Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 3 - Shloka (Verse) 42

व्याख्या इन्द्रियाणि पराण्याहुः शरीर अथवा विषयोंसे इन्द्रियाँ पर हैं। तात्पर्य यह है कि इन्द्रियोंके द्वारा विषयोंका ज्ञान होता है पर विषयोंके द्वारा इन्द्रियोंका ज्ञान नहीं होता। इन्द्रियाँ विषयोंके बिना भी रहती हैं पर इन्द्रियोंके बिना विषयोंकी सत्ता सिद्ध नहीं होती। विषयोंमें यह सामर्थ्य नहीं कि वे इन्द्रियोंको प्रकाशित करें प्रत्युत इन्द्रियाँ विषयोंको प्रकाशित करती हैं। इन्द्रियाँ वही रहती हैं पर विषय बदलते रहते हैं। इन्द्रियाँ व्यापक हैं और विषय व्याप्य हैं अर्थात् विषय इन्द्रियोंके अन्तर्गत आते हैं पर इन्द्रियाँ विषयोंके अन्तर्गत नहीं आतीं। विषयोंकी अपेक्षा इन्द्रियाँ सूक्ष्म हैं। इसलिये विषयोंकी अपेक्षा इन्द्रियाँ श्रेष्ठ सबल प्रकाशक व्यापक और सूक्ष्म हैं।इन्द्रियेभ्यः परं मनः इन्द्रियाँ मनको नहीं जानतीं पर मन सभी इन्द्रियोंको ही जानता है। इन्द्रियोंमें भी प्रत्येक इन्द्रिय अपनेअपने विषयको ही जानती है अन्य इन्द्रियोंके विषयोंको नहीं जैसे कान केवल शब्दको जानते हैं पर स्पर्श रूप रस और गंधको नहीं जानते त्वचा केवल स्पर्शको जानती है पर शब्द रूप रस और गन्धको नहीं जानती नेत्र केवल रूपको जानते हैं पर शब्द स्पर्श रस और गन्धको नहीं जानते रसना केवल रसको जानती है पर शब्द स्पर्श रूप और गन्धको नहीं जानती और नासिका केवल गन्धको जानती है पर शब्द स्पर्श रूप और रसको नहीं जानती परन्तु मन पाँचों ज्ञानेन्द्रियोंको तथा उनके विषयोंको जानता है। इसलिये मन इन्द्रियोंसे श्रेष्ठ सबल प्रकाशक व्यापक और सूक्ष्म है।मनसस्तु परा बुद्धिः मन बुद्धिको नहीं जानता पर बुद्धि मनको जानती है। मन कैसा है शान्त है या व्याकुल ठीक है या बेठीक इत्यादि बातोंको बुद्धि जानती है। इन्द्रियाँ ठीक काम करती हैं या नहीं इसको भी बुद्धि जानती है तात्पर्य है कि बुद्धि मनको तथा उसके संकल्पोंको भी जानती है और इन्द्रियोँको तथा उनके विषयोंको भी जानती है। इसलिये इन्द्रियोँसे पर जो मन है उस मनसे भी बुद्धि पर (श्रेष्ठ बलवान् प्रकाशक व्यापक और सूक्ष्म) है।य बुद्धेः परतस्तु सः बुद्धिका स्वामीअहम् है इसलिये कहता है मेरी बुद्धि। बुद्धि करण है औरअहम् कर्ता है। करण परतन्त्र होता है पर कर्ता स्वतन्त्र होता है। उसअहम्में जो जडअंश है उसमेंकाम रहता है। जडअंशसे तादात्म्य होनेके कारण वह काम स्वरूप(चेतन) में रहता प्रतीत होता है।वास्तवमेंअहम्में हीकाम रहता है क्योंकि वही भोगोंकी इच्छा करता है और सुखदुःखका भोक्ता बनता है। भोक्ता भोग और भोग्य इन तीनोंमें सजातीयता (जातीय एकता) है। इनमें सजातीयता न हो तो भोक्तामें भोग्यकी कामना या आकर्षण हो ही नहीं सकता। भोक्तापनका जो प्रकाशक है जिसके प्रकाशमें भोक्ता भोग और भोग्य तीनोंकी सिद्धि होती है उस परम प्रकाशक(शुद्ध चेतन) मेंकाम नहीं है।अहम्तक सब प्रकृतिका अंश है। उसअहम् से भी आगे साक्षात् परमात्माका अंशस्वयं है जो शरीर इन्द्रियाँ मन बुद्धि और अहम् इन सबका आश्रय आधार कारण और प्रेरक है तथा श्रेष्ठ बलवान् प्रकाशक व्यापक और सूक्ष्म है।जड(प्रकृति) का अंश ही सुखदुःखरूपमें परिणत होता है अर्थात् सुखदुःखरूप विकृति जडमें ही होती है। चेतनमें विकृति नहीं है प्रत्युत चेतन विकृतिका ज्ञाता है परन्तु जडसे तादात्म्य होनेसे सुखदुःखका भोक्ता चेतन ही बनता है अर्थात् चेतन ही सुखीदुःखी होता है। केवल जडमें सुखीदुःखी होना नहीं बनता। तात्पर्य यह है किअहम्में जो जडअंश है उसके साथ तादात्म्य कर लेनेसे चेतन भी अपनेकोमैं भोक्ता हूँ ऐसा मान लेता है। परमात्मतत्त्वका साक्षात्कार होते ही रसबुद्धि निवृत्त हो जाती है रसोऽप्यस्य परं दृष्ट्वा निवर्तते (गीता 2। 51)। इसमें अस्य पद भोक्ता बने हुए अहम् का वाचक है और जो भोक्तापनसे निर्लिप्त तत्त्व है उस परमात्माका वाचक परम पद है। उसके ज्ञानसे रस अर्थात्काम निवृत्त हो जाता है। कारण कि सुखके लिये ही कामना होती है और स्वरूप सहजसुखराशि है। इसलिये परमात्मतत्त्वका साक्षात्कार होनेसेकाम (संयोगजन्य सुखकी इच्छा) सर्वदा और सर्वथा मिट जाता है।मार्मिक बातस्थूलशरीरविषय है इन्द्रियाँबहिःकरण हैं और मनबुद्धिअन्तःकरण हैं। स्थूलशरीरसे इन्द्रियाँ पर (श्रेष्ठ सबल प्रकाशक व्यापक और सूक्ष्म) हैं तथा इन्द्रियोंसे बुद्धि पर है। बुद्धिसे भी परअहम् है जो कर्ता है। उसअहम्(कर्ता) मेंकाम अर्थात् लौकिक इच्छा रहती है।अपनी सत्ता (होनापन) अर्थात् अपना स्वरूप चेतन निर्विकार और सत्चित्आनन्दरूप है। जब वह जड(प्रकृतिजन्य शरीर) के साथ तादात्म्य कर लेता है तबअहम् उत्पन्न होता है और स्वरूपकर्ता बन जाता है। इस प्रकार कर्तामें एक जडअंश होता है और एक चेतनअंश। जडअंशकी मुख्यतासे संसारकी तरफ और चेतनअंशकी मुख्यतासे परमात्माकी तरफ आकर्षण होता है (टिप्पणी प0 201)। तात्पर्य यह है कि उसमें जडअंशकी प्रधानतासे लौकिक (संसारकी) इच्छाएँ रहती हैं और चेतनअंशकी प्रधानतासे पारमार्थिक (परमात्माकी) इच्छा रहती है। जडअंश मिटनेवाला है इसलिये लौकिक इच्छाएँ मिटनेवाली हैं और चेतनअंश सदा रहनेवाला है इसलिये पारमार्थिक इच्छा पूरी होनेवाली है। इसलिये लौकिक इच्छाओं(कामनाओं) की निवृत्ति और पारमार्थिक इच्छा(संसारसे छूटनेकी इच्छा स्वरूपबोधकी जिज्ञासा और भगवत्प्रेमकी अभिलाषा) की पूर्ति होती है लौकिक इच्छाएँ उत्पन्न हो सकती हैं पर टिक नहीं सकतीं। परन्तु पारमार्थिक इच्छा दब सकती है पर मिट नहीं सकती। कारण कि लौकिक इच्छाएँ अवास्तविक और पारमार्थिक इच्छा वास्तविक है। इसलिये साधकको न तो लौकिक इच्छाओँकी पूर्तिकी आशा रखनी चाहिये और न पारमार्थिक इच्छाकी पूर्तिसे निराश ही होना चाहिये।वस्तुतः मूलमें इच्छा एक ही है जो अपने अंशी परमात्माकी है। परन्तु जडके सम्बन्धसे इस इच्छाके दो भेद हो जाते हैं और मनुष्य अपनी वास्तविक इच्छाकी पूर्ति परिवर्तनशील जड(संसार) के द्वारा करनेके लिये जडपदार्थोंकी इच्छाएँ करने लगता है जो उसकी भूल है। कारण कि लौकिक इच्छाएँपरधर्म और पारमार्थिक इच्छास्वधर्म है। परन्तु साधकमें लौकिक और पारमार्थिक दोनों इच्छाएँ रहनेसे द्वन्द्व पैदा हो जाता है। द्वन्द्व होनेसे साधकमें भजन ध्यान सत्सङ्ग आदिके समय तो पारमार्थिक इच्छा जाग्रत् रहती है पर अन्य समयमें उसकी पारमार्थिक इच्छा दब जाती है और लौकिक (भोग एवं संग्रहकी) इच्छाएँ उत्पन्न हो जाती हैं। लौकिक इच्छाओंके रहते हुए साधकमें साधन करनेका एक निश्चय स्थिर नहीं रह सकता। पारमार्थिक इच्छा जाग्रत् हुए बिना साधककी उन्नति नहीं होती। जब साधकका एकमात्र परमात्मप्राप्ति करनेका दृढ़ उद्देश्य हो जाता है तब यह द्वन्द्व मिट जाता है और साधकमें एक पारमार्थिक इच्छा ही प्रबल रह जाती है। एक ही पारमार्थिक इच्छा प्रबल रहनेसे साधक सुगमतापूर्वक परमात्मप्राप्ति कर लेता है (गीता 5। 3)। इसलिये लौकिक और पारमार्थिक इच्छाका द्वन्द्व मिटाना साधकके लिये बहुत आवश्यक है।शुद्ध स्वरूपमें अपने अंशी परमात्माकी ओर स्वतः एक आकर्षण या रुचि विद्यमान रहती है जिसकोप्रेम कहते हैं। जब वह संसारके साथ अपना सम्बन्ध मान लेता है तब वहप्रेम दब जाता है औरकाम उत्पन्न हो जाता है। जबतककाम रहता है तबतकप्रेम जाग्रत् नहीं होता। जबतकप्रेम जाग्रत् नहीं होता तबतककाम का सर्वथा नाश नहीं होता। जडअंशकी मुख्यतासे जिसमें सांसारिक भोगोंकी इच्छा (काम) रहती है उसीमें चेतनअंशकी मुख्यतासे परमात्माकी इच्छा भी रहती है। अतः वास्तवमेंकाम का निवास जडअंशमें ही है पर वह भी चेतनके सम्बन्धसे ही है। चेतनका सम्बन्ध छूटते हीकाम का नाश हो जाता है। तात्पर्य यह हुआ कि चेतनद्वारा जडसे सम्बन्धविच्छेद करते ही जडचेतनके तादात्म्यरूपअहम् का नाश हो जाता है औरअहम् का नाश होते हीकाम नष्ट हो जाता है।अहम् में जो जडअंश है उसमेंकाम रहता है इसकी प्रबल युक्ति यह है कि दृश्यरूपसे दीखनेवाला संसार उसे देखनेवाली इन्द्रियाँ तथा बुद्धि और उसे देखनेवाला स्वयं भोक्ता इन तीनोंमें जातीय (धातुगत) एकताके बिना भोक्ताका भोग्यकी ओर आकर्षण हो ही नहीं सकता। कारण कि आकर्षण सजातीयतामें ही होता है विजातीयतामें नहीं जैसे नेत्रोंका रूपके प्रति ही आकर्षण होता है शब्दके प्रति नहीं। यही बात सब इन्द्रियोंमें लागू होती है। बुद्धिका भी समझनेके विषय(विवेकविचार) में आकर्षण होता है शब्दादि विषयोंमें नहीं (यदि होता है तो इन्द्रियोंको साथमें लेनेसे ही होता है)। ऐसे ही स्वयं(चेतन) की परमात्मासे तात्त्विक एकता है इसलियेस्वयंका परमात्माकी ओर आकर्षण होता है। यह तात्त्विक एकता जडअंशका सर्वथा त्याग करनेसे अर्थात् जडसे माने हुए सम्बन्धका सर्वथा विच्छेद करनेसे ही अनुभवमें आती है। अनुभवमें आते हीप्रेम जाग्रत् हो जाता है। प्रेममें जडता(असत्) का अंश भी शेष नहीं रहता अर्थात् जडताका अत्यन्त अभाव हो जाता है।प्रकृतिके कार्य महत्तत्त्व(समष्टि बुद्धि) का अत्यन्त सूक्ष्म अंशकारणशरीर हीअहम् का जडअंश है। इस कारणशरीरमें हीकाम रहता है। कारणशरीरके तादात्म्यसेकाम स्वयंमें दीखता है। तादात्म्य मिटनेपर जिसमेंकाम का लेश भी नहीं है ऐसे अपने शुद्ध स्वरूपका अनुभव हो जाता है। स्वरूपका अनुभव हो जानेपरकाम सर्वथा निवृत्त हो जाता है।एवं बुद्धेः परं बुद्ध्वा पहले शरीरसे पर इन्द्रियाँ इन्द्रियोंसे पर मन मनसे पर बुद्धि और बुद्धिसे परकाम को बताया गया। अब उपर्युक्त पदोंमें बुद्धिसे परकाम को जाननेके लिये कहनेका अभिप्राय यह है कि यहकामअहममें रहता है। अपने वास्तविक स्वरूपमेंकाम नहीं है। यदि स्वरूपमेंकाम होता तो कभी मिटता नहीं। नाशवान् जडके साथ तादात्म्य कर लेनेसे हीकाम उत्पन्न होता है। तादात्म्यमें भीकाम रहता तो जडमें ही है पर दीखता है स्वरूपमें। इसलिये बुद्धिसे परे रहनेवाले इसकाम को जानकर उसका नाश कर देना चाहिये। संस्तभ्यात्मानमात्मना बुद्धिसे परेअहम् में रहनेवालेकामको मारनेका उपाय है अपने द्वारा अपनेआपको वशमें करना अर्थात् अपना सम्बन्ध केवल अपने शुद्ध स्वरूपके साथ अथवा अपने अंशी भगवान्के साथ रखना जो वास्तवमें है। छठे अध्यायके पाँचवें श्लोकमें उद्धरेदात्मनात्मानम् पदसे और छठे श्लोकमें येनात्मैवात्मनाजितः पदोंसे भी यही बात कही गयी है।स्वरूप (स्वयं) साक्षात् परमात्माका अंश है और शरीरइन्द्रियाँमनबुद्धि संसारके अंश हैं। जब स्वरूप अपने अंशी परमात्मासे विमुख होकर प्रकृति(संसार) के सम्मुख हो जाता है तब उसमें कामनाएँ उत्पन्न हो जाती हैं। कामनाएँ अभावसे उत्पन्न होती हैं और अभाव संसारके सम्बन्धसे होता है क्योंकि संसार अभावरूप ही है नासतो विद्यते भावः (गीता 2। 16)। संसारसे सम्बन्धविच्छेद होते ही कामनाओंका नाश हो जाता है क्योंकि स्वरूपमें अभाव नहीं है नाभावो विद्यते सतः (गीता 2। 16)।परमात्मासे विमुख होकर संसारसे अपना सम्बन्ध माननेपर भी जीवकी वास्तविक इच्छा (आवश्यकता या भूख) अपने अंशी परमात्माको प्राप्त करनेकी ही होती है।मैं सदा जीता रहूँ मैं सब कुछ जान जाऊँ मैं सदाके लिये सुखी हो जाऊँ इस रूपमें वह वास्तवमें सत्चित्आनन्दस्वरूप परमात्माकी ही इच्छा करता है पर संसारसे सम्बन्ध माननेके कारण वह भूलसे इन इच्छाओंको संसारसे ही पूरी करना चाहता है यहीकाम है। इसकामकी पूर्ति तो कभी हो ही नहीं सकती। इसलिये इसकामका नाश तो करना ही पड़ेगा।जिसने संसारसे अपना सम्बन्ध जोड़ा है वही उसे तोड़ भी सकता है। इसलिये भगवान्ने अपने द्वारा ही संसारसे अपना सम्बन्धविच्छेद करकेकाम को मारनेकी आज्ञा दी है।अपने द्वारा ही अपनेआपको वशमें करनेमें कोई अभ्यास नहीं है क्योंकि अभ्यास संसार(शरीर इन्द्रियाँ मन और बुद्धि) की सहायतासे ही होता है। इसलिये अभ्यासमें संसारके सम्बन्धकी सहायता लेनी पड़ती है। वास्तवमें अपने स्वरूपमें स्थिति अथवा परमात्माकी प्राप्ति संसारकी सहायतासे नहीं होती प्रत्युत संसारके त्याग(सम्बन्धविच्छेद) से अपनेआपसे होती है।मार्मिक बात जब चेतन अपना सम्बन्ध जडके साथ मान लेता है तब उसमें संसार(भोग) की भी इच्छा होती है और परमात्माकी भी। जडसे सम्बन्ध माननेपर जीवसे यही भूल होती है कि वह सत्चित्आनन्दस्वरूप परमात्माकी इच्छा अभिलाषाको संसारसे ही पूरी करनेके लिये सांसारिक पदार्थोंकी इच्छा करने लगता है। परिणामस्वरूप उसकी ये दोनों ही इच्छाएँ (स्वरूपबोधके बिना) कभी मिटती नहीं।संसारको जाननेके लिये अलग होना और परमात्माको जाननेके लिये परमात्मासे अभिन्न होना आवश्यक है क्योंकि वास्तवमेंस्वयं की संसारसे भिन्नता और परमात्मासे अभिन्नता है। परन्तु संसारकी इच्छा करनेसेस्वयं संसारसे अपनी अभिन्नता या समीपता मान लेता है जो कभी सम्भव नहीं और परमात्माकी इच्छा करनेसेस्वयं परमात्मासे अपनी भिन्नता या दूरी (विमुखता) मान लेता है पर इसकी सम्भावना ही नहीं। हाँ सांसारिक इच्छाओंको मिटानेके लिये पारमार्थिक इच्छा करना बहुत उपयोगी है। यदि पारमार्थिक इच्छा तीव्र हो जाय तो लौकिक इच्छाएँ स्वतः मिट जाती हैं। लौकिक इच्छाएँ सर्वथा मिटनेपर पारमार्थिक इच्छा पूरी हो जाती है अर्थात् नित्यप्राप्त परमात्माका अनुभव हो जाता है (टिप्पणी प0 203.1)। कारण कि वास्तवमें परमात्मा सदासर्वत्र विद्यमान है पर लौकिक इच्छाएँ रहनेसे उनका अनुभव नहीं होता।जहि शत्रुं महाबाहो कारूपँ दुरासदम् महाबाहो का अर्थ है बड़ी और बलवान् भुजाओंवाला अर्थात् शूरवीर। अर्जुनको महाबाहो अर्थात् शूरवीर कहकर भगवान् यह लक्ष्य कराते हैं कि तुम इसकामरूप शत्रुका दमन करनेमें समर्थ हो।संसारसे सम्बन्ध रखते हुएकाम का नाश करना बहुत कठिन है। यहकाम बड़ोंबड़ोंके भी विवेकको ढककर उन्हें कर्तव्यसे च्युत कर देता है जिससे उनका पतन हो जाता है। इसलिये भगवान्ने इसे दुर्जय शत्रु कहा है।काम को दुर्जय शत्रु कहनेका तात्पर्य इससे अधिक सावधान रहनेमें है इसे दुर्जय समझकर निराश होनेमें नहीं।किसी एक कामनाकी उत्पत्ति पूर्ति अपूर्ति और निवृत्ति होती है इसलिये मात्र कामनाएँ उत्पन्न और नष्ट होनेवाली हैं। परन्तुस्वयं निरन्तर रहता है और कामनाओंके उत्पन्न तथा नष्ट होनेको जानता है। अतः कामनाओंसे वह सुगमतापूर्वक सम्बन्धविच्छेद कर सकता है क्योंकि वास्तवमें सम्बन्ध है ही नहीं। इसलिये साधकको कामनाओंसे कभी घबराना नहीं चाहिये। यदि साधकका अपने कल्याणका पक्का उद्देश्य है (टिप्पणी प0 203.2) तो वहकामको सुगमतापूर्वक मार सकता है।कामनाओंके त्यागमें अथवा परमात्माके प्राप्तिमें सब स्वतन्त्र अधिकारी योग्य और समर्थ हैं। परन्तु कामनाओंकी पूर्तिमें कोई भी स्वतन्त्र अधिकारी योग्य और समर्थ नहीं है। कारण कि कामना पूरी होनेवाली है ही नहीं। परमात्माने मानवशरीर अपनी प्राप्तिके लिये ही दिया है। अतः कामनाका त्याग करना कठिन नहीं है। सांसारिक भोगपदार्थोंको महत्त्व देनेके कारण ही कामनाका त्याग कठिन मालूम देता है।सुख(अनुकूलता) की कामनाको मिटानेके लिये ही भगवान् समयसमयपर दुःख (प्रतिकूलता) भेजते हैं कि सुखकी कामना मत करो कामना करोगे तो दुःख पाना ही पड़ेगा। सांसारिक पदार्थोंकी कामनावाला मनुष्य दुःखसे कभी बच ही नहीं सकता यह नियम है क्योंकि संयोगजन्य भोग ही दुःखके हेतु हैं (गीता 5। 22)।स्वयं(स्वरूप) में अनन्त बल है। उसकी सत्ता ओर बलको पाकर ही बुद्धि मन और इन्द्रियाँ सत्तावान् एवं बलवान् होते हैं। परन्तु जडसे सम्बन्ध जोड़नेके कारण वह अपने बलको भूल रहा है और अपनेको बुद्धि मन और इन्द्रियोंके अधीन मान रहा है। अतएवकामरूप शत्रुको मारनेके लिये अपनेआपको जानना और अपने बलको पहचानना बड़ा आवश्यक है।काम जडके सम्बन्धसे और जडमें ही होता है। तादात्म्य होनेसे वह स्वयंमें प्रतीत होता है। जडका सम्बन्ध न रहे तोकाम है ही नहीं। इसलिये यहाँकाम को मारनेका तात्पर्य वस्तुतःकाम का सर्वथा अभाव बतानेमें ही है। इसके विपरीत यदिकाम अर्थात् कामनाकी सत्ताको मानकर उसे मिटानेकी चेष्टा करें तो कामनाका मिटना कठिन है। कारण कि वास्तवमें कामनाकी स्वतन्त्र सत्ता है ही नहीं। कामना उत्पन्न होती है और उत्पन्न होनेवाली वस्तु नष्ट होगी ही यह नियम है। यही कामना न करें तो पहलेकी कामनाएँ अपनेआप नष्ट हो जायँगी। इसलिये कामनाको मिटानेका तात्पर्य है नयी कामना न करना।शरीरादि सांसारिक पदार्थोंकोमैंमेरा औरमेरे लिये माननेसे ही अपनेआपमें कमीका अनुभव होता है पर मनुष्य भूलसे उस कमीकी पूर्ति भी सांसारिक पदार्थोंसे ही करना चाहता है। इसलिये वह उन पदार्थोंकी कामना करता है। परन्तु वास्तवमें आजतक सांसारिक पदार्थोंसे किसीकी भी कमीकी पूर्ति हुई नहीं होगी नहीं और हो सकती भी नहीं। कारण कि स्वयं अविनाशी है और पदार्थ नाशवान् हैं। स्वयं अविनाशी होकर भी नाशवान्की कामना करनेसे लाभ तो कोई होता नहीं और हानि कोईसी भी बाकी रहती नहीं। इसलिये भगवान् कामनाको शत्रु बताते हुए उसे मार डालनेकी आज्ञा देते हैं।कर्मयोगके द्वारा इस कामनाका नाश सुगमतासे हो जाता है। कारण कि कर्मयोगका साधक संसारकी छोटीसेछोटी अथवा बड़ीसेबड़ी प्रत्येक क्रिया परमात्मप्राप्तिका उद्देश्य रखकर दूसरोंके लिये ही करता है कामनाकी पूर्तिके लिये नहीं। वह प्रत्येक क्रिया निष्कामभावसे एवं दूसरोंके हित और सुखके लिये ही करता है अपने लिये कभी कुछ नहीं करता। उसके पास जो समय समझ सामग्री और सामर्थ्य है वह सब अपनी नहीं है प्रत्युत मिली हुई है और बिछुड़ जायगी। इसलिये वह उसे अपनी कभी न मानकर निःस्वार्थभावसे (संसारकी ही मानकर) संसारकी ही सेवामें लगा देता है। उसे पूरीकीपूरी संसारकी सेवामेंलगा देता है अपने पास बचाकर नहीं रखता। अपना न माननेसे ही वह पूरीकीपूरी सेवामें लगती हैअन्यथा नहीं।कर्मयोगी अपने लिये कुछ करता ही नहीं अपने लिये कुछ चाहता ही नहीं और अपना कुछ मानता ही नहीं। इसलिये उसमें कामनाओंका नाश सुगमतापूर्वक हो जाता है। कामनाओंका सर्वथा नाश होनेपर उसके उद्देश्यकी पूर्ति हो जाती है और वह अपनेआपमें ही अपनेआपको पाकर कृतकृत्य ज्ञातज्ञातव्य और प्राप्तप्राप्तव्य हो जाता है अर्थात् उसके लिये कुछ भी करना जानना और पाना शेष नहीं रहता।

पहले इन्द्रियोंको वशमें करके कामरूप शत्रुका त्याग कर ऐसा कहा सो किसका आश्रय लेकर इसका त्याग करना चाहिये यह बतलाते हैं पण्डितजन बाह्य परिच्छिन्न और स्थूल देहकी अपेक्षा सूक्ष्म अन्तरस्थ और व्यापक आदि गुणोंसे युक्त होनेके कारण श्रोत्रादि पञ्च ज्ञानेन्द्रियोंको पर अर्थात् श्रेष्ठ कहते हैं। तथा इन्द्रियोंकी अपेक्षा संकल्पविकल्पात्मक मनको श्रेष्ठ कहते हैं और मनकी अपेक्षा निश्चयात्मिका बुद्धिको श्रेष्ठ बताते हैं। एवं जो बुद्धिपर्यन्त समस्त दृश्य पदार्थोंके अन्तरव्यापी है जिसके विषयमें कहा है कि उस आत्माको इन्द्रियादि आश्रयोंसे युक्त काम ज्ञानावरणद्वारा मोहित किया करता है वह बुद्धिका ( भी ) द्रष्टा परमात्मा ( सबसे श्रेष्ठ ) है।

Having restated what was said before, and acknowledging the difficulty of abandoning desire, in order to clarify exactly what was said in "even the taste of this" (raso 'pyasya - Gita 2.59), he introduces the next verse preceded by a question, with "The senses," etc.

"Five"—just like the organs of knowledge, the organs of action like speech, etc., are also grasped [here]. Relative to what is their superiority? To this, he says "the body." Even so, in what manner is the superiority? To this, he says "subtlety." By the word "etc." (ādi), [attributes like] being the cause are grasped.

He states the superiority of the mind [over the senses] due to qualities like subtlety relative to the senses, preceded by a statement of its nature, with "so" (tathā). He extends the logic shown regarding the mind to the intellect with "and beyond the mind" (tathā manasastu).

He explains "who is beyond the intellect," etc., with "so," etc. Anticipating the doubt that the "Self" with the aforementioned attributes is not the subject under discussion, he says "which embodied soul" (yaṁ dehinam).

‘Control the senses first and kill the enemy desire,’ was said. There, [in response to the question] ‘Taking shelter of what should one kill desire?’, reminding [one] of the statement ‘even the taste ceases upon seeing the Supreme,’ He makes known the Supreme.

The senses, ears and the rest, are superior to the body—which is gross, external, and limited—due to subtleness, being situated within, and pervasiveness; wise men say this based on the mentioned intention. Not that the Shrutis say this directly [in this specific order here], because in the Shruti it is stated ‘the objects are superior to the senses.’ Similarly, the mind, which consists of resolution and doubt, is superior to the senses. The intellect, which is determinative, is superior to the mind.

But beyond the intellect is ‘He’, the witness of the intellect, the Supreme Self; who is internal to all seen things ending with the intellect; whom desire, united with shelters like the senses, deludes by covering knowledge.

The statement ‘But beyond’ is for the purpose of collecting the meaning of the Shruti: ‘Beyond the intellect is the Great Self; beyond the Great is the Unmanifest; beyond the Unmanifest is the Purusha; there is nothing beyond the Purusha; that is the culmination, that is the supreme goal.’ Although, according to Shruti, it should have been said ‘objects are superior to the senses,’ this statement of the Lord is fruitful (valid), and it is to be understood that its purpose is to establish the supremacy of the Primordial Person (Purusha) and to indicate the lack of purport in the mention of the superiority of objects (artha) found in the Shruti [implying objects are not the focus]. This is stated in [the Brahma Sutra] ‘For the sake of meditation, because there is no other purpose, and because of the word Atman.’

To describe "knowledge"—which acts as the weapon in killing the enemy—He states the "object of knowledge" (jñeyam) with the words "The senses," etc. For indeed, it is said: "Taking the sword of knowledge of non-attachment, one crosses to the other side." The senses are "higher," i.e., superior, to the body. Not only is the Person (Puruṣa) higher than the intellect, but He is higher even than the Unmanifest (Avyakta) in the manner described in the Shruti; for the Shruti (Katha Upanishad 3.11) states [that the Purusha is beyond the Avyakta].

And liberation does not occur merely by partial knowledge stated here and there. For the Lord [Vyasa] has declared the "gathering of universal attributes" (guṇopasaṃhāra) in the chapter on the gathering of attributes (Guṇopasaṃhāra-pāda), with aphorisms like "Bliss and others belong to the Principal [Brahman]" (Brahma Sutra 3.3.11). And similarly, it is stated elsewhere in the Garuda Purana: "Whatever attributes are proclaimed everywhere in the non-human [eternal] Vedas and the Vedas of Vishnu, and those which have come down through tradition; having known [Him] specifically along with all these, those who see the Supreme Hari, for them alone is there liberation, and never otherwise."

Therefore, He is to be known as higher even than the Unmanifest. And here, the individual soul (jīva) is not what is being spoken of, because it has been said "having seen the Supreme, even the taste [for objects] ceases" (Gita 2.59). And [also because], "Without knowing Me, the Supreme, specifically, how can there be victory over desire?" Therefore, the knowledge of the Supreme Self (Paramātmā) alone is intended here. "The self" (ātmānam in verse 43) means the mind. "By the self" (ātmanā) means by the intellect.

Success is not attained merely by the victory over the external senses, but the victory over the mind and intellect must also be achieved for the complete uprooting of desire. Just as for [conquering] a vassal stationed in a fortress with three ramparts, [it is achieved] by conquering the two inner ramparts. Therefore, to achieve victory over the mind and intellect, He shows the Yoga [method] with "The senses," etc.

Here, "being higher" (paratva) is to be understood in terms of subtlety or causality. The senses—eyes, etc.—are "higher" than their objects—smell, etc., along with their substrates like earth, etc., and wealth, sons, and bodies—because they are the causes of those. And thus the followers of the Kaushitaki branch recite in the Brahmana: "From the Pranas, the Devas; from the Devas, the worlds." The verb "issue forth" (vyuccaranti) is to be supplied. The meaning of the Shruti is: From the Pranas, i.e., the senses, the Devas, i.e., their presiding deities, originate; and from the Devas, the lokas, i.e., the gross elements and elemental objects, originate.

"Higher than the senses is the mind"—because, according to the Shruti "By the mind alone one sees, by the mind one hears," the senses are modifications of the mind. By this, it is shown that withdrawing the senses from external objects, they should be dissolved (pravilāpanīyāni) into the mind.

Since there is no purpose in merely establishing superiority, [the implication of] "but higher than the mind is the intellect" is [yogic dissolution]: according to the Shruti "Different from and inner to this consisting of mind is the Self consisting of knowledge (vijñānamaya)." The meaning is that the dissolution of the mind should be done into its cause, the intellect. The cosmic intellect (samaṣṭi-buddhi) is also included right here.

"And he who is higher than even the intellect is 'He' (Saḥ)." The word "but" (tu) conveys the distinction of the illuminator (bhāsaka) Knowledge [Self] from the class of the illuminated (bhāsya)—the intellect and so forth. "He" who is higher even than the intellect is denoted by the word "Knowledge" [in verse 39] and is covered by desire like a fetus by the womb-membrane; thus is the connection with the remote [verse].

And so the Shruti (Katha Upanishad 1.3.13): "The wise man should restrain speech [senses] in the mind; he should restrain that [mind] in the Knowledge-Self [Intellect]; he should restrain Knowledge in the Great Self (Mahat); and he should restrain that [Great Self] in the Peaceful Self (Śānta Atman)." This is what is said: Abandoning the operation of external senses like speech, etc., one should remain as the mind alone. One should fix even the mind, which is inclined toward fancying objects, in the intellect denoted by the word "Knowledge-Self." One should fix even that [intellect] in the "Great Self," i.e., the cosmic intellect. One should fix that pervading Great Self in the "Peaceful," i.e., partless, Supreme Light, the Inner Self.

He states that the senses are principal in the opposition to knowledge. Since, when the senses are engaged in objects, knowledge does not arise in the self. "Higher than the senses is the mind"—even if the senses have ceased [activity], if the mind is inclined toward objects, Self-knowledge is not possible.

"But higher than the mind is the intellect"—even if the mind is averse to other objects, if the intellect is engaged in contrary determination (viparīta-adhyavasāya), Self-knowledge does not arise.

However, even when all [faculties] up to the intellect have ceased, if "Desire" (Kāma)—which is a synonym for wish/will and is born of the quality of Passion (Rajas)—is present, "it alone" (sa eva) [referring to "He" in the verse], by causing even these senses and so forth to engage in their respective objects, obstructs Self-knowledge. This is what is being stated with "And he who is higher than even the intellect is He." Meaning: He who is higher even than the intellect is that Desire (Kāma)—this is the meaning.

Now, in this context, since the senses can be controlled through mental concentration characterized by clarity, He distinguishes and shows the true nature of the Self as distinct from the body, etc., with "The senses," etc.

They say the senses are "higher," i.e., superior, to the body and other perceptible objects, because of their subtlety and their illuminating nature. Therefore, their distinctness from them is also stated by implication. And higher than the senses is the mind, which is of the nature of resolve (saṅkalpa), because it instigates them. But higher than the mind is the intellect (buddhi), which is of the nature of determination, because resolve is preceded by determination.

And He who is higher than the intellect, situated as the witness of that, the innermost of all—He is the Self (Ātman). The Self mentioned by the word "embodied" (dehin) in [the phrase] "deludes the embodied soul" is referred to by [the word] "He" (saḥ).

Thus, the necessity of controlling the senses, which are merely obstructors, was stated. Now, with the intention that mind, intellect, and desire are designated as successively more obstructive for the purpose of establishing the necessity of controlling them in increasing degrees of difficulty, he says ‘Among the obstructors of knowledge...’. Here, since the word ‘Para’ (beyond/superior) cannot refer to causality etc., ‘predominance’ alone is intended. And that (predominance) is in regard to ‘obstruction of knowledge’ due to the context; with this intention, it is said ‘predominant in obstructing knowledge.’ And the predominance of the senses is in relation to other general obstructors like place and time, or in relation to the body, due to subtleness and difficulty in grasping etc.; he states the reason for the predominance of the senses and the mode of obstruction—‘Because’ (yatah).

He states the reason for the mind being superior to the senses—‘In the senses...’ One should supply ‘yatah’ (because) from the previous sentence. Similarly, this should be applied in the subsequent causal sentences. Even when the external senses have desisted from objects due to the absence of objects, force, or violence, if the mind thinks of those respective objects, Self-knowledge will not occur; therefore, due to being an obstructor even at the time of the cessation of external senses, it (the mind) is superior to them.

He states the reason for the intellect being superior to the mind—‘In the mind...’ (Objection:) If the mind is averse to the function regarding other objects, how can there be the activity of determination regarding that (the Self)? For, only having supported some object by the mind, one resolves ‘I shall do’ or ‘I shall not do.’ (Answer:) Here, total cessation of the mind's trade is not what is intended by ‘aversion to other functions,’ but rather the cessation of the inclination towards other natural objects which is impossible to restrain even by force. This was indicated in the previous sentence ‘When the mind is prone to objects.’ Therefore, even if the mind is not solely taking refuge in objects naturally due to sleep, laziness, etc. by chance, if there is an activity of contrary determination merely due to obstinacy etc., such inclination of the mind will indeed occur. And thus, in ‘manasastu’, the word ‘tu’ is for removing doubt or for distinguishing such a specific nature.

He states the reason for Desire (Kama) being superior even to determination (Intellect)—‘In all...’ To indicate that it is an effect of latent impressions (vasanas) and a cause of determination conformable to itself, it is called a ‘synonym of wish.’ How can the production of Desire occur at the time of the cessation of senses, mind, and intellect? To this, it is said ‘born of Rajas’; meaning, born merely from the mind corrupted by Rajas awakened by ancient karma. (Objection:) If there is aversion to other objects in the senses etc., what is the contradiction even if the desire for objects exists? For, by the desire for Self-experience, determination and mental inclination can essentially occur right there. To this, it is stated ‘He alone...’ True, the desire for the Atman also exists, but that is occasional and rooted in weak Sattva; whereas desire for objects is rooted in Rajas which is continuously following, awakened by accumulated ancient karma. Therefore, as long as the desire for Atman performs the determination for seeing the Atman, by then the powerful desire for objects would effectuate the determination for experiencing objects; this is the purport. Thus here, the statement of Desire being the instigator of the preceding ones should be understood as an indication (upalakshana) of the intellect and mind also being instigators of the ones preceding them.

By the two words ‘born of rajas’ and ‘having caused to be active’ (vartayitva), the distinction characterized by Desire's origination being independent of determination etc. and it being the instrument of that (determination) is expounded, indicated by the word ‘tu’. Dispelling the illusion of it referring to another meaning or lack of connection, he accepts the fourth quarter (of the verse) as referring to the stated meaning—‘This is what is said.’ Since the word ‘paratah’ has a meaning equivalent to the words ending in the fifth case in the previous three sentences, the first case meaning (nominative) through the universal suffix suggests the substantive established by the context for ‘sa’ (he)—‘superior even to the intellect.’ The explanation of some [like Shankara] that ‘Beyond the intellect is the Unmanifest/Ego/Atman because it is the substratum of the enjoyer’ is to be disregarded due to inconsistency with the context.

(Objection:) In the Katha Vallis (1.3.10-11), the group to be controlled is heard as ‘Objects are superior to senses...’. And this is clearly explained in the ‘Anumanikam...’ (Brahma Sutra 1.4.1) aphorism. In this verse also, that is recognized. It cannot be said that due to the non-sighting of ‘objects’ between senses and mind and the non-mention of ‘Unmanifest beyond Great...’, the meaning is different; because mention of a few and mention of all is reasonable as a summary and elaboration (like in creation contexts). Due to the plural ‘they say,’ statement of this meaning must be accepted elsewhere. Then, since ‘He who is beyond the intellect’ has an equivalent meaning to ‘The Great Atman is beyond the intellect,’ it is appropriate for it to refer to the Atman. And if so, the accusative word ‘Atman’ in the next verse ‘Thus knowing him who is beyond the intellect’ would be more appropriate as referring to a conscious entity. Therefore, how is it explained as ‘He is Desire’? (Answer:) It is said—Although the three—senses etc.—are recognized here, that same sequence is not intended here in its entirety. Since the indication of hierarchy fits here only for the four obstructors mentioned in the previous verse 3.40 ‘Senses, Mind, Intellect...’ [ending with Desire], there is no breakage of the order of senses, mind, and intellect here. If it were referring to the meaning of the Katha Valli, there would be a breakage of order partially due to the non-mention of ‘objects’ here. Desire alone is designated as the primary one in terms of obstructiveness and needing to be conquered in the previous and subsequent contexts. Therefore, he [Desire] alone deserves the designation ‘He who is beyond the intellect’ here due to being the most dominant of all. Otherwise, the substantive for the word ‘Sa’ would be distant, being in the Upanishads. If the Atman were also intended as something to be controlled here, then in ‘Senses, Mind, Intellect’ (3.40), the Atman would also have been designated as a substratum, but this was not done. The Atman is designated there as the one to be deluded by the four. Therefore, the control of the four alone is the task here. That being true, the word ‘Atman’ in the next verse must also be described in accordance with this. ‘Thus beyond the intellect’ is a restatement of this very point.

तृतीय अध्याय के अन्तिम दो श्लोकों में व्यास जी ने उस परिपूर्ण साधना की ओर संकेत किया है जिसके अभ्यास से कोई भी साधक सफलतापूर्वक अपने शत्रु काम को खोजकर उसका नाश कर सकता है।यद्यपि भगवद्गीता के प्रारम्भ के अध्यायों में ही हम ध्यानविधि के विस्तृत विवेचन की अपेक्षा नहीं कर सकते फिर भी इन श्लोकों में भगवान् आत्मप्राप्ति के उपाय रूप ध्यानविधि की रूपरेखा प्रस्तुत करते हैं।बाह्य जगत् की वस्तुओं की तुलना में हमारे लिए अपनी इन्द्रियाँ अधिक महत्त्व की होती हैं। कर्मेन्द्रियों की अपेक्षा ज्ञानेन्द्रियाँ अधिक श्रेष्ठ और सूक्ष्म हैं। हमारा सबका अनुभव है कि मन ही इन्द्रियों को नियन्त्रित करता है अत यहाँ मन को इन्द्रियों से सूक्ष्म और परे कहा गया है।निसन्देह मन के विचरण का क्षेत्र पर्याप्त विस्तृत है फिर भी उसकी अपनी सीमाएँ हैं। एक ज्ञान के पश्चात् अन्य ज्ञान को प्राप्त कर हम अपने मन की सीमा बढ़ाते हैं और विजय के इस अभियान में बुद्धि ही सर्वप्रथम मन के वर्तमान ज्ञान की सीमा रेखा को पार करके उसके लिए ज्ञान के नये राज्यों को विजित करती है। इस दृष्टि से बुद्धि की व्यापकता और भी अधिक विस्तृत है इसलिए बुद्धि को मन से श्रेष्ठतर कहा गया है। जो बुद्धि के भी परे तत्त्व है उसे ही आत्मा कहते हैं।बुद्धिवृत्तियों को प्रकाशित करने वाला चैतन्य बुद्धि से भी सूक्ष्म होना ही चाहिये। उपनिषदों में कहा गया है कि इस चैतन्यस्वरूप आत्मा के परे और कुछ नहीं है। ध्यानसाधनामें शरीर मन और बुद्धि उपाधियों से अपने तादात्म्य को हटाकर आत्मस्वरूप में स्थित होने का सजग प्रयत्न किया जाता है। ये सभी प्रयत्न तब समाप्त हो जाते हैं जब सब मिथ्या वस्तुओं की ओर से अपना ध्यान हटाकर हम निर्विषय चैतन्यस्वरूप बनकर स्थित हो जाते हैं।भगवान् आगे कहते हैं

He states the reasoning here in two verses [this and the next]—"The senses," etc. "Thus" (evam)—Since the senses are different from the object characterized as the enemy; and the mind is different from them; and there is the distinctness of the intellect even from that; and He whose nature is different even from the intellect is the Self. "Thus, how can there be agitation of the mind, the intellect, or the Self by anger produced in the senses?"—one should reflect in this manner; this is the meaning.

However, for the knowers of the secret [esoteric truth], the intention is this: He who exists beyond the intellect is the "Supreme Ego" (paro'haṅkāraḥ), which is of the nature of non-difference, realizing "I am all"; that is indeed the supreme non-difference. And for that very reason, because of being full and perfect, due to the absence of fragmentation, anger and the like do not arise.

Therefore, taking hold of the Supreme Ego—which is supreme energy (paramotsāha) and of the nature of Consciousness—kill the enemy, anger, which is [ultimately] non-existent.

"The senses are higher"—the connection of this with the preceding [text] is not apparent; therefore he [Madhavacharya] says "in the killing of the enemy," etc.

To state via "Thus, being beyond the intellect" (3.43) that knowledge is the weapon here, he cites authority with "unattached" (asaṅga). "Unattached" means accompanied by dispassion. Tarāti pāram ("crosses to the other side")—even though the prefix is separated in the Veda (chandas), it is treated as a verb preposition [rule Panini 1.4.81].

Since "being higher" is relative to a limit, relative to what are the senses higher? To this, he says "than the body." The purport is due to proximity. Is "being higher" merely "being different"? No, he says "excellent" (utkṛṣṭāni).

"But he who is higher than the intellect is He"—here the Supreme Self (Paramātmā) is spoken of. If His superiority is [only] over the intellect, there would be equality with the "Great Soul" (Mahat Ātmā). To this, he says "Not only," etc. What is that Shruti on the strength of which this addition (adhyāhāra) is made? To this, he says "than the Unmanifest," etc.

[Objection:] Let the Lord be higher even than the Unmanifest, but for the sake of conquering desire, etc., knowing Him simply as "higher than the intellect" is enough (alam); what is the need for an addition established by other proofs? To this, he says "And not," etc. Victory over desire, etc., is indeed the door to liberation, and liberation does not occur merely by partial knowledge. Why? To this, he says "universal," etc. Even if that [Sutra] is interpreted differently, he states a clear authority with "And so," etc. The connection is "everywhere indeed." Even those [attributes] not mentioned in the Vedas, etc., but which have come down through the Lord's tradition—along with those. He concludes what was stated in "And not there" with "Therefore," etc.

The Mayavadin (Advaitin), however, says that by "He who is higher than the intellect is He," the individual soul (jīva) is spoken of. He refutes this with "And not [here]," etc. If you ask "Why?", [the answer is:] because by "Thus, being beyond the intellect" (3.43), this knowledge is stated to be the means for the destruction of desire. And that [destruction] occurs only upon the acceptance (realization) of the Lord, and not otherwise; with this sentiment, he cites authority for both places with "Even the taste," etc. He concludes what was stated in "And not here" with "Therefore," etc.

Bhaskara, on the other hand, says that Kāma (Desire) is spoken of here [as the one beyond intellect]. That is extremely weak. Because of Shruti texts like "Desire is resolve" (Brihadaranyaka 1.5.3), since it is a property of the mind, it is not logical for it to be higher than that [intellect]. In both views [Advaita and Bhaskara], there is no purpose in stating the hierarchy "The senses are higher," etc.

Having the intention that the explanation of "restraining the self by the self" (3.43) as "uniting the Jiva with the Paramatma" is outside the [meaning of the] words, he explains the two words for self (ātman) [in Madhavacharya's commentary] with "the self," etc.

(Objection) "Now, even if control of the external senses is possible somehow, the abandonment of internal craving is extremely difficult," if this is said? No. (Answer) Because in the statement "even the taste ceases upon seeing the Supreme" (Gita 2.59), the "vision of the Supreme," which is the means for abandoning the craving denoted by the word "taste" (rasa), has been mentioned earlier.

"Then who is that 'Supreme' (Para) by seeing whom craving ceases?" Raising this doubt, He distinguishes the pure Self, denoted by the word 'Para', from the body etc., and shows it—The wise (Panditas) or the Shrutis say that the five sense organs like ears etc. are 'para' (superior/excellent) in comparison to the body—which is gross, inert, limited, and external—due to their subtlety, ability to illuminate, pervasiveness, and being situated within. Similarly, the mind, consisting of resolution and doubt, is superior to the senses, because it is their instigator. And superior to the mind is the intellect (buddhi), which is of the nature of determination. Adhyavasaya is indeed ascertainment; the functions of the mind like resolution etc. are preceded only by that.

But He who is beyond the intellect, situated as its illuminator; the embodied one whom desire—united with shelters like senses—deludes by covering knowledge as previously stated; He is the witness of the intellect, the Supreme Self. Like in "He, this one, has entered here" (Brihadaranyaka 1.4.7), the word "Sa" (He) refers to the embodied soul (dehin) even though separated (mentioned earlier).

In this regard, there is the Shruti: "The objects are superior to the senses, and the mind is superior to the objects. The intellect is superior to the mind, the Great Self is superior to the intellect. The Unmanifest is superior to the Great; the Purusha is superior to the Unmanifest. There is nothing superior to the Purusha; that is the culmination, that is the supreme goal." (Katha Upanishad 1.3.10-11).

Here, since the supremacy of the Self alone is the subject matter of the sentence's purport, and the supremacy of the senses etc. (in a specific order) is not the primary intention; the Lord's statement does not contradict [the Shruti] even though there is a difference in expression/intention where instead of "objects are superior to senses," [the Gita implies] "senses are superior to objects" [contextually]. Superior to the 'intellect'—meaning the individual intellect of ours etc.—is the 'Great Self' (Mahan Atma), which is in the form of the Cosmic Intellect (Samashti Buddhi); because of the statement in the Vayu Purana: "Manas, Mahan, Mati, Brahma, Puh, Buddhi, Khyati, Ishvara" [are synonyms]. Superior to the 'Mahat', i.e., the intellect belonging to Hiranyagarbha, is the 'Unmanifest' (Avyakta), the Undifferentiated, the seed of the whole universe, named Maya; according to the Shruti "One should know Maya as Prakriti," and also "This [universe] was then undifferentiated." Superior to the Unmanifest is the 'Purusha', the illuminator of the entire class of inert matter, the Full Self. "Could there be anyone else superior even to Him?" To this, it says—"There is nothing superior to the Purusha." Why so? Because that is the 'limit' (kashtha), the culmination. Being the substratum of everything, that is the 'Supreme Goal' (Para Gati). The meaning is that the 'Supreme Goal' famous in Shrutis like "He reaches the end of the path, that is the supreme abode of Vishnu," is also He alone. All this is said by "He who is beyond the intellect."

(Objection:) "What is the fruit in controlling the senses, etc., which cause the experience of the Lord's form and so forth?" To this, He says "The senses," etc. According to the maxim "This is the fruit of those having eyes..." (Bhagavatam 10.21.7), they [the devotees] call the senses "higher" (parāṇi), i.e., excellent, because they cause the experience of the vision of the Lord's form, etc. "Devotees" [say this]—this is to be supplied.

Since the Lord's form, contacted by the senses while the mind is situated elsewhere, does not become fruitful—as in the case of demons to be killed, etc. [who saw Him but did not benefit]—therefore, they call the mind "higher," i.e., more excellent, than the senses. Even the mind, being "struck" by the intellect due to the impurity of desires, etc., does not accomplish the result; therefore, they say that the intellect is "higher," i.e., more excellent, than the mind.

The purport here is this: The Lord is not to be experienced by the mundane body, senses, etc., but rather by the essential nature of the Self (ātma-svarūpa) which consists of immutable, supernatural emotion (alaukika-bhāva). Therefore, 'He'—that Self—is the highest; this is the purport.

The wise call the senses—the ears, etc., five in number—"higher" (parāṇi), i.e., superior, relative to the gross, external, and limited body, due to [qualities like] subtlety, interiority, and pervasiveness. Similarly, "higher than the senses is the mind," which is of the nature of fancy and doubt (saṅkalpa-vikalpa). Similarly, "higher than the mind is the intellect," which is of the nature of determination.

And He who is internal to all perceivable objects ending with the intellect—the "embodied soul" whom desire deludes through the covering of knowledge, being united with its abodes like the senses, as was stated [previously]—

"He who is beyond the intellect is He." "He" is the Seer of the intellect, the Supreme Self (Paramātmā).

Then what?

Pointing out the senses as principal among the opponents of knowledge, He says "The senses," etc.

"Higher" (parāṇi)—here the word "higher" (para) is indicative of being a strong opponent (balavat-pratīpa).

That desire which is "beyond" (parataḥ) even the intellect...

इन्द्रियाणि the senses? पराणि superior? आहुः (they) say? इन्द्रियेभ्यः than the senses? परम् superior? मनः the mind? मनसः than the mind? तु but? परा superior? बुद्धिः intellect? यः who? बुद्धेः than the intellect? परतः greater? तु but? सः He.Commentary When compared with the physical body which is gross? external and limited? the senses are certainly superior as they are more subtle? internal and have a wider range of activity. The mind is superior to the senses? as the senses cannot do anything independently without the help of the mind. The mind can perform the functions of the five senses. The intellect is superior to the mind because it is endowed with the faculty of discrimination. When the mind is in a state of doubt? the intellect comes to its resuce. The Self? the Witness? is superior even to the intellect? as the intellect borrows its light from the Self.

The learned ones ahuh, say; that indriyani, the five [Five sense-organs: of vision, hearning, taste, smell and touch; five motor-organs: hands, feet, speech, and for excretion and generation-these latter five are also understood in the present context.] organs-ear etc., are parani, superior, to the external, gross and limited body, from the point of view of subtlety, inner position, pervasiveness, etc. So also, manah, the mind, having the nature of thinking and doubting; [Sankalpa: will, volition, intention, thought, reflection, imangination, etc. vikalpa:doubt, uncertainly, indecision, suspicion, error, etc.-V.S.A.] is param, superior; indriyhyah, to the organs. Similarly, buddhih, the intellect, having the nature of determination; is para, superior; manasah, to the mind. And yah, the one who is innermost as compared with all the objects of perception ending with the intellect, and with regard to which Dweller in the body it has been said that desire, in association with its 'abodes' counting from the organs, deludes It by shrouding Knowledge; sah, that one; is tu, however; paratah, superior; buddheh, to the intellect- He, the supreme Self, is the witness of the intellect. [The portion, 'with regard to which Dweller৷৷.the supreme Self,' is translated from Ast. Which has the same reading here as the A.A. The G1. Pr. Makes the "abode''
counting from the organs' an adjective of 'the Dweller in the body', and omits the portion, 'is tu, however৷৷.buddheh, to the intellect'.-Tr.]

The senses are called the important obstacles of knowledge, because when the senses keep operating on their objects, the knowledge of the self cannot arise. 'The mind is higher than the senses': even if the senses are withdrawn, if the Manas (mind) ruminates over sense objects, knowledge of the self cannot be had. 'The intellect (Buddhi) is greater than the mind', i.e., even if the mind is indifferent to sense objects, a perverted decision by the intellect can obstruct the dawn of the knowledge of the self. But even if all of them upto the intellect are ietened from their activity, still when desire, identified with will, originating from Rajas, is operating, it by itself obstructs the knowledge of the self by inducing the senses etc., to operate in their fields. Thus it is said here: 'But what is greater than intellect is that.' What is greater than the intellect - is desire. Such is the sense of the last sentence here.