Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 4 - Shloka (Verse) 35

व्याख्या--'यज्ज्ञात्वा न पुनर्मोहमेवं यास्यसि पाण्डव'--पूर्वश्लोकमें भगवान्ने कहा कि वे महापुरुष तेरेको तत्त्वज्ञानका उपदेश देंगे; परन्तु उपदेश सुननेमात्रसे वास्तविक बोध अर्थात् स्वरूपका यथार्थ अनुभव नहीं होता--'श्रुत्वाप्येनं वेद न चैव कश्चित्' (गीता 2। 29) और वास्तविक बोधका वर्णन भी कोई कर नहीं सकता। कारण कि वास्तविक बोध करण-निरपेक्ष है अर्थात् मन, वाणी आदिसे परे है। अतः वास्तविक बोध स्वयंके द्वारा ही स्वयंको होता है और यह तब होता है, जब मनुष्य अपने विवेक (जड-चेतनके भेदका ज्ञान) को महत्त्व देता है। विवेकको महत्त्व देनेसे जब अविवेक सर्वथा मिट जाता है, तब वह विवेक ही वास्तविक बोधमें परिणत हो जाता है और जडतासे सर्वथा सम्बन्ध-विच्छेद करा देता है। वास्तविक बोध होनेपर फिर कभी मोह नहीं होता।गीताके पहले अध्यायमें अर्जुनका मोह प्रकट होता है कि युद्धमें सभी कुटुम्बी, सगे-सम्बन्धी लोग मर जायँगे तो उन्हें पिण्ड और जल देनेवाला कौन होगा? पिण्ड और जल न देनेसे वे नरकोंमें गिर जायँगे। जो जीवित रह जायँगे, उन स्त्रियोंका और बच्चोंका निर्वाह और पालन कैसे होगा? आदि-आदि। तत्त्वज्ञान होनेके बाद ऐसा मोह नहीं रहता। बोध होनेपर जब संसारसे मैं-मेरेपनका सम्बन्ध नहीं रहता, तब पुनः मोह होनेका प्रश्न ही नहीं रहता।

ऐसा होनेपर यह कहना भी ठीक है हे पांडव उनके द्वारा बतलाये हुए जिस ज्ञानको पाकर फिर तू इस प्रकार मोहको प्राप्त नहीं होगा जैसे कि अब हो रहा है। तथा जिस ज्ञानके द्वारा तू सम्पूर्णतासे सब भूतोंको अर्थात् ब्रह्मासे लेकर स्तम्बपर्यन्त समस्त प्राणियोंको यह सब भूत मुझमें स्थित हैं इस प्रकार साक्षात् अपने अन्तरात्मामें ही देखेगा और मुझ वासुदेव परमेश्वरमें भी इन सब भूतोंको देखेगा। अर्थात् सभी उपनिषदोंमें जो जीवात्मा और ईश्वरकी एकता प्रसिद्ध है उसको प्रत्यक्ष अनुभव करेगा।

When the Knowledge, which is capable of producing the effect, has been attained as instructed by qualified teachers, the immediately following statement also becomes meaningful regarding the worthy subject—He states this with "Tatha cha" (And thus...).

Therefore, one must be established (nishthavan) in that specific Knowledge which is capable of producing the effect and is the cause of the removal of your delusion—this is the completion.

There, for the establishment of that firmness, He again qualifies that very Knowledge with "Yena" (By which).

Anticipating the objection that "Yaj-jnatva" (Having known which) is incorrect because [mere] knowing is not applicable [implying attainment is meant], accepting the root "Gam" preceded by "Adhi" in the sense of attainment, he explains it as "Adhigamya" (Having attained/realized).

Moreover, one must possess firmness in the fruitful Knowledge obtainable by the teacher's instruction—He states this with "Kincha" (Moreover).

Anticipating the doubt that by the counter-reference to the established existence of beings in both the Jiva and the Ishwara, there might be an approval of the doctrine of difference (Bheda-vada), he says "Kshetrajna" etc.

Anticipating the doubt, "In the absence of a root proof (Mula-pramana), how can the vision of the oneness of those two occur?", he says "Sarva" etc.

He states the fruit of Knowledge with "Yat." "Yat" means having known or obtained the Knowledge taught by them. However, the interpretation "Having known the Brahman which is of the nature of pure Consciousness" is not correct. Because when a meaning is possible by referring to the Knowledge presented previously, it is unjust to refer to something not presented by the word "Yat."

"Evam"—like now, you will not attain delusion again. Moreover, you will not only [not] attain delusion related to yourself, but also [not attain] that related to all beings—He states this. "Yena"—by which Knowledge you will see "Asheshena"—all beings from Brahma down to a clump of grass—as superimposed on "Me," i.e., the Inner Self (Pratyagatman); meaning you will see them directly in yourself. "Atho"—and also "Imani" (these) in Me, Vasudeva, the Supreme Lord; meaning you will see the unity of the Inner Self and the Supreme Self which is famous in all Vedantas.

Or, "Atho" means "afterwards" [you will see] the Self in Me, the Supreme Self, through non-difference. In this view, the fault of adding words (adhyahara) must be avoided. Or else, "Atho" means "moreover"—by which Knowledge [you will see] beings in the Self, i.e., in "Me"—who is non-different from the implied meaning of the word "Tvam" (Thou). In this view, it should be noted that when a [proximate] possibility exists, a distant connection of the word "Atho" is improper.

Addressing him as "Pandava," He implies: Just as now you have fallen into delusion through ego and attachment like "I am the son of Pandu, these are mine," having obtained Knowledge which uproots that root, you will not go [to delusion].

By which Knowledge you see all beings in Me who have become the Self; "Atho"—and indeed due to that destruction of delusion, you see.

"Yajjnatva"—Having known which—the Brahman of the nature of pure Consciousness—you will not attain delusion "Evam"—like now—again.

"Atho"—meaning moreover—by which Knowledge you will see beings from Brahma down to a clump of grass in the "Atman"—meaning in "Me," the Supreme Lord who is non-different from the implied meaning of the word "Tvam" (Thou). Because by the text "There is no other seer than this," any seer other than the Inner Self is negated.

In the Bhashya (of Shankara), however, the meaning is: "You will see these directly in the Self as existing in Me;

'Atho'—and also—you will see these in Me, Vasudeva, the Supreme Lord"—thus you will see the unity of the Knower of the Field (Kshetrajna) and the Lord (Ishwara), which is famous in all Upanishads.

Having known which Knowledge, you will not again attain "Evam"—such delusion, which is of the nature of identifying the Self with the body etc., and is the seat of "mine-ness" etc. created by that. By which [Knowledge] you will see all beings—disregarded in their forms as gods, humans, etc.—in your own Self alone; because there is equality (Samya) between you and other beings when separated from matter (Prakriti), due to having Knowledge as the sole form. That the nature of the Self, freed from the defect of contact with matter, is equal in all, will be stated in "For Brahman is spotless and equal" (Gita 5.19).

"Atho"—And also, you will see all beings entirely in Me; because of the similarity of the nature of all purified self-substance with My nature. "Resorting to this knowledge, they have attained likeness (Sadharmya) with Me" (Gita 14.2)—this will indeed be stated.

Similarly, in texts like "The wise one, shaking off merit and demerit, being stainless, attains supreme equality" (Mundaka 3.1.3), the supreme equality of nature of the self-substance freed from name and form is understood. Therefore, all self-substance freed from matter is mutually equal and equal to the Lord of all.

He states the fruit of Knowledge with "Yajjnatva" (Having known which)—in three and a half verses. Having known—attained—which Knowledge, you will not again fall into the delusion caused by killing kinsmen, etc.

The reason for that is: By which Knowledge you will see the "beings"—fathers, sons, etc., created by your own ignorance—in your own "Self" alone, through non-difference.

"Atho"—then, afterwards—you will see the Self in "Me," the Supreme Self alone, through non-difference; this is the meaning.

The sign of the state of direct realization of the knowledge of the true nature of the Self, which is included in Karma Yoga and is to be known in due time according to maturation, is stated in the verse "Yajjnatva"—He says this with "Atmayathatmya" etc. The meaning of "Evam" (Thus) is stated by "Deha" etc. (delusion of identifying with the body, etc.).

He states the intended meaning of "Asheshena" (Entirely) with "Devamanushya" etc. By this, the verse to be stated later, "Vidya-vinaya-sampanne" (5.18), is recalled. By the word "Bhuta," the Kshetrajnas (souls) conjoined with non-sentient matter are intended. By this, the cause for the contemplation of forms like gods etc. is shown. To dispel the delusion of co-referentiality (Samanadhikaranya) regarding the two locatives "Atmani" (in the Self) and "Atho Mayi" (and then in Me), it is said "Svatmanyeva" (in one's own self alone). Since the subject under discussion is of such a nature (referring to the individual self), and since a distinction is indicated by "Atho Mayi," and because of the sequence of maturation of "equal-vision" (sama-darshitva) to be described later, distinctness of locus (Vyadhikaranata) is indeed appropriate—this is the purport.

"You will see all beings in your own self alone"—meaning, you will see the beings, which appear different/unequal due to contact with Prakriti, in your own self known in its purified state, which serves as an example/illustration, by the logic of the cooking rice (sthali-pulaka-nyaya). To dispel the delusion of other meanings like the container-contained relationship, he states the reason in the context of the present meaning with "Yatastava" (Because your...) etc. "Prakritiviyuktanam" (Of those separated from Prakriti)—meaning, in the state where the inequality caused by limiting adjuncts (Upadhis) has ceased. Following texts like "The Spirit (Puman) is neither god nor man" (Vishnu Purana 2.13.98) and "He is neither god nor mortal," he says "Jnanaikakarataya" (due to having Knowledge as the sole form). The equality mentioned as the cause for seeing all in one's own self is not stated here because it will be stated later—with this intention, he says "Prakritisamsarga" etc.

"Atho Mayi" etc.—meaning you will see your own self and others through the example/standard of Me. How can there be contemplation of those who are not Lords and are subject to Karma through the example of the Lord? To this he says "Matsvarupasamyat..." (Because of the equality with My nature of the purified...). That the equality with the Lord mentioned as the reason will also be stated later, so it is not stated here—he says this with "Idam" (This...) etc. That there is also Shruti regarding the equality of the purified self with the Supreme Self, he states with "Tatha" (So too...) etc. "Shaking off merit and demerit, stainless"—means being free from the contact with Prakriti caused by them and the afflictions etc. prompted by that, due to the departure of merit and demerit. By the phrase "Namarupavinirmuktasya" (Of the one freed from name and form), the other sentence from that very context "So the wise one, freed from name and form..." (Mundaka 3.2.8) is also recalled.

Dispelling the doubt that equality with the Lord might be occasional/temporary, and summarizing the reason established by Shruti and Smriti, he shows it with "Atah" (Therefore). By this, it is also said that the equality with the Lord established by Shruti etc. is also the cause for the mutual equality of Jivas. By this, those who say that the oneness (Aikya) of the Kshetrajnas mutually and with the Lord is stated here are refuted.

[Objection:] "It appears that seeing all beings as contained (adheyataya) in one's own self and in the Lord is enjoined here?" [Reply:] "Not so; because it is impossible for one's own self to be the support (adhara) of all." [Objection:] "It is justifiable by the intellect extending up to the Supreme Self?" [Reply:] "No, because the self-realization of the Jiva (Jiva-samadhi) is the purport of the section." Therefore, seeing others in one's own self means the contemplation of the form common to all.

इस प्रकरण के संदर्भ किसी के मन में यह शंका उठ सकती है कि इतना अधिक परिश्रम करके ज्ञान प्राप्त किया जा सकता है परन्तु हो सकता है कि मृत्यु के पश्चात् फिर हम उसी अज्ञान अवस्था को पुन प्राप्त हो जायें। अपने एक ही जीवन में हम अनेक प्रकार के ज्ञान प्राप्त करते हैं लेकिन सब का ही हमें स्मरण नहीं रहता। इसी प्रकार आत्मज्ञान को भी प्राप्त करके यदि उसका विस्मरण हो जाता है तब तो वास्तव में बड़ी ही हानि होगी।इस प्रकार की शंका का निवारण करते हुए भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण निश्चयपूर्वक कहते हैं इसे जानकर पुन तुम मोह को प्राप्त नहीं होगे। किसी कट्टरवादी की अत्युत्साही शैली की भाँति प्रतीत होने वाला यह कथन है तथापि विचार की प्रारम्भिक अवस्था में इसे इसी रूप में स्वीकार किया जाना चाहिये। सभी आचार्य इस विषय पर एकमत हैं और चूँकि अपनी पीढ़ी की वंचना करने में उनका कोई स्वार्थ नहीं हो सकता इसलिये उनके मत को विश्वासपूर्वक स्वीकार करने में ही बुद्धिमानी है। इस श्रद्धा की आवश्यकता तब तक ही है जब तक हम स्वयं आत्मा का साक्षात् अनुभव नहीं कर लेते। वैवाहिक जीवन का आनन्द एक बालक नहीं समझ सकता। इसी प्रकार अज्ञान अव्ास्था में शोक मोह से ग्रस्त हम लोग भी देशकालातीत आत्मतत्त्व की अनुभूति के आनन्द को नहीं समझ सकते। गुरु चाहे जितना ही वर्णन क्यों न करें परन्तु आन्तरिक परिपक्वता प्राप्त किए बिना उनके वाक्यों के लक्ष्यार्थ को हम यथार्थरूप में ग्रहण नहीं कर सकेंगे।आत्मानुभूति का लक्षण बताते हुए श्रीकृष्ण कहते हैं आत्मा की पहचान होने पर बाह्य विषयों भावनाओं एवं विचारों की सम्पूर्ण सृष्टि आत्मा में ही प्रतीत होगी और वह आत्मा ही श्रीकृष्ण परमात्मा का स्वरूप है। एक बार समुद्र की पहचान हो जाने पर उस मनुष्य के लिए सम्पूर्ण लहरें समुद्ररूप ही हो जाती हैं।पूर्व श्लोकों में वर्णित ज्ञान के साक्षात्कार के लक्षण इस श्लोक में बताये गये हैं। यहाँ स्पष्ट हो जाता हैं कि शिष्य को गुरु के सानिध्य की आवश्यकता तभी तक रहती है जब तक वह समस्त सृष्टि को परमात्मा से अभिन्न आत्मस्वरूप में अनुभव नहीं कर लेता।इस ज्ञान का महात्म्य देखिये कि

"Tadviddhi"—"Yajjnatva"—And know that Knowledge by "Pranipata"—by devotion; by "Pariprashna"—by reasoning (Uha), removing doubts (Apoha), logic (Tarka), and counter-logic (Vitarka), etc.; by "Seva"—by practice. Because for you being such, the "Jnaninah"—your very own special senses/faculties graced by a special consciousness—will "Upadekshyanti"—bring the Truth "Upa" (near). Thus indeed, since they show the Truth, they are "Tattvadarshinah" (Seers of Truth). It is said: "Yoga indeed is the teacher of Yoga." And [Yoga Sutra 1.48]: "There, the intellect is Truth-bearing."

If interpreted as "other men who are Knowers," it would imply that what the Lord Himself has taught [so far] is untrue. Or else—the purpose in saying so is to establish the convention that other people too should receive knowledge from Knowers only through prostration etc., and not haphazardly.

Regarding "Atmani" (in the Self) and "Mayi" (in Me)—for the Self that has attained My nature, there is co-referentiality (Samanadhikaranya). The word "Atho" is for filling the meter. If there is equality of the Self with the Lord, is any distinction stated? If there is inequality, the meaning of option (Vikalpa) would be illogical.

Regarding "Yena bhutani"—to refute the incorrect understanding that "by which delusion you will see all beings in the Self and in Me," he says

"Yena" (By which [Knowledge]). "Atmabhute"—in the Inner Ruler of all who has become the Self.

"Drakshyasi" (You will see)—this is explained as "Pashyasi" (You see) [present tense], to indicate that he is indeed a Knower even now.

What would happen if Knowledge is generated with such persistence? To this He says: "Yat"—having known, i.e., having attained, the previously mentioned Knowledge taught by the teachers.

"Jnatva" means having attained. The usage is with a general intention of the same root [verb and object], like in "odanapakam pachati" (he cooks a cooking of rice).

You will not again attain "Evam"—such delusion, the confusion caused by killing kinsmen etc.

O Pandava, why so? Because by this very Knowledge, you will see the "beings"—fathers, sons, etc., "Asheshena"—entirely from Brahma down to a clump of grass, which are manifested by your own ignorance—in the "Atman"—in yourself, the meaning of the word "Tvam" (Thou). "Atho"—and also in "Me"—Lord Vasudeva, the meaning of the word "Tat" (That), who is ultimately devoid of difference and is the substratum—you will see them through non-difference alone.

Because that which is superimposed does not exist apart from its substratum. The purport is: having directly realized Me, Lord Vasudeva, as the Self, when all ignorance is destroyed, its effects—the beings—will not remain.

He states that by the Knowledge thus instructed, delusion indeed does not occur, with "Yat" etc.

O Pandava, having known "Yat"—My nature which consists of the instructed Knowledge—you will not again attain "Evam"—such [delusion] in the form of further questioning etc.

"Atho"—immediately after this, after the absence of delusion; "Yena"—by which Knowledge you will see the "beings"—those in the form of causes and those in the form of Jivas—"Asheshena"—entirely in the form of the world—in the "Atman" (Self), i.e., in "Me"—in Me who am of the nature of the Self.

"Yat jnatva"—Having known which, having acquired/attained the Knowledge taught by them, you will not again, once more, go to "Moham Evam"—such delusion, just as you have fallen into delusion now, you will not go to such again, O Pandava.

Moreover, by which Knowledge you will see "beings" "Asheshena"—entirely, from Brahma down to a clump of grass—directly in the "Atman"—the Inner Self (Pratyagatman)—realizing "these beings exist in me." "Atho"—and also—[you will see] these in "Me"—Vasudeva, the Supreme Lord. The meaning is that you will see the unity of the Knower of the Field (Kshetrajna) and the Lord (Ishwara), which is famous in all the Upanishads.

Moreover, [He states] the greatness of this Knowledge...

He states the fruit in Knowledge in three and a half verses beginning with "Yajjnatva."

"Yat"—having attained the entire Knowledge of Brahman and the Self, which is the identical import of Sankhya and Yoga; and "Yena"—by which you will see the "beings"—which are parts of Consciousness (Chit)—in the "Atman"—the Person (Purusha), the Conscious One—and in "Me." As He will say later: "When [he sees] the separate existence of beings standing in One..." (13.30).

By the word "Asheshena" (entirely), [you will see] even the effects of Prakriti like the body etc., and [you will see them] in their Cause. Or, [you will see] that "Atman" in "Me"—the Supreme Brahman—because the Aggregate Person (Samashti Purusha) is a part of Me.

यत् which? ज्ञात्वा having known? न not? पुनः again? मोहम् delusion? एवम् thus? यास्यसि will get? पाण्डव O Pandava? येन by this? भूतानि beings? अशेषेण all? द्रक्ष्यसि (thou) shalt see? आत्मनि in (thy) Self? अथो also? मयि in Me.Commentary That? the knowledge of the Self mentioned in the previous verse? that is to be learnt from the Brahmanishtha Guru through prostration? estioning and service. When you acire this knowledge you will not be again subject to confusion or error. You will behold that underlying basic unity. You will behold or directly cognise through internal experience or intuition that all beings from the Creator down to a blade of grass exist in your own Self and also in Me. (Cf.IX.15XVIII.20)

Jnatva, knowing; yat, which-by aciring which Knowledge imparted by them; O Pandava, na vasyasi, you will not come under; moham, delusion; punah, again; evam, in this way, in the way you have come under delusion now. Besides, yena, through which Knowledge; draksyasi, you will see directly; bhutani, all beings; asesena, without exception, counting from Brahma down to a clump of grass; atmani, in the Self, in the innermost Self, thus-'These beings exist in me' ; and atha, also; see that these are mayi. in Me, in Vasudeva, the supreme Lord. The purport is, 'You will realize the identity of the individual Self and God, which is well known in the Upanisads.'
Moreover, the greatness of this Knowledge is:

Having which knowledge, you will not again fall into this delusion of mistaking the body etc., for the self, which is the cause of possessiveness etc. By this (knowledge) you will see in yourself all the beings which appear in diversity of forms such as gods, men etc.; for between you and other beings there is eality of nature when freed from the hold of Prakrti, as your self and all other selves have the form of knowledge as fas as their essence is concerned. Sri Krsna will later on instruct that the nature of the self, dissociated from the evil of contact with Prakrti, is eal in all beings. 'For faultless Brahman (individual self) is alike everywhere; therefore, abide in Brahman' (5.19). And then you will see all beings without any exception in Me, because of the similarity of nature of the pure selves with one another and with My nature. For Sri Krsna will teach later on:
'Resorting to this knowledge and partaking of My nature' (14.5). So the euality of the selves, devoid of name and form, with the nature of the Supreme, is known from the texts like: 'Then the wise, shaking off good and evil, stainless, attain supreme eality' (Mun. U., 3.1.3). Therefore all selves dissociated from Prakrti are eal in nature to one another and eal in nature to the Lord of all. [The idea is that blissfulness is the basic nature of all selves. Blissfulness (Ananda) is the nature of the Supreme Being also. Eality contemplated is in this respect only, but not in power of creation, which belongs only to Isvara]