that inner light—'Samyami'—the Yogi habituated to restraining the senses, mind, and intellect—'Jagarti'—wakes; even when the seeing power of senses etc. is lost, he remains with the power of seeing uninterrupted. And thus the Sruti: 'For there is no loss of the sight of the seer, due to imperishability.' 'Yasyam'—in the night called ignorance, the promoter of the dream of duality of action, agent, etc.—'Sarvani bhutani'—all beings—'Jagrati'—wake; like owls at midnight, they engage in their respective activities; 'Sa'—that ignorance—'Pashyatah Muneh'—of the sage possessing Self-vision, the Yogi; due to the obstruction of bodiless isolation (Videha Kaivalya) by Prarabdha karma, following a little trace; at the time of emergence (from Samadhi), practically/behaviorally, becomes like a 'Nisha'—night possessing thick darkness—causing distress for him. For extremely tender Yogis are agitated by external behavior, like men by moving in thick darkness. As stated in the Yoga Bhashya: 'For the wise one is like the eyeball; he is agitated even by a very small trace of pain.' Here the Vartikas: 'For in the behavior of factors (Karaka), the pure Reality is not seen. And when the pure Reality is established, the operation of factors is likewise (not seen). This Samsara is like the night of the crow and the owl for the ignorant and the knower of Self. 'Ya nisha sarvabhutanam'—thus spoke Hari Himself.' And: 'For one who has realized the Truth, this world is like inert, mad, or goblin. And the one who has realized the Truth is like inert, mad, or goblin for the world.' Thus indeed, the answer to 'How does he sit' is stated by the text beginning with 'Yada samharate cayam' and ending with this, that 'The Sthitaprajna, constantly practicing Samadhi, having attained the supreme goal, sits.'

'Ya'—the intellect regarding the Self—is 'Nisha'—night—for 'Sarvabhutanam'—all beings; meaning non-illuminating like night. 'Tasyam'—in that intellect regarding the Self—the 'Indriya-samyami'—one who has controlled the senses, of tranquil mind—'Jagarti'—wakes; meaning he remains seeing the Self. 'Yasyam'—in which intellect regarding objects like sound etc.—'Sarvani bhutani'—all beings—'Jagrati'—wake, become awakened; 'Sa'—that intellect regarding objects like sound etc.—is 'Nisha'—night—meaning non-illuminating like night—for the 'Pashyatah Muneh'—sage seeing the Self.

Objection: And indeed, no one who is devoid of activities like seeing etc. like a sleeping person, with senses restrained in all ways, is seen in the world; therefore this characteristic is impossible—raising this doubt, He says 'Ya nisha'. 'Of all beings'—'what is night'—night like night—is establishment in the Self; because for those whose minds are covered by the darkness of ignorance of the Self, there is absence of behavior like seeing etc. in that; in that establishment in the Self, the 'restrained one'—one with controlled senses—'wakes'—is awake. But 'in which'—with the intellect on objects—'beings wake'—are awake; 'that' is night for the sage seeing the truth of the Self. Meaning: in that, the activity of seeing etc. does not exist for him. This is what is said: Just as for day-blind owls etc., seeing is only at night, not in the day; similarly for the knower of Brahman, even with eyes open, the vision is in Brahman alone, not in objects. Therefore this characteristic is not impossible.

ज्ञानी और अज्ञानी की दृष्टियों के बीच के भेद को स्पष्ट करना इस श्लोक का प्रयोजन है। शरीर और मन की उपाधियों के माध्यम से अनुभूत जगत् अध्यात्म के खुले वातायन से देखे गये हृदय से भिन्न होता है। यहाँ रूपक की भाषा में सिद्धांत को इतने पूर्ण रूप से कहा गया है कि अनेक शुष्क तर्क करने वाले लोग उसमें निहित काव्य के सौन्दर्य को देख नहीं पाते। काव्य और ज्ञान का समन्वय करना आर्य लोगों की विशेषता है और जब दार्शनिक कवि व्यास जी पूर्णत्व के आनन्द को व्यक्त करने के लिये अपनी लेखनी और भोजपत्र उठाते थे तब वे गीता में कविता से श्रेष्ठ अन्य कोई माध्यम प्रयुक्त नहीं कर सकते थे।अज्ञानी पुरुष जगत् को यथार्थ रूप में कभी नहीं देखता वह जगत् को अपने मन के रंग में रंगकर देखता है और फिर बाह्य वस्तुओं को ही दोषयुक्त समझता है। रंगीन चश्मे द्वारा जगत् को देखने पर वह रंगीन ही दिखाई देगा किन्तु जब कांच को हटा देते हैं तब वह जगत् जैसा है वैसा ही प्रतीत होता है।आज जब हम शरीर मन और बुद्धि के माध्यम से जगत् को देखते हैं तब वह स्वाभाविक ही परिच्छिन्न और दोषयुक्त अनुभव होता है किन्तु यह सब दोष उपाधियों का ही है। स्थितप्रज्ञ पुरुष अपनी ज्ञान की दृष्टि से जब देखता है तब उसे पूर्णत्व और आनन्द का ही अनुभव होता है।जब एक विद्युत अभियन्ता (इंजीनियर) किसी महानगर में पहुँचता है जहाँ संध्या के समय से ही सभी दिशाओं में विद्युत का प्रकाश जगमगाता है तब वह प्रश्न करता है कि यह ए.सी. है या डी. सी. जबकि उसी दृश्य को एक अनपढ़ ग्रामीण व्यक्ति आश्चर्य चकित होकर देखते हुए चिल्ला उठता है कि बिना तेल और बत्ती के प्रकाश को मैं देख रहा हूँ उस ग्रामीण की दृष्टि से वहां न विद्युत है और न ए. सी. डी. सी. की समस्या उस अभियन्ता की दृष्टि ग्रामीण को अज्ञात है और वह अभियन्ता भी उस ग्रामीण के आश्चर्य को समझ नहीं पाता।इस श्लोक में यह बताया गया है कि अज्ञानी र्मत्य जीव आत्मस्वरूप के प्रति सोया हुआ है जिसके प्रति ज्ञानी पुरुष पूर्णरूप से जागरूक है। जिन सांसारिक विषयों के प्रति अज्ञानी लोग सजग होकर व्यवहार करते हैं और दुख भोगते हैं स्थितप्रज्ञ पुरुष उसे रात्रि अर्थात् अज्ञान की अवस्था ही समझते हैं।जिसने समस्त कामनाओं का त्याग किया वही ज्ञानी भक्त मोक्ष प्राप्त करता है और कामी पुरुष कभी नहीं। इसे एक दृष्टान्त द्वारा भगवान् समझाते हैं

(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 experiencing objects; he alone is the sthitaprajna (one of steady wisdom) Yogi.

"This verse 'Ya nisha' is for the purpose of propounding the renunciation of all actions by the Knower"—so says someone. With the intention that letters (words) propounding that are not heard therein, and due to contradiction with valid proofs, he states the subject matter of that (verse) with "uktalaksanam" (stated characteristics) etc.—stated in a dispersed manner in the four verses (previously).

Objection: "Nothing 'stated' (summarized) appears here?" To this he says "Ya" etc. He explains the similarity of the nature of the Supreme Lord to night with "yasyam" etc. This similarity is stated not intending object-hood or location-hood, but intending only 'causality' (karakatva).

Regarding 'Samyami'—the literal meaning is related to 'indriya' (senses), but the meaning obtained from the context is 'Jnani' (Knower). He states the meaning of the second half with "yasyam" etc. Here too, the similarity is as before.

"If he sees nothing (of objects), how then does his activity of moving etc. occur?" To this he says "mattadivat" (like an intoxicated person). "From where is this derived?" To this he says "taduktam" (it is stated) etc.

Since the word "Muni" is used, the interpretation that knowledge belongs only to the one in the fourth stage of life (Sannyasa) is incorrect—with this idea, he says "mananayukta" (united with reflection). The idea is that knowledge is heard of even in non-ascetics (ayatis) like Yajnavalkya and others.

"Since manana (reflection) has ceased previously (upon realization), how can it be 'of the seeing Muni'?" To this he says "pashyatah" etc. Manana is stated here as a means to vision, not as simultaneous with it; this is the meaning. And this is stated here contextually because the status of manana etc. as a means to clear vision was not stated before.

Objection: "It was stated earlier that this verse is an answer to 'How does the man of steady wisdom speak?' (2.54); so how is it now explained as pertaining to characteristics?" (Answer:) We say: with the intention that that (characteristic) is obtained even from what is devoted to another purpose. Otherwise, regarding "He speaks the answer to 'How does he speak' etc.", one would have looked right there (at the earlier verses); what is the use of indicating the place (context)?

So thus, it has been said that restraint of senses must be done with effort by the seeker of liberation for the stability of wisdom; but for the Sthitaprajna, restraint of all senses is indeed self-established; He says. 'Ya'—the wisdom 'I am Brahman' of the nature of realization generated by Vedanta sentences; is 'Nisha iva nisha'—night like night—of 'Sarvabhutanam'—of the ignorant; due to being of the nature of non-illumination towards that; 'Tasyam'—in that night of all beings characterized by Brahma-vidya—he 'wakes'—being awakened from the sleep of ignorance, remains alert. 'Samyami'—one possessing sense-restraint—the Sthitaprajna; this is the meaning. But 'Yasyam'—in the sleep of ignorance characterized by the vision of duality, in which beings, being asleep indeed, 'Jagrati'—wake, behave like in a dream; 'Sa'—that night—does not shine—for the 'Muni'—the Sthitaprajna—seeing the reality of the Self directly. For as long as one does not wake up, only so long is the dream-vision, because delusion lasts until waking. But at the time of knowledge of Truth, there is no behavior caused by delusion. That is said by the Vartikakaras: 'For in the behavior of factors, the pure Reality is not seen. And when the pure Reality is established, the operation of factors is likewise (not seen). This Samsara is like the night of the crow and the owl for the ignorant and the knower of Self. 'Ya nisha sarvabhutanam'—thus spoke Hari Himself.' And thus, for whom there is inverted vision, for him there is no vision of Reality; because inverted vision is born of non-vision of Reality. And for whom there is vision of Reality, for him there is no inverted vision; because the non-vision of Reality, which is the cause of inverted vision, is sublated by the vision of Reality. And thus the Sruti—'Where there is something else as it were, there one sees another. But where everything has become the Self for him, then by what and whom would he see?'—thus states the arrangement of Knowledge and Ignorance. Just as for the crow blind at night, (it is) day; for the owl blind at day, (it is) night; and for the owl seeing at night, what is day is indeed night for the crow—this is a great wonder. Therefore, for the seer of Truth, how can there be behavior of action, agent, etc. born of ignorance? Thus, restraint of senses is indeed self-established for him; this is the meaning.

"Objection: What is the characteristic of one performing such sense-restraint?" In this expectation, He says "Ya nisha". "Ya nisha" of all beings—like sleep at night, regarding objective happinesses, "Ya nisha"—the attainment of happiness of all. "Nitaram sham"—excessive happiness is in which—thus "Nisha". "Tasyam"—in that—the "Samyami"—doer of sense-restraint—"wakes"—does not attain happiness; this is the meaning. "Yasyam"—in which "Nisha" beings "wake"—do not attain happiness; "Sa"—is "Nisha"—attainment of happiness—for the contemplative one seeing the happiness of the Lord. Because that happiness is not fit to be described, the adjective "Muneh" is stated.

Ya nisha—night; causing non-discrimination of all objects due to its nature of darkness; 'Sarvabhutanam'—of all beings. What is that? The Supreme Reality, the object of the Sthitaprajna. Just as for nocturnal beings, the day itself is existent (as darkness) and becomes night for others; similarly for all ignorant beings who stand in the place of nocturnal beings, the Supreme Reality is 'Nisha iva'—like night, a night—because it is not an object of perception for those whose intellect is not on That. 'Tasyam'—in that sleep of ignorance characterized by the Supreme Reality, the awakened 'Samyami'—one possessed of self-control, the Yogi who has conquered the senses—'Jagarti' (wakes); this is the meaning. 'Yasyam'—in the night of ignorance characterized by the distinction of grasper and grasped, beings being asleep indeed are said to 'Jagrati' (wake)—in which night they are like sleepers seeing dreams; 'Sa nisha'—that is night—because of being of the nature of ignorance—for the 'Muni' seeing the Supreme Reality. Therefore, actions are enjoined only in the state of ignorance, not in the state of knowledge. For when Knowledge exists, Ignorance goes to destruction like the darkness of night when the sun has risen. Before the rise of Knowledge, Ignorance, being grasped by the intellect as a valid means (Pramana), existing as the difference of action, agent, and fruit, attains the status of the cause of all action. For the causality of action is not reasonable for what is grasped by the intellect as invalid; for the doer engages in action thinking 'Action is enjoined on me by the Veda which is authoritative and is to be done,' not thinking 'All this is mere ignorance like night.' But for whom there is the knowledge 'All this aggregate of difference is mere ignorance like night,' for that knower of the Self, qualification is in the renunciation of all actions alone, not in activity. And so He will show with 'Tadbuddhayah' (5.17) etc. that his qualification is in steadfastness in knowledge alone. 'Objection: Even there, in the absence of an impeller Pramana, activity (towards the Self) is unreasonable?' If you say this, no; because Self-knowledge has one's own Self as its object. For the Self does not depend on an impeller Pramana regarding its own Self, because of being the Self indeed. And because the validity of all Pramanas ends there. For when the nature of the Self is attained, the behavior of Pramana (means of knowledge) and Prameya (object of knowledge) is no longer possible. For the final Pramana removes the knowership of the Self; and while removing it, it itself becomes non-Pramana, like the Pramana of dream-time in waking. And in the world, once the object is attained, Pramana is not seen to be the cause of activity. Therefore, it is established that the knower of the Self has no qualification in action. Intending to explain by an example the meaning that attainment of liberation is only for the wise Sthitaprajna ascetic who has abandoned desires, not for the non-renunciate desirer of objects, He says—

He states the characteristic of that very person (the self-controlled one) by way of distinction from others with "Ya nisha," etc.

The intellect regarding the Self which is like night—non-illuminating—for worldly people who are like sleepers; which is unfit for the transaction (vyavahara) of seeing the Self for those whose minds are obscured by the darkness of ignorance; in that (night), the samyami (self-controlled one) wakes.

And in that (state) which concerns objects like sound etc. (where others wake, he sleeps).

Thus, the Sage (Muni) possessing distinct characteristics has been shown.

या which? निशा night? सर्वभूतानाम् of all beings? तस्याम् in that? जागर्ति wakes? संयमी the selfcontrolled? यस्याम् in which? जाग्रति wake? भूतानि all beings? सा that? निशा night? पश्यतः (of the) seeing? मुनेः of the Muni.Commentary That which is real for the wordlyminded people is illusion for the sage? and vice versa. The sage lives in the Self. This is day for him. He is unconscious of the wordly phenomena. They are night for him? as it were. The ordinary man is unconscious of his real nature. Life in the spirit is night for him. He is experiencing the objects of sensual enjoyment. This is day for him. The Self is a nonentity for him For a sage this world is a nonentity.The wordlyminded people are in utter darkness as they have no knowledge of the Self. What is darkness for them is all light for the sage. The Self? Atman or Brahman is night for the worldlyminded persons. But the sage is fully awake. He is directly cognising the supreme Reality? the Light of lights. He is full of illumination and AtmaJnana or knowledge of the Self.

ya, that which; sarva-bhutanam, for all creatures; is nisa, night which being darkness (tamah) by nature, obliterates distinctions among all things; what is that? that is the Reality which is the supreme Goal, accessible to the man of steady wisdom. As that which verily appears as day to the nocturnal creatures is night for others, similarly the Reality wich is the supreme Goal appears to be night, as it were, to all unenlightened beings who are comparable to the nocturnal creatures, because It is beyond the range of vision of those who are devoid of that wisdom.
Samyami, the self-restrained man, whose organs are under control, i.e. the yogi [The man of realization.] who has arisen from the sleep of ignorance; jagarti, keeps awake; tasyam, in that (night) characterized as the Reality, the supreme Goal. That night of ignorance, characterized by the distinctions of subjects and objects, yasyam in which; bhutani, the creatures, who are really asleep; are said to be jagrati, keeping awake, in which night they are like dreamers in sleep; sa nisa, it is night; pasyatah, to the seeing; muneh, sage, who perceives the Reality that is the supreme Goal, because that (night) is ignorance by nature.
Therefore, rites and duties are enjoined only during the state of ignorance, not in the state of enlightenment. For, when Knowledge dawns, ignorance becomes eradicated like the darkness of night after sun-rise. [It may be argued that even after illumination the phenomenal world, though it is known to be false, will continue to be perceived because of the persistence of past impressions; therefore there is scope for the validity of the scriptural injunctions even in the case of an illumined soul. The answer is that there will be no scope for the injunctions, because the man of realization will then have no ardent leaning towards this differentiated phenomenal world which makes an injunction relevant.] Before the rise of Knowledge, ignorance, accepted as a valid means of knowledge and presenting itself in the different forms of actions, means and results, becomes the cause of all rites and duties. It cannot reasonably become the source of rites and duties (after Realization) when it is understood as an invalid means of knowledge. For an agent becomes engaged in actions when he has the idea, 'Actions have been enjoined as a duty for me by the Vedas, which are a valid means of knowledge'; but not when he understands that 'all this is mere ignorance, like the night'.
Again, the man to whom has come the Knowledge that all these differences in their totality are mere ignorance like the night, to that man who has realized the Self, there is eligibility only for renouncing all actions, not for engaging in actions. In accordance with this the Lord will show in the verse, 'Those who have their intellect absorbed in That, whose Self is That' (5.17) etc., that he has competence only for steadfastness in Knowledge.
Objection: May it not be argued that, there will be no reason for being engaged even in that (steadfastness in Knowledge) if there be no valid means of knowledge [Vedic injunctions.] to impel one to that. [Because, without an injunction nobody would engage in a duty, much less in steadfastness to Knowledge.]
Answer: No, since 'knowledge of the Self' relates to one's own Self. Indeed, by the very fact that It is the Self, and since the validity of all the means of knowledge culminates in It, [The validity of all the means of knowledge holds good only so long as the knowledge of the Self has not arisen.] therefore the Self does not depend on an injunction to impel It towards Itself. [Does the injunction relate to the knowledge of the Self. or to the Self Itself? The first alternative is untenable because a valid means of knowledge reveals its objects even without an injunction. The second alternative also is untenable because the Self is self-revealing, whereas an injunction is possible in the case of something yet to be achieved. And one's own Self is not an object of that kind.] Surely, after the realization of the true nature of the Self, there is no scope again for any means to, or end of, knowledge. The last valid means of (Self-) knowledge eradicates the possibility of the Self's becoming a perceiver. And even as it eradicates, it loses its own authoritativeness, in the same way as the means of knowledge which is valid in dream becomes unauthoritative during the waking state. In the world, too, after the preception of an abject, the valid means of that perception is not seen to be a cause impelling the knower (to any action with regard to that object).
Hence, it is established that, for an knower of the Self, there remains no eligibility for rites and duties.
The attainment of Liberation is only for the sannyasin [Liberation is attained only by one who, after aciring an intellectual knowledge of the Self in a general way, is endowed with discrimination and detachment, has arisen above all desires, has become a monk in the primary sense, and has directly realized the Self by going through the process of sravana (understanding of Upanisadic texts about the Self), etc.], the man of enlightenment, who has renounced all desires and is a man of steady wisdom; but not for him who has not renounced and is desirious of the objects (of the senses). Such being the case, with a view to establishing this with the help of an illustration, the Lord says:

That Buddhi (understanding) which has the self for its object, is night to all beings, i.e., is obscure like night to all. But he, who has subdued the senses and is serene, is awake in respect of the self. The meaning is that he has the vision of the self. All beings are awake, i.e., are actively cognisant in respect of objects of the senses like sound. But such sense objects are like things enshrouded by night to the sage who is awake to the self.