Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 6 - Shloka (Verse) 6

व्याख्या--'बन्धुरात्मात्मनस्तस्य येनात्मैवात्मना जितः'--अपनेमें अपने सिवाय दूसरेकी सत्ता है ही नहीं। अतः जिसने अपनेमें अपने सिवाय दूसरे-(शरीर, इन्द्रियाँ, मन, बुद्धि आदि-) की किञ्चिन्मात्र भी आवश्यकता नहीं रखी है अर्थात् असत् पदार्थोंके आश्रयका सर्वथा त्याग करके जो अपने सम स्वरूपमें स्थित हो गया ,है उसने अपने-आपको जीत लिया है।
वह अपने-आपमें स्थित हो गया--इसकी क्या पहचान है? उसका अन्तःकरण समतामें स्थित हो जायगा; क्योंकि ब्रह्म निर्दोष और सम है। उस ब्रह्मकी निर्दोषता और समता उसके अन्तःकरणपर आ जाती है। इससे पता लग जाता है कि वह ब्रह्ममें स्थित है (गीता 5। 19)। तात्पर्य यह निकला कि ब्रह्ममें स्थित होनेसे ही उसने अपने द्वारा अपने-आपपर विजय प्राप्त कर ली है। वास्तवमें ब्रह्ममें स्थिति तो नित्य-निरन्तर थी ही, केवल मन, बुद्धि आदिको अपना माननेसे ही उस स्थितिका अनुभव नहीं हो रहा था।संसारमें दूसरोंकी सहायताके बिना कोई भी किसीपर विजय प्राप्त नहीं कर सकता और दूसरोंकी सहायता लेना ही स्वयंको पराजित करना है। इस दृष्टिसे स्वयं पहले पराजित होकर ही दूसरोंपर विजय प्राप्त करता है। जैसे, कोई अस्त्र-शस्त्रोंसे दूसरेको पराजित करता है, तो वह दूसरोंको पराजित करनेमें अपने लिये अस्त्र-शस्त्रोंकी आवश्यकता मानता है; अतः स्वयं अस्त्र-शस्त्रोंसे पराजित ही हुआ। कोई शास्त्रके द्वारा, बुद्धिके द्वारा शास्त्रार्थ करके दूसरोंपर विजय प्राप्त करता है, तो वह स्वयं पहले शास्त्र और बुद्धिसे पराजित होता ही है और होना ही पड़ेगा। तात्पर्य यह निकला कि जो किसी भी साधनसे जिस किसीपर भी विजय करता है, वह अपने-आपको ही पराजित करता है। स्वयं पराजित हुए बिना दूसरोंपर कभी कोई विजय कर ही नहीं सकता--यह नियम है। अतः जो अपने लिये दूसरोंकी किञ्चिन्मात्र भी आवश्यकता नहीं समझता, वही अपने-आपसे अपने-आपपर विजय प्राप्त करता है और वही स्वयं अपना बन्धु है।

आप ही अपना मित्र है और आप ही अपना शत्रु है यह बात कही गयी उसमें किन लक्षणोंवाला पुरुष तो ( आप ही ) अपना मित्र होता है और कौन ( आप ही ) अपना शत्रु होता है सो कहा जाता है उस जीवात्माका तो वही आप मित्र है कि जिसने स्वयमेव कार्यकरणके समुदाय शरीररूप आत्माको अपने वशमें कर लिया हो अर्थात् जो जितेन्द्रिय हो। जिसने ( कार्यकरणके संघात ) शरीररूप आत्माको अपने वशमें नहीं किया उसका वह आपही शत्रुकी भाँति शत्रुभावमें बर्तता है। अर्थात् जैसे दूसरा शत्रु अपना अनिष्ट करनेवाला होता है वैसे ही वह आप ही अपना अनिष्ट करनेमें लगा रहता है।

Reiterating what was said, he introduces the next verse with a question using "Atmaiva," etc. When it is objected that it is illogical for the single self to have the mutually contradictory roles of being a friend and an enemy without a difference in characteristics, he shows the absence of contradiction by stating that for one whose aggregate (body-mind complex) is controlled, there is friendship towards the self, and for the other (whose aggregate is uncontrolled), there is enmity; using "Bandhuh," etc.

He proves that friendship towards the self is justified for the one with a controlled aggregate, because due to the absence of distraction, concentration on the Self is possible; using "Tasya," etc.

Conversely, for the one with an uncontrolled aggregate, since distraction occurs and concentration on the Self is impossible, the self alone acts in enmity towards the self like a well-known external enemy—he explains the second half of the verse in this way with "Anatmanah," etc.

He explains the analogy using "Yatha," etc. Based on the said analogy, he states the illustrated truth with "Tatha," etc., that the one with an uncontrolled aggregate is indeed an enemy to himself because he does not practice what is beneficial for himself.

The intention of using the particle 'Eva' (alone/indeed) in both places is this: Even where it is said 'Yajnadatta is the friend of Devadatta' or where it is said 'Maitra is the enemy of Chaitra', there too, since the Consciousness which is conditioned (upadhiyamana) is by itself changeless, there is neither friendship nor enmity. Friendship is only in the modification of the Adjunct (Upadhi)—the inner organ—named 'Attachment' (Raga), and enmity is in that (modification) named 'Hatred' (Dvesha); these attributes are not possible elsewhere; therefore, he clarifies the friendship and enmity of the inner organ alone—with "Bandhuh" (Friend). Of that Self—the Jiva—the 'Self' i.e., the inner organ, becomes a friend; by which controller Jiva, through the 'Self' i.e., the inner organ itself—assisted by the previously mentioned aids (dispassion etc.)—the 'Self' i.e., the body with senses, is conquered, made subservient; for him the inner organ is a friend; this is the meaning. When again is the inner organ an enemy? To that He says "Anatmanah" (Of the uncontrolled self). "When the body, spoken of by the word 'Self' before, has enmity—absence of control—then the 'Self' i.e., the inner organ itself acts like an enemy, this should be known"—this meaning imagined by others is to be rejected due to the natural force (svarasya) of the repeated use of the word 'Atma'.

Otherwise, since the word 'Atma' has many meanings by primary and secondary usage, something else could also be imagined. For instance—"By the Self—by God—one should uplift the Self—the Jiva. One should not degrade the Self. Because the Self—God—is the one friend of the Jiva, and He alone is his enemy"—this meaning. (Thus) clarifying the friendship and enmity of God alone. "Of that Jiva, the Self—God—is the friend, the uplifter; by which Self—the mind endowed with devotion—the Self—God—is conquered, won over. But for the non-Self—for whom the Supreme Lord is not won over—God Himself would act like an enemy, with enmity.

Or—"By the Self—by the human body obtained by merit—one should uplift the Self. Because the Self alone—the body alone—is the friend of the Self, and that alone is the enemy of the Jiva." (Thus) clarifying the friendship and enmity of the body. "Of that Self—the Self i.e., the body is the friend; by which Self—the mind endowed with discrimination—the Self i.e., the body is conquered. But for the non-Self—the uncontrolled body—(it acts) like an enemy. Enmity exists in the body alone"—this meaning.

Or—"By the Self—in the form of the intellect of indivisible form—one should lead the Self—the Ego (Ahankara)—up (ut); detaching from the body, one should unite it in Brahman as 'I am Brahman'. One should not degrade the Self—the Ego; should not afflict it by identification with the limited body. Because the Self alone—the Ego alone—when united in Brahman, is the friend of the Self—the Jiva—because it removes bondage by bringing about non-difference with Brahman. That very (Ego) afflicted in the limited body is the enemy, because it brings about the multitude of disasters like birth and death." (Thus) clarifying the friendship and enmity of the Ego alone. "Of that Self, the Self—in the form of Ego—is the friend, by which Self—in the form of the stated intellect—the Ego itself is conquered—having controlled it, it is led to the form of Brahman. But for the non-Self—the uncontrolled Ego—(it) acts like an enemy in enmity"—this meaning.

In any case, being unattached, the cessation of Samsara is to be accomplished—enough of elaboration. Therefore, the explanation stated in the Bhashya (of Shankara) following the context should alone be taken as refuge; this is the direction.

Whose friend is the self? To this He says "Bandhuratma," etc. "Atma" means the mind; "Atmanah" means of the Jiva (individual soul). (Referring to the previous verse) "Atmana" means by the mind; "Atmanam" means the Jiva (one should lift up). The "Atma" is indeed the mind; "Atmana" (by the self) means by the intellect (Buddhi) or by the Jiva itself. For indeed, he conquers using the intellect.

And it is stated: "They declare the mind to be the supreme cause" and "The mind alone is the cause of bondage and liberation for humans" (Maitrayani Upanishad 4.3.11, Brahmabindu Upanishad 2). Also, "One should lift the Jiva by the mind, one should not degrade the Jiva. The mind alone is the friend and enemy of the Jiva, there is no doubt."

And in the Brahma Vaivarta Purana: "When the mind is conquered by the Jiva using the intellect, then it is a friend; in the other case, it is an enemy of his. Therefore, a man should conquer it by the strength of the intellect and by devotion to the Enemy of Madhu and Kaitabha (Lord Vishnu)."

"Anatmanah" refers to the "Ajitatma" person—one whose mind is unconquered. Even though the mind exists, it is unhelpful, hence called "Anatma" (non-self/not one's own). Just as a servant, though present, is considered a "non-servant" (abhritya) if he does not abide in the station of a servant. For him, the self (mind) alone acts in enmity like a foe.

"Atmana" means by the (conquered) mind. "Atmana" means by the (discriminative) mind. "Anatmanah" means of the one whose mind is uncontrolled.

For him, the "Atma"—meaning the mind itself—is the enemy.

By whichever person, by his own self alone, his own mind has been conquered away from sense-objects, that mind is his friend. "Anatmanah"—meaning for the one with an unconquered mind—his very own mind acts in enmity towards himself like an enemy; meaning it acts contrary to his highest good.

As stated by Lord Parashara also: "The mind alone is the cause of bondage and liberation for humans. The mind attached to objects leads to bondage, and the mind free from objects leads to liberation." (Vishnu Purana 6.7.28).

The state eligible for the commencement of Yoga is being described (in the following verses).

Expecting the question—"In what state is the self the friend, and in what state is the self the enemy?"—He says "Bandhuh" (Friend), etc.

By whom—by the self alone—the "self"—in the form of the aggregate of the body and senses (karya-karana-sanghata)—is conquered, i.e., brought under control; for him, for such a self, the self alone is the friend.

But for the "Anatman"—the one of unconquered self—the self alone behaves in "enmity" (shatrutve) towards the self, meaning it acts in the capacity of doing harm like an enemy.

The doubt that "friendship and enmity of the very same entity towards the same entity is contradictory" is resolved by the verse "Bandhuratma." "By oneself alone" (Svenaiva) means by one's own self. With the intention that the victory of the mind is indeed turning it away from sense-objects, it is stated "conquered away from objects." The justification of friendship is stated through the victory over the mind. And the justification of enmity is stated through the absence of that, with the intention expressed as "Anatmanah"—meaning of the one with an unconquered mind.

Regarding "Atmaiva" (The self alone), he explains the intent of the restrictive particle 'Eva' as "one's very own mind." The idea is that the very thing which is subservient (shesha-bhuta) to oneself has become an opponent. To dispel the illusion of tautology regarding the (two) words for 'enemy' (shatru), he states the syntax as "acts in enmity like an enemy." Here, the well-known external enemy is used as an example. He states that by 'enmity' (shatrutva), the 'action of an enemy' is intended, explaining it as "acting contrary to one's own highest good."

"Nanu (Objection): How do the words 'Atmana' etc. refer to the 'mind' here? For it has been stated by others (Shankara) that they refer to the 'aggregate of the body and senses'. Why shouldn't all the 'Atma' words uniformly refer to 'one's own self'? And how is the victory of the mind defined as turning away from objects?"—In response to such a doubt, based on the appropriateness of distinguishing between the agent (kartri) and the object (karma), and by examining the preceding and succeeding context, he strengthens the very meaning established earlier by citing corroborative texts with "Yathoktam" (As stated), etc.

जिस मात्रा में जीव शरीर मन और बुद्धि से तादात्म्य को त्यागता है उस मात्रा में वह आत्मा के दिव्य प्रभाव से प्रभावित होता है। तब आत्मा उसका मित्र कहलाता है। वही मन जब बहिर्मुखी होकर विषयों मे आसक्त होता है तब मानों आत्मा उसका शत्रु होता है।निष्कर्ष यह निकला कि चैतन्य आत्मा समान रूप से विद्यमान रहता है परन्तु मन की अन्तर्मुखी अथवा बहिर्मुखी प्रवृत्तियों की दृष्टि से वह मनुष्य का मित्र अथवा शत्रु कहलाता है। और यदि आत्मा शब्द का अर्थ मन करें तो अर्थ होगा कि संयमित मन मनुष्य का मित्र है और स्वेच्छाचारी उसका शत्रु । यह श्लोक पूर्व श्लोक के अर्थ को अधिक स्पष्ट करता है।योगरूढ़ मनुष्य के पूर्णत्व की स्थिति को अगले श्लोक में बताया गया है

And one must necessarily pay attention to this understanding; He says this with "Uddharet," etc.

"Bandhuh," etc. And here there is no other means, but the "Self alone"—meaning the mind alone—this is the meaning.

For the conquered mind is a friend that brings about the lifting up from the terrible Samsara; but the unconquered mind acts as an enemy by causing a fall into intense hell.

"Why is that which was stated in 'Atmaiva hi' (6.5) being stated again in the next verse?" To refute this weak doubt, he says "Kasya" (Whose...), etc. "Possessed of what qualification"—this should also be understood. Friendship and enmity of the very same entity towards the very same entity is contradictory; it must be established by a difference in qualifications. And thus, the meaning is: "Of the self possessed of what qualification, is the self possessed of what qualification the friend and the enemy?"—this remains to be understood regarding the [Bhashya's] phrase "Prichchhayam" (Upon asking).

"Atma Atmanah"—these are two words. Since the word 'Atma' has multiple meanings, he explains "Atma" (as mind), etc. "Nanu (Objection): In the first verse (6.5), the word 'Atma' was contextualized as a synonym for 'oneself' (sva); how can it have a different meaning in the second verse which justifies the first?" To this, he says "Atmana" (by the mind), etc. By this same method, the explanation of the word 'Atma' in the second half of the first verse should be seen.

Regarding "Yena atmana eva atma jitah" (By which self alone the self is conquered)—he explains the 'Atma' words here with "Atmaiva" (The self alone/Mind alone), etc. The use of the word 'Eva' is for the clarification of the explained subject. The restriction "Jivenaiva" (By the Jiva alone) is to indicate prominence. When the word 'Atma' refers to the Jiva, the instrumental case is for the Agent (Kartri); when it refers to the Buddhi (Intellect), it is for the Instrument (Karana)—indicating this, he justifies with "Sa hi" (For he...), etc. "Vijayati"—means "Vijayate" (conquers); "Manah" (the mind)—this remains to be understood.

To refute interpretations like "Svenaiva" (By oneself alone)—i.e., Ramanuja Bhashya—he cites authorities for the stated meaning with "Uktam cha," etc. "Anatmanah"—Is this a negative compound (Nañ-samasa) or a possessive compound (Bahuvrihi)? Not the first, because it is illogical for the self to be other than the self, and being other than another self is useless in this context. Not the second, because whether the word 'Atma' denotes Jiva or Mind, the absence of it in a transmigrating being is impossible. To this, he says "Anatmanah," etc. To indicate the acceptance of Bahuvrihi, the external referent "Purushasya" (of the person) is shown.

To show the meaning of the word 'Anatma', he says "Ajita" (unconquered), etc. "Nanu, 'Anatma' implies one whose self does not exist; so how is it explained as 'Ajitatma' (one of unconquered self)?" To this, he says "Sadapi" (Even though existing...), etc. Even though existing, an unconquered mind is unhelpful. Due to similarity with non-existence, "non-existence" is figuratively applied, and thus the 'Ajitatma' is called 'Anatma'—this is the meaning. "What is the purpose of this figurative usage?"—if asked, the idea is "in a conventional figurative usage (rudha-upachara), no specific purpose is expected"; thus he says "Sannapi" (Even though being...), etc. "Bhrityapade"—means in service etc.

Since the words are separated, he explains the half-verse "Anatmanah" with "Tasya," etc. For that person of unconquered mind, [the mind] is indeed the friend (implied context: or enemy)—this is the meaning of 'Eva'. "Shatruvat"—like a well-known enemy. "Shatrutve"—in the capacity of doing harm.

Now, it is stated what kind of self is the friend of the self and what kind is the enemy of the self.

By whom the 'Atma'—the aggregate of the body and senses—has been conquered, brought under his own control, 'by the self alone'—meaning by the mind endowed with discrimination alone, and not by weapons etc.; for him, the 'Atma'—his own self (nature)—is the friend of the self, because it acts for his own benefit due to the absence of unruly self-activity.

But for the 'Anatmanah'—meaning for the one of unconquered self—this is the meaning (of that word). The self alone behaves 'in enmity'—in the nature of a foe—'like an enemy'—like an external enemy; because it practices what is undesirable for itself by itself through unruly activity.

"Nanu, how is he alone the friend and how is he alone the enemy?" To this He says "Bandhuh," etc. By which "Atmana"—by the form of loving sentiment (Bhava)—the "Atma" is conquered, controlled; meaning, it is established in the form of Bhava, away from bodily activities related to eligibility (adhikarana) etc. For that "Atma" (self), the "Atma" alone becomes the friend, the doer of good.

The meaning is: For the one manifested for the sake of His servitude, due to the satisfaction arising from the single-minded feeling of doing what is appropriate for Him, He (the Lord) becomes a friend in His Adhidaivika (divine) form, which is of the very nature of that Bhava.

"Tu"—But again. For the "Anatmanah"—one devoid of the nature of Bhava—the "Atma" alone acts "like an enemy" in "enmity"—meaning, acts as an obstructor to that Bhava.

And thus, this is the meaning: For one who is devoid of Bhava and attached merely to action, and devoid of the purpose (Bhava) for which he was manifested for His servitude, due to the anger at rendering his own nature futile, the Adhidaivika Atma becomes an obstacle to His entrance (avesha) here in those actions like service etc.

"Bandhuh atma atmanah"—For that, for that self, the self is the friend; by which self the self alone is conquered. "Atma"—meaning the aggregate of the body and senses—by whom has been brought under control; the meaning is one who has conquered the senses.

But for the "Anatmanah"—for the one of unconquered self—the self alone behaves "in enmity"—in the nature of a foe—"like an enemy." Just as a non-self (external) enemy is a doer of harm to the self, so the self would behave in doing harm to the self—this is the meaning.

Anticipating the question—"Of precisely what kind of person is the self the friend and the self the enemy?"—He says "Bandhuh," etc.

"Atma"—in the form of the one identifying with the aggregate of the body and senses.

"Atmana"—by the intellect possessed of discrimination.

बन्धुः friend? आत्मा the Self? आत्मनः of the self? तस्य his? येन by whom? आत्मा the self? एव even? आत्मना by the Self? जितः is conered? अनात्मनः of unconered self? तु but? शत्रुत्वे in the place of an enemy? वर्तेत would remain? आत्मा the Self? एव even? शत्रुवत् like an enemy.Commentary Coner the lower mind through the higher mind. The lower mind is your enemy. The higher mind is your friend. If you make friendship with the higher mind you can subdue the lower mind ite easily. The lower mind is filled with Rajas and Tamas (passion and darkness). The higher mind is filled with Sattva or purity.The Self is the friend of one who is selfcontrolled? and who has subjugated the lower mind and the senses. But the Self is an enemy of one who has no selfrestraint? and who has not subdued the lower mind and the senses. Just as an external enemy does harm to him? so also his own (lower) self (mind) does harm to him. The lower mind injures him severely. The highest Self or Atman is the primary Self. Mind also is self. This is the secondary self.

Tasya, of him; yena, by whom; jitah, has been conered, subdued; his eva atma, very self, the aggregate of body and organs; that atma, self; is bandhuh, the friend; atmanah, of his self. The idea is that he is a coneror of his senses. Tu, but; anatmanah, for one who has not conered his self, who has no self-control; atma eva, his self itself; varteta, acts; satruvat, like an enemy; satrutve, inimically, with the attitude of an enemy. As an enemy, who is different from oneself, does harm to oneself, similarly one's self behaves like an enemy to oneself. This is the meaning. [If the body and organs are under control, they are helpful in concentrating one's mind on the Self; but, if they are not under control, they oppose this concentration.]

A person whose mind is conered by himself in relation to sense-objects, has that mind as his friend. In the case of one whose mind is not conered in this way, his own mind, like an enemy, remains hostile. The meaning is that it acts, against his attainment of supreme beatitude. It has been stated by Bhagavan Parasara also: 'The mind of man is the cause both of his bondage and his release. Its addiction to sense objects is the cause of his bondage; its separation from sense objects is the means of one's release' (V. P., 6.7.28).
The proper condition for the beginning of Yoga is now taught: