Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 6 - Shloka (Verse) 9

व्याख्या--[आठवें श्लोकमें पदार्थोंमें समता बतायी, अब इस श्लोकमें व्यक्तियोंमें समता बताते हैं। व्यक्तियोंमें समता बतानेका तात्पर्य है कि वस्तु तो अपनी तरफसे कोई क्रिया नहीं करती; अतः उसमें समबुद्धि होना सुगम है, परन्तु व्यक्ति तो अपने लिये और दूसरोंके लिये भी क्रिया करता है; अतः उसमें समबुद्धि होना कठिन है। इसलिये व्यक्तियोंके आचरणोंको देखकर भी जिसकी बुद्धिमें, विचारमें कोई विषमता या पक्षपात नहीं होता, ऐसा समबुद्धिवाला पुरुष श्रेष्ठ है।]

तथा सुहृत् शब्दसे लेकर आधा श्लोक एक पद है। सुहृत् प्रत्युपकार न चाहकर उपकार करनेवाला मित्र प्रेमी अरि शत्रु उदासीन पक्षपातरहित मध्यस्थ जो परस्पर विरोध करनेवाले दोनोंका हितैषी हो द्वेष्य अपना अप्रिय और बन्धु अपना कुटुम्बी इन सबमें तथा शास्त्रानुसार चलनेवाले श्रेष्ठ पुरुषोंमें और निषिद्ध कर्म करनेवाले पापियोंमें भी जो समबुद्धिवाला है इन सबमें कौन कैसा क्या कर रहा है ऐसे विचारमें जिसकी बुद्धि नहीं लगती है वह श्रेष्ठ है। अर्थात् ऐसा योगी सब योगारूढ़ पुरुषोंमें उत्तम है। यहाँ विशिष्यते के स्थानमें विमुच्यते ( मुक्त हो जाता है ) ऐसा पाठान्तर भी है।

Having accepted the praiseworthiness of the Yogarudha, he shows another aspect of Yoga with 'Kincha,' etc.

He accomplishes the part of the commentary involving the splitting of words and stating their meanings with 'Suhrit,' etc. The distinction is: 'Ari' (Enemy) is one who does harm out of sight (indirectly); 'Dveshya' (Hateful one) is one who is disliked directly (openly).

He explains 'Samabuddhi' (equal mind) with 'Who? What?' etc. Indeed, the first question concerns caste, lineage, etc., and the second concerns activity.

He states that by having an intellect unengaged in the manner described (i.e., not distinguishing based on who someone is or what they do), either 'superiority over all' or 'liberation from all obstacles' is achieved, with 'Vishishyate,' etc.

Gathering the meaning established in both readings (vishishyate/vimuchyate), he states 'Yogarudhanam,' etc.

He is not only equal towards a clod, a stone, and gold, but also of equal mind towards friends etc.; He says this with 'Suhrit,' etc.

'Suhrit'—a benefactor who does not expect a return. 'Mitra' (Friend)—one who does that (help) expecting affection etc. 'Ari'—an enemy ready to kill with a sword in hand. 'Udasina'—devoid of partisanship (indifferent). 'Madhyastha' (Mediator)—a well-wisher of both opposing parties. 'Dveshya'—an object of hatred because he is a doer of harm. 'Bandhu'—a relative like a brother etc. In these, in the virtuous who follow the scriptures, and also in the sinners who perform prohibited acts—in all of these, he has an 'equal mind' (Samabuddhi).

'Who is a friend etc.? What helpful action is he the doer of?'—meaning an intellect not engaged (in such distinctions).

'Vishishyate'—means he becomes the best of all. Or, 'Vimuchyate' (is liberated) is the reading.

He alone is distinguished above all. 'Equal mind' towards the virtuous and sinners means regarding the souls (Jivas) as consciousness (chit). Because the Supreme Self is the cause of all, and due to the uniformity everywhere, Jivas are indeed of the form of consciousness alone. The distinction is created by the internal organ (antahkarana). The virtuousness etc. of everyone is created by the Lord alone; nothing is intrinsic to them.

All this has been stated (in Brahma Purana): "Naturally, all Jivas are of the form of consciousness and devoid of all defects. Whatever defects they have are considered to be caused by limiting adjuncts (upadhis). And everything is from the Lord, nothing is indeed of their own. Therefore, all are indeed equal; inequality is born of delusion. Thus, ordinary Jivas are equal, but there is a distinction regarding Deities etc. That is natural due to the cosmic law, and hence eternal. Similarly, the defects of Asuras etc. are eternal and natural. The virtues and defects of humans are considered eternal and natural. But Devas are always considered to be of the form of virtue alone.

However, equality in worship (honor) of the virtuous, sinners, etc., is not intended, because a defect is mentioned regarding that. (Brahma Purana): "He by whom equal worship is offered to equals and unequals (superiors/inferiors), such a man, even if he be a god, falls from his position." (Manu Smriti 2.136): "Wealth, kinsmen, age, action, and learning as the fifth—these are the grounds for respect; each succeeding one is weightier than the preceding."

(Brahma Vaivarta Purana): "The man who offers worship in accordance with qualities but keeps an equal vision towards all beings (as souls), Vishnu is pleased with him... Unequal vision in worship (honoring according to merit) and equal vision (regarding the soul) is wisdom born of knowledge."

In the case of friends etc., performing worship etc. as prescribed by scripture—that which is neither less nor more (but appropriate)—is also equality. (Garuda Purana): "He who performs worship etc. exactly as it should be done for friends, fathers, enemies, and sons (respectively), he is called 'Samabuddhi' (of equal mind).

Definitions: A 'Suhrid' is a benefactor irrespective of return. A 'Mitra' is one who protects after seeing a source of distress. An 'Ari' is a doer of killing etc. An 'Udasina' is one who remains indifferent regarding the help or harm to be done. A 'Madhyama' is one who does both duties. A 'Dveshya' is one who creates residence apart (hostility). It is said: "The Dveshya is the creator of separation/hostility; the Madhyama is one who does only what is practical; the doer of pleasant things is Priya. One who protects even after seeing distress is Mitra. One who does good without expecting return is called Suhrid. And the doer of killing etc. is the enemy.

He praises equality itself with "Suhrid," etc. "Suhrid"—a benefactor who does not expect a return. "Mitra"—one possessing affection. "Ari"—enemy. "Udasina"—devoid of partisanship towards either. "Madhyastha"—well-wisher of both. "Dveshya"—one unpleasant to oneself. "Bandhu"—a relative.

Among these, and among "Sadhus"—doers of merit—and "Papas"—doers of sinful deeds; without considering "whose action is what," he who has an equal mind towards all of them is distinguished.

"Suhrid" are well-wishers regardless of age differences. "Mitra" are well-wishers of the same age. "Ari" are those wishing evil due to some cause.

"Udasina" are those free from both (friendship and enmity) due to the absence of a cause for either. "Madhyastha" are those free from both by birth (naturally). "Dveshya" are those wishing evil by birth. "Bandhu" are well-wishers by birth.

"Sadhu" are those of righteous conduct. "Papa" are those of sinful conduct.

Because his sole purpose is the Self, and since he has no purpose (to gain) nor contradiction (conflict) with friends, enemies, etc., he who has an equal mind towards them is distinguished regarding his fitness for the practice of Yoga.

One endowed with an equal mind towards friends, allies, etc., is superior even to that (the one mentioned before)—He says this with "Suhrid," etc.

"Suhrid"—a well-wisher by very nature. "Mitra"—a benefactor due to affection. "Ari"—destructive/killer. "Udasina"—one who disregards both disputing parties. "Madhyastha"—a well-wisher of both disputing parties. "Dveshya"—an object of hatred. "Bandhu"—a relative. "Sadhu"—of good conduct. "Papa"—of bad conduct.

He whose mind is "equal"—devoid of attachment, aversion, etc.—towards these is distinguished.

"Samaloshtashmakanchanah" (6.8)—the meaning stated regarding inanimate objects is being expanded regarding animate beings; with this intention, he says "Tatha cha" (And thus), etc. Alternatively, since having an equal mind towards friends etc. is even more difficult, and it is said here "Vishishyate" (he is distinguished), an excess of equal vision is intended here. Thus, the meaning is "Api cha" (Moreover).

To remove the redundancy of the words Suhrid, Mitra, Bandhu, the words Ari, Dveshya, and the words Udasina, Madhyastha, he explains each term. The word Bandhu is well-known for father etc.; the word Mitra for those of the same age; therefore, by elimination, the word Suhrid refers to those other than both of these—with this intention he says "Vayovishesha..." (Without accepting age distinction...), etc. By "Savayasa" (of same age), it is indicated that among Mitras, there is also a desire for pleasant things like play etc. Due to the association with the word Bandhu (relative by birth), the word Dveshya is obtained as referring to a "natural enemy"; therefore, here too by elimination, he explains the word Ari as referring to an "artificial enemy"—"Arayo nimittatah..." (Enemies wishing evil due to a cause), etc. The word Madhyastha also—due to association with Dveshya and Bandhu, and because it is not used for those capable of helpful or harmful activity when a cause arises—is appropriate for one who is devoid of both (friendship/enmity) from birth itself. Then, by elimination, since "indifference" (audasinya) is the counter-correlate of activity and reminds one of it—those who are capable of helpful or harmful activity when a cause arrives, but are devoid of it merely due to the absence of the cause, are Udasina—with this intention he says "Ubhaya..." (Both...), etc.

"Ubhaya" means wishing well and wishing evil.
If Bandhus were defined merely as relatives by birth, there would be over-extension (ativyapti) to Duryodhana etc. (who were enemies); therefore, it is stated "Bandhus are well-wishers from birth itself."

Thus, persons related to oneself have been described. Now, persons who are objects of praise and blame in a general sense are denoted by the words Sadhu and Papa—with this intention he says "Sadhavah," etc. He states the sentence meaning with "Atmaika..." (Solely for the Self...), etc. The meaning is: due to the absence of any purpose with friends etc., and due to the absence of conflict with others.

"Nanu" (Objection): It is indeed proper to have equal mind towards friends etc., but regarding the virtuous (Sadhu) and sinners (Papa), the purpose of Yogis cannot be equal; because association with the good and abandonment of the bad are definitely required for them as causes for the increase of knowledge? (Answer): It is said—The Yogi being described now is not one in the stage of a dependent practitioner (upajivaka), but one who has heard all that is to be heard and performed all that is to be performed, who has reached the stage of extreme fitness for direct realization. For such a one, the absence of purpose with both the virtuous and the sinners is equal; for him, only things like a secret place suitable for Yoga are to be accepted—this is the idea.

The state of being fit for the practice of Yoga was mentioned earlier too; but this is the state of having reached the pinnacle (kashtha) in that regard; this is the idea of "Vishishyate." That is why he says "He is distinguished regarding fitness for Yoga practice." Here, compared to the reading variant "Vimuchyate" read by others (Shankara), this reading alone is proper—this is the view.

पूर्व श्लोक में ज्ञानी पुरुष की जड़ वस्तुओं की ओर अवलोकन करने की दृष्टि का वर्णन किया गया है। परन्तु जगत् केवल जड़ वस्तुओं से ही नहीं बना है। उसमें चेतन प्राणी भी हैं। मानव मात्र के साथ ज्ञानी पुरुष किस भाव से रहेगा क्या उन्हें मिथ्या कहकर उनके अस्तित्व का निषेध कर देगा क्या जगत् के अधिष्ठान स्वरूप परमात्मा में स्थित होकर वह लोगों की सेवा के प्रति उदासीन रहेगा इन प्रश्नों का उत्तर इस श्लोक में दिया गया है।भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण कहते हैं कि ऐसा ज्ञानी पुरुष सभी मनुष्यों के साथ समान प्रेम भाव से रहता है चाहे वे सुहृद् हों या मित्र शत्रु उदासीन मध्यस्थ बन्धु साधु हों या पापी। अपनी विशाल सहृदयता में वह सबका आलिंगन करता है। प्रेम और आदरभाव से सबके साथ रहता है। उसकी दृष्टि में वे सभी समान महत्त्वपूर्ण हैं।उसका प्रेम साधु और पापी उत्कृष्ट और निकृष्ट में भेद नहीं करता। वह जानता है कि आत्मस्वरूप के अज्ञान से ही पुरुष पापकर्म में प्रवृत्त होता है और अपने ही कर्मों से दुख उठाता है। स्वामी रामतीर्थ इसे बड़ी सुन्दरता से व्यक्त करते हुये कहते हैं कि हम अपने पापों से दण्डित होते हैं न कि पापों के लिए।आत्मस्वरूप के अपरोक्ष अनुभव से वह यह पहचान लेता है कि एक ही आत्मा सर्वत्र व्याप्त है। अनेकता में एकता को वह जानता है औऱ विश्व के सामञ्जस्य को पहचानता है। सर्वत्र व्याप्त आत्मस्वरूप का अनुभव कर लेने पर वह किसके साथ प्रेम करेगा और किससे घृणा मनुष्य के शरीर के किसी भी अंग में पीड़ा होने पर सबकी ओर देखने का उसका भाव एक ही होता है क्योंकि सम्पूर्ण शरीर में ही वह स्वयं व्याप्त है।इस उत्तम फल को प्राप्त करने के लिए मनुष्य को क्या करना चाहिये उत्तर है

"Suhrid"—one whose heart is good without any cause.

"Friendship" (Mitratvam)—is mutual. "Enmity" (Aritvam)—is mutual. "Udasina"—devoid of both these. "Madhyastha"—a friend in some part and an enemy in some part. "Dveshya"—worthy of hatred (or: unable to be hated). "Bandhu"—by connection of birth (yoni) etc.

One having an equal mind in all these; similarly in the virtuous and the sinful. And he "is distinguished" (vishishyate)—meaning, he crosses Samsara stage by stage (kramat krama).

Since the intended person (Karma Yogi) was mentioned in the middle, "Suhrid" (Friend) etc. (verse 6.9) is not the characteristic of the Yogarudha (one ascended to Yoga)—to refute this perception, he says "Sa eva" (He alone). "And being of equal mind towards the virtuous and sinful etc. is (also) that Yogarudha alone"—it is not (only this much); but that he is distinguished from the entire class of non-yogis—to say this, there is a separate connection (construction); this is the purport.

Saintliness (Sadhutva) is being righteous (Dharmitva), and Sinfulness (Papatva) is possessing sin, which is constant (by nature), not fluctuating like being a friend etc.; therefore, without saying "Among friends etc.," "Among virtuous and sinful etc." is said.

"Even-mindedness" (Samabuddhitva) means equality in worship (respect) etc.—to refute this misinterpretation, he says "Jiva-chitah" (Jiva and Consciousness). "This one endowed with consciousness is called Jiva"—because of the use of the word Jiva for the aggregate of sentient and insentient, "Chit" (Consciousness) is said (here). Regarding the consciousness of friend etc., and regarding the Supreme Self situated everywhere in friend etc., and regarding the fact that the friendliness etc. situated everywhere in friend etc. is caused by the Supreme Self—he who sees that due to the uniformity of the cause is "Samabuddhi" (Even-minded); this is the meaning.

There he explains the first mode—"Chidrupa eva" (Of the form of consciousness alone). That among humans one is a friend to one etc.—that is not included in the nature of the Jiva, but is merely of the form of consciousness etc.; this is the meaning.

Then of what nature is the attribute of friendliness etc.? To this he says "Visheshas tu" (But the distinction). It is an external attribute having the inner organ as its material cause. This is what is said: The form of the Jiva remaining in liberation is indeed distinct (unequal) based on proofs like "Three types of Jiva groups"; but the inequality caused by the attributes of body, senses, and inner organ—superimposing that on their respective essential natures, the "Uneven-mindedness" (thinking them as unequal) does not exist for the Yogarudha—this second mode is clear.

He explains the third—"Sarvesham" (Of all). By itself, independently. Here he states the proof—"Uktam cha" (And it is said). By itself, by nature. "By defects"—meaning by enmity etc. Similarly, "by qualities like friendliness etc." should also be grasped. Adventitious attributes are not included in the essential nature; this is the meaning. Then what? To this he says "Tesham tu" (But of them). Defects and Qualities. The adjunct (Upadhi) is the inner organ etc.

"Sarvam" (All) meaning friendliness etc. Therefore indeed, by the two modes—the inequality which includes non-Self attributes in the non-Selfs; and the form of not being dependent on the Supreme Lord somewhere—that is perceived by delusion. Regarding one engaging in Yoga, whatever friendliness etc. is there, that does not become a cause of essential inequality among humans alone. "Not in gods etc."—he states an exception to this statement—"Evam" (Thus). The word "Tu" is for emphasis/restriction. He explains the meaning of restriction—"Visheshah" (Distinction). Distinction—is friendliness etc. towards the Yogi. He expands on that very point—"Asuradeh" (Of demons etc.). The word "Tatha" is for the conjunction of what will be said. Defects—are enmity etc. towards the Yogi. And thus it is said "Know him here as the enemy" (3.37). Qualities and Defects—friendliness and enmity etc.—are non-adventitious (innate). "By qualities"—by friendliness etc.; "Eka-matram"—solely of qualities. And thus the Shruti "Just as indeed many animals" (Brihadaranyaka 1.4.10) etc.

(Objection) Why should not the verse "Suhrid" etc. have the apparent (direct) meaning? To this he says "Na tu" (But not). Only the word "Sama" which is a synonym for the word "Sarva" (all) has the designation of Sarvanama (pronoun/universal), not the one having the ordinary meaning (equal) as in "He sacrifices in a level (sama) place."

Moreover, not only is there a fault in equal worship, but there is an injunction for unequal worship also; he says this—"Vittam" (Wealth). "Bandhu" means relations. And "Manyani" (honorable) and those "Sthanani" (places/positions). By words like wealth etc., those possessing them are implied. The vision alone should be equal by the stated three modes, but worship should be unequal indeed—regarding this he states another proof—"Guna" (Quality). That which is unequal worship is "Vaishamyam" (Inequality). The explanation of that itself is "Uttamatvam" (Superiority). "Gives equality" (Samyam dadati)—the cause of being free from sorrow.

He explains "Samabuddhitva" in another way—"Suhridadishu" (In friends etc.). That "this is not the subject of Yogarudha" is not stated there itself. For a Yogarudha is not one who does harm to worldly enemies.

The difference in meaning between the words Suhrid and Mitra, Ari and Dveshya, Udasina and Madhyastha is not apparent; therefore he says—"Pratyupakara" (Counter-help). "Nirapekshaya"—without expectation; "Avasitam"—not abiding/indifferent (apriyam); "Tatah"—from the one being helped.

But one with an equal mind towards well-wishers, friends, etc., is the best of all Yogis; He says this with "Suhrid," etc.

"Suhrid"—a benefactor without expecting a return, and even without prior affection or relationship. "Mitra"—a benefactor due to affection. "Ari"—a doer of harm due to natural cruelty, without regard to any harm done to himself (i.e., unprovoked). "Udasina"—one who disregards both disputing parties. "Madhyastha"—a well-wisher of both disputing parties. "Dveshya"—a doer of harm in consideration of harm done to himself (i.e., retaliatory). "Bandhu"—a benefactor due to relationship.

In these, and in "Sadhus"—performers of scripture-enjoined acts—and in "Papas"—performers of scripture-prohibited acts. By the word 'Cha', in others also. In all these, he who has an "equal mind"—an intellect not engaged in "Who is this? What kind of action does he do?"—and is devoid of attachment and aversion everywhere, "Vishishyate"—meaning he becomes excellent above all.

Or, "Vimuchyate" (is liberated) is the reading.

Moreover, not only in these three, but one who is of equal mind everywhere is the best; He says this with "Suhrid," etc. "Suhrid"—one who gives beneficial advice to all. "Mitra"—one overcome by affection. "Ari"—one who harbors enmity towards oneself (the Yogi). "Udasina"—indifferent/neutral. "Madhyastha"—judge of the true and false arguments of disputants. "Dveshya"—devoid of good feeling. "Bandhu"—relative. In these, and in "Sadhus"—those of good conduct.

And furthermore, in "Papas"—opponents of Dharma; he who is of "equal mind"—meaning, due to separation from the Lord (Bhagavad-viprayoga), he has the understanding that the Lord is their Self, or due to their separation, he sees the "same state" (of separation) in them—he "Vishishyate"—meaning he is the best among those united in Yoga.

Here, the idea is: In the separation from the Lord, by remembering His friendship, he possesses the virtue of friendship towards all; similarly, the virtue of a friend. Towards those devoid of that, he is one regarding whom they have enmity (Ari). Due to the respective sorrows, he possesses the virtue of indifference everywhere. In the state of separation, by imitating Him, he possesses the virtue of a mediator. Similarly, due to His distress, he possesses the quality of hate (dvesha). By the remembrance of His relationship, he possesses the virtue of a relative. For His sake, he possesses good conduct (Sadhu). Due to the excess of that heat (tapa of separation), he takes the form of sin (Papa). And by the property of inertness. Thus, he who is of equal mind is distinguished; this is the meaning.

The half-verse beginning with "Suhrid" forms a single compound word. "Suhrid"—a benefactor who does not expect a return. "Mitra"—one possessing affection. "Ari"—enemy. "Udasina"—one who does not take the side of anyone. "Madhyastha"—a well-wisher of both opposing parties. "Dveshya"—one unpleasant to oneself. "Bandhu"—a relative. In these, and in "Sadhus"—those who follow the scriptures—and also in "Papas"—performers of prohibited deeds—in all of these, he who has an "equal mind" (Samabuddhi)—meaning an intellect not engaged in "Who is this? What does he do?"—

is distinguished (Vishishyate). Or "Vimuchyate" (is liberated) is an alternative reading. The meaning is that among all those established in Yoga, this one is the best.

Therefore, to attain this supreme result (He speaks the next verse).

He explains the nature and superiority of the Yogarudha with two verses—beginning with "Jnanavijnana," etc.

"Jnana" is instructional knowledge; "Vijnana" is direct experience.

He whose self is satisfied by these two, even though established on the peak (unchanging state), is called "Yukta" (yoked/harmonized).

That Yogi becomes superior by having an equal mind towards friends etc. and their opposites; thus he is "distinguished" (vishishyate).

सुह्यन्मित्रार्युदासीनमध्यस्थद्वेष्यबन्धुषु in the goodhearted? in friends? in enemies? in the indifferent? in neutrals? in haters and in relatives? साधुषु in the righteous? अपि also? च and? पापेषु in the unrighteous?,समबुद्धिः one who has eal mind? विशिष्यते excels.Commentary He excels He is the best among the Yogarudhas.Samabudhhi is eanimity or evenness of mind. A Yogi of Samabuddhi has eal vision. He is ite impartial. He is the same to all. He makes no difference with reference to caste? creed or colour. He loves all as his own self? as rooted in the Self.A goodhearted man does good to others without expecting any servie from them in return.Udasina is one who is ite indifferent.A neutral is one who does not join any of the two contending parties. He stands as a silent spectator or witness.The righteous are those who do righteous actions and follow the injunctions of the scriptures.The unrighteous are those who do wrong and forbidden actions? who inure others and who do not follow the scriptures.

The first line of the verse beginning with 'benefactor,' etc. is a single compound word.
Visisyate, he excels, i.e. he is the best among all those who are established in Yoga-(a different reading is vimucyate, he becomes free); sama-buddhih, who has sameness of view, i.e. whose mind is not engaged with the estion of who one is and what he does; with regard to a suhrd, benefactor-one who does some good without consideration of return; mitram, a friend, one who is affectionate; arih, a foe; udasinah, a neutral, who sides with nobody; madhyasthah, an arbiter, who is a well-wisher of two conflicting parties; dvesyah, the hateful, who is repulsive to oneself; bandhuh, a relative;- to all these as also sadhusu, with regard to good people, who follow the scriptures; api ca, and even; papesu, sinners, who perform prohibited actions-with regard to all of them.
Therefore, to acire this excellent result-

'Well-wishers' (Suhrt) are those who wish one well, regardless of differences in age. 'Friends' (Mitra) are well-wisheres of eal age. 'Foes' (Ari) are those who wish ill to one because of some particular cause. 'The indifferent' (Udasina) are those devoid of both friendship and hostility because of the absence of causes for both; 'neutrals' (Madhyastha) are those who are by their very nature incapable of both friendship and hostility. 'The hateful' are those who wish ill to one even from birth. 'Relations' are those who bear goodwill from birth. 'The good' are those devoted to virtue. 'The sinful' are those given to sin. Because of the self being the only end of Yoga, and because of there being no gain and no opposition from well-wishers, friends, etc., he who could regard them all with an eal eye as selves, excels in respect of fitness for the practice of Yoga.