Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 8 - Shloka (Verse) 20

व्याख्या--'परस्तस्मात्तु भावोऽन्योऽव्यक्तोऽव्यक्तात्सनातनः'-- सोलहवेंसे उन्नीसवें श्लोकतक ब्रह्मलोक तथा उससे नीचेके लोकोंको पुनरावर्ती कहा गया है। परन्तु परमात्मतत्त्व उनसे अत्यन्त विलक्षण है, -- यह बतानेके लिये यहाँ 'तु' पद दिया गया है।यहाँ 'अव्यक्तात्' पद ब्रह्माजीके सूक्ष्मशरीरका ही वाचक है। कारण कि इससे पहले अठारहवें-उन्नीसवें श्लोकोंमें सर्गके आदिमें ब्रह्माजीके सूक्ष्मशरीरसे प्राणियोंके पैदा होनेकी और प्रलयमें ब्रह्माजीके सूक्ष्मशरीरमें प्राणियोंके लीन होनेकी बात कही गयी है। इस श्लोकमें आया 'तस्मात्' पद भी ब्रह्माजीके उस सूक्ष्मशरीरका द्योतन करता है। ऐसा होनेपर भी यहाँ ब्रह्माजीके सूक्ष्मशरीर-(समष्टि मन, बुद्धि और अहंकार-) से भी पर अर्थात् अत्यन्त विलक्षण जो भावरूप अव्यक्त कहा गया है, वह ब्रह्माजीके सूक्ष्म-शरीरके साथ-साथ ब्रह्माजीके कारण-शरीर- (मूल प्रकृति-) से भी अत्यन्त विलक्षण है।ब्रह्माजीके सूक्ष्मशरीरसे पर दो तत्त्व हैं--मूल प्रकृति और परमात्मा। यहाँ प्रसङ्ग मूल प्रकृतिका नहीं है, प्रत्युत परमात्माका है। अतः इस श्लोकमें परमात्माको ही पर और श्रेष्ठ कहा गया है, जो सम्पूर्ण प्राणियोंके नष्ट होनेपर भी नष्ट नहीं होता। आगेके श्लोकमें भी 'अव्यक्तोऽक्षर' आदि पदोंसे उस परमात्माका ही वर्णन आया है।
गीतामें प्राणियोंके अप्रकट होनेको अव्यक्त कहा गया है--'अव्यक्तादीनि भूतानि' (2। 28); ब्रह्माजीके सूक्ष्मशरीरको भी अव्यक्त कहा गया है (8। 18) प्रकृतिको भी अव्यक्त कहा गया है --'अव्यक्तमेव च' (13। 5) आदि। उन सबसे परमात्माका स्वरूप विलक्षण, श्रेष्ठ है, चाहे वह स्वरूप व्यक्त हो, चाहे अव्यक्त हो। वह भावरूप है अर्थात् किसी भी कालमें उसका अभाव हुआ नहीं, होगा नहीं और हो सकता भी नहीं। कारण कि वह सनातन है अर्थात् वह सदासे है और सदा ही रहेगा। इसलिये वह पर अर्थात् सर्वश्रेष्ठ है। उससे श्रेष्ठ कोई हो ही नहीं सकता और होनेकी सम्भावना भी नहीं है।

जिस अक्षरका पहले प्रतिपादन किया था उसकी प्राप्तिका उपाय ओमित्येकाक्षरं ब्रह्म इत्यादि कथनसे बतला दिया। अब उसी अक्षरके स्वरूपका निर्देश करनेकी इच्छासे यह बतलाया जाता है कि इस योगमार्गद्वारा अमुक वस्तु मिलती है --, तु शब्द यहाँ आगे वर्णन किये जानेवाले अक्षरकी उस पूर्वोक्त अव्यक्तसे विलक्षणता दिखलानेके लिये है। ( वह अव्यक्त ) भाव यानी अक्षरनामक परब्रह्म परमात्मा अत्यन्त भिन्न है। किससे उस पहले कहे हुए अव्यक्त से। भिन्न होनेपर भी किसी प्रकार समानता हो सकती है इस शंकाकी निवृत्तिके लिये कहते हैं कि वह इन्द्रियोंसे प्रत्यक्ष न होनेवाला अव्यक्तभाव अन्य -- दूसरा है अर्थात् सर्वथा विलक्षण है। उससे पर है ऐसा कहा सो किससे पर है वह उस पूर्वोक्त भूतसमुदायके बीजभूत अविद्यारूप अव्यक्तसे परे है। ऐसा जो सनातन भाव अर्थात् सदासे होनेवाला भाव है वह ब्रह्मादि समस्त प्राणियोंका नाश होनेपर भी नष्ट नहीं होता।

Having started with "Akshara is the Supreme Brahman," raising the doubt "What is this other unrelated topic [of time cycles] that has been stated?", and restating what has passed, he states the connection with the subsequent text — with "Yad upanyastam" (What was introduced), etc.

Wishing to define the nature of the Imperishable (Akshara), and raising the doubt "How is the previously mentioned path of Yoga useful for that?", he states it as the means for attaining That — with "Anena" (By this), etc. "To be reached" (gantavyam) implies that the statement of the path of Yoga is appropriate; this is to be supplied. The connection is with the previously mentioned 'Unmanifest' (Avyakta).

If the word 'Para' means 'distinct', then having stated the distinction with the word 'Tu' (however), using the word 'Anya' (other) again would be a repetition? Raising this doubt, he says — "Vyatiriktatve" (Regarding distinctness), etc. The distinction indicated by 'Tu' is revealed by the word 'Anya'. Since similarity is observed even among different entities, a doubt might arise that Brahman, though distinct from the Unmanifest, might have similarity with it; the word 'Anya' is to remove that [doubt]; this is the meaning.

Or, if the word 'Para' is taken to mean 'superior' (prakṛṣṭa) and acts as an adjective to 'Bhāva' (entity), then it should be seen that there is no suspicion of repetition at all.

He supports the imperishability of the beginningless Entity (Bhāva), which is established by implication — with "Yaḥ sa bhāvaḥ" (That entity which...), etc. Since the entire aggregate of modifications is perishable, it perishes up to the Purusha; but He [the Akshara], due to the absence of any cause for destruction, is not liable to perish; this is the meaning.

Having started with "Imperishable Supreme Brahman" (8.3), the means for attaining It was taught by "Om the one-syllabled Brahman" (8.13) etc.; now He states the nature of the Imperishable Goal—with "Para" (Higher) etc. "Tasmat" (From that) Unmanifest—characterized by Avidya which is the seed of the multitude of beings—"Parah" (Higher), meaning distinct, different.

Or, from the Unmanifest meaning Hiranyagarbha. In this view—by the Shruti "Beyond the Great is the Unmanifest, beyond the Unmanifest is the Purusha; there is nothing beyond the Purusha, that is the culmination, that is the supreme goal" (Katha 1.3.11), the supremacy over the one propounded by "Beyond Hiranyagarbha is the Great Self" is stated for the Root Prakriti propounded by the word Unmanifest; in accordance with that, here too the grasping of the word Unmanifest denoting Root Prakriti which is beyond Hiranyagarbha is obtained—thus.

Abandoning this view, the Shruti "Beyond the Unmanifest is the Purusha" has been followed by the Acharyas (Shankara). The word "Tu" (But) is to indicate the distinctness of the Supreme Self, the Unmanifest, the Imperishable—named Liberation, void of all world-appearance, mass of supreme bliss—from the Unmanifest denoted by the word Root Prakriti which is the seed of Samsara.

"Bhavah"—Existence-nature, Supreme Brahman named Imperishable. Although distinct in nature, to exclude the identity of characteristics, the meaning indicated by "Tu" is stated even by a word denoting it—"Anyah" (Another). Meaning distinct. Or, since the word "Para" denotes 'excellent', it being an adjective to 'Bhava', there is no doubt of repetition at all—so say Some.

But by the Acharyas—intending the futility of both words 'Tu' and 'Anya' since the distinctness and difference of the Excellent from the Inferior is certain, or due to easiness—this view was abandoned. He clarifies the distinctness. "Sanatanah"—Ancient; He who, while all beings—Hiranyagarbha etc.—are perishing, does not perish, that Existence is the Supreme Self; this is the meaning.

And thus, being imperishable while being ancient is the characteristic of the Supreme Self, not of the Unmanifest; this is the purport.

The 'Unmanifest' (Avyakta) is the Lord (Bhagavan), because of the reference to "having attained Me" [Gita 8.15] regarding "attaining Whom they do not return."

Also, because of the usage in the Garuda Purana: "The Unmanifest Supreme Vishnu."

'Dhāma' means essential nature (svarūpa), specifically the nature of effulgence (tejas). For it is stated: "The abode (gṛha) which is of the nature of effulgence is sung of as 'Dhāma' by the wise."

Thus having explained the return of (worlds) ending with the realm of Brahma; He defines the object introduced as "Imperishable Supreme Brahman," attaining which there is no return—by the three (verses) starting with "Parastasmat".

"Parah" (Higher). "Tasmat"—from that Unmanifest, which is the seed of the multitude of beings, characterized by Avidya, unreal—"Anyah"—extremely distinct "Bhavah"—Existence. By the word "Tu" (But), He wards off the "Universal Existence" (Satta-samanya) accepted by others (Logicians). Because That is distinct from Universals etc. And because This pervades everything.

"Sanatanah"—eternally uniform. For the one with adjuncts appears as if constantly modifying due to the modification of the adjunct. But This, due to being without adjuncts, is eternally uniform indeed; which Existence does not perish even when all beings—Ether etc.—perish, due to being of the nature of Pure Existence.

By this, His un-sublatedness in three times and eternality are stated.

"Tasmat avyaktat"—from that Unmanifest which is of the form of insentient Prakriti; "Parah"—superior, due to being the Human Goal; "Bhavah"—another; due to being of the sole form of Knowledge, dissimilar to that (insentient); "Avyaktah"—not manifested by any proof, therefore Unmanifest; meaning having a unique form knowable by Itself.

"Sanatanah"—Eternal, due to being unfit for origin and destruction.

Who, even when all beings—Ether etc., along with causes and effects—are perishing; though existing there, does not perish.

Having expanded on the impermanence of the worlds, He expands on the eternality of the Supreme Lord's nature—by the two (verses) starting "Parah".

"Tasmat"—from the Unmanifest which is the cause of moving and unmoving—"Parah"—being the cause of even that; who is "Anyah"—distinct from that; "Avyaktah"—not the object of eye etc.; "Bhavah"—Sanatana, beginningless;

He "Tu" (indeed/however) does not perish even when all beings characterized by cause and effect perish.

He explains the meaning of the two verses beginning with "Paraḥ" — with "Atha" etc. The intention is this: The non-return of those who have attained the Lord has already been stated. The Akshara (Imperishable) specified here as 'beyond' (para) the Unmanifest (Avyakta) must be the individual Self (Jiva) alone; because of the recognition (pratyabhijñā) from verses like "This is the lower nature; know My other nature [which is the Jiva]" [Gita 7.5]. And for those seeking Kaivalya (self-realization), non-return must be stated due to the absence of descent (return to Samsara). Therefore, these two verses are indeed devoted to that [Kaivalya].

Since the 'Unmanifest' (Prakriti) was the topic in the preceding context, here too the distinction of being 'beyond' (para) is from that very 'Avyakta'. And in relation to that, the connection is made with both words 'Para' (superior/beyond) and 'Anya' (other). There, to eliminate repetition, the word 'Para', through stating superiority, conveys the meaning of being a goal of human pursuit (Purushartha). And since the difference in essential nature is established by that very term, the word 'Anya' conveys the difference in kind (prakāra). Therefore, "He [the Jiva] and his difference in kind are of the nature of consciousness" is established by proof — with this intention, he says "Tasmāt" (Therefore), etc.

The word Bhāva here denotes 'entity' (padārtha) in general. It is not correct to parse the word as Vyakta (manifest), because of the statement "The Unmanifest is the Imperishable" (avyakto'kṣaraḥ) in this very context; and because the application of the word Vyakta to the Jiva is inappropriate as it is difficult to grasp — with this intention, he says "Kenachit" (By some...), etc.

(Objection:) The Avyakta status of the Jiva is improper because its manifestation (vykti) is established through perception, inference, and scripture as applicable; otherwise, there would be the contingency of it being like a 'flower in the sky' (non-existent). To this he says — "Svasaṃvedya" (Self-cognized), etc. The idea is that other proofs propound it only in a general way. Regarding eternality, he recalls the reason stated in the Second Chapter — with "Utpatti..." (Because of being unfit for origin and destruction), etc.

The word Bhūta here refers to the Great Elements (Mahābhūtas); since it is stated that he [the Jiva] remains 'situated in himself' even when they are destroyed, his eternality is obtained without effort. In that context, 'having cause' and 'having effect' are established by the force of the intent of the word 'Sarva' (all) — with this intention, he says "Viyadādiṣu" (In ether/space, etc.), etc. The destruction that is contingent for the Jiva is to be negated, and the contingency arises here due to entering into perishable substances — just as when sesame seeds are being burned, the oil entered into them is also burned. Therefore, the meaning obtained by the force of the statement "when all beings are perishing" is stated as — "Tatra tatra sthito'pi" (Though situated there and there...), etc.

"Yaḥ sa sarveṣu" (That who in all...) — [Regarding "Mine" (Mama):] Since the statement of mere relationship is already established, and since a 'place' (sthāna) invariably depends on a 'occupant' (sthāni), the synonymous term for sthāna (place) which is the object of control (adhishtheya), as mentioned in texts like "Who dwelling in the self..." [Shatapatha Brahmana 14.6.5.30], is intended by the word Dhāma; he states this with "Niyamanasthānam" (Place of control), etc. Here, what is the lower place of control from which distinction is made by the word 'Parama' (Supreme)? To this he says — "Achetana..." (Inert...), etc.

Here, by the designation 'Supreme Abode' (Parama Dhāma), it is established that the subject is the purified Self; and thus, the impure Jiva is intended as the 'lower' one; he says this with "Tatsaṃsṛṣṭa" (Connected with that...), etc.

(Objection:) If the liberated one is also dependent on the Supreme Self, then he could be thrown into the pit of Samsara again by the independent Supreme Self? To this he says — "Taccha" (And that...), etc. The purport is this: Ignorance (Avidya) etc. are the cause of Samsara, not dependency (pāratantrya). Because Avidya etc. are destroyed, and the Lord's compassion etc. are natural, there is not even a scent of Samsara for the liberated one; this is the meaning.

Or, the idea is that not only is the attainment of the Lord of the nature of non-return, but the attainment of the purified Self (Kaivalya) is also so, because of the absence of descent.

Dissatisfied with taking the adjective (Para/Parama) as referring to the 'dependent' in the sense of 'place of control', he gives another meaning — "Atha vā" (Or), etc. The word Dhāma is a synonym for Tejas (effulgence) and denotes light; how does it connect here? To this he says — "Prakāshaścha" (And light...), etc. He shows the resultant meaning of the adjective — with "Prakṛtisaṃsṛṣṭāt" (From that connected with Prakriti...), etc. In the view where it means Light — "That Supreme Light is Mine" — implies "It is subservient to Me" (mat-śeṣa-bhūtam) — this is the meaning of the sentence.

Although "subservience to Himself" (sva-śeṣatva) was already stated earlier by "Apareyam" [Gita 7.5], etc., there it appears to refer only to the collective consciousness (samashti-chetana); but here, the subservience to Himself of even the liberated one is being stated, so there is no repetition.

विद्यालय की कक्षा में एक श्यामपट लगा होता है जिसका उपयोग एक ही दिन में अनेक अध्यापक विभिन्न विषयों को समझाने के लिए करते हैं। प्रत्येक अध्यापक अपने पूर्व के अध्यापक द्वारा श्यामपट पर लिखे अक्षरों को मिटाकर अपना विषय समझाता है। इस प्रकार गणित का अध्यापक अंकगणित या रेखागणित की आकृतियाँ खींचता है तो भूगोल पढ़ाने वाले अध्यापक नक्शों को जिनमें नदी पर्वत आदि का ज्ञान कराया जाता है। रासायन शास्त्र के शिक्षक रासायनिक क्रियाएँ एवं सूत्र समझाते हैं और इतिहास के शिक्षक पूर्वजों की वंश परम्पराओं का ज्ञान कराते हैं। प्रत्येक अध्यापक विभिन्न प्रकार के अंक आकृति चिह्न आदि के द्वारा अपने ज्ञान को व्यक्त करता है। यद्यप्ा सबके विषय आकृतियाँ भिन्नभिन्न थीं परन्तु उन सबके लिए उपयोग किया गया श्यामपट एक ही था।इसी प्रकार इस परिवर्तनशील जगत् के लिए भी जो कि अव्यक्त का व्यक्त रूप है एक अपरिवर्तनशील अधिष्ठान की आवश्यकता है जो सब भूतों के नष्ट होने पर भी नष्ट नहीं होता। जब संध्याकाल में सब विद्यार्थी और शिक्षक अपने घर चले जाते हैं तब भी वह श्यामपट अपने स्थान पर ही स्थित रहता है। यह चैतन्य तत्त्व जो स्वयं इन्द्रिय मन और बुद्धि के द्वारा अग्राह्य होने के कारण अव्यक्त कहलाता है इस जगत् का अधिष्ठान है जिसे भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण के इस कथन में इंगित किया गया है परन्तु इस अव्यक्त से परे अन्य सनातन अव्यक्त भाव है। इस प्रकार हम देखते है कि यहाँ व्यक्त सृष्टि के कारण को तथा चैतन्य तत्त्व दोनों को ही अव्यक्त कहा गया है। परन्तु दोनों में भेद यह है कि चैतन्य तत्त्व कभी भी व्यक्त होकर प्रमाणों का विषय नहीं बनता जबकि सृष्टि की कारणावस्था जो अव्यक्त कहलाती है कल्प के प्रारम्भ में सूक्ष्म तथा स्थूल रूप में व्यक्त भी होती है।अव्यक्त (वासनाएँ) व्यक्त सृष्टि की बीजावस्था है जिसे वेदान्त में अविद्या भी कहते हैं। अविद्या या अज्ञान स्वयं कोई वस्तु नहीं है किन्तु अज्ञान किसी विद्यमान वस्तु का ही हो सकता है। किसी मनुष्य को अपनी पूँछ का अज्ञान नहीं हो सकता क्योंकि पूँछ अभावरूप है। इससे एक भावरूप परमार्थ सत्य का अस्तित्व सिद्ध होता है। जैसे कक्षा में पढ़ाये गये विषय ज्ञान के लिए श्यामपट अधिष्ठान है वैसे ही इस सृष्टि के लिए यह चैतन्य तत्त्व आधार है। इस सत्य को नहीं जानना ही अविद्या है जो इस परिवर्तनशील नामरूपमय सृष्टि को व्यक्त करती है। पुनः पुनः सर्ग स्थिति और लय को प्राप्त होने वाली इस अविद्याजनित सृष्टि से परे जो तत्त्व है उसी का संकेत यहाँ सन्ाातन अव्यय भाव इन शब्दों द्वारा किया गया है।क्या यह अव्यक्त ही परम तत्त्व है अथवा इस सनातन अव्यय से परे श्रेष्ठ कोई भाव जीवन का लक्ष्य बनने योग्य है

From all worlds there is return, but not having attained Me, the Supreme Lord—He clarifies this—from "Para" etc. up to "Pratishthitam".

The Vasudeva-principle is devoid of the calculation of Time of the stated kind. "Vyaktam" (Manifest)—pervading all; even being the Reality, it is "Avyaktam" (Unmanifest) due to being difficult to attain. And that it is attainable by devotion was stated before.

And this universe situated in That; which indeed is of imperishable nature, always being thus. There, what is the meaning of the word "Punah" (Again) and the word "Avritti" (Return)? For that (return) depends on the interruption of that nature in between.

And for Sri Parameshwara—who is Eternal, Transcendent to the Universe, Non-different from the Universe, the Foundation of the Universe, and whose nature is Supreme Consciousness and Independence—the attainment of that state (of return) [is not possible]; by which any interruption of nature at any time [could be imagined]. Therefore, it was rightly said "But having attained Me" (8.16).

Now, to establish what was stated—that the one named 'Avyakta' is the Supreme Soul—He says "Avyakta" etc. Because the meaning stated in "Having attained Me" (mām upetya) [Gita 8.15-16]—namely, "attaining Whom they do not return"—is referred to [here] with the 'Avyakta' as the subject.

Not only is the word 'Avyakta' taken to mean the Lord on the strength of reasoning, but it is also directly expressive (vācaka) of Him; thus he says "Avyaktam" [referring to scriptural citations like 'The Unmanifest Supreme Vishnu'].

(Objection:) How then is it spoken of by the Lord as His own abode (dhāma)? To this he says "Dhāma" etc.

Thus, by demonstrating the origin and destruction of the helpless beings, the statement "Worlds up to the realm of Brahma are subject to return" has been explained. Now, He explains "Having attained Me, there is no rebirth" in two verses.

"From that" (tasmāt) — meaning from the previously mentioned 'Avyakta' known as Hiranyagarbha, which is the cause of the gross world of moving and non-moving beings — "Beyond" (paraḥ) means distinct or superior; meaning, He is the cause even of that. (Doubt:) Even if distinct, there might be similarity? (Reply:) He says "No" with "Another" (anyaḥ) — meaning extremely different. As per the Shruti: "There is no likeness of Him." "Unmanifest" (avyakta) means the Entity (bhāva) not perceptible to eyes etc., due to being devoid of form etc., which permeates all imagined effects as the underlying Existence (Sat). Therefore, "Ancient" (sanātana) means eternal. The word 'Tu' (But/However) indicates the distinction of the eternal Avyakta (to be sought) from the impermanent Avyakta (to be abandoned).

Such an Entity, unlike Hiranyagarbha, does not perish even when all beings perish, nor is It born when they are born; this is the meaning. For Hiranyagarbha is an effect and identifies with the beings/elements, so his origin and destruction are logical; but not so for the Supreme Lord who is not an effect and does not identify with them; this is the purport.

Thus, having spoken of their repeated emergence, He states the nature of His own Abode to show the absence of that [rebirth] upon attaining Him — with "Paraḥ tasmāt," etc.

By the word 'Tu' (But), He distinguishes [the Supreme] from the superiority of the former. "From that" (tasmāt) — i.e., from the previously mentioned cause of origin — there is "Another Entity" (anyo bhāvaḥ), the Unmanifest (Avyakta); meaning, It is the root cause even of that [former Avyakta].

It is "Ancient" (sanātana) i.e., established without beginning, and "Supreme" (para) i.e., the highest of all relative to that [former] Avyakta.

He states its nature — "Who does not perish," meaning does not undergo modification, even when all beings are perishing.

"Beyond" (paraḥ) means distinct, different. From what? "From that" (tasmāt) previously mentioned. The word 'Tu' (But) is used as a modifier to indicate the distinctness of the intended Imperishable (Akshara) from the Unmanifest (Avyakta).

"Entity" (bhāvaḥ) means the Supreme Brahman known as Akshara. Even if distinct, there is a possibility of similarity; to remove that, He says "Another" (anyaḥ). "Another" means different in nature (vilakṣaṇa).

And He is "Unmanifest" (avyakta), meaning not perceptible to the senses. It is said "Beyond that"; from what is He beyond? From the previously mentioned 'Avyakta' which is the seed of the multitude of beings and is characterized by Ignorance (Avidya). The intention is that It is an "Entity" (bhāva) "other" than (distinct from) that.

"Ancient" (sanātana) means eternal. "That Entity which" does not perish even when all beings, up to Brahma, are perishing.

The Jiva, termed 'manifest' (Vyakta) due to connection with individual manifestation (vyakti), has been described [as existing] up to the realm of Brahma.

'Another Unmanifest' (Anyo'vyakta) — distinct from that perishable one (Kshara), devoid of individual manifestation, Supreme (Para), and beyond the Gunas, and 'Ancient' (Sanātana) — does not perish even when all beings possessed of manifestation perish, because of its nature of indestructibility.

परः higher? तस्मात् than that? तु but? भावः existence? अन्यः another? अव्यक्तः unmanifested? अव्यक्तात् than the unmanifested? सनातनः Eternal? यः who? सः that? सर्वेषु all? भूतेषु beings? नश्यत्सु when destroyed? न not? विनश्यति is destroyed.Commentary Another unmanifested in the ancient or eternal Para Brahman Who is distinct from the Unmanifested (Avyakta or Primordial Nature)? Who is of ite a different nature. It is superior to Hiranyagarbha (the Cosmic Creative Intelligence) and the Unmanifested Nature because It is their cause. It is not destroyed when all the beings from Brahma down to the ants or the blade of grass are destroyed. (Cf.XV.17)

He is parah, distinct, different;-From what?-tasmat, from that aforesaid (Unmanifested).
The word tu, but, is meant for showing the distinction of the Immutable that is going to be spoken of from the Unmanifested.
He is bhavah, the Reality, the supreme Brahman called the Immutable.

Even though different, there is the possibility of similarlity of characteristics. Hence, for obviating this the Lord says: anyah, the other, of a different characteristic, and He is the Immutable which is beyond the range of the organs. It has been said that He is distinct from that. From what, again is He distinct? Avyaktat, from the Unmaifested spoken of earlier, which is the seed of the multitude of beings, and which is characterized as ignorance (avidya) [Ast. adds, 'anyah vilaksanah, bhavah ityabhiprayah: The meaning is that the Reality is different and distinct (form that Unmanifested).-Tr.] He is sanatnah, eternal.
Bhavah, the Reality; yah sah, who is such; na, does not; vinasyati, get destroyed; when sarvesu bhutesu, all beings, beginning from Brahma; nasyatsu, get destroyed.

Superior, as an object of human end, to this unmanifest (Avyakta), which is inanimate Prakrti, there is another state of being, of a kind different from this, but also called Avyakta. It has only knowledge-form and is also unmanifest. It is the self, Atman. It is unmanifest because It cannot be apprehended by any means of knowledge (Pramanas). The meaning is that Its nature is unie and that It can be known only to Itself. That is, It can be understood only vaguely in the ordinary ways of knowing. It is eternal, namely, ever-enduring, because It is not subject to origination and annihilation. In texts like 'For those who meditate on the imperishable, undefinable, the unmanifest' (12.3) and 'The imperishable is called the unchanging' (15.16) - that being the self. It has been called the unmanifest (Avyakta) and imperishable (Aksara); when all material elements like ether, etc., with their causes and effects are annihilated, the self is not annihilated in spite of It being found alone with all the elements. [The elements are what constitute the bodies of beings.]
The knowers of the Vedas declare It as the highest end. The meaning is that the imperishable entity which has been denoted by the term 'highest goal' in the passage, 'Whosoever abandons the body and departs (in the manner described) reaches the highest state (Dhama)' (8.13), is the self (Atman) abiding in Its essential nature free from the contact with the Prakrti. This self, which abides thus in Its essential nature, by attaining which It does not return, - this is My 'highest abode,' i.e., is the highest object of My control. The inanimate Prakrti is one object of My control. The animate Prakrti associated with this inanimate Prakrti is the second object of My control. The pristine nature of the freed self, free from contact with inanimate matter, is the highest object of My rule. Such is the meaning. This state is also one of non-return to Samsara. Or the term 'dhama' may signify 'luminosity'. And luminosity connotes knowledge. The essential nature of the freed self is boundless knowledge, or supreme light, which stands in contrast to the shrunken knowledge of the self, when involved in Prakrti. [The description given above is that of Kaivalya, the state of self-luminous existence as the pure self].
Sri Krsna now teaches that the object of attainment for the Jnanin, is totally different from this: