Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 7 - Shloka (Verse) 11

व्याख्या--'बलं बलवतां चाहं कामरागविवर्जितम्'--कठिन-से-कठिन काम करते हुए भी अपने भीतर एक कामना-आसक्तिरहित शुद्ध, निर्मल उत्साह रहता है। काम पूरा होनेपर भी 'मेरा कार्य शास्त्र और धर्मके अनुकूल है तथा लोकमर्यादाके अनुसार सन्तजनानुमोदित है'--ऐसे विचारसे मनमें एक उत्साह रहता है। इसका नाम 'बल' है। यह बल भगवान्का ही स्वरूप है। अतः यह 'बल' ग्राह्य है।
गीतामें भगवान्ने खुद ही बलकी व्याख्या कर दी है। सत्रहवें अध्यायके पाँचवें श्लोकमें 'कामरागबलान्विताः' पदमें आया बल कामना और आसक्तिसे युक्त होनेसे दुराग्रह और हठका वाचक है। अतः यह बल भगवान्का स्वरूप नहीं है, प्रत्युत आसुरी सम्पत्ति होनेसे त्याज्य है। ऐसे ही 'सिद्धोऽहं बलवान्सुखी' (गीता 16। 14) और 'अहंकारं बलं दर्पम्' (गीता 16। 18 18। 53) पदोंमें आया बल भी त्याज्य है। छठे अध्यायके चौंतीसवें श्लोकमें 'बलवद्दृढम्' पदमें आया बल शब्द मनका विशेषण है। वह बल भी आसुरी सम्पत्तिका ही है; क्योंकि उसमें कामना और आसक्ति है। परन्तु यहाँ (7। 11 में) जो बल आया है, वह कामना और आसक्तिसे रहित है, इसलिये यह सात्त्विक उत्साहका वाचक है और ग्राह्य है। सत्रहवें अध्यायके आठवें श्लोकमें 'आयुःसत्त्वबलारोग्य ৷৷.' पदमें आया बल शब्द भी इसी सात्त्विक बलका वाचक है।
'धर्माविरुद्धो भूतेषु कामोऽस्मि भरतर्षभ'--हे भरतवंशियोंमें श्रेष्ठ अर्जुन ! मनुष्योंमें (टिप्पणी प0 407.1) धर्मसे अविरुद्ध अर्थात् धर्मयुक्त 'काम' (टिप्पणी प0 407.2) मेरा स्वरूप है। कारण कि शास्त्र और लोक-मर्यादाके अनुसार शुभ-भावसे केवल सन्तान-उत्पत्तिके लिये जो काम होता है, वह काम मनुष्यके अधीन होता है। परंतु आसक्ति कामना सुखभोग आदिके लिये जो काम होता है उस काममें मनुष्य पराधीन हो जाता है और उसके वशमें होकर वह न करनेलायक शास्त्रविरुद्ध काममें प्रवृत्त हो जाता है। शास्त्रविरुद्ध काम पतनका तथा सम्पूर्ण पापों और दुःखोंका हेतु होता है।
कृत्रिम उपायोंसे सन्तति-निरोध कराकर केवल भोग-बुद्धिसे काममें प्रवृत्त होना महान् नरकोंका दरवाजा है। जो सन्तानकी उत्पत्ति कर सके, वह 'पुरुष' कहलाता है और जो गर्भ धारण कर सके, वह 'स्त्री' कहलाती है (टिप्पणी प0 407.3)। अगर पुरुष और स्त्री आपरेशनके द्वारा अपनी सन्तानोत्पत्ति करनेकी योग्यता-(पुरुषत्व और स्त्रीत्व-) को नष्ट कर देते हैं, वे दोनों ही हिजड़े कहलानेयोग्य हैं। नपुंसक होनेके कारण देवकार्य (हवन-पूजन आदि) और पितृकार्य (श्राद्ध-तर्पण) में उनका अधिकार नहीं रहता (टिप्पणी प0 407.4)। स्त्रीमें मातृशक्ति नष्ट हो जानेके कारण उसके लिये परम आदरणीय एवं प्रिय 'माँ' सम्बोधनका प्रयोग भी नहीं किया जा सकता। इसलिये मनुष्यको चाहिये कि वह या तो शास्त्र और लोकमर्यादाके अनुसार केवल सन्तानोत्पत्तिके लिये कामका सेवन करे अथवा ब्रह्मचर्यका पालन करे।

बलवानोंका जो कामना और आसक्तिसे रहित बल ओज सामर्थ्य है वह मैं हूँ। ( अभिप्राय यह कि ) अप्राप्त विषयोंकी जो तृष्णा है उसका नाम काम है और प्राप्त विषयोंमें जो प्रीतितन्मयता है उसका नाम राग है उन दोनोंसे रहित केवल देह आदिको धारण करनेके लिये जो बल है वह मैं हूँ। जो संसारी जीवोंका बल कामना और आसक्तिका कारण है वह मैं नहीं हूँ। तथा हे भरतश्रेष्ठ प्राणियोंमें जो धर्मसे अविरुद्ध शास्त्रानुकूल कामना है जैसे देहधारणमात्रके लिये खानेपीनेकी इच्छा आदि वह ( इच्छारूप) काम भी मैं ही हूँ।

And regarding the strength of the strong, that they are woven into Me who constitutes that strength, He states this with 'balam' (strength).

He prevents the approval of even that strength which is preceded by desire and anger with the words 'tat cha' (and that).

Anticipating the doubt that 'kama' (desire) and 'raga' (attachment) might have the same meaning, He reveals the difference in meaning with the explanation starting with 'kama is thirst', etc. He shows what is to be excluded as established by the force of the qualification with 'natu' (but not).

Intending to express that beings possessing such desire are woven into Me, who am that desire not opposed to the meaning of the scriptures, He speaks with 'kincha' (moreover).

He illustrates the desire not opposed to dharma with 'yatha' (as).

'Balam' means capability, vigor; in that (strength) which is devoid of desire and attachment. 'Kama' is the longing for attainment regarding objects not yet obtained; 'Raga' is the excess of love, of the nature of coloring (delight), regarding those objects already obtained. Or, the word 'Raga' should be explained as having the meaning of anger. In this view, it should be understood that there is the fault of Lakshana (secondary implication).

In Me, who am the strength devoid of that (desire/attachment) and having the sole purpose of maintaining the body, the strong are woven. Similarly, that which is not opposed to Dharma, i.e., prescribed by scripture; in the desire regarding objects like food and drink for the sake of maintaining the body, in Me of that form, beings possessing desire are woven.

By addressing him as 'Bull among Bharatas', He implies: "You ought not to abandon the supremacy among the Bharatas, which is served by the Bharatas (the best of Kshatriyas), which accomplishes the dharma of war, which utilizes strength devoid of desire and attachment having the sole purpose of maintaining the body through the Kshatriya duty of war (which is My manifestation), and [utilizes] desire regarding food, drink, etc., not opposed to dharma after conquering enemies through one's own duty (which is also My manifestation)."

This is knowledge (Jnana). The realization such as "I am the taste" is Vijnana. Water and the rest also arise from Him alone. Even so, He shows that the taste, etc., is not bound by the rules of water, etc., and that He is the essence of that, by using specific words like "Taste in water," etc. And enjoyment is specifically of the taste, etc.; this is also for the sake of meditation.

It is said in the Gita Kalpa: "Regarding the taste-nature of tastes and their intrinsic nature, and their essence, He is the special cause in all attributes. And the enjoyer of the essence everywhere is the Lord of the Universe. He is established everywhere in the bodies of the presiding deities of taste, etc. For the wise, Hari is to be meditated upon in water, etc., and associates; through the richness of taste, etc., Vasudeva is the Lord of the world for others."

And also: "Svabhava (nature) is the Jiva indeed. The universal nature is fixed; what else could be superior to that? That does not exist without Me, the moving and unmoving beings born of Me."

The phrases "unopposed to Dharma" and "devoid of desire and attachment" etc., are for the sake of meditation. It is said in the Gita Kalpa: "He is to be worshipped in desire unopposed to Dharma by one desiring fulfillment of desire. And by one desiring strength, (He is to be worshipped) in strength devoid of desire and attachment. But for those not desiring (material results), when meditated upon there, He gives knowledge alone."

"Pure fragrance" is stated in relation to enjoyment. For so says the Shruti: "He goes to the merit (punya) alone; he does not go to the gods, nor to sin" (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.5.20). "The two drinking the Rita (truth/fruit) in the world of good deeds" (Katha Upanishad 3.1), etc. And 'Rita' is merit (Punya). Because of the statement: "Rita, Satya (truth), and Dharma are called Sukrita (good deeds)." And "Rita is mental dharma, Satya is spoken truth."

And this is not contradictory to "The other looks on without eating" (Shvetasvatara Upanishad 4.6; Mundaka 3.1.1), because that refers to the non-eating of gross food. And (scripture) speaks of subtle eating. "He becomes the consumer of a diet more refined than this bodily (sharira) self."

And here, the Jiva is not being spoken of, because of the mention of difference in "from the bodily self." Based on the statement "The bodily self (sharira) is divided threefold, being situated in waking, etc.," in the Garuda Purana, the dreamer, etc., is indeed the bodily self. But "from this" (asmat) is used to distinguish the Lord (Ishwara). As stated in the Naradiya Purana: "Both of those should be known as 'sharira' (embodied); one is the Jiva and the other is termed Ishwara. One is eternally bound, and the other is eternally liberated," and also because of the Shruti texts declaring difference. When another recourse (interpretation) exists, a difference in Person (Purusha) should be assumed, not a difference in state. And the Gita Kalpa says: "Because the Supreme Person (Purushottama) is the subtle enjoyer distinct from this bodily self; therefore, He is the Enjoyer, even though He is the non-enjoyer of gross enjoyment."

"But I am not in them" – by this, His non-dependence on them is stated. As said in the Gita Kalpa: "The entire world rests on Him; He is not supported anywhere."

The strong are woven into Me, who exists in the form of strength.

[That strength is] devoid of 'Kama' (desire) and 'Raga' (attachment). Kama is thirst; Raga is coloring (passion/attachment). For those two are indeed products of ignorance (Avidya). Therefore, the strength of the faultless One is devoid of them.

Similarly, in Me, who exists in the form of desire (Kama) not opposed to Dharma, such beings possessing desire are woven.

All these distinct states of being are born from Me alone;

they are subsidiary to Me, and being My body, they are established in Me alone.

Therefore, I alone exist having them as My modes (attributes).

Moreover, [regarding] 'strength' (balam). 'Kama' is the desire for an object not yet attained; it is Rajasic. 'Raga', on the other hand, is the coloring of the mind for even more of the object, even after the desired object has been attained; it is a synonym for thirst (trishna) and is Tamasic.

I am the strength of the strong, devoid of those two. The meaning is: I am the Sattvic capability for the performance of one's own duty (Svadharma).

I am the desire (Kama) not opposed to one's own duty, which is useful solely for the procreation of children with one's own wife.

Thus, the meaning of the scriptural texts on 'difference' has been reinforced by "Earth, water..." (7.4, etc.); and "Everything is in Me" (7.7) is the meaning of the scriptural texts on 'connection/support'. Now, with the intention of expanding upon the meaning of the scriptural texts on 'non-difference' which reconciles both of these, He says "Therefore" (atah), etc. Some have explained "All this is in Me" to mean "It is woven in Me who is qualified by attributes like taste," and have interpreted "I am taste," etc., as a description of that. To refute that, He says "Because everything is the body of the Supreme Person," etc. The implication is that in the interpretation of others, there arises the fault of reversing the relationship of container and contained.

That words denoting modes (attributes) naturally culminate in the possessor of the mode (substance) is generally established even in words denoting genus (jati) and quality (guna); to show this, 'modeness' (prakaratva) is mentioned. 'Abhidhanam' (denotation) means conveying understanding through the primary function of the word. Although words like 'taste' are used in the world as extractors (abstracting the quality from the substance), and here substances like water are mentioned as distinct loci, still, it must be accepted that since taste, etc., are modes of the substance which is the body of the Supreme Self, and the Supreme Self is the Possessor of the mode, words like 'taste' here do not have an abstractive force because they are used in grammatical equation (samanadhikaranya) with Him. The mention of the substance in each case is to make known that "I am the mode (attribute) of principal taste, smell, etc., residing in those respective substances."

The state of substances (like earth) being modes of Him is used in texts like "He who supports (the earth) through solidity" (Vishnu Purana 1.14.28); this is the idea. Even though the function of taste exists in earth as well, and other qualities like form exist in water, the specific mention "I am taste in water" is because water acts as the principal cause of the modification of taste which was not produced in the prior element (fire/tejas). Elsewhere also, by texts like "Then the earth accepts fragrance... and becomes capable of dissolution" (Vishnu Purana 6.4.14), the dependence of earth, etc., on fragrance, taste, etc., is stated. Similarly, later on too, where there is a specific mention due to predominance, it should be understood appropriately.

'Prabha' (Light/Radiance) is a specific Tejas-substance that spreads outside its own substrate. The sun and moon become the cause of benefit to the world only through light; hence they are characterized by that as principal. 'Pranava' (Om) is principal in all Vedas due to being their seed, etc. 'Paurusham' is the nature of a Purusha (man). Some say it is the intellect of a man. Others say it is semen, which is the cause of the lineage of progeny. Or, 'Paurusham' means capability, the power of agency; for by that alone the Self as agent has pre-eminence over other factors of action. "In men" means in Jivas (living beings). Or 'Paurusham' is masculinity, a specific nature of Sattva, etc., distinguished from female and neuter. The word 'Nr' is a synonym for Purusha.

'Pure fragrance'—the fragrance of Tulsi, etc., or simply fragrant smell. For only by connection with that does the earth become the cause of the awakening of Sattva or of happiness. 'Vibhavasu' here is Fire. And in it, 'Tejas' is the power of burning. By the word 'Bhuta' (being) here, embodied beings are grasped. By the word 'Sarva' (all), even Brahma, Shiva, etc., are included. In them, 'Jivanam' means life-force/respiration, or the cause of the stability of Prana.

Or, the form by which all beings live (subsist). "The eternal seed of all beings"—is the principle of Prakriti (Nature). Or, since the context is of pointing out principal attributes, the word 'Seed' here refers to the nature known as material causality (upadanatva). The meaning is the capability of all transforming substances to transform into their respective effects.

Or 'Seed' is the cause of sprouting, the respective material substance of moving and unmoving beings. 'Buddhi'—is determination or mere knowledge. 'Tejasvin'—means those of valorous nature; their 'Tejas' is the nature of being unconquerable, or the capability to defeat others. Some call it pride (abhimana), others call it boldness (pragalbhya). 'Balam' (Strength)—is the power of sustaining, etc. Since strength engaged in its effects due to Kama (desire) and Raga (attachment) becomes the cause of pain to others, etc., it is said "devoid of Kama and Raga" to indicate that it (the strength in God) is for the object of merely maintaining the body useful for Dharma.

'Kama' is the culmination/attained state of desire. 'Raga' is desire. Or, the word 'Kama' refers to the object of desire, and 'Raga' is the attachment to that subject—"Kama-Raga". "In beings"—in living creatures situated as gods, humans, etc. "Kama not opposed to Dharma"—love for one's own wife, etc.

Now He explains the grammatical equation (co-ordinate predication) "I am taste," etc., with reasoning—using "These" (Ete), etc. And this is not a superimposition (metaphor) like "The King is the Kingdom" to show dependence on Him, because when the primary meaning is possible, it is not appropriate to resort to another function (like secondary implication); this is the idea. By "These" (Ete), it is implied that their creation is impossible by anyone other than Ishwara. By "All" (Sarve), it is reminded that even those created by Brahma, Rudra, and others are created dependent on the Supreme Self who has Brahma, etc., as His body, as stated before in "I am [the origin] of the whole..." (7.6). "Distinct" (Vilakshanah) is said to differentiate them from the Rajasic and Tamasic states to be mentioned later. "From Me alone... distinct kinds" (10.5) will be said. By this, because of the distinctness, the meaning of the aphorism (Brahma Sutra 2.1.4) is also reminded. "Born from Me alone," etc., is the cause for the grammatical equation suitable to each object as applicable. To show that 'inseparable existence' (aprthak-siddhi) is the cause of the grammatical equation which follows in qualities, genus, and bodies, it is said "Established in Me alone."

सामान्य बुद्धिमत्ता के और मन्दबुद्धि के लोगों को अनेक उदाहरण देने के पश्चात् यहाँ इस श्लोक में भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण उस अत्यन्त मेधावी पुरुष के लिये तत्त्व का निर्देश करते हैं जिसमें यह क्षमता हो कि वह इस दिये हुये निर्देश पर सूक्ष्म विचार कर सके।बलवानों का बल मैं हूँ केवल इतने ही कथन में पूर्व कथित दृष्टान्तों की अपेक्षा कोई अधिक विशेषता नहीं दिखाई पड़ती। परन्तु बल शब्द को दिये गये विशेषण से इसको विशेष महत्त्व प्राप्त हो जाता है। सामान्यत मनुष्य में जब कामना व आसक्ति होती है तब वह अथक परिश्रम करते हुये दिखाई देता है और अपनी इच्छित वस्तु को पाने के लिये सम्पूर्ण शक्ति लगा देता है।कामना और आसक्ति इन दो प्रेरक वृत्तियों के बिना किसी बल की हम कल्पना भी नहीं कर पाते हैं। यद्यपि सतही दृष्टि से काम और राग में हमें भेद नहीं दिखाई देता है तथापि शंकराचार्य अपने भाष्य में उसे स्पष्ट करते हुये कहते हैं. अप्राप्त वस्तु की इच्छा काम है और प्राप्त वस्तु में आसक्ति राग कहलाती है। मन की इन्हीं दो वृत्तियों के कारण व्यक्ति या परिवार समाज या राष्ट्र अपनी सार्मथ्य को प्रकट करते हैं। हड़ताल और दंगे उपद्रव और युद्ध इन सबके पीछे प्रेरक वृत्तियां हैं काम और राग। श्रीकृष्ण कहते हैं मैं बलवानों का काम और राग से वर्जित बल हूँ। स्पष्ट है कि यहाँ सामान्य बल की बात नहीं कही गयी है।इस कथन से मानों उन्हें सन्तोष नहीं होता है और इसलिये वे आगे और कहते हैं प्राणियों में धर्म के अनुकूल काम मैं हूँ। जिसके कारण वस्तु का अस्तित्व होता है वह उसका धर्म कहलाता है। मनुष्य का अस्तित्व चैतन्य आत्मा के बिना नहीं हो सकता अत वह उसका वास्तविक धर्म या स्वरूप है। व्यवहार में जो विचार भावना और कर्म उसके दिव्य स्वरूप के विरुद्ध नहीं है वे धर्म के अन्तर्गत आते हैं। जिन विचारों एवं कर्मों से अपने आत्मस्वरूप को पहचानने में सहायता मिलती है उन्हें धर्म कहा जाता है और इसके विपरीत कर्म अधर्म कहलाते हैं क्योंकि वे उसकी आत्मविस्मृति को दृढ़ करते हैं। उनके वशीभूत होकर मनुष्य पतित होकर पशुवत् व्यवहार करने लगता है।धर्म की परिभाषा को ध्यान में रखकर इस श्लोक के अध्ययन से उसका अर्थ स्पष्ट हो जाता है। धर्म के अविरुद्ध कामना से तात्पर्य साधक की उस इच्छा तथा क्षमता से है जिसके द्वारा वह अपनी दुर्बलताओं को समझकर उन्हें दूर करने का प्रयत्न करता है और आत्मोन्नति की सीढ़ी पर ऊपर चढ़ता जाता है। भगवान् के कथन को दूसरे शब्दों में इस प्रकार कहा जा सकता है कि मैं साधक नहीं वरन् उसमें स्थित आत्मज्ञान की प्रखर जिज्ञासा हूँ।अब तक के उपदेश तथा दृष्टान्तों का क्या यह अर्थ हुआ कि आत्मा वास्तव में अनात्म जड़ उपाधियों के बन्धन में आ गया है परिच्छिन्न उपाधि अपरिच्छिन्न आत्मा को कैसे सीमित कर सकती है इसके उत्तर में भगवान् कहते हैं

'Seed' (Bija) means the subtle primordial cause. 'Strength' (Balam) is that which is devoid of desire and attachment, capable of sustaining all entities, and is of the nature of vigor. 'Desire' (Kama) is Will, which is of the nature of pure Consciousness alone, and has no contradiction with attributes (forms) like pots and cloths. For Will, following as the power of the omniscient Lord, is nowhere contradicted; whereas [ordinary desire] is differentiated by adventitious attributes like pots and cloths. Therefore, as worshippers of that [Divine Will], the nature of the wise is pure Consciousness. And it is said in the Shiva Upanishad: "When Will or Knowledge arises, one should fix the mind [therein]" (V 98)—meaning, indeed when it arises [internally], not when it has flowed outwards.

Those who, abandoning this explanation, interpret it with the intention that "one should pursue the aggregate of three goals (Trivarga: Dharma, Artha, Kama) without them harming each other," are ignorant of the sequence of the tradition; explaining the secret of the Lord [without knowing it], they are merely to be bowed to [from a distance].

Because the limit was not stated in "Earth..." (7.4), there might be an impression that "I am taste" etc. is also the section of Knowledge (Jnana). To refute that, he states the conclusion of that with "Idam" (This). The meaning is: By this much text, Knowledge has been described. Why is the section on Knowledge concluded here? To this he says "I am taste". Even in the absence of the word 'iti', the commencement of another topic indicates the conclusion. The idea is that since it propounds supernatural majesty, this is known to be the section of Vijnana (Realization).

By the logic stated in "Light/Source...", the explanation of "I am taste" etc. is also established. Because He is the cause of the existence, etc., of taste and the rest, and because He is the enjoyer, the Lord is 'Taste' etc. Objection: Is it accepted that the substrates (dharmin) like water are dependent on the Lord and enjoyable by Him, or not? If 'no', it contradicts the statement "I am [the origin] of the whole" (7.6). If the first (yes), then extracting the attributes (dharmas) like taste from the substrates (water etc.) is inappropriate. Therefore, he accepts the first view: "Water and the rest also". Even the substrates are dependent on Him alone and are indeed enjoyed by Him.

"Nevertheless" states the purpose for citing specific words regarding causality [of attributes]. Though substrates are dependent, it is proper to cite the attributes by extracting them from substrates. Why? "Taste etc."... He is the essence. Taste and the rest are their natures, i.e., intrinsic attributes of water, etc.; and "Taste-nature" means: of those essences which are superior among the attributes (like number, etc.) of water, etc., and of those taste, etc., which are the very nature of water, etc., and are superior among their attributes—this is the meaning. "In being nature"—of water etc. is implied. "In being essence"—among the attributes of water etc. is implied. "And in being Taste etc."—the word 'cha' means 'and'. He is the Lord alone. He shows what is to be excluded by "Particularly also" with the words "Na tu" (But not). "Anubaddha" means established by association/concomitance. "Tat-saratvadishcheti"—means His being the essence in the attributes of water etc., His being the nature of water etc., and His being the taste etc. Just as in the world, a weaver etc. is experienced as being active only regarding substances like cloth, but not separately active regarding the qualities like smell and taste of that [cloth] or regarding their attributes like smell-ness, but rather those [qualities] arise as concomitants of the birth of the cloth; the Lord is not like that. But rather, He is separately effortful regarding the attributes like taste in water etc., and regarding their attributes like nature-ness, and they are not merely existing as concomitants of the rules of water etc.; to show this, specific words are used.

Regarding the aspect of "Enjoyment" also, he states the purpose with "Bhogashcha". The Lord's enjoyment of taste etc. is superior even to the enjoyment of water etc.; He shows this with specific words—this is the connection. Indicating another meaning from the statement of non-difference like "I am taste", he states the purpose of using specific words there too with "And for meditation". "Particularly of taste etc." continues [from previous context]. By the force of meaning, "of taste etc." (genitive) is transformed into the locative case ("in taste etc."). Taste etc. are intended here as icons/images for the worship of the Supreme Lord. And the statement of non-difference regarding an icon is well-known. The status of water etc. as being the icon is equal (to taste), as per "He who standing in the water..." (Brihadaranyaka 3.7.4). So why take specific words? Answer: It is justifiable for the sake of worshipping the Lord in taste etc. specifically, rather than [just] in water etc.

He states the authority for the three meanings mentioned with "Uktam cha" (And it is said). The word "Tatha cha" is for mutual conjunction. The word "Eva" relates to "Ishwara". "Everywhere"—in water etc. The meaning is: The Lord is called the world consisting of taste etc. "Ap-adayah" means the presiding deities of water etc. "For the wise"—for those seeking knowledge. "Sampattyai"—for attainment. "Of others"—for those seeking taste. Although "Ap-adayah" (4 syllables) and "Rasadi" (3 syllables) [in the cited verse quarters] have seven and nine syllables [irregular meter], there is no fault because of the statement "Meters do not deviate by one syllable" (Aitareya Brahmana 1.6). Since the dependence of 'nature' on the Lord is supernatural, he recites other sentences regarding that: "Svabhava", etc.

Let it be that attributes are cited by extracting them from substrates; but why are adjectives of the attributes cited? To this he says "Dharma..." etc. By the word 'adi', "Pure fragrance" is included. The Lord is to be worshipped only in desires etc. which are qualified [by Dharma], not in impure ones opposed to Dharma; to make this known, adjectives like "unopposed to Dharma" are used for attributes like Desire. He states the authority here with "Uktam va" (Or it is said). "Kamam"—the goal of human life. "Kama-ragadeh"—by desire and attachment etc. "Anicchadbhish"—by those not desiring [desire etc.]. He states another purpose for using the adjective for 'Fragrance' with "Punyah". The Lord's enjoyment is only of pure fragrance, not of bad odor; to make this known, the adjective is used here. Objection: Does the Lord experience bad odor or not? If 'no', there is lack of omniscience. If 'first' (yes), how is 'non-enjoyment' stated? Answer: The idea is that bad odors etc., though experienced, do not become causes of fruit [pain/negative effect] for Him. Sweet fragrance, however, is the cause of happiness, as has been explained.

He states the authority that only 'pure' things are enjoyable to the Lord with "Tatha hi". "Amum"—the worshipper. Why? Because of his being a Deva. Even so, why? "Na ha vai"—When the rule is that even a mere Deva enjoys only merit (punya), it is all the more established for the Highest of Devas. How is the Shruti "Ritam..." (Katha 3.1) useful in the present context? To this he says "Ritam cha". Why? Because it states the general and the specific—"Ritam" etc. "Prayogagah"—born of speech. And thus, the idea is that the word 'Rita' in the Shruti is indicative of the fruit of merit.

This explanation would hold if the Lord's enjoyment of objects were logical? But it is not so; accepting it would contradict Shruti etc. "Drinking the Rita" is used metaphorically by the 'Chatri-nyaya' (Logic of the Men with Umbrellas)? To this he says "Na cha" (And not). Why not? He says "Sthula" etc. The idea is that Shruti etc. state the non-enjoyment of the gross object which is enjoyable by the Jiva, and accept subtle enjoyment. This arrangement holds when 'subtle eating' is established. Why is that so? He says "Aha cha" (And it has been said). The enjoyment is of the 'essence part' in fragrance etc. which is beyond the range of the Jiva's senses. The Supreme Lord has an enjoyment that is excessively distinct from [that of] this bodily self (Jiva). In incarnations, He eats gross [food] also, hence the word "Iva" (as if).

Objection: This "eater of subtle food" is the Jiva indeed? He says "Na cha" (And not). Meaning: It is not logical for the Jiva to have food distinct from the Jiva [itself]. Objection: "From the bodily self" means from the Jiva in the waking state; "He" (the same Jiva) in the dream and deep sleep states is the eater of subtle food; thus I will explain it by accepting the difference of Jiva based on the limiting adjunct of states? He says "Svapnadishcha" etc. Dream and deep sleep are the bodily self (sharira) indeed, not only the waking state; and thus, since the one in all three states is grasped by the word 'sharira', there is no difference of dream and deep sleep from it. How is the one with three states 'sharira'? He says "Sharirastu". Because of being situated in waking etc. states. Let the Sharira be possessed of three states; still, by the adjective "Asmat" (from this), the waking state Sharira is grasped here, and the statement of difference of the dream-state one from that is possible in the said manner? (Answer): In your view also, if the Jiva is established by "from the Sharira", the adjective "Asmat" would be useless. So he says "Asmat", etc. It is not that to make this adjective meaningful, the Jiva is to be grasped here by "from the Sharira" excluding Ishwara; because if only "from the Sharira" were said, Ishwara also would be obtained [as a meaning], and the difference of Ishwara from Ishwara would be illogical. To exclude Him and to grasp the Jiva alone, the adjective is used; thus meaningfulness is established. This would be so if Ishwara also had 'Sharira-hood'? How is that? He says "Sharirau" (Two Shariras), etc.

Objection: If it is logical in both views, what is the determining factor (vinigamana) that Ishwara alone is spoken of here and not the Jiva? He says "Bheda" etc. 'Cha' implies the reason. Because of the Shruti of difference; when another recourse, i.e., a natural difference, is possible, a difference of Person (Purusha) alone must be grasped as the meaning, not a difference based on states. Because between primary and non-primary, understanding should be of the primary; hence the determination is proper. Not only is this arrangement obtained by logic, but it is also established by scripture; he says "Aha cha". "Non-enjoyer" and "Enjoyer"—these two are connected in reverse order. Since it was said "The Self situated in all beings..." (6.29), how is "But I am not in them" (7.12) said? He says "Na tvaham" etc. "Non-dependence on them" means absence of existence by depending on them. How is this? He says "Uktam cha". 'Cha' means not only because of the contradiction with the liberated state (but also due to the Gita Kalpa text).

'Kama' (Desire) is a specific modification of the mind taking the form "Let the unobtained object be obtained, even in the absence of the cause for its attainment." 'Raga' (Attachment) is a specific modification of the mind, of the nature of coloring/passion, taking the form "Let the obtained object not diminish, even when the cause for diminution exists." I am the 'strength' of the strong which is specifically devoid of those two—meaning, completely free from Rajas and Tamas of that form—which is the Sattvic capability to sustain the body, senses, etc., for the performance of one's own duty (Svadharma); [I am that strength] of those endowed with such Sattvic strength who are turned away from worldly existence.

The meaning is that the strong are woven in Me of that form. The word 'cha' (and) has the meaning of 'tu' (but/indeed) and has a changed syntax order (meaning it should be read as "and devoid of desire..."). The strength devoid of desire and attachment alone is to be meditated upon as My form, not the strength of worldly people which is the cause of desire and attachment; this is the meaning.

Or, the word 'Raga' should be explained as having the meaning of Anger.

'Dharma' means the scripture on Dharma; 'unopposed' to that means not prohibited or favorable to Dharma; the 'Kama' in beings, i.e., the longing for objects like wife, sons, wealth, etc., permitted by scripture, is Me.

O Bull of Bharatas, the meaning is that beings possessing such desire are woven in Me who am the Desire not opposed to scripture.

Moreover, of the strong—meaning those possessing the characteristic of subduing Me—I am the 'Strength', i.e., the characteristic of subduing/controlling. By the letter 'cha' (and), [I am] also of that form.

What kind of strength? Devoid of 'Kama' and 'Raga'; when I am subdued, [it implies] the abandonment of one's own desire and self-gratification, but rather having the feeling of desire for Me, etc.

Similarly, O Bull of Bharatas, in beings born in good families and worthy of the sentiment of desire, I am the 'Kama' (Desire) not opposed to Dharma, i.e., not contrary to righteousness.

Here, the idea is this: Worldly desire is indeed opposed to Dharma, because this 'Rasa' (sentiment of worldly lust) becomes manifest indeed in one not married to oneself (illicitly), which is opposed to all Dharma. But the Alaukika (supernatural/divine) desire is of the nature of Rasa (Divine Bliss) and is Dharma itself; this is the purport.

I am the 'strength', the capability, the vigor of the strong. And that strength is devoid of 'Kama' (desire) and 'Raga' (attachment). 'Kama' and 'Raga'—Kama is the thirst for objects that are not present [unobtained]; Raga is the coloring [attachment/passion] regarding objects that are obtained. I am that strength—the Sattva—devoid of those two, Kama and Raga, which is for the mere purpose of maintaining the body, etc.; but not that [strength] which is the cause of the thirst and attachment of worldly people.

Moreover, 'Unopposed to Dharma'—the desire in living beings which is not opposed to Dharma, i.e., to the meaning of the scriptures—such as that regarding objects like food and drink for the mere purpose of maintaining the body, etc.—I am that desire, O Bull of the Bharatas.

"Strength"—this is of the nature of the power of action; yet it is not of the nature of impulsive activity [driven by desire], so He says "devoid of desire and attachment."

Similarly, I am "Desire"; and since that [desire] is generally opposed to Dharma in the world, to exclude that [unrighteous desire], He says "unopposed to Dharma."

These seven-seven distinctions of pairs have been described.

बलम् strength? बलवताम् of the strong? अस्मि am (I)? कामरागविवर्जितम् devoid of desire and attachment? धर्माविरुद्धः unopposed to Dharma? भूतेषु in beings? कामः desire? अस्मि am (I)? भरतर्षभ O Lord of the Bharatas.Commentary Kama Desire for those objects that come in contact with the senses.Raga attachment for those objects that come in contact with the senses.I am that strength which is necessary for the bare sustenance of the body. I am not the strength which generates desire and attachment for sensual objects as in the case of worldlyminded persons. I am the desire which is in accordance with the teachings of the scriptures or the code prescribing the duties of life. I am the desire for moderate eating and drinking? etc.? which are,necessary for the sustenance of the body and which help one in the practice of Yoga.

I am the balam, strength, ability, virility; balavatam, of the strong. That strength, again, is kama-raga-vivarjitam, devoid of passion and attachment. Kamah is passion, hankering for things not at hand. Ragah is attachment, fondness for things acired. I am the strength that is devoid of them and is necessary merely for the maintenance of the body etc., but not that strength of the worldly which causes hankering and attachment.
Further, bhutesu, among creatures; I am that kamah, desire-such desires as for eating, drinking, etc. which are for the mere maintenance of the body and so on; which is dharma-aviruddhah, not contrary to righteousness, not opposed to scriptural injunctions; bharatarsabha, O scion of the Bharata dynasty.
Moreover,

All these entities with their peculiar characteristic are born from Me alone. They depend on Me; inasmuch as they constitute My body, they exist in Me alone. Thus I alone exist while all of them are only My modes.