Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 6 - Shloka (Verse) 30

व्याख्या--'यो मां पश्यति सर्वत्र'--जो भक्त सब देश, काल, वस्तु, व्यक्ति, पशु, पक्षी, देवता, यक्ष, राक्षस, पदार्थ, परिस्थिति, घटना आदिमें मेरेको देखता है। जैसे, ब्रह्माजी जब बछड़ों और ग्वालबालोंको चुराकर ले गये, तब भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण स्वयं ही बछड़े और ग्वालबाल बन गये। बछड़े और ग्वालबाल ही नहीं, प्रत्युत उनके बेंत, सींग, बाँसुरी, वस्त्र, आभूषण आदि भी भगवान् स्वयं ही बन गये (टिप्पणी प0 364)। यह लीला एक वर्षतक चलती रही, पर किसीको इसका पता नहीं चला। बछड़ोंमेंसे कई बछ़ड़े तो केवल दूध ही पीनेवाले थे, इसलिये वे घरपर ही रहते थे और बड़े बछड़ोंको भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण अपने साथ वनमें ले जाते थे। एक दिन दाऊ दादा (बलरामजी) ने देखा कि छोटे बछड़ोंवाली गायें भी अपने पहलेके (बड़े) बछड़ोंको देखकर उनको दूध पिलानेके लिये हुंकार मारती हुई दौड़ पड़ीं। बड़े गोपोंने उन गायोंको बहुत रोका, पर वे रुकी नहीं। इससे गोपोंको उन गायोंपर बहुत गुस्सा आ गया। परन्तु जब उन्होंने अपने-अपने बालकोंको देखा, तब उनका गुस्सा शान्त हो गया और स्नेह उमड़ पड़ा। वे बालकोंको हृदयसे लगाने लगे, उनका माथा सूँघने लगे। इस लीलाको देखकर दाऊ दादाने सोचा कि यह क्या बात है; उन्होंने ध्यान लगाकर देखा तो उनको बछड़ों और ग्वालबालोंके रूपमें भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण ही दिखायी दिये। ऐसे ही भगवान्का सिद्ध भक्त सब जगह भगवान्को ही देखता है अर्थात् उसकी दृष्टिमें भगवत्सत्ताके सिवाय दूसरी किञ्चिन्मात्र भी सत्ता नहीं रहती।
'सर्वं च मयि पश्यति'--और जो भक्त देश, काल. वस्तु, व्यक्ति, घटना, परिस्थिति आदिको मेरे ही अन्तर्गत देखता है। जैसे, गीताका उपदेश देते समय अर्जुनके द्वारा प्रार्थना करनेपर भगवान् अपना विश्वरूप दिखाते हुए कहते हैं कि चराचर सारे संसारको मेरे एक अंशमें स्थित देख--'इहैकस्थं जगत्कृत्स्नं पश्याद्य सचराचरम्। मम देहे' ৷৷. (11। 7) तो अर्जुन भी कहते हैं कि मैं आपके शरीरमें सम्पूर्ण प्राणियोंको देख रहा हूँ--'पश्यामि देवांस्तव देव देहे सर्वांस्तथा भूतविशेषसङ्घान्' (11। 15)। सञ्जयने भी कहा कि अर्जुनने भगवान्के शरीरमें सारे संसारको देखा--'तत्रैकस्थं जगत्कृत्स्नं प्रविभक्तमनेकधा' (11। 13)। तात्पर्य है कि अर्जुनने भगवान्के शरीरमें सब कुछ भगवत्स्वरूप ही देखा। ऐसे ही भक्त देखने, सुनने, समझनेमें जो कुछ आता है, उसको भगवान्में ही देखता है और भगवत्स्वरूप ही देखता है।

इस आत्माकी एकताके दर्शनका फल कहा जाता है जो सबके आत्मा मुझ वासुदेवको सब जगह अर्थात् सब भूतोंमें ( व्यापक ) देखता है और ब्रह्मा आदि समस्त प्राणियोंको मुझ सर्वात्मा ( परमेश्वर ) में देखता है इस प्रकार आत्माकी एकताको देखनेवाले उस ज्ञानीके लिये मैं ईश्वर कभी अदृश्य नहीं होता अर्थात् कभी अप्रत्यक्ष नहीं होता और वह ज्ञानी भी कभी मुझ वासुदेवसे अदृश्य परोक्ष नहीं होता क्योंकि उसका और मेरा स्वरूप एक ही है। निःसंदेह अपना आत्मा अपना प्रिय ही होता है और जो सर्वात्मभावसे एकताको देखनेवाला है वह मैं ही हूँ।

He loosens the doubt regarding the alternatives of the fruit of the stated knowledge of oneness with 'etasya' etc.

There, He restates the vision of oneness with 'yo mam' (he who sees Me...). He presents its fruit now with 'tasya' (to him...). He divides [analyzes] the portion restating knowledge with 'yo mam'. He explains the portion stating its fruit with 'tasyaivam'.

Apprehending that even for one who sees multiplicity, Ishvara does not perish because He is eternal [so what is special here?], He says 'na' (not) etc. 'I', the Supreme Bliss, do not become paroksha (remote/invisible) to him—this is the meaning.

He explains 'sa ca' (and he...) with 'vidvan' etc. Apprehending that just like for the knower, for the ignorant too Ishvara is not destroyed, it is answered with 'na' etc. For the ignorant, although He exists in His essential nature, He is 'practically lost' (nashta-praya) because of being veiled by ignorance (avidya)—this is the meaning.

He states the cause for the mutual direct perception (aparokshatva) of the Lord and the Knower with 'tasya ca'. How is mutual direct perception possible when the Self is one? To this He says 'svatma' (one's own Self).

By restating the oneness of the Knower and the Lord, He explains the fruit of knowledge with 'yasmat cha'. Therefore, one should strive for the vision of oneness—this is the supplementary statement.

He states the fruit of the vision of oneness with 'yah' (he who). He who 'pashyati' (sees)—meaning directly perceives—'mam' (Me), i.e., Vasudeva, who is non-different from the inner Self (Pratyagatma), everywhere as the substratum in that [universe]; and 'sah' (he) sees 'sarvam ca' (and all), meaning the aggregate of beings beginning with Brahma, as superimposed on Me, Vasudeva, who is non-different from the inner Self; for him, who possesses the realization of the oneness of Brahman and the Self, 'aham' (I)—the Supreme Self non-different from the inner Self—'na pranashyami' (do not perish), meaning I do not become invisible or remote (paroksha). And 'sah'—that Knower who sees the oneness of the Self—'na pranashyati' (does not perish) for 'mama' (Me)—Vasudeva, non-different from the inner Self—meaning he does not become remote.

Although just like for the Knower, for the ignorant too Ishvara does not perish, yet for the ignorant, due to being veiled by ignorance, there is a state of being practically remote (paroksha-prayata). However, regarding the view held by some: "Having thus described the pure entity of the 'Thou' (tvam) term, He now describes the pure entity of the 'That' (tat) term.

The Yogi who sees 'Mam' (Me)—the Lord, the meaning of the 'That' term, the cause of the universe—through discrimination from the adjunct of Maya, as threaded through the entire universe as Existence and Illumination, free from all adjuncts, Absolute Reality, a mass of Bliss, and Infinite; who directly perceives [Me] through perception born of Yoga; and who sees the entire aggregate of the universe as superimposed on Me by Maya, distinct from Me and indeed false; for that discriminating seer alone, 'Aham' (I)—the Lord, the meaning of the 'That' term—do not perish; I do not become an object of indirect knowledge (paroksha-jnana) thinking 'Ishvara is someone non-different from me', but I become an object of direct knowledge born of Yoga...

And he who directly perceives Me through perception born of Yoga does not perish for Me, he does not become remote... because 'that Knower is My own Self indeed', thus being dear, he is always the object of My direct knowledge...

as stated in 'In whatever way they surrender to Me...'" — [This view] is not correct. It is contrary to the original text, its Commentary (Bhashya), and its explanation; the introduction [proposed by them] is also contradictory. It is contrary to Shrutis like "I ask regarding that Person known through the Upanishads" and "One not knowing the Vedas does not know that Great One." The hypothesis of 'undivided direct knowledge born of Yoga' should not be respected. And since there are no restrictive words in "Tasya..." etc., it is inappropriate to abandon the meaning "I never become remote to him" and hypothesize "sometimes, during the time of Samadhi etc., through perception born of Yoga"—this is the indication.

He states the fruit with 'yo mam' etc. 'I do not perish for him' means I shall always be the bearer of his Yoga (acquisition) and Kshema (preservation).

And 'he does not perish for Me' means he always becomes My devotee.

For, even if a master exists, if he does not protect, [the servant] is lordless (anatha); similarly, even if a servant exists, if he does not serve, he is not a servant (abhritya)—indeed, this is well-known.

And it is stated in the Garuda [Purana]: "He who sees Me equally in all beings at all times, his devotion becomes unwavering, and I bear his Yoga and Kshema."

He states the fruit of this vision of the oneness of the Self as well with 'yo mam' etc. Everywhere, the word 'Asmad' (I/Me) refers to the Pratyagatma (Inner Self). The Yogi who sees the Self everywhere and sees everything in the Self—for that Yogi, the known Self does not perish, i.e., does not become unperceived. The Self, once known, does not become veiled again. The meaning is that for root-ignorance (mula-ajnana), once destroyed, re-emergence is impossible due to the absence of the seed.

(Objection): Now, for the one identifying with the aggregate of effect and cause (body-mind complex)—who is superimposed on Brahman like silver on a shell—having known Brahman which is his own substratum after abandoning that identification, let Brahman not be veiled (because the intellect aligns with the Truth); but from the perspective of Brahman, the liberated Jiva should undergo 'absolute annihilation' (niranvaya-uccheda) [like the illusory silver disappearing]? Apprehending this, He says 'sa ca me na pranashyati' (and he does not perish for Me).

That Knower does not perish for 'Me'—does not become veiled/lost—because he is non-different from Me. This [annihilation] would have been so if the Jiva were superimposed on Me or were a modification of Me; then he would have attained absolute annihilation. But 'I am indeed he'. [This is known] from scriptures like "That Thou Art," "I am Brahman," and "This Atman is Brahman." Therefore, it is rightly said, "And he does not perish for Me."

Thereafter, having attained the mature state [of Yoga], having approached similarity (sadharmyam) with Me—observing the equality with Me of all Self-entities that have shaken off merit and demerit and are established in their essential nature, as described in "Spotless, he attains supreme equality" (Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.3)—he who sees Me in every Self-entity and sees every Self-entity in Me—meaning, due to mutual equality, by seeing the one, he sees that the other is also 'just like this'—for him, who perceives his own essential nature, I do not perish due to that equality, i.e., I do not become unperceived. And for Me too, he—who sees Me and observes his own Self as equal to Me due to equality with Me—does not become unperceived.

Thereafter, He describes the mature state.

He states that the principal cause of such Self-knowledge is My worship as the Self of all beings, with 'yah' etc.

He who sees Me, the Supreme Lord, everywhere in every being, and sees all living beings in Me;

for him I do not perish—meaning I do not become invisible. And he does not become invisible to Me. The meaning is that becoming directly visible, and looking at him with a glance of mercy, I grace him.

Because it is appropriate to propound [Paramatma] in the two verses (6.31-32) endowed with specific instruction; if this (6.29) were regarding the Supreme Self, then there would be repetition to some extent with the two verses starting 'Yo mam' (6.30). And in the restatement 'Yo'yam yogah' (This Yoga which... 6.33), equality alone is spoken of, not the mutual support-supporter relationship. Even before in 'Vidya-vinaya...' (5.18), equality alone was stated. Therefore, here (in 6.29) mutual equality of Jivas alone is intended. ||6.30||

Thus, in the rejection of differences in the form of specific modifications of Prakriti like gods, humans, etc., the contemplation of uniformity as the substance of knowledge was stated; now, regarding that very (Jiva), the contemplation of supreme similarity with the Supreme Self by shaking off the gradation of merit and sin which is the cause of differences like gods etc., is stated by 'Yo mam' (He who sees Me). The reason for this verse also being about 'similarity' (Samya) has been stated before.

'Tato'pi' (Even than that)—attained to the mature state—means attained a state of maturity greater than the first stage. He reminds of the similarity of properties between Jivatmas and Paramatma with 'Mama sadharmyam' (My nature/similarity - 14.2). 'Upagatah' means attained by the intellect. For he is not liberated right now; to propound similarity by shaking off merit and sin, the Shruti 'Niranjanah' (taintless) is cited. 'Then the knower, shaking off merit and sin, taintless, attains supreme similarity' (Mundaka 3.1.3)—indeed this is what it is.

(verse 'Yo mam pashyati') is a restatement of that; for it happens when that is established. In the doubt 'Where is that (similarity) from?', similarity is established by the cited Shruti etc.; and contemplation of that is enjoined; and therefore its restatement is also reasonable—to indicate this, an intermediate distinction in expression is shown: 'Seeing similarity with Me, who sees Me in all Self-entities'. 'Indeed, the perception of the Supreme Self being all-pervading and all beings resting in the Supreme Self arises naturally here; and that is inappropriate here due to context (of Yoga) etc. Therefore, it must be said that vision of similarity alone is intended; that too is improper, because in the maturity of Yoga which is the nature of contemplation of one's own Self, there is absence of manifestation of the Supreme Self and others'—anticipating this doubt as before, he says 'Anyonya' (Mutual). 'By seeing one, the other also'—meaning by seeing one individual, the other individual also (is seen due to similarity).

In 'Tasya aham' (I... for him) etc., first of all, the negation of destruction (Pradhvamsa) is not being done; because there is no doubt of impermanence now regarding Jiva and Ishvara who are established as eternal by many proofs; and because the mutual counter-correlate designation 'I do not perish for him' etc. would be inappropriate. For no object becomes un-destroyed for some and destroyed for another. Therefore, this word 'Nasha' (perish/destruction) here is regarding the subject of 'non-vision' (Adarshana). And the root 'Nash' having the meaning of non-vision is read in the Dhatupatha. Then what is the meaning of 'Na pranashyami'? 'I do not attain the state of being unseen'—he shows this by 'Tasya' etc. The absence of the contemplation of such nature (of similarity) is negated; this is the purport.

'And he does not perish for Me'—this is for the sake of example, for the sake of authoritativeness of the similarity being the object of the Omniscient's intellect, and to remove the doubt as before—with this intention he says 'Mamapi' (For Me also). 'Even for Me who perceives everything, even in the part of contemplating My own nature, due to his similarity to That, his nature also becomes contemplated indeed'—this is the meaning. To imply that by 'Sa' (He), the 'almost-liberated' state of one in that condition is intended, he says 'Due to similarity with Me, viewing his own Self as equal to Me'.

पहले यह कहा गया था कि ब्रह्मसंस्पर्श से योगी अत्यन्त सुख प्राप्त करता है। ब्रह्मसंस्पर्श से तात्पर्य आत्मा और ब्रह्म के एकत्व से है जो उपनिषदों का प्रतिपाद्य विषय है। इस ज्ञान को स्वयं भगवान् ही यहाँ स्पष्ट दर्शा रहे हैं। आत्मज्ञानी पुरुष सर्वत्र आत्मा का अनुभव करता है।जो मुझे सबमें और सब को मुझमें देखता है अन्य स्थानों के समान ही यहाँ प्रयुक्त मैं शब्द का अर्थ आत्मा है न कि देवकीपुत्र कृष्ण। इस व्याख्या के प्रकाश में जो पुरुष पूर्व श्लोक के साथ इस श्लोक को पढ़ेगा उसे प्रसिद्ध ईशावास्योपनिषद् की इस घोषणा का गूढ़ अर्थ स्पष्ट हो जायेगा ।वह मुझसे वियुक्त नहीं होता बुद्धि से अतीत आत्मा का अनुभव उससे भिन्न रहकर नहीं होता वरन् जीव पाता है कि वह स्वयं आत्मस्वरूप (शिवोऽहम्) है। स्वप्नद्रष्टा पुरुष जागने पर स्वयं जाग्रत् पुरुष बन जाता है वह जाग्रत् पुरुष को उससे भिन्न रहकर कभी नहीं जान सकता।और न मैं उससे वियुक्त होता हूँ द्वैतवादी लोग अपने जीवभाव और देहात्मभाव की दृढ़ता के कारण इस अद्वैत स्वरूप को स्वीकार नहीं कर पाते । जिस स्पष्टता से यहाँ जीव के दिव्य स्वरूप की घोषणा की गयी है उसे और अधिक स्पष्ट नहीं किया जा सकता। भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण यहाँ किसी भी प्रकार से इस तथ्य को गूढ़ और गोपन नहीं रखना चाहते कि अनात्म उपाधियों से तादात्म्य को त्यागने पर योगी स्वयं परमात्मस्वरूप बन जाता है। हो सकता है कि किन्हींकिन्हीं लोगों के लिए यह सत्य चौंका देने वाला हो तथापि है तो वह सत्य ही। जिन्हें इसे स्वीकार करने में संकोच होता हो वे अपने जीव भाव को ही दृढ़ बनाये रख सकते हैं। परन्तु भारत में गुरुओं की परम्परा ने तथा विश्व के अन्य अनुभवी सन्तों ने इसी सत्य की पुष्टि की है कि एक व्यक्ति के हृदय में स्थित आत्मा ही सर्वत्र नामरूपों में स्थित है।वर्तमान दशा में हम अपने आप से ही दूर हो चुके हैं अहंकार एक राजद्रोही है जिसने आत्मसाम्राज्य से स्वयं का निष्कासन कर लिया है। आत्मप्राप्ति पर अहंकार उसमें पूर्णतया विलीन हो जाता है। स्वप्नद्रष्टा के जागने पर वह जाग्रत् पुरुष से भिन्न नहीं रह सकता। भगवान् यहाँ कहते हैं कि साधक और मैं एक दूसरे से कभी वियुक्त नहीं होते।वास्तव में यदि हम यह समझ लेते हैं कि आत्मविस्मृति के कारण परमात्मा जीवभाव को प्राप्त सा हुआ है तो यह भी स्पष्ट हो जायेगा कि आत्मज्ञान के द्वारा जीव पुन परमात्मस्वरूप को प्राप्त हो सकता है। जैसे एक अभिनेता रंगमंच पर भिक्षुक का अभिनय करते हुए भी वास्तव में भिक्षुक नहीं बन जाता और नाटक की समाप्ति पर भिक्षुक के वेष को त्यागकर पुन स्वरूप को प्राप्त हो जाता है वैसे ही आत्मज्ञान के विषय में भी जीव का ब्रह्मरूप होना है। वेदान्त की यह साहसिक घोषणा समझनी कठिन नहीं है परन्तु सामान्य अज्ञानी जन इससे स्तब्ध होकर रह जाते हैं और अपने दोषों के कारण इस सत्य को स्वीकार नहीं कर पाते। उनमें इतना साहस और विश्वास नहीं कि वे दिव्य जीवन जीने का उत्तरदायित्व अपने ऊपर ले सकें। इस श्लोक में भगवान् का कथन परमार्थ सत्य के स्वरूप के संबंध में उपनिषदों के निष्कर्ष के विषय में रंचमात्र भी सन्देह नहीं रहने देता।पूर्व श्लोक में कथित सम्यक् दर्शन को पुन बताकर कहते हैं

This very meaning is clarified with 'yo mam' etc. 'Pranasha' (destruction/perishing) means being ineffective (akaryakaritvat).

For indeed, he who does not see the all-pervading form of the Supreme Self (Paramatman), for him the Supreme Self has fled, because His essential nature is not manifested [to him]. And this aggregate of objects shines (appears) only because it is situated within the Supreme Self whose nature is illumination; he who does not see in this way is 'lost' (pranashta) from the nature of the Supreme Self, because in His absence, there is no manifestation.

But he who sees Me as all-pervading, for him I am not 'lost', because I shine in My essential nature. And he sees beings/objects in Me; therefore, since their manifestation is accounted for [by his vision of Me], and his state of being a seer is perfect, he is not 'lost' to the Supreme Self.

Moreover, with the idea that the subsequent sentence stating the fruit—by restating this meaning [of the previous verse]—indicates that this [context] concerns the Lord (Bhagavan), He states 'phalam' (the fruit). 'Asya' (of this)—meaning, of this specific meditation—is the supplementary addition.

(Objection): But the Lord and the one meditating on Him are eternal regarding everyone, so how is this [perishing/not perishing] possible? To this, He replies 'tasya' (for him...) etc.

How is this meaning derived? To this, He says 'satyapi' (even though existing...) etc. Just as even if a master exists (but doesn't protect), there is the saying regarding the servant, "He is lordless (anatha)"; similarly, even if a servant exists but does not serve, there is the saying regarding the master, "He has no servant (abhritya)."

This is what is meant: Non-existence is implied figuratively (upachara) due to the similarity of not performing the action proper to oneself, even though one exists. In the present context, since that [lack of function] is absent, the statement "I do not perish" is a conventional figurative usage (rudha-upachara). Therefore, there is no need to search for another purpose.

Here, he states the agreement of the Puranas with 'uktam cha' (and it is stated).

Having thus described the pure entity of the word 'Thou' (tvam), He now describes the pure entity of the word 'That' (tat) with 'yo yogi' etc. The Yogi who sees 'Mam' (Me)—the Lord, the meaning of the word 'That', the cause of the entire universe who has Maya as an adjunct—by discrimination from the adjunct, as threaded through the entire universe as Existence (sat) and Illumination (sphurana), free from all adjuncts, Absolute Reality, a mass of Bliss, and Infinite; [who] directly perceives [Me] through perception born of Yoga; and sees the entire aggregate of the universe as superimposed on Me by Maya, distinct from Me and false indeed; for such a discriminating seer, 'Aham' (I)—the Lord, the entity of the word 'That'—do not perish; I do not become an object of indirect knowledge (paroksha) thinking "Ishvara is someone distinct from me," but I become an object of direct knowledge (aparoksha) born of Yoga.

Although being the object of direct knowledge generated by the Sentence [Tat Tvam Asi] occurs only through non-difference with the entity of 'Thou', nevertheless, being an object of direct knowledge born of Yoga is certainly possible even for the 'That' entity alone. Thus, directly perceiving Me through perception born of Yoga, 'he does not perish for Me'—he does not become remote. For that Knower is indeed My own Self; being extremely dear, he is always the object of My direct knowledge—as stated in "In whatever way they surrender to Me, I reward them." And also [this is known] from the statement of the Lord to Yudhishthira regarding the meditation of Bhishma lying on the bed of arrows.

But the ignorant one, though being his own Self, does not see the existing Lord; therefore the Lord, though seeing, does not see him [ignores him]. As per the Shruti: "He, being unknown, does not protect/nourish." The Knower, however, being always near, is a vessel of the Lord's grace—this is the meaning.

Thus He states the fruit of the knowledge of the essential nature with 'yo mam' etc.

He who sees 'Me' everywhere in Jivas during the state of separation (viyoga), and sees everything 'in Me' during the state of union (samyoga);

for him I do not perish—meaning I never become separated. And he does not perish 'from Me'—meaning he does not become separated—this is the meaning.

He who sees 'Mam' (Me), Vasudeva, the Self of all, 'sarvatra' (everywhere), i.e., in all beings; and sees 'sarvam ca' (and all), i.e., the aggregate of beings beginning with Brahma, in 'Mayi' (Me), the Self of all; for 'tasya' (him), who thus perceives the oneness of the Self, 'Aham' (I), the Lord, 'na pranashyami' (do not perish)—meaning, I do not become 'paroksha' (remote/unperceived).

And 'sa ca' (he too) 'na pranashyati' (does not perish) for 'Me'; that Knower does not perish for 'Mama' (Me), Vasudeva—meaning, he does not become remote; because of the oneness of the Self between him and Me. For one's own Self is indeed dear to oneself.

Thus, having restated the 'Right Vision' (Samyagdarshana) which was the meaning of the previous verse, its fruit, Liberation, is being stated [in the subsequent text].

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 former with 'sarvabhutastham' (6.29). 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.

यः who? माम् Me? पश्यति sees? सर्वत्र everywhere? सर्वम् all? च and? मयि in Me? पश्यति sees? तस्य of him? अहम् I? न not? प्रणश्यामि vanish? सः he? च and? मे to Me? न not? प्रणश्यति vanishes.Commentary In this verse the Lord describes the effect of the vision of the unity of the Self or oneness.He who sees Me? the Self of all? in all beings? and everything (from Brahma the Creator down to the blade of grass) in Me? I am not lost to him? nor is he lost to Me. I and the sage or seer of unity of the Self become identical or one and the same. I never leave his presence nor does he leave My presence. I never lose hold of him nor does he lose hold of Me. I dwell in him and he dwells in Me.

Yah, one who; pasyati, sees; mam, Me, Vasudeva, who am the Self of all; sarvatra, in all things; ca, and; sees sarvam, all things, all created things, beginning from Brahma; mayi, in Me who am the Self of all;-aham, I who am God; na pranasyami, do not go out; tasya,of his vision-of one who has thus realized the unity of the Self; ca sah, and he also; na pranasyati, is not lost; me, to My vision. That man of realization does not get lost to Me, to Vasudeva, because of the indentity between him and Me, for that which is called one's own Self is surely dear to one, and since it is I alone who am the seer of the unity of the Self in all.

ii) He who, having reached the highest stage of maturity, views similarity of nature with Me, i.e., sees similarity of all selves to Myself when They are freed from good and evil and when they remain in Their own essence, as declared in the Sruti, 'Stainless he attains supreme degree of eality' (Mun. U., 3.1.3); and 'sees Me in all selves and sees all selves in Me.' That is, on viewing one of Them (selves), one views another also to be the same, because of their similarity to one another. To him who perceives the nature of his own self, I am not lost on account of My similarity to him i.e., I do not become invisible to him. He (the Yogin) viewing his own self as similar to Me, always remains within My sight when I am viewing Myself, because of similarity of his self with Me.
Sri Krsna describes a still more mature steps (of Yoga):