Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 3 - Shloka (Verse) 17

व्याख्या--'यस्त्वात्मरतिरेव ৷৷. च संतुष्टस्तस्य'--यहाँ 'तु' पद पूर्वश्लोकमें वर्णित अपने कर्तव्यका पालन न करनेवाले मनुष्यसे कर्तव्यकर्मके द्वारा सिद्धिको प्राप्त महापुरुषकी विलक्षणता बतानेके लिये प्रयुक्त हुआ है।जबतक मनुष्य अपना सम्बन्ध संसारसे मानता है, तबतक वह अपनी 'रति' (प्रीति) इन्द्रियोंके भोगोंसे एवं स्त्री, पुत्र, परिवार आदिसे, 'तृप्ति' भोजन (अन्न-जल) से तथा 'सन्तुष्टि' धनसे मानता है। परन्तु इसमें उसकी प्रीति, तृप्ति और सन्तुष्टि न तो कभी पूर्ण ही होती है और न निरन्तर ही रहती है। कारण कि संसार प्रतिक्षण परिवर्तनशील, जड और नाशवान् है तथा 'स्वयं' सदा एकरस रहनेवाला, चेतन और अविनाशी है। तात्पर्य है कि 'स्वयं' का संसारके साथ लेशमात्र भी सम्बन्ध नहीं है। अतः 'स्वयं' की प्रीति, तृप्ति और सन्तुष्टि संसारसे कैसे हो सकती है?किसी भी मनुष्यकी प्रीति संसारमें सदा नहीं रहती--यह सभीका अनुभव है। विवाहके समय स्त्री और पुरुषमें परस्पर जो प्रीति या आकर्षण प्रतीत होता है, वह एकदो सन्तान होनेके बाद नहीं रहता। कहींकहीं तो स्त्रियाँ अपने वृद्ध पतिके लिये यहाँतक कह देती हैं कि बुड्ढा मर जाय तो अच्छा है भोजन करनेसे प्राप्त तृप्ति भी कुछ ही समयके लिये प्रतीत होती है मनुष्यको धनप्राप्तिमें जो सन्तुष्टि प्रतीत होती है वह भी क्षणिक होती है क्योंकि धनकी लालसा सदा उत्तरोत्तर बढ़ती ही रहती है। इसलिये कमी निरन्तर बनी रहती है। तात्पर्य यही है कि संसारमें प्रीति तृप्ति और संतुष्टि कभी स्थायी नहीं रह सकती।
मनुष्यको सांसारिक वस्तुओंमें प्रीति, तृप्ति और संतुष्टिकी केवल प्रतीति होती है, वास्तवमें होती नहीं, अगर होती तो पुनः अरति, अतृप्ति एवं असन्तुष्टि नहीं होती। स्वरूपसे प्रीति, तृप्ति और संतुष्टि स्वतःसिद्ध है। स्वरूप सत् है। सत्में कभी कोई अभाव नहीं होता--'नाभावो विद्यते सतः'(गीता 2। 16) और अभावके बिना कोई कामना पैदा नहीं होती। इसलिये स्वरूपमें निष्कामता स्वतःसिद्ध है। परन्तु जब जीव भूलसे संसारके साथ अपना सम्बन्ध मान लेता है, तब वह प्रीति, तृप्ति और संतुष्टिको संसारमें ढूँढ़ने लगता है और इसके लिये सांसारिक वस्तुओंकी कामना करने लगता है। कामना करनेके बाद जब वह वस्तु (धनादि) मिलती है, तब मनमें स्थित कामनाके निकलनेके बाद (दूसरी कामनाके पैदा होनेसे पहले) उसकी अवस्था निष्काम हो जाती है और उसी निष्कामताका उसे सुख होता है; परन्तु उस सुखको मनुष्य भूलसे सांसारिक वस्तुकी प्राप्तिसे उत्पन्न हुआ मान लेता है तथा उस सुखको ही प्रीति, तृप्ति और संतुष्टिके नामसे कहता है। अगर वस्तुकी प्राप्तिसे वह सुख होता, तो उसके मिलनेके बाद उस वस्तुके रहते हुए सदा सुख रहता, दुःखकभी न होता और पुनः वस्तुकी कामना उत्पन्न न होती। परन्तु सांसारिक वस्तुओंसे कभी भी पूर्ण (सदाके लिये) प्रीति, तृप्ति और संतुष्टि प्राप्त न हो सकनेके कारण तथा संसारसे ममताका सम्बन्ध बना रहनेके कारण वह पुनः नयी-नयी कामनाएँ करने लगता है। कामना उत्पन्न होनेपर अपनेमें अभावका तथा काम्य वस्तुके मिलनेपर अपनेमें पराधीनताका अनुभव होता है। अतः कामनावाला मनुष्य सदा दुःखी रहता है।यहाँ यह बात ध्यान देनेकी है कि साधक तो उस सुखका मूल कारण निष्कामताको मानते हैं और दुःखोंका कारण कामनाको मानते हैं, परन्तु संसारमें आसक्त मनुष्य वस्तुओंकी प्राप्तिसे सुख मानते हैं और वस्तुओंकी अप्राप्तिसे दुःख मानते हैं। यदि आसक्त मनुष्य भी साधकके समान ही यथार्थ दृष्टिसे देखे तो उसको शीघ्र ही स्वतःसिद्ध निष्कामताका अनुभव हो सकता है। सकाम मनुष्योंको कर्मयोगका अधिकारी कहा गया है--

अथवा स्वयं ही भगवान् शास्त्रके अर्थको भलीभाँति समझानेके लिये यह जो प्रसिद्ध आत्मा है उसको जानकर जिनका मिथ्या ज्ञान निवृत्त हो चुका है ऐसे जो महात्मा ब्राह्मणगण अज्ञानियोंद्वारा अवश्य की जानेवाली पुत्रादिकी इच्छाओंसे रहित होकर केवल शरीरनिर्वाहके लिये भिक्षाका आचरण करते हैं उनका आत्मज्ञाननिष्ठासे अतिरिक्त अन्य कुछ भी कर्तव्य नहीं रहता ऐसा श्रुतिका तात्पर्य जो कि इस गीताशास्त्रमें प्रतिपादन करना उनको इष्ट है उस ( श्रुतिअर्थ ) को प्रकट करते हुए बोले परंतु जो आत्मज्ञाननिष्ठ सांख्ययोगी केवल आत्मामें ही रतिवाला है अर्थात् जिसका आत्मामें ही प्रेम है विषयोंमें नहीं और जो मनुष्य अर्थात् संन्यासी आत्मासे ही तृप्त है जिसकी तृप्ति अन्नरसादिके अधीन नहीं रह गयी है तथा जो आत्मामें ही संतुष्ट है बाह्य विषयोंके लाभसे तो सबको सन्तोष होता ही है पर उनकी अपेक्षा न करके जो आत्मामें ही सन्तुष्ट है अर्थात् सब ओरसे तृष्णारहित है। जो कोई ऐसा आत्मज्ञानी है उसके लिये कुछ भी कर्तव्य नहीं है।

Having divided and restated the previous matter in this way, (the Commentator/Shankara) anticipates the subsequent verse and introduces it as an answer—with "Evam" (Thus) etc. The connection is that the Lord speaks anticipating a meaning such as "This is Arjuna's question."

Objection: This doubt does not find room (is not appropriate), because it has been specified many times that "action must be performed by the one who does not know the Self"? To this he says "Svayameva" (Himself...) etc.

Objection: Why does the Lord Himself propound the meaning of the Shruti here? To this he says "Śāstrārthasya" (Of the meaning of the scripture) etc. The meaning is that He recites the purport of the Shruti here for the sake of discerning that the purport of the Gita-shastra is that "Knowledge combined with Renunciation alone is the means to Liberation," and not any other meaning.

He summarizes that very purport of the Shruti with "Evam" (Thus) etc. Objection: If knowledge of the Self is established, then "rising above" (vyutthāna/renunciation) is pointless? Anticipating this, he states the fruit of indirect/immediate realization with "Nivṛtta" (Turned away/Free from...) etc.

The mention of "Brahmana" (in the Bhashya/Shruti) is to notify that the primary qualification for this "rising above" belongs to them alone.

Objection: Since desires are of the nature of suffering, "rising above" them is natural for everyone and thus need not be enjoined? To this he says "Mithyā" (False...) etc. Objection: The statement "they wander begging for alms" is contrary to "rising above" (renunciation of action)? To this he says "Śarīra" (Body...) etc. (meaning it is only for bodily maintenance).

Objection: Then, just like that, the performance of Agnihotra etc. would also be incumbent upon them? Anticipating this, he says "Na teṣām" (Not for them...) etc., meaning: not so, because for those who have risen above (renouncers), there is no instigator for Agnihotra etc. unlike the duties of the (householder) stage of life.

Making manifest the desired purport of the Shruti to be propounded in this Gita-shastra when examined in its entirety (before and after)—having raised the objection "How is it said 'of the Sankhyas by Jnana Yoga' given the rule that action must indeed be performed by one living?"—he displays the solution with "Ityevam" (Thus...) etc.

Thinking that the absence of attachment to objects observed in the Self-established one should be practiced (emulated) by the seeker who does not yet know the Self, He says "Yastu Sāṅkhyaḥ" (But he who is a Sankhya/Knower...) etc.

Moreover, since the Self-knower is thoroughly satisfied by the Self alone through Knowledge, the satisfaction accomplishable by food, drink, etc., is not desired; therefore, it is not proper for that seeker/renouncer to form attachment to the taste of food etc.; thus He says "Ātmatṛptaḥ" (Satisfied in the Self).

Moreover, the total absence of thirst (desire) observed in the Knower of the Self should be practiced by the non-knower student; thus He says "Ātmanyeva" (In the Self alone).

There is a subtle distinction between Rati (delight), Tripti (satisfaction), and Santosha (contentment), just as between Moda, Pramoda, and Ananda. Or the distinction is: 'Rati' is attachment to objects; 'Tripti' is the happiness born from contact with a specific object; 'Santosha' is the general happiness dependent merely on the gain of the desired object.

Objection: Will there be some duty for liberation even for one who delights in the Self, is satisfied in the Self, and is content in the Self alone? He answers No, with "Ya īdṛśaḥ" (He who is such...) etc.

Having propounded from the text beginning with "Na karmaṇām" (3.4) up to "Śarīrayātrāpi" (3.8) that action free from desire for fruit must be performed to attain fitness for the discipline of Self-knowledge; and having stated many incidental reasons for the performance of action by the qualified non-knower of the Self from "Yajñārthāt" (3.9) up to "Mogham" (3.16), and enumerated the defects in its non-performance—this being the state of affairs: anticipating Arjuna's doubt "Is the wheel thus set in motion to be followed by everyone, or by the non-knower of Self with impure mind for the attainment of Knowledge?", or voluntarily for the sake of understanding the distinction of the scripture, He negates it [duty] for the Knower of Truth with "Yastu" (But he who...) etc.

"Yastu" (But he who)—the human being established in Self-knowledge; whose 'Rati' (delight) is in the Self alone, not in objects; and who is 'Tripta' (satisfied) by the Self alone, not by the essence of food etc.

Who is 'Tushta' (content) in the Self alone, not in external objects, meaning one whose thirst (for them) is gone.

For him, there is no duty.

Then, is it that even intense concentration of the mind (Samadhi) is not to be performed? Regarding this, He says 'Yastu' (But he who), etc. 'Ramanam' (rejoicing) is the happiness caused by the vision of the Supreme, etc. 'Tripti' (satiety) is the sense of 'enough' regarding other things. 'Santosha' (contentment) is the happiness generated by that; because it is stated that 'Contentment is the cause of satiety.'

He has attained the happiness caused by the vision of the Supreme Self, etc. [He has] a complete sense of 'enough' regarding everything else. And that happiness is great, and by that alone comes the sense of 'enough' elsewhere—this is shown by [the phrase] 'Atmanyeva cha santushtah' (and satisfied in the Self alone). The meaning is: Being established in That alone, he is satisfied. The emphasis implies that nothing else whatsoever is the cause of [his] contentment.

'Atmana triptah' means satiated by the Self. For indeed, a sense of 'enough' regarding the Self is not proper. And that it conveys this meaning is established by the usage: 'We are never satiated with the exploits of the Uttamashloka (Lord)' (Bhagavatam 1.1.19). Ellipsis (supplying missing words) is the resort of the helpless (only to be done when unavoidable).

Because of the emphasis 'Atma-rati eva' (rejoicing in the Self alone), it is for the one established in Asamprajnata Samadhi alone that duty does not exist. Even for the 'Sthitaprajna' (one of steady wisdom), bodily activities etc., are seen as duties. Or, according to the statement in the Pancharatra: 'Swadharma is for My satisfaction, for that is desired by all.'

At other times, everyone has a little rejoicing elsewhere too. And it is not just the sense of 'enough' regarding those things that is mentioned here, because 'Atma-tripta' (satiated in the Self) is stated separately. And the agentive word is also well-known in the sense of limiting time, as in 'He who is eating should not speak,' etc.; therefore, this applies only in Asamprajnata Samadhi. The word 'Manava' (human) shows that Asamprajnata Samadhi happens only for the Knower (Jnani), deriving from the root 'Manu' meaning understanding. And here, rejoicing in the Supreme Soul is intended. As per the statement: 'He whose rejoicing is in Vishnu alone, for him indeed there is no action.'

Thus, it has been stated that the cosmic wheel was set in motion by the Lord preceded by the Veda and Sacrifice, and that it must be followed by the ignorant qualified persons. And a great sin/adverse consequence was stated regarding its non-performance. Would that (sin) touch even the Knower of Brahman? He dispels this possible doubt with "Yastu" (But he who...) etc.

"Ātmanyeva ratiḥ"—he whose Rati (pleasure/love) is in the Self alone, not in women and so on; he is such. Objection: Love for the Self is unconditional/natural for every living being; on the contrary, love for women etc. exists only for the sake of that (Self)? [So what is special about the wise?] Therefore, it is said "Ātmatṛptaḥ" (Satisfied in the Self). He who is satisfied by the Self alone which is of the nature of Supreme Bliss, and not by sweet food etc.

Objection: Even a person with "Mandāgni" (weak digestion/dyspepsia) does not delight in women etc., nor is he satisfied by sweet food [so is he wise]? Therefore, it is said "Ātmanyeva ca saṃtuṣṭaḥ" (And content in the Self alone). For the dyspeptic person, desiring the increase of bodily elements and the stimulation of gastric fire, runs here and there for medicine etc.; he is not content in the Self alone. But the Wise one experiences delight, satisfaction, and contentment through the Self alone, not through women, food, wealth, etc. Therefore, for him, there is no work to be done (duty). Because there is an absence of any object/goal whatsoever to be attained by action.

Yaḥ tu (But he who)—meaning he who is independent of the means of Jñānayoga and Karmayoga; who is 'ātmaratiḥ' (delighting in the Self) 'svataḥ eva' (spontaneously/by nature)—meaning oriented towards the Self; who is satisfied 'ātmanā eva' (by the Self alone), not by food, drink, and other things distinct from the Self; and who is content 'ātmani eva' (in the Self alone), not in gardens, garlands, sandalwood paste, vocal music, instrumental music, dancing, and the like.

For him, for whom the Self alone is everything—sustenance, nourishment, object of enjoyment, etc.—there exists no duty to be performed for the vision of the Self, because the essential nature of the Self is always seen by him spontaneously.

Thus, having stated Karmayoga for the purification of the internal organ (mind) of the ignorant with the text beginning 'Na karmaṇāmanārambhāt' (Not by non-performance of actions...) etc., He states the uselessness of action for the Knower (Jñānin) with the two verses beginning 'yastu' (But he who...).

'Ātmanyeva ratiḥ'—he whose Rati (love) is in the Self alone. And consequently, he is 'satisfied in the Self alone'—meaning fulfilled/happy through the experience of his own Bliss. 'Ata eva' (Therefore indeed), he who is 'content in the Self alone'—meaning devoid of the desire for enjoyments—for him there is no duty.

Thus, since the duty of action has been stated even for those qualified for Jñānayoga etc., and will be stated [again] later with 'Therefore, unattached...' (3.19), the two intervening verses beginning with 'But he who is delighting in the Self...' are not regarding the aspirant qualified for Jñānayoga etc., but regarding the state of fruition (phala-daśā); with this intention, [Ramanuja] said 'not dependent on means' (asādhanāyatta).

By this, the interpretation of others—that this refers to the Sannyāsa stage of life (monkhood) mentioned in texts like 'Having given fearlessness to all beings, one should practice actionlessness'—is refuted. For even for him (the Sannyāsin), being established in the duties of his own stage of life, there is no cessation of all actions. The undertaking of Varna and Ashrama duties belongs only to one qualified by Varna and Ashrama, not to one liberated from names and forms dependent on Varna and Ashrama; this is the sense of the word 'Mukta' (Liberated).

कर्म के चक्र का पालन अधिकतर साधकों के लिए करणीय है क्योंकि यज्ञ भावना से कर्म के आचरण द्वारा उनका व्यक्तित्व संगठित होता है और उनमें जीवन के श्रेष्ठ कार्य ध्यान की योग्यता आती है। निस्वार्थ कर्म के द्वारा प्राप्त अन्तकरण की शुद्धि एवं एकाग्रता का उपयोग जब निदिध्यासन में किया जाता है तब साधक अहंकार के परे अपने शुद्ध आत्मस्वरूप की अनुभूति प्राप्त करता है। पूर्णत्व प्राप्त ऐसे सिद्ध पुरुष के लिये कर्म की चित्तशुद्धि के साधन के रूप में कोई आवश्यता नहीं रहती वरन् कर्म तो उसके ईश्वर साक्षात्कार की अभिव्यक्ति मात्र होते हैं।यह एक सुविदित तथ्य है कि तृप्ति एवं सन्तोष के लिये ही हम कर्म में प्रवृत्त रहते हैं। तृप्ति और सन्तोष मानो जीवनरथ के दो चक्र हैं। इन दोनों की प्राप्ति के लिये ही हम धन का अर्जन रक्षण परिग्रह और व्यय करने में व्यस्त रहते हैं। परन्तु आत्मानुभवी पुरुष अपने अनन्त आनन्द स्वरूप में उस तृप्ति और सन्तोष का अनुभव करता है कि उसे फिर बाह्य वस्तुओं की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं रह जाती।जहाँ तृप्ति और सन्तोष है वहाँ सुख प्राप्ति की इच्छाओं की उत्पत्ति कहाँ इच्छाओं के अभाव में कर्म का अस्तित्व कहाँ इस प्रकार आत्म अज्ञान के कार्य इच्छा विक्षेप और कर्म का उसमें सर्वथा अभाव होता है। स्वाभाविक है ऐसे पुरुष के लिये कोई अनिवार्य कर्तव्य नहीं रह जाता। सभी कर्मों का प्रयोजन उसमें पूर्ण हो जाता है। अत जगत् के सामान्य नियमों में उसे बांधा नहीं जा सकता। वह ईश्वरीय पुरुष बनकर पृथ्वी पर विचरण करता है।और

Regarding the text starting with "Yaśca" and ending with "Pūruṣa".

For one who delights in the Self, however, while performing action merely as the activity of the senses, there is equanimity in acting and not acting. Therefore, he does not exercise punishment or favor towards beings expecting any personal benefit, but [acts] solely with the idea "this is to be done."

Therefore, remaining unattached, one should perform the duty to be done.

But he who is not "indriyārāmaḥ" (delighting in the senses), who is a seer of the Supreme Truth, even while not performing the action which causes the movement of the cosmic wheel, does not incur sin, because he is fully accomplished (kṛtakṛtya). This He states in two verses.

For the "indriyārāmaḥ" experiences "Rati" (delight) in garlands, sandalwood paste, women, etc.; "Tripti" (satisfaction) in pleasing food and drink etc.; and "Tuṣṭi" (contentment) in the gain of cattle, sons, gold etc., and in the absence of disease etc.

This is known because, in the absence of the said objects, lack of delight, lack of satisfaction, and lack of contentment are observed in passionate people.

Delight, satisfaction, and contentment are specific mental modifications witnessed by the Witness-consciousness.

However, one who has attained the Bliss of the Supreme Self does not desire sense-happiness because of the absence of the perception of duality and because [sense happiness] is extremely trivial, as stated in "As much use as there is in a reservoir..." (2.46).

Therefore, since there is no [literal] delight, satisfaction, or contentment regarding the Self [as an object], but rather he is directly realizing the non-dual Supreme Bliss which is the Self, he is described figuratively (upacārāt) as "Ātmaratiḥ" (delighting in the Self), "Ātmatṛptaḥ" (satisfied in the Self), and "Ātmasaṃtuṣṭaḥ" (content in the Self).

And so the Śruti states: "Sporting in the Self, delighting in the Self, performing [knowledge-]action, he is the best among knowers of Brahman" (Muṇḍaka 3.1.4).

Regarding "ātmatṛptaśca" (and satisfied in the Self), the word "ca" (and) is to attract [imply] the word "eva" (alone).

"Mānavaḥ" (Human)—this is to state that whosoever human being is such [a knower], he alone is accomplished, and not merely by virtue of the superiority of being a Brahmana etc.

regarding "ātmanyeva ca saṃtuṣṭaḥ" (and content in the Self alone), the word "ca" is for conjunction.

For one who is such, since the cause for qualification [for action] is absent, there exists no duty whatsoever, whether Vedic or worldly.

But he who is not an 'Indriyarama' (one rejoicing in the senses) but is a seer of the Supreme Truth, even while not performing the action that causes the turning of the wheel of the world, does not incur sin because he has accomplished what was to be done—this He says in two verses.

For indeed, the 'Indriyarama' experiences 'Rati' (pleasure) in garlands, sandalwood, women, etc.; 'Tripti' (satisfaction) in pleasing food and drink, etc.; and 'Tushti' (contentment) through the gain of cattle, sons, gold, etc., and the absence of disease, etc.; because in the absence of said objects, lack of pleasure, lack of satisfaction, and lack of contentment are seen in those who are attached.

Rati, Tripti, and Tushti are specific mental modifications established by the Witness (Sakshi).

However, one who has obtained the Supreme Bliss of the Self does not desire objective happiness due to the absence of the perception of duality and because it is extremely trivial, as stated in 'Yavan artha udapane' (as much use as there is in a small reservoir...).

Therefore, because of the absence of Rati, Tripti, and Tushti regarding the Self [as an object] (meaning: since he does not derive these from objects), directly realizing the non-dual Supreme Bliss which is the Self, he is spoken of metaphorically as 'Atma-rati' (rejoicing in the Self), 'Atma-tripta' (satisfied in the Self), and 'Atma-santushta' (content in the Self). And similarly, the Shruti says: 'Sporting in the Self, rejoicing in the Self, performing action, he is the best among the knowers of Brahman.'

In 'Atma-triptashcha' (and satisfied in the Self), the word 'cha' (and) is for dragging in the meaning of 'eva' (only/alone). The word 'Manava' (human) is used to declare that whosoever—any human being—is of this nature, he alone is fulfilled, and not merely by the excellence of being a Brahmana, etc.

In 'Atmanyeva cha santushtah', the word 'cha' is in the sense of conjunction. For one who is such, because the cause for eligibility is absent, there exists no duty whatsoever, whether Vedic or worldly.

Objection: If this is so [that non-performance is sinful], then why do not all Your devotees perform action? To this, He answers with two verses [beginning with] "yastvātmaratireva".

"Yastu" (But he who) is "ātmaratireva"—meaning one whose delight is "ātmani," i.e., in Me alone; who is such; and who is "ātmatṛptaśca"—satisfied and happy with the Bliss of the Lord; "ātmanyeva"—meaning in the Lord alone—"santuṣṭaḥ"—content, meaning devoid of desire for his own enjoyment; for him, "kāryam"—work to be done—"na vidyate"—does not exist.

"Yastu" (But he who) is a "Sāṅkhya," i.e., established in Self-knowledge; "ātmaratiḥ"—he whose delight is in the Self alone, not in sense-objects—he is indeed "ātmaratiḥ." And "ātmatṛptaḥ"—satisfied by the Self alone, not by the essence of food and the like. That "mānavaḥ"—human being, i.e., Sannyasi (renouncer)—is "ātmanyeva ca santuṣṭaḥ" (and content in the Self alone).

Contentment indeed arises for everyone upon gaining external objects; independent of that, he is content in the Self alone—meaning he is free from thirst (desire) from all sides.

For such a knower of the Self, "kāryam"—work to be done—"na vidyate," i.e., does not exist.

Thus, having stated with "A person does not attain actionlessness by non-performance of actions" (3.4) that action is enjoined and must be performed for the attainment of the human goal belonging to the path of Yoga; He now states that for the follower of the path of Sāṅkhya, Knowledge alone is the means, and action, which is of the nature of non-Self, is not useful, in the two verses beginning with "yastu" (But he who).

The word "tu" (but) signifies a distinction from the subject previously under discussion.

"Ātmanyeva" (In the Self alone)—he whose satisfaction and contentment are [in the Self], not in the non-Self; by this sign of the restrictive particle "eva" (alone) with "Atman," the Sage (Muni) following the path of Sāṅkhya is described.

He states the reason for that [in the next verse].

यः who? तु but? आत्मरतिः who rejoices in the Self? एव only? स्यात् may be? आत्मतृप्तः satisfied in the Self? च and? मानवः the man? आत्मनि in the Self? एव only? च and? सन्तुष्टः contented? तस्य his? कार्यम् work to be done? न not? विद्यते is.Commentary The sage does not depend on external objects for his happiness. He is ite satisfied with the Self. He finds his joy? bliss and contentment within his own Self. For such a sage who has knowledge of the Self? there is nothing to do. He has already done all actions. He has satisfied all his desires. He has complete satisfaction. (Cf.II.55).

Tu, but; that manavah, man, the sannyasin, the man of Knowledge, steadfast in the knowledge of the Self; yah, who; atmaratih eva syat, rejoices only in the Self-not in the sense objects; and atma-trptah, who is satisfied only with the Self-not with food and drink; and is santustah, contented; eva, only; atmani, in the Self; tasya, for him; na vidyate, there is no; karyam, duty [Duty with a view to securing Liberation.] to perform. [Rati, trpti and santosa, though synonymous, are used to indicate various types of pleasures. Or, rati means attachment to objects; trpti means happiness arising from contact with some particular object; and santosa means happiness in general, arising from the acisition of some coveted object only.]
All people surely feel contened by aciring an external thing. But this one, without depending on it, remains contented only with the Self; thta is to say, he remains detached from everything. The idea it that, for a man who is such a knower of the Self, there is no duty to undertake.

But for him, who is not in need of the means of Jnana Yoga and Karma Yoga, who finds delight in the self on his own, i.e., who is established in the self, who is satisfied by the self alone and not by food, drink and other things which are other than the self, who rejoices in the self alone and not in pleasure gardens, garlands, sandalpaste, vocal and instrumental music etc., and for whom everything, his subsistence, nourishment and enjoyment, is the self alone - for him nothing remains to be performed for the vision of the self, because the essential nature of the self is perpetually in his unaided vision.