Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 7 - Shloka (Verse) 12

व्याख्या--'ये चैव सात्त्विका भावा राजसास्तामसाश्च ये'--ये जो सात्त्विक, राजस और तामस भाव (गुण, पदार्थ क्रिया) हैं, वे भी मेरेसे ही उत्पन्न होते हैं। इसका तात्पर्य यह हुआ कि सृष्टिमात्रमें जो कुछ हो रहा है, मूलमें सबका आश्रय, आधार और प्रकाशक भगवान् ही हैं अर्थात् सब भगवान्से ही सत्ता-स्फूर्ति पाते हैं।सात्त्विक, राजस और तामस भाव भगवान्से ही होते हैं, इसलिये इनमें जो कुछ विलक्षणता दीखती है, वह सब भगवान्की ही है; अतः मनुष्यकी दृष्टि भगवान्की तरफ ही जानी चाहिये, सात्त्विक आदि भावोंकी तरफ नहीं। यदि उसकी दृष्टि भगवान्की तरफ जायगी तो वह मुक्त हो जायगा और यदि उसकी दृष्टि सात्त्विक आदि भावोंकी तरफ जायगी तो वह बँध जायगा।सात्त्विक, राजस और तामस--इन भावोंके (गुण, पदार्थ और क्रियामात्रके) अतिरिक्त कोई भाव है ही नहीं। ये सभी भगवत्स्वरूप ही हैं। यहाँ शङ्का होती है कि अगर ये सभी भगवत्स्वरूप ही हैं तो हमलोग जो कुछ करें, वह सब भगवत्स्वरूप ही होगा, फिर ऐसा करना चाहिये और ऐसा नहीं करना चाहिये--यह विधि-निषेध कहाँ रहा? इसका समाधान यह है कि मनुष्यमात्र सुख चाहता है, दुःख नहीं चाहता। अनुकूल परिस्थिति विहित-कर्मोंका फल है और प्रतिकूल परिस्थिति निषिद्ध-कर्मोंका फल है। इसलिये कहा जाता है कि विहित-कर्म करो और निषिद्ध-कर्म मत करो। अगर निषिद्धको भगवत्स्वरूप मानकर करोगे तो भगवान् दुःखों और नरकोंके रूपमें प्रकट होंगे। जो अशुभ कर्मोंकी उपासना करता है, उसके सामने भगवान् अशुभ-रूपसे ही प्रकट होते हैं; क्योंकि दुःख और नरक भी तो भगवान्के ही स्वरूप हैं।जहाँ करने और न करनेकी बात होती है, वहीं विधि और निषेध लागू होता है। अतः वहाँ विहित ही करना चाहिये, निषिद्ध नहीं करना चाहिये। परंतु जहाँ मानने और जाननेकी बात होती है, वहाँ परमात्माको ही 'मानना' चाहिये और अपनेको अथवा संसारको 'जानना' चाहिये।जहाँ माननेकी बात है, वहाँ परमात्माको ही मानकर उनके मिलनेकी उत्कण्ठा बढ़ानी चाहिये। उनको प्राप्त और प्रसन्न करनेके लिये उनकी आज्ञाका पालन करना चाहिये तथा उनकी आज्ञा और सिद्धान्तोंके विरुद्ध कार्य नहीं करना चाहिये। भगवान्की आज्ञाके विरुद्ध कार्य करेंगे तो उनको प्रसन्नता कैसे होगी? और विरुद्ध कार्य करनेवालेको उनकी प्राप्ति कैसे होगी? जैसे, किसी मनुष्यके मनके विरुद्ध काम करनेसे वह राजी कैसेहोगा और प्रेमसे कैसे मिलेगा? जहाँ जाननेकी बात है, वहाँ संसारको जानना चाहिये। जो उत्पत्ति-विनाशशील है, सदा साथ रहनेवाला नहीं है, वह अपना नहीं है और अपने लिये भी नहीं है--ऐसा जानकर उससे सम्बन्ध-विच्छेद करना चाहिये। उसमें कामना, ममता, आसक्ति नहीं करनी चाहिये। उसका महत्त्व हृदयसे उठा देना चाहिये। इससे सत्त-त्त्व प्रत्यक्ष हो जायगा और जानना पूर्ण हो जायगा। असत् (नाशवान्) वस्तु हमारे साथ रहनेवाली नहीं है--ऐसा समझनेपर भी अगर समय-समयपर उसको महत्त्व देते रहेंगे तो वास्तविकता (सत्-वस्तु) की प्राप्ति नहीं होगी।

तथा जो सात्त्विक सत्त्वगुणसे उत्पन्न हुए भाव पदार्थ हैं और जो राजस रजोगुणसे उत्पन्न हुए एवं तामस तमोगुणसे उत्पन्न हुए भाव पदार्थ हैं उन सबको अर्थात् प्राणियोंके अपने कर्मानुसार ये जो कुछ भी भाव उत्पन्न होते हैं उन सबको तू मुझसे ही उत्पन्न हुए जान। यद्यपि वे मुझसे उत्पन्न होते हैं तथापि मैं उनमें नहीं हूँ अर्थात् संसारी मनुष्योंकी भाँति मैं उनके वशमें नहीं हूँ परंतु वे मुझमें हैं यानी मेरे वशमें हैं मेरे अधीन हैं।

Since the states that manifest Consciousness and Bliss have been described as being of the nature of Ishwara, and lest it be understood that others are not of His nature, it is said "Moreover," etc.

Showing the cause regarding the threefold nature of living beings, he states the meaning of the sentence with "Whatever," etc.

(Objection): Then, just as a son is dependent on the father because he is born from you [the parent], and [conversely] you might also be dependent on them, there would arise the contingency of You being subject to modification and defects? Anticipating this doubt, He says "Although," etc. (Reply): Because I am the Supreme Reality and they are superimposed (imagined), their qualities and defects cannot exist in Me; this is the meaning.

(Objection): Since independence is possible in them just like [in Ishwara], why are they called 'superimposed'? Anticipating this, He says "But they," etc. The three types of states do not have independence because, being effects of Ishwara, they are dependent on Him; and, since the existence and perception of a superimposed object occur only through the substratum, and they possess that [nature of depending on the substratum], it is established that they are nothing but That [Ishwara]; this is the meaning.

Moreover, whatever 'Sattvika'—born of Sattva—'bhavas' (entities) are there; and 'Rajasa'—born of Rajas; and 'Tamasa'—born of Tamas—which are born for living beings due to the force of their own karma; know them all as born "from Me alone."

(Objection) "Then, like transmigratory beings (Samsaris), You would also be subject to them; and thus, due to possessing modification, the contingency of being defective would apply to You too?" Anticipating this, He says "But I am not in them." Although they are born from Me, still I do not become subject to them like Samsaris.

(Objection) "Now, are they (Gunas) also independent?" (Answer) "No"—He says "They are in Me," meaning under My control. Because they are imagined in Me, they have their existence and manifestation dependent on Me; this is the meaning.

And thus, for Me, the Substratum, there is no contact with imagined qualities and defects; and for the imagined, there is dependence on Me for existence and manifestation; this is the purport.

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."

Sattvika states are dharma (righteousness), knowledge, detachment, lordship, etc.; Rajasic states are greed, activity, etc.; Tamasic states are sleep, laziness, etc. Know them all to have emerged from Me alone, that is, from the Sutratman (Cosmic Thread Self) in the form of the subtle elements (tanmatras) like taste.

(Objection): If it is so, since You are the Self of the entire world, the contingency of being mutable (vikari) arises, leading to the loss of Your immutability (kutastha-nature)? Anticipating this doubt, He says: "But I am not in them; they are in Me."

In those [elements] like water etc. which are woven [in Me], and in those taste etc. which are parts of the Sutra and are of the nature of falsehood (anrita) and inertness, I—who am of the nature of unobstructed Pure Consciousness—am not present in the way clay is present in a pot, a plate, or a cup. I grant existence (satta) and manifestation (sphurana) to this unreal [world] which is My own, but I do not become of the nature of the unreal; this is the meaning.

But they are superimposed (adhyasta) on Me alone, being non-different (ananya) from Me; just as snakes etc. superimposed on a rope are non-different from the rope. This is based on the logic of "Non-difference from It, on account of words like 'arambhana' (origin/undertaking)" (Brahma Sutra 2.1.14). 'Non-difference' means absence [of the effect] in separation [from the cause]. We do not indeed say that 'non-difference' means absolute identity, but we negate difference. Why? Because of the scriptural word 'Arambhana'—"Modification is a distinct entity only in name, having speech as its support" (Chandogya Upanishad 6.1.4)—since modification has speech as its support, and because of scriptural texts stating the similarity [of the world] to objects in a dream, illusion (Maya), or jugglery.

For if the Self were truly of the nature of the diverse universe, then even though the part "they are in Me" would not be contradictory, the resolution of the contradiction in the part "But I am not in them" would not be logical. Because it is inevitable for the effect to be of the nature of the cause. Therefore, only by resorting to the doctrine of Vivartavada (Apparent Transformation/Illusion) can Brahman's status as the material cause of the world and His immutability be maintained; hence "But I am not in them; they are in Me" is well said.

What is being said specifically? The Sattvika, Rajasic, and Tamasic states—whatever entities exist in the world as objects of enjoyment, as bodies, as senses, and as their respective causes—know all of them to be born from Me alone, and that they are established in Me alone as My body.

"But I am not in them"—I am never one whose existence depends on them. Elsewhere [in ordinary worldly life], even though the existence of the body depends on the soul, there exists a benefit to the soul from the body regarding the soul's existence [and experience]. But for Me, there is no such benefit from them whatsoever. The meaning is that Sport (Lila) alone is the purpose.

Moreover—"And whatever" (Ye cha), etc. Whatever other Sattvika states there are—such as calmness (shama) and self-control (dama); and Rajasic states—such as hatred and pride; and Tamasic states—such as grief and delusion; which arise in living beings due to the force of their own karma—know them all to be born from Me alone. Because they are the effects of the three Gunas (modes) of My Prakriti (Nature).

Even so, I do not dwell in them. The meaning is: I do not become dependent on them like a Jiva (living being).

But they, being dependent on Me, exist in Me; this is the meaning.

That "I am taste" (7.8), etc., were illustrative, and that "And whatever" (Ye cha) is the conclusion/summary of that, is shown by "What specifically," etc. By saying "as their respective causes," the aggregate state (Samashti/Cosmic level) is also included.

And this division of body, etc., is intended by the word "Ye" (which/whatever) which restates the modes as they are experienced. Being Sattvika, etc., is connected to each of the bodies, etc.

Moreover—Extreme joy, affection, bliss, happiness, tranquility of mind, etc., are Sattvika states. Dissatisfaction, distress, anger, delusion, and [inappropriate] forgiveness, etc., are Rajasic. Non-discrimination, delusion, negligence, dream, drowsiness, etc., are Tamasic. These have been elaborated elsewhere; here they are implied.

By the emphasis "From Me alone" (Matta eva), the identity of the efficient and material cause is established; and the rejection of [the need for] multiple appropriate causes for the variety based on the power of Sattvika nature, etc., is accomplished.

To show that by the locative case ("in Me"), dependence on Him in the form of "being His body"—which implies control based on the grammatical equation with the Cause—is intended, it is said "Established in Me alone as My body."

Regarding "But I am not in them," to remove the delusion that His all-pervasiveness is being rejected, he says "Not I," etc.

(Objection): Why is something not applicable being negated? Anticipating this, he says "Elsewhere" (Anyatra). The word 'tu' (but) here is for removing the doubt.

If all assistance [from them] is negated, then creating them would be useless? To avoid this, he says "of that kind" (tathavidha - i.e., assistance for existence). The intended other benefit (Lila/Sport) is shown through the fullness implied by the word "Aham" (I), by saying "Kevalam" (Only/Mere).

मुझमें सम्पूर्ण जगत् पिरोया हुआ है जैसे सूत्र में मणियाँ अपने इस कथन के साथ प्रारम्भ किये गये प्रकरण का उपसंहार भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण इस श्लोक में करते हैं।हमें जगत् में ज्ञान क्रिया और जड़त्व इन तीनों का अनुभव होता है। इन्हें ही क्रमश सत्त्व रज और तमोगुण का कार्य कहा जाता है। वेदान्त में जिसे माया कहा गया है वह इन तीनों गुणों का संयुक्त रूप है जिसके अधीन प्राणियों की प्रवृत्तियाँ भिन्नभिन्न प्रकार की दिखाई देती हैं। मनुष्य की भावनाएं और विचार इन गुणों से प्रभावित होते हैं जिनके अनुसार ही मनुष्य अपने शरीर मन और बुद्धि से कार्य करता है।उपर्युक्त विवेचन को ध्यान में रखकर इस श्लोक के अध्ययन से यह अर्थ स्पष्ट होता है कि इन तीन गुणों से उत्पन्न जो कोई भी वस्तु प्राणी या स्थिति है वह सब आत्मा से (मुझ से) उत्पन्न होती है। पूर्व वर्णित सिद्धांत को ही यहाँ शास्त्रीय भाषा में दोहराया गया है। पारमार्थिक सत्यस्वरूप चैतन्य आत्मा पर अपरा प्रकृति का अध्यास हुआ है यह कोई वास्तविकता नहीं। त्रिगुणजनित भावों की सत्य से उत्पत्ति उसी प्रकार की है जैसे मिट्टी से घट समुद्र से तरंग और स्वर्ण से आभूषण की।इस श्लोक का सुन्दर अन्तिम वाक्य एक पहेली के समान है। इस प्रकार का लेखन हिन्दू दार्शनिकों की विशेषता है जो अध्ययनकर्ता को सहज ही अपनी ओर आकर्षित करती है। ऐसे कथन विद्यार्थी को और अधिक सूक्ष्म और गहन विचार करने के लिए और उसका वास्तविक अभिप्राय समझने के लिए आमन्त्रित करते हैं। मैं उनमें नहीं हूँ वे मुझमें हैं।केवल वाच्यार्थ की दृष्टि से उपर्युक्त कथन त्रुटिपूर्ण ही समझा जायेगा क्योंकि यदि क ख में नहीं है तो ख क में कैसे हो सकता है यदि मैं उनमें नहीं हूँ तो वे भी मुझमें नहीं हो सकते। परन्तु भगवान का कथन है मैं उनमें नहीं हूँ वे मुझमें हैं। इस सुन्दर एवं मधुर विरोधाभास से यह स्पष्ट हो जाता है कि पुरुष और प्रकृति का संबंध कारण और कार्य का नहीं बल्कि अधिष्ठान और अध्यस्त का है। पुरुष पर प्रकृति का आभास अध्यास के कारण होता है। खंभे में यदि प्रेत का आभास हो तो यही कहा जायेगा कि प्रेत खंभे में है परन्तु खंभा प्रेत में नहीं।श्री शंकराचार्य इस वाक्य का अर्थ स्पष्ट करते हुए लिखते हैं मैं उनमें नहीं हूँ का अर्थ है मैं उन पर आश्रित नहीं हूँ जब कि उनका अस्तित्व मुझ पर आश्रित है। जैसे जल का अस्तित्व तरंग पर आश्रित नहीं है किन्तु तरंग जल पर आश्रित होती है। तरंग के होने से जल को किसी प्रकार का दोष या बन्धन नहीं प्राप्त होता। उसी प्रकार जड़ प्रकृति का अस्तित्व चेतन पुरुष के कारण सिद्ध होता है परन्तु पुरुष सब परिच्छेदों से सदा मुक्त ही रहता है।अगले श्लोक में भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण खेद व्यक्त करते हुए कहते हैं कि जगत् के लोग उनके वास्तविक नित्यमुक्त स्वरूप को नहीं जानते हैं। लोगों के इस अज्ञान का क्या कारण है सुनो

And whatever (Ye cha), etc. By the three, etc. Sattva and other states are 'manmaya' (constituted of Me), but I am not 'tanmaya' (constituted of them).

And therefore, he who experiences everything with the feeling that it is full of God (Bhagavan-maya) [realizes the Truth], but not the one who is intent on the specific knowledge of various distinct objects attains the Divine Principle; this is the sequence that captivates all minds.

With this very intent, it will be said later: "Vasudeva is all" (7.19). He whose inner instrument (mind/heart) is graced by the descent of Supreme Power (Shaktipata) which arises immediately after the equalization of karma (karma-samata) generated by enjoyment over many births—he attains the Divine Principle with the understanding "Vasudeva is all"; that great soul is rare.

Indeed, not understanding in this way, and on the contrary being deluded by the Gunas like Sattva, this world does not perceive the Principle of Vasudeva which transcends the Gunas.

Moreover, "And whatever," etc.
And those states which are indeed 'Sattvika'—such as horripilation, etc.,
arisen from seeing things related to Me;
and those which are 'Rajasic' in nature,
such as distractions, etc.;
and indeed those which are 'Tamasic'—such as fainting, dizziness, etc.,
upon remembering the nature of separation [from Me]—all of them indeed.
"Iti"—in this manner,
know them to be from Me alone.
"I am not in them"—I do not become manifest in that mode through their power,
but they become manifest in Me;
this is the meaning.
Here the idea is this:
These Gunas have been manifested by Me for the sake of Rasa (Divine relish).
For the fruition of My attributes which are of the nature of intrinsic Rasa, they (the Gunas),
having Rasa awakened in themselves through connection with Me, perform service;
thus "they are in Me".
But I do not become possessed of Rasa [dependent on them] like a Jiva when they are produced;
this is the purport.

What is the need for such enumeration? Whatever other states (bhavas)—modifications of the mind—are Sattvika (like calmness, self-control, etc.), and those which are Rajasic (joy, pride, etc.), and those which are Tamasic (grief, delusion, etc.), which arise in living beings due to the force of ignorance (avidya) and karma, etc.—know all of them to be born from Me alone, in the manner stated in "I am the origin of the whole world" (7.6).

Or, "Sattvika, Rajasic and Tamasic states" should be interpreted as the entire class of inert matter, since there is no specific reason [to limit the meaning]. The word 'Eva' (alone/indeed) is to emphasize the totality.

Even so, "But I am not in them"—although they are born from Me, I am not under their control nor tainted by their modifications; just as a piece of rope is not tainted by the modifications of the snake imagined [on it]; I am not like a transmigrating soul (Samsari). "But they are in Me"—like snakes, etc., imagined on a rope, their existence and manifestation depend on Me; they are dependent on Me; this is the meaning.

Moreover, "And whatever," etc. And those states which are indeed 'Sattvika'—such as horripilation, etc., arisen from seeing things related to Me; and those which are 'Rajasic' in nature, such as distractions, etc.; and indeed those which are 'Tamasic'—such as fainting, dizziness, etc., upon remembering the nature of separation [from Me]—all of them indeed. "Iti"—in this manner, know them to be from Me alone. "I am not in them"—I do not become manifest in that mode through their power, but they become manifest in Me; this is the meaning.

Here the idea is this: These Gunas have been manifested by Me for the sake of Rasa (Divine relish). For the fruition of My attributes which are of the nature of intrinsic Rasa, they (the Gunas), having Rasa awakened in themselves through connection with Me, perform service; thus "they are in Me". But I do not become possessed of Rasa [dependent on them] like a Jiva when they are produced; this is the purport.

And whatever 'Sattvika' states—entities evolved from Sattva—and 'Rajasic' ones evolved from Rajas, and 'Tamasic' ones evolved from Tamas; whatever states arise in living beings due to the force of their own karma; know them all, the entirety of them, to be originating from Me alone. Although they originate from Me, still "I am not in them"—meaning, [I am not] dependent on them nor under their control, unlike transmigrating beings (Samsarins). "But they are in Me"—they are under My control, dependent on Me.

(Transition): The Lord shows compassion [thinking]: "The world does not recognize Me, the Supreme Lord of such nature—who is eternally pure, aware, and liberated by nature, the Self of all beings, devoid of attributes (Gunas), and the cause of burning away the seed of the defect of Samsara." And what is the cause of this ignorance of the world? That is being stated [in the next verse].

The Lord clarifies what was stated earlier, "There is nothing higher than Me," with this one verse—"And whatever," etc. Even these material (Prakrita) entities are from Me alone, because they are the effects of the Gunas of My existing Prakriti. And I possess the principal agency (Kartritva) by virtue of being the cause of Prakriti, etc., because I possess immediate knowledge regarding the material cause, the desire to create, and the volitional effort.

Even so, "I am not in them"—meaning, I do not become dependent on them like a Jiva. The word "not" (na) is connected here [to the next phrase] also. [Meaning:] Even they are not in Me, but rather they exist only in the Prakriti appropriated by Me. The meaning is that I am indeed their Creator in the root form.

Or, "They are in Me" is said because, indirectly (through the sequence of causes), they are sheltered in Me.

ये whatever? च and? एव even? सात्त्विकाः pure? भावाः natures? राजसाः active? तामसाः inert? च and? ये whatever? मत्तः from Me? एव even? इति thus? तान् them? विद्धि know? न not? तु indeed? अहम् I? तेषु in them? ते they? मयि in Me.Commentary This is a world of the three Gunas? viz.? Sattva (purity)? Rajas (passion) and Tamas (inertia). All sentient and insentient objects are the aggregate of these three alities of Nature. One ality predominates in them and the predominant ality imparts to the object its distinctive character or definite properties.In the gods? sages milk and green gram? Sattva is predominant. In Gandharvas (a class of celestials)? kings? warriors and chillies? Rajas is predominant. In demons? Sudras? garlic? onion and meat? Tamas is predominant.Though these beings and objects proceed from Me? I am not in them they are in Me. I am independent. I am the support for them they depend on Me just as the superimposed snake depends on the rope. The snake is in the rope? but the rope is never in the snake. The waves belong to the ocean but the ocean does not belong to the waves. (Cf.IX.4and6)

Ye bhavah, those things; sattvikah eva, that indeed are made of (the ality of) sattva; and ye rajasah, those that are made (of the ality) of rajas; and tamasah, those that are made of (the ality of) tamas-whatever things are made (of sattva, rajas and tamas) according to the creatures's own actions: viddhi, know; tan, them, all without exception; mattah eva iti, to have sprung from Me alone when they come into being. Although they originate from Me, still, tu, however; aham, I; am na tesu, not in them-I am not subject to them, not under their control, as are the transmigrating bengs. Te, they, again; mayi, are in Me, subject to Me, under My control. [For sattva, rajas, and tamas see note under 2.45 as also Chapters 14, 17 and 18.-Tr.]
'The world does not know Me, the supreme Lord, even though I am of this kind, and am eternal, pure, intelligent and free by nature, [See note on p.4.-Tr.] the Self of all beings, free from all alities, the cause of burning away the seed of the evil of transmigration!'-in this way the Lord expresses regret. And what is the source of that ignorance in the world? That is being stated:

Why should this be declared with particular illustrations? The reason is as follows: Whatever entities exist in the world partaking of the alities of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas in the forms of bodies, senses, objects of enjoyment and their causes - know them all to have originated from Me alone, and they abide in Me alone, as they constitute My body. 'But I am not in them.' That is, I do not depend for My existence on them at any time. In the case of other beings, though the body depends for its existence on the self, the body serves some purpose of the self in the matter of Its sustenance. To Me, however, there is no purpose at all of that kind served by them constituting My body. The meaning is that they merely serve the purpose of My sport.