Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 8 - Shloka (Verse) 6

व्याख्या--'यं यं वापि स्मरन्भावं ৷৷. सदा तद्भावभावितः'--भगवान्ने इस नियममें दयासे भरी हुई एक विलक्षण बात बतायी है कि अन्तिम चिन्तनके अनुसार मनुष्यको उसउस योनिकी प्राप्ति होती है जब यह नियम है तो मेरी स्मृतिसे मेरी प्राप्ति होगी ही परम दयालु भगवान्ने अपने लिये अलग कोई विशेष नियम नहीं बताया है प्रत्युत सामान्य नियममें ही अपनेको शामिल कर दिया है। भगवान्की दयाकी यह कितनी विलक्षणता है कि जितने मूल्यमें कुत्तेकी योनि मिले उतने ही मूल्यमें भगवान् मिल जायँ

केवल मेरे विषयमें ही यह नियम नहीं है किंतु --, हे कुन्तीपुत्र प्राणवियोगके समय ( यह जीव ) जिसजिस भी भावका अर्थात् ( जिस किसी भी ) देवताविशेषका चिन्तन करता हुआ शरीर छोड़ता है उस भावसे भावित हुआ वह पुरुष सदा उस स्मरण किये हुए भावको ही प्राप्त होता है अन्यको नहीं। उपास्य देवविषयक भावनाका नाम तद्भाव है वह जिसने भावित यानी बारंबार चिन्तन करनेके द्वारा अभ्यस्त किया हो उसका नाम तद्भावभावित है ऐसा होता हुआ ( उसीको प्राप्त होता है )।

Just as there is a rule of attaining the Lord for one meditating on the Lord at the time of the end, similarly, He shows that for one abandoning the body while meditating on another specific deity etc. at that time, the attainment of that is inevitable—with 'Na' (referring to Yam yam vapi - verse 6).

[Question:] How is it possible for one who is helpless (paravasha) at the time of the end to have a memory fixed on a specific object? To this He says—'Sada' (Always...).

Regarding the compound (tad-bhava-bhavita): The Locative sense is 'Tasmin'—in that specific deity etc. 'Bhava' means feeling (bhavana) or impression (vasana); that Bhava is 'Bhavita'—meaning accomplished/cultivated by the person; being such (habituated), whatever sentiment/form he remembers, he goes to that very state after abandoning the body—this is the connection.

'Remembering Me at the time of the end, he comes to Me alone'—this is not the (only) rule; rather, whatever 'Bhava'—specific deity—he abandons the body remembering or thinking of at the end, i.e., at the time of death, he goes to that very thought-of state alone, not another.

Although some have interpreted the reading 'Yam yam chapi' (and whatever) to mean 'remembering whatever else' due to the word 'cha' (and), yet since it has not been explained that way by the Commentator (Bhashyakara/Shankara), it should be disregarded.

What is the cause for the occurrence of memory at the time of the end even for one who is helpless? To this He says—'Sada tad-bhava-bhavitah'. 'Sada'—always; the 'Bhava'—feeling or impression—regarding that specific deity etc.; he by whom that is 'Bhavita'—practiced/cultivated. (Or) 'Always the 'Bhava'—meditation consisting of feeling—of that; he whose mind is 'Bhavita'—infused—with that'—taking this derivation as established, the Teachers (Shankara) have explained it thus, so there is no contradiction.

Addressing him as 'Kaunteya' (Son of Kunti), by showing the relationship, He indicates the ease of the practice of constant contemplation regarding Himself.

Smaran purushas tyajati (Remembering, the person abandons) — although the simultaneous occurrence is implied (by the present participle), the qualification 'Ante' (at the end) is given so that a dull-witted person (mandamati) may not entertain the doubt that there is no contradiction even if they occur at different times (i.e., remembering earlier and dying later). For a person of good intellect (sumati), there is indeed no scope for doubt, because 'abandoning while remembering' implies simultaneous occurrence.

[Objection:] There is a doubt of the wicked-minded (durmati) that due to (extreme) pain, one does not abandon the body while remembering? [Reply:] In the Skanda Purana, it is said: 'Abandoning the body, no one (devotee) attains delusion, without doubt.' And indeed, there is the Shruti: 'The tip of his heart lights up; by that light, this self departs' [Brihadaranyaka Up. 4.4.2].

With 'Sada tad-bhava-bhavitah' (Always habituated to that sentiment), He states the means for remembrance at the time of the end. 'Bhava' means the internal mind, for such is the designation. 'Bhavitatvam' means being excessively infused (ati-vasitatvam); because 'Bhavana' (feeling/contemplation) is defined as excessive impression (ati-vasana).

It is not only in the case of 'Effect Brahman' and 'Cause Brahman' that the attainment of that state occurs due to the force of the final thought born of contemplation. But even in the case of an insect (kita), the attainment of the nature of the object of contemplation (like the wasp) is seen by the force of contemplation even while living.

And it is remembered regarding Nandikeshvara — 'Contemplating on Mahadeva, he attained His likeness (sarupya) even without (taking) another body.' This is famous in Yoga Shastra as well.

Therefore, what need is there to say that the attainment of the contemplated nature in another body occurs due to the force of the final thought? Thinking this, He shows that very meaning elsewhere too—with 'Yam yam' (Whatever...) etc.

'Tad-bhava-bhavitah' means colored/infused by the latent impression (vasana) of the form to be contemplated.

"Ante"—at the time of the end; "Yam yam va api bhavam" (whatever being/state) one abandons the body remembering, he attains "tam tam bhavam eva" (that very state alone) after death.

And the "final thought" (antya-pratyaya) arises only regarding the object previously contemplated (purva-bhavita).

Since the final thought arises only regarding the subject practiced in the past time...

It is not the rule that only by remembering Me one attains My state. What then? — "Yam yam" (Whatever...) etc.

Whatever "Bhava"—meaning another deity or anything else—one abandons the body remembering at the time of the end, he attains that very "remembered" state alone.

The cause for the remembrance of a specific state at the time of the end is "Sada" (Always...).

"Sada" (Always) the "Bhava"—meaning contemplation (anuchintana) consisting of feeling—of that (object); he who is "Bhavita" by that, meaning one whose mind is infused/steeped (vasita-chitta) [in that thought].

One should not think that this is the nature of the final thought regarding the Lord alone; but rather, this is stated here as common to all—thus the "causative form" (prayojaka-akara) is stated by the verse "Yam yam" (Whatever...)—so he says "Smartuh" (Of the rememberer...).

The word "Anta" refers to the "time of the end" mentioned in the previous verse. To make known the power of the "final thought" of that time, he shows the connection with "Smaran" (Remembering)—with "Ante" (At the end), meaning at the time of death.

By the repetition (vipsa - "yam yam") and by "vapi" (or even), the rule regarding the object to be remembered and the absence of distinction between low and high objects are shown. By the repetition "Tam tam" (That that), the specific attainment without mixture (asankirna) is meant. By the emphasis (avadharana - "eva"/alone), its inevitability (durvaratvam) even in the presence of other powerful merits is intended.

The word "Bhava" here refers to "nature" (svabhava). The cognition of the substratum (dharmi) is inseparable (from the nature). If the word "Bhava" here meant "object" (padartha), there would be inconsistency (vairupyam) with the word "Bhava" presented (in the compound 'bhavita' or later in the verse). "Tam tam eti" (He goes to that very state)—this implies "characterization by similarity" (sajatya-lakshana).

Regarding "Tam tam evaiti" (He attains that very state)—the phrase "after death" (marananantaram) is stated to exclude the mere connection with that species common to all in just "any" birth (it implies immediate next birth). For in the case of the ancient Bharata becoming a deer, there was no gap of another birth. By "Sada tad-bhava-bhavitah" (Always habituated to that sentiment), the cause of the final memory is intended—so he says "Antimapratyayashcha" (And the final thought...).

"Tad-bhava-bhavitah" means infused with the feeling/contemplation of that; or, "he by whom the feeling in that has been cultivated" is "Tad-bhava-bhavitah."

भारत के महान तत्त्वचिन्तक ऋषियों द्वारा सम्यक् विचारोपरांत पहुँचे हुए निष्कर्ष को भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण यहाँ घोषित करते हैं अन्तकाल में जिस किसी भाव का स्मरण करते हुए जीव देह को त्यागता है वह उसी भाव को प्राप्त होता है चाहे वह पशुत्व का भाव हो अथवा देवत्व का।जैसा तुम सोचोगे वैसे ही बनोगे यह एक ऐसा सिद्धांत है जो किसी भी बुद्धिमान पुरुष को किसी दार्शनिक द्वारा दिए गये स्पष्टीकरण के बिना भी स्वत स्पष्ट हो जाता है। कर्मों के प्रेरक विचार हैं और किसी भी एक विशेष क्षण पर मनुष्य के मन में जो विचार आते हैं वे उसके पूर्वार्जित संस्कारों के अनुरूप ही होते हैं। इन संस्कार या वासनाओं का मनुष्य स्वयं निर्माण करता है। स्वाभाविक है जिस पुरुष ने जीवन पर्यन्त अनात्म उपाधियों से तादात्म्य हटाकर मन को आत्मा में स्थिर करने का सतत प्रयत्न किया हो ऐसे साधक पुरुष के मन में अध्यात्म संस्कार दृढ़ हो जाते हैं। इस सतत चिन्तन और संस्कारों के प्रभाव से मरणकाल में उसकी वृत्त सहज ही ध्येय विषयक होगी और तदनुसार ही मरणोपरांत उसकी यात्रा अपने निर्धारित लक्ष्य की ओर ही होगी। हम यह नहीं सोचें कि अन्तकाल में हम ईश्वर का स्मरण कर लेंगे अन्तकाल में अपनी भावी यात्रा को निर्धारित करने का अवसर नहीं होता क्योंकि पूर्वाभ्यास के अनुसार उसी प्रकार की ही वृत्ति मन में उठती है।

Now he decides the remaining question "How are You to be known at the time of departure?"—with "Antakale'pi" etc., up to "Asamshayam" (Without doubt). Not only in the healthy state, but even at the time of the end. "Mam"—Me, who am distinguished from all adjuncts.

And regarding how the Lord might enter the path of memory in the unhealthy state when the activity of all senses has ceased, He teaches the means too with "Tasmat" (Therefore - next verse). In all states, even during worldly transactions, he whose heart the Truth of God does not depart from—for that renouncer of all actions who is constantly full of God—the Truth of God necessarily and spontaneously becomes the object of memory.

The cause here is "being constantly habituated to that sentiment" (sada tad-bhava-bhavitatvam). Therefore, He says—by whatever object the inner instrument is habituated always, that alone is remembered at the time of death and that nature alone is attained. The purport is: One should be devoted to Me in all ways and desirous of obtaining Me. It is not the case that "whatever is remembered at the end (at the dying breath), that alone is attained."

For if that were so, even for a Knower (Jnani), whose mental function is impaired by the imbalance of humors lasting as long as the body, and who has attained dullness/stupor—the destination would be like that of a Tamasic person. And this acceptance is not proper here, due to contradiction with authoritative Shruti. There is indeed [the text]: "Whether in a holy place or in the house of a dog-eater, even if losing memory while abandoning the body, the one liberated at the very moment of Knowledge attains Kaivalya, free from grief."

Therefore, this [verse] is a restatement (anuvada) of the rule. By whatever the inner instrument is habituated always, that alone is attained at the end, after departure. And whether it is remembered or not (at that specific physical moment) is not the insistence (nirbandha) here. And this secondary/inclusive sense (anvachaya) is indicated by the word "Api" (also). The word "Va" (or) clarifies the non-absolute necessity (asarvatha-bhavam) of the act of remembering. And that a person should be devoted to Me always and in all ways—this purport the Sage (Vyasa) himself reveals. As he says—"Therefore, at all times remember Me."

Thus, the connection of words here is: Always remembering whatever sentiment/object one abandons the body, or even remembering at the end—by the use of "Va" (or), even not remembering—he goes to that very state. Because he is always habituated to that sentiment.

Others, however, [interpret]: When abandoning the body, at the end—at the moment of leaving the body, which is imperceptible to other observers like relatives and sons, and which is the final moment following actions like gasping, heavy breathing, hiccupping, and stammering; when the bond of bodily firmness has become very thin; in that fraction of time which is devoid of body-caused pleasure, pain, and delusion and is denoted by the word "body-abandoning"—whatever one remembers, that alone becomes his form, graced by the first consciousness (of the next life). And the cause of remembrance at such a time is "being constantly habituated to that sentiment." "Tyajati" (abandons) should be construed as Locative (Tyajti = while abandoning). This is the old meaning.

[Objection:] If so, what is the purpose of that remembrance at the time of the end? [Reply:] Who says it is a "purpose" (means)? Rather, it happens simply as a matter of fact (vastu-vritta) at that final moment. [Objection:] But remembrance of maintaining sons, wives, and relatives, or drinking cold water etc. is seen at the final moment; so there would be attainment of that nature? [Reply:] Not so. For that is not the "final moment" because the state of the body is still manifest/clear.

That "final moment" intended by us is not perceived by people like you. But in that final moment, the form which is "to be" (in the next birth)—its impression (samskara), even if distant—must undergo "Awakening" (Prabodha) according to the maxim "There is uninterrupted sequence between memory and samskara due to their uniformity, even if separated by birth, place, and time" (Yoga Sutra 4.9). By the force of that, there is remembrance of that, and by that remembrance, attainment of that state. For some, even in the healthy state of the body, that (future form) is manifested by chance (kakataliya). Just as the description in the Purana of the deer etc. (regarding Bharata), and the deer-hood caused by that.

That is why in "And even at the time of departure, Me..." (7.30), the phrase "Api cha" (And also/even) is used. For those who always contemplate on God, thinking "We shall become thus"—their latent impression born of that blocks other impressions (Yoga Sutra 1.50). According to this rule, at that unperceivable final state, by pushing aside other samskaras, the remembrance of That Truth created by that samskara—which is (similar to) the remembrance of Him created during the moment of bodily existence—immediately at the very moment of the fall of the body, due to the cessation of the time-samskara and the non-manifestation of distinctions of knowables like "this is that," there is the state of the nature of the Supreme Lord whose essence is Pure Consciousness alone. This is enough. "Asamshayam" (Without doubt)—The purport is that one should not doubt here.

"Now, since leaving the body has an invariable connection with the 'end' (time of death), saying 'Ante' (in the end) is useless"—to this he says "Smaran" (Remembering). "No, 'Ante' is not an adjective to 'Leaves the body' so that it would be useless; but 'Remembering in the end'—thus it is indeed of the remembering. Even there what is the purpose?"—if this is asked, it is said—Because by the rule "Lakshanahetvoh kriyayah" (Panini 3.2.126), the Shatri suffix is ordained even in the sense of 'Lakshana' (indication). "The man remembering (at some time) leaves the body (later)"—thus even if remembering and leaving the body have different times, there is no verbal contradiction (if Shatri is indicative)—such a doubt might arise for a dull-witted person; to prevent that, the adjective "Ante" is taken for remembering; by that, the simultaneousness of remembering and leaving the body is established here.

He states the function of the phrase "Of the dull-witted"—with "Sumateh" (Of the intelligent). "Why?"—to this he says "Smaran". By the rule "Latah shatrishanachau" (Panini 3.2.124), the Shatri suffix is ordained as a substitute for Lat (Present Tense); and that (Lat), while being present, due to the force of taking 'Lan' (Imperfect) again (elsewhere?), sometimes happens even in co-referentiality with the Nominative case; and the substitute for Lat is stronger than the one ordained in the sense of Lakshana (indication). Because there (in Lakshana), there is dependence on the accompanying word "Kriyayah", while this one is independent. And the rule "Aprathamasamanadhikarane" (In co-referentiality with non-nominative) is only to prevent over-application. And thus, when the stronger is accepted, "Smaran tyajati" (Remembering he leaves) means "He remembers and he leaves" (simultaneously). And thus, even without saying "Ante", since the simultaneousness of remembering and leaving is understood, for the intelligent person there is no scope for doubt at all; this is the purport.

(Objection) "Now, even the dull-witted knows verbal logic, otherwise he would not be qualified for Shastra; only he is not proficient in spiritual matters; so how would he too have this doubt? And then, even for him 'Ante' is useless?"—to this he says "Durmateh" (Of the dull-witted). For the dull-witted, the doubt regarding different times will arise. Why? At the time of death, great pain arises; and pain is well-known as the cause of loss of impressions (memory); therefore, due to the cause of pain, fainting, he does not leave 'remembering'. Meaning, at the time of leaving the body, remembrance is impossible. Seeing this impossibility, abandoning even the stronger Lat-substitute, he considers it indeed in the sense of Lakshana; this is the purport.

(Objection) "Now, even for the intelligent person such a doubt would indeed arise; and how is this a doubt? It is the perception of reality (fact)?"—(Answer) No; pain at the time of death happens only to the ignorant, the one identified with the body, who considers leaving the body like leaving the Self; that too only before the moment of death. But the Knower (Jnani), always considering the body as rejectable, does not suffer even slightly; but his departure is indeed specific (conscious)—because the intelligent one contemplating on the spiritual scripture has no scope for doubt.

"What is that spiritual scripture?"—to this he says "Tyajan" (Leaving). Some learned one. Even for the ignorant, "at that time, of him"—this refers only to the specificity of death. "Is not 'Ante' an adjective to remembering? If so, then by 'Sada tadbhavabhavitah' (8.6) itself the meaning would be obtained; otherwise that would be useless"—to this he says "Sada" (Always). Remembrance at the time of death alone is the means to attain That. And that does not happen accidentally; therefore, as a means to that, 'being always steeped in that thought' is stated; this is the meaning.

"How?"—so that this becomes the means to that, he explains "Bhava" (Thought/Feeling). "Tatha abhidhanat" (Because of such naming)—"Bhava means the mind gone within"—from such a name (definition); this is the meaning. "Vasitatvam" (Scented/Steeped) means purified/impressed. "Tasmin bhavah" (Thought in that) is "Tadbhavah"; "Tena bhavitah" (Steeped/Made to become by that)—thus by the attribute of the mind, the Self is figuratively described.

To state that for one meditating on the Lord at the time of the end, the attainment of the Lord is certain, He shows that for one abandoning the body while meditating on whatever other thing at that time, the attainment of that is inevitable—It is not the rule that only remembering Me one attains My state. What then? "Yam yam vapi" (Whatever...) "Bhava"—specific deity, and by the word "cha" (and), whatever else—remembering or thinking of at the end, at the time of separation of life-forces, one abandons the "Kalevara" (body), he "Eti" (attains) that very "remembered" state alone, not another.

By "O Kaunteya," He indicates excess affection due to being the son of His father's sister (paternal aunt). By that, his being worthy of necessary grace, and by that, the absence of any suspicion of deception (by the Lord) is indicated.

Even though the effort of remembrance is impossible at the time of the end, the very latent impression (vasana) generated by previous practice is the cause of memory—so He says "Sada" (Always...). "Sada"—always/at all times; "Bhava"—feeling or impression—in "Tat" (that) specific deity etc. is "Tad-bhavah"; he by whom that is "Bhavita"—accomplished—is "Tatha" (so described). The meaning is "Bhavita-tad-bhavah" (one by whom that feeling has been cultivated).

The placing of the word "Bhavita" at the end (instead of beginning) is due to it belonging to the "Ahitagni" class of compounds. Or, "Tad-bhavena"—by the thought of that—he who is "Bhavita"—one with an infused mind.

He states the cause for the remembrance of other objects—with "Yam yam" (Whatever...). O Kaunteya! Remembering "Yam yam"—whatever other deity, unfit for the remembrance of "That" (the Lord), or by the word "vapi" (or even), whatever form of living being desired by his mind—he abandons the body at the end, he "Eti" (attains) that very thing—meaning, the likeness/form of that. The word "Api" is in the sense of certainty, or (alternative). That is why for Bharata, upon remembering a deer at the end, the attainment of a deer body occurred; this very meaning is indicated by the word "Api."

Since one attains that very thing by remembering which one dies at the time of the end, therefore, there is no doubt regarding the attainment of Me upon dying with the remembrance of Me, even if done in a general way.

[Objection:] But given the distress/incapacity (vaikalya) at the end, how can the remembrance of another deity or one's desired object occur? To this He says—"Sada tad-bhava-bhavitah" (Always habituated to that sentiment). He who is continuously "Bhavita" (infused) with "Tad-bhava" (the feeling of that), remembers that very thing at the end.

Yam yam vapi—whatever "Bhava," i.e., specific deity, "Smaran"—remembering, i.e., thinking of; he "Tyajati"—abandons, i.e., completely leaves; "Ante"—at the time of the end, i.e., at the time of separation of the life-force; "Kalevaram"—the body; "Tam tam eva"—to that very remembered being alone he goes, not to another,

O Kaunteya. "Sada"—always/at all times; "Tadbhavabhavitah"—

"Bhava" (thought/feeling) regarding "Tat" (that) is "Tad-bhavah"; he by whom that is "Bhavita"—i.e., practiced through constant remembrance—being such a "Tad-bhava-bhavita" (one habituated to that thought).

Since, in this way, the final thought/feeling is the cause for the attainment of another body...

It is not the rule that only remembering Me one attains My state — "Yam yam" etc.

"Ante"—at the time of the end; (he attains) that very state. He attains the "Bhava"—the nature/form—which effects a form belonging to the species of its own object for the rememberer (smartuh); just like Bharata.

यम् which? यम् which? वा or? अपि even? स्मरन् remembering? भावम् nature (idea of object)? त्यजति leaves? अन्ते in the end? कलेवरम् the body? तम् to that? तम् to that? एव only? एति goes? कौन्तेय O Kaunteya? सदा constantly? तद्भावभावितः thinking of that object.Commentary The last thoughts determine the next birth. The most prominent thought of ones life occupies the mind at the time of death. The predominant idea at the time of death is what in normal life has occupied his attention most. The last thought determines the nature or character of the body to be attained next. As a man thinketh? so shall he becometh.The force of Samskaras which one has created by his previous practice is the cause of their remembrance at death. Those who have practised worship of God throughout their life can have remembrance of their tutelary deity at the time of death.The analogy of the wasp and the caterpillar (BhramaraKitaNyaya) can be applied here. The caterpillar constantly remembers the wasp and becomes eventually transformed into a wasp. Even so he who constantly remembers his tutelary deity becomes identical with that deity. Nandikesvara is an example. He constantly thought of his Lord and assumed a form eal to that of the Lord.If you constantly think of the immortal Self during your lifetime? you will entertain the thought of the Self only even at the time of death and will attain immortality. If you always think of your body and identify yourself with the perishable body you will be born again and again. If you think of you pet dog at the time of death you will be born as a dog. Raja Jadabharata thought of his pet deer at the time of his death and so he took the birth of a deer.Every man has a definite outlook on life? definite mode of thinking? definite cravings? desires and hopes? definite character? temperament? taste? disposition and attitude.This is all due to the impressions which have become part and parcel of his subconsciousness. This is all due to experiences which have left their indelible impressions on his mind.He always thinks of his body and physical needs. He searches for his happiness in the external? perishable objects. He identifies himself with the perishable body. He ignores his innermost? allblissful? immortal Self? the source of everything. He trains his body? senses? mind and intellect in worldly pursuits. He ignores the Yogic discipline of the mind and the senses. Therefore he always thinks of his body? bread? drink and clothing. He forgets all about God and the Self? the indweller? an embodiment of bliss and knowledge? fountain of joy and happiness.Desires are endless. Therefore man cannot gratify them in one birth. At the time of death the whole storehouse of impressions and desires is churned out and the most prominent? the strongest and cherished desire comes to the surface of the mind or the field of mental consciousness. This churned up butter or cream (cherished desire) arrests his attention for immediate gratification. He thinks of only that at the time of death. Just as the most vital mango plant shoots up prominently in the nursery? so also the strongest desire shoots up on the surface of the mind. If the desire is not gratified his mind gets saturated with it and it is gratified in his nextbirth. This desire will become very promenent in his next birth.You yourself are the author of your own destiny. You yourself are responsible for your thoughts? character? feelings? actions and experiences. You planted certain worldly desires and Samskaras in your subconscious mind? and allowed them to germinate and grow. If you had planted spiritual aspiration? the desire for liberation and spiritual Samskaras? you would reap the fruit of immortality and eternal bliss. As you sow so shall you reap.He who practises constant and profound meditation on the Self of his own tutelary deity throughout his life will be able to meet death with an unruffled mind. He alone would go to the Supreme? thinking of It at the time of his departure from this world? too. You should have exclusive devotion to God. Your whole mind must be absorbed in Him. You should not allow any outside worldly impressions? wherein there is an iota of selfish desire? to sink into your subconscious mind. Then you can think of the Lord exclusively at the time of death and enter His very Being.

O Son of Kunti, smaran, thinking of; bhavam, any entity, any particular deity; yam yam va api, which ever it may be; tyajati, one gives up; the kalevaram, body; ante, at the end, at the time of the departure of life; eti, he attains; tam tam eva, that very one, that very entity which is remembered-none else; having been sada, always; tadbhava-bhavitah, engrossed in its thought. Engrossment in it is tad-bhavah; one by whom that is remembered as a matter of habitual recollection is tadbhava-bhavitah.
Since the last thought is thus the cause of aciring the next body-

'At the end,' at the time of death, remembering whatsoever thought one abandones the body, to that alone one goes after death. The final thought arises only with reference to objects pervioulsy ruminated upon in one's thought.
As the final thought results only about an object previously contemplated upon,