Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 4 - Shloka (Verse) 24

व्याख्या--[यज्ञमें आहुति मुख्य होती है। वह आहुति तब पूर्ण होती है, जब वह अग्निरूप ही हो जाय अर्थात् हव्य पदार्थकी अग्निसे अलग सत्ता ही न रहे। इसी प्रकार जितने भी साधन हैं, सब साध्यरूप हो जायँ, तभी वे यज्ञ होते हैं।जितने भी यज्ञ हैं, उनमें परमात्मतत्त्वका अनुभव करना भावना नहीं है, प्रत्युत वास्तविकता है। भावना तोपदार्थोंकी है।
इस चौबीसवें श्लोकसे तीसवें श्लोकतक जिन यज्ञोंका वर्णन किया गया है, वे सब 'कर्मयोग' के अन्तर्गत हैं। कारण कि भगवान्ने इस प्रकरणके उपक्रममें भी 'तत्ते कर्म प्रवक्ष्यामि यज्ज्ञात्वा मोक्ष्यसेऽशुभात्' (4। 16) ऐसा कहा है; और उपसंहारमें भी 'कर्मजान्विद्धि तान्सर्वानेवं ज्ञात्वा विमोक्ष्यसे' (4। 32)--ऐसा कहा है तथा बीचमें भी कहा है--'यज्ञायाचरतः कर्म समग्रं प्रविलीयते' (4। 23)। मुख्य बात यह है कि यज्ञकर्ताके सभी कर्म 'अकर्म' हो जायँ। यज्ञ केवल यज्ञ-परम्पराकी रक्षाके लिये किये जायँ तो सब-के-सब कर्म अकर्म हो जाते हैं। अतः इन सब यज्ञोंमें 'कर्ममें अकर्म' का ही वर्णन है।]'ब्रह्मार्पणं ब्रह्म हविः'-- जिस पात्रसे अग्निमें आहुति दी जाती है, उस स्रुक्, स्रुवा आदिको यहाँ 'अर्पणम्' पदसे कहा गया है--'अर्प्यते अनेन इति अर्पणम्।' उस अर्पणको ब्रह्म ही माने।तिल, जौ, घी आदि जिन पदार्थोंका हवन किया जाता है, उन हव्य पदार्थोंको भी ब्रह्म ही माने।
'ब्रह्माग्नौ ब्रह्मणा हुतम्'-- आहुति देनेवाला भी ब्रह्म ही है (गीता 13। 2), जिसमें आहुति दी जा रही है, वह अग्नि भी ब्रह्म ही है और आहुति देनारूप क्रिया भी ब्रह्म ही है--ऐसा माने।

किये जानेवाले कर्म अपना कार्य आरम्भ किये बिना ही ( कुछ फल दिये बिना ही ) किस कारणसे फलसहित विलीन हो जाते हैं इसपर कहते हैं ब्रह्मवेत्ता पुरुष जिस साधनद्वारा अग्निमें हवि अर्पण करता है उस साधनको ब्रह्मरूप ही देखा करता है अर्थात् आत्माके सिवा उसका अभाव देखता है। जैसे ( सीपको जाननेवाला ) सीपमें चाँदीका अभाव देखता है ब्रह्म ही अर्पण है इस पदसे भी वही बात कही जाती है। अर्थात् जैसे यह समझता है कि जो चाँदीके रूपमें दीख रही है वह सीप ही है। ( वैसे ही ब्रह्मवेत्ता भी समझता है कि जो अर्पण दीखता है वह ब्रह्म ही है ) ब्रह्म और अर्पण यह दोनों पद अलगअलग हैं। अभिप्राय यह कि संसारमें जो अर्पण माने जाते हैं वे स्रुक् स्रुव आदि सब पदार्थ उस ब्रह्मवेत्ताकी दृष्टिमें ब्रह्म ही हैं। वैसे ही जो वस्तु हविरूपसे मानी जाती है वह भी उसकी दृष्टिमें ब्रह्म ही होता है। ब्रह्माग्नौ यह पद समासयुक्त है। इसलिये यह अर्थ हुआ कि ब्रह्मरूप कर्ताद्वारा जिसमें हवन किया जाता है वह अग्नि भी ब्रह्म ही है और वह कर्ता भी ब्रह्म ही है और जो उसके द्वारा हवनरूप क्रिया की जाती है वह भी ब्रह्म ही है। उस ब्रह्मकर्ममें स्थित हुए पुरुषद्वारा प्राप्त करनेयोग्य जो फल है वह भी ब्रह्म ही है। अर्थात् ब्रह्मरूप कर्ममें जिसके चित्तका समाधान हो चुका है उस पुरुषद्वारा प्राप्त किये जानेयोग्य जो फल है वह भी ब्रह्म ही है। इस प्रकार लोकसंग्रह करना चाहनेवाले पुरुषद्वारा किये हुए कर्म भी ब्रह्मबुद्धिसे बाधित होनेके कारण अर्थात् फल उत्पन्न करनेकी शक्तिसे रहित कर दिये जानेके कारण वास्तवमें अकर्म ही हैं। ऐसा अर्थ मान लेनेपर कर्मोंको छोड़ देनेवाले कर्म संन्यासीके ज्ञानको भी यथार्थ ज्ञानकी स्तुतिके लिये यज्ञरूप समझना भली प्रकार बन सकता है अधियज्ञमें जो स्रुवादि वस्तुएँ प्रसिद्ध हैं वे सब इस यथार्थ ज्ञानी संन्यासीके ( सम्यक्ज्ञानरूप ) अध्यात्मयज्ञमें ब्रह्म ही हैं। उपर्युक्त अर्थ नहीं माननेसे वास्तवमें सब ही ब्रह्मरूप होनेके कारण केवल स्रुव आदिको ही विशेषतासे ब्रह्मरूप बतलाना व्यर्थ होगा। सुतरां यह सब कुछ ब्रह्म ही है इस प्रकार समझनेवाले ज्ञानीके लिये वास्तवमें सब कर्मोंका अभाव ही हो जाता है। तथा उसके अन्तःकरणमें ( क्रिया फल आदि ) कारकसम्बन्धी भेदबुद्धिका अभाव होनेके कारण भी यही सिद्ध होता है क्योंकि कोई भी यज्ञ नामक कर्म कारकसम्बन्धी भेदबुद्धिसे रहित नहीं देखा गया। अभिप्राय यह है कि अग्निहोत्रादि सभी कर्म ( इन्द्राय वरुणाय आदि ) शब्दोंद्वारा हवि आदि द्रव्य जिनके अर्पण किये जाते हैं उन देवताविशेषरूप सम्प्रदान आदि कारकबुद्धिवाले तथा कर्तापनके अभिमानसे और फलकी इच्छासे युक्त देखे गये हैं। जिसमेंसे क्रिया कारक और फलसम्बन्धी भेदबुद्धि नष्ट हो गयी हो तथा जो कर्तापनके अभिमानसे और फलकी इच्छासे रहित हो ऐसा यज्ञ नहीं देखा गया। परंतु यह उपर्युक्त कर्म तो ऐसा है कि जिसमें सर्वत्र ब्रह्मबुद्धि हो जानेके कारण अर्पणादि कारक क्रिया और फलसम्बन्धी भेदबुद्धि नष्ट हो गयी है। इसलिये यह अकर्म ही है। यही बात कर्मण्यकर्म यः पश्येत् कर्मण्यभिप्रवृत्तोऽपि नैव किंचित्करोति सः गुणा गुणेषु वर्तन्ते नैव किंचित्करोमीति युक्तो मन्येत तत्त्ववित् इत्यादि श्लोकोंद्वारा भी दिखलायी गयी है। और इसी प्रकार दिखलाते हुए भगवान् जगहजगह क्रिया कारक और फलसम्बन्धी भेदबुद्धिका निषेध कर रहे हैं। देखा भी गया है कि सकाम अग्निहोत्रादिमें कामना न रहनेपर वे सकाम अग्निहोत्रादि नहीं रहते। ( उनकी सकामता नष्ट हो जाती है। ) तथा यह भी देखा गया है कि जानबूझकर किये हुए और अनजानमें किये हुए कर्म भिन्नभिन्न कार्योंके आरम्भक होते हैं अर्थात् उनका फल अलगअलग होता है। वैसे ही यहाँ भी जिस पुरुषकी सर्वत्र ब्रह्मबुद्धि हो जानेसे ( स्रुव हवि आदिमें ) क्रिया कारक और फलसम्बन्धी भेदबुद्धि नष्ट हो गयी है उस ज्ञानी पुरुषके बाह्य चेष्टामात्रसे होनेवाले कर्म भी अकर्म हो जाते हैं। इसलिये कहा है कि उसके फलसहित कर्म विलीन हो जाते हैं। इस विषयमें कोईकोई टीकाकार कहते हैं कि जो ब्रह्म है वही स्रुव आदि है अर्थात् ब्रह्म ही स्रुव आदि पाँच प्रकारके कारकोंके रूपमें स्थित है और वही कर्म किया करता है ( उनके सिद्धान्तानुसार ) उपर्युक्त यज्ञमें स्रुव आदि बुद्धि निवृत्त नहीं की जाती किंतु स्रुव आदिमें ब्रह्मबुद्धि स्थापित की जाती है जैसे कि मूर्ति आदिमें विष्णु आदि देवबुद्धि या नाम आदिमें ब्रह्मबुद्धि की जाती है। ठीक है यदि यह प्रकरण ज्ञानयज्ञकी स्तुतिके लिये न होता तो यह अर्थ भी हो सकता था। परंतु इस प्रकरणमें तो यज्ञ नामसे कहे जानेवाले अलगअलग बहुतसे क्रियाभेदोंको कहकर फिर द्रव्यमय यज्ञकी अपेक्षा ज्ञानयज्ञ कल्याणकर है इस कथनद्वारा ज्ञानयज्ञ शब्दसे कथित सम्यक् दर्शनकी स्तुति करते हैं। तथा इस प्रकरणमें जो ब्रह्मार्पणम् इत्यादि वचन है यह ज्ञानको यज्ञरूपसे सम्पादन करनेमें समर्थ भी है नहीं तो वास्तवमें सब कुछ ब्रह्मरूप होनेके कारण केवल अर्पण ( स्रुव ) आदिको ही अलग करके ब्रह्मरूपसे विधान करना व्यर्थ होगा। जो ऐसा कहते हैं कि यहाँ मूर्तिमें विष्णु आदिकी दृष्टिके सदृश या नामादिमें ब्रह्मबुद्धिकी भाँति अर्पण ( स्रुव ) आदि यज्ञकी सामग्रीमें ब्रह्मबुद्धि स्थापन करायी गयी है उनकी दृष्टिसे सम्भवतः इस प्रकरणमें ब्रह्मविद्या नहीं कही गयी है क्योंकि ( उनके मतानुसार ) ज्ञानका विषय स्रुव आदि यज्ञकी सामग्री ही है ब्रह्म नहीं। इस प्रकार केवल ब्रह्मदृष्टि सम्पादनरूप ज्ञानसे मोक्षरूप फल नहीं मिल सकता और यहाँ ( स्पष्ट ही ) यह कहा है कि उसके द्वारा प्राप्त किया जानेवाला फल ब्रह्म ही है फिर बिना यथार्थ ज्ञानके मोक्षरूप फल मिलता है यह कहना सर्वथा विपरीत है। इसके सिवा ( ऐसा मान लेनेसे ) प्रकरणमें भी विरोध आता है। अभिप्राय यह है कि जो कर्ममें अकर्म देखता है इस प्रकार यहाँ आरम्भमें सम्यक् ज्ञानका ही प्रकरण है तथा उसीमें उपसंहार होनेके कारण अन्तमें भी यथार्थ ज्ञानका ही प्रकरण है। क्योंकि द्रव्यमय यज्ञकी अपेक्षा ज्ञानयज्ञ श्रेष्ठतर है ज्ञानको पाकर परम शान्तिको तुरंत ही प्राप्त हो जाता है इत्यादि वचनोंसे यथार्थ ज्ञानकी स्तुति करते हुए ही यह अध्याय समाप्त हुआ है। फिर बिना प्रकरण अकस्मात् मूर्तिमें विष्णुदृष्टिकी भाँति स्रुव आदिमें ब्रह्मदृष्टिका विधान बतलाना उपयुक्त नहीं। सुतरां जिस प्रकार इसकी व्याख्या की गयी है इस श्लोकका अर्थ वैसा ही है।

Relying on the Smriti "Unexperienced karma does not decay," (someone) raises a doubt—"From what cause?" (Kasmat). "Because the entire duality consisting of action, agent, and fruit is sublated by the realization of Brahman alone, it is logical that for the knower of Brahman, the karma which is merely Brahman dissolves completely"—thus they say—"It is said" (Uchyate).

"For the knower of Brahman, the entire aggregate of action, agent, and fruit is indeed Brahman"—introducing the subsequent verse (4.24) as the reason for this—"Since" (Yatah).

Showing that the word "Arpana" (offering) is not the object of an instrument (karana), he establishes the co-referentiality (samanadhikaranya) in the view of the two words "Arpanam Brahma"—"By which" (Yena). "Like 'That silver is this shell' (in illusion), this co-referentiality is in the sense of sublation (Badha)"—so he says—"Tasya". He states an example there—"Just as" (Yatha). He introduces the two words in the stated sense—"Similarly it is said" (Tadvad uchyate). He clarifies the very same meaning—"As what" (Yatha yat). He excludes the compound formation (Samasa)—"Brahma" (Brahman). He states the intended meaning in the view of two separate words—"What is offering" (Yad arpana).

Introducing and explaining the two words "Brahma havih"—"Brahma etc." (Brahmaityadina). "What is grasped by the idea of offering is indeed Brahman for the knower of Brahman, as stated before, so also here"—he says—"Similarly" (Tatha). The genitive "Asya" (of this) qualifies the knower of Brahman.

Anticipating a compound as before (in Haviragnau), and excluding it, he introduces and explains the other word—"Similarly" (Tatha). "Like the previously stated non-compound"—is the distinction. He states the intended meaning there—"Fire also" (Agnirapi). He states the accepted meaning of the word "Brahmana"—"Brahmana". "Is offered by the agent" is the connection. "The agent is not distinct from the presence/nature of Brahman"—this is the accepted view, he says—"Brahmaiva" (Brahman indeed). He states the intended meaning of "Hutam" (offered)—"What by him" (Yat tena). He divides the portion "Brahmaiva tena" etc.—"Brahmaiva etc." (Brahmaivaityadina). Introducing and explaining "Brahma karma" etc.—"Brahma" (Brahman). The object-ness (karmatva) of Brahman should be understood as being the object of knowledge and object of attainment.

Thus, having stated the literal meaning of the 'Brahmarpana' mantra, he states the purport—"Thus" (Evam). "How does this mantra apply to a Sannyasi who has renounced actions?"—anticipating this doubt, he says—"Renounced" (Nivritta). "Just as for an ignorant person incapable of performing external sacrifices, a mental sacrifice is seen, similarly establishing Knowledge as a sacrifice is highly appropriate for the sake of praise; because praise is obtained thereby, or because imagination is within one's control"—this is the meaning. He enacts the establishment of Knowledge as a sacrifice—"Yad arpanadi" (That which is offering etc.). "By what proof is the establishment as sacrifice understood here?"—anticipating this doubt, "Because of the impossibility of describing offering etc. specifically as Brahman otherwise"—he says—"Otherwise" (Anyatha). When Knowledge is established as sacrifice, he states the resultant meaning—"Therefore" (Tasmat).

"The Self alone is all this"—stating another reason for the absence of action in one for whom the non-reality of everything other than the Self is being propounded—"Karaka" (Factor of action). "Even in the absence of the idea of factors (karakas) and pride in them, why can't there be action?"—anticipating this doubt, he says—"Nahi" (Not indeed). He strengthens the same point by Anvaya (positive concordance) and Vyatireka (negative concordance)—"Sarvameva" (All indeed). "The specific deity dedicated to by the word 'To Indra' etc. is the recipient factor (Sampradana); by the word 'Adi', the instrument factor like rice grains etc.; 'I am the doer possessing the idea of those objects'—preceded by this pride, 'Liberation is the fruit of this'—action possessing such desire for fruit is seen"—this is the construction. Having stated the Anvaya, he states the Vyatireka—"Na ityadina" (Not etc.). "Action whose factor—the intellect regarding the difference of action etc.—is destroyed; and which is devoid of the desire 'The fruit in liberation is of this' preceded by pride of doership—such action is not seen"—this is the connection (Anvaya of Vyatireka).

"Still, what is implied by the absence of apparent action in the knower of Brahman?"—anticipating this, he says—"Idam" (This). "This action seen in the knower of Brahman, for one who possesses the intellect regarding the difference of factors etc. which is negated by the intellect 'I am Brahman', is indeed not action at all; when there is knowledge of Reality, the pervasive (knowledge) negating the pervaded (factors) negates the pervaded 'action' also; the absence of action in the bodily movements etc. of the knower of Truth is because of being devoid of the pervasiveness of action (doership), like movements in deep sleep"—this is the meaning.

"The action seen in the man of knowledge is indeed non-action"—he states the Lord's approval in this—"Tatha cha" (And thus). "Even if it is said that there is no seen action for the knower of Brahman, since its cause is not destroyed, it will happen again?"—anticipating this, he says—"Tatha cha darshayann" (And thus showing). "Like an ignorant person, a wise man is also seen engaging in action, yet his action is indeed non-action"—he states an example here—"Drishta cha" (And is seen). "The action of the wise, being no different in terms of being action, would originate fruit like other actions"—this doubt is also not logical, he says—"Tatha" (Similarly). "'This action alone is to be done, and its fruit is to be enjoyed'—the intellect, actions preceded by that and actions not preceded by that—to include their intermediate distinctions is the word 'Adi'." He states the illustrated truth (Darshtantika)—"Tatha" (Similarly). By the locative case, the context of the wise man is referred to. The two genitives are co-referential. He aligns the previous sentence with the stated meaning—"Atah" (Therefore).

Having stated his own explanation of the Brahmarpana mantra, he restates the explanation of his own school (fellow Vedantins/interpreters)—"Atra" (Here). "Since enjoining the unknown with reference to the known is logical, how can there be injunction of the known with reference to the unknown?"—anticipating this, he says—"Brahmaiva" (Brahman indeed). By the word "Kila" (Indeed/It is said), he indicates the disagreement of the Siddhantin (Shankara) with this explanation. "By accepting that Brahman, established as the fivefold factors of agent, object, instrument, recipient, and locus, performs action, there is no lack of its being known; therefore, referring to that, the injunction of the vision of That in offering etc. is not contradictory"—this is the meaning.

In the view of 'Injunction of Vision' (Drishti-vidhi), he shows the difference from the Siddhanta—"Tatra" (There). He clarifies the Brahman-idea to be practiced in offering etc. with two examples—"Yatha ityadina" (Just as etc.).

"In the injunction of vision, since the enjoined vision is a mental action, there would be a break in the context due to the absence of 'Right Knowledge' (Samyag-jnana)"—intending this, he (Shankara) refutes—"Satyam evam" (True, thus). "The context is indeed about the praise of the vision intended to be enjoined, not about the praise of Knowledge"—anticipating this, he propounds that "By reviewing the context, praise of Knowledge alone shines forth here"—"Atra tu" (Here however). Moreover, he says that the capacity to praise Right Knowledge appears even in the Brahmarpana mantra—"Atra cha" (And here).

(Objection) "Now, even for those practicing Brahman-vision in offering etc., Brahman-knowledge alone is intended here, so the difference of view is unestablished?"—if this is said, he says there—"Ye tu" (Those however). "Just as Name etc. are to be worshipped by the vision of Brahman (in symbol worship), similarly if Brahman-vision is practiced in offering etc., offering etc. alone would be the primary object of knowledge; thus Brahman-knowledge would not be intended by the stated sentence"—this is the meaning.

Moreover, "Since the fruit of attaining Brahman is stated in 'Brahman alone is to be reached by him', the injunction of vision is incoherent"—he says—"Na cha" (And not). "And the vision supported by offering etc. does not lead to the attainment of Brahman, because of the contradiction with the maxim 'He leads from the non-symbolic support'"—this is the purport. (Objection) "Even in injunction of vision, by the force of the command (Niyoga) alone, unseen Liberation will occur like Heaven?"—anticipating this, he says—"Viruddham cha" (And contradictory). "Having stated Isolation (Kaivalya/Liberation) from Knowledge alone, the statement of Liberation—defined as cessation of ignorance and being visible/experienced—as being born of Niyoga (command) is contradictory to the Shruti which denies other paths"—this is the meaning. "That Liberation happens from the command of vision is also contradictory to the context"—he says—"Prakrita" (Contextual). He elaborates on that—"Samyag darshanam cha" (And right vision). "And in the end, right vision is the context"—this is the connection. The reason for that is—"Tasyaiva" (Of that alone). "Having started with Right Knowledge and concluded with the same, if something else is said in the middle, the context would not be about that?"—anticipating this, he says—"Shreyan" (Better - ref. 4.33). "When the context is about Right Knowledge, the injunction of vision is illogical"—he states the result—"Tatra" (There).

"Since the explanation by others is impossible regarding the Brahmarpana mantra, my own explanation is established"—he concludes—"Tasmat" (Therefore).

Objection: "Since statements affirm the inevitability of action's result, for what reason does the action being performed completely dissolve without commencing its effect (bondage)?" Anticipating this, He states that since all dualistic phenomena, including action, agent, and result, are Brahman alone for the Knower of Brahman, his entire action is destroyed.

The statement "Brahma arpaṇam" implies the sublation of identity (bādhāyāṁ sāmānādhikaraṇyam), like "the thief is the post" [meaning the thief is negated by the post]. Similarly, all factors of action (instruments, agents, etc.) are Brahman alone for the Knower of Reality.

That which is known as offering etc. in a ritual is, in this inner contemplation (adhyātma), Brahman alone. Otherwise, if everything is Brahman, naming only the offering etc., as Brahman would be meaningless. Action performed even by one desiring world welfare is truly akarma, because it is sublated by the perception of Brahman.

He clarifies the state of having the mind established in knowledge (jñānāvasthita-cetastvaṁ) with "brahmārpaṇaṁ" (Brahman is the offering) etc.

All this is called "Brahman" because it possesses existence and and activity dependent on Him, but not because it is His nature.

As stated (in the Padma Purana): "Since all is dependent on You, all sages call You all, but not in the nature of all things."

And "All that is guided by knowledge" (Aitareya Upanishad 5.3) etc. [are also cited].

Brahman alone is action, together with meditation.

How do the actions of the wise dissolve? Anticipating this doubt, He says "Brahmarpanam" etc. Because those wise men, in Savikalpa Samadhi, see the entire world as created by the Inner Consciousness-Power (Pratyak-chiti-shakti). And similarly the Shruti—starting with "What is the cause?", and proposing various causes according to worldly view like "Time, Nature, etc.", decides the cause as: "Those following the yoga of meditation saw the Divine Self-power hidden by its own gunas" (Shvetashvatara Upanishad 1.1-3)—thus it shows through Samadhi.

And thus, for those who see through Samadhi that everything is superimposed on Brahman, the "Arpana"—meaning the instrument of offering like Mantra, Juhu (ladle) etc.—is Brahman indeed. The word "Eva" (indeed) should be supplied everywhere. The oblation (Havis) which is to be offered is also Brahman indeed. The "Huta"—meaning the act of offering, or the "Huta" meaning the gratified gods, Brahmins, etc.—is also Brahman indeed. That which is offered into the fire is also offered into Brahman indeed. Here the word "Brahmani" (into Brahman) should be supplied. What is offered by the sacrificer is offered by Brahman indeed. The fruit to be reached or attained by that action is also Brahman indeed. Why say much? Whatever action of his, like sleeping, sitting, etc., all that is Brahman indeed.

The reason for that is through "Samadhi"—meaning through Self-realization born of Samadhi. Since everything for him is of the nature of Brahman, and Brahman is not different from the Inner Self; therefore, due to the absence of a fruit to be given, actions dissolve, like fire in the absence of fuel; this is the purport.

And the interpretation that "Brahman-vision is enjoined here upon action and its limbs, like upon Name etc.", is inconsistent due to contradiction with the introduction etc., and because Brahman-knowledge is the context; this has been refuted in the Bhashya (of Shankara) itself. For, the realistic Brahman-vision of the knowers of Brahman regarding the limbs of action, which is proclaimed, effectively serves for the practice of the non-knowers of Brahman, just like the characteristics of a man of steady wisdom (Sthitaprajna); its purport should not be described as being there (as an injunction for the wise); this is the direction.

The oblation (havih) is qualified: The instrument (arpaṇam), like the ladle (sruka), by which the offering is made, is Brahman because it is an effect of Brahman; Brahmārpaṇam means the offering whose oblation is Brahman. The oblation (havih) is Brahman, and the fire (Brahman) is Brahman, and the action is performed by the agent (Brahman). He who contemplates (samādhatte) that all action is thus pervaded by Brahman (Brahmātmaka) is a Brahma-karma-samādhi.

By that Brahma-karma-samādhi, Brahman alone is the destination (gantavyam). The Self, whose nature is pervaded by Brahman, is the destination.

Action performed by seekers of liberation, being associated with the contemplation that it is pervaded by the Supreme Brahman, is jnana-akaram (knowledge-formed), which is a direct means to Self-realization, and not achieved by being interrupted by dedication to mere Knowledge (Jnana-nishtha).

Having thus established the knowledge-formed nature of action, He states the different types of Karma Yoga—

And thus, that actionless Yogi, liberated in all respects, whose mind is established by the knowledge of the true nature of the non-dual Brahman,

performs Brahma Karma for the sake of Yajna, meaning for Brahman.

All that action completely dissolves, meaning it attains the state of actionlessness (akarma-bhāva).

Thus, action characterized as the worship of the Supreme Lord is truly akarma (non-binding) because it leads to Knowledge. In the Ārūḍha (established) state, even spontaneous action is akarma because it is negated by the knowledge of the non-doer Self; thus, the dissolution of action stated by 'karmanyakarma yah pashyet' (He who sees inaction in action) is elaborated upon. Now, He states the dissolution of action for the person who sees Brahman pervading action and its accessories with 'brahmārpaṇaṁ' (Brahman is the offering) etc.

Arpaṇam (the instrument, like the ladle) by which the offering is made, is also Brahman.

The oblation (havis, like ghee) being offered is also Brahman. Brahman is the fire, and the offering made by the agent (Brahman) in that fire is also Brahman. The act of offering, the fire, the agent, and the action are all Brahman—this is the meaning.

Thus, for the person whose concentration (samādhi) is fixed solely on action identified with Brahman, Brahman alone is the destination (gantavyaṁ), not any other fruit.

यह एक प्रसिद्ध श्लोक है जिसको भारत में भोजन प्रारम्भ करने के पूर्व पढ़ा जाता है किन्तु अधिकांश लोग न तो इसका अर्थ जानते हैं और न जानने का प्रयत्न ही करते हैं। तथापि इसका अर्थ गंभीर है और इसमें सम्पूर्ण वेदान्त के सार को बता दिया गया है।वह अनन्त पारमार्थिक सत्य जो इस दृश्यमान नित्य परिवर्तनशील जगत् का अधिष्ठान है वेदान्त में ब्रह्म शब्द के द्वारा निर्देशित किया जाता है। यही ब्रह्म एक शरीर से परिच्छिन्नसा हुआ आत्मा कहलाता है। एक ही तत्त्व इन दो शब्दों से लक्षित किया है और वेदान्त केसरी की यह गर्जना है कि आत्मा ही ब्रह्म है।इस श्लोक में वैदिक यज्ञ का रूपक है। प्रत्येक यज्ञ में चार प्रमुख आवश्यक वस्तुएं होती हैं (1) यज्ञ का देवता जिसे आहुति दी जाती है (2) अग्नि (3) हवन के योग्य द्रव्य पदार्थ हवि (शाकल्य) और (4) यज्ञकर्ता व्यक्ति।यज्ञ भावना से कर्म करते हुए ज्ञानी पुरुष की मन की स्थिति एवं अनुभूति का वर्णन इस श्लोक में किया गया है। उसके अनुभव की दृष्टि से एक पारमार्थिक सत्य ही विद्यमान है न कि अविद्या से उत्पन्न नामरूपमय यह जगत्। अत वह जानता है कि सभी यज्ञों की उत्पत्ति ब्रह्म से ही होती है जिनमें देवता अग्नि हवि और यज्ञकर्ता सभी ब्रह्म हैं। जब एक तरंग दूसरी तरंग पर से उछलती हुई अन्य साथी तरंग से मिल जाती है तब इस दृश्य को देखते हुए हम जानते हैं कि ये सब तरंगे समुद्र के अतिरिक्त और कुछ नहीं है। समुद्र में ही समुद्र का खेल चल रहा है।यदि कोई व्यक्ति जगत् के असंख्य नामरूपों कर्मों और व्यवहारों में अंतर्बाह्य व्याप्त अधिष्ठान स्वरूप परमार्थ तत्त्व को देख सकता है तो फिर उसे सर्वत्र सभी परिस्थितियों में वस्तुओं और प्राणियों का दर्शन अनन्त आनन्द स्वरूप सत्य का ही स्मरण कराता है। संत पुरुष ब्रह्म का ही आह्वान करके प्रत्येक कर्म करता है इसलिये उसके सब कर्म लीन हो जाते हैं।भोजन के पूर्व इस श्लोक के पाठ का प्रयोजन अब स्वत स्पष्ट हो जाता है। शरीर धारण के लिये भोजन आवश्यक है और तीव्र क्षुधा लगने पर किसी भी प्रकार का अन्न स्वादिष्ट लगता है। इस प्रार्थना का भाव यह है कि भोजन के समय भी हमें सत्य का विस्मरण नहीं होना चाहिए। यह ध्यान रहे कि भोक्तारूप ब्रह्म ब्रह्म का आह्वान करके अन्नरूप ब्रह्म की आहुति उदर में स्थित अग्निरूप ब्रह्म को ही दे रहा है। इस ज्ञान का निरन्तर स्मरण रहने पर मनुष्य भोगों से ऊपर उठकर अपने अनन्तस्वरूप को प्राप्त कर लेता है।यज्ञ की सर्वोच्च भावना को स्पष्ट करने के पश्चात् भगवान् अर्जुन को समझाते हैं कि सम्यक् भावना के होने से किस प्रकार प्रत्येक कर्म यज्ञ बन जाता है

The verse 'brahmārpaṇam' also establishes the knowledge-formed nature of action by a difference in mode—thus, He shows the connection with the previous verse with 'prakṛti' (Prakriti) etc.

'Sarvasya' (of all) means of all actions in the form of Nitya, Naimittika, etc., along with their accessories (ladles, oblations, etc.).

Here, the contemplation of the falsity (mithyātva-bhāvanaṁ) of the offering, oblation, etc., as entities distinct from Brahman, and the imagining of Brahman alone as the sacrifice, which are interpretations by others, must be refuted due to contradictions with direct perception and contextual inconsistency.

The word arpaṇam here refers to the ladle etc., by the derivation of the instrumental cause (karaṇa-vyutpatti).

[The statements] that the agent is Brahman, the oblation is Brahman, etc., were made to dispel the illusion that the text is merely enjoining the vision of Brahman in the ladle etc.

He clarifies the state of having the mind established in knowledge (jñānāvasthita-cetastvaṁ) with 'brahmārpaṇaṁ' (Brahman is the offering) etc.

All this is called 'Brahman' because it possesses existence and activity dependent on Him, but not because it is His nature.

As stated (in the Padma Purana): "Since all is dependent on You, all sages call You all, but not in the nature of all things."

And "All that is guided by knowledge" (Aitareya Upanishad 5.3) etc. [are also cited].

Brahman alone is action, together with meditation.

Now, how is the action being performed destroyed without generating fruit? "Because its cause is uprooted by the realization of Brahman"—He says. Sacrificial action etc. is accomplished by manifold factors (karakas). The abandonment of a substance intended for a deity is indeed "Yaga" (sacrifice). That very (abandonment), due to the throwing of the substance being abandoned into the fire, is called "Homa". There, the intended deity is the "Recipient" (Sampradana). The substance being abandoned, denoted by the word "Havis", is the direct Object (Karma) of the verb's meaning. Its fruit, however, like Heaven etc. which is remote, is the "Bhavana-karma" (Object of efficient force). Similarly, in the throwing of the Havis into the fire as a support, Juhu (ladle) etc. is the "Instrument" (Karana) due to being the most effective means; and Mantra etc. is Instrument due to being the illuminator—thus the Instrument is also of two kinds: factor and indicator. Similarly, "abandonment" and "throwing into fire" are two actions. In the first one, the Sacrificer (Yajamana) is the Doer; but in the throwing, the Adhvaryu priest hired by the Sacrificer is the Doer; and the locus of throwing is the Fire. Similarly, place, time, etc. should also be seen as the "Locus" (Adhikarana) common to all actions.

Thus, all dealings of actions and factors etc., which are imagined by ignorance of Brahman like the snake, water-stream, stick, etc. imagined by ignorance of the rope, are sublated by the knowledge of the Reality of Brahman just as by the knowledge of the Reality of the rope; then, by the persistence of the sublated (Badhita-anuvritti), the semblance of dealings of actions and factors etc., though being seen, does not conduce to fruit, according to the logic of the burnt cloth (Dagdha-pata-nyaya)—this is propounded by this verse. And "Brahman-vision" alone is praised as constituting all sacrifices. Thus: By the derivation "By which it is offered," "Arpana" means Juhu etc. and Mantra etc. Similarly, by the derivation "To whom it is offered," "Arpana" means the Recipient in the form of Deity. Similarly, by the derivation "In which it is offered," "Arpana" means the Locus like place, time, etc. All that, being imagined in Brahman, is Brahman indeed; it is unreal apart from the Substratum, like the snake imagined in the rope; this is the meaning. Similarly, the Havis, which is the direct Object factor of the actions of abandonment and throwing, that too is Brahman indeed. Similarly, where it is thrown—into the Fire—that too is Brahman indeed. "Brahmagnau" is a compound word. Similarly, the agent by whom—the Sacrificer and the Adhvaryu—it is abandoned and thrown, both of them are the "Doer factor"; restated by the instrumental case enjoined for the doer, it is ordained as "Brahman" with "Brahmana". Similarly "Hutam"—meaning the act of offering, the action of abandonment and the action of throwing—that too is Brahman indeed. Similarly, the remote object (fruit) like Heaven etc. which is to be reached by that offering, that too is Brahman indeed. The particle "Eva" (indeed) here is connected everywhere. In "Hutam" also, "Brahma" is supplied from this very place (from the previous word); due to absence of intervention and due to expectancy—like the supplying of the subsequent sentence remainder "with the hole-less..." in "May the Lord of the mind purify you..." etc. In this form, he whose "Samadhi"—meaning Brahman-knowledge—is in action, is "Brahma-karma-samadhi"; by that knower of Brahman, even though performing action, "Brahman"—the Supreme Bliss, the Non-dual—is to be reached; this is supplied. Due to expectancy and non-intervention—like the supplying of the previous sentence remainder "the largest body..." in "O Agni, that which is your... lying in light" etc.

Alternatively, by the derivation "Offered for this fruit," by the word "Arpana" itself, the fruit like Heaven etc. is also grasped. And thus, "Brahman alone is to be reached by him, the Brahma-karma-samadhi"—this second half is purely for stating the fruit of Knowledge; this is consistent. In this view, "Brahma-karma-samadhi" is one compound word. The first word "Brahma" is connected with "Hutam"; the last one is connected with "Gantavyam"; thus it is a distinct word. And thus, there is no trouble of two supplyings (anushangas); this should be seen. "Brahman is to be reached"—its attainment is figurative due to non-difference. Therefore, the trivial fruit like Heaven etc. is not to be reached by him, because the dealings of factors born of ignorance are uprooted by Knowledge. This is stated by the Vartikakara (Sureshavara): "In the dealing of factors, the Pure Reality is not seen; and when the Pure Reality is established, where is the operation of factors?" The interpretation of some that "Without destroying the nature of factors like Arpana etc., Brahman-vision is superimposed there like on Name etc., merely as a Sampat (meditation based on similarity) for a specific fruit"—has been refuted by the Bhashyakara himself through arguments like contradiction with the introduction etc., and the irrelevance of mere Sampat in the context of Brahman-knowledge.

"Now, 'Being Brahman indeed, he attains Brahman' (Brihadaranyaka 4.4.6), 'Merges into Brahman' (Taittiriya Aranyaka 2.2, Nrisimha Uttara Tapaniya 5), 'All this is verily Brahman' (Chandogya 3.14.1)—thus the nature of everything being Brahman is stated.

Of which action is the Brahman-nature stated here?"—"Brahmarpanam" etc. Arpana—that by which it is offered, sacrificed, is "Arpana"—the materials like ladle (Sruk, Sruva) etc. are "Brahman"; "Havis"—ghee etc. is "Brahman"; "Brahmagnau"—in the Fire which is of the nature of Brahman; in that, "Brahmana"—by the Doer—it is "Hutam" (offered).

In this manner, action is "Brahman"; therefore "Samadhina"—through the state of Samadhi—by that action which is of the nature of Brahman, "Brahman" alone is to be reached/attained. Therefore, due to being of the nature of Brahman, it dissolves there; this is the meaning.

That is why the Shruti also says "All this is verily Brahman," stating the Brahman-nature of everything.

‘Brahman is the offering’—the instrument by which the knower of Brahman offers the oblation into the fire, he sees that as Brahman itself; he sees its non-existence apart from the Self, just as one sees the non-existence of silver in the nacre (shell); therefore it is said ‘Brahman alone is the offering’, just as ‘whatever is silver is nacre indeed.’ ‘Brahman’ and ‘Arpanam’ are uncompounded (separate) words. That which is grasped in the world with the idea of ‘offering’ (instrument), that for this knower of Brahman is Brahman itself; this is the meaning. ‘Brahman is the oblation’—similarly, that which is being grasped with the idea of ‘oblation’, that is Brahman itself for him. Similarly, ‘Brahmagnau’ (in the fire of Brahman) is a compound word. The fire also is Brahman itself where the offering is made by the agent ‘Brahman’—meaning, the agent is Brahman itself. That which is ‘offered’ (Hutam) by him—the action of offering—is Brahman itself. That fruit which is to be reached by him is also Brahman itself through ‘Brahma-karma-samadhi’; Brahman itself is the action, thus ‘Brahma-karma’; he whose Samadhi (absorption) is in that is ‘Brahma-karma-samadhi’; by that Brahma-karma-samadhi, Brahman alone is to be reached.

Thus, even the action being performed by one desiring the welfare of the world is, in ultimate reality, non-action (Akarma), because it is sublated by the knowledge of Brahman. This being so, even for the one who has ceased from actions, the renouncer of all actions, the establishment of Knowledge as a sacrifice for the purpose of praising Right Vision is highly appropriate—(stating) that what is well-known as offering etc. in the context of sacrifice, that for this seer of ultimate reality is Brahman itself in the context of the Self. Otherwise, since everything is Brahman, the specific mention of offering etc. as Brahman would be meaningless. Therefore, for the wise man who knows that “Brahman alone is all this,” there is absence of action; and because of the absence of the idea of factors (doer, instrument etc.). For, an action named sacrifice devoid of the idea of factors is indeed not seen. All action like Agnihotra etc. is seen to possess the idea of factors like recipient specific deity presented by words etc., and possessing pride of doership and desire for fruit; not (seen) as possessing a knowledge that sublates the difference of action, factors and fruit, or as devoid of pride of doership and desire for fruit. But this is action where the idea of difference of factors like offering, action, and fruit is sublated by the knowledge of Brahman; therefore, it is indeed non-action. And it has been shown (similarly): “He who sees non-action in action...” (4.18), “Even while engaged in action he does nothing at all”, “The Gunas act among Gunas,” “I do nothing at all—thus the knower of Truth should think,” etc. And showing thus, here and there He performs the sublation of the idea of difference of action, factor, and fruit. And in Kamya Agnihotra etc., by the suppression of desire, the loss of (the nature of) Kamya Agnihotra etc. is seen. Similarly, it is seen that actions done intentionally and unintentionally originate specific (different) effects. Similarly here too, for the wise man whose intellect regarding difference of factors like offering, action, and fruit is sublated by Brahman-knowledge, action—being merely external movement—becomes non-action. Therefore it is said “Dissolves entirely” (4.23).

Here some say: That which is Brahman, the offering etc. are Brahman itself; indeed, remaining established as the fivefold factor like offering etc., That alone performs action. In that view, the idea of offering etc. is not removed, but the idea of Brahman is superimposed on offering etc., like the idea of Vishnu etc. on an image, or like the idea of Brahman on Name etc.

True, it would be so even here, if the context were not for the praise of the Wisdom-Sacrifice (Jnana-Yajna). But here, presenting many specific actions termed as ‘sacrifice’, He praises Knowledge—termed as Wisdom-Sacrifice—saying “Wisdom-Sacrifice is superior to material sacrifice” (Gita 4.33). And here, this statement “Brahmarpanam” etc. is capable of establishing Knowledge as a sacrifice; otherwise, since everything is Brahman, stating specifically offering etc. as Brahman would be meaningless. But those who say that the vision of Brahman is superimposed on offering etc. like the vision of Vishnu on an image or like on Name etc.—according to them, the Brahman-knowledge spoken of here would not be what is intended, because knowledge would have offering etc. as its object. And the fruit of Liberation is not attained by knowledge (which is actually) an accomplishment of vision (superimposition). And it is said “Brahman alone is to be reached by him”. And it is contradictory that the fruit of Liberation is attained without Right Vision. And there is contradiction with the context; and Right Vision is the context in “He who sees non-action in action”; and in the end also Right Vision, because of the conclusion of the same. “Wisdom-sacrifice is superior to material sacrifice,” “Having obtained knowledge, supreme peace” etc.—the chapter is devoted in doing the praise of Right Vision alone. Therefore, that suddenly Brahman-vision is mentioned on offering etc. out of context, like Vishnu-vision on an image, is illogical. Therefore, this verse has the meaning exactly as explained (by us).

There, now having established Right Vision as a Sacrifice, for its praise, other sacrifices are also proposed.

He states the nature of dissolution with 'Brahmarpanam' etc. 'Bhavadvaita' (non-duality of being), 'Kriyadvaita' (non-duality of action), and 'Dravyadvaita' (non-duality of substance) is spoken by the Lord with His own mouth—[in the Nibandha]: "Agnihotra, Darshapurnamasa, Pashu sacrifice, Chaturmasya, and Soma—Hari is sequentially five-fold. And that which is the means for it—Prayaja etc., ladle (Sruk) etc.—is that Hari. This natural form (of sacrifice) is eternal, but the desire-motivated one is modified. For the Knower, upon the manifestation of that (Hari-nature), the liberation of the doer happens in order"—because of this statement in the 'Nibandha'. Similarly, for the Knower, all action becomes an offering to Brahman. The 'Arpana' (offering instrument)—ladle etc.—becomes Brahman; the Havis (oblation) is Brahman; offered into the Brahman-fire by the Brahman-doer is Brahman indeed; (it is) a sacrifice; the fruit to be attained there is Brahman indeed. By what? By 'Brahmaiva karma' (action which is indeed Brahman)—by absorption (Samadhi) in that.

Although everything entering Prakriti, which is Satchidananda and named Purusha, is indeed non-material (aprakrita) Brahman, still the ignorant does not know it. But the Knower should worship this as Brahman through knowledge-sacrifice due to the feeling of non-difference. (Objection) "Now, since the unity of Brahman and the Self is of the nature of absolute absence of difference, how is being a part (Amsha), renunciation, and being controlled by the Lord possible?" If this is asked, it is said—In the unity of Brahman and the Self, is its non-difference capable of tolerating difference? Or is it incapable of that? This is established by Shruti, (so) this is investigated.

Here some say that it is incapable. But in our view, it is indeed capable of tolerating difference. Why? Because Satkaryavada (the doctrine that the effect pre-exists in the cause) alone is supported by Shruti, and therefore everything exists even in the state prior to creation. Thus—in the Shruti "O Somya, this was Being (Sat) alone in the beginning" (Chandogya 6.2.1), referring to 'Idam' i.e., the visible world, stating its existence-nature in the past time, and then teaching its Brahman-nature and causality of the world, it speaks of non-duality from that. Then—anticipating the theory of non-existence (Asatkaryavada) with "Some say that was (non-existence)..." (Chandogya 6.2.1) etc., it refutes it with "How indeed, O Somya, could it be so" (Chandogya 6.2.2) etc. That being so, if attributes like form, being an effect, etc. were not in Brahman before, then the Shruti refuting Asatkaryavada and teaching Satkaryavada would be harmed. Therefore, for the reconciliation of both, it must be accepted that the one Brahman alone, qualified by those respective attributes, is the cause. That being so, just as now the mutual difference of effects and their respective forms, and their non-difference with the cause, and their difference in the form of being an effect etc. is seen in the world regarding bracelet, earring, gold, etc.; similarly, it should be understood regarding Brahman and the world.

Similarly, for the part and the whole—the Jiva and Brahman—also, like the piece of gold and gold, the explanation is only through manifestation at creation and concealment (otherwise); otherwise, there would be the contingency of contradiction with the 'Avyakrita' (Unmanifest) Shruti. Having stated creation in the Purushavidha Brahmana, later: "This was then unmanifest, it was manifested by name and form only—he has this name, this form" (Brihadaranyaka 1.4.7). Here, in the manifestation of name and form, a worldly example alone is cited; to establish that, He says. In the world too, an existing object alone is manifested by name and form—by this, its (the world's) existence even in the state prior to creation becomes clear, so Asatkaryavada is not authoritative. In Bhagavatam Canto 3 (3.10.12-13) also—"The universe is indeed Brahman; it is established by Vishnu's Maya (power) as a measure/part; circumscribed by the Lord, by Time of unmanifest form. As it is now, so was it before, and likewise in the future"—thus it states the existence of everything as uniform in all three times.

This very point has been explained by the feet of Vyasa in the Avirodha Adhyaya (of Brahma Sutras), in the 'Asad-vyapadesha' topic. In the Shruti "Non-existence indeed was this in the beginning" (Taittiriya 2.7), the designation of the world as 'Non-existence' in the pre-creation state is due to its non-existence as 'Manifest', even though it existed with another attribute of 'Unmanifest'; this is understood from the remainder of the sentence "That created itself by itself" (Taittiriya 2.7); and from the usage of "Idam" (This), and the usage of "Asit" (Was). Otherwise, there would be a contradiction. And because the eternal Samavaya relation resides in two, in the absence of the effect, there would be absence of that (relation), and loss of its eternity. If there is origination of the unrelated, then by the example of the world, there would be loss of the rule of specific causes for effects like pots and cloths. And it should not be said that "Where there is prior non-existence of something, that effect is born from that cause"—by this rule the specific causality is not broken; because it is impossible to speak of prior non-existence distinct from the state of the cause; seeing the state of clay shards alone, the certainty "Here in the shards the pot will be" arises; and accepting prior non-existence distinct from that and manifested by that state involves the fault of heaviness (Gaurava). And it should not be suspected that if the effect exists before origination, the agent's action would be obstructed/useless; because it is meaningful for the purpose of manifesting the effect; and there is Brahman-statement (Veda) to that effect. Certainty is obtained similarly in cases like spreading a folded cloth. And it should not be suspected that by accepting unmanifest existence thus, there would be the contingency of some functional activity from it, like suffering caused by an unseen ghost etc.; because there is deviation (exception) in unmanifest smell, form, etc. (which exist but don't act). In the regulation of contraction and breath control etc. by Yoga—by the non-abandonment of the regulation of mere life-force, and by the non-observation of the effect like contraction and expansion—such certainty is obtained.

In this situation, Satkaryavada being established, because of the existence of the world and Jiva even in the state prior to creation—the non-difference stated in "One only without a second Brahman" (Chandogya 6.2.1) etc., culminating in the absence of perception of the world and Jiva as distinct from That, establishes a non-difference that is indeed 'capable of tolerating difference'; therefore, during the state of creation, due to the cause-effect relationship of the world and Brahman, and the part-whole relationship of the Jiva (and Brahman), even while becoming figurative (formal distinctions), it does not destroy that real non-difference. Thereby, even now, the non-difference is indeed tolerant of difference. That being so, regarding the vision of multiplicity and the vision of difference, the hearing of the censure of difference also culminates only in 'difference opposed to non-difference', this should be understood. In the Shruti "When he makes even a slight difference in this..." (Taittiriya 2.7), because by the word 'Kurute' (makes), the censure is of the difference originated by action; and because origination—of the non-existent—culminates only in existence; the censure culminates in the difference being created which is opposed to non-difference; but in the vision of difference which is not opposed to non-difference, there is not even a trace of blameworthiness, this should be understood. And thus, even in the state of supreme liberation—since the equality of the Self with Brahman is heard in the Kathaka Shruti (4.15) "Just as pure water poured into pure becomes exactly like that, so becomes the Self of the sage who knows, O Gautama"—it is established that non-difference is of the nature of absence of perception of difference, not of the nature of absence of difference. That is why in the Maitreyi Brahmana, the hearing of (negation of) other-knowledge by "Where everything has become the Self for him, there by what should one see whom" (Brihadaranyaka 4.5.15) etc. also culminates only in the cessation of dualistic vision, not in the absence of duality. Ahead of this, in the second Maitreyi Brahmana—"That he does not see (in deep sleep/liberation), while seeing indeed he does not see; for there is no cessation of the vision of the seer, because of imperishability; but there is no second, other than him, separate, which he may see" (Brihadaranyaka 4.3.23) etc.—by stating non-seeing while seeing, and the absence of a second, absence of division, and absence of otherness as the cause for not seeing other things, such certainty is obtained. And later, restating the vision of otherness caused by distinctness with "Where there is as if another" (Brihadaranyaka 4.3.31) etc.; and by "Where everything has become the Self for him..." (Brihadaranyaka 4.5.15) etc., regarding the knowledge of the Knower who is (not) divided from oneself (the Seer)—"By what should one know him"—by this, He states the absence of the instrument of knowledge as the cause; from this also such certainty is obtained. Otherwise, since Maitreyi's delusion was removed in the very first Brahmana, He would not speak the second Brahmana again. Therefore, the ambiguous meaning there—that non-difference is of the nature of absence of vision of difference, not of the nature of absence of difference—the second Brahmana is for determining that; thus non-difference is indeed tolerant of difference.

regarding the view that—in the Shruti "May I become many" (Chandogya 6.2.3), since multiplicity of the One is heard at the beginning of creation, the absence of the world etc. before is what is intended by Shruti, not the existence of the effect also; (because) if that were so, there would be contradiction with the Shruti "He created all this" (Brihadaranyaka 1.2.5); therefore, being non-existent before creation, 'He' (the world/difference) is opposed to non-difference—thus the Semi-Nihilist (Mayavada) view is better—that is weak. Because having restated "Some say this was non-existence in the beginning" (Chandogya 6.2.1) etc., it is refuted by the very Shruti "How indeed, O Somya, could it be so" (Chandogya 6.2.2). And it should not be said that the negation there is only of the existence of the cause (as non-existent), and not of the existence of the effect; because certainty is obtained by the Shruti "How can Being be born from Non-being". (Answer) If the effect were non-existent before, there would be the contingency of contradiction with the Shruti "That, this was then unmanifest" (Brihadaranyaka 1.4.7). Here, by "Tarhi" (Then), referring to the time prior to creation, the Shruti would not restate the 'Unmanifest-ness' of the world designated by the word "Idam" at that time, if its very nature were absent. Therefore, in "May I become many" (Chandogya 6.2.3) also, the 'Unmanifest-ness' of multiplicity etc. is spoken of—of the Existent, not the existence of the Non-existent. 'Creation' is also the manifestation of name and form only; otherwise, there would be the contingency of absence of dealing (usage) even in the state of creation, just as before.

Thus, eternal existence being established, to avoid contradiction with Non-dual Shrutis, it should be accepted that even then (in dissolution/liberation) there is non-contradiction through the form of Brahmanhood alone constituted by Cause-Effect relationship, just as now. This is the only difference—what is not perceived now due to limited intellect covered by Avidya, is not perceived then due to the dissolution of the aggregate of senses. And thus, even in supreme liberation, the non-difference is constituted by Cause-Effect relationship and is capable of tolerating difference; because the nature of Brahman itself is such. Therefore, in the Tenth Canto (85.23) of the Bhagavatam, where the instruction of indivisible Brahman-knowledge was given by the Lord to Sri Vasudeva, accepting what Vasudeva said, and stating the reality of all by "I, you all, these Aryas," and to remove the idea of the infinity of the universe and superimposed knowledge-vision—by "The Self is indeed one, self-luminous..." (Bhag. 10.85.24), having described the unity of Self everywhere and the vision of multiplicity as being delusory due to being conditioned; in the second verse (26) "Sky, air, fire, water, earth," using the example of the five great elements like sky etc., He speaks of the reality of multiplicity and its being manifested by adjuncts; otherwise, having taught in the previous verse itself that the vision of multiplicity is delusory due to being conditioned by Gunas, and multiplicity being removed by that very fact, He would not establish the attainment of multiplicity again by the example of the five great elements like sky etc. Therefore, it should be understood that even in the doctrine of Indivisible Brahman (Akhanda-Brahma-Vada), due to the existence of multiplicity like parts etc., the non-difference intended by the Lord appears as indeed tolerant of differences like Cause-Effect etc.

Moreover, in the section ending with "All this which is this Self" (Brihadaranyaka 2.4.6 / 4.5.7), when the Brahman-nature of everything is taught, expecting the question "How is everything Brahman?", by the examples of Drum etc., the 'intermediate-all' (specifics) are grasped—just as by grasping the (general) sound of Drum etc., the 'intermediate-all-sounds' are grasped; by grasping the Self, the 'intermediate-all' non-different from It are grasped. Having stated the origin of everything like Vedas etc. from Brahman by the example of Fire and Smoke, He describes the status of being the support of all by many examples like "Just as the ocean is the one goal of all waters" (Brihadaranyaka 2.4.11). If there were total uniformity (loss of all difference) in the state of absence of creation, then He would not state multiple examples like Drum-sound etc. and Ocean etc.; because by the Drum-sound example showing everything as Brahman-form, and by the single Ocean example, the status of Brahman as the support of all would be established. Therefore, even in the state of absence of creation, the unity of essence is not opposed to multiplicity. By "Thus indeed, O Maitreyi... this Great Being" (Brihadaranyaka 2.4.12) etc., by stating 'absence of consciousness after dying', the 'prior consciousness' (differentiation) alone is taught. And that knowledge teaches non-difference which is enriched by/not opposed to difference, this has been explained before; so there is no doubt. That being so, in "The designation is due to the predominance of His qualities" (Brahma Sutra 2.3.29)—here the designation of Brahmanhood in the Jiva, who is a part of Brahman, is figurative; and that is equal even in liberation; because the difference established by the previously mentioned Satkaryavada (Right Causality) does not depart. Similarly, the difference of the inert (matter) in the state of dissolution should be understood. Thus, even though Brahman is partless, having parts is logical due to being the substratum of contradictory attributes; similarly, the Brahman-nature of the world, Havis etc., and the subject at hand should be contemplated; even with that (Brahman-nature), 'being an effect' also exists—thus everything is sound. This indeed is the meaning of the term 'Bhavadvaita': the contemplation of the unity of the object as cause and effect, like the cloth and the threads; thus it is described. The literal meaning is: the contemplation of the unity of every entity (bhava-matra) with the Cause of the world, like the cloth and the threads. Although the world is of many kinds, still being born from Lord Ishvara, it is not distinct from Him; by His Yoga-Maya alone, everything in the form of the universe, which is His Satchidananda-part, is truly transformed. As stated: "Real alteration is Transformation (Parinama), unreal alteration is Illusion (Vivarta)." The effect is not of the nature of Illusion; like pot and cloth from earth are in reality earthen and not distinct from it; because in dissolution, as unmanifest, its nature non-different from that (cause) is understood. Similarly here too, in the state of effect, everything should be contemplated as not distinct from Him. Although in Sankhya it is said "Causality belongs to Prakriti" and therefore "The world like pot etc. is material (Prakrita) only"; still here, let the world be material—with this view, the Prakriti accepted even in other systems, being His part in our system, is indeed a cause, but not the main cause—this is the summary. That is this—In the worship of manifold Brahman, in the feeling of non-difference, the appearance of the effect—which is the universe consisting of the Satchidananda-part of the Lord—as non-different from the Cause, is indeed the 'Brahma-Yajna' of the Knowers who are Brahma-vadins; thus it is described.

ब्रह्म Brahman? अर्पणम् the oblation? ब्रह्म Brahman? हविः the clarified butter? ब्रह्माग्नौ in the fire of Brahman? ब्रह्मणा by Brahman? हुतम् is offered? ब्रह्म Brahman? एव only? तेन by him? गन्तव्यम् shall be reached? ब्रह्मकर्मसमाधिना by the man who is absorbed in action which is Brahman.Commentary This is JnanaYajna or wisdomsacrifice wherein the idea of Brahman is substituted for the ideas of the instrument and other accessories of action? the idea of action itself and of its results. By entertaining such an idea the whole action melts away? as stated in the previous verse (No.23).When one attains to the knowledge of the Self or Selfrealisation his whole life becomes a wisdomsacrifice in which the oblation? the melted butter or the offering? the performer of the sacrifice? the action and the goal are all Brahman. He who meditates thus wholly upon Brahman shall verily attain to Brahman.The sage who has the knowledge of the Self knows that the oblation? the fire? the instrument by which the melted butter is poured into the fire and himself have no existence apart from that of Brahman. He who has realised through direct cognitio (Anubhava) that all is Brahman? does no action even if he performs actions. (Cf.III.15)

Brahma-arpanam, the ladle is Brahman: The knower of Brahman perceives the instrument with which he offers oblation in the fire as Brahman Itself. He perceives it as not existing separately from the Self, as one sees the non-existence of silver in nacre. In this sense it is that Brahman Itself is the ladle-just as what appears as silver is only narcre. (The two words brahma and arpanam are not parts of a compound word, samasa.) The meaning is that, to a knower of Brahman, what is perceived in the world as ladle is Brahman Itself.
Similarly, brahma-havih, the oblations is Brahman: To him, what is seen as oblations is nothing but Brahman.
In the same way, brahma-agnau, (-this is a compound word-) in the fire of Brahman: The fire into which oblation is hutam, poured; brahmana, by Brahman, by the agent, is Brahman Itself. The meaning is that Brahman Itself is the agent (of the offering). That he makes the offering-the act of offering-, that is also Brahman. And the result that is gantavyam, to be reached by him; that also is brahma eva, surely Brahman.
Brahma-karma-samadhina, by him who has concentration on Brahman as the objective: Brahman Itself is the objective (karma); he who has concentration (samadhi) on That is brahma-karma-samdhih. The goal to be reached by him is Brahman alone.
Thus, even the action undertaken by one who desires to prevent mankind from going astray is in reality inaction, for it has been sublated by the realization of Brahman. This being so, in the case of the monk from whom aciton has dropped off, who has renounced all activity, viewing his Knowledge as a (kind of) sacrifice, too, becomes all the more justifiable from the point of view of praising full realization.
That is, whatever is well known as ladle etc. in the context of a sacrifice, all that, in the context of the Self, is Brahman Itself to one who has realized the supreme Truth. If not so, then, since all in Brahman, it would have been uselesss to specifically mention ladle etc. as Brahman. Therefore, all actions cease to exist for the man of realization who knows that Brahman Itself is all this. And this follows also from the absence (in him) of the idea of accessories. [See note on p.211.-Tr.] For the act called 'sacarifice' is not seen to exist without being in association with the idea of accessories. All such acts as Agnihotra etc. are associated with the ideas of such accessories as making an offering etc. to the particular gods who are revealed in the scriptures, and with the idea of agentship as also desire for results. But they are not found bereft of the ideas of such distinctions as exist among action, accessories and results, or unassociated with the ideas of agentship hankering for results.
This (apparent) (activity of the man of Knowledge), however, stands dissociated from the ideas of differences among the accessories like ladle etc., actions and results, which get destroyed by the Knowledge of Brahman. Hence, it is inaction to be sure.
And thus has it been shown in, 'He who finds inaction in action' (18), 'he really does not do anything even though engaged in action' (20), 'the organs act on the objects of the organs' (3.28), 'Remaining absorbed in the Self, the knower of Reality should think, "I certainly do not do anything"' (5.8), etc. While pointing out thus, the Lord demolishes in various places the ideas of differences among actions, accessories and results. And it is also seen in the case of rites such as Agnihotra undertaken for results (kamya), that the Agnihotra etc. cease to be (kamya) rites undertaken for selfish motives when the desire for their results is destroyed. Similarly, it is seen that actions done intentionally and unintentionally yeild different results. So, here as well, in the case of one who has his ideas of distinctions among accessories like ladle etc., actions and results eliminated by the knowledge of Brahman, even activites which are merely external movements amount to inaction. Hence it was said, 'gets totally destroyed.'
Here some say: That which is Brahman is the ladle etc. It is surely Brahman Itself which exists in the five forms [Asscessories that can be indicated by the five grammatical case-ending, viz Nominative, Objective, Instrumental, Dative and Locative. (As for instance, the sacrificer, oblation, ladle, sacrificial fire, and Brahman.-Tr.) of accessories such as the ladle etc. and it is Itself which undertakes actions. There the ideas of ladle etc. are not eradicated, but the idea of Brahman is attributed to the ladle etc. as one does the ideas of Visnu etc. to images etc., or as one does the idea of Brahman ot name etc.
Reply: True, this could have been so as well if the context were not meant for the praise of jnanayajna (Knowledge considered as a sacrifice). Here, however, after presenting full realization as expressed by the word jnana-yajna, and the varieties of rites as referred to by the word yajna (sacrifice), Knowledge has been praised by the Lord in, 'Jnana-yajna (Knowledge considered as a sacrifice) is greater than sacrifices reiring materials' (33). And in the present context, this statement, 'the ladle is Brahman' etc., is capable of presenting Knowledge as a sacrifice; otherwise, since Brahman is everything, it will be purposeless to speak specially only of ladle etc. as Brahman. But those who maintain that one has to superimpose the idea of Brahman on the ladle etc., like superimposing the idea of Visnu and others on images etc. and of Brahman on name etc., for them the knowledge of Brahma stated (in the verse) cannot be the intended subject-matter dealt with here, because according to them ladle etc. are the (primary) objects of knowledge (in the context of the present verse).
Besides, knowledge in the form of superimposition of an idea cannot lead to Liberation as its result; and what is said here is, 'Brahman alone in to be realized by him'. Also, it is inconsistent to maintain that the result of Liberation can be achieved without full realization. And it goes against the context-the context being of full realization. This is supported by the fact that (the subject of ) full realization is introduced in the verse, 'He who finds inaction in action,' and at the end (of this chapter) the conclusion pertains to that very subject-matter. The chapter comes to a close by eulozing full realization itself in, 'Jnana-yajna (Knowledge considered as a sacrifice) is greater than sacrifices reiring materials', 'Achieving Knowledge, one৷৷.attains supreme Peace,' (39) etc. That being so, it is unjustifiable to suddenly say out of context that one has to superimpose the idea of Brahman on the ladle etc. like the superimposition of the idea of Visnu on images. Therefore this verse bears the meaing just as it has been already explained.
As to that, after having presented Knowledge as a sacrifice, other sacrifices also are being mentioned now in, the verses beginning with, '(Other yogis undertake) sacrifice to gods alone,' etc., for eulogizing that Knowledge:

The expression 'Brahman is the instrument to offer with' (It is to be remembered that in Ramanuja's system 'Brahman' in the primary sense is the 'Whole' with the Supreme Being as the Soul and Atmans and Matter (Prakrti) as His body in inseparable union with the Whole. So the word 'Brahman' can, according to the needs of each context, be used to indicate the Supreme Being, the Atman, or Prakrti; In verse 24 it has been used in all these senses. We have therefore put it in italics. See Introduction.) is adjectival to 'the oblation'. That by which an offering is given, such as a ladle, is an Arpana. It is called Brahman because it is an effect of Brahman, Brahman being the material cause of the universe. 'Brahmaarpanam' is the oblation, of which the instrument is Brahman. The oblation, just like the instrument with which it is offered, is also Brahman. It is offered by the agent Brahman into the fire of Brahman. He is the Brahma-karma-samadhi who contemplates thus on all acts as filled with the Supreme Brahman or as having the Supreme Brahman as the Self. He who contemplates on Brahman as the Soul of all actions, reaches Brahman alone, as his own self has the Supreme Brahman as Its Self. The meaning is that the individual self - which is Brahman because of Its having Brahman as Its Self - has to realise Its own real nature. All actions performed by an aspirant for release have the form of knowledge because of their association with the contemplation of the Supreme Brahman as their self. They are a direct means for the vision of the self without the meditation of Jnana Yoga.
Thus, Sri Krsna, after explaining how Karma takes the form of knowledge, now speaks of the various kinds of Karma Yoga.