Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 7 - Shloka (Verse) 9

व्याख्या--'पुण्यो गन्धः पृथिव्याम्'--पृथ्वी गन्ध-तन्मात्रासे उत्पन्न होती है, गन्ध-तन्मात्रारूपसे रहती है और गन्ध-तन्मात्रामें ही लीन होती है। तात्पर्य है कि गन्धके बिना पृथ्वी कुछ नहीं है। भगवान् कहते हैं कि पृथ्वीमें वह पवित्र गन्ध मैं हूँ।यहाँ गन्धके साथ पुण्यः'विशेषण देनेका तात्पर्य है कि गन्धमात्र पृथ्वीमें रहती है। उसमें पुण्य अर्थात् पवित्र गन्ध तो पृथ्वीमें स्वाभाविक रहती है, पर दुर्गन्ध किसी विकृतिसे प्रकट होती है।

पृथिवीमें मैं पवित्र गन्ध सुगन्ध हूँ अर्थात् उस सुगन्धरूप मुझ ईश्वरमें पृथिवी पिरोयी हुई है। जल आदिमें रस आदिकी पवित्रताका लक्ष्य करानेके लिये यहाँ गन्धकी स्वाभाविक पवित्रता ही पृथिवीमें दिखलायी गयी है। गन्धरस आदिमें जो अपवित्रता आ जाती है वह तो सांसारिक पुरुषोंके अज्ञान और अधर्म आदिकी अपेक्षासे एवं भूतविशेषोंके संसर्गसे है ( वह स्वाभाविक नहीं है )। मैं अग्निमें प्रकाश हूँ तथा सब प्राणियोंमें जीवन हूँ अर्थात् जिससे सब प्राणी जीते हैं वह जीवन मैं हूँ और तपस्वियोंमें तप मैं हूँ अर्थात् उस तपरूप मुझ परमात्मामें ( सब ) तपस्वी पिरोये हुए हैं।

He gives another mode to specify the extent (parimāṇārtha) of 'All this is strung in Me': 'Puṇya iti' (Pure). The sweet fragrance (surabhigandhaḥ) referred to as 'pure' on earth, that is I. He states the meaning of the sentence here: 'Tasmin iti' (In that). How is the fragrance on earth pure? To this, He says: 'Puṇyatvam iti' (Purity).

The inherent purity of fragrance on earth is meant to be an indication (upalakṣaṇārtham) for the inherent purity of taste, etc., in water, etc., as well. The sense is that the five qualities (sound, touch, form, taste, fragrance) produced first are indeed pure, as they are enjoyable only by the Siddhas (perfected beings), etc.

Then how does the impurity (apuṇyatva) of fragrance, etc., appear? To this, He says: 'Apuṇyatvam tu iti' (Impurity, however). He clarifies this: 'Saṁsāriṇām iti' (For the worldly beings). The meaning is that fragrance, etc., transforming with their effects (earth, etc.), become impure due to the sins, etc., of the beings.

And the splendor (tejas) which belongs to fire; fire is strung in Me, who is that form, He says: 'Tejaḥ iti' (Splendor). And all beings are strung in Me, who is the form of life (jīvana), He says: 'Tathā iti' (Similarly). He states the meaning of the word 'jīvana': 'Yena iti' (By which). The meaning is by the essence of food (annarasena), which is called nectar (amṛta).

He states the intended meaning of 'Tapaś cāsmi' (And I am also austerity), etc.: 'Tasmin iti' (In that). Concentration of the mind (cittaikāgryam) or fasting (anāśikā) is austerity (tapas). The ascetics (tapasvinaḥ) are strung in the Lord who is the nature of that austerity (tadātmani īśvare). The meaning is that in the absence of the attribute (viśeṣaṇa), the qualified object (viśiṣṭasya vastunoḥ) is absent.

The sweet fragrance (surabhigandha) which is the essence of earth, and is the form of the subtle element of fragrance (gandha-tanmātra); the earth is strung in Me, who is that.

The purity (puṇyatva) of taste, etc., is from its inherent nature (svabhāvād eva), while the impurity (apuṇyatva) arises depending on ignorance, unrighteousness, etc., and is caused by the specific elements (bhūtaviśeṣa-nimittajam) of worldly beings.

The splendor (tejas) which is the essence of fire, and is the form of splendor (tejorūpa); Vibhāvasu (fire) is strung in Me, who is that.

Similarly, 'jīvana' (life), which is the essence of all beings, and is the form of longevity (āyu-rūpa) or the form of food (anna-rūpa); all beings are strung in Me, who is that form.

The ascetics (tapasvinaḥ) are strung in Me, who is the form of austerity (taporūpa), which is the essence of ascetics.

'Idaṁ jñānam' (This knowledge). The realization 'Raso’ham' (I am the taste), etc. Water, etc., are also from Him (the Supreme Self). Still, this (verse) shows that He alone is the regulator (niyamākaḥ) specifically in the matter of the nature and the essence (sāratva) of taste, etc., and the groups (sāgaṇāṁ), and that taste, etc., and their essentiality are not bound by the regulation of water, etc. This is shown by the specific words like 'apsu rasaḥ' (taste in waters), etc. And enjoyment (bhoga) is also specifically of the taste, etc., and it is also for the sake of worship (upāsanā).

It is also said in the Gītā Kalpa: 'He is the cause specifically in the matter of taste, etc., being taste, etc., their nature, and their essence in all qualities. And because He is the enjoyer of the essence everywhere, He is the Lord of the world. He is settled everywhere in the bodies of those who honor taste, etc. Water, etc., are like His attendants (pārṣadāḥ), and Hari is the object of meditation for the knowers (jñāninām). For others (common people), Vāsudeva is the Lord of the world through the richness of taste, etc.'

'Svabhāvo jīva eva ca' (Nature is the living being itself). 'Sarva-svabhāvo niyataḥ tenaiva kim utāparam' (The nature of all is regulated by Him alone, so what about others?) 'Na tad asti vinā yat syān mayā bhūtaṁ carācaram' (There is nothing moving or non-moving that exists without Me). 'Dharmāviruddhaḥ kāmaḥ' (Desire not contrary to Dharma), 'rāga-vivarjitam' (devoid of attachment), etc., are for the sake of worship. It is also said in the Gītā Kalpa: 'He is the object of worship for one who desires Dharma-consistent desire (kāma). He is the object of worship in the form of strength (bala) for one who desires strength devoid of desire and attachment (kāma-rāgādeḥ). And when meditated upon by those who do not desire (anything), He gives knowledge alone.'

'Puṇyo gandhaḥ' (Pure fragrance) is from the perspective of enjoyment. For there is also the Śruti: 'Puṇyam evāmuṁ gacchati na ha vai devān pāpaṁ gacchati' (Bṛ. U. 1.5.20) (Only merit goes to him; sin certainly does not go to the gods), 'Ṛtaṁ pibantau sukṛtasya loke' (Kaṭha U. 3.1) (Those two drink Ṛta in the world of good deeds). And Ṛta is merit, as it is stated: 'Ṛtam, truth, and Dharma, are also called Sukṛta (good deed).' And 'The Ṛta is the mental duty, truth is associated with speech/action.'

And there is no contradiction with Śrutis like 'Na ca anaśnan anyo abhicākaśīti' (Śv. U. 4.6; Muṇḍ. U. 3.1.1; Ṛk 2.3.17.5) (The other one, not eating, merely looks), because this (verse) refers to the non-eating of gross food. And (the Acharya) also speaks of subtle eating: 'Praviviktāhāratara ivai’va bhavati asmāt śārīrād ātmanaḥ' (He is as if a more refined eater than this embodied Self). And the living being (jīva) is not mentioned here, because a distinction is made by saying 'asmāt śārīrād ātmanaḥ' (than this embodied Self). Dream, etc., are also 'embodied' (śārīra), as it is said in the Garuḍa Purāṇa: 'The embodied one is threefold, due to its presence in the waking, etc., states.' The word 'asmāt' (this) is for the purpose of distinguishing the Lord. The Nāradīya Purāṇa also mentions a difference: 'The two embodied ones are to be known: the Jīva (soul) and the one designated Īśvara (Lord). One is bound from beginningless time, and the other is eternally free.' When there is another logical possibility, the difference in the person (puruṣa) should be assumed, not the difference in the state (avasthā). It is also said in the Gītā Kalpa: 'Because the Supreme Person (Purṣottama) eats subtle food (praviviktabhuk) than this embodied one, therefore He is both the non-enjoyer and the enjoyer due to the non-enjoyment of gross food.'

'Na tv ahaṁ teṣu' (But I am not in them) states the non-dependence (anādhāratva) of the world on Him. It is also said in the Gītā Kalpa: 'The entire world is dependent on Him, but He is not dependent on anything.'

'Puṇya iti' (Pure). This should be understood in taste, etc., as well. Because all that is impure (apuṇya) is merely a manifestation of ignorance (avidyāmātra-vilasitatvāt).

'Vibhāvasau' (In fire), 'tejaḥ' (splendor) is the power to burn (dahanśaktiḥ).

'Jīvanam' (Life) is food (annam), which is the sustenance of the Cosmic Being (virājam). For all beings are strung in that.

Others (commentators) interpret 'jīvanam' as longevity (āyu). 'Tapaś ca iti' (And also austerity). Austerity is Dharma (righteousness). Ascetics are strung in Me, who is that form (of austerity).

All these distinct entities (vilakṣaṇa bhāvāḥ) are originated from Me alone, are subordinate to Me (maccheṣabhūtāḥ), and are abiding in Me alone as My body.

Therefore, I alone am established as their mode (tatprakāraḥ).

Furthermore, 'Puṇya iti' (Pure). 'Puṇyaḥ' (Pure) means unmodified (avikṛta) fragrance (gandhaḥ). The meaning is that I am the subtle element of fragrance (gandha-tanmātraṁ), which is the support of the earth. Alternatively, since the intention is to convey support-hood (āśrayadhātva) in the form of a glory (vibhūti), and because sweet fragrance (surabhigandha) alone is the glory due to its excellence, 'puṇyo gandhaḥ' (pure fragrance) is stated.

Similarly, the splendor (tejas) which is innate brilliance (sahajā dīptiḥ) in Vibhāvasu (fire), that is I.

'Jīvanam' (Life) in all beings is longevity (āyuḥ) in the form of sustaining the vital breath (prāṇadhāraṇam), that is I.

The austerity (tapaḥ) in the form of endurance of dualities (dvandvasahanarūpaṁ) in ascetics like Vānaprasthas (forest hermits), that I am.

In this way, the meaning of the difference Śruti (bhedaśruti) was supported by 'Bhūmir āpaḥ' (7.4), etc., and 'Mayi sarvam' (7.7) is the meaning of the connecting Śruti (ghaṭakaśruti). Now, the meaning of the non-difference Śruti (abhedaśruti), established by both of these, is supported, with this intention He says: 'Ataḥ iti' (Therefore). Some (Acharyas) interpret 'Mayi sarvam idam' (All this in Me) as 'strung in Me, who is distinguished by qualities like taste, etc.,' and 'Raso’ham' (I am the taste) etc., is its elaboration. To refute this view, He says: 'Sarvasya paramapuruṣa-śarīratvena' (Because all is the body of the Supreme Person). The sense is that the opponent's view suffers from faults like the inversion of the container-contained relationship (ādhārādheya-bhāva vaiparītya).

The adoption of mode-hood (prakāratva) is to show that the final reference (paryavasāna) of mode-denoting words (prakāravāci-śabdānām) in the substance qualified by them (prakāriṇi) is natural, a point generally established even in words denoting genus and quality. 'Abhidhānam' (denotation) means primary signification (mukhyavṛttyā) by the word. Although words like taste, etc., are used in common parlance as distinguishers (niṣkarṣaka), and the taking of substances like water here occurs in a different substrate (vyadhikaraṇatā), one must accept that there is no distinguishing function here, because taste, etc., are modes (prakāra) of the substance which is the body of the Supreme Self, and the Supreme Self is the qualified substance (prakāri), and words like taste, etc., are used here in co-ordinate predication (sāmānādhikaraṇatā) with Him. The adoption of the substance, however, is to indicate that I am the mode of the principal taste, fragrance, etc., in those respective substances. And the fact that the modes of a substance have that substance as their qualified whole is used in scriptures like 'Kāṭhinyavān yo bibharti' (Vi. Pu. 1.14.28) (He who sustains by hardness), this is the idea.

Even though taste is present in earth, and other qualities like form exist in water, the specific mention 'Raso’ham apsu' (I am the taste in the waters) is because the transformation into water from the Tejas (light) element is dominated by taste not produced from the preceding elements. Elsewhere, the dependence of earth, etc., on fragrance, taste, etc., is stated by texts like 'Āttagandhā tadā bhūmiḥ pralayāyā kalpate' (Vi. Pu. 6.4.14) (Then the earth, having absorbed fragrance, becomes fit for dissolution). Similarly, in subsequent specific mentions of predominance, it should be explained appropriately.

'Prabhā' (Light) is a specific substance of light (tejas) that extends beyond its own substrate. Since the moon and sun are the cause of benefit to the world only through light, they are predominant in that. Praṇava (Om) is the predominant among all Vedas due to its being their seed (bījatva), etc. 'Pauruṣam' (Manhood) is the nature of man. According to some, it is that from which the intellect of man arises (puruṣa-buddhiḥ), and according to others, it is the seed (retas) that is the cause of the continuation of the lineage. Alternatively, 'pauruṣam' means capacity (sāmarthya), the power of agency (kartṛtvaśaktiḥ). By this, the agent (Self) is predominant over other means of action (kārakāntarebhyaḥ). 'Nṛṣu' (In men) means in the living beings (jīveṣu). Alternatively, 'pauruṣam' is manhood (puṁstvam), a specific nature like sattva which is distinct from female and neuter. The word 'nṛ' is a synonym for puruṣa. 'Puṇyo gandhaḥ' (Pure fragrance) is the fragrance of Tulasi, etc., or merely a sweet fragrance (surabhigandhamātram). Through its connection, the earth becomes the cause of the manifestation of sattva or happiness. 'Vibhāvasuḥ' here is Fire. The 'tejas' (splendor) in it is the power to burn (dāhakatvaśaktiḥ). 'Bhūta' words are used here for embodied beings (śarīriṇaḥ). The word 'sarva' here includes even Brahmā and Śiva. 'Jīvanam' (life) in them is breathing (prāṇanam), or the cause of the sustenance of breath (prāṇasthiti-hetuḥ). It is the form by which all beings live, or that which is essential for the sustenance of beings (upajīvanīyam). 'Sanātanaṁ bījam' (Eternal seed) of all beings is the principle of Prakṛti. Alternatively, since this is the context for specifying primary qualities, the word 'bīja' here refers to the nature of being the material cause (upādānatva). The meaning is the capacity of all transforming substances to result in their effects. Or, 'bījam' is the cause of sprouting (prarohakāraṇam), the respective material substance (upādānadravyam) of moving and non-moving beings. 'Buddhiḥ' (Intellect) is determination (adhyavasāya), or mere knowledge (jñānamātram). 'Tejasvinaḥ' (Splendid ones) are those possessing glory (pratāpaśīlāḥ). Their 'tejas' (splendor) is invincibility (anabhibhavanīyatvam) or the power to conquer others (parābhibhavasāmarthyam). Some call it the pride of tejas, others boldness (prāgalbhya). 'Balam' (Strength) is the power of sustaining, etc. Since the strength that acts due to desire and passion (kāmarāgavaśāt) can cause harm to others (parapīḍā), 'kāmarāgavivarjitam' (devoid of desire and passion) is said to limit it to the subject of merely sustaining the body, etc., which is appropriate for Dharma. 'Kāma' (Desire) is the highest stage of wishing. 'Rāga' (Passion) is the desire. Alternatively, the word 'kāma' refers to the object of desire (kāmya), and the passion (rāga) for that object is kāmarāga. 'Bhūteṣu' (In beings) means in creatures situated as gods, men, etc. 'Dharmāviruddhaḥ kāmaḥ' (Desire not contrary to Dharma) is affection for one's own wife, etc.

Now, He establishes the co-ordinate predication (sāmānādhikaraṇyam) of 'Raso’ham,' etc., with reason: 'Ete iti' (These). The sense is that this is not a figurative attribution (āropaḥ) intended to show dependence, like 'Rājā rāṣṭram' (The king is the kingdom), because where the primary meaning is possible, another mode of signification is inadmissible. By 'ete' (these), it is implied that these acts are impossible to be performed by anyone other than Īśvara. By 'sarva' (all), it is recalled that even the acts done by Brahmā, Rudra, and others were created under the control of the Supreme Self, whose body is Brahmā, etc., as stated earlier in 'Ahaṁ kṛtsnasya' (7.6). 'Vilakṣaṇāḥ' (Distinct) is said to distinguish them from the rājas and tāmas natures to be mentioned later. 'Matta eva pṛthagvidhāḥ' (Of different kinds, from Me alone) will also be stated later (10.5). By this, the meaning of the adhikaraṇa 'Na vilakṣaṇatvād asya' (Brahma Sūtra 2.1.4) (Not because of its difference in nature) is also recalled. 'Matta evotpannāḥ' (Originated from Me alone), etc., is the reason for co-ordinate predication, as far as possible, according to the nature of the respective things. To show that the reason for co-ordinate predication, which pervades quality, genus, and body, is inseparability (apṛthaksiddhi), He says: 'Mayi eva avasthitāḥ' (They abide in Me alone).

किस प्रकार परमात्मरूपी सूत्र में नामरूपमय मणि पिरोकर सुन्दर सृष्टिरूप कण्ठाभरण की निर्मिति हुई है इसका वर्णन इन दो श्लोकों में किया गया है। इसके पूर्व भगवान् ने यह कहा था कि परा और अपरा प्रकृतियों के द्वारा मैं ही जगत् का कारण हूँ और मुझसे भिन्न किञ्चिन्मात्र कोई वस्तु नहीं है। वह सनातन तत्त्व क्या है जो सर्वत्र व्याप्त होते हुये भी दृष्टिगोचर नहीं होता इस प्रश्न का उत्तर यहाँ भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण ने दिया है।किसी वस्तु का धर्म या स्वरूप वह है जो सदा एक समान बना रहता है और जिसके बिना उस वस्तु का अस्तित्व ही सिद्ध नहीं हो सकता। यहाँ दिये दृष्टान्त जल में रस सूर्य चन्द्र में प्रकाश समस्त वेदों में प्रणव आकाश में शब्द पृथ्वी में पवित्र गन्ध पुरुषों में पुरुषत्व एवं तपस्वियों में तप आदि ये सब दर्शाते हैं कि आत्मा ही वह तत्त्व है जिसके कारण इन वस्तुओं का अपना विशेष अस्तित्व होता है। संक्षेपत आत्मा समस्त भूतों का जीवन है।भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण कुछ और उदाहरण देते हुये कहते हैं

'Puṇya iti' (Pure). The quality of fragrance (gandhaguṇaḥ) in the earth which is solely in the form of Dharma (righteousness/natural property), that is inherently pure (svabhāva-puṇyaḥ).

Whereas foul (pūti) and strong (utkaṭa) fragrance, etc., arise due to connection with other elements (bhūtāntarasambandhāt).

And it is also said: 'Solid (dṛḍham) due to the abundance of earth qualities, foul-smelling (durgandhi) due to the rise of fire qualities, and dull/mild (jaḍam) due to the predominance of water qualities,' etc.

Since the limit (avadhik) is not stated in 'Bhūmiḥ' (7.4), etc., there might be a misapprehension that 'Raso’ham' (I am the taste), etc., is also a section on knowledge (jñānaprakaraṇam). To negate that, he states its conclusion: 'Idam iti' (This). The meaning is that knowledge has been expounded by this much text. Why is the section on knowledge concluded here? To this, he says: 'Raso’ham iti' (I am the taste). Even in the absence of the word 'iti,' etc., the commencement of another section will indicate the conclusion. The idea is that this is known to be a section on special knowledge (vijñānaprakaraṇam) because it expounds extraordinary glory (alaukika māhātmya).

By the maxim stated in 'Prabhavādeḥ' (of the origin, etc.), the explanation of 'Raso’ham' (I am the taste), etc., is also established. The Lord is taste, etc., because He is the cause of existence (sattā) etc., and the enjoyer (bhoktṛ) of taste, etc.

Question: Are the substances (dharmiṇaḥ) like water, etc., dependent on the Lord and His objects of enjoyment (bhogya) or not? If 'not,' it contradicts 'Ahaṁ kṛtsnasya' (7.6). If 'yes' (the former position), then it is improper to single out the qualities (dharmāṇām) from the substances in 'Apsu rasaḥ' (Taste in waters), etc. Therefore, he first accepts the former position: 'Abādayo’pi iti' (Water, etc., also). The substances are also dependent on Him and are His objects of enjoyment.

Question: Is there not a fault mentioned there (in the earlier commentary)? Therefore, he states the purpose of using specific words (viśeṣa śabda) regarding causality: 'Tathāpi iti' (Even so). Although the substances are also dependent on the Lord, it is appropriate to single out the qualities from the substances, this is the supplement. How? To this, he says: 'Rasādi iti' (Taste, etc.). Taste, etc., are the inherent natures (svabhāvaḥ), not incidental qualities, of water, etc. They are the essential (sāra - best) qualities (rasādi-svabhāvaḥ) of water, etc., superior to other qualities like number, etc., and those same best qualities, which are the inherent natures of water, etc., those are the tastes, etc. 'In the nature of' is the supplement to 'of water, etc.' 'In the essential nature' is the supplement to 'of the qualities of water, etc.' And the meaning is also 'in the nature of taste, etc.' He alone is the Lord. The contrasting point of 'specifically also' (viśeṣato’pi) is 'not, however.' 'Anubaddhaḥ' means established incidentally (anuṣaṅgasiddhaḥ). 'Tatsāratvādiś ca iti' (And its essentiality, etc.). The meaning is that the taste, etc., is the essence among the qualities of water, etc., it is the inherent nature of water, etc., and it is its nature as taste, etc. Just as in the world, the weaver, etc., is experienced to be active only in substances like cloth, etc., but not separately active in the qualities like fragrance, taste, etc., belonging to it, or in the qualities of those qualities like fragranceness, etc., but those (qualities) have their origin incidentally along with the origin of the cloth, etc. The Lord is not like that. Rather, He is separately active (pṛthak prayatnavān) in the qualities of water, etc., (taste, etc.), and in the qualities of those qualities (their nature, essentiality, etc.), and they do not derive their existence, etc., incidentally from the rule of water, etc. The use of specific words (viśeṣa śabda) is to show this.

He states the purpose even in the context of enjoyment: 'Bhogaś ca iti' (And enjoyment). The connection is that specific words show that the Lord's enjoyment is extraordinarily of taste, etc., even more than the enjoyment of water, etc. Suggesting another meaning for the statement of non-difference 'Raso’ham' (I am the taste), etc., He states the purpose of using specific words there as well: 'Upāsanārthaṁ ca iti' (And for the sake of worship). 'Specifically, of taste, etc.,' is understood. Due to the force of the meaning, 'rasādeḥ' (of taste, etc.) is changed into the locative case (in taste, etc.). Here, taste, etc., are intended as idols (pratimātvena) for the worship of the Supreme Lord. The statement of non-difference is common in the context of an idol. The identity in the sense of being an idol is common to water, etc. As per 'Yo’psu tiṣṭhan' (Bṛ. U. 7.3.4) (He who dwells in the waters), etc. Therefore, what is the use of mentioning specific words? If this is the doubt, the use of those words is appropriate for the worship of the Lord specifically in taste, etc., rather than in water, etc.

He states the proof for the three meanings mentioned: 'Uktaṁ ca iti' (And it is also said). The word 'tathā ca' (and thus) denotes mutual aggregation. The word 'eva' (alone) is connected with 'Īśvara' (Lord). 'Sarvatra' (everywhere) means in water, etc. The meaning is that the Lord is called the world of taste, etc. 'Abādayaḥ' (Water, etc.) refers to the presiding deities (abhimāninaḥ) of water, etc. 'Jñāninām' (Of the knowers) means for the attainment (sampattyai) of those who seek knowledge. 'Anyeṣām' (Of others) means of those who seek taste. The fact that the metrical feet 'abādayaḥ' and 'rasādi' have seven and nine syllables, respectively, is not a fault, according to the dictum 'Na vā ekena akṣareṇa chandāṁsi viyanti' (Ai. Brā. 1.6) (Indeed, the meters do not deviate by a single syllable).

Since the dependence of nature (svabhāva) on the Lord is extraordinary (alaukikam), He quotes other statements there: 'Svabhāva iti' (Nature). Granting the singling out of qualities from the substances, why are the qualities further specified? To this, he says: 'Dharma iti' (Dharma). The word 'ādi' includes 'puṇyo gandhaḥ' (pure fragrance). The meaning is that the Lord is to be worshipped only in the specified qualities like desire, etc., and not in those that are contrary to Dharma or impure. This is why the qualities like desire are specified as not contrary to Dharma, etc. He quotes the proof here: 'Uktaṁ vā iti' (Or it is also said). 'Kāmaṁ' (Desire) means human goal (puruṣārtham). 'Kāma-rāgādeḥ' (From desire and passion, etc.) means due to desire and passion, etc. 'Anicchadbhīḥ' (By those not desiring) means those who do not desire desire, etc.

He states another purpose for specifying fragrance: 'Puṇya iti' (Pure). The meaning is that the specification here is to show that the Lord enjoys only pure fragrance, not foul smell. Question: Does the Lord experience foul smell or not? If 'not,' there is a lack of omniscience. If 'yes,' how is there non-enjoyment? The answer is: The intention is that even though foul smell, etc., are experienced, they are not a cause of fruit/consequence (phalahetavaḥ). Pure fragrance, however, is established to be a cause of happiness. He states the proof that only pure substances are enjoyable by the Lord: 'Tathā hi iti' (Because). 'Amum' (That) refers to the worshipper (upāsakam). Why? Because of His divinity. Still, why? If even a mere god is restricted to the enjoyment of merit, the Supreme God (Devottamasya) is all the more certainly so.

How is the Śruti 'Ṛtaṁ pibantau' (Kaṭha U. 3.1) relevant here? To this, he says: 'Ṛtaṁ ca iti' (And Ṛta). Why? To this, he replies by mentioning the general and specific statements: 'Ṛtam iti' (Ṛta). 'Prayogagaḥ' means generated by speech/action (śabdajanyaḥ). Thus, the word 'Ṛta' in the Śruti is an indication of the fruit of merit, this is the idea. This explanation would be valid if the Lord's enjoyment of sense objects were proper. But it is not, as accepting it would contradict Śruti, etc. 'Ṛtaṁ pibantau' is therefore figuratively applied by the umbrella maxim (chatrinyāya) (where the whole group is named after the most prominent member). To this, he says: 'Na ca iti' (And not). Why not? To this, he says: 'Sthūla iti' (Gross). The sense is that the Śruti, etc., state non-enjoyment of gross objects which are the objects of enjoyment of the Jīva, and accept subtle enjoyment. This arrangement would hold if subtle eating is established. Why is that established? To this, he says: 'Āha ca iti' (And it is also said). The enjoyment of the essential part of fragrance, etc., which is imperceptible to the Jīva's senses. The Supreme Lord experiences an extraordinarily distinct enjoyment (vilakṣaṇa bhoga) from this embodied Self (Jīva). The word 'iva' (as if) suggests that He also enjoys gross food in His incarnations.

Question: Is not this 'more refined eater' (praviviktāhārataraḥ) the Jīva itself? To this, he says: 'Na ca iti' (And not). The meaning is that it is not proper for the Jīva to have a distinct diet from the Jīva itself. Question: I will interpret it by accepting a difference in the Jīva qualified by the difference in state: the Jīva in the state of dream and deep sleep is the 'more refined eater' than the embodied Jīva in the waking state. To this, he says: 'Svapnādiś ca iti' (And dream, etc.). The word svap is in the sense of the agent. Dream and deep sleep are also embodied (śārīra), not just the waking state. Thus, the person in the three states is also taken by the word 'śārīra,' so there is no difference between dream and deep sleep from that. Why is the person in the three states also 'embodied'? To this, he says: 'Śārīraḥ tu iti' (The embodied one, however). In the waking, etc., states.

Even if the person in the three states is embodied, the qualification 'asmāt' (this) here takes 'śārīrāt' (than the embodied one) to mean the waking state. The statement of difference of the dream, etc., state from that is possible in the way mentioned. Even in your view, if the Jīva is established by 'śārīrāt,' the qualification 'asmāt' would be redundant. To this, he says: 'Asmāt iti' (This). The Jīva should not be taken here by abandoning the Lord for the sake of the efficacy of this qualification. If only 'śārīrāt' were stated, the Lord would also be included, and the difference of the Lord from the Lord is inappropriate. Therefore, the qualification is for the purpose of excluding the Lord and taking only the Jīva, so the efficacy is appropriate. This would be so if the Lord also had embodiment. Why is that so? To this, he says: 'Śārīrau iti' (The two embodied ones). Question: If the interpretation is possible in both ways, why is the Lord mentioned here and not the Jīva? What is the conclusive reason (vinigamanam)? To this, he says: 'Bheda iti' (Difference). 'Ca' is for the reason. When another possibility, which is difference in person (puruṣabheda) in the form of inherent difference, is possible, the difference in person should be taken as the meaning, not the difference qualified by the state. From the principle that 'between the primary and the secondary, the primary is understood,' the conclusion is appropriate. Not only is the said arrangement obtained through logic, but it is also established by scripture: 'Āha ca iti' (And it is also said). The words 'abhoktā ca bhoktā ca' (non-enjoyer and enjoyer) are connected in reverse order.

Since 'Sarvabhūtastham ātmānaṁ' (6.29) (The Self dwelling in all beings) was stated, why is 'Na tv ahaṁ teṣu' (7.12) (But I am not in them) stated? To this, he says: 'Na tu aham iti' (Not I). 'Tad anādhāratvaṁ' (Non-dependence on them) means the absence of existence by depending on them for sustenance. Where is this established? To this, he says: 'Uktaṁ ca iti' (And it is also said). The meaning is 'and not merely because of the contradiction with the liberated soul.'

The pure (puṇyaḥ), sweet-smelling (surabhir), unmodified (avikṛtaḥ) fragrance (gandhaḥ), which is the general form of all earth (sarvaprthivīsāmānyarūpaḥ) and is called the subtle element (tanmātrākhyaḥ), and which is pervasive in the earth, that is I. The word 'cakāra' (and) is for the inclusion of the purity of taste, etc., as well. It should be understood that sound, touch, form, taste, and fragrance are inherently pure (svabhāvata eva puṇyatvam) and unmodified (avikṛtatvam), but their impurity (apuṇyatvam) arises due to the specific demerit (adharmaviśeṣāt) of beings, and not from their nature.

Similarly, the splendor (tejas) in Vibhāvasu (fire), which is the capacity to burn and illuminate all (sarvadahanaprakāśanasāmarthyarūpaṁ), the white and luminous form (sita-bhāsvaraṁ rūpaṁ) accompanied by hot touch, which is pure (puṇyaṁ), that I am. From the 'cakāra' (and), it should be understood that the pure, cool touch (śītasparśaḥ) in the air, which is soothing (āpyāyakaḥ) to those distressed by hot touch, that is also I.

'Jīvanam' (life) in all beings is longevity (āyuḥ) in the form of sustaining the vital breath (prāṇadhāraṇam), that is I. The meaning is that all beings are strung in Me, who is that form.

The austerity (tapaḥ) in the ascetics (tapasviṣu), who are constantly engaged in austerity like the Vānaprasthas (hermits), which is the capacity to endure the dualities (dvandvasahanasāmarthyarūpaṁ) like cold, heat, hunger, and thirst, that I am. The meaning is that ascetics are strung in Me, who is that form, because in the absence of the attribute, the qualified entity is absent. The 'cakāra' in 'tapaś ca' (and austerity) includes all austerity, both internal concentration of the mind (cittaikāgryam āntaram) and external restraint (bāhyaṁ) of the tongue, sex organs, etc.

And again, I am the holy fragrance in the earth. That fragrance by which the taste for the Lord may arise in the Pulinda women etc., that holy fragrance (I am). By connection with that, the earth possesses fragrance, and by possessing that, it becomes the support of Vrindavan which delights with the fragrance present here; this is the purport.

Similarly, in Vibhavasu—Fire—the brilliance, the heating capacity, and the radiance that is there, that I am. Here the idea is: By the connection of My part which is the fire of separation-agony, there is heat in the fire; by that (heat), cooking everything, it (fire) becomes the accomplisher of all food etc. being enjoyable by Me; this is the purport.

In all beings, (I am) the Life—the sustaining of Prana; otherwise, separated from the Lord, without the support of that (Life), how could their existence be?

In ascetics—those striving in austerity—I am the bliss of the hardship of austerity. Otherwise, in the absence of that (bliss), abandoning pleasure etc., who would engage in pain?

'Puṇyaḥ surabhiḥ gandhaḥ' (Pure, fragrant taste) I am in the earth. The meaning is that the earth is strung in Me, who is the form of that fragrance. The purity of fragrance on earth is shown to be inherent (svabhāvata eva), which is an indication (upalakṣaṇārtham) for the purity of taste, etc., in water, etc. The impurity of fragrance, etc., arises due to ignorance, unrighteousness, etc., and is caused by the contact with specific elements of worldly beings.

'Tejaś ca dīptiś ca' (Splendor and light) I am in Vibhāvasu (fire).

Similarly, 'jīvanam' (life) in all beings, that by which all beings live, that is life.

'Tapaś ca asmi tapasviṣu' (And I am the austerity in the ascetics). The meaning is that ascetics are strung in Me, who is that form of austerity.

'Puṇya iti' (Pure). Sweet fragrance (surabhir gandhaḥ) in the earth. 'Tejaś cāsmi vibhāvasau' (And I am the splendor in Vibhāvasu (fire)). This is clear.

'Jīvanam' (Life) in all beings is vital breath (prāṇanam). 'Tapaḥ kāyaśodhanam' (Austerity is the purification of the body).

पुण्यः sweet? गन्धः fragrance? पृथिव्याम् in earth? च and? तेजः brilliance? च and? अस्मि am (I)? विभावसौ in fire? जीवनम् life? सर्वभूतेषु in all beings? तपः austerity? च and? अस्मि am (I)? तपस्विषु in ascetics.Commentary In Me as odour in the earth woven in Me as brilliance is the fire woven in Me as life all beings are woven in Me as austerity all ascetics are woven. I am the support (Adhishthanam or Asraya) for everything.I am the power or Sakti which helps the ascetics to control the mind and the senses.Krishna says? I am the agreeable odour. If Arjuna had asked Him? Then who is the disagreeable odour? He would have replied? It is also I.

I am also the punyah, sweet; gandhah, fragrance; prthivyam, in the earth. The earth is dependent on Me who am its fragrance. The natural sweetness of smell in the earth is cited by way of suggesting sweetness of taste of water etc. as well. But foulness of smell etc. is due to contact with particular things, resulting from nescience, unholiness, etc. of worldly people.
Ca, and ; asmi, I am; the tejah, brilliance; vibhavasau, in fire; so also (I am) the jivanam, life-that by which all creatures live; sarva-bhutesu, in all beings. And I am the tapah, austerity; tapasvisu, of ascetics. Ascetics are established in Me who am that austerity.

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.