Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 5 - Shloka (Verse) 19

व्याख्या--'येषां साम्ये स्थितं मनः'--परमात्मतत्त्व अथवा स्वरूपमें स्वाभाविक स्थितिका अनुभव होनेपर जब मन-बुद्धिमें राग-द्वेष, कामना, विषमता आदिका सर्वथा अभाव हो जाता है, तब मन-बुद्धिमें स्वतः-स्वाभाविक समता आ जाती है, लानी नहीं पड़ती। बाहरसे देखनेपर महापुरुष और साधारण पुरुषमें खाना-पीना, चलना-फिरना आदि व्यवहार एक-सा ही दीखता है, पर महापुरुषोंके अन्तःकरणमें निरन्तर समता, निर्दोषता, शान्ति आदि रहती है और साधारण पुरुषोंके अन्तःकरणमें विषमता, दोष, अशान्ति आदि रहती है।जैसे, पूर्वमें और पश्चिममें--दोनों ओर पर्वत हों, तो पूर्वमें सूर्यका उदय होना नहीं दीखता; परन्तु पश्चिममें स्थित पर्वतकी चोटीपर प्रकाश दीखनेसे सूर्यके उदय होनेमें कोई सन्देह नहीं रहता। कारण कि सूर्यका उदय हुए बिना पश्चिमके पर्वतपर प्रकाश दीखना सम्भव ही नहीं। ऐसे ही जिनके मन-बुद्धिपर मान-अपमान, निन्दा-स्तुति, सुख-दुःख आदिका कोई असर नहीं पड़ता तथा जिनके मन-बुद्धि राग-द्वेष, हर्ष-शोक आदि विकारोंसे सर्वथा रहित हैं, उनकी स्वरूपमें स्वाभाविक स्थिति अवश्य होती है। कारण कि स्वरूपमें स्वाभाविक स्थितिके बिना मन-बुद्धिमें अटल और एकरस समताका रहना सम्भव ही नहीं है

उ0 वे दोषी नहीं हैं क्योंकि जिनका अन्तःकरण समतामें अर्थात् सब भूतोंके अन्तर्गत ब्रह्मरूप समभावमें स्थित यानी निश्चल हो गया है उन समदर्शी पण्डितोंने यहाँ जीवितावस्थामें ही सर्गको यानी जन्मको जीत लिया है अर्थात् उसे अपने अधीन कर लिया है। क्योंकि ब्रह्म निर्दोष ( और सम ) है। यद्यपि मूर्ख लोगोंको दोषयुक्त चाण्डालादिमें उनके दोषोंके कारण आत्मा दोषयुक्तसा प्रतीत होता है तो भी वास्तवमें वह ( आत्मा ) उनके दोषोंसे निर्लिप्त ही है। चेतन आत्मा निर्गुण होनेके कारण अपने गुणके भेदसे भी भिन्न नहीं है। भगवान् भी इच्छादिको क्षेत्रके ही धर्म बतलावेंगे तथा अनादि और निर्गुण होनेके कारण ( आत्मा लिप्त नहीं होता ) यह भी कहेंगे। ( वैशेषिक शास्त्रमें बतलाये हुए नित्य द्रव्यगत ) अन्त्य विशेष भी आत्मामें भेद उत्पन्न करनेवाले नहीं हैं क्योंकि प्रत्येक शरीरमें उन अन्त्य विशेषोंके होनेका कोई प्रमाण सम्भव नहीं है। अतः ( यह सिद्ध हुआ कि ) ब्रह्म सम है और एक ही है। इसलिये वे समदर्शी पुरुष ब्रह्ममें ही स्थित हैं इसी कारण उनको दोषकी गन्ध भी स्पर्श नहीं कर पाती क्योंकि उनमेंसे देहादि संघातको आत्मारूपसे देखनेका अभिमान जाता रहा है।। समासमाभ्यां विषमसमे पूजातः यह सूत्र पूजाविषयक विशेषणसे युक्त होनेके कारण देहादि संघातमें आत्मदृष्टिके अभिमानवाले पुरुषोंके विषयमें है। क्योंकि पूजा दान आदि कर्मोंमें ( भेदबुद्धिका ) कारण ब्रह्मवेत्ता छओं अङ्गोंको जाननेवाला चारों वेदोंको जाननेवाला इत्यादि विशेष गुणोंका सम्बन्ध देखा जाता है। परंतु ब्रह्म सम्पूर्ण गुणदोषोंके सम्बन्धसे रहित है इसलिये यह ( कहना ) ठीक है कि वे ब्रह्ममें स्थित हैं। इसके अतिरिक्त समासमाभ्याम् इत्यादि कथन तो कर्मियोंके विषयमें है और यह सर्वकर्माणि मनसा इस श्लोकसे लेकर अध्यायसमाप्तितक सारा प्रकरण सर्वकर्मसंन्यासी के विषयमें है।

(Objection): Doubting that seeing equality in Sattvic, Rajasic, and Tamasic beings is improper, he says "Surely" (nanu), etc. The "Seers of the same everywhere" are referred to by the word "they" (te). Regarding the claim that due to being faulty, "their food is not to be eaten" (or they are those who eat prohibited food), he cites the authority "by equal and unequal" (samāsamābhyām).

"Of equals" (samānām)—meaning those with equal qualities like study etc.—when "unequal" honor is offered through clothes, ornaments, etc.; and "of unequals" (asamānāṃ)—meaning those with unequal qualities, for example, one knowing one Veda and another knowing two Vedas—when "equal" honor is offered as mentioned before; the worshiper, not offering respect after knowing the specific person (and his merit), falls from wealth and dharma. Therefore, one who maintains an "equal attitude" towards the Sattvic and the Rajasic/Tamasic incurs sin; this is the meaning.

(Resolution): Introducing the next verse (5.19) as the answer, he says "They are not faulty." He questions: how can the faultiness of those who see equality in all beings—stated on the support of Smriti—be negated merely by a declaration "it does not exist"? Thus he raises the doubt "How?" (katham). Intending to explain the course (applicability) of the Smriti later, he clarifies the flawlessness of the equal-seers with "Here itself" (ihaiva), etc.

Regarding the "flawlessness" of those whose minds are devoted to equality in all beings, implying the absence of all defects in that very body without needing to go to Brahmaloka, he states the reason: "For (Brahman is) flawless" (nirdoṣaṃ hi). The present body is accepted by the locative case (iha - here). He qualifies those very equal-seers with "whose" (yeṣām).

(Objection): "The flawlessness of Brahman is unestablished because defects are perceived in things like dog-eaters which have defects (and Brahman is in them)?" To this he says "Even though" (yadyapi). The connection is: Since It is flawless, therefore the creation (sarga) is conquered by those who are flawless and established in that Brahman. (Objection): "Due to the abundance of qualities, there might be a minute defect in Brahman too?" To this he says "Nor" (nāpi).

(Objection): "It is undesirable for the conscious (Self) to be characterized by its own specific qualities (like desire/will), because of scriptures declaring it attributeless—this logic is incorrect because some (Logicians) have determined that desire etc. are attributes of the Self by the method of residues (parishesa)?" Anticipating this, he says "And He will say" (vakṣyati ca). He cites the remainder of the sentence "because of beginningless-ness" (Gita 13.31) as proof for the Self being attributeless. The word 'cha' connects to "He will say."

(Objection): "Even if there is no difference in the Self due to qualities/defects, difference will exist due to 'ultimate particularities' (antyaviśeṣa)?" Anticipating this logical regress, he refutes it with "Nor" (nāpi). If the difference of the Self in each body is established, then (the Vaisheshikas argue) 'particularities' exist as the cause of that; and if 'particularities' exist, the difference of the Self in each body is established—implying mutual dependence (parasparāśraya). Having this in mind, he states the reason "In every body" (pratiśarīram).

He states the result of the absence of a differentiator for the Self with "Therefore" (ataḥ). He explains the very concept of Equality (samatvam) with "And One" (ekaṃ ca). Since Brahman is one due to being attributeless, and the unity of Jivas is stated due to the absence of differentiators, the unity of Jiva and Brahman must be accepted because of having the characteristic of Oneness; thus he says "Therefore" (tasmāt). If Jiva and Brahman are one, then the flawlessness of Jivas is established just like Brahman; thus he says "Therefore not" (tasmānna). He illuminates the meaning of the word 'That' (tat - in Smriti context) with "Body etc." (dehādi).

If the vision of equality in all beings is accepted as flawless, then how is the Gautama Sutra (Smriti) explained? To this he says "Aggregate of body etc." (dehādisaṅghāta). He states the indicator (gamaka) that the Sutra applies to those who have identification (ego) as mentioned, with "Worship" (pūjā). Whether it is inequality in worshiping those who are four-Veda knowers, or equality in worshiping a four-Veda knower and a six-limb knower—in that case, since mental modification (reaction) is possible for some of those objects of worship, the agent (worshiper) incurs sin; thus it appears the Sutra applies to the unwise (avidvad-viṣaya). He cites experience as favorable evidence there with "It is seen indeed" (dṛśyate hi).

Since connection with qualities and defects is possible for those possessing identification with the aggregate of the body etc., it is stated that the Sutra applies to them. Now, having the intention that the Sutra does not apply to those possessing the identification of seeing the Self as Brahman—because of the absence of connection with qualities and defects—he says "But Brahman" (brahma tu). Moreover, this Sutra does not apply to the Knower of Brahman; he states this with "Ritualist" (karmi). Because worship and insult are possible only there. (Objection): "But the Sutra should apply wherever 'vision of equality' exists, without the division of ritualist or non-ritualist?" To this he says "This, however" (idaṃ tu). He states the reason for the "vision of equality" being presented as applicable to the Renunciate (sannyāsi) with "All actions" (sarvakarmāṇi). Since "Renunciation of all actions" is mentioned throughout until the end of the chapter (starting from 5.13), it is understood that this "vision of equality" applies to that (Sannyasi); therefore, regarding that person who is devoid of ego, the Sutra has no scope (niravakāśa).

(Objection): "Surely, seeing equality in Sattvic beings etc. is improper. Starting with 'Due to worshiping equals unequally and unequals equally,' and stating 'his food is not to be eaten,' the Smriti propounds that the food of those who see equality is prohibited. The meaning of the Smriti is: When 'unequal' special worship (discriminatory honor)—involving gifts of clothes, ornaments, gems, etc.—is offered to 'equals,' i.e., those possessing equal qualities like study etc.; and when 'equal' special worship (as mentioned before) is offered to 'unequals,' i.e., those possessing unequal qualities through study etc. (like one studying two Vedas and another studying one Veda); because of that (flawed) worship, the worshiper—who, despite knowing the specific (qualifications of the) person, does not perform the specific worship—becomes one whose food is prohibited (abhojyānna) and falls from wealth and dharma."

(Answer): However, the Gautama Smriti applies to the ritualist (karmaṭha) who possesses the identification of seeing the Self in the aggregate of the body and senses; because of the qualification "due to worship" (pūjātaḥ), implying the subject involves worship. But this (Gita verse) applies to one who has renounced all actions, is possessionless, is not qualified for cooking (hence naturally his food is not 'eaten' by others in a social sense), is devoid of wealth, has bid farewell to rituals (dharma) etc., and is a Knower of Reality (tattvavit). Intending that there is no contradiction due to this difference in subject matter, He answers with "Here" (iha), etc.

"Here itself" (ihaiva)—even while living—by them, "Creation" (sarga)—meaning Samsara characterized by birth etc.—is conquered, mastered, transcended. In anticipation of "By whom?", He says: Those whose mind is established—became steady—in "Evenness" (samabhāva) regarding all beings like Brahmins etc.

"For" (hi) since Brahman, the object of their mental steadiness, is flawless; even though situated in faulty things like outcastes, It is untouched by their defects like space (ākāśa), and therefore It is "Same" (sama)—always of one form everywhere. Therefore, those "Pundits" are established in such a Brahman; hence, not even a trace of defect touches them, this is the meaning.

He praises that very state (of equal vision) with "Here itself" (ihaiva), etc.

(Objection): "Indeed, by the statement 'Due to worshiping equals and unequals unequally and equally...', Gautama Smriti declares that one who offers unequal worship to two Brahmins of equal learning and conduct, or offers equal worship to two Brahmins of unequal learning and conduct, becomes one whose food is prohibited. Then, how is equal-vision regarding a Brahmin and an outcaste justified?" Anticipating this, He says "Here itself" (ihaiva), etc.

Those whose mind is established—motionless—in "Sameness," i.e., in the state of Brahman, regarding all beings; by them, "Creation" (sarga)—birth—is conquered, mastered, "here itself," i.e., while living indeed. "For" (hi) because Brahman is flawless, same, and not unequal everywhere. Just as in two golden objects—a deity and its pedestal—one who sees the gold (svarṇadṛk) sees equality, while the worshiper who sees the form (ākāradṛk) sees a hierarchy; similarly (here). The Smriti regarding worship concerns the hierarchy created by delusion. But the vision of equality concerns the Reality; this is the purport.

Since they see equality in this manner, those seers are established in Brahman which is of undivided single essence—they have attained culmination through oneness.

"Here itself" (iha eva)—even in the stage of practicing the means—by them "Creation" (sarga)—Samsara—is conquered; whose mind, in the manner described, is established in "Sameness" (sāmye) regarding all Selves (ātmasu).

For "Brahman" is flawless and same; it is "Same" because it is free from the defect of contact with Prakriti (nature). "Brahman" is indeed the Entity of the Self (ātmavastu). If they are established in the "equality of Selves," they are indeed established in Brahman. Establishment in Brahman is indeed the victory over Samsara.

The meaning is that contemplating only the equality in all Selves due to their having the sole form of knowledge, they are indeed liberated.

He instructs on the manner in which a Karma Yogi must be situated for the maturity of knowledge in the form of "equal vision" to occur (in the next verse).

(Objection): "How can they be Pundits (wise) if they practice 'equal vision' regarding unequal persons, even though it is prohibited? As Gautama says: 'Due to worshiping equals and unequals unequally and equally [respectively].'

The meaning of this is: When 'unequal' manner of worship is offered to an 'equal' (person of equal merit), and when 'equal' manner of worship is offered to an 'unequal' (person of different merit), that worshiper falls from this world and the next."

(Answer): To this He says "Here itself" (ihaiva), etc. "Here itself"—while living indeed—by them "Creation" (sarga)—meaning Samsara, that which is created—is conquered, cast off. By whom? Those whose mind is established in "Sameness" (sāmye), i.e., equality.

The reason for that is: "For" (hi) since Brahman is "Same" and "Flawless," therefore those equal-seers are established in Brahman alone. The meaning is that they have attained the state of Brahman (brahmabhāva).

The fault mentioned by Gautama, however, applies only before the attainment of the state of Brahman, because the word "due to worship" (pūjātaḥ) implies the hearing of the state of a worshiper (who is still in the realm of duality).

This "state of equal vision" (samadarśitvam) is not merely a means for a result occurring at another time, but directs one towards the cessation of affliction which is close to final liberation (niḥśreyasa) right now; thus, the praise of equal-seers is done by the verse "Here itself" (ihaiva).

"Even in the stage of practicing the means"—the idea is that although the word 'here' (iha) refers to the world, it is proper here to refer to one's own specific state (svāvasthā). "Samsara is conquered"—meaning they are practically liberated (muktaprayāḥ). Since creation (cosmology) etc. has no connection here, the word "creation" (sarga) refers to "Samsara" via the etymology "that which is created."

To dismiss the contingency of equality regarding touchability etc. of Brahmins, outcastes etc., it is stated "in the manner described." The meaning is: in the manner stated in the previous commentary, the unconditioned essential nature of the Self is 'equal' because of having the sole form of knowledge.

(Objection): "Surely, establishment 'in the Self' is the cause of conquering samsara, not establishment 'in its equality'?" To this, He says "For Brahman is flawless and same." 'Brahman-hood' alone is the predicate to be established; otherwise, the connection "therefore they are established in Brahman" would not fit. The logical connection would be: "The equal-seers are established in Brahman because the 'Same' is Brahman"; and by that, the raised objection is resolved—with this intention, he (Ramanuja) says "Self-entity" (ātmavastu).

"So what of the subject at hand?"—to this he says "Establishment in Brahman" (is indeed victory over samsara). The word 'Brahman' is used here for the 'Pure Self' because of its equality/likeness to Brahman. He states the resultant, condensed meaning with "In the Selves" (ātmasu).

इस श्लोक में प्राय सम्पूर्ण शास्त्र को ही गागर में सागर की भाँति भर दिया गया है। प्रस्तुत प्रकरण के सन्दर्भ में सर्वप्रथम यह दर्शाना आवश्यक था कि पूर्व श्लोक में वर्णित समदर्शनरूप पूर्णत्व कोई ऐसा दैवी आदर्श नहीं जिसकी प्राप्ति या अनुभूति देहत्याग के पश्चात् स्वर्ग नामक किसी लोक विशेष में होगी। पुराणों तथा यहूदी धर्मों में धर्म साधना और जीवन का लक्ष्य स्वर्गप्राप्ति ही बताया गया है। एक बुद्धिमान् एवं विचारशील पुरुष को स्वर्ग का आश्वासन एक आकर्षक माया जाल से अधिक कुछ प्रतीत नहीं होता। ऐसे अस्पष्ट और अज्ञात लक्ष्य की प्राप्ति के लिये बुद्धिमान् पुरुष को प्रोत्साहित नहीं किया जा सकता। उसमें उस लक्ष्य के प्रति न उत्साह होगा और न लगन।स्वर्ग प्राप्ति के आश्वासन के विपरीत यहाँ वेदान्त में स्पष्ट घोषणा की गयी है कि जीव का संसार यहीं पर समाप्त होकर वह अपने अनन्तस्वरूप का साक्षात् अनुभव कर सकता है। आत्मानुभूति का यह लक्ष्य मृत्यु के पश्चात् प्राप्य नहीं वरन् इसी जीवन में इसी देह में और इसी लोक में प्राप्त करने योग्य है। जीवभाव की परिच्छिन्नताओं से ऊपर उठकर मनुष्य ईश्वरानुभूति में स्थित रह सकता है।जीवत्व से ईश्वरत्व तक आरोहण करने में कौन समर्थ है किस उपाय से संसार बन्धनों से मुक्ति पायी जा सकती है इस श्लोक में केवल जीवन के लक्ष्य का ही नहीं बल्कि तत्प्राप्ति के लिए साधन का भी संकेत किया गया है। भगवान् कहते हैं कि जिनका मन समत्व भाव में स्थित है वे ब्रह्म में स्थित हैं।पतंजलि मुनि इसी बात को दूसरे शब्दों में इस प्रकार कहते हैं कि योगश्चित्तवृत्तिनिरोध अर्थात् चित्तवृत्तियों के निरोध को योग कहते हैं। जहाँ मन की वृत्तियों का पूर्ण निरोध हुआ वहाँ मन का अस्तित्व ही समाप्त समझना चाहिए। मन ही वह उपाधि है जिसमें व्यक्त चैतन्य जीव या अहंकार के रूप में प्रकट होकर स्वयं को सम्पूर्ण जगत् से भिन्न मानता है। अत मन के नष्ट होने पर अहंकार और उसके संसार का भी नाश अवश्यंभावी है। सांसारिक दुखों से मुक्त जीव अनुभव करता है कि वह परमात्मस्वरूप से भिन्न नहीं। इस स्वरूपानुभूति के बिना पूर्व श्लोक में कथित समदर्शित्व प्राप्त नहीं हो सकता।भगवान् कहते हैं कि जिसने सर्ग (जन्मादिरूप संसार) को जीत लिया और जिसका मन समस्त परिस्थितिओं में समभाव में स्थित रहता है वह पुरुष निश्चय ही ब्रह्म में स्थित है। प्रथम बार में अध्ययन करने पर यह कथन अयुक्तिक प्रतीत हो सकता है। इसलिये भगवान् इसका कारण बताते हैं क्योंकि ब्रह्म निर्दोष और सम है।ब्रह्म सर्वत्र समानरूप से व्याप्त है। सब घटनाएं उसमें ही घटती हैं परन्तु उसको कोई विकार प्राप्त नहीं होता। सत्य सदैव नदी के तल के समान अपरिवर्तित रहता है जबकि उसका जल प्रवाह सदैव चंचल रहता है। अधिष्ठान सदा अविकारी रहता है परन्तु अध्यस्त (कल्पित) अथवा व्यक्त हुई सृष्टि का स्वभाव है नित्य परिवर्तनशीलता। जीव देहादि के साथ तादात्म्य करके इन परिवर्तनों का शिकार बन जाता है जबकि अधिष्ठानरूप आत्मा नित्य अपरिवर्तनशील और एक समान रहता है।जो व्यक्ति मनुष्य को विचलित कर देने वाली समस्त परिस्थितियों में अविचलित और समभाव रहता है उसने निश्चय ही अधिष्ठान में स्थिति प्राप्त कर ली है। समुद्र की लहरों पर बढ़ती हुई लकड़ी इतस्तत भटकती रह सकती है लेकिन दृढ़ चट्टानों पर निर्मित दीपस्तम्भ अविचल खड़ा रहता है। तूफान उसके चरणों से टकराकर अपना क्रोध शान्त करते हैं। इसलिए भगवान् का कथन युक्तियुक्त ही है कि समत्वभाव में स्थित पुरुष ब्रह्म में ही स्थित है।इसलिए

(Objection): "Surely in the subsequent statement, 'vision of equality' is stated as the means to Liberation itself; so how is it said (by some) to be a means to 'direct realization'? Also, previously, the existence of another birth (due to Prarabdha) was stated even for a Knower; so by saying 'here itself' (ihaiva), how is 'liberation in that very body' stated?" To this, He says "That very" (tadeva - praises that very state).

The idea is that in 'praise' (stuti), 'hyperbole' (adhikokti) is possible.

(Objection): "Indeed, the 'vision of equality' regarding creatures that are by nature unequal—Sattvic, Rajasic, and Tamasic—is prohibited by Dharma Shastra. Thus, Gautama, starting with 'His food is prohibited' (tasyānnamabhojyam), declares in Smriti: 'Due to worshiping equals and unequals unequally and equally.'"

'To equals and unequals' (samāsamābhyām) is Dative dual. 'Unequally and equally' (viṣamasame) is Locative singular due to the singular formation of the Dvandva compound. The meaning is: When a specific worship preceded by gifts of clothes, ornaments, food etc., is performed for a knower of four Vedas who is of excellent conduct; and a 'unequal'—lower relative to that—mode of worship is performed for another 'equal' knower of four Vedas of excellent conduct. And, when a low-means mode of worship is performed for one of little learning and low conduct; and a mode of worship 'equal to the main worship' (high honor)—which is greater than that low worship—is performed for such an 'unequal' (low) person who is inferior to the aforementioned Vedic scholar. Due to that 'worship'—(treating) the high as low and the low as high—the food of that worshiper becomes 'prohibited' (abhojyānna).

And the worshiper, not performing the specific recognition (proper respect), falls from wealth and dharma—this is another defect. Even though for Ascetics (yatis) who are possessionless, the state of 'prohibited food' and 'wealth-lessness' exists naturally due to the absence of cooking and wealth, still, the defect of 'loss of dharma' certainly occurs. And 'prohibited food' implies the generation of sin through impurity. And for those whose wealth is austerity (tapodhana), 'Tapas' is wealth, so the loss of that is indeed a defect. So how can the equal-seeing Pundits be Jivanmuktas?" (Answer): This objection being raised, He refutes it:

"By them" (taiḥ)—by the equal-seeing Pundits—"Here itself" (ihaiva)—in the living state itself—"Creation" (sarga)—meaning the dualistic world (dvaita-prapañca) derived from 'that which is created'—is "Conquered" (jitaḥ)—transcended. That it is to be transcended after the fall of the body, what need is there to say? By whom? Those whose mind is established—motionless—in "Sameness," i.e., in the equal nature of Brahman present even in unequal beings. "For" (hi) since Brahman is Flawless, Same, devoid of all modifications, Kootastha-Nitya, and One; therefore, those equal-seers are established in Brahman alone.

The idea is this: Defectiveness is of two kinds—either of the undefective through contact with the defective, or being defective naturally. Like Ganges water (becoming foul) by falling into a pit of urine, or like urine etc. being foul naturally. There, although fools imagine that Brahman situated in "defective things" like dog-eaters etc. is polluted by their defects, Brahman is indeed untouched by all defects because it is unattached (asanga) like space. As the Shruti says: "Indeed, this Person is unattached"; "Just as the Sun, the eye of the whole world, is not tainted by the external defects of the eye, so the One Inner Self of all beings is not tainted by the suffering of the world, being external to it." Nor is It polluted 'naturally' by possessing attributes like desire (kāma), because desire etc. are established by Shruti and Smriti to be attributes of the internal organ (antaḥkaraṇa).

Therefore, it is contradictory to say that the Ascetics (yatis) who are of the nature of flawless Brahman and are Jivanmuktas are also polluted by defects like having prohibited food. The Smriti, however, applies only to the "ignorant householder"—this should be seen from the commencement "his food is prohibited," the middle reference "due to worship" (pūjātaḥ), and the conclusion "he falls from wealth and dharma."

Those who are such are the best—this He states with "Here itself" (ihaiva). Those whose mind is established in "Sameness" (sāmye), i.e., in equal feeling, by them "Creation" (sarga) is conquered here itself.

The idea here is: The Lord produced the world for His own sport (krīḍā); therein, whatever nature (bhāva) was produced for whomever by whatever Will (of God), that (being) acts exactly so. "Is he worthy or not?"—why should this be judged? Therefore, those whose mind is established in "Sameness"—meaning in the form of the Lord's sport—by them, "here itself"—in the very body which is the locus (adhiṣṭhāna)—"Creation" (sarga), meaning the illusory Samsara, is conquered. Because Brahman is "Same"—It is Flawless regarding the forms meant for His sport, i.e., It is devoid of defects etc. in them; therefore, those whose mind is established in Sameness are established in "Brahman," i.e., in the "State of Brahman" (brahmabhāva); hence, Samsara is conquered by them; this is the meaning.

Or—"Creation" (sarga) means their "own birth" is conquered, mastered, made fruitful. The idea is that they were produced by the Lord for His own purpose, and that has been accomplished.

Or—those whose mind remains established in equality during union and separation (saṃyoga-viyoga); by them "here itself"—in the current physical body which is the support—that "Creation" (sarga)—meaning the "Supernatural Body" (alaukika deha) which is to be in the future—is conquered, mastered. Their entirely supernatural body, which is of the nature of divine sentiment (bhāva-rūpa), has come under control, because "whenever this (devotee) desires, then indeed the manifestation of the Sentiment occurs"; this is the idea.

"For" (hi)—this is indeed proper. Because "Brahman"—the Lord—due to being of the nature of established Rasa (svasthāyi-rasa), is "Flawless" in equal and other states, just as in the Raas (lila). Since Brahman is such, therefore they are established in "Brahman," i.e., in the state of Brahman characterized by Nirodha (Total Constraint/Absorption in God).

"Here itself" (iha eva)—while living indeed—by those equal-seeing Pundits, "Creation" (sarga)—meaning birth (janma)—is "Conquered" (jitaḥ)—mastered. Whose mind, the internal organ, has become motionless, established in "Sameness" (sāmye)—in the equal nature of Brahman in all beings.

"Flawless" (nirdoṣam)—although in faulty things like dog-eaters etc., It is imagined by fools to be possessing defects due to their defects, still, being "untouched" by those defects, It is "Flawless"—devoid of defects. "For" (hi)—because; nor is It differentiated by the distinction of Its own qualities, because Consciousness is "Attributeless" (nirguṇa). And the Lord will say later that "desire etc. are properties of the Field (kṣetra)" (13.6) and "because of being beginningless and attributeless..." (13.31). Nor do "Ultimate Particularities" (antyaviśeṣa) exist as differentiators of the Self, because there is no proof for their existence in each body. Therefore, Brahman is "Same" and "One." Therefore, they are established in Brahman alone. Therefore, not even a trace of defect touches them, because of the absence in them of the identification of "seeing the Self in the aggregate of the body etc."

That Sutra (of Gautama)—"Due to worshiping equals and unequals unequally and equally"—however, concerns the subject who possesses the identification of seeing the Self in the aggregate of the body etc., because it is qualified by "being a subject of worship" (pūjā-viṣayatvena). For it is indeed seen that in worship, charity, etc., the connection with specific qualities like "Knower of Brahman," "Knower of six Limbs," "Knower of four Vedas" is the cause. But Brahman is devoid of connection with all qualities and defects; therefore, "they are established in Brahman" is justified.

And the "equal and unequal" text concerns ritual action (karma). This (verse context), however, is presented on the subject of "Renunciation of all actions," starting from "Renouncing all actions mentally" (5.13) until the end of the chapter. Since Brahman is Flawless, Same, and the Self, therefore...

Therefore, whatever is "Same" (sama), that should be considered as "of the nature of Brahman." If the mind, too, becomes "same/balanced" in Nirodha (restraint/absorption), then it is indeed Brahman, due to identity (tādātmya)... as it has been stated "Equanimity in success and failure is Yoga" (2.48).

When the mind has That as its object, they have attained identity with Brahman; this He states with "Here itself" (ihaiva). By those whose mind is established in "Sameness," "Creation" (sarga)—meaning the Path of Flow (pravāha-mārga)—is conquered.

He Himself explains the very meaning of "Same-Seers" (samadarśinaḥ) with "For Brahman is flawless and same," etc. Therefore, the meaning "they are established in Brahman" should be understood.

इह here? एव even? तैः by them? जितः is conered? सर्गः rirth or creation? येषाम् of whom? साम्ये in eality? स्थितम् established? मनः mind? निर्दोषम् spotless? हि indeed? समम् eal? ब्रह्म Brahman? तस्मात् therefore? ब्रह्मणि in Brahman? ते they? स्थिताः are established.Commentary When the mind gets rooted in eanimity or evenness or eality? when it is always in a balanced state? one coners birth and death. Bondage is annihilated and freedom is attained by him. When the mind is in a perfectly balanced state he overcomes Brahman Himself? i.e.? realises Brahman.Brahman is ever pure and attributeless and so He is not affected even though He dwells in an outcaste? dog? etc. So He is spotless. He is homogeneous and one? as He dwells eally in all beings.

Iha eva, here itself, even while they are living; is sargah, rirth; jitah, conered, overcome; taih, by them, by the learned ones who see with eanimity; yesam, whose; manah, minds, the internal organs; are sthitam, established, made steadfast; samye, on sameness, in Brahman that exists as the same in all beings. It is nirdosam, free from defects. Because of Its existence in such mean objects as an eater of dog's meat, etc., though It is supposed by fools to be affected by the defects of those (objects), still It remains untouched by those blemishes, hi, because It is free from defects. Nor even is It differentiated by Its alities, since Consciousness is free from alifications. And the Lord will speak of desires etc. (cf. 13.6 etc.) as the attributes of the aggregate of body and organs, and will also say, 'Being without beginning and without alities' (13.31). Nor even are there the ultimate distinctions which can create differentiation in the Self, [According to the Vaisesikas, everything is possessed of not only alities but also of antya-visesa (ultimate distinction), which is a category like substance, ality, action, etc. This distinction makes every entity different from other entities. Thus, individual souls have their own ultimate distinctions by the very fact that they are individuals.
Vedanta denies such a category. Besides, the Self is one and omnipresent. Therefore there is nothing else from which It can be distinguished.-Tr.] because there is nothing to prove that these ultimate distinctions exist in every body.
Hence, samam brahma, Brahman is the same and one. Tasmat, therefore; te, they; sthitah, are established; brahmani, in Brahman Itself. As a result, not even a shade of defect touches them. For they have no self-identification in the form of perceiving the aggregate of body etc. as the Self.
On the other hand, that statement (Gau. Sm. 17.20) refers to the man who has self-identification in the form of perceiving the aggregate of body, (organs) etc. as the Self, for that statement-'A sacrificer incurs sin by not adoring eally one who is an eal, and by adoring eally one who is not eal to himself, pointedly refers to persons who are the objects of adoration. It is indeed seen that in worship, charity, etc. the determining factors are the possession of such special alities as being 'a knower of Brahman', 'versed in the six auxiliary branches of Vedic learning', and 'versed in the four Vedas'. But Brahman is bereft of association with all alities and defects. This being so, it is logical that they are established in Brahman. And 'adoring an eal, ৷৷.an uneal,' etc. has reference to men of action. [Those engaged in actions with a sense of agentship, etc.-Tr.] But this subject under consideration, beginning from 'The embodied man৷৷.having given up all actions mentally' (13) to the end of the chapter, is concerning one who has given up all actions.
Since the Self is Brahman which is without blemish and is the same (in all), therefore-

By those whose minds rest in ealness with regard to all selves in the aforesaid manner, even here, i.e., even at the stage of executing the means, Samsara is overcome. For the Brahman is of the same nature everywhere when uncontaminated. The meaning is that the substance of self, when free from the contaminations resulting from contact with the Prakrti (body), is the same everywhere i.e., as the Brahman (the Atman). If they are fixed in the eality of all selves, they verily abide in Brahman. The abidance in the Brahman is verily the conest of Samsara. Those who contemplate on the sameness of all selves, because of their having the form of knowledge, they are liberated.
Sri Krsna now teaches that mode of life by following which the maturity of knowledge in the form of sameness of vision comes to a Karma Yogin.