Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 6 - Shloka (Verse) 29

व्याख्या--'ईक्षते योगयुक्तात्मा सर्वत्र समदर्शनः'--सब जगह एक सच्चिदानन्दघन परमात्मा ही परिपूर्ण हैं। जैसे मनुष्य खाँड़से बने हुए अनेक तरहके खिलौनोंके नाम, रूप, आकृति आदि भिन्न-भिन्न होनेपर भी उनमें समानरूपसे एक खाँड़को, लोहेसे बने हुए अनेक तरहके अस्त्र-शस्त्रोंमें एक लोहेको, मिट्टीसे बने हुए अनेक तरहके बर्तनोंमें एक मिट्टीको और सोनेसे बने हुए आभूषणोंमें एक सोनेको ही देखता है, ऐसे ही ध्यानयोगी तरह-तरहकी वस्तु, व्यक्ति आदिमें समरूपसे एक अपने स्वरूपको ही देखता है।

अब योगका फल जो कि समस्त संसारका विच्छेद करा देनेवाला ब्रह्मके साथ एकताका देखना है वह दिखलाया जाता है समाहित अन्तःकरणसे युक्त और सब जगह समदृष्टिवाला योगी जिसका ब्रह्म और आत्माकी एकताको विषय करनेवाला ज्ञान ब्रह्मासे लेकर स्थावरपर्यन्त समस्त विभक्त प्राणियोंमें भेदभावसे रहित सम हो चुका है ऐसा पुरुष अपने आत्माको सब भूतोंमें स्थित (देखता है ) और आत्मामें सब भूतोंको देखता है। अर्थात् ब्रह्मासे लेकर स्तम्बपर्यन्त समस्त प्राणियोंको आत्मामें एकताको प्राप्त हुए देखता है।

To one doubting "By what cause would the twofold liberation—characterized by the cessation of all evil and the attainment of unsurpassed bliss—occur for the one practicing Yoga and becoming Brahman?", He replies with 'idanim' (now/in the next verse).

The syntax connects to "he sees his own Self".

Apprehending the doubt that "If he sees all beings also as attributes of That [Self], then it is not knowledge of the Pure Entity, and thus ignorance is not removed," He says 'sarvabhutani' (all beings).

He shows that the steadiness of mind (chitta-samadhana) is the means to the mentioned vision, with the word 'yoga' (yoga-yuktatma).

In uneven (diverse) adjuncts (upadhis), the vision would indeed be uneven following those [adjuncts]; He rejects/removes this obstacle to the vision shown, with the word 'sarvatra' (everywhere).

Now, he demonstrates that 'vision of the unity of Brahman and Atman', which is the cause of the cessation of all Samsara, which is the fruit of Yoga. "Sarvabhutastham"—(seeing) his own "Atman" (Self) in all beings from Brahma down to a clump of grass; and "Sarvabhutani"—all beings "Atmani"—in the Self "Ekatam gatani" (attained to oneness) [experiencing oneness]; the "Yogayuktatma"—one of collected mind—"Ikshate" (sees). In all, from Brahma down to immobile things—having vision devoid of modification of qualities, form, impressions, and objects; 'Samam'—having the object as the unity of the attribute-less Brahman and Atman; he who has such vision is "Sarvatra samadarshanah" (Seeing equality everywhere).

By this, the description (by some) that "by this verse the meaning of 'Thou' (Tvam) term is presented, by the second the 'That' (Tat) term, and by the third the 'Indivisible Meaning' (Akhandartha)"—is refuted. Because without the direct realization of the Indivisible Meaning, the fruit "I do not perish for him and he does not perish for me" (6.30) would be unreasonable.

And regarding the statement that "Restraint of mental modifications is the cause of witnessing the Witness; and similarly, by discrimination from the inert, the separation of the Consciousness pervading all is also (necessary); (therefore) Yoga is definitely required. Therefore Vasishtha said: 'O Raghava, there are two paths for the destruction of the mind—Yoga and Knowledge. Yoga is restraint of modifications, Knowledge is right observation. For some Yoga is impossible, for some the determination of Truth; therefore the Supreme Lord Shiva spoke of two ways'"—

There, the first means (Yoga) was adopted by the Hiranyagarbhas (worshippers) etc. who hold the world to be real; because for them, in the non-perception (destruction) of the 'real' mind, no means other than 'concealment' (laya) was possible. But the Aupanishadas (Vedantins) following the view of the Revered Shankara Bhagavatpada—holding the world to be unreal—resort to the second means (Knowledge) alone. For them, when there is firmness of the knowledge of the Substratum, the non-perception of the mind superimposed and sublated there, and of its objects, is accomplished effortlessly.

That is why the Revered Bhagavatpada did not expound the need for Yoga for Knowers of Brahman anywhere. And that is why the statement "Therefore Aupanishada Paramahamsas proceed to the Guru for Brahman-realization only in the inquiry of Shrauta Vedanta sentences, not in Yoga; because by inquiry alone, through the removal of mental defects, that (mind destruction) is accomplished otherwise"—that too is to be ignored.

Because by the Shruti "The Self, my dear, should be seen, heard, reflected, and meditated upon" (Brihadaranyaka 2.4.5), in the 'desire to know Brahman' (Brahma-jijnasa) which is to happen here (in Nididhyasana) characterized by 'being collected' (Samahitatva) endowed with Shama etc. included in the Fourfold Means qualifying the aspirant—which is indicated by the word 'Atha' in the Sutra "Athato Brahma-jijnasa" (1.1.1). Because after the perfection of Yoga, for the sake of Brahman-vision, Hearing (Shravana) etc. is necessary; and similarly for establishing the qualification for Hearing etc., just like Karma Yoga which purifies the mind, Dhyana Yoga which restrains it is also necessary; otherwise 'Atha' etc. would be inconsistent. But where realization of Truth is seen even without Hearing etc.; and where in this life Hearing etc. and practice of Yoga etc. are to be inferred (from past lives).

And regarding the citation "Therefore Vasishtha said..." etc., that too is inconsistent with the context. Because "The witnessed superimposed on the Witness does not exist at all due to being false; the Witness alone exists as the Supreme Truth, One"—since this 'Right Observation' in the form of inquiry is impossible without one-pointedness of mind; and because it is decided in the Jijnasa Sutra that only one endowed with the Fourfold Means has the right to Brahman-inquiry. The statement of Vasishtha is not for propounding two causes for the realization of the Witness; but for stating two orders after mind-destruction and mind-concentration—by saying "Yoga is restraint of modifications, Knowledge is right observation," implying the mind is to be destroyed by Samadhi in the form of restraint of modifications OR by Right Knowledge.

By this, the doubt that "This statement of Vasishtha contradicts the Shruti 'Knowing Him alone one crosses death, there is no other path for going'" is also refuted. Because the Shruti denies other means for Liberation; and by 'Right Observation' in the form of inquiry that "The mind which is the adjunct of Jiva, and the aggregate of objects which is the knowable, are false because they are superimposed on the Self," OR by 'Restraint of modifications', when the mind is destroyed; when the mind has turned away from objects; due to the production of the 'Knowledge of non-difference with Supreme Self' which is the sole means for Liberation, Liberation (occurs)—thus there is no contradiction.

But if the non-instrumentality of Yoga for Liberation independently were intended by Vasishtha, then the sentence of Vasishtha meant to state two means—"Sri Rama said: By the play of Right Knowledge, upon the rise of dissolution of Vasanas; O Brahman, I have indeed rested in the state of Jivanmukti. By the restraint of the vibration of Prana, upon the rise of dissolution of Vasanas; O Brahman, tell how one rests in the state of Jivanmukti. Because of easiness and painlessness, which of these two is better? By knowing which alone, agitation does not trouble again"—following this question of Ramachandra would be necessary (who considers both Yoga and Knowledge as means).

And regarding "That is why Bhagavatpada..." etc., there too, did he not expound the need for Yoga after Knowledge of Truth, or as a means to Knowledge? Not the first; because of the introduction "And by discrimination from the inert." Not the second. Therefore, something must be stated after which Brahman-inquiry is taught. It is said—Discrimination between eternal and non-eternal, dispassion for enjoyment of fruits here and hereafter, wealth of means like Shama and Dama, and Mumukshutva. For when these exist, even before Dharma-jijnasa and after it, it is possible to inquire into and know Brahman—and not in the reverse (absence)—thus in the Jijnasa Sutra (Bhashya); because the Bhashyakara has stated the pentad of Shama etc. mentioned in the Shruti "Having become Shanta, Danta, Uparata, Titikshu, Samahita, he should see the Self in the Self" (Brihadaranyaka 4.4.23), along with 'Shraddha' mentioned in another Shruti "Having become possessed of Shraddha." For Shama etc. are not accomplished without the practice of Yoga.

That is stated: "Knowing that Cause, the God, accessible by Sankhya and Yoga, one is released from all fetters" (Svetasvatara 6.13). Knowing the 'Cause' of those relevant desires (of the world); the 'God' attained as the Inner Self 'by Sankhya and Yoga'—by Discrimination and Meditation; one is released from all fetters—by Avidya etc.; this is the meaning. And thus Svetasvatara Upanishad also propounds the causality of Dhyana Yoga for Knowledge of Truth—(verses 2.8-17 cited).

"Trir-unnatam"—the body in which the three—chest, neck, and head—are erect, that is 'Tryunnatam'. 'Trir-unnatam' is Vedic. "Brahmodupena"—by the raft that saves. "Srotamsi"—currents of Samsara distinct by gods, men, animals, immobile etc.; by this means, one should cross the great ocean of sorrow of Samsara—thus the Shruti instructs the fit aspirant. These forms like "Mist" etc. are established by the Yogi's experience. These forms of the Buddhi, when Yoga is being performed, are "Manifesters in Brahman"—manifesters of Brahman, indicators. Having worshipped its power named "Nivritti" by direct realization; upon its control by that worship; then the "Apya" (watery) mandala, its power named "Pratishtha", and contemplating Ego in the waters; upon its control by that; then the Fiery mandala, its power named "Vidya", and thinking of Ego (in it); having controlled it by that; thus upon the "Rising" of Earth, Water, Fire, Air, and Space in order; having been controlled by meditation through the fitness for respective effects; upon the operation of the "Fivefold Yoga-quality"—contemplating the wrapping of the preceding three by the succeeding three of the Earth etc., their mandalas, and their powers in the Buddhi, contemplating all that as non-different from oneself; by that worship, upon the operation of the "Fivefold Yoga-quality"—the quality characterized by the fitness for deploying the five elements as desired; for that Yogi—accomplished by such activity; the "Yoga" i.e., Meditation of the Yogi, that itself is "Fire"—Yoga-fire; having controlled by that meditation, having attained a body consisting of (mastered) five elements, for the one identifying "I am that," the stated fruit is accomplished. "Just as a disc"—mirror etc.; "smeared by earth"—by earth i.e., 'Mrija' (cleaning agent) like ash etc. which is a means of purification. 'Ja' becomes 'Da' (Vedic). "Tejomayam"—full of light even before; "Sudhantam"—by smearing with ash etc., since it is smeared (cleaned) by dirt like ash etc., that mirror etc. whose previous dirt is well removed "shines"; similarly "He alone"—the Inner Self—"stands in the people"—in these adjuncts of effect and instrument consisting of infinite collective and individual (forms), becoming expressible by the word "Janah" (people) as the Inner Self, that very Supreme Self stands—this is the meaning of the difficult Shrutis.

The Gita-Smritis like "The Yogi should constantly unite the self remaining in solitude" (Gita 6.10) etc. are (explanations) of these beginning Shrutis. Therefore, these beginning Shrutis alone, which are the basis of those Smritis, should be cited as appropriate. Not the Yoga-Smritis (like Patanjali Sutras independently). Because Gita-Smritis are rooted in Vedas. And thus, the validity of Sankhya-Smritis, Yoga-Smritis, and Logic-Smritis is only insofar as they are not opposed to Vedas, not of others. And thus the Sage's (Jaimini's) aphorism in the Pramana-lakshana (1.3.3)—"Contradiction would be disregarded (anapeksham), for inference applies only when there is non-existence (of contradiction)." Regarding the doubt whether the Smriti "The whole (post) should be covered with cloth," which contradicts the direct Shruti "Touching the Audumbari (post) he should sing," is valid or not—obtaining that it is valid by inferring a root Shruti—the conclusion is: In case of contradiction with an established Shruti, the authority of Smriti is 'Anapeksham'—devoid of expectation/need, i.e., to be rejected. Because, only when there is 'Asati'—absence of contradiction—there is inference of Shruti. Here, since there is contradiction, inference of Shruti is not possible, so due to lack of basis, the 'covering-all' Smriti is invalid; this is the meaning. Thus, Yoga-Smritis which follow the Svetasvatara Upanishad—the Shruti propounding Shama etc.—are valid. And Smritis which expand on Shrutis like "The Self should be seen... meditated upon," "Then he sees Him, partless, while meditating" (Mundaka 3.1.8)—and which are intent on describing Samadhi with its means (are valid).

Because it is not proper to reject all parts of theistic systems like atheistic systems. And thus the Bhashya on the Sutra "By this Yoga is refuted" (Brahma Sutra 2.1.3) extends the principle—"By this"—by the refutation of Sankhya Smriti—the Smriti of Yoga is also to be seen as refuted. There too, due to contradiction with Smriti (Veda), (the view that) Pradhana is the independent cause, and Mahat etc. are effects imagined as not well-known in world or Veda (is refuted). (Objection) "Now, if so, it is the same because of logic; this is obtained by the previous (sutra), why is it extended again?" (Answer) There is an additional doubt there—"Yoga is enjoined in the Veda as a means to Right Vision—'Should be heard, thought, meditated upon'. In Svetasvatara Upanishad, by 'Holding the body steady with three parts erect' etc., Yoga injunction with much expansion preceded by imagining Asana etc. is seen. And Vedic signs regarding Yoga are found in thousands—'That they consider Yoga, the steady holding of senses' (Katha 2.3.11), 'This knowledge and the entire Yoga-method' (Katha 2.3.18)—and so on. In Yoga Shastra also, 'Now Yoga is the means to realization of Truth'—thus Yoga is accepted only as a means to Right Vision; therefore, due to agreement in a part of the meaning, Yoga Smriti also should not be rejected like the Ashtaka Smriti." This additional doubt is also removed by the extension. Because even when there is agreement in a part of meaning, disagreement in a part of meaning is seen by the previously stated (refutation).

Even though there are many Smritis regarding the Self, effort is made only in refuting Sankhya and Yoga Smritis. For Sankhya and Yoga are famous in the world as means to the supreme goal, are accepted by the wise, and are supported by indications (Linga)—"Knowing that Cause accessible by Sankhya and Yoga..." etc. The refutation, however, is that—Highest Good is not attained by Sankhya knowledge or by the path of Yoga independent of Veda. For the Shruti prevents any means to Highest Good other than the Vedic knowledge of the Oneness of Self—"Knowing Him alone... there is no other path..." etc. And those Sankhya and Yoga (systems) are Dualists, not seers of the Oneness of Self. And regarding the vision stated as "Accessible by that cause Sankhya and Yoga"—there, Vedic Knowledge and Meditation alone are expressed by the words 'Sankhya' and 'Yoga' due to proximity; this should be understood.

But in the part where it does not contradict, the scope of Sankhya and Yoga Smritis is indeed desired. For instance—the purity of the Purusha, which is famous in Shrutis like "For this Purusha is unattached" (Brihadaranyaka 4.3.15), is accepted by Sankhyas through the description of the Attribute-less Purusha. Similarly by Yogis also—the establishment in Renunciation (Nivritti) famous in Shrutis like "Then the Monk, with discolored clothes, shaven, without possessions" (Jabala 4)—is accepted through the instruction of wandering etc. By this, all Logic-Smritis (Nyaya-Vaisheshika etc.) are to be answered. "If they also help Knowledge of Truth through logic and reasoning?"—let them help indeed. But Knowledge of Truth happens from Vedanta sentences alone—"One not knowing the Veda does not know that Great One" (Taittiriya Brahmana 3.12.9.7), "I ask you about that Aupanishada Purusha" (Brihadaranyaka 3.9.26)—from such Shrutis. Thus, therefore, from this Bhashya, from the cited Shrutis, and from Gita-Smritis; and because of the appropriateness of the Aupanishada Paramahamsas engaging in the practice of Yoga—which is a means to Knowledge of Truth and not opposed to Shruti—for the removal of mental defects. Therefore, "And Aupanishadas..." (the statement of the opponent) is inconsistent—enough of elaboration.

He states the object of meditation with 'sarvabhutastham'. [He sees] the Self, the Supreme Lord (Parameshvara), residing in all beings; and [sees] all beings in the Self, the Supreme Lord; and [he sees] that Supreme Lord with equality (samya) regarding sovereignty/opulence etc., in everything from the four-faced Brahma down to a blade of grass.

And that has been stated [in Srimad Bhagavatam 3.24.46]: "He saw the Self, the Lord, situated in all beings; and saw all beings in the Lord and also in the Self." And also [in Gita 13.27]: "The Supreme Lord abiding equally in all beings."

He states the fruit of the twofold Yoga as well with 'sarva' etc. 'A knower of Brahman (Brahma-vid) is spoken of in two ways: one with adjuncts (sopadhika) and one without adjuncts (nirupadhika). The one with adjuncts becomes the Self of all (Sarvatma), and the one without adjuncts (nirupakhya) is devoid of attributes.' In the manner stated thus in the Vartika (by Suresvaracharya), a Yogi experiencing the universal Selfhood of the Atman in Samprajnata Samadhi 'ikshate' (sees) the Self situated as the material cause (upadana) in all beings. Similarly, in Asamprajnata Samadhi, he sees all beings—from Brahma down to a clump of grass—attained to oneness in the Self, just like a snake, a stick, or a stream of water superimposed on a rope (are seen as one with the rope). 'Yoga-yuktatma' means one whose mind is concentrated through Yoga. He describes the state of waking/emergence (vyutthana) of this very person with 'sarvatra' etc.

He who has 'sama' (equal) vision—meaning the vision regarding the oneness of the undifferentiated Brahman and the Atman—in all 'vishema' (diverse/uneven) beings from Brahma down to immobile objects, is 'sarvatra samadarshanah' (one who sees equality everywhere). And so do the Shrutis demonstrate this meaning: "He who sees all beings in the Self alone and the Self in all beings, does not feel revulsion thereafter," "He becomes the Self of all," "Brahma is the fishermen, Brahma is the servants, and Brahma is these gamblers," "All this is indeed the Atman."

However, regarding the view that—"He who is 'yoga-yuktatma' OR he who is 'sarvatra-samadarshanah' sees the Self," implying that both the Yogi and the one with equal vision (the Jnani) are (independent) candidates for seeing the Self; and just as the restraint of mental modifications (chitta-vritti-nirodha) is the cause for the realization of the Witness, similarly, the separation of Consciousness pervading all things through discrimination (viveka) from the inert is also [a means], and therefore Yoga is not necessarily required—this view is not correct.

Because Shrutis like "Having become calm/concentrated (samahita), he sees the Self in the Self," and "Then he sees Him, meditating on the partless," establish that only Yoga—which is synonymous with Samadhi and Dhyana—is the cause of Self-realization. Also, because the combination (samucchaya) of Knowledge (Jnana) and Yoga is understood from indicatory marks (lingas) such as [the verse] "That cause which is apprehended by Sankhya and Yoga," and "This knowledge and the entire method of Yoga." Furthermore, the separation of the inert and the non-inert—the body and the Self—as described in the Shruti is not possible merely through logical discrimination. Because the cessation of an illusion that is accompanied by an adjunct (sopadhika bhrama) is impossible without the cessation of the adjunct. Otherwise, there would be the contingency of the illusion of the reflection ceasing even when the mirror etc. have not ceased. Therefore, the argument that "When the knowledge of the substratum (adhishthana) is firm, the non-perception of the mind and its objects imagined therein occurs effortlessly" is refuted, because without Yoga, the (direct) knowledge of the substratum itself is impossible. As Daksha has said: "That Brahman is to be known by oneself, like the happiness of a young maiden; a non-Yogi does not know it, just as one born blind does not know a jar."

As for what was said by the worshipful Bhagavatpada (Shankara)—"They did not expound the requirement of Yoga for the knower of Brahman anywhere"—that was said without seeing (explicitly) 'Samadhi' which is included in the fourfold qualifications (sadhana-chatushtaya) as a qualification of the seeker implied by the word 'Atha' in "Atha ato Brahma-jijnasa," under 'Shama' etc. (tranquility, etc.); hence it is not a fault (contradiction).

As for the purport of Vasistha's statement "There are two paths," it has already been described earlier as referring merely to a difference in the sequence of attainment/practice; otherwise, by accepting two mutually independent paths, there would be a contradiction with the Shruti "There is no other path" (Anyah pantha...).

Moreover, in a section dealing with Yoga, it is inconsistent to propound another path that does not depend on Yoga. Nor is there any word here indicating that. Or, supplying words like "Or he who is of equal vision" based on the aforementioned logic is also inconsistent—this is the direction/indication.

Due to the equality between one's own Self and other beings—when their essential natures are separated from Prakriti (matter)—in terms of having knowledge as their sole form (jnana-ekakara); and because inequality/diversity belongs to Prakriti; the 'Yoga-yuktatma' (one engaged in Yoga), being 'samadarshanah' (of equal vision) everywhere regarding the Selves that are separated from Prakriti—because they all have knowledge as their sole form—sees his own Self as 'sarvabhutastham' (situated in all beings) and 'sarvabhutani' (all beings) in his own Self.

The meaning is: he sees his own Self as having a form similar to all beings, and all beings as having a form similar to his own Self.

The meaning is that when one Self is seen, all Self-entities (atma-vastu) are seen, because of their similarity to It.

[This is confirmed] by the statement "Sarvatra samadarshanah" (seeing equality everywhere), and by the restatement [Arjuna's query] "This Yoga which has been declared by You through equality (samya)" (Gita 6.33), and by the statement "For Brahman is flawless and equal" (Gita 5.19).

He shows the direct realization of Brahman itself with 'sarvabhutastham' etc.

'Yuktatma'—meaning one with a concentrated mind through the Yoga that is being practiced; he sees the equal Brahman alone everywhere, hence he is 'samadarshanah' (of equal vision).

He sees his own 'atmanam' (Self)—which is devoid of the limitations/boundaries of the body etc. created by ignorance (avidya)—situated in 'sarvabhuteshu' (all beings), from Brahma down to immobile objects.

And he sees them [all beings] in the Self with non-difference (abheda).

Thus the method of Yoga practice has been expanded upon; and by statements like "Meditation is illustrated as lasting until the bliss of Self-attainment," the culmination in the fruit has also been stated. Now, since the Yogi is to be propounded in four ways, he states the meaning of the four verses with 'atha' (now). The fourfold nature is due to the gradation in the stages (parva-krama) of the maturity of Yoga, which takes the form of equal vision (samadarshitva). Here, the first stage is stated with the verse 'sarvabhutastham'.

To establish the appropriateness of equal vision, he shows the equality in essential nature and that the inequality of modes is due to adjuncts (aupadhika), with the section from 'svatmanah' (of one's own self) up to 'gatatvat' (due to being). The word 'bhuta' here, although denoting the conscious entity qualified by the non-conscious (achit)—as in "Truth is said to be for the welfare of beings (bhuta)"—refers specifically to the conscious portion (chetana-amsha). 'Yoga-yuktatma' means one whose mind is appointed/engaged in Yoga; OR, it means one by whom the true nature of the Self has been well-understood through Yoga. Being a 'Yoga-yuktatma' is the cause for having equal vision.

The very state of equal vision is expanded upon by specifying the particular counter-correlates (pratiyogi) with 'sarvabhutastham' etc. The word 'Atma' here concerns the Self in general (the Jiva); to exclude it from referring to the Supreme Self (Paramatma) and to indicate it is a synonym for 'sva' (oneself), the word 'svatma' (one's own self) is used [in the commentary].

(Objection): But how is the mutual relation of support-and-supported (adhara-adheya) possible? And how can 'one's own self', which is atomic (anu), be situated in all beings? And how can all beings, situated in scattered/various locations, be situated in 'one's own self' which is located in one place? Therefore, this word 'Atma' should refer to the Paramatma. To this, he replies: 'Sarvabhuta-samanakaram' (having a form similar to all beings).

(Objection): But he [the Yogi] is engaged in Yoga which is the contemplation of his own Self alone; how can he see the group of Selves distinct from himself as the counter-correlates of the similarity residing in himself, and as the substrata of the similarity of which he is the counter-correlate? To this, he replies: 'Ekasmin' (In one) etc. In objects of the same class/species, by seeing just one individual, all objects of that class are indeed understood as being 'like that' (tathatva), by the logic of the rice in the pot (sthali-pulaka nyaya)—this is the idea.

To show that only 'equality' (samya) is intended by 'sarvabhutastham' etc., he cites a portion of this text and the context of the preceding and succeeding sections with 'sarvatra' etc. The intention is this: by 'sarvatra samadarshanah', the vision of the mutual equality of all Selves is stated; that very thing is expanded by 'sarvabhutastham'. For this very reason, the vision of the Self-principle in external (physical) beings and the vision of their [physical beings'] situation in It [the Self] is inconsistent here. Nor is this the section on Paramatma-Yoga, such that contemplation on the Paramatma of that kind would be taught. Nor is this a description of meditation on Paramatma as an aid to Jivatma-Yoga, because the subject matter here is the variety of states of Samadhi. Nor is the equality between Jivas and Paramatma being stated here, because that too [is discussed in] 'Yo mam...' (Who sees Me...).

विश्व के सभी धर्म महान हैं परन्तु यदि धर्म शब्द का अर्थ आत्मोन्नति का विज्ञान है तो उनमें से कोई भी धर्म वेदान्त के समान पूर्ण नहीं है। इस श्लोक में गीताचार्य भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण स्पष्ट घोषणा करते हैं कि केवल वह पुरुष आत्मज्ञानी या ईश्वर का साक्षात्कारकर्ता नहीं कहा जा सकता जिसने मात्र स्वयं को ही शुद्ध दिव्य स्वरूप में अनुभव किया हो। वह पुरुष जिसने कि सम्पूर्ण भूतों में विराजमान एक ही आत्मतत्त्व के दर्शन किये हों आत्मज्ञानी कहा जायेगा। अपने हृदय में स्थित चैतन्य आत्मा ही सर्वत्र सभी नाम रूपों में स्थित है और यही चैतन्य सम्पूर्ण दृश्यमान जगत् का अधिष्ठान है। अत हृदयस्थ चैतन्य के अनुभव का अर्थ ही सर्वत्र व्याप्त नित्य तत्व को अनुभव करना है।हिन्दू धर्म में ऐसा कोई आत्मानुभवी पुरुष नहीं है जिसने दैवी करुणा से ही क्यों न होहे पापपुत्र जैसे अशोभनीय सम्बोधन द्वारा किसी को सम्बोधित किया हो। स्वामी रामतीर्थ के समान हिन्दू महात्मा पुरुष ने लोगों को हे अमृत के पुत्रों के अतिरिक्त किसी अन्य शब्द से संबोधित नहीं किया। अहं ब्रह्मास्मि का अनुभव ही पूर्णत्व का द्योतक है जिसे ऋषियों ने सदैव अपना लक्ष्य बनाया है। इसी अनुभव को इस श्लोक में अत्यन्त प्रभावशाली ढंग से दर्शाया गया है।गीता के प्राय सभी अध्यायों में इस सिद्धान्त का प्रतिपादन किया गया है कि नामरूपमय यह सृष्टि पारमार्थिक सत्य की अभिव्यक्ति है अथवा यह सृष्टि उस सत्य पर अध्यस्त (कल्पित) है। इस दृष्टि से सम्पूर्ण नामरूपों का अधिष्ठान यह देशकालातीत आत्मतत्व ही है। जैसे मिट्टी समस्त मिट्टी के बने पात्रों में सुवर्ण समस्त आभूषणों में जल समस्त तरंगों में वैसे ही आत्मा समस्त नामरूपों में अधिष्ठान के रूप में स्थित है।हम अपने शरीर मन और बुद्धि के द्वारा क्रमश भौतिक पदार्थ दूसरों की भावनाएँ और विचारों को देख और समझ पाते हैं। जिसने इन उपाधियों से परे ात्मस्वरूप ा साक्षात्कार कर लिया वह पुरुष उस आध्यात्मिक दृष्टि से जब जगत् को देखता है तब उसे सर्वत्र व्याप्त आत्मा का ही अनुभव होता है। वह योगी स्वयं आत्मस्वरूप बन जाता है। मिट्टी की दृष्टि से घट नहीं है और न सुवर्ण की दृष्टि से आभूषण। उसी प्रकार आत्मदृष्टि से आत्मा ही विद्यमान है और उससे भिन्न कोई वस्तु नहीं है।इस ज्ञान को समझने से श्लोक का अर्थ स्पष्ट हो जाता है। जिसने अनेकता में एक सत्य का दर्शन कर लिया वही आत्मज्ञानी पुरुष सर्वत्र समदृष्टि सेब्राह्मण गाय हाथी श्वान और चाण्डाल को देख सकता है।अगले श्लोक में इस आत्मैकत्व दर्शन का फल बताते हैं

'Sarva...' etc. One should contemplate the Self as entering into all beings as the 'Grahaka' (the perceiver/subject). And within the Self, one should unify all beings through the knowledge of their 'Grahya' (being objects of perception) nature.

And from this alone arises (or is known) 'equal vision' (samadarshantva) and Yoga; this is the meaning in brief.

The details, however, have been determined by me alone in sections like 'Bhedavada-vidarana' (The Tearing Apart of the Doctrine of Difference) and in the 'Devistotra-vivarana' (Commentary on the Hymn to the Goddess); they should be ascertained from there itself.

Since the section on Yoga was concluded with the statement of its fruit in 'Thus engaging...' (6.28), what is the purpose of the subsequent [verse]? To this, he says—[it states] the 'object of meditation' (dhyeyam).

(Objection): It is true that the object of meditation was indeed stated in 'With mind fixed on Me, harmonized...' (6.14) etc.? (Reply): Even so, the object of meditation for the highest qualified aspirants (uttama-adhikari) is being stated by this, so there is no fault.

To refute the understanding that 'atmanam' refers to 'one's own self' (jiva) etc., he says—'Sarva...' (All...) etc.

From where is this meaning derived? To this, he replies citing the corroboration of the Puranas—'Tachcha' (And that...).

He justifies that 'Sarvatra samadarshanah' has the stated meaning with the agreement of the Gita—[citing] 'Samam' (Equally in all... 13.27).

So thus, when the 'pure entity' implied by the word 'Thou' (tvam) and the word 'That' (tat) is directly realized through Nirodha Samadhi (absorption of cessation), the mental modification (vritti) which takes the form of immediate realization of the unknown (nirvikalpaka), having the unity of those two as its object, generated by the Vedantic sentence "That Thou Art" (Tattvamasi)—which is named Brahma-vidya (Knowledge of Brahman)—arises. And from that, by the cessation of all ignorance and its effects, one enjoys the bliss of Brahman completely—this He explains in three verses.

Among them, first He states the presence of the meaning implied by the word 'Thou' with 'Sarva...' etc. He 'ikshate' (sees/realizes) through discrimination (viveka) the one, eternal, all-pervading Self—which is the inner consciousness, the Witness, the absolute reality, and a mass of bliss—situated as the enjoyer in 'all beings' (sarva bhuteshu), i.e., in bodies moving and unmoving, [separating it] from the objects of witnessing which are false, inert, limited, and of the nature of sorrow. And in that Witness Self, he sees 'all beings'—which are objects of witnessing, imagined as objects of enjoyment through a superimposed relationship (since no other relationship is possible between the Witness and the witnessed)—which are false, limited, inert, and of the nature of sorrow, through discrimination from the Witness. Who? The 'Yoga-yuktatma'—one endowed with Yoga, which is of the nature of 'proficiency in non-reflective (nirvichara) state'; he whose internal organ (mind) has attained placidity/clarity. And indeed, it has been stated earlier (in Yoga Sutras 1.47-49): "In the proficiency of non-reflective Samadhi, there is spiritual lucidity (adhyatma-prasada)," "There, the wisdom is Truth-bearing (Ritambhara)," "It has a different object than the wisdom born of scripture and inference, because it relates to specific particulars." And thus, by the perception born of Yoga called 'Ritambhara', which has as its object the specific reality that is beyond words and inference, he sees everything—subtle, hidden, and distant—simultaneously and equally; he whose vision is thus equal everywhere is 'sarvatra samadarshanah'. Being a 'Yoga-yuktatma', he sees the Self and the non-Self as they really are—this is appropriate. Alternatively, "He who is 'yoga-yuktatma' OR he who is 'sarvatra-samadarshanah' sees the Self"—thus both the Yogi and the one of equal vision (Jnani) are stated as candidates for seeing the Self.

Just as the restraint of mental modifications is the cause for the realization of the Witness, so too the separation of the Consciousness pervading all things from the inert through discrimination is [a means]; thus, Yoga alone is not necessarily required. Therefore, Vasistha has said: "Two sequences are there for the destruction of the mind—Yoga and Knowledge (Jnana), O Raghava. Yoga is indeed the restraint of modifications, and Knowledge is proper observation/inquiry. For some, Yoga is impossible; for some, the determination of Truth. Therefore, the Supreme God Shiva spoke of two methods." 'Destruction of the mind' means the non-perception of the mind—which is the adjunct—due to its separation from the proximity of the Witness. There are two means for that. One is Asamprajnata Samadhi. In Samprajnata Samadhi, the mind-stuff (sattva), accompanied by the flow of modifications having the single form of the Self, is experienced by the Witness; but [in Asamprajnata], where all modifications are restrained, it (the mind) is not experienced because it is pacified—this is the distinction. The second [means] is the inquiry that: "The witnessed object imagined in the Witness does not exist at all because it is false; only the Witness, the absolute Truth, exists alone."

Among these, the Hiranyagarbhas and others, who uphold the doctrine that the world is real, resorted to the first means. For them, since the mind is [considered] real, the vision of the Witness through the non-perception of the mind was not possible by any means other than restraint (nirodha). However, the followers of the Upanishads (Aupanishadas), relying on the view of the worshipful Bhagavatpada Shankara, who uphold the doctrine of the falsity of the world, resorted only to the second means. For them, when the knowledge of the substratum is firm, the non-perception of the mind and its objects—which are imagined therein and sublated—occurs effortlessly. That is why the worshipful Bhagavatpada did not expound the requirement of Yoga for knowers of Brahman anywhere. And that is why the Paramahansas of the Upanishadic path, approaching a Guru, engage only in the inquiry into Vedantic sentences supported by Shruti for the realization of Brahman, and not in Yoga; because by inquiry alone, through the removal of mental defects, that [realization] is established otherwise (i.e., without Yoga). Enough of this elaboration.

He clarifies the happiness of 'contact with Brahman' with 'sarvabhutastham' etc.

'Yoga-yuktatma' means the soul united in union (samyoga) with the Lord; he who has equal vision in the states of both union and separation everywhere; in the state of separation (viprayoga), he 'ikshate' (sees) the 'atmanam', i.e., the Lord, as 'sarvabhutastham' (situated in all beings); and again, in the state of union (samyoga), he sees 'sarvabhutani' (all beings) situated in service within 'atmani', i.e., within the nature of the Lord—this is the meaning.

By this, the happiness which is of the nature of the knowledge of the Lord's essential form is stated—this is the purport.

'Sarvabhutastham' means his own 'Self' situated in all beings. And 'sarvabhutani ca atmani' means he sees ('ikshate' or 'pashyati') all beings—from Brahma down to a clump of grass—as having attained oneness within the Self.

'Yogayuktatma' means one whose internal organ (mind) is concentrated. 'Sarvatra samadarshanah' means he whose vision (knowledge) is 'equal'—meaning undifferentiated and having the oneness of Brahman and the Self as its object—regarding all 'diverse' (vishemeshu) beings from Brahma down to immobile objects; he is 'one who sees equality everywhere'.

The fruit of this vision of the oneness of the Self is [now] stated.

The manifestation of the bliss of Brahman occurs for such a Yogi in the state of Universal Selfhood, like Vamadeva; this He states. The secret Asamprajnata Samadhi is of two types: having the Imperishable Brahman as its object and having the Lord (Bhagavan) as its object. Among them, the Lord states the fruit of the first with 'sarvabhutastham'.

He sees the Self situated in all beings, and [sees] all beings in his own Self through their abiding [in him] or through the vision of the unity of the effect and the causal substance. And thus, upon the manifestation of the aspect of Bliss, His all-pervasiveness is revealed due to being of the nature of the Lord—this is the meaning.

Regarding the second [type], He says 'tato'pi guhyataram' (even more secret than that). He sees Me, Vasudeva, through the attribute born of Yoga, and sees all beings and himself in Me through abiding and through non-difference. [This is supported] by Shruti and Smriti statements like "All this has That as its Self," "Vasudeva is all," "Everything is undivided like Krishna," "That is the Self, That Thou Art," and "Who that is, I am; who I am, that is He." Among these, some meditation on non-difference is Tamasic or Tantric; this He will state later in "As one and as distinct..." (9.15).

Therefore, distinguishing from that, He says "I am not lost to him"—meaning, I do not become invisible. He does not become invisible to Me; becoming the four-armed form etc. through the manifestation of Bliss, I grace him directly with a glance of mercy—this is the meaning.

सर्वभूतस्थम् abiding in all beings? आत्मानम् the Self? सर्वभूतानि all beings? च and? आत्मनि in the Self?,ईक्षते sees? योगयुक्तात्मा one who is harmonised by Yoga? सर्वत्र everywhere? समदर्शनः one who sees the same everywhere.Commentary The Yogi beholds through the eye of intuition (JnanaChakshus or DivyaChakshus) oneness or unity of the Self everywhere. This is a sublime and magnanimous vision indeed. He feels? All indeed is Brahman. He beholds that all beings are one with Brahman and that the Self and Brahman are identical.

Yoga-yukta-atma, one who has his mind Self-absorbed through Yoga, whose mind is merged in samadhi; and sarvatra-sama-darsanah, who has the vision of sameness everywhere-who has the vision (darsana) of sameness (sama-tva), the knowledge of identity of the Self and Brahman everywhere (sarvatra) without exception, in all divergent objects beginning from Brahma to immovable things; iksate, sees; atmanam, the Self, his own Self; sarva-bhuta-stham, existing in everything; and sarva-bhutani, everything from Brahma to a clump of grass; unified atmani, in his Self.
The fruit of this realization of the unity of the Self is being stated:

i) On account of the similarity between one self and other selves when They are separated from Prakrti (i.e., the body), all selves are by Themselves only of the nature of knowledge. Inealities pertain only to Prakrti or the bodies they are embodied in. One whose mind is fixed in Yoga has the experience of the sameness of the nature of all the selves as centres of intelligence, the perceived difference being caused only by the body. When separated from the body all are alike because of their being forms of centres of intelligence. An enlightened Yogin therefore sees himself as abiding in all beings and all beings abiding in his self in the sense that he sees the similarity of the selves in himself and in every being. When one self is visualised, all selves become visulaised, because of the similarity of all selves. This is supported by the statements: 'He sees sameness everywhere' (6.29). The same is again referred to in, 'This Yoga of eality which has been declared by you' (6.33), and the statement 'The Brahman when uncontaminated is the same everywhere' (5.19).