Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 9 - Shloka (Verse) 29

व्याख्या--'समोऽहं सर्वभूतेषु'-- मैं स्थावरजंगम आदि सम्पूर्ण प्राणियोंमें व्यापकरूपसे और कृपादृष्टिसे सम हूँ। तात्पर्य है कि मैं सबमें समानरूपसे व्यापक, परिपूर्ण हूँ --'मया ततमिदं सर्वं जगदव्यक्तमूर्तिना' (गीता 9। 4), और मेरी सबपर समानरूपसे कृपादृष्टि है--'सुहृदं सर्वभूतानाम्' (गीता 5। 29)।

यदि कहो कि ) तब तो भगवान् रागद्वेषसे युक्त हैं क्योंकि वे भक्तोंपर ही अनुग्रह करते हैं दूसरोंपर नहीं करते? तो यह कहना ठीक नहीं है --, मैं सभी प्राणियोंके प्रति समान हूँ? मेरा न तो ( कोई ) द्वेष्य है और न ( कोई ) प्रिय है। मैं अग्निके समान हूँ। जैसे अग्नि अपनेसे दूर रहनेवाले प्राणियोंके शीतका निवारण नहीं करता? पास आनेवालोंका ही करता है? वैसे ही मैं भक्तोंपर अनुग्रह किया करता हूँ? दूसरों पर नहीं। जो ( भक्त ) मुझ ईश्वरका प्रेमपूर्वक भजन करते हैं? वे मुझमें स्वभावसे ही स्थित हैं? कुछ मेरी आसक्तिके कारण नहीं औरमैं भी स्वभावसेही उनमें स्थित हूँ? दूसरोंमें नहीं। परन्तु इतनेहीसे यह बात नहीं है कि मेरा उनमें ( दूसरोंमें ) द्वेष है।

Suspecting that the Lord is not God due to having attachment and aversion, he dispels it with 'Raga' etc. "Then worship of the Lord is of no consequence?" — suspecting this, he says 'Agnivat' (Like fire). He expands on that with 'Yatha' etc.

"How does the Lord, gracing devotees and not gracing non-devotees, not possess attachment etc.?" — suspecting this, he says 'Ye bhajanti' (Those who worship).

Those who worship Me through duties of Varna and Ashrama etc., by that very worship, due to its inconceivable greatness, having purified intellects, exist 'in Me'—near Me; they become possessing minds suitable for My manifestation. The word 'tu' is to illuminate this distinction. And 'in them'—near them—I also exist naturally, becoming intent on gracing them.

Just as solar light, though all-pervading, reflects in a clean mirror etc., similarly, the Supreme Lord inevitably becomes present in men whose inner selves have all impurities removed by devotion; because it has been said 'taking refuge in divine nature, they worship Me'; this is the meaning.

Objection: By gracing devotees with the gift of liberation etc., and not gracing non-devotees by not giving it, there is partiality in You? If so, to this He says — 'Samah' etc. I, the Supreme Self, the mass of Existence-Consciousness-Bliss, am equal in all beings from Brahma down to a clump of grass. Because no one is an object of My aversion nor an object of My attachment.

"If so, then how do You grace devotees and not others?" To this He says — 'Ye' etc. The word 'tu' is for cutting off the doubt.

Just as sunlight, though equal on clean and unclean mirrors, exists specially in the clean ones and not in the unclean ones. Just as fire, though equal everywhere, destroys the cold of those who are near, not of those who are not near. Or just as the wish-fulfilling tree (Kalpavriksha) graces those who resort to it, not those who do not.

Similarly, those who worship—serve—Me with devotion, they naturally exist 'in Me'. Having their mental modifications shaped into My form, they become recipients of grace; this is the meaning. And I exist 'in them' naturally—meaning, being naturally reflected in their mental modifications, I become the bestower of grace.

Then, because of possessing affection etc., do You give much fruit even to some minor devotee? And even to some adverse person, the opposite? To this He says — 'Samo'ham' (I am equal) etc.

"Then there is no purpose for devotion?" To this He says — 'Ye bhajanti' (Those who worship) etc. 'They are in Me and I am in them' means: they are under My control, and I am under their control. And it is stated in the Paingikhila text: "Those who indeed worship the Supreme Person, He is under their control, and they are under My control."

Are they always under His control? Even so, there is a difference based on whether it is conscious (deliberate) or unconscious; like Uddhava etc. and Shishupala etc. That too is stated in the same place: "That control/subjection which is unconscious, through meditation on Him, becomes conscious control again."

Since He graces only devotees and not others, "The Lord possesses attachment and aversion"—to this (doubt) He says 'Samo'ham' etc.

Just as fire, though devoid of attachment etc., destroys the cold only of those standing near, not of those standing far; similarly, though equal everywhere, I destroy the bondage only of those who have taken refuge, not of others; this is the meaning. Therefore, I have no attachment or aversion; this is the idea.

'Mayi te teshu capy aham' — Devotees, due to taking exclusive refuge, exist in Me alone; I too exist in them alone. In the minds of non-devotees, because they are overcome by attachment etc., My manifestation is not there specially; this is the idea.

Existing in the forms of gods, animals, humans, and immovable beings; and existing in extremely superior and inferior forms in terms of caste, form, nature, and knowledge—in all beings, I am 'equal' in terms of being accessible/worthy of refuge. "This one is inferior by caste, form, nature, knowledge, etc."—therefore, in terms of taking refuge, no one is hateful to Me, i.e., not to be rejected as causing agitation. Similarly, apart from the fact of having taken refuge, "This one is extremely superior by caste etc."—therefore, being endowed with that, in terms of taking refuge, no one is dear to Me, i.e., not to be accepted (preferentially).

But rather, those who worship Me with the sole purpose of worshipping Me, because of extreme love for Me and being unable to sustain themselves without My worship—whether they are superior or inferior by caste etc.—they exist 'in Me alone' at ease, like those possessing qualities equal to Mine; and I too exist 'in them' as if they were superior to Me.

If You give liberation only to devotees and not to non-devotees, then is there partiality in You caused by attachment and aversion?

"No," He says — 'Samah' etc. I am equal in all beings. Therefore, no one is dear to Me nor hateful.

Even while this is so, those who worship Me, those devotees exist 'in Me'. I too exist 'in them' as the bestower of grace.

This is the idea: Just as fire removes the darkness, cold, and suffering only of those who serve it, yet there is no partiality (in the fire); or just as in the case of the Kalpavriksha (wish-fulfilling tree); similarly, even though I am partial to devotees, there is no inequality in Me, but this is the glory of devotion to Me.

Acceptance through 'eating' based on the gradation of objects like rare/common and superior/inferior was stated in the verse 'Patram' [9.26]; by that, 'Saulabhya' (Accessibility) was stated. By 'Yat karoshi' [9.27] etc., since everything done becomes His worship merely by a specific mental attitude, that same (Accessibility) was strengthened.

Now, in the verse 'Samo'ham', which is intent on praising the qualified aspirant of Bhakti Yoga, ignoring the gradation of caste, form, etc., the 'mutual harmony' (Aikarasya) of the Lord with the devotees is stated. By this, 'Saushilya' (Affectionate condescension) is stated.

The doubt of attachment and aversion arising from the punishment of Kamsa etc. and gracing of Akrura etc., and from statements like 'Offer that to Me' [9.27] and 'You will come to Me' [9.28], should be refuted; with this intention He says 'Mama' (My) etc. The word 'Aham' (I) here is meant to exclude everyone other than Himself; with this intention, it is said 'Atilokam' (Extraordinary). The inequality which opposes 'Samo'ham' is intended by the word 'Sarva' (all); with this intention, he says 'Deva' (Gods) etc.

'By caste' — divinity, humanity, brahminhood, kshatriyahood, etc. 'By form' — beautiful, femininity, masculinity, symmetrical/asymmetrical limbs, etc. He will indeed say — 'Even those who may be of sinful birth... women, Vaishyas...' [9.32]. 'By nature' — this implies Sattvic, Rajasic, etc.

The taking refuge in the Lord by gods etc. is supported in the aphorism 'Taduparyapi Badarayanah sambhavat' [Brahma Sutra 1.3.26]. Even among animals, it is well-known in Gajendra, Vanarendra, etc., who possessed special knowledge due to excessive merit. Therefore, there is no contradiction with the 'Tiryagadhikarana' (exclusion of animals). Even among immovable beings, born due to curses etc., great sages speak of knowledge in some places. And then, taking refuge in the form of mental modification is certainly possible even there.

Since the negation 'I have no hateful or dear one' expects a context, inferiority and superiority by caste etc. are mentioned as the inviters of what is to be negated; he says this with 'Ayam' (This one) etc. Since hatefulness and dearness mean 'to be rejected/not rejected' and 'to be accepted', the negation of those results in the negation of these; with this intention, it is said 'not to be rejected as causing agitation' and 'not to be accepted'. To avoid negating the dearness that depends on taking refuge, it is said 'apart from the fact of having taken refuge'.

'If there is no dearness due to superiority by caste etc. which is famously the cause of dearness, then from where does it come? If from nowhere, then statements like "And he is dear to Me" would be contradicted' — the word 'tu' is to remove this doubt; with this intention, he says 'Api tu' (But rather). To avoid repetition between 'Bhaktya' and 'Bhajanti', he states the connection with 'Atyartha' (Extreme) etc. 'Ye' (Those who) implies the lack of rule regarding superiority and inferiority; he says 'Te jatyadibhih' (They by caste etc.).

Mutual harmony like equals is intended here by 'Mayi' (In Me) etc.; with this intention, it is said 'Matsamanagunavat...' (Like one possessing qualities equal to Mine, at ease). Objection: 'How can those worshipping You while contemplating You as the Master have an attitude like one possessing equal qualities?' The answer to this is given by 'Teshu capy aham' (And I also in them); with this intention, he says 'Ahamapi' (I also). Due to excessive Saushilya, I honor them as if they were superior even to Me, by the process stated in 'The God accepts with His head' [Mahabharata 12.343.64]; and thus, devoid of the fear/hesitation caused by contemplating My Supreme Lordship etc., they serve Me with ease; this is the idea. The condensed meaning is that I and they are mutually 'entrusted' like father and son etc.

Since worship is done through duties prescribed for one's own caste, there is no contradiction in mentioning inferior castes.

भूतमात्र में व्याप्त आत्मा एक ही है वही एक चैतन्य तत्त्व प्राणिमात्र के अन्तकरण की भावनाओं एवं विचारों को प्रकाशित करता है। मैं समस्त भूतों में सम हूँ। एक सूर्य जगत् की सभी वस्तुओं को प्रकाशित करता है और उसकी किरणें सभी वस्तुओं की सतहों पर से परावर्तित होती हैं चाहे वह सतह पाषाण की हो या किसी रत्न की।मुझे न कोई अप्रिय है और न कोई प्रिय यदि एक ही आत्मा? श्रीकृष्ण और बुद्ध में? आचार्य शंकर और ईसामसीह में? एक पागल और हत्यारे में तथा साधु और दुष्ट में रमती है तो क्या कारण है कि कोईकोई पुरुष तो इस आत्मा को पहचान पाते हैं? जबकि अन्य लोग कृत्रिम कीटों के समान जीवन जीते हैं भक्तिमार्ग की विवेचना करने वाले भावना प्रधान साहित्य में उपर्युक्त वैषम्य का भावुक स्पष्टीकरण दिया जाता है। उनके अनुसार ईश्वर की कृपा के कारण किन्हीं किन्हीं पुरुषों में दिव्यता अधिक मात्रा में अभिव्यक्त होती है। यह स्पष्टीकरण उन लोगों के लिए पर्याप्त या सन्तोषजनक हो सकता है? जो धर्मविषयक चर्चा में अपनी बौद्धिक क्षमता का अधिक उपयोग नहीं करते हैं। परन्तु बुद्धिमान विचारी पुरुषों को यह स्पष्टीकरण असंगत जान पड़ेगा? क्योंकि उस स्थिति में यह मानना पड़ेगा कि परमात्मा कुछ लोगों के प्रति पक्षपात करते हैं। इस प्रकार की दोषपूर्ण व्याख्या का खण्डन और शुद्ध तर्क संगत सिद्धांत का प्रतिपादन करते हुए भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण कहते हैं कि आत्मा भूतमात्र में सदा एक समान भाव से स्थित है। उसके लिए शुभ और अशुभ का भेदभाव नहीं है आत्मा को किसी प्राणी के प्रति न प्रेम विशेष है और न किसी अन्य के प्रति द्वेष।इसका अर्थ यह नहीं समझना चाहिए कि आत्मा कोई शक्तिहीन जड़ तत्त्व है। सूर्य की उपमा द्वारा इस श्लोक का आशय सम्यक् प्रकार से समझा जा सकता है। यद्यपि एक ही सूर्य जगत् की विविध प्रकार की वस्तुओं पर प्रतिबिम्बत या परावर्तित होता है? तथापि यह भी सत्य है कि परावर्तित प्रकाश की स्पष्टता एवं प्रखरता परावर्तन के माध्यम की सतह के गुणों पर निर्भर करेगी। एक खुरदरे पाषाण पर प्रकाश की न्यूनतम मात्रा परावर्तित होगी? जबकि स्वच्छ चमकीले दर्पण पर सम्भवत सर्वाधिक होगी।इस भेद के कारण सूर्य पर यह आरोप नहीं लगाया जा सकता कि उसे दर्पण के प्रति विशेष प्रेम है और पाषाण के प्रति घृणा। इस उपमा को आन्तरिक जीवन में लागू करके देखें? तो यह स्पष्ट होगा कि यदि स्वर्णिमहृदय के कुछ विरले लोगों में आध्यात्मिक सौन्दर्य एवं सार्मथ्य अधिक मात्रा में व्यक्त होती है और अनेक पाषाणी हृदयों के व्यक्तियों में रंचमात्र भी नहीं? तो इसका कारण विभिन्न उपाधियां हैं? और न कि आत्मा। आत्मा न किसी को वरीयता देता है और न किसी के प्रति उसका पूर्वाग्रह ही है। हमें जो विषमता अनुभव होती है? वह सर्वथा प्रकृति के नियमानुसार ही है।प्रथम पंक्ति में परमात्मा का पक्षपातरहित स्वरूप दिखाया? और फिर कहते हैं कि? परन्तु जो मुझे भक्तिपूर्वक भजते हैं? वे मुझमें और मैं भी उनमें हूँ। इन दोनों पंक्तियों में विरोधाभास प्रत्यक्ष होते हुए भी वास्तविकता ऐसी नहीं हैं। यह सत्य है कि परमात्मा को किसी से राग या द्वेष नहीं है? किन्तु लोगों का उनके प्रति अवश्य ही राग या द्वेष हो सकता है। जिन्हें ईश्वर से प्रेम है? वे लोग उनके समीप पहुँचना चाहते हैं और अन्य लोग उनसे दूर ही रहते हैं। इस प्रकार जो भक्तिपूर्वक परमात्मा की पूजा करते हैं वे अन्त में अपने पूज्य और ध्येय को आत्मस्वरूप में साक्षात् अनुभव करते हैं? अर्थात् उन्हें यह ज्ञान होता है कि वास्तव में वे परमात्मस्वरूप से एक ही हैं? भिन्न नहीं।जो मुझे भक्तिपूर्वक भजते हैं प्रारम्भ में इसका अर्थ कर्मकाण्डीय पूजा के विविध विधान से समझा जा सकता है। उसके आध्यात्मिक अभिप्राय को समझने के लिए सूक्ष्म और गम्भीर अध्ययन की आवश्यकता है। मूलत पूजा वह साधन प्रकिया है? जिसके द्वारा सम्पूर्ण वृत्तिरूपी सैन्य को संगठित करके उन्हें ध्यान के दिव्य ध्येय की ओर प्रवृत्त किया जाता है। इसमें प्रयत्न यह होता है कि ध्येय सत्य के साथ पूर्ण तादात्म्य? पूर्ण एकत्व स्थापित हो जाय। यह साधना भक्तिपूर्वक करने से भक्त भगवान् से? ध्याता ध्येय से तद्रूप हो जाता है।इस अभिप्राय को ध्यान में रखकर इस श्लोक का पुन अध्ययन करने पर भगवान् के सैद्धांतिक कथन का अर्थ स्पष्ट हो जाता है। यद्यपि सत्स्वरूप आत्मा को किसी से कोई पक्षपात नहीं है? परन्तु किन्हींकिन्हीं शुद्धांतकरण के भक्तजनों में अपने परमात्मस्वरूप की पहचान के कारण इस दिव्यत्व की अभिव्यक्ति होती है।अनात्म उपाधियों के साथ आत्मबुद्धि से अत्यधिक आसक्ति के कारण जीव पूर्णत्व के आनन्द का अनुभव नहीं कर पाता है। परन्तु जब इस आसक्ति और बहिर्मुखी प्रवृत्तियों का वह परित्याग कर देता है? तब ज्ञान प्राप्ति का अधिकारी बन कर अपने आत्मस्वरूप के साथ एकरूप हो जाता है। मनुष्य के मन की स्थिति उसके बद्धत्व या मुक्तत्व का द्योतक है। बहिर्मुखी मन अनित्य विषयों में सुख की खोज करते हुए उनसे बँध जाता है और सदा दुख और निराशा के कारण कराहता रहता है जबकि वही मन अन्तर्मुखी होकर आत्मचिन्तन के द्वारा आत्मानुभव को प्राप्त करता है।शीतकाल में अपने कमरे के अन्दर बैठकर कोई व्यक्ति अत्यधिक शीत का अनुभव करता है? जबकि अन्य व्यक्ति बाहर सूर्य की खुली धूप में बैठकर सूर्य की उष्णता का आनन्द लेता है। सूर्य को बाहर बैठे व्यक्ति से न प्रेम है और न कमरे में बैठे व्यक्ति से कोई द्वेष। इस श्लोक की भाषा में हम कह सकते हैं कि बाहर धूप में बैठे लोग सूर्य से अनुग्रहीत हैं और अन्य लोग उसकी कृपा से वंचित हैं। किसी भी स्थान पर गीता मनुष्य को परिस्थितियों के सामने अथवा अपनी दुर्बलता और अयोग्यता के समक्ष आत्मसमर्पण करने को प्रेरित नहीं करती यह गीताशास्त्र कर्तव्य कर्म और आशावादी प्रयत्नों को प्रोत्साहित करने वाला है जो इस पर बल देता है कि मनुष्य अपनी दुर्बलताओं एवं परिस्थितियों का स्वामी है? दास नहीं।क्या आत्मसाक्षात्कार का मार्ग केवल साधु पुरुषों के लिए ही उपलब्ध है भगवान् इस भक्ति के माहात्म्य को बताते हुए कहते हैं --

From 'Samah' etc. up to 'Pranashyati' (Verse 31).

'Pratijane' (I declare/promise) —

This meaning is logical (yukti-yukta), and because it is promised by the Lord, it becomes extremely firm.

Having stated that He is dear to devotees, how is the contrary—equality everywhere—stated? To this he says — 'Tarhi' etc. If You are dear to devotees, then there must be someone hateful and not dear? And then, due to having affection and hatred towards devotees and haters respectively, You give much happy fruit even to some minor devotee? And to the opposite, even a minor hater, You give much painful fruit? Such objections would arise? Because it is seen so in kings etc. Thus, partiality and cruelty would be in You; this is the meaning of the doubt.

Since the doubt is resolved by the first half itself, what is the use of the second half? To this he says — 'Tarhi' etc. For I am equal in all beings, not possessing partiality etc.; because for Me, there is no one more hateful relative to his hatred (towards Me), and no one more dear relative to his devotion—even though this is stated by the Lord, taking the opposite meaning, he raises a doubt: 'If no one is dear to You, then devotion is not the purpose/cause'—of the fruit. And thus there is contradiction with what was said; this is the idea.

'Mayi te teshu capy aham' — this is not a fruit because it is established by nature? To this he says — 'Mayi' etc. The construction is 'of this, this is the meaning'. From where is this? To this he says — 'Uktam ca' (And it is said).

'Mama te vashah' (They are under My control)—this is also similar? Because even in the absence of worship, being under His control is natural? To this he says — 'Tad' etc. 'Yadyapi' (Even though) is the completion. Here he states an example and evidence — 'Uddhavadivat' etc. That control which is unconscious (becomes conscious through meditation).

If You grace only devotees and not non-devotees, then due to possessing attachment and aversion, how can You be the Supreme Lord? "No," He says — I am 'equal'—identical in all living beings; in the form of Existence, in the form of Illumination (Sphurana), and in the form of Bliss; and through natural and conditional Inner Controllership. Therefore, no one is an object of My aversion or an object of My affection, just like the solar light pervading the sky.

Then how is there inequality in fruit between devotee and non-devotee? To this He says — 'Ye bhajanti tu' — But those who worship—serve Me with devotion in the form of offering all actions. The word 'tu' is to illuminate the distinction of devotees relative to non-devotees. What is that? 'Mayi te' — Those whose inner organs are purified by desireless actions offered to Me, having all impurities of Rajas and Tamas removed, generating a mental modification constantly taking My form through the authority of the Upanishads in their extremely clean inner organ due to the preponderance of Sattva, exist 'in Me'. I too, being reflected in their extremely clean mental modification, exist 'in them'.

The word 'ca' is for emphasis—'They alone in Me, and I alone in them.' For it is the very nature of a clean substance that it takes the form of that with which it is connected. And it is the very nature of an object connected with a clean substance that it reflects in it. Similarly, it is the very nature of an unclean substance that it does not take the form of even what is connected to it. And it is the very nature of an object connected with an unclean substance that it does not reflect in it.

Just as solar light, though present everywhere, manifests only in a clean mirror etc., not in an unclean pot etc. By that much, it is not attached to the mirror, nor does it hate the pot. Similarly, though equal everywhere, manifesting in the clean mind of a devotee and not manifesting in the unclean mind of a non-devotee, I am not attached anywhere, nor do I hate anyone. Since an effect arising from the limitations of the material (samagri) cannot be questioned/challenged, the non-partiality should be explained like fire and like the wish-fulfilling tree.

Thus, by stating the cessation of bondage through offering actions, and concluding that bondage remains for non-offerers, suspecting partiality in Himself due to that, He says — 'Samo'ham' etc. I am equal in all beings. No one is hateful to Me, nor dear.

Here is the idea: All beings were created by Me for My sport; therefore I am equal in all of them. Those who, not knowing the purpose as sport, perform actions otherwise, they create inequality regarding Me; therefore, their bondage etc. happens solely due to their own fault. But those who worship Me with devotion—with affection, knowing Me as the form of sport (or the purpose as sport), they stand in Me through their nature of worship; and I stand in them, pleased by their action. Therefore, there is no partiality; this is the idea.

I am 'Samah'—equal in all beings. No one is hateful to Me, nor dear.

I am like fire — just as fire does not remove the cold of those standing far, but removes it for those approaching near; similarly, I grace the devotees, not the others.

But those who worship Me, the Lord, with devotion, 'they are in Me' — naturally indeed; not because of My attachment, they exist in Me. 'And I too exist in them' naturally indeed, not in others.

By this much, there is no hatred in Me (towards others).

Listen to the glory of devotion to Me —

Objection: If You give liberation only to devotees and not to non-devotees, then is there partiality in You caused by attachment and aversion? "No, no," He says — 'Samo'ham' etc.

I exist equally indeed in all beings—high and low—not unequally. From the statement "I am equal in friend and foe."

Even while this is so, those who worship Me with devotion, they indeed are 'in Me' — having Me as their support; and I too am 'in them' — having them as My support. And this is the very glory of devotion that brings about My lack of independence.

And so it is stated in the Bhagavatam [9.4.63-68] by the Lord Himself: "Sadhus are My heart, and I am the heart of Sadhus... O Brahmin, I am dependent on the devotee, as if I have no independence... They bring Me under control through devotion, just as good wives do a good husband..." etc.

And yet, the fault (of partiality) does not remain, because of the nature of being a Kalpavriksha (wish-fulfilling tree). Just as it is not proper to speak of partiality in a Kalpavriksha etc. because the desires etc. of those who do not resort to it are not fulfilled, similarly it should be understood regarding the Lord.

समः the same? अहम् I? सर्वभूतेषु in all beings? न not? मे to Me? द्वेष्यः hateful? अस्ति is? न not? प्रियः dear? ये who? भजन्ति worship? तु but? माम् Me? भक्त्या with devotion? मयि in Me? ते they? तेषु in them? च and? अपि also? अहम् I.Commentary The Lord has an even outlook towards all. He regards all living beings alike. None He has condemned? none has He favoured. He is the enemy of none. He is the partial lover of none. He does not favour some and frown on others. The egoistic man only has created a wide gulf between himself and the Supreme Being by his wrong attitude. The Lord is closer to him that his own breath? nearer than his hands and feet.I am like fire. Just as fire removes cold from those who draw near it but does not remove the cold from those who keep away from it? even so I bestow My grace on My devotees? but not owing to any sort of attachment on My part. Just as the light of the sun? though pervading everywhere? is reflected only in a clean mirror but not in a pot? so also I? the Supreme Lord? present everywhere? manifest Myself only in those persons from whose minds all kinds of impurities (which have accumulated there on account of ignorance) have been removed by their devotion.The sun has neither attachment for the mirror nor hatred for the pot. The Kalpavriksha has neither hatred nor love for people. It bestows the desired objects only on those who go near it. (Cf.VII.17XII.14and20)Now hear the glory of devotion to Me.

Aham, I; am samah, impartial, eal; sarva-bhutesu, towards all beings; me, to Me; na asti, there is none; dvesyah, detestable; na, none; priyah, dear. I am like fire: As fire does not ward off cold from those who are afar, but removes it from those who apporach, near, similarly I favour the devotees, not others. Tu, but; ye, those who approach near, similarly I favour the devotees, not others. Tu, but; ye, those who; bhajanti, worship Me, God; bhaktya, with devotion; te they; exist mayi, in Me-by their very nature; ['Their mind becomes fit for My manifestation, as it has been purified by following the virtuous path.'] they do not exist in Me because of My love, Ca, and; aham, I; api, too; naturally exist tesu, in them, not in others. Thus there is no hatred towards them (the latter).
'Listen to the greatness of devotion to Me:'

Being a refuge for all, I am the same to all creation, be they gods, animals, men or immovables, who exist differentiated from the highest to the lowest according to their birth, form, nature and knowledge. With regard to those seeking refuge, none is hateful because of inferiority in status by birth, form, nature, knowledge etc. No one is discarded as an object of odium. Likewise, it is not that one who has resorted to Me is dear to Me on account of any consideration like birth, status etc. That he has taken refuge in Me is the only consideration. The meaning is no one is accepted as a refuge for reasons like birth. But those who worship Me as their sole objective I like, because I am exceedingly dear to them, and because they find it impossible to sustain themselves without My worship. So they abide in Me, irrespective of whether they are exalted or humble by birth etc. They abide in Me, as if they possess alities eal to Mine. I also abide in them, as if they are My superiors. Moreover: