Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 2 - Shloka (Verse) 70

व्याख्या-- 'आपूर्यमाणमचलप्रतिष्ठं समुद्रमापः प्रविशन्ति यद्वत्'-- वर्षाकालमें नदियों और नदोंका जल बहुत बढ़ जाता है, कई नदियोंमें बाढ़ आ जाती है; परन्तु जब वह जल चारों ओरसे जलद्वारा परिपूर्ण समुद्रमें आकर मिलता है, तब समुद्र बढ़ता नहीं, अपनी मर्यादामें ही रहता है। परन्तु जब गरमीके दिनोंमें नदियों और नदोंका जल जब बहुत कम हो जाता है, तब समुद्र घटता नहीं। तात्पर्य है कि नदी-नदोंका जल ज्यादा आनेसे अथवा कम आनेसे या न आनेसे तथा बड़वानल (जलमें पैदा होनेवाली अग्नि) और सूर्यके द्वारा जलका शोषण होनेसे समुद्रमें कोई फरक नहीं पड़ता, वह बढ़ता-घटता नहीं। उसको नदी-नदोंके जलकी अपेक्षा नहीं रहती। वह तो सदा-सर्वदा ज्यों-का-त्यों ही परिपूर्ण रहता है और अपनी मर्यादाका कभी त्याग नहीं करता।
'तद्वत्कामा (टिप्पणी प0 106) यं प्रविशन्ति सर्वे स शान्तिमाप्नोति'-- ऐसे ही संसारके सम्पूर्ण भोग उस परमात्मतत्त्वको जाननेवाले संयमी मनुष्यको प्राप्त होते हैं, उसके सामने आते हैं, पर वे उसके कहे जानेवाले शरीर और अन्तःकरणमें सुख-दुःखरूप विकार पैदा नहीं कर सकते। अतः वह परमशान्तिको प्राप्त होता है। उसकी जो शान्ति है, वह परमात्मतत्त्वके कारणसे है, भोग-पदार्थोंके कारणसे नहीं (गीता 2। 46)।
यहाँ जो समुद्र और नदियोंके जलका दृष्टान्त दिया गया है, वह स्थितप्रज्ञ संयमी मनुष्यके विषयमें पूरा नहीं घटता है। कारण कि समुद्र और नदियोंके जलमें तो सजातीयता है अर्थात् जो जल समुद्रमें भरा हुआ है उसी जातिका जल नद-नदियोंसे आता है; और नद-नदियोंसे जो जल आता है, उसी जातिका जल समुद्रमें भरा हुआ है। परन्तु स्थितप्रज्ञ और सांसारिक भोग-पदार्थोंमें इतना फरक है कि इसको समझानेके लिये रात-दिन आकाश-पातालका दृष्टान्त भी नहीं बैठ सकता! कारण कि स्थितप्रज्ञ मनुष्य जिस तत्त्वमें स्थित है, वह तत्त्व चेतन है, नित्य है, सत्य है, असीम है, अनन्त है और सांसारिक भोग-पदार्थ जड हैं, अनित्य हैं, असत् हैं, सीमित हैं, अन्तवाले हैं।,
दूसरा अन्तर यह है कि समुद्रमें तो नदियोंका जल पहुँचता है, पर स्थितप्रज्ञ जिस तत्त्वमें स्थित है, वहाँ ये सांसारिक भोग-पदार्थ पहुँचते ही नहीं, प्रत्युत केवल उसके कहे जानेवाले शरीर अन्तःकरणतक ही पहुँचते हैं।
अतः समुद्रका दृष्टान्त केवल उसके कहे जानेवाले शरीर और अन्तःकरणकी स्थितिको बतानेके लिये ही दिया गया है। उसके वास्तविक स्वरूपको बतानेवाला कोई दृष्टान्त नहीं है।
'न कामकामी'-- जिनके मनमें भोग-पदार्थोंकी कामना है, जो पदार्थोंको ही महत्त्व देते हैं, जिनकी दृष्टि पदार्थोंकी तरफ ही है, उनको कितने ही सांसारिक भोगपदार्थ मिल जायँ, तो भी उनकी तृप्ति नहीं हो सकती; उनकी कामना, जलन, सन्ताप नहीं मिट सकते; तो फिर उनको शान्ति कैसे मिल सकती है? कारण कि चेतन स्वरूपकी तृप्ति जड पदार्थोंसे हो ही नहीं सकती।
सम्बन्ध-- अब आगेके श्लोकमें 'स्थितप्रज्ञ कैसे चलता है?' इस प्रश्नके उत्तरका उपसंहार करते हैं।

जिसने तीनों एषणाओंका त्याग कर दिया है ऐसे स्थितप्रज्ञ विद्वान् संन्यासीको ही मोक्ष मिलता है भोगोंकी कामना करनेवाले असंन्यासीको नहीं। इस अभिप्रायको दृष्टान्तद्वारा प्रतिपादन करनेकी इच्छा करते हुए भगवान् कहते हैं जिस प्रकार जलसे परिपूर्ण अचल प्रतिष्ठावाले समुद्रमें अर्थात् अचल भावसे जिसकी प्रतिष्ठा स्थिति है ऐसे अपनी मर्यादामें स्थित समुद्रमें सब ओरसे गये हुए जल उसमें किसी प्रकारका विकार उत्पन्न किये बिना ही समा जाते हैं। उसीप्रकार विषयोंका सङ्ग होनेपर भी जिस पुरुषमें समस्त इच्छाएँ समुद्रमें जलकी भाँति कोई भी विकार उत्पन्न न करती हुई सब ओरसे प्रवेश कर जाती हैं अर्थात् जिसकी समस्त कामनाएँ आत्मामें लीन हो जाती हैं उसको अपने वशमें नहीं कर सकतीं उस पुरुषको शान्ति मोक्ष मिलता है दूसरेको अर्थात् भोगोंकी कामना करनेवालेको नहीं मिलता। अभिप्राय यह कि जिनको पानेके लिये इच्छा की जाती है उन भोगोंका नाम काम है उनको पानेकी इच्छा करना जिसका स्वभाव है वह कामकामी है वह उस शान्तिको कभी नहीं पाता।

"Objection: Since the fruit of knowledge, Moksha, can be obtained even by a non-Sannyasin possessing knowledge, why is Sannyasa prescribed as a rule for the Knower?"—To this, He says 'Vidushah' (Of the Knower) etc.

Moksha belongs to the principal Sannyasin who possesses preliminary knowledge, is distinguished by discrimination and dispassion, has risen above all desires (eshanas), and has attained direct realization through hearing (shravana) etc., and not to another who is overpowered by the thirst for objects; wishing to propound this through an example, He reiterates the very meaning stated in the verse 'Ragadveshaviyuktaistu' (2.64)—this is the construction.

Anticipating the doubt that if the ocean is being filled from all sides by waters, its state would be subject to increase and decrease, He says 'Achala' (Immovable) etc.

Indeed, the specific watery nature of the ocean never increases or decreases; thereby its state remains uniform—this is the meaning.

Anticipating the doubt that if various river-waters enter into the ocean, then due to having modification, it would be unstable, He says 'Svatmastham' (Established in itself).

Anticipating the doubt that while specific desires entering a changeless Knower in the absence of objects might not cause change, yet entering him in their presence they might produce modification, He says 'Vishaya' (Objects) etc.

He clarifies the entry with 'Sarvatah' (From all sides).

According to the Shruti "He who is without desire...", He states that Moksha belongs to the desireless one who is averse to objects, and not to the kamakamuka (desirer of desires), with "Sa shantim" (He attains peace).

Attainment of Moksha belongs only to such a person, not to the desirous one—He states this with an analogy in 'Apuryamanam' etc. Being filled by waters, yet 'achalapratishtham'—meaning not transgressing its boundaries. [Or the alternative meaning:] That in which 'achalas'—meaning mountains like Mainaka—have their 'pratishtha' (foundation/abode). The meaning that "by this an excess of depth is stated" has not been adopted by the Commentators (like Shankara). Because 'not transgressing boundaries' is what is intended here. Also, because there is no basis for applying the word 'achala' (immovable) to the ocean regarding Mainaka and others which, having wings (sapaksha), hid in the ocean out of fear of Indra's thunderbolt.

Just as waters—some with thorns, some with flowers—enter the ocean from all sides, and it remains established in itself and unchanged; similarly, he into whom—into the sthitaprajna whose stability is immovable (achala), or whose establishment is in the immovable Brahman—'sarve kamah' (all desires), meaning objects desired by people, enter; they all dissolve into the Self alone; they do not bring him under their control; 'sah' (he) attains 'shanti' (peace)—named Liberation. The 'kamakami'—he whose nature is to desire 'kaman' (objects)—does not attain it; this is the meaning.

As for what others explain—"By the text beginning with 'Prajahati', which is intent on stating the abandonment of desires and sense-control, the 'separateness' of desires etc. has been stated, therefore Non-duality is not established"—anticipating this doubt, He refutes it with an analogy... [The view they hold is:] "Just as waters enter the ocean... so too the person into whom desires enter... born of the Self...

The idea is: the previous text does not propound the separate existence of desires, but assuming the separate existence known to common people, abandonment etc. is spoken of"—such an explanation is to be disregarded. Because it contradicts the context; and because for the qualified aspirant for Moksha—referred to by the relative pronoun 'yam' (whom), a word ('yat') frequently repeated before and after—(the concept of) abandonment (of desires entering him) is inapplicable; and because it contradicts the concluding sentence "He attains peace, not the desirer of desires." This is the direction.

By that, He describes the manner of experiencing objects with 'Apuryamanam' etc.

He who, even while being filled by objects, remains 'achalapratishtha' (immovably established)—does not attain 'utseka' (elation/overflowing), nor makes effort (to obtain them), nor dries up (becomes depressed) in their absence.

For indeed, the ocean does not attain great increase or dryness caused by the entry or non-entry of rivers, nor does it make effort.

He (such a person) attains liberation; this is the meaning.

Objection: "Since the abandonment of objects and the withdrawal of senses from them has been repeatedly stated by phrases like 'Prajahati yada kaman' and 'Indriyani indriyarthebhyo nigrihitani', it is established that they (desires/objects) have a separate existence from the Self. And it should not be said that due to their negation by Shruti texts like 'Neha nanasti kinchana' (There is no diversity here whatsoever), they do not exist.

For by saying 'Iha' (Here), their negation is only within the Inner Self (Pratyak). Just as saying 'There is no pot here on the ground' does not negate the nature/existence of the pot, but only its connection with the ground. Therefore, desires have a separate existence, and thus Non-duality (Advaita) is not established." Anticipating this doubt, He refutes it with an analogy in 'Apuryamanam' etc.

Even while being filled by entering waters, it remains 'achalapratishtham'—meaning 'anudriktam' (not overflowing/swelling), because it is devoid of increase. Similarly, even while being emptied (richyamana) by exiting waters, it remains 'achalapratishtham'—meaning 'ariktam' (not empty), because it is devoid of decrease—this too should be understood. Just as waters born of itself (atma-prabhava) enter such an ocean, similarly, he into whom all desires born of the Self (atma-prabhava) enter—whether that person is being filled by desires or being depleted of them, he remains 'achalapratishtha', immutable, because he is devoid of increase and decrease—he alone attains 'shanti', Moksha, the absolute cessation of misery; not the 'kamakami' (seeker of objects).

The sentiment is this: The origination of everything is from the Kutastha (immutable) Atman, and the dissolution is into That alone; this is well-known in all Shruti and Smriti. Therefore, the abandonment of desires and the withdrawal of senses from them which is taught does not establish their separate existence in absolute reality (paramarthatah). Because that would contradict many proofs. Rather, accepting the separate existence that is well-known among the ignorant (pamara), abandonment etc. has been stated; but 'pravilapanam' (cosmic dissolution) must be interpreted in this very way.

Just as in "Agnaye pathikrite ashtakapalam nirvapet," the verb 'nirvapati' (to pour out/offer) denotes the sacrifice (yaga), and not merely the literal sense (pouring), so it should be understood here. "Neha nanasti" (There is no diversity here) should also be interpreted with the purport that "in this visible universe, there is nothing whatsoever manifold apart from the Atman." And only then do Shruti statements like "Atmaivedam sarvam" (All this is Atman alone), "Brahmaivedam sarvam" (All this is Brahman alone), and "Sarvam khalvidam Brahma" (All this is verily Brahman) become consistent.

Since that which is imagined in the Atman is negated in that very (Atman), its existence elsewhere is impossible; therefore, desires do not have separate existence, and thus the analogy of the ocean is indeed appropriate.

As for the argument that "Ganga has an existence separate from the ocean"—that is not correct. Because in the effect (karya), there is an absence of existence other than the existence of the cause (karana). Because it is heard in scripture: "Vacharambhanam vikaro namadheyam" (The modification is merely a verbal handle, a name); details are elsewhere.

Just as river waters enter the ocean which is 'apuryamanam' (filled) by itself alone and is uniform; whether these waters enter or do not enter, the ocean does not undergo any 'vishesha' (difference/change).

Similarly, he whom 'sarve kamah'—meaning objects like sound etc.—enter—meaning they come within the range of the senses—that samyamin (self-controlled one) attains peace.

The meaning is: He who, whether objects like sound etc. come within the range of the senses or not, does not undergo change solely due to the satisfaction of seeing his own Self—he alone attains peace.

Not the 'kamakami'—he who is modified by sound and other objects never attains peace.

Objection: "In the absence of vision (desire) for objects, how does he enjoy them?"—In response to this query, He says 'Apuryamanam', etc.

Just as waters enter the ocean which, though being filled by various rivers, remains 'achalapratishtham'—meaning indeed not transgressing its boundaries—and yet again other waters enter it;

'tatha' (similarly), 'kamah'—meaning objects—enter 'yam' (whom)—the sage of inner vision who remains unchanged by enjoyments, being impelled by prarabdha karma. He attains 'shanti', meaning kaivalya (liberation); not the 'kamakami'—one whose nature is to desire enjoyments.

यह सुविदित तथ्य है कि यद्यपि करोड़ों गैलन पानी अनेक सरिताओं द्वारा विभिन्न दिशाओं से आकर निरन्तर समुद्र में समाता रहता है तथापि समुद्र की मर्यादा किसी प्रकार भंग नहीं होती। इसी प्रकार ज्ञानेन्द्रियों के माध्यम से असंख्य विषय संवेदनाएँ ज्ञानी पुरुष के मन में पहुँचती रहती हैं फिर भी वे उसके अन्तकरण में किसी प्रकार का भी विकार अथवा क्षोभ उत्पन्न नहीं कर सकतीं।विषयों के बीच रहता हुआ इन्द्रियों के द्वारा समस्त व्यवहार करता हुआ भी जो पुरुष स्वस्वरूप की स्थिति से विचलित नहीं होता वही ज्ञानी है सन्त है। भगवान् स्पष्ट कहते हैं कि ऐसा पुरुष ही वास्तविक शान्ति और आनन्द प्राप्त करता है। इतना कहने मात्र से मानो उन्हें सन्तोष नहीं होता और आगे वे कहते हैं भोगों की कामना करने वाले पुरुषों को कभी शान्ति नहीं मिलती।उपर्युक्त विचार आधुनिक भौतिकवादी विचारधारा के सर्वथा विपरीत हैं। उनकी यह धारणा है कि अधिक इच्छाओं के होने से भौतिक उन्नति होगी और अधिक से अधिक इच्छाओं की पूर्ति से मनुष्य को सुखी बनाया जा सकता है। औद्योगीकरण और बड़ी मात्रा में उत्पादन के सिद्धांतों पर आधारित भौतिकवादी समाज का प्रयत्न मनुष्य में इच्छाओं की निरन्तर वृद्धि करने के लिए ही हो रहा है। परिणाम यह हुआ है कि आज के सामान्य मनुष्य की इच्छायें एक शताब्दी पूर्व अपने पूर्वजों की इच्छाओं से लाखगुना अधिक हैं। बड़ेबड़े व्यापारी और उद्योगपति विज्ञान की आधुनिक उपलब्धियों की सहायता से नईनई इच्छायें उत्पन्न करने और उन्हें पूर्ण करने का प्रयत्न करते रहते हैं। जिस मात्रा में मनुष्य की इच्छायें पूर्ण होती हैं उसे कहा जाता है कि अब वह पहले से कहीं अधिक सुखी है।इसके विपरीत भारत के प्राचीन महान् विचारकों ने स्वानुभव सूक्ष्म निरीक्षण एवं अध्ययन से यह पाया कि इच्छाओं की पूर्ति से प्राप्त सुख कभी पूर्ण नहीं हो सकता। सुख की मात्रा को गणित की भाषा में इस प्रकार बताया जा सकता है सुख की मात्रा पूर्ण हुई इच्छाओं की संख्यामन में स्थित इच्छाओं की संख्याभौतिकवादी धर्मनिरपेक्ष आधुनिक लोग भी इस सत्य को स्वीकार तो करते हैं परन्तु उनकी तथा ऋषियों की व्यावहारिक कार्यप्रणाली बहुत भिन्न दिखाई देती है।आज सर्वत्र अधिकसेअधिक इच्छाओं को पूर्ण करने का प्रयत्न सुख के लिए किया जाता है। प्राचीन ऋषिगण भी मानव समाज में ही रहते थे और तत्त्वज्ञान के द्वारा उनका लक्ष्य समाज को अधिक सुखी बनाना ही था। उन्होंने पहचाना कि इच्छाओं की संख्या कम किये बिना केवल अधिक से अधिक इच्छाओं की पूर्ति से न कोई वास्तविक आनन्द ही प्राप्त होता है और न ही उसमें कोई विशेष वृद्धि ही। परन्तु आज हम ऋषियों के विचार से सर्वथा भिन्न मार्ग अपना रहे हैं और इसीलिए समाज में आनन्द नहीं दिखाई देता।औपनिषदिक सिद्धांत का ही प्रतिपादन गीता में है जिसकी प्रशंसा भारतीय कवियों द्वारा मुक्त कण्ठ से की गई है। अनेक भोगों की कामना करने वाला पुरुष कभी शान्ति प्राप्त नहीं करता। बाह्य जगत् का त्रुटिपूर्ण मूल्यांकन करने पर ही विषयों में हमें दुखी बनाने की सार्मथ्य आ जाती है अन्यथा वे स्वयं किसी प्रकार की हानि हमें नहीं पहुँचा सकते। आनन्दस्वरूप में स्थित ज्ञानी पुरुष इन सब विषयों से अविचलित रहता है।स्थितप्रज्ञ पुरुष के लक्षणों का प्रारम्भ करते हुए भगवान् ने उसकी आत्मसन्तुष्टि एवं निष्कामत्व को बताया था उसी को और अधिक विस्तार से इस श्लोक में बताया गया है।इसलिए

(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.

The answer to all that was asked has been stated; then what is the purpose of 'Apuryamanam' (2.70)?

For such a sthitaprajna, the cessation of all distractions (vikshepa) is also established by implication; He states this with an analogy. Entering the ocean which is being filled by all rivers—all rivers born of rain etc. enter it. Of what nature (is the ocean)? 'Achalapratishtham'—meaning not transgressing its boundaries; or, in whom 'achalas' meaning mountains like Mainaka have their stability—by this, an excess of depth is stated. 'Yadvat'—in which manner (of changelessness)... 'Tadvat'—in that very manner (of changelessness); into 'yam'—whom, the sthitaprajna who remains indeed unchanging—'kamah'—meaning all objects like sound etc. desired by ignorant people—enter unavoidably due to the force of prarabdha karma, but are unable to modify his mind; he, the sthitaprajna standing in the place of the great ocean, attains 'shanti'—meaning the cessation of all distractions of worldly and other-worldly actions, and the cessation of the effects of ignorance which persist even after being sublated (badhitanuvritti)—by the strength of knowledge.

Not the 'kamakami'—he whose nature is to desire 'kaman' (objects), that ignorant 'kamakami' does not attain the explained peace; rather, he is always drowned in the great ocean of sorrow due to the distractions of worldly and other-worldly actions—this is the meaning of the sentence.

By this, it is to be understood that 'Vidvat-sannyasa' (Renunciation of the Knower) is the fruit belonging only to the Knower, and his alone is 'Jivanmukti' in the form of the cessation of all distractions, and [his alone is] changelessness even while experiencing objects dependent on destiny (daiva).

Objection: "In the absence of seeing worldly objects etc., how can there be the attainment of them?" To this He says 'Apuryamanam' etc. Just as waters enter the ocean which, though being filled by various rivers, remains 'achalapratishtham'—meaning devoid of modifications like increase etc.; 'tadvad' (similarly), he whom—while being incited into the sentiment of desire (kama-rasa) by many women [ref. Gopis]—all 'Bhagavat-kamah' (Divine Desires/God's desires), meaning His own purposes, enter for 'svartham' (His own sake)—he who knows this attains 'shanti' (peace), the pacification of desires, supreme happiness.

Therefore, it is said in Srimad Bhagavatam (10.32.13): "Just as the Shrutis reached the culmination of their desires [in Him]." Not the 'kamakami'—meaning he who is habituated to the enjoyment of worldly desires; he does not attain it; this is the meaning.

'Yadva' (Or alternatively): He into whom all desires enter in the manner previously described. He who desires even without seeing [the Lord], or [desires] for His sake, he attains 'shanti', supreme bliss; but not the one who desires objects for his own sake—this is the sentiment.

'Apuryamanam'—being filled by waters; 'achalapratishtham'—he whose 'pratishtha', meaning state/stability, is immovable—into that ocean of immovable stability, 'apah'—waters coming from all sides—enter, while it remains established in itself and unchanged. 'Tadvat' (similarly),

'kamah'—meaning specific desires from all sides, even in the presence of objects—enter 'yam purusham' (which person) without creating modification, just as waters enter the ocean; they all dissolve into the Self alone and do not bring him under their control; he attains 'shanti', meaning Liberation (Moksha).

Not the other, the 'kamakami'. "Kamah" refers to objects because they are desired (kamyante); he whose nature is to desire them is the 'kamakami'; he never attains it—this is the meaning. Since it is so, therefore...

And another point. Just as the ocean does not go towards any (water), but all waters go towards it alone; similarly, all desires enter him alone. Thereby, being 'aptakama' (one whose desires are fulfilled), he attains peace.

Even if 'kshubdha' (agitated on the surface), he is 'achalapratishtha' (immovably established) like the ocean; his true nature is not disturbed by the waves of desire created by external adjuncts (upadhis).

Since he is being compared (to the ocean), the arrangement of adjectives is such (to suit the analogy).

आपूर्यमाणम् filled from all sides? अचलप्रतिष्ठम् based in stillness? समुद्रम् ocean? आपः water? प्रविशन्ति enter? यद्वत् as? तद्वत् so? कामाः desires? यम् whom? प्रविशन्ति enter? सर्वे all? सः he? शान्तिम् peace? आप्नोति attains? न not? कामकामी desirer of desires.Commentary Just as the ocean filled with waters from all sides remains unmoved? so also the sage who is resting in his own Svarupa or the Self is not a bit affected though desires of all sorts enter from all sides. The sage attains peace or liberation but not he who longs for objects of sensual enjoyment and entertains various desires. (Cf.XVIII.53?54).

Sah, that man; apnoti, attains; santim, peace Liberation; yam, into whom, into which person; sarve, all; kamah, desires, all forms of wishes; pravisanti, enter, from all directions, like waters entering into a sea, without overwhelming him even in the presence of objects; they vanish in the Self, they do not bring It under their own influence, tadvat, in the same way; yadvat, as; apah, waters, coming from all sides; pravisanti, flow into; samudram, a sea; that remains acala-pratistham, unchanged, that continues to be its own self, without any change; apuryamanam, (even) when filled up from all sides with water.
Na, not so the other; who is kama-kami, desirous of objects. Kama means objects which are sought after. He who is given to desire them is kama-kami. The idea implied is that he never attains (peace).
Since this is so, therefore.

The river waters enter into the sea which is full by itself and is thus the same, i.e., unchanging in shape. The sea exhibits no special increase or decrease, whether the waters or rivers enter it or not. Even so do all objects of desire, i.e., objects of sense perception like sound etc., enter into a self-controlled one, i.e., they produce only sensorial impressions but no reaction from him. Such a person will attain peace. The meaning is that he alone attains to peace, who by reason of the contentment coming from the vision of the self, feels no disturbance when objects of sense like sound, etc., come within the ken of the senses or when they do not come. This is not the case with one who runs after desires. Whoever is agitated by sound and other objects, never attains to peace.