Bhagavad Gita

Tim's Fins : the fires which consume the worlds at the time of dissolution (pralaya). / know mt the fonv qiiartevs'. I cannot distinguish the East and the West, I cannot discriminate the different quarters. Arjuna's vision of the defeat of the enemy. My fear, too, of defeat at the hands of others is gone ; for, 26 — 27. And all these sons of Dhntarashira, with hosts of princes, Bhishma, Dro»a and that son (Karnal of a charioteer, with the warrior chiefs of ours, enter hurrying into Thy mouth, terrible with tusks and fearful to behold. Some are found sticking in the gaps betwixt the teeth with their heads crushed to powder. Sons : such as Duryodhana. Ouvs : such as Dhnsh^adyumna. Sticking : like a piece of flesh. How do they enter into Thy mouth ? — Arjuna says : 28. As many torrents of rivers flow direct towards the sea, so do these heroes in the world of men enter Thy flaming mouths. These : such as Bhishma. Why and how do they enter ? — /\rjuna says : 29. As moths hurriedly rush into a blazing lire for destruction, just so do these creatures also hurriedly rush into Thy mouths for destruction.

The splendour of the Universal Form. 30. Thou lickest up devouring all worlds on every side with Thy flaming mouths, filling the whole world with flames. Thy fierce rays are blazing forth, O Vishwu. 256 THE BHAGAVAD-GiTA. PDlS. XI. Because Thou art so fierce, wherefore, 31. Tell me who thou art, so fierce in form. I bow to Thee, O God Supreme ; have mercy. I desire to know Thee, the Original Being. I know not indeed Thy doing. The Lord's advent for destruction of worlds. The Blessed Lord said : 32. I am the mighty world-destroying Time, now engaged in destroying the worlds. Even without thee, none of the warriors arrayed in hostile armies shall live. Warriors ; Bhishma, Dro«a, Kar»a and others. Such being the case, 33. Therefore do thou arise and obtain fame. Conquer the enemies and enjoy the unrivalled dominion. By Myself have they been already slain ; be thou a mere instrument, O Savyasachin. Fame : that Bhishma and other atirathas (great warriors ) arrayed in the hostile army, unconquerable even to Devas, have been defeated by Arjuna. Such a fame is the result only of good karma. Enemies : such as Duryodhana. Savyasachin : Arjuna who could shoot arrows even with the left hand.

34. Dro;/a and Bhishma, Jayadratha, Kama and other brave warriors, — these, killed by Me, do thou kill; fear not, fight^ thou shalt conquer the enemies. The Lord speaks of these warriors — whom iVrjuna had any reason to fear — as killed by Himself. Now it is evident why there should be any hesitation (on the part of Arjuna) concerning Dro;/a and Bhishma. Dro/za was his teacher in the science of archery, was possessed of celestial weapons and was especially his (Arjuna's) own dear greatest Guru. Bhishma had his death at his own command and was possessed of celestial weapons. He, once entered into a single combat with Para5u-Rama and was not defeated. As to Jayadratha, his father was engaged in austerity, firmly resolved that " whoever causes my son's head to drop down on earth, his head too shall fall." Kar7/a, too, was furnished with an unerring Sakti (missile) given him by Indra. He was a son of the sun, born of a maiden. Wherefore he is also mentioned by name. Enemies : such as Duryodhana. Arjuna's adoration of the Universal Form. 35. Having heard that speech of Kesava, the crowned one 'Arjuna), with joined palms, trembling, prostrating himself, again addressed Krishna, stammering, bowing down, overwhelmed with fear.

When a man is overpowered with fear or with love, his eyes become full of tears, owing to the attack of pain or owing to the rise of joy: then his throat is choked up with phlegm, and this again causes indistinctness and dulness in speech. Thus did Arjuna speak in a stammering tone. Sa/ijaya's speech on this occasion is very significant. — How ? — Sa;;jaya hoped that on seeing that his (Dhntarash^ra's) son would certainly be killed for want of support if the unconquerable four, including Drowa, should be killed by Arjuna, Dhntarash^ra might despair of success and bring about peace. Thus he hoped there would be happiness to both. Even to this, Dhntarash/ra did not Usten, owing to mighty Destiny. 36. It is meet, O Hrishikesa, that the world is delighted and rejoices by Thy praise ; Rakshasas fly in fear to all quarters, and all hosts of Siddhas bow to Thee. Praise : description of Thy glory. This verse may be also rendered so as to mean : The Lord is the proper object of delight and love, for the Lord is the Self of all and the Friend of all beings. Siddhas : such as Kapila. It is meet that such should be the case so far as Thou art concerned.

For the following reason also the Lord is the object of delight, etc. : ^y. And how should they not, O Mighty Being, bow to Thee, Greater (than all else), the Primal Cause even of Brahma, O Infinite Being, O Lord of Gods, O Abode of the Universe ; Thou art the Imperishable, the Being and the non-Being, That which is the Supreme. Bi'ahma : the Hira/jyagarbha. (Because Thou art the Mighty Being), therefore Thou art the proper object of delight and worship. Thou art the Supreme Being, as revealed in the Vedantas ( Upanishads ) : Thou art the Sat and the A-sat. The existent, as well as the non-existent — i. e., that with reference to which arises our consciousness of non-existence, — form the upadhis (conditions) of the Akshara, on account of whicli He is spoken of as the 5^^ or the A-sat, the existent or the non-existent. In reality, the Imperishable (Akshara) whom the Veda-knowers speak of transcends the Sat and the A-sat, and He is Thyself and none else. He again extols the Lord thus . 38. Thon art the Primal God, the Ancient Piiriisha; Then art the Supreme Abode of all this. Thou art the Knower and the Knowable and the Supreme Abode. By Thee is all pervaded, O Being of infinite forms.

Piiiual God: because Thou art thecreator of the Universe. Piinisha: so called because He lies in the body. Abode: that in which the Universe rests during the Great Pralaya and such other periods. Knowey: of all tlie knowable things. Supreme Abode : of Vish/ai. 39. Thou art Va3'u, Yama, Agni, Varu;/a, the Moon, Prajapati, and the Great Grand-Father. Hail ! Hail to Thee ! a thousand times, and again and again hail ! hail to Thee ! Prajapati: such as Kasyapa. Great Grand-Father: the father even of Brahma. Again : This shows Arjuna's dissatisfaction due to his extreme faith and devotion. 40. Hail to Thee before and behind ! Hail to Thee on every side! O All! Thou, infinite in power and infinite in daring, pervadcst all; wherefore Thou art W\. 26o THE BHAGAVAD-GITA. [DiS.XI Before : in the East. On every side : as thou art present in all quarters. A man may be powerful, but he may not dare lo slay the enemies, or he may be slow in daring ; but Thou art infinite both in power and in daring. Pervadest : by Thy One Self. 0 All : without Thee nothing exists. Arjuna's prayer for the Lord's forgiveness.

Because I have been a sinner for want of knowledge of Thy greatness, therefore, 41-42. Whatever was rashh' said by me from carelessness or love, addressing Thee as " O Krishna, O Yadava, O friend," looking on Thee merely as a friend, ignorant of this Thy greatness,— in whatever way I may have insulted Thee for fun while at play, on bed, in an assembly, or at meals, when alone, O Achyuta, or in company — that I implore Thee, Immeasureable, to forgive. Looking on Thee merely as a friend : owing to misconception. Greatness: The Universal Form as Isvara. Carelessness: the mind being attracted elsewhere. Love : confidence born of affection. That: all those offences. 43. Thou art the Father of this world, moving and unmoving. Thou art to be adored bj- this (world). Thou the Greatest Guru ; (for) Thy equal exists not ; whence another, superior to Thee, in the three worlds, O Being of unequalled greatness ? Thy equal exists not : for there cannot be two Isvaras or Lords ; if there were more than one Isvara, the world could not get on as it now does.''= When even Thy equal exists not, how can there exist a being superior to Thee ?

Because it is so, 44. Therefore, bowing down, prostrating my body, I implore Thee, adorable Lord, to forgive. It is meet Thou shouldst bear with me as the father with the son, as friend with friend, as the lover with the beloved. As ihe father, etc. As a father forgives his son's offences. Arjuna's prayer for the Lord's resumption of His usual form. 45. I am delighted, having seen what was unseen before ; and (yet) my mind is confounded with fear. Show me that form only, O God ; have mercy, O God of Gods, O Abode of the Universe. What was unseen before: the Universal Form never before seen by me or anybody else. Therefore show me only that form (which Thou wearest) as my friend. 46. I wish to see Thee as before, crowned, possessed of the club, with the discus in the hand, in Thy former form only, having four arms, O Thousand-armed, O Universal Form. Thy former form : as the son ofVasudeva. Thousand -armed: referring to the Universal Form manifested at present. * When one /svara desires to create, eflbrt of one /svara in one direction another may desire to destroy. There is would be neutralised by that of another

no guarantee that all the different /svaras in the opposite direction. The world would be of one mind : and as they would could not exist as it exists now. — (A.) all be independent of each other, the Withdrawing Thy Universal Form," do Thou put on Thy former one. The Lord resumes His usual form. Seeing Arjuna afraid, the Lord withdrew the Universal Form ; and consoling Arjuna with sweet words, He said : The Blessed Lord said : 47. Ry Me, gracious to thee, O Arjuna, this Supreme Form has been shown, — by my sovereign power — full of splendour, the All, the Boundless, the Original Form of Mine, never before seen by any other than thyself. The Lord praises that Form on the ground that ' Thou (Arjuna) shouldst be considered to have attained all thy ends by this vision of My Form.' 48. Not by study of the Vedas and of the sacrifices, nor by gifts, nor by rituals, nor by severe austerities, can I be seen in this Form in the world of man by any other than thyself, O hero of the Kurus. Though a regular study of the four Vedas includes that of the sacrifices also, the study of the sacrifices is seperately mentioned in order to imply that a knowledge of the sacrifices is necessary."- Rituals : such as Agnihotra. Austeyiiy: such as Chandrayaz/a.f

49. Be not afraid nor bewildered on seeing such * Some believe that the study of the consumption of food by one mouthful Vedas consists in learning the texts by every day for the dark half of the month rote without understanding the meaning. beginning with 15th at the full moon until It is therefore necessary to separately the quantity is reduced to zero at the enjoin that the meaning of the Vedas, new moon and then increasing it in like t. e., of the nature of the sacrifices treated manner during the fortnight of the moon's of in them, should also be learnt. — (A.) increase,' \ It consists in ' diminishing the daily a terrible form of Mine as this ; free from fear and cheerful at heart, do thou again see this My former form. Formey form: which issodear to you, — four-arnied, wearing a conch, a discus and a club. 50. Having: thus spoken to Arjuna, Vasudeva again showed His own form ; and the Mighty Being, becoming gentle in form, consoled him who was terrified. His own : as born in Vasudeva's family. 51. Having seen this Thy gentle human form, O Janardana, now I have grown serene, and returned to my nature.

Devotion as the sole means to the realization of the Universal form. The Blessed Lord said : 52. Very hard to see is this Form of Mine which thou hast seen ; even the Devas ever long to behold this form. Long to behold: though they long to seethe Form, yet they have not seen It as you have done, nor shall they ever see It. 53. Not by Vedas, nor by austerity, nor by gifts, nor by sacrifice, can I be seen in this Form as thou hast seen Me. How canst Thou be seen ? — Listen : 54. But by undistracted devotion can I, of this 264 THE BHAGAVAD-GITA. [DiS. Xl. Form, be known and seen in reality, and entered into, O harasser of thy foes. Undistvaded devotion (Bhakti) : that devotion which never seeks any other object except the Lord, and in virtue of which no object other than Vasudeva is cognized by any of the senses. Of this Form: of the Universal Form. By this sort of devotion it is possible not only to know Me as declared in the sastras, but also to intuitively realise Me as I am, and to enter into Me, i.e., to obtain liberation.

The essence of the whole teaching of the Qita. Now the essential teaching of the whole Gita-5astra which conduces to Highest Bliss will be summed up here, the teaching being such as every one should follow : 55. He who does works for Me, who looks on Me as the Supreme, who is devoted to Me, who is free from attachment, who is without hatred for any being, he comes to Me, O Pan^ava. A servant works for his master, but he does not look upon that master as the highest goal for him to reach after death ; but My devotee works for Me and also looks on Me as the Supreme Goal ; I am his Supreme Goal. He is devoted to me ; he serves Me alone in all manner of ways, with his heart and soul. He is not attached to wealth, to progeny, to friends, to wife, to kinsmen, or to pleasures ; for them he has no attachment or love. He cherishes no feeling of enmity for any of the creatures, even though these latter may have done great injury to him. Such a man comes to Me. I am his highest Goal, and he seeks nothing else. This is the teaching I have to offer to thee, O Pa;;iava.

Who are superior — the worshippers of Isvara, or the worshippers of Akshara ? Now Arjuna is supposed to have addressed the Lord thus : — In the discourses beginning with the second and ending with the tenth which treats of Divine Glories, Thou hast taught the worship of the Supreme Self, the Imperishable (Akshara) Brahman, devoid of all upadhis (conditions) ; and Thou hast also taught here and there worship of Thyself as the Lord of the Universe, associated with the upadhi (condition) of that energy (sattva) which has the power of carrying on all evolutionary process and of knowing everything. And in the (eleventh) Discourse treating of the Universal Form, Thy Primal Form as Lvara manifesting itself as the whole Universe has also been shown by Thee for the same purpose of worship. And having shown that Form, Thou hast exhorted me to do works for Thy sake only (xi. 55), and so on. Wherefore, I ask of Thee with a desire to know which of these two ways is the better. I. Those devotees who, always devout, thus contemplate Thee, and those also who (contemplate) the Imperishable, the Unmanifest, — which of them are better versed in Yoga ?

Thus : referring to what was said in the last preceding verse, ' He who does works for Me ' ( xi. 55 ) and so on. a66 THE BHAGAVAD-CtTi. [DiS. XIl* ji3-tMws Aejxmi : eQ|;ag«d without wtermissnon in dtnng works (or tbe Lord's sake and in doing other thini^ taught before, steadfast in mind. These dev'otees, seeking nobody e]s<^ for th«r refuge, meditate on Thee in the Univ^ersal For just manifested. There are others who, having abandoned all desires and reaoonced all actions, meditate on the Imperishable (aksharsL) Brahman — abo described abov^e, — who b anmanifest (avrakta. L r^, incomprebensable to the senses), as devoid of all > or conditions. — That indeed is said to be manifested (v\-akta) which is \isible to the sensefv as the root of the -vposrd * \yakta " implies ; but this, the Imperishable (AV •: not so, — These others meditate on the Imp- > ...ie, ih^t Uomanifesied, asdeAned by other attributes tiis be er ..'"::. -.tix^. below. Of tbe two classes^ who are better versed m Yoga ? Tbe m^nrsliippers «f l;s>-ara. Tbe L- - > -\^ tv" :he wor^ippers of the Imperishable (Ak> ho see righiS^and hav^e abandoned desires, let tho— . we shal" - ^ '^ter on what has to be said

regarc..^ . , . "^r-* as : .^ the othears : 1 «ie Klessed Lord said : 2 . Those who, fixiin^: their thought on Me, conteimplate Me, always v endued with sapreme hkh, ihc:^ in my -. are tbe best Yogins. Tbot^ae ^- . bAkt£^ nx theair mind on Me in tbe U&i\nerssil Form, i:hc Sapnnte Loni, and wor^i^ Meas the Gov^emi;ntg Lord of all Masters of Yoga, who is onnisdeat, whose tk^oq is free Srom the Umam (parblindness) of attachment and oirber ev^ passkKas, — they who allways contemplate Me steadfastly (in the manner described in the closing verse of the preceding discourse), endowed with supreme faith, — these, I think, are the best Vogins. Indeed, they pass their days and nights in incessant thought of Me. Wherefore it is but proper to speak of them as the best Yogins. The worshippers of Ak.shara. Are not the others, then, the best Yogins ? — Stop t hear thou what I have to say r^arding them : 3 — 4. Those who ever contemplate the Imp>erishable, the Indefinable, the Unmanifest, the Omnipresent and the Unthinkable, the Unchangeable, the Immutable, the Eternal, — having restrained all the senses, always equanimoas, intent on the wel^re of all beings, — they reach Myself.

Because the Imperishable (Akshara) is unmanifest. He is not acces^ble to words and cannot therefore be defined. He is unmanifestt not manifest to any of the organs of knowledge. They contemplate the Imperishable evety where all round.^/M3ontemplation (Upisana) consists in ^proaching the object of worship by way of meditating it according to the Teaching (iistra) and dwelling for a long time steadily in the current of same thought (continuous) like *a thread of descending oil. — The Imperishable who is the object of contemplation is thus qualified : He is omnipresent, pervading all like the ak4$a. He is unthinkable, because \ He Is unmanlfiest. Whatex'er Is visible to the senses can be ; thought of by the mind also ; but the Akshara is invisible j to the senses and is therefore unthinkable. /He is unchangeable (K(i/astha) — ' K(i/a ' means a thing which is good to all appearance but evil within. Accordingly it refers here to that seed of sa;«sara — including avidya (nescience) and other things, — which is full of evil within, designated by various terms such as Maya, /iyyrtATjVa (undifferentiated), as in Svetcisvataropanishad (iv. lo) and in the Gita (vii. 14.) 'Ku/astha' means He who is seated in Maya as Its Witness, as Its Lord. — Or, ' Kiiifastha ' may mean ' remaining like a heap.' Hence He is immutable and eternal. They who contemplate the Imperishable, curbing all their senses, and always equanimous whether they come by the desirable or the undesirable, — they come to Myself. — It needs indeed no saying that they come to Me ; for, it has been said that ' the wise man is deemed My very Self (vii. 18). Neither is it necessary to say that they are the best Yogins, — seeing that they are one with the Lord Himself.

5. Greater is their trouble whose thoughts are set on the Unmanifest ; for, the Goal, the Un- manifest, is very hard for the embodied to reach. Great indeed is the trouble of those who are engaged in doing works for My sake, and so on ; but greater still is the trouble of those who identify themselves with the Imperishable and contemplate the Supreme Reality, — the trouble arising from the necessity of having to abandon their attachment for the body. The Goal, the Imperishable, is very , hard for the embodied to reach, for thos3 who are attached to their bodies. Therefore" their trouble is greater. Salvation by worship of Isvara. Later on we shall describe the conduct in life of the worshippers of the Imperishable (Akshara-Upasakas). ♦ Because of the necessity there is for abandoning attachment to the body. 4 — 9-] BHAKTl-YOGA. 269 6 — 7. But those who worship Me, renouncing all actions in Me, regarding Me Supreme, meditating on Me with exclusive devotion (yoga) ; for them whose thought is fixed on Me, I become ere long, O son of Pritha, the deliverer out of the ocean of the mortal sa;»sara. Me : the Isvara, the Lord. Exclusive : having no other object of worship except Myself, God in the Universal Form. Devotion (Yoga) : samadhi or steadfastness of mind. Those who are engaged in contemplating Me exclusively, I, the Lord, will lift up from the ocean of mortal sawsara, since their thoughts are fixed on Me in the Universal Form. — Sawsara is an ocean, because it is very hard to cross beyond it.

Because it is so, therefore, S. Fix th}^ mind in Me exclusiveh- apply thy reason to Me. Thou shalt no doubt live in Me Fix thy mind (manas) — thy purposes and thoughts — in Me, the Lord in the Universal Form. Fix in Me thy reason (buddhi) also which resolves and determines. — What will be the result ? — Listen : Thou shalt without fail abide in Me as Myself, on the death of this body. Thou shalt not doubt it. g. If thou art unable to fix thy thought steadily on Me, then by yoga of constant practice do thou seek to reach Me, O Dhana»jaya. If you cannot fix your thought on Me steadily in the manner I have mentioned, then seek thou to reach Me in the 270 THE BHAGAVAD-GITA. [DiS. XII. Universal Form, by yoga of constant practice (abhyasayoga). Practice (abhyasa) consists in withdrawing thought from all quarters and fixing it again and again on one particular object. ' AbhyAsa-yoga ' means samadhana or steadfastness of mind acquired by such practice. Service of the Lord. 10. (If) thou art not equal to practice either, then be thou intent on (doing) actions for My sake. Even doing actions for My sake, thou shalt attain perfection.

Even if thou doest mere actions for My sake without practising yoga, thou shalt attain perfection ; — thou shalt first attain purity of mind, then yoga or steadfastness, then knowledge, and then perfection (moksha). Abandonment of the fruits of actions- 11. If thou art unable to do even this, then refuged in devotion to Me, do thou abandon the fruits of all actions, self-controlled. If thou canst not even be intent on doing actions for My sake as thou hast just been taught, then do thou perform actions renouncing them all in Me, and abandon the fruit of those actions. Now He extols the abandoning of the fruits of all actions. 12. Better indeed is knowledge than practice ; than knowledge is meditation more esteemed ; than meditation the abandonment of the fruits of actions ; on abandonment, Peace follows immediately. Knowledge is better than practice '■^'- accompanied with ignorance;! better than that knowledge is meditation (dhyana) with knowledge ; better than meditation with knowledge is the abandonment of the fruits of actions. From such an abandonment of the fruits of actions, accompanied with the qualification | mentioned above, cessation of sa;«sara and of the cause thereof follows immediately ; it admits of no delay.

Abandonment of the fruit of all action is taught as a means to Bliss in the case of an ignorant person engaged in action, only when unable to tread the paths taught before, but not at first. Wherefore the act of abandoning the fruit of all action is merely extolled by the declaration, lin this verse, of the superiority of one over another ; for it has been taught as the course to be adopted when a man is unable to follow the paths already taught.* In what way does it ( the declaration ) form a mere praise ? In the Ka^hopanishad (vi. 14) it is said that immortality results from the abandonment of all objects of desire ; and this is a truth quite familiar ^ to all. And all objects of desire are fruits of actions enjoined in the sruti and in the smriti. In the case of the enlightened person who is steadily * .1 /j/uYisd (practice) — occurring in the with discrimination.' text and the commentary— may mean ^ The qualification being ' self-con- either (I) the act of listening to the teach- trolled.' (xii. ii).— (.\.) insj; of the sriitis with a view to obtain 1' The abandonment of the fruits of

knowledge, or (2) the practice of dhyana actions forms here the subject of praise, with a firm resolve.— (A.) because it is the path intended to be f Two different readings are found taught in this connection-(A.) here in the MSS. of the bhashya : (i) J* A' '=>""'".'" 'he sruti. {Vide Bn. viveka-purvakdt, and (2) aviveka-pfnvakat. The former would mean ' accompanied engaged in contemplation, Peace immediately follows tjie abandonment of desires. Now mere abandonment of desires constitutes a factor of even an ignorant man's abandonment of the fruits of actions ; and because of this point of similarity, mere abandonment of the fruits of all actions is praised — with a view to create a desire to follow the course — in the same way that, in saying that the ocean was drunk by the brahma^a sage Agastya, even the brahmaj/as of this age are praised for the mere reason that they too are brahma»as. Thus, it has been taught that Karma-yoga accompanied with the abandonment of the fruits of actions is a means to Bliss. The life of the Akshara=upasakas. Here, it is by presupposing a distinction between Isvara and Atman, the Lord and the Self, that Yoga — which consists in concentrating thought on the Lord, on the Universal Form, — and the performance of works for the sake of the Lord have been taught. As it is hinted— in the words ' If thou art unable to do this either '(xii.

11) — that KarmaYoga is associated with ignorance (ajfiana), we should understand that the Lord here means to say that Karmayoga is not meant for the worshipper of the Akshara, for him who sees no distinction (between the Lord and the Self). Similarly, the Lord shows the impossibility of the worship of the Akshara to a Karma-yogin. To explain : Having — in the words 'They reach Myself (xii. 3) — declared that the worshippers of the Akshara are independent as regards the attainment of liberation (kaivalya), the Lord (xii. 7) has shewn — in the words ' for them I become the deliverer'

(xii. 7) — that the others are dependent on the Lord,' on an external Being. If these were deemed as the very* .Self of the Lord, they would be the very Akshara themselves owing to their realisation of the identity ;_ so that it would have been inappropriate to speak.ipf.thern as persons to be delivered by the Lord. M oreo ye*",. "'^ the Lord who is preeminently a well-wisher c^y\.rjuuare(fom mends to him only Karma-yoga (iv. 15) ba^e4 fOn an idea of distinction and quite dissociated i^oi right knowledge. Nor would any man like to be subordinate to another after knowing himself to be the Lord>t^rough proper sources of right knowledge ; for, the two are mutually opposed states. Therefore t it is with reference to the worshippers of the Akshara, to the saw/nyasins w^ho are devoted to right knowledge and have abandoned all desires, that He proceeds to teach those attributes — such as ' absence of hatred of any being ' — which form the direct means to immortality . 13-14. He who hates no single being, who is friendly and compassionate to all, who is free from attachment and egoism, to whom pain and pleasure are equal, who is enduring, ever content and balanced in mind, self-controlled, and possessed of firm conviction, whose thought and reason are directed to Me, he who is (thus) devoted to Me is dear to Me.

He hates nothing, not even that which causes him pain. He regards all beings as himself. He is friendly and compassionate. He is full of compassion for the distressed ; /. c, * This is another reason why Karma- + Because the attributes mentioned yoga cannot be combined with Akshara- below cannot, all of them, be cultivated Upasana in one and the same person at by the followers of Karma, who are one and the same time.— (A). ignorant of Self— (A). 274 "^^'E BHAGAVAD-GlTA. [DlS.XII. h^has. offered security of life to all beings, he is a sawnyasin, ''b^-eidQes not regard anything as ' mine ' and is free from eg^di-sm, froii^ the notion of ' I '. Pain and pleasure do not cause in him hatred and attachment. He remains unaffected when abused or'beaten. He is always content ; he thinks he has enoiigh whetiier he obtains or not the means of bodily sustenance. He i.s Also 'satisfied whether he comes by a good thing or not. He iS fi yoglri, always steadfast in thought. lie has a iirin conviction regarding the essential nature of the Self. This sa;//nyasin has directed to Me exclusively his Manas — purposes and thoughts — a? well as his Buddhi — the faculty of determining. Such a devotee is dear to Me. /The same truth which was indicated in vii. 17 — ' I am very dear to the wise man and he is dear to Me ' — is here described at length.

15. He b)- whum the \\'or]d is not afflicted and who is not afflicted by the world, who is free from jov, envy, fear and sorrow, he is dear to Me. He : the sawnyusin. Joy consists in the elevation or exhilaration of tlie mind (anta//-kara;7a) on attaining an object of desire, and is indicated by horripilation, tears, and so on. clever, unconcerned, untroubled, renouncing all undertakings, he who is (thus) devoted to Me is dear to i\Ie. He is indifferent to the body, the senses, the senseobjects and their mutual connections. He is possessed of purity both internal and external. He is able to decide rightly on the spot in matters demanding prompt attention. He does not take the side of a friend and the lilc^. >je habitually renounces all actions calculated t" bccuxe objects of desire, whether of this world or of the uext. iC hadn .• • 17. He who neither ici'.'icpSf^j^yjf hates, nor ^'rieves, nor desires, renou^^in^' t(Q(^'':iii<l evil, he who is full of devot^<»i is cjear to Mc. He does not rcji^ce,! _ what is desirable. He' does not fret up .attaitiiq*,' \yh;ii is undesirable. He does not grieve un l^\p<^ to part with a beloved object, lie does| not desire tlj,&,ii|iattained.

18- 1 (J. ^He who is the same to foe and friend, and also in honor and dishonor: who is the same in cold and heat, in pleasure and pain: who is free from attachment: to whom censure and praise are equal: who is silent, content with anxthin::^, homeless, steady-minded, full of devotion : that man is dear to Me. He has no attachment for objects of any kind. He is content with thr Ivirt' means of bodily r.uistenance. It .s .' said (in tin^ \r;ihahharata), 'W'H.i is <lad xvirh ;tny; Iiin^. wh,, i> 1^,1 ,,|, ^ny joixl. who lies down anywhere; him the Gods call a brahma«a. {Santi-pan<a,Moksha-Dharma,2^yi2). He has no hxed abode, he is 'houseless' as has been said in another sniriti. His thought is fixed steadily on the i Supreme Reality. The enumeration, which was connnenced in xii. 13, of the various attributes of the sawnyiisins — the worshippers of 276 THE BHAGAVAD-GITA. [DiS. XII. t,he Akshara who are constantly devoted to the knowledge 01 the Supreme Reality — is concluded as follows : 20. They, verily, who follow this immortal Law described above, endued with faith, looking upto Me asthe Siipremc, and devoted, they are exceeding!}' ^ear to Mc.

They : the sa;/niyasiris. Immortal: as leading to immortality. Above: in the porlion'begannlng with xii. 13. Looking up to Me as the Supreme : whose highest Unsurpassed goal is Myself, the Imperishable Self. Deveted : Vd^rting to the highest devotion, which consists in th^^'teotv^ledge of the Supreme Reality. What was implied in the words, ' I am exceedingly dear to the wise man' (vii. 12) has been explained at length and concluded here thus : ' They are exceedingly dear to me.' The meaning of the verse is : Because he who follows the Immortal Law which has been now described becomes exceedingly dear to \'ish7m, the Supreme Lord, therefore this Immortal Law should be zealously followed by every seeker of Liberation, by every one who desires to attain to the Supreme Abode of Vish;m.

The main subject of the discourse. In the Seventh Discourse two Prakntis (Natures) of the Supreme Lord were shown, — the one composed of the three gu»as and divided eightfold, forming th^ inferior (apara) Prak/'iti, because of its being the cause of sawsara or mundane life ; and the other, the superior (para) Prak/dti, forming the very life (jiva), the Kshetraj;ia or ' the Knower of Matter , being essentially one with the Lord Himself. And through these two Prakntis, the Lord becomes the cause of the origin, sustenance and dissolution of the Universe. Now this discourse on Kshetra (Matter) is commenced with a view — by way of describing the two Prakritis of Kshetra and Kshetraj/^a — to determine the essential nature of their possessor, the Lord (Isvara). Again, in the last preceding discourse, from verse 13 to the end, the path of the sa/;myasins who possess the knowledge of Truth, — i.e., what sort of life they lead, — has been described. Now arises the question : Possessed of what sort of knowledge of truth do they become dear to the Lord by following the rule of life set forth above ? — The present discourse is also intended as an answer to this question.

The body and the soul. That Praknti which is composed of the three gu«as transforms itself into all objective forms, such as the bodies (karya), the senses (kara«a), and sense-objects (vishaya), and is combined into various aggregates of the body and 278 THE BHAGAVAD-GITA. [DiS. XIII. the senses, to subserve the two ends of Purusha or Spirit, viz., enjoyment and liberation. Such an aggregate is this, our body. In reference to this body, the Lord says : The Blessed Lord said : 1. This, the body, O son of Kunti, is called Kshctra ; him who knows it, th.'v who know of them call Kshetrajna. In the words' ' the body ' the Lord specihes the thing referred to by the pronoun 'this.' Kshetya — the field, the body, matter — is so-called because it is shielded from injury, or because it is destructible, or because it is liable to decay, or because the fruits of actions are reaped in it as in a field. This body is designated as ' Kshetra,' ' the licld ' ' matter.' He wlio knows this Kshetra, /. e., he who comprehends it in understanding from head to foot, I ie who perceives it as distinct from himself by knowledge, natural or imparted by others, — him they designate as Kshetraj;?a, ' the knower of the field,' ' tlie comprehender of matter', — they who know of Kshetra and Kshetraj//a.

Uleiitit\ «>1 the soul with the l.ord. riuis Ksheira an«.l Pvsiieti;ij//a Iiaxe been described.— Is this all the kiMwl«-'<h_je, that one hns tw acrniiic ;iIioni them ? — ^No. Listen : 2. And do th(ju also know Me as Kshetraj/za in all Kshetras, O Bharata. The knowledge of Kshetra and Kshetraj^a is deemed by Me as the knowledge Do thou also know the Kshetraj«a, described above, to be Myself, tu be the Supreme Lord, not a being of the world (sa/wsara). The nieaninjj; is this : — The Kshelraj«a who is in all Kshetras, and who is differentiated by the manifold upadhis or Kshetras, from Brahma down to a clump of grass, is, you should understand, really devoid of all the various upadhis (conditions) and is inaccessible to any such word or thought as ' sat ' or ' asat ', existent or nonexistent. As nothing else remains to be known apart from the true nature of Kshetra, Kshetraj;/a and the Isvara, that knowledge by which the two objects of knowledge, Kshetra and Kshetraj;>a, are known is considered by Me — the Lord, Vish/m — to be the right knowledge. The soul is subject to evil only through ignorance. [Objection) : — If only one Being, namely, Isvara, exists in all Kshetras, if there exists no being, no other enjoyer, distinct from Him, it would follow either that the Isvara is a sawsarin ; or that there is no sa;//sara because there is no sa;//sarin, none else apart from the Isvara.

Neither conclusion is acceptable; for, tlien, it would follow that the scriptures which treat of bondage and liberation and their- respective causes would have no purpose to serve. Moreover, the conclusion is opposed to all evidence, including sensuous perception (pratyaksha). In the first place, pleasure and pain and their causes, which together constitute the sa/«sara, are known to us by immediate perception. And from our perception of variety in the world may also be inferred the existence of sa;«sara arising from dharma and a-dharma. All this would be inexplicable if the Atman and the Isvara, the Self and the Lord, be identical.

(Aiis7i:'er) : — No; for, that can be explained as due to a distinction between j/(ana and aj//ana, between knowledge and ignorance. It has been said: 28o THE BHAGAVAD-GITA. [DiS. XIII. " These, what is known as wisdom and what is known as unwisdom, are quite distinct and lead to different goals." — (Ka^ha-Up. ii. 4.) And so also a distinction through effect between vidya and avidya, wisdom and unwisdom, as producing quite opposite results, — the right and the sweet, — is pointed out (in the same Upanishad and in the same context), wisdom leading to the right, while the sweet is the effect of unwisdom. Accordingly, Vyasasays: ' Then there are these two paths, &c.' — (Mokshadharma, 24-6.) 'There are only these two paths,' &c. Here (in the Gita) also two paths have been spoken of. Now, we learn from the sruti, smriti and reasoning, that unwisdom with its effect should be got rid of. As to the sruti, the following passages may be quoted : " If in this world a person knows (the Self), then the true end is gained ; if a person in this world does not know (the Self), then there will be a great calamity." — (Kena-Upanishad, 2-5).

' He who knows Him (the Supreme Self) thus becomes immortal here ; there is no other way to reach the Goal.' — (Purusha-sukta.) ' The wise man is afraid of nothin.-j ' — (TaittiriyaUpanishad, 2-4). As regards the ignorant person : — 'But to him there is the fear (of saw/sara).'~(Ibid. 2-7.) ' Those who live in the midst of avidya or ignorance 2.] MATTER AND SPIRIT. 28l go round and with an erring step, deluded as blind peopls led by the blind ! ' — (KaHia-Upanishad. 2-5). ' He who knows Brahman is Brahman Itself.' — (Mu7irfaka-Up. 3-2-9). " Whoever worships another Deity, thinking 'He is another, another am I,' he does not know ; for, he is like a beast for the Gods." — (Bnhadara/iyaka-Up. 1-4-10). As to him who knows the Self, 'He becomes all this.' — {Ibid. 1-4-10). " When men can roll up the sky like leather, then ( only, not till then ) can the end of sorrow be, without men knowing God" (>Sveta .Up. 6-20). And passages from the smriti — the Bhagavad-GIta v. 15, ig, and xiii. 28, — -may also be quoted. By reasoning (nyaya) also we come to the same conclusion. It is said :

* Men avoid by knowledge serpents, thorns and wells ; by ignorance some fall into them ; see how estimable is the effect of knowledge.' — (Mokshadharma, 201-16) Thus* we see that an ignorant man regards the physical body, etc., as the Self, is impelled by attachment and hatred and the like, performs righteous and unrighteous deeds (Dharma and A-dharma), and is born and dead, while those are liberated who, knowing the Self to be distinct from the body and the like, give up attachment and hatred, and no longer engage in righteous or unrighteous deeds to which those passions may lead. This nobody can deny by argument. Suchf being the case, the Kshetrajna, who is the Isvara Himself, appears to be a sa7«sarin owing to a distinct- * Here follows the nyaya or reasoning f Knowledge and ignorance being, as above referred to.— (A). shewn above, distinct in kind and in 282 THE BHAGAVAD-GITA. [DiS. XIII. ion in the upadhis set up by avidya, in the same way that the Atman or individual Self appears (by avidya) to be identical with the physical body, &c. It is a well-ascertained truth that that notion of identity of the individual Self with the not-Self, — with the physical body and the like, — which is common to all mortal creatures is caused by avidya, just as a pillar (in darkness) is mistaken (through avidya) for a human being. But thereby no essential quality of the man is actually transferred to the pillar, nor is any essential quality of the pillar actually transferred to the man. Similarly, consciousness never actually pertains to the body ; neither can it be that any attributes of the body — such as pleasure, pain and dulness — actually pertain to Consciousness, to the Salf ; for, like decay and death, such attributes are ascribed to the Self through avidya,

Kshetrajna is really unaffected by samsara. (Objection) : — No, the two cases are dissimilar. The pillar and the man are boljt objects of cognition ( i.e., external to the Self) and are as such mistaken one for the other by the cogniser through avidya, whereas you say that the body and the Self, which are respectively the cognised and the cogniser, are mistaken one for the other. Thus the illustration differs from what has to be illustrated. Wherefore''' the attribute of the body, though an object of cognition, actually pertains to the Self, the cogniser. (Ansu'er) : — No; for, then the Self would also become unconscious, &c. If the attributes — such as pleasure, pain, effect, the Supreme Beiiif; and the in- rin— an illusion se: up by avidya.— (A), dividual Self must be essentially identi- * The identifying of the Self with the cal, though, through the upadhis such as body being no mere illusion (bhrama). Buddhi, the Self appears to be a saHisa- delusion, desire, hatred— of the body, etc., i. e. of Kshetra (Matter) which is an object of cognition, could ever pertain to the Self, the cogniser, then it would be necessary to state a reason for the difference, — i. e., to explain why a few attributes only of Khetra (an object of cognition) which are ascribed to the Self by avidya actually pertain to the Self, while others such as decay and death do not.

On the other hand, we are led to infer that those qualities of Kshetra do not actually pertain to the Self, because, like decay and death, they also are attributed to the Self by avidya ; as also because they are objects shunned or sought for, and so on. Such being the case, — inasmuch as sa»/sara which consists in doing and enjoying, and which has its root in the cognized, is only attributed to the cognizer by avidya, — the cogniser is not thereby affected, just as the akasa or ether is not affected by the attributes of dirtiness and concavity which are ascribed to it by children through ignorance.

Thus, it cannot be imagined that the Kshetrajila, the Lord, though existing in all Kshetras, can ever so much as smell of the nature of a saw/sarin. Nowhere in our experience have we found anything rtn proved or spoiled by a quality being falsely attributed through avidya. As to the contention that the illustration is not quite analogous, we reply that it is wrong to say so. — Why ? — For, the intended point of agreement between the illustration and the thing illustrated consists in something being falsely attributed through ignorance. In this respect, both agree. But as to the contention thai no false attribution of the qualities of the object to the subject is ever experienced, it has been shewn that even this contention fails in the case of decay and death. 284 THE BHAGAVAD-GITA. [DiS. XIII. Avidya inheres in the organ, not in the 5elf. ( Objection ):— As possessed of avidya, Kshetrajna is a sawsarin. {Answer): — No; for avidya is born of Tamas. As partaking of the nature of a veil, avidya — whether causing perception of what is quite the contrary of truth, or causing doubt, or causing nescience or non-perception of a truth — ^is a Tamasic notion, i e., a notion born of Tamas ; for, on the dawn of the light of discrimination, it disappears ; and ( for instance) we find the same three modes of avidya — such as non-perception, &c., — arising also ixom. timiva [sxi eye-disease causing dimness of sight ), which is Tamasic, as partaking of the nature of a veil."

[Objection): — Then avidya is an inherent property (dharma) of the cogniser. [Ansiver): — No; for, we see that it is the organ of sight that is affected with the disease of timira. [To explain): — You (the opponent) say: Avidya is an inherent property of the cogniser. As possessed of this avidya, Kshetrajua is a sawsarin. It is therefore unjust to say that Kshetrajua is the Isvara Himself and not a sawsarin. We reply : It is not right to say so ; for, we see that such diseases as lead to the perception of what is contrary to truth, and so on, pertain to the eye, to the organ. Neither the perception of what is contrary to truth, nor the cause thereof { viz., ih.e disease of ^m/ra), pertains to the percipient ; for, when timira is removed by the treatment of the eye, the percipient is no longer subject to such perception, * That is to say, the three forms of are not therefore attributes of the SeU^ avidya are due to a certain disorder, and (A), • ,, which is therefore not a property of the percipient. Similarly, non-perception, false perception, and doubt, as well as their cause, properly pertain the instrument, to one or another sense-organ, but not to the Kshetrajna, the cogniser. Moreover, they are all objects of cognition and cannot therefore form the properties of the cogniser, any more than the light of a lamp.

And because they are cognisable, it follows also that they can be cognised only through some organ which is distinct from the cogniser ; and no philosopher admits that, in the state of liberation wherein all the sense-organs are absent, there is any such evil as avidya. If they (false perception, &c.) were essential properties of the Self, of the Kshetrajila, as the heat is an essential property of fire, there could be no getting rid of them at any time ; and it is impossible for the immutable and formless Self, allpervading like the akasa, to unite or part with anything whatsoever. Wherefore we conclude that the Kshetrajna is ever identical with Isvara. The Lord also says, " Being beginningless and without qualites."" (.xiii. 31 ).

Scriptural injunctions apply only to the state of bondage. {Objection): — Then, in the absence of sawsara and saw/sarins, the conclusion is inevitable that the sastra or scripture serves no purpose, and so on. [Answer): — No ; for, it is admitted by all. The burden of explaining an objectionable point admitted into their systems by all those philosophers who argue the existence of Atraan does not lie on only one of them — In what way do all classes of philosophers admit into their systems this ■^ The Lord teaches here that the Self is devoid of attributes.— (A.) 286 THE BHAGAVAD-GtTA. [DiS. XIII. objectionable point? — All philosophers who admit the existence of a Self agree that liberated Selfs are not conscious of sa;«sara or of the state of being bound to sa;«sa,ra ; still, it is not beliv^ed that their systems are open to the objection that the sastra serves no purpose. So, according to our view, when the Kshetrajnas become one with the Lord, then let the sistra serve no purpose. It has, however, a purpose to serve where there is avidya. Just as, with the dualists (dvaitins) of all classes, the sastra has a purpose to serve only in the state of bondage, but not in the state of liberation, so with us also.

Bondage and liberation are not real states of the 5elf . {Objection): — All dualistic philosophers (Dvaitins) hold that states of bondage and liberation are real conditions of the Self, real in the literal sense of the term. Since thus there really exist, something to be avoided and something to be attained, as also the means thereto, the sastra has some purpose to serve. But in the case of the non-dualists (Advaitins), the dual world is unreal ; and as the bondage of the Self is caused by avidya, it is also unreal. Thus the sdstra would have no subject to treat of and would therefore serve no purpose. [Ansuey): — No ; for, the Self cannot (really) exist in different states. — If bondage and liberation be states of the Self, they must be either simultaneous or successive. They cannot be simultaneous states of the Self as they are mutually opposed, just as motion and rest cannot be simultaneous states of one and the same thing. If successive, they are either caused or uncaused by another. If uncaused by another, there can be no liberation, If caused by another, they cannot be inherent in the Self and cannot therefore be real. And this is opposed to the hypothesis^'S Moreover, if we would determine the order of their occurrence, the state of bondage should come first, without a beginning, but having an end ; and this is opposed to all evidence. Similarly, it has to be admitted that the state of liberation has a beginning and has no end ; which is alike opposed to all evidence. Nor is it possible to maintain the eternality of that which passes from one state to another.

Now, if, in order to avoid the objection of non-eternality, it be held that the states of bondage and liberation do not pertain to the Self, then even the dualists cannot avoid the objection that the sastra has no purpose to serve. The dualists and the non-dualists being thus similarly situated, the burden of answering the objection does not lie on the non-dualists alone. Scriptural injunctions concern the unenlightened. In point of fact, the objection that the sastra would have no purpose to serve cannot be brought against non-dualism ; for, the 5astra is concerned with the ignorant who view things as they present themselves to their consciousness. — It is, indeed, the ignorant who identify themselves with the cause and the effect I , with the not-Self. But not the wise ; for, these latter do not identify themselves with the cause and the effect, since they know that the Self is distinct from the cause and the effect. Not even the dullest or the most insane person regards water and fire, or light and darkness, as identical ;how much less a wise man. Wherefore, the in- * That the states of bondage and libera- enjoyment; or the cause is karma, ation are real conditions of the Self. drish/a, and the effect is the body to which

t The cause is agency and the effect is karma has given rise.— (A.) 288 THE bhagavad-gIta. [Dis.XIII. junctions and prohibitions of the sastra do not apply to him who knows the Self to be distinct from the cause and the effect. Of course, when a certain person has been commanded to do an action in the words " Do this, O Devadatta," no other person, such as Vish;m-mitra, though standing near and hearing the word of command, thinks that he (Vish;mmitra) has been so ordered ; he might, however, think so if he did not understand to whom the injunction has been addressed. So, too, in the case of the cause and the effect here. (Objection): — Notwithstanding his knowledge that the Self is unconnected with the cause and the effect, it is quite possible for a wise man to regard himself — in reference to the connection (between the Self and the body, etc., ) once set up by avidya (prakn'ti) — as still bound by the injunctions of the sastra, thinking that he has been enjoined to adopt a certain course of action by which to attain a desirable end, and to avoid a certain other course of action which leads to an evil ; just as a father and his sons ■'- regard every one among themselves as bound by the injunctions and prohibitions addressed to every other, notwithstanding their knowledge that they are all persons distinct from each other.

(Ansaier): — No; it is only prior to the knowledge of the Self unconnected with causes and effects that it is possible > for one to identify the Self with them; for, it is only after having duly observed the injunctions and prohibitions of the sastra — but not beforef — that a person attains to the knowledge that the Self is quite unconnected with causes and effects. Hence the conclusion that the injunctions and * Vide Bnha. Up. 1-5-17. t Vide Vedanta-Sutras III. iv. 26-27. prohibitions of the sastra concern only the ignorant. {Objection): — Neither those who know that tlie Self is independent of the body, etc., nor those who regard the mere body as the Self are, (according to non-dualists), concerned with the injunctions such as " He who desires svargamust sacrifice,' " Let none eat kalanja " ; thus, there being no person who would observe scriptural injunctions, the 5astra would have no purpose to serve. [Ansiver): — Performance of enjoined acts and abstention from prohibited acts are possible in the case of those who know of the Self only through the Scriptures. — He who knows Brahman and has realised the identity of the Kshetrajna with the Lord does not certainly engage in the Vedic rites. Neither does the person who denies the existence of the Self and of the other world engage in such rites. But, " he who derives his idea of the Self only from the scriptural injunctions, — i.e., who believes in the existence of the Self " because the teaching of the sastra enjoining certain actions and prohibiting (certain others) would otherwise be inexplicable, but who does not directly know the Self in His essential nature, — cherishes a longing for the results of the Vedic rites and devoutly performs them : a fact which is evident to us all. Wherefore, it cannot be said that the sastra would have no purpose to serve.

{Objection): — On seeing the wise not performing Vedic rites, their followers also may not perform them ; and thus the sastra would serve no purpose at all. {Ansimr): — No ; for, very rare is the person who attains * Knowing nothing more than that tho conviction being formed on the basis of Self exists and survives the body ; this the teaching of the Karma-ku)u/a, 290 THE BHAGAVAD-GtTA [DiS. XIII. wisdom. It is, indeed, only one among many that attains wisdom, as we now see. Nor do the ignorant follow the wise men ; for, attachment and other evil passions necessarily lead to action. We do see people engaging in the practice of Black Magic. ^'^ Lastly, action is natural to man, as has been said already, " It is nature that acts" (v. 14). Therefore, sa;;zsara is only based on avidya and exists only for the ignorant man who sees the world as it appears to him. Neither avidya nor its efltect pertains to Kshetrajfia pure and simple. Nor is illusory knowledge able to affect the Real Thing. The water of the mirage, for instance, can by no means render the saline soil miry with moisture. So, too, avidya can do nothing to Kshetrajfia. Wherefore it has been said, ' Do thou also know Me as Kshetrajfia' (xiii. 2) ; and 'By unwisdom wisdom is covered' (v. 15).

{Ohjcctioii): — How is it that the learned (paw^its) also feel^ — " I am so and sot," " this:t is mine," — like the sa;//sarins ? {Answer): — Listen. Their learning consists in regarding the body itself as their Self ! § If, on the other hand, they really see the immutable Kshetraj«a, they would desire neither pleasure nor action • with the attachment ' let it be mine' ; for, pleasure and action are but changes of state. • This fact shews that the ignorant do § That is to say, those who hold this not always follow the wise men. In spite belief are not pa«rfits in the proper sense of protests of wise men, we find some of the term. We do admit the existence ignorant men resorting to Sorcery or of such a belief; only we regard it as Black Magic. pratibhasika, as due to illusion, while, in t Referring to superior birth, etc. point of afiso/Mfe truth, the Self is unaflect- X Referring to wife, children, etc. ^^ ^^ sawisara. Thus, then, it is the ignorant man who, longing for results, engages in action. The wise man, on the contrary, who sees the immutable Self, cherishes no longing for results .and_ does not therefore engage in action ; and when, as a consequence, the activity of the aggregate — of the body and the senses — ceases, we say, only figuratively, that he abstains from action.

There is, again, another sort of learning professed by some other (class of paz/^its), which may be stated as follows: — The Lord Himself is Kshetraj«a, and Kshetra is quite distinct from Kshetraj«a who perceives it ; but I am a sawsarin subject to pleasure and pain. To bring about the cessation of sawisara I should first acquire a discriminative knowledge of Kshetra and Kshetraj«a, then attain a direct perception of the Kshetraj/ia, the Lord, by means of dhyanaor meditation of the Lord, and then dwell in the true nature of the Lord.-'' He who is given to know thus and he who teaches thus! , neither of them is the Kshetraj^a. He who holds this view and hopes to make out that the Scistra concerning bondage and liberation has a meaning is the meanest of the learned. He is the slayer of the Self. Ignorant in himself, he confounds others, devoid as he is of the traditional key (sampradaya) to the teaching of the sastras. Ignoring what is directly taught + , he suggests what is not taught. Therefore, not being acquainted with * The individual Ego is distinct from ^ • ^ ^^^ p^,pj, ^^^ ^^^ teacher-(A) the Lord, and should strive to attain j In such passages as "That Thou art''

to the state of /svara by means of the ..This Self is Brahman. "-(Ma..rfukya^ knowledge which can be brought about tj- > through dhyana.— (A) 292 THE BHAGAVAD-GiTA. [DiS. XIII. the traditional interpretation, he is to be neglected as an ignorant man, though learned in all sastras. The relation of the Self to samsara is a mere illusion. Now as to the objections that the Isvara would be a sams4rin if He be one with Kshetraj;/a, and that if Kshetrajwas be one witli the Isvara there can be no sa/z^sara because there is no sa;«sarin : these objections have been met by saying that knowledge and ignorance are distinct in kind and in effects, as admitted by all/'^ — To explain : The Real Entity {viz., isvara) is not affected by the defect (sawsara) attributed to Him through ignorance of that Real Entity. This has also been illustrated by the fact that the water of the mirage does not wet the saline soil. And the objection raised on the ground that in the absence of a sawsarin there can be no sawisara has been answered by explaining that the sa;«sara and the sa///sarin are creatures of avidya. {Objection) : — The very fact that Kshetrajua is possessed of avidya makes Him a sa;«sarin ; and the eftect thereof — happiness and misery and so on — is directly perceived.

{Ansii/ci') — No ; for, what is perceived is an attribute of Kshetra (matter) ; and Kshetraj«a, the cogniser, cannot be vitiated by the l^lemish due to it. To explain : whatever blemish — not inhering in KshetraJ7/a — you ascribe to Him, it comes under the cognised, and therefore forms a property of Kshetra, and not a property of Kshetrajua. Nor is Kshetraj/ja affected by it, since such intimate association of the cogniser and the cognised is impossible. If there should be such an association, then that blemish could not * That is to say, by saying that the while illusion makes Kshetrajua a saHiLord and the soul are one in reality, sarin— (A). be cognised. That is to say, if misery and nescience were properties of the Self, how could they be objects of immediate perception'''? Or, how could they ever be regarded as the properties of the Self? t Since it has been determined that all that is knowable is Kshetra (xiii. 5-6) and that Kshetraj//a is the knower and none else (xiii. i), it is nothing but sheer ignorance which may lead one to contradict it by saying that nescience and misery and the like are the attributes and specific properties of Kshetraj«aand that they are immediately perceived as such.

The perception of the relation of avidya, etc, to the Self is due to illusion. I Now asks (the opponent) : — Whose is this avidya ? [To explain : — This avidya w'hich accounts for the mistaken notion is not an independent entity and should inhere in something else which has an independent existence. But it cannot inhere in Chit or Consciousness which is vidya by nature, and there is no independent entity outside Chit. Hence the question. — (A)] (Reply): — By whomsoever it is seen. [To explain : Do you ask to know whether avidya Inheres as an attribute in something else which is an independent entity, or to know in particular what that entity is wherein * If the Self could perceive His own + i„ ^^^^ following discussion, the oppo- properties, He could also perceive Him- nent tries to drive the Advaitin to the self ; which .8 absurd, since one and the conclusion that the Kshetrajna is tainted same thing cannot be both the agent ,vith Avidya and cannot therefore be and the object of an action.'! identicalwith the /5vara,while the Advaitin avoids it by shewing that the Kshetra- + Whatever is perceived, as for in- j,,^ can really hive no connection what-

stance form and colour, cannot be a ever with avidya which, cognised as it is property of the perceiver. by Him, is always distinct from him. it inheres ? In the first case, there is no occasion for the question at all, for, if avidya be cognised, then, since it cannot exist by itself, it must be cognised as inhering in something else. If, on the other hand, avidyi be not cognised, then how do you know that avidya exists at all? The opponent perhaps means to ask what that entity is wherein avidya inheres. Hence the question that follows. — (A)] {Opponent)'. — By whom is it seen ? {Reply)'. — As regards this we say: There is no use asking the question, " By whom is avidya seen ?" For, if avidya is perceived, you perceive also the one who has that avidya. When its possessor is perceived, it is not proper to ask, " Whose is it ?" When the possessor of cows is seen, there is no occasion for the question " whose are the cows ?" [To explain : Since avidya is an object of cognition, and since the Self wherein it inheres reveals Himself in one's own consciousness — there is no occasion for the question. —

{Opponent) : — The illustration is not analogous to the case in point. Since the cows and their possessor are objects of immediate perception, their relation is also an objecj: of immediate perception ; and so the question has no meaning. But not so are avidya and its possessor both objects of immediate perception. If they were, the question would have been meaningless. {Reply) : — If you know to what particular entity, not immediately perceived, avidya is related, of what avail is it to you ? [The meaning is : — Though the possessor of avidya is not immediately perceived, still, you know in what entity avidya inheres. Where is then any occasion for your question ? The opponent does not understand the real drift of the reply and proceeds as follows: — (A)] {Opponent) : — Since avidya is the cause of evil, it is a thing that should be got rid of. [So, I ask to know whose is avidya. — (A)] . {Reply) : — He who has avidya will get rid of it, [and it can be no other — (A).] (Opponent) : — Why, it is I who have avidya, [and I should try and get rid of it — (A.)] .

{Reply) : — Then you know avidya and the Self, its possessor, [so that your question has no meaning — (A)] . {Opponent) : — I know, but not by immediate perception. [Hence my question — -(A)] . {Reply) : — Then you know the Self by inference.* How can you perceive the relation between the Self and avidya ? It is not indeed possible for you to perceive your Self as related to avidya, at the same moment (that your Self cognises avidya) ; for, the cogniser (the Self) acts at the moment as the percipient of avidya. f Neither can there be a (separate) cogniser of the relation between the cogniser (the Self) and avidya, nor a separate cognition of that (relation) ; for then you would commit the fallacy of infinite * The inference meant here may be as for instance the liberated souls, do not stated as follows :— I must be the pos- fggi (he efiects of avidya— (A), sessor of avidya, because I feel the effects of avidya such as misery. If I t The Self cannot be both the per- have no avidya, I should not feel its ceiver and the perceived at the same

efiects ; for, those vyho have no avidya, time.— (A). 296 THE bhagavad-gIta. [Dis. XIII. regress (anavastba). — If the relation between the cogniser (the Self) and the cognised could be cognised, another cogniser should be supposed to exist ; then another cogniser of that cogniser ; then another of that again ; and so on ; and thus the series would necessarily be endless. If, on the other hand, avidya — or, for that matter, anything else — is the cognised, then it is ever the cognised only. So also the cogniser is ever the cogniser ; he can never become the cognised. Such being the case,"''' Kshetraj«a, the cogniser, is not at all tainted by nescience, misery and the like. [Objection) : — There is in the Self this blemish, viz., that He is the cogniser of Kshetra or matter which is full of blemishes. (Answer) : — No ; for, it is only by a figure of speech that the Self, the immutable Consciousness, is spoken of as the cogniser, just as, in virtue of its heat, fire is said, by a figure, to do the act of heating. We have shewn how here, in ii. ig, iii. 27, and v. 15 and other places, the Lord has taught that the Self has in Himself no concern with action or with its accessories or with its results, that they are imputed to the Self by avidya, and that they are therefore said to belong to the Self only by a figure of speech. And we shall also explain how the same truth is taught in the sequel.

{Objection) : — Well ! if the Self has in Himself no concern with action or with its accessories or with its results, and if they are ascribed (to the Self) by avidya, then it would * Because the Self cannot be cognised And the Self reveals himself in every by anything beyond, there is no proof phase of consciousness.— (A), whatever that avidya inheres in the Self follow that the rituals ( karmas ) are intended only for the ignorant, not for the wise.* (AtisK'cy) : — Yes,i it does follow, as we shall explain when commenting on xviii. ii. And in the section (xviii. 50, etseq.) where the teaching of the whole sastra is summed up, we shall dwell more particularly on this point. No need here to expatiate further on the subject; so we conclude for the present. Summary of the Doctrine. Here follows a verse which forms a summary of the teaching of the Discourse on Kshetra {i.e., thirteenth Discourse), which is already contained in brief in the verses xiii. 1,2; for, it is but proper to give beforehand a summary of the whole doctrine to be explained at length in the sequel. 3. And what that Kshetra is, and of what nature, and what its changes ; and whence is what ; and who He is and what His powers ; this hear thou briefly from Me.

^TJiat Kshetra' refers to what was spoken of as ' this body ' (xiii. i). What that Kshetra is : what it is in itself. Of what nature : what it is in its properties. And ic'hence is what : what efliects arise from what causes. Who He is etc.: Who He is that was spoken of as Kshetrajiia and what His • And this is opposed to the sastra list the knowledge of the existence of a which often says that' one should per- Self beyond the body, not also the form the sacrificial rituals with know- knowledge that that Self is free from ledge. — (A). all attributes, such as hunger. T The 5dstra demands from the ritua- 298 THE bhagavad-gIta. [Dis. XIII. powers (prabhavas, saktis, such as the power of seeing) are which arise from the upadhis or environments (such as the eye). Do thou hear My speech describing briefly the true nature of Kshetra and Kshetrajua in all these specific aspects ; and on hearing that speech, thou wilt understand the truth. — The (five) and's imply that one should understand Kshetra and Kshetrajua in all these aspects. The Lord now extols what He has proposed to teach, — namely, the doctrine of the true nature of Kshetra and Kshetrajua, — with a view to interest the mind of the hearer :

4. Sung by sages, in many ways and distinctly, in vari(3us hymns, as also in the suggestive words about Brahman, full of reasoning and decisive. Sages (A^ishis) : such as Vasish^fha. Hymns : such as the R'lk. The true nature of Kshetra and Kshetrajua has also been taught in the Brahma-sutras, i.e., in the passages treating of Brahman, — such as "Only as the Self, let a man contemplate Him " (Bri. Up. 1-4-7), — in the words through which alone Brahman is known. They are full of reasoning. They admit of no doubt, i. e., they are productive of certain knowledge. Matter in all its forms. To Arjuna who has, by this praise (of the doctrine), been prepared to hear it, the Lord says : 5. The Great Elements, Egoism, Reason, as also the Unmanifested, the ten senses and one, and the five objects of the senses; 3 — 6.] MATTER AND Sl'IRlT. 299 The Gyeat Elements (Mahabhiltas) are so called because they pervade all vikaras, all modilications of matter. The elements here referred to are the subtle ones (sukshraa), not the gross (sthula) elements, which latter will be spoken of as " the objects of the senses." Egoism (Ahaw/kara): self-consciousness, consciousness of ego, the cause of ' the Great Elements'. Reason (Buddhi) is defined by determination and is the cause of Aha;«kara. The cause of Reason (Buddhi) is the Avyakta, the Unmanifested, the Avyak>ita or Undifferentiated, the Energy of the Lord (Isvara-5akti) spoken of in vii.

14. So much alone is Praknti, divided eightfold." The ten senses are made up of the five " buddhi-indriyas", senses of knowledge — such as hearing, — so called because they produce knowledge, and of the five "karma-indriyas," senses of action such as speech and hand, so called because they bring about aclion. And the one : the manas, which is composed of thoughts and purposes (sa;«kalpa) and so on, is the eleventh sense. The five objects of the senses are sound, etc. The Sankhyas speak of these as the twenty-four principles (tattvas).

6. Desire, hatred, pleasure, pain, the aggregate, intelligence, courage ; — the Kshetrahas been thus briefly described with its modifications. Now, the Lord proceeds to teach that even those which the Vaiseshikas speak of as the inherent attributes of Atman (the Self) are merely the attributes of Kshetra (matter), but not the attributes of Kshetrajua (the knower of matter). — Desire (ichchha) is that which impels a person who has once * The /svara-Sakti here referred to is consciousness (chaitany.a) ; i.e., the Mulathe root of the insentient matter, spoken praknti in its eight modifications.— (A) of as Maya in vii. 14, not the root of 300 THE BHAGAVAD-GiTA. [DiS. XIII. experienced a certain object of pleasure to seek — on again perceiving an object of the same class, — to get hold of this latter as conducive to pleasure. This, namely desire, is a property of the inner sense (antaZt-kara^a) ; and it is Kshetra (matter) because it is knowable. So also, hatved is that which leads a person, who once experienced a certain object of pain, to dislike an object of the same class on perceiving this latter. This, namely hatred, is only Kshetra (matter), because it is knowable. Pleasure is the agreeable, the tranquil, made up of the Sattva principle. Even this is Kshetra, because it is knowable. Pain is the disagreeable ; and it is Kshetra because it is knowable. The aggregate is the combination of the body and the senses.

Intelligence is a mental state which manifests itself in the aggregate — just as fire manifests itself in a burning metallic mass, — pervaded by the semblance of the consciousness of the Self. It is Kshetra, because it is knowable. Courage is that by which the body and the senses are upheld when they get depressed ; and it is Kshetra because it is knowable. — Desire and other qualities mentioned here stand for all the qualities of the inner sense (anta/«-kara7/a). The Lord concludes the present subject as follows: the Kshetra has been thus briefly described, with its modifications such as Mahat (Buddhi).

Virtues conducive to Self-knowledge. The Kshetra, of which the various modifications in their totality have been spoken of as " this body " (xiii. i), has been described in all its different forms, from ' the Great Elements' to 'courage' (xiii. 5-6).* The characteristic marks *. The cosmic body and the individual shew thiit he alone who has grown inbodies (saniasWideha and vyash/idehas) difierent (viralvta) to them is qualified for have been described here with a view to knowledge. — (A) of Kshetrajua will be shortly described. In xiii. 12, the Lord Himself will describe Kshetrajua in detail, — that Kshetrajua through a knowledge of whose powers immortality can be attained. But, now, the Lord prescribes, as means to that knowledge, virtues such as humility, which qualify a person for a knowledge of the Knowable, intent on which a sa;/myasin is said to be a juana-nish/ha, a firm devotee in the path of konwledge, and which are designated as knowledge ( juana ) because they are the means of attaining knowledge. 7. Humility, modesty, innocence, patience, uprightness, service of the teacher, purity, steadfastness, self-control ; Humility : absence of self-esteem. Modesty : not proclaiming one's own virtues. Innocence: doing no injury to any living being. Patience : not being affected when others have done any injury. Service of the teacher : doing acts of service to the preceptor (acharya) who teaches the means of attaining moksha. Purity : washing away

the dirt from the body by means of water and earths, — the inner purity of mind consisting in the removal from it of the dirt of attachment and other passions by cultivating the idea* that is inimical to them. Steadfastness : concentration of all efforts exclusively in the path of salvation. Self-control: control of the self, of the aggregate of the body and the senses. This aggregate is spoken of as the self, because it is of some service to the true Self.f Self-control consists in directing exclusively to the right path the body and the mind which

♦ The recognition of evil in all objects of senses. — (A) + There is another reading of the gate ' is inimical to the Self and should commentary which means that ' the aggre- therefore be restrained. 302 THE BHAGAVAD-GITA [DiS. XHI. are by nature attracted in all directions. Moreover, 8. Absence of attachment for objects of the senses, and also absence of egoism ; perception of evil in birth, death and old age, in sickness and pain; Absence of attachment : for sense-objects such as sound, for pleasures seen or unseen. Perception, etc. : thinking of what evil there is severally in birth, etc. Thus the evil in birth lies in having to dwell in the womb and to issue out through the uterus. Similarly in death. The evil of old age consists in the decay of intelligence, power and strength, and in being treated with contempt. So also may be seen the evil caused by sickness such as head-disease ; or the evil caused by pain, whether adhyatmika, i.e., arising in one's own person, or adhibhautika, i.e., produced by external agents, or adhidaivika, i.e., produced by supernatural beings. Or, the passage may be thus interpreted: — Pain itself is evil. Birth, etc., should be regarded as painful, as shewn above. Birth is a misery ; death is a misery ; old age is a misery ; and sickness is a misery. Birth, etc., are all miseries, because they produce misery ; they are not miseries in themselves.

From this perception of the evil of pain in birth, etc., there arises indifference to the pleasures of the body and of the senses ; and then the senses turn towards the Innermost Self to obtain a glimpse of the Self. Because the perception of the evil of pain in birth, etc., conduces to knowledge, it is itself spoken of as knowledge. g. Unattachment, absence of affection for son, wife, home and the like, and constant, equanimity on the attainment of the desirable and the undesirable ; Unattnchment : absence of liking for things which may form objects of attachment. Affection is an intense form of attachment and consists in complete identification with another, as in the case of a man who feels happy or miserable when another is happy or miserable and who feels himself alive or dead when another is alive or dead. The like : others who are very dear, other dependants. Unattachment and absence of affection are termed knowledge because they lead to knowledge. Constant equanimity consists is not being delighted on attaining the desirable, and in not chafing on attain. ng the undesirable. This equanimity also is (conducive to) knowledge. 10. Unflinching devotion to Me in Yoga of nonseparation, resort to solitary places, distaste for the society of men ;

Yoga of non-separation : apnthak-samadhi, a steady unflinching^ meditation on the One with the idea that there is no Being higher than the Lord, Vasudeva, and that therefore He is our sole Refuge. And this devotion is (conducive to) knowledge. Sclitary places : which are naturally free, or made free, from impurities, as also from fear of serpents, thieves and tigers : such as a jungle, the sandbank of a river, the temple of a God, and so on. It is in solitude that the \ mind becomes calm ; so that meditation of the Self and the ) like is possible only in a solitary place. Wherefore resort to I solitude is said to be ( conducive to ) knowledge. Society of men : of the ordinary unenlightened and undisciplined 304 THE BHAGAVAD-GITA. [DiS. XIII. people, not of the enlightened and disciplined men, because the society of these latter is an aid to knowledge. Distaste Jor the society of ordinary men is knowledge, because it leads to knowledge. II. Constancy in Self-knowledge, perception of the end of the knowledge of truth. This is declared to be knowledge, and what is opposed to it is ignorance. Self-knowledge : knowledge of the Self and the like. Perception, etc : Knowledge of truth results from the mature development of such attributes as humility (xiii. 7), which are the means of attaining knowledge. The end of this knowledge is moksha, the cessation of mortal existence, of sa;«sara.

The end should be kept in view ; for, it is only when one perceives the end of the knowledge of truth that one will endeavour to cultivate the attributes which are the means of attaining that knowledge. These attributes — from * humility ' to ' perception of the end of the knowledge of truth ' — are declared to be knowledge, because they are conducive to knowledge. What is opposed to this — viz., pride, hypocrisy, cruelty, impatience, insincerity and the like-^is ignorance, which should be known and avoided as tending to the perpetuation of samsara.

What is it that has to be known by this knowledge ? — In answer to this question the Lord proceeds with xiii. 12, etc. {Objection) : — Humility and the like are only forms of self-control {yama and niyama) ; by them cannot be perceived the Knowable. Never indeed have we found humility and lO — 12.] MATTER AND SPIRIT. 305 Other attributes (mentioned above) serving to determine the nature of anything. And in all cases, it is only the knowledge or consciousness of an object that has been found to determine the nature of that object of knowledge. And, certainly, no object can bs determined through the knowledge of another object, any more than fire can be perceived through the knowledge of a pot. (AnSii/ey): — This objection does not apply here ; for, we have said that humility and the like are spoken of as knowledge because they conduce to knowledge, or because they are secondary or auxiliary causes of knowledge. 12. That which has to be known I shall describe; knowing which one attains the Immortal. Beginningless is the Supreme Brahman. It is not said to be ' sat ' or ' asat.' That which has to be known, I shall fully describe as It is. — The Lord then goes on to describe what the result of that knowledge will be, in order to call the hearer's attention by way of creating in h"m a desire to know^ of It. — It, the unsurpassed One, the Brahman, just spoken of as ' That which has to be known,' has no beginning.

With a view to avoid tautology '■' some split the expression ' anadimatparam ' into * anddi matparam ' , and explain it differently; thus: Brahman is beginningless, and lam Its Para-5akti, the Supreme Energy called Vasudeva. (But we say) : — True, tautology might thus be avoided, provided the given interpretation were possible. But the * Tautology involved in t.iking '• ana- Bhashyakara has done, dimat ,' as one compound, as the ^06 THE BHAGAVAD-GITA. [DiS. XIII. interpretation does not hold good, for it is intended here to expound the nature of Brahman by denying all specific attributes. It is a self-contradiction to speak of Brahman as possessed of a particular kind of energy and at the same time as devoid of all specific attributes. Therefore tautology should be explained as due to the exigencies of the metre. Brahman is beyond speech and thought. After saying that He is going to speak of what, as leading to immortality, is worth knowing, and after having thus called the hearer's attention by creating a desire for the knowledge, the Lord says: It is not said to be * sat (existent) ' or ' asat (non-existent).' {Objection) : — After proclaiming very loudly that He is going to speak of the Knovvable, it does not become the Lord to describe It as neither ' sat ' nor ' asat.'

(Aiiswey) : — No; it is quite the right thing that has been said. — How ? — Thus : being inaccessible to speech, Brahman, the Knowable, is defined in all Upanishads only by a denial of all specialities,—' Not thus ' (BH. Up, 2-3-6) and * not gross, not subtle ' {Ibid, 3-8-8) — in the terms " It is not this." {Objection) : — That thing (alone) exists which can be spoken of as existing. If the Knowable cannot be spoken of as existing, then It cannot exist. And it is a contradiction in terms to say that It is knowable and that It cannot be spoken of as existing. {Ansuer): — Neither is It non-existent, since It is not an object of the consciousness of non-existence. (Objection):— Ewevy state of consciousness involves either the consciousness of existence or that of non-existence. Such being the case, the Knowable should be comprehended either by a state of consciousness accompanied with the consciousness of existence, or by a state of consciousness accompanied with the consciousness of non-existence." (ylnswey): — No; for, being beyond the reach of the senses. It is not an object of consciousness accompanied with the idea of either (existence or non-existence). That thing, indeed, which can be perceived by the senses, such as a pot, can be an object of consciousness accompanied with the idea of existence, or an object of consciousness accompanied with the idea of non-existence. Since, on the other hand, the Knowable is beyond the reach of the senses and as such can be known solely through that instrument of knowledge which is called '5abda' (the Word, i.e., Revelation), It cannot be, like a pot, etc., an object of consciousness accompanied with the idea of either (existence or non-existence) and is therefore not said to be 'sat' or 'asat'.

Now, as regards the allegation that it is a self-contradiction in terms to say that the Knosvable is not said to be ' sat ' or 'asat', (we say that) there is no contradiction ; for, the sruti says, 'It is other than the known and above the unknown.' — (Kena-Up.2-3.) [Objection): — Even the passage of the sruti just quoted is self- contradictory,! just as the sruti is self-contradictory when, after putting up the hall for the sacrifice, it says * If not. you cinnot escape the conclu- authoritative, since that passage alone is sion that lirahnian is indefinable— (A). accepted as authoritative which contra- f If so, \vc do not accept the passage as diets no accepted authority. — (A) 3o8 THE BHAGAVAD-GJTA. [DiS. XIII. " (who knows) there exists (any good) in the next world ?" (Taittiriya-Sa7«hita, 6-1-1). {Aus7!>cr) : — No; the passage which says that "It is other than the known and above the unknown, teaches, by itself, something which should be accepted as true, "'^' whereas the passage quoted by the opponent — " who knows if there exist any good in the next world ?" — is a mere artha-vada, a statement which, to be understood in its full import, should be read along with the injunction to which it is subsidiary.!

Moreover, it stands to reason to say that Brahman cannot be expressed in words such as 'sat'; for, every v.'ord employed to denote a thing denotes that thing — when heard by another — as associated with a certain genus, or a certain act, or a certain quality, or a certain mode of relation. Thus : C07i> and horse imply genera, cook and teacher imply acts, white and black imply qualities, ivealthy and cattle-owner imply possession. But Brahman belongs to no genus \ wherefore It cannot be denoted by such words as ' sat (existent)'. Being devoid of attributes. It possesses no qualities. If It were possessed of qualities, then It could be denoted by a word implying a quality. Being actionless, It cannot be indicated by a word implying an act. The >Sruti says: " It is without parts, actionless and tranquil." (.Svet. Up. 6-19). * That is to say, we should not reject be accepted as authoritative in itself.-(A) the passage as teaching no new truth; + Hence it is no authority in itself — (A) for, it teaches this new truth, namely, * Brahman is described in the sruti as that Brahman is no other than one's belonging to no class, as possessing no

own Inner Self, and it should therefore colour, and so on. — (A) 12 — 13.] MATTER AND SPIRIT. 30g It is not related to anythinj^ else ; for It is one, It is without a second, It is no object (of any sense). It is the very Self. Wherefore, it is but right to say that It can be denoted by no word at all ;and the passages of the sruti like the following point to the same thing : Whence {i.e., away from Brahman, unable to approach Brahman) all words return." — (Tait. Up. 2-4-1.) Brahman is the source of all activity. When it is said that Brahman the Knowable is not accessible to the word or thought of 'sat' (existent), one may perhaps suppose It to be ' asat ' or non-existent. To prevent this supposition the Lord proceeds to declare Its existence as manifested through the upadhis, through the senses of all living beings. [To explain : Since nothing is found which is devoid of all conditions and quite beyond all speech and thought, — nay, since everything we experience is of a contrary nature, — one may suppose that Brahman as described above must be a void or non-entity (sunya). To prevent this supposition, the Lord proceeds to teach that Brahman exists (i) as the Inner Self (Pratyak), (2) as the source of all activity of the senses and the like, (3) as the source whence arises our consciousness of existence with reference to all duality which is imaginary, (4) as Isvara or the Lord of the universe. First of all, here, the Lord proves, by way of inference, the existence of Brahman as the Inner Self-consciousness : there must be some self-conscious principle (pratyak-chetana) behind insentient principles in activity, such as the physical body ; for, we invariably find

3IO THE BHAGAVAD-GITA. [DiS. XIII. self-consciousness lying behind all insentient objects in activity, such as a carriage in motion. — (A)] 13. With hands and feet everywhere, with eyes and heads and mouths everywhere, with hearing everywhere, That exists enveloping all. The Knowable has hands and feet everywhere. The existence of Kshetrajna is indicated by the upadhis of the sense-organs ■■'■ of all living beings. Kshetraj«a (the selfconscious principle lying behind the sense-organs) is socalled because of the upadhi of Kshetra ; and this Kshetra is of various forms, such as hands, feet, etc. All the variety caused in Kshetrajwa by the variety in the upadhis of Kshetra is but illusory, and it has therefore been said — in the words " It is not said to be ' sat ' or ' asat ' " — that It should be known as devoid of all variety. Though what is caused (in KshetraJ7/a) by upadhis is illusory, still it is spoken of — in the words that ' It has hands and feet every- ^vhere ' — as though it were an attribute of the Knowable, only with a view to indicate Its existence. Accordingly there is the saying of the sampradaya-vids — of those who know the right traditional method of teaching — which runs as follows : " That which is devoid of all duality is described by adhyaropa and apavada," i.e., by superimposition and negation, by attribution and denial. Hands, feet and the like, constituting the limbs of all bodies in all places, derive their activity from the Energy inherent in the Knowablef, andas such they are mere marks of Its existence and are spoken of as belonging to It only by a figure of speech.— All the rest should be similarly interpreted.— It

* Because there must be self-conscious- t t. e., they ^ct.in virtue of the mere ness at the back of their activity.— (A) presence of that Energy.— (A) (Brahman) exists in the world, in the whole animal creation, pervading all. The purpose of this verse is to prevent the supposition that the Knowable is [really) possessed of the upadhis — the sense-organs such as hands, feet, and the like, — which are merely superimposed (upon It). 14. Shining by the functions of all the senses, (yet) without the senses, unattached, yet supporting all ; devoid of qualities ; yet enjoying, qualities. All the senses: the buddhi-indriyas and karma-indriyas, the organs of knowledge and the organs of action. The inner senses, — manas and buddhi, — which alike form the upadhis of the Knowable, are included in the term * all the senses'. Moreover, even hearing and other senses form upadhis only through the upadhi of the anta/f-kara«a, the inner sense. Thus, we should understand that Brahman manifests Itself through the upadhis of external and internal senses through the functions of all the senses, viz., determination, purposes and thoughts, hearing, speech and the like. That is to say, the Knowable functions, as it were, through the functions of all the senses. The sruti says :

" It meditates as it were, It moves as it were." (Bn. ^>- 4-3-7)- Why should it not mean that It actually functions? — Says the Lord : It is not possessed of any of the senses. Wherefore,' the Knowable does not actually function when the senses are functioning. And as regards the verse, " Without hands and feet He is swift, He grasps ; 312 THE BHAGAVAD-GITA. [DiS. XII I. He sees without the eye, He hears without the ear." (5vet. Up. 3-19)- there, the sruti implies that the Knowable has the power to accomodate Itself to the varying functions of all the senses which are Its upadhis, but not that It actually possesses swift motion and such other activities. The verse should be interpreted ''■'• like the passage " The blind one saw the gem." (Taitt. Ara;iyaka, i. 11). Because It is devoid of the senses, therefore It is unattached, devoid of all attachments. Brahman, the basic Reality in all illusory phenomena. Though It is so, yet It supports all. Indeed, everything is based on the ' sat,' the Existent ; for everywhere the idea of ' sat ' is present. Not even the mirage and the like exist without a basis. Hence it is said that It supports all.

Brahman, the perceiver of the Qunas. There is this yet another gate to a knowledge of the existence of the Knowable : Though devoid of the gu«as, — Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas — yet ' the Knowable is the enjoyer, the perceiver, of the gu»as which, assuming the forms of sound and other (objects of sense), transform themselves into pleasure, pain and delusion. 15. Without and within (all) beings ; the un- * That is to say, the arthavada passage to contradict the main subject of the should not be understood in its literal section. — (A) sense ; it must be so interpreted as not movin;:; as also the moving. Because subtle, That is incomprehensible ; and near and far away is Without: What lies outside the body which is inclusive of the skin and which is regarded through ignorance as one's own self. And ' ivithin ' refers to the Inner Self, Pratyagatman, lying inside the body.— The statement that It is 'without and within' may imply Its absence in the middle. ^'^ To prevent this implication, the Lord says that It is * the unmoving as also the moving.' It is Brahman, the Knowable, that appears as the bodies, moving and unmoving, just as a rope appears as a snake.

Brahman is comprehended only by the wise. (Objection) : — If all things we perceive, the moving and the unmoving, were the Knowable, then how is it that Brahman is not directly comprehended by everybody, as ' This It is'? (Anszi'cy): — True, '' It manifests Itself as everything ; but It is subtle § like the akasa. Wherefore, on account of Its subtlety. It is incomprehensible to the unenlightened, though knowable in Itself. It is, however, always known to the ' enlightened/as revealed in the following texts : 'All this is the Self and the Self alone' (Bn. Up. 2-4-6.) 'AH this is Brahman and Brahman alone.' (/i/rf. 2-5-1.) It is far away when unknown ; for. It is unattainable by the unenlightened even in millions of years. And to the enlightened It is very near, because It is their own Self. t. e. in the body which intervenes objects, between the Pratyagatman and external § Beyond the reach •f the senses. 314 THE BHAGAVAD-GiTA. [DiS. XIII* Brahman is the one Self in all. 16. And undivided, yet remaining divided as it were in beings ; supporter of beings, too, is That, the Knowable ; devouring, yet generating. It is undivided in the different bodies, It is one like the akasa. Still, it appears to be different in all the different bodies, inasmuch as It manifests Itself only in the bodies.

Brahman is the Cause of the Universe. The Knowable supports beings during sthiti, the period of sustenance of the Universe; and It devours them at pyalaya, i.e., at the time of dissolution. It generates them at the time of ntpatti, the origin of the Universe, just as a rope gives rise to an illusory snake. • Brahman is the Illuminator of all. {Objection) ; — If the Knowable, though existing everywhere, is not perceived, then It is but darkness (Tamas). {Aimvev) : — No. — What then ? — 17. The Light even of lights, That is said to be bayond darkness. Kn jwledge, the Knowable, the Goal of knowledge, ( It ) is implanted in the heart of every one. That, the Knowable, is the Light even of lights '■'■ such as the sun. Indeed these latter shine only when illumined by * The existence of Brahman, thfc Know- luminin}; the sun, etc., and reason able, can be recognissd as the Light il- (buddbiA etc. (A.) if) — I*^.] MATTER AND SPIRIT. 315 the lij,4it ot the consciousness of the Self. The Chants say : ' That Light by which illumined the sun shines ' — (Taitt. Br. 3-12-9.)

'By Its light all this shines '—(Svet. Up. 6-14). So says the smHti also here (in the Bhagavad-gita xv. 12.) It is said to be uncontaminated by Tamas, by ajwana, by nescience. The Light is in the heart of every one. Now, with a view to cheer up Arjuna who seemed dejected at the thought of the knowledge (of Brahman) being very difficult of attainment, the Lord says: ICnovvledge, such as humility (xiii. 7-11); the Knowable, as described in xiii. 12-17 ; and the same thing, viz., the Knowable, which, when kiiown, forms the fruit of knowledge and is therefore said to be the Goal ofknoidedge, and which as a thing to be known forms the Knowable : these three (knowledge, the Knowable, and the Goal of knowledge) are implanted pre-eminently in the heart (buddhi) of every living being ; it is indeed there that the three are distinctly manifested. Seek the Light through devotion. Here follows the verse which concludes the subject just treated of: 18. Thus the Kshetra, as well as knowledge and the Knowable, have been briefly set forth. M)- devotee, on knowing this, is fitted for My state. Thus the Kshetra, described above (xiii-5-6), beginning with the ' Great elements' and ending with ' firmness;' knoivledge, comprising the attributes which have been enumerated, beginning with ' humility ' and ending with ' perception of

3l6 THE BHAGAVAD-GlTA. [DiS. XIII. the end of the knowledge of truth' (xiii. 7-11); and the Knowable, described in xiii -12-17 ;-^these have been set forth in brief. Such, indeed, is the whole doctrine, the doctrine of the Vedas and the doctrine of the Gita, taught in brief. (Question) : — Who is fit to attain this right knowledge ? [Answey) : — He who is devoted to Me, who regards Me — • Vasudeva, the Supreme Lord, the Omniscient, the Supreme Guru — as the Self (Soul, Essence) of everything, i.e., he who is possessed (as it were) with the idea that all that he sees or hears or touches is nothing but the Lord, Vasudeva. Thus devoted to Me, and having attained the right knowledge described above, he is fit to attain to My state, i. e., he attains moksha. Prakriti and Purusha are eternal. In the seventh discourse were described two Prakntis, the superior and the inferior, corresponding to Kshetra and Kshetrajua; and it was said that they are the womb of all creatures (vii. 6). — It may now be asked, how can it be said that the two Prakntis, Kshetra and Kshetrajfia, are the womb of all beings? — This question will now be answered:

ig. Know thou that Prak^'iti as well as Purusha are both beginningless ; and know thou also that all forms and qualities are born of Prakriti. Praknti and Purusha, Matter and Spirit, are the two Prakntis of the Isvara, the Lord. These two, Praknti and Purusha — you should know — have no beginning. As the Isvara is the eternal Lord, it is but right that His Prakntis also should be eternal. The Lordship of the Isvara iS-ig.] MATTER AND SPIRIT. 317 consists indeed in His possession of the two Prakntis by which He causes the origin, preservation and dissolution of the universe. The two Prakritis are beginningless, and they are therefore the cause of sawsara. Some construe the passage so as to mean that the two Prakritis are not primeval. It is by such an interpretation, they hold, that the causality of the Isvara can be established. If, on the other hand, Prakriti and Purusha were eternal, it would follow that they are the cause of the universe, and that the Isvara is not the creator of the universe. It is wrong to say so; for the Isvara would then be no isvara, inasmuch as there would be nothing for Him to rule over prior to the birth of Prakfiti and Purusha. Moreover, if sawsara had no cause (other than Isvara), there could be no cessation ■■'• thereof; and thus the sastra (the scripture) would have no purpose to serve. Likewise, there could be neither bondage nor salvation, i

Prakriti and Purusha as the Cause of samsara. If, on the other hand, the Prak/'itis of the Isvara be eternal, all this can be explained.— How? — Know thou that all forms, all emanations (vikaras) from buddhi down to the physical body, and all qualities (gu»as) such as those which manifest themselves as pleasure, pain, delusion and other mental states to be described hereafter, spring from ♦ If the /s vara were the sole cause of sara.— (A) the universe, quite independently of the t Before the birth of the two Prakntis, two Prakntis, the sawisara would be end- there could be no bondage and conse- less, inasmuch as there is nothing to quently no moksha. If at any time there prevent even the emancipated souls from were neither bondage nor moksha, being hurled into sa»isara, so long as there could be no cause which would ever there is /svara, as the sole cause of saw bring them into existence,— (A)., 3l8 THE BHAGAVAD-GITA. [DiS. XIII. Praknti, Mayi\, composed of the three gu«as, that Energy of the Isvara which constitutes thecause of (all) emanations. Know thou that they are all modifications of Praknti.* What then are those forms and qualities which are said to be born of Praknti ? — Says the Lord :

20. As the producer of the effect and the instruments t, Praknti is said to be the cause ; as experiencing pleasure and pain, Purusha is said to be the cause. The effect (karya) is the physical body, and the instruments (kara«as) are the thirteen [ located in the body. The five elements (bhutas) which build up the body, and the five sense-objects which are the emanations of Praknti as mentioned above, are included under the term 'effect ;' and all qualities, such as pleasure, pain and delusion, which are born of Prak/'iti, are included under the term ' instruments,' since those qualities are seated in the instruments, the senses. In the production of the physical body, of the senses and their sensations, Praknti is said to be the cause, for, it generates them all. Thus, as producing the physical body and the senses, Praknti is the cause of sa;«sara. In the place of 'kara»a' which means instrument, some read 'kara»a' which means cause. — -Whatever is a modification of another is the effect or emanation (vikara) of that other ; and that from which it emanates is the cause * Praknti is that out of which all less and without qualities— M)

forms and qualities come into existence | or, (according to another interpre- Since PraAnti is thus eternal and is the tation), the effect and the cause, source of all forms (vikaras) and qualities ; Five organs of sensation, five of (gunas), .^tman remains ever change- activity, Manas, Buddhi, and Ahankara. (kirana). Praknti is the source of the cause and the effect, which comprise the same things (that were denoted by the terms 'the effect and the instruments'). Or, it may be that the sixteen vikdms '■^'- or emanations are here spoken of as the effect ; and the seven t which are at once praknti and viknti, cause and effect, and which are therefore called Praknti-Vikritis, are spoken of as the cause. In the production of these, the cause is Praknti, as generating them all. And now will be shown how Purusha is the cause of sawsara. ^Pnnisha,' 'Jiva,' 'Kshetyajna,' 'Bhoktyi (Enjoyer)'J are all synonymous terms. Purusha is said to be the cause, as perceiving pleasure, pain, and other objects of experience. ( Objection ) : — Why should Prakriti and Purusha be regarded as the cause of sawsara by way of generating causes and effects and experiencing pleasure and pain ?

{AiiSK'ey )'. — How could there be sawsara at all without Praknti transforming itself as causes and effects, as the body and the senses, as pleasure and pain, and without the conscious Purusha experiencing them ? i When, on the other hand, there is a conjunction — in the form of avidya or nescience — of Purusha, the experiencer, with Praknti, the opposite, the object of experience, in all its * The ten sense-organs, Manas and t The three last terms are respective- ihe five sense-objects. — (A), ly intended to show that Purusha here + ..-. ^^ u . »u 1- J .u £ referred to is not the Paraniatman or the T VIZ., Mahat, Aha»ikara, and the five T . J. , , ^ , Highest Self, is an intelligent (chetana) X anmatras or rudimental elements. Each d \ / „/-.,. • r • J principle, is a conditioned being. — (A) 01 these IS an emanation from us prede- >- ^ cessor and is in turn the cause of its 5 For, the /Itman who is ever firee successor. As producing all these, the (nitya-mukta) from sa>;isara, cannot of Mulapraknti is their cause, their basis.— Himself be subject to sa»isara — (A). (A),

THE BHAGAVAD-GiTA. [DiS. XIII. transformations as the body and the senses, as pleasure and pain, as causes and effects, then only is sawsara possible. Wherefore it is but right to say that Praknti and Purusha are the cause of sawsara ; the one generating the body and the senses, the other experiencing pleasures and pains. {Objection) : — What, then, is this sa;«sara?" {Answer): — Sawsara is the experience of pleasure and pain ; and Purusha is the sa;;^sarin, as the experiencer of pleasure and pain, f Avidya and Kama are the cause of rebirths. It has been said that Purusha is the sawsarin as experiencing pleasure and pain. What is this (experiencing of pleasure and pain) due to ? — The Lord says ; 21. Purusha,'when seated in Praknti, experiences the qualities born of Prak?'iti. Attachment to the qualities is the cause of his birth in good and evil wombs. Because Purusha, the experiencer, is seated in Praknti, in avidya or nescience, — that is to say, because he identifies himself with the body and the senses which are emanations of Praknti, — he experiences the qualities born of Praknti, manifesting themselves as pleasure, pain and delusion ; he thinks, " I am happy, I am miserable, I am

* The objector means: If ,4tnian be pleasure or pain, the Self, the experienc- immutable (avikriya), not subject to er remains quite unchanged. It is this changes of state, then it is not proper to experience (bhoga) which constitutes say that He is ever subject to sa«!sara.— His sa"!sara, and which makes Him a + That is to say : while experiencing deluded, I am wise." Over and above avidya (the cause of birth), His attachment to (/. c, identification of Himself with ) what He experiences, — namely, the (jualities of pleasure, pain and delusion, — forms the main cause of Purusha's birth. The sruti says : " As is his desire, so is his will." {Byi. Up. 4-4-5.) Accordingly the Lord says here : — The experiencer's attachment for qualities leads him to birtlis in good and evil wombs. Or, the second half of the verse may be construed, by supplying the word ' sawsara,' so as to mean : Attachment for qualities is the cause of His sa;//sara through births in good and evil wombs. Good wombs are those of Devas and the like ; evil wombs are those of lower animals. We may also add, as implied here — being opposed to no teaching, — the wombs of men which are (partly) good and (partly) evil.

The sense of the passage maybe explained as follows: A^•idya,, — spoken of as (Purusha's) being 'seated in Prak/'iti,' — and Kama or attachment for qualities, together constitute the cause of sawsara.''' Self=knowledge removes the cause of samsara. This twofold cause has been taught here for avoidance, [i.e., in order that we may try to remove it). The means of bringing about the removal of the (twofold) cause are Jnana and \'airagya, i.e., knowledge and indifference conjoined with sa//myasa or renunciation I as has been clearly * Avidya beinj,' the nlxuhma or matrnial knowledge coupled vvUh s UMiyas.i briiiRS cause, and kama the nimitUi or efficient about the cc£S:ition of avid) a ,uul kauia.- cause. — A ,V. t Vdiragya leads to saj;inyasa ; and 322 THE BHAGAVAD-GITA. [DiS. XIII. taught in the Gita-sastra. This knowledge, the knowledge of Kshetra and Kshetrajna, has been imparted in the beginning of this discourse. And it has also been imparted in xiii. 12, et. seq., both by eliminating foreign elements (xiii. 12) and by attributing alien properties (xiii. i^,et. scq.) Now again the Lord proceeds to teach directly what that knowledge is : 22. Spectator and Permitter, Supporter, Enjoyer, the Great Lord, and also spoken of as the Supreme Self, (is) the Purusha Supreme in this body.

Spectator (Upadrash^/'i) : a bystander and a witness, Himself not acting. When priests and the sacrificer are engaged in a sacrificial act, there is another, an expert in sacrificial matters, sitting by their side, not taking part in the act, and discerning what is good and what is bad in the acts of the sacrificer and of the priests ; just so, not taking part in the activities of the body and the senses, the Self is distinct from them, a near witness of the body and the senses and all their acts. — Or, it may be also explained thus ; The body, the sense of sight, Manas, Buddhi, and the Self are the seers. Of the-e, the body is the most external seer; and viewed from the body inwards, the Self is the innermost and nearest seer, and beyond Him there is no seer in the interior. Thus, baing the nearest seer. He is spoken of as ' Upadrashf/'i.' Or, the Self is Upadrash^n because, like the Upadrash/n in the sacrificial rite, He watches all. He is also the Permitter (Anumantn), expressing approbation or satisfaction concerning the acts of those who are engaged in action.— Or, though Himself not engaged in action while the body and senses are active, He seems

to be active in co-operation with them. — Or, being their mere witness, He never stands in the way of those that are engaged in their respective activities. Supporter (Bhartn) : The Self is called the Supporter, because the body, the senses, Manas and Buddhi — which aggregate together to serve the purposes of some one else, viz.^ the Intelligent Self, and which are, or which convey, mere reflections of the Intelligence — are what they are, only as made by that Intelligent Self. Enjoyer (Bhoktn) : The Self is the enjoyer because by the Self who is ' nitya-chaitanyasvarupa', i. e., whose inherent nature is eternal intelligence, just as heat is the inherent nature of fire, are clearly perceived, in their mutual relations, all states of mind (buddhe/i-pratyaya/i), constituted of pleasure, pain and delusion, which, as they come into being, are permeated as it were by the intelligent Self. The Gnat Lord : As one with the whole universe and independent of all, He is the Great One as well as the Lord, The Supreme 5^// (Paramatman) : the Self who has been defined as the Spectator, etc., is Supreme, because He is superior to all those th'ngs — from the physical body up to the Avyakta — which are through ignorance mistaken for the Inner Self. Whence He is spoken of as 'Paramatman' in the 5ruti also. — Where is He ? — Purusha, who transcends the Avyakta, as will be described hereafter in xv. 17, is here in this body.

The Self treated of in xiii. 2 has been described at length, and the subject has been concluded. As to him who knows the Self thus described : 23. He who thus knows Purusha and Prak7'iti together with qualities, whatever his conduct, he 324 THE BHAGAVAD-GlTA. [DiS. XIII. is not born again. He who knows Purusha in the manner mentioned above,* i.e., he who directly perceives Him as his very Self, ' This I am,' he who knows Prakfiti or Avidya described above i with all its modifications, i. e., he who knows the Prakriti as resolved into nothing (abhdva) by vidya or knowledge, — whatever life he may lead, (i. e., whether he is engaged in the prescribed duties or. forbidden acts), he is not born again ; that is, he will not have to put on another body on the death of this, i. e., at the end of the birth in which he has attained wisdom. How much more so the wise man who stands firm in the path of duty. {Objection) : — What acts are neutralised by knowledge ? — Absence of rebirth subsequent to the attainment of knowledge has indeed been taught here. But, inasmuch as it is not right (to suppose) the annihilation, before producing their respective effects, of those acts which were done (in the present birth) before the attainment of knowledge or of those acts which may be done thereafter, or of those which had been done in the many past births, there should be at least three (more) births ; for it is not right to suppose the ann hilation of these acts any more than to suppose the annihilation of the deeds whose fruits are being reaped in the present birth. And we see no distinction between (these two groups of) acts J. Accordingly, the three clasess of acts

• As ihe basic Reality underlying knowledge, so that there is no force in all manifestations such as Jiva, /svara, the possible argument that the acts %vhich and so on. — A. can be neutralised by knowledge are t As beginningless, as indefinable '^ose which have not yet begun their , . , , , ., 1 11 -1 effects, not those which have already bc- (anirvachya), as the source of all evil. — -' . gun their effects by way of generating the J As all acts alike result from aj)u!m. ^ >• • ■ tbey must all alike be neutralised by will give rise to thiee births ; or all of them combining together will give rise to a single birth. Otherwise, the possibility of annihilation of what has been done would lead to uncertainty everywhere, and the sastra (all scriptural injunctions) would become useless. Wherefore it is not right to say that ' he is not born again.' [Answcv) : — No, (it is right), as the following passages of the sruti show : ' His deeds perish.' — {Mund. Up. 2-2-8.) * He who knows Brahman, becomes Brahman Itself.'— {Ibid., 3-2-9). ' For him there is only delay so long as he is not delivered ( from the present body ). — ( Chhand. Up. 6-14-2).

' As the soft WhxQS of the ishika reed are burnt in the fire, so all his actions are burnt.' — [Ibid., 5-24-3). and will be taught also hereafter. '■= And this also stands to reason ; for, only those acts which spring from avidya (nescience), from desire (kama) and such other affections, which are the seeds f of all evil, can cause future births ; and it has also been stated by the Lord here and there in the Gita that those actions which are accompanied with * In xviii. 66. the Lord teaches Arjuna their seeds have been fried in know, to abandon all Dharmas, thus showing ledge ; those acts are said to exist only that knowledge consumes all actions — A. in so far as they present themselves to t These seeds of evil, termed klesas are his consciousness, pratitimatradehah. avidya, asmita, riiga, dvesha, and abhi- Being karmnbhasas, mere semblances of nivesa. Only those acts of dharma and karma, they are not eftective causes and adharma which are occasioned by these cannot bring about births ; a burnt cloth, klesas can bring about incarnate exist- for instance, cannot serve the purposes ence. But as to the acts of a wise man, of a cloth — A.

egotism and desire — but not other actions — are productive of results. It is also said elsewhere, " As the fire-burnt seeds do not sprout again, so the . body cannot be formed again by wisdom-burnt affections." {Objection): — Granted that knowledge consumes acts done subsequently to the attainment of knowledge, inasmuch as they are accompanied with knowledge ; but it is not possible to explain how it can consume acts done in this life before the attainment of knowledge, and those done in the several past births. (Answer) : — Do not say so, because of the qualification ' all acts' (iv. 37). (Objection) : — It may mean all those acts only which are done subsequently to the attainment of knowledge. (Answer) : — No, for, there is no reason for the limitation. Now as regards the contention that just as the actions which have begun their effects by way of bringing about the present birth do not perish in spite of knowledge, so also even those acts which have not yet begun to produce their effects cannot perish, (we say) it is wrong. — How ? — For, the former have, like an arrow discharged, begun their effects. Just as an arrow once discharged from a bow at an aim does not, even after piercing through the aim, cease to act till it drops down on the exhaustion of the whole force with which it was propelled," so also, though the purpose

♦ i. e., provided its action is 11 Jt checked arises with its power checked by that by some overpowering obstacle in the karma, as the latter has already begun way. And Self-knowledge is no such to operate. Accordingly, the »;flects of the obstacle in the way of the karma which pr«rabdha-karma should be worked out has brought about the present birth ; for, in full. — A, even while that knowledge arises, it of the bodily existence has been gained, the effects of actions which have produced the body continue as before till the exhaustion of their inherent energy. (On the other hand), just as the same arrow when not yet propelled with the energy which is the cause of its activity, i. c, when not discharged, can be withdrawn, though already fixed in the bow, so also, the acts which have not yet begun their effects, which only abide in their own seat,''' can be neutralised by the knowledge of truth. Thus it is but right to say that when the body of a wise man perishes ' he is not born The four paths to Self-knowledge. Now, there are several paths to Self-knowledge, and they are mentioned here as follows :

24. By meditation some behold the Self in the self by the self, others by Sankhya-Yoga, and others by Karma- Yoga. Meditation (Dhyana) consists in withdrawing by concentration hearing and other senses into the Manas away from sound and other sense-objects, then withdrawing Manas into the Inner Intelligence, and then contemplating (that Inner Intelligence). Hence the comparison, " the crane meditates as it were ; the earth meditates as it were the mountains meditate as it were" (Chha. Up. 7-6-1) Dhyana is a continuous and unbroken thought like a line of flowing oil. By meditation the Yogins behold f the Self, * Sviisraya, s/ibhrisa - anta/i - karaiia, + These Vogins, who are of the highest I. «., the inner sense or Manas contain- dass of aspirants (uttamadhik.irins) being the reflection of Spiritual Intelli- hold the Self, by meditation, to be identigence. — A. cal with the Parauuitman. — A. 238 THE BHAGAVAD-GiTA. [DiS. XIII. the Inner Intelligence, in the self (Buddhi) by the self, by their own intelligence, i. c, by the anta/i-kara«a refined by Dhyana. — Sankhya consists in thinking thus : ' these, Sattva, Rajas and Tamas, are Gu/^as, Atman is the witness of their acts, eternal, and distinct from the Gu«as.' By SankhyaYoga "'•' some f behold the Self in the self by the self. — • Karma is Yoga |, i.e., that Karma or action which is performed in the service of the Lord (Isvara). Such a course of action is Yoga — only by a figure of speech — inasmuch as it leads to Yoga. Some j behold the Self by this Yoga of action, which, causing purity of the mind (sattva), gives rise to knowledge.

25. Yet others, not knowing thus, worship, having heard from others ; they, too, cross beyond death, adhering to what they heard. ' But there are yet others, who, not able to know the Self described above by any one of the several methods already pointed out, learn from others, from acharyas or teachers who tell them " Do thou thus rpeditate upon this" ; they then engage in worship, i. e., they contemplate the idea in full faith. Even they cross beyond death, i. e., beyond sawsara which is associated with death— even they whose best equipment when connnencing to tread the path of moksha consists in what they have heard, i. e., who solely depend upon the authority of other's instructions and are • S-inkhya is knowledge got through I As causing purity of mind, Karma intellectual investigation (vichara). As leads to Yoga, to the concentration of leading to Yoga, it is spoken of as Yoga nimd.— A. ., ,- , S These are the lowest class of aspir- ants. — A t These are the aspirants of the middling class (madhyauuidhi)uirins) — A. themselves ignorant. How much more so, then, those who can independently appreciate evidence and discriminate.

Nothing exists outside the Self. The knowledge of the identity of Kshetrajna with the isvara — of the individual soul with the Lord — as taught in xiii. 2 lias been spoken of in xiii. 12 as the means to moksha. — For what reason is it so ? — The Lord proceeds to explain the reason. 26. Whatever being is born, the unmoving or the moving, know thou, O best of the Bharatas, that to be owing to the union of Kshetra and Kshetrajna.* [Ohjectiou): — Of what sort is this union of Kshetra and Kshetrajna meant to be ? The union of Kshetrajna with Kshetra cannot certainly be a relation through contact (sawyoga) of each other's parts, as between a rope and a vessel, inasmuch as Kshetrajna is, like the akasa, without parts. Nor can it be of the nature of samavaya or inseparable inherence, inasmuch as it cannot be admitted that Kshetra and Kshetrajna are related to each other as cause and efll'ect. {Ansic'er) : — The union between Kshetra and Kshetrajna, between the object and the subject, which are opposed to each other in nature, is of the nature of mutual adhyasa ; /.f ., it consists in confounding them as well as their attributes with each other owing to the absence of a discrimination between the nature of Kshetra and that of Kshetrajna, like

* Everything is born of the union of who is one with the P.iramatman ; thcreKshetra and Kshetrajna ; there exists no fore knowledge of that unity alone can being whatever apart h-oni Kshetrajna lead to moksha,— A. 330 THE BHAGAVAD-GITA. [DiS. XIII. the union of a rope and a mother-of-pearl respectively with a snake and silver when they are mistaken the one for the other owing to the absence of discrimination. The union of Kshetra and Kshetrajna which is of the nature of adhyasa — which consists in confounding the one with the other — is a sort of illusion (mithyajfulna) ; and this illusion vanishes — because of its opposition to the right knowledge — when a man attains to a knowledge of the distinction between Kshetra and Kshetrajna as defined in the sastra, when he is able to separate Kshetrajna from Kshetra like the ishika reed from the munja-grass and to realise that Brahman, the Knowable, which is devoid of all upadhis as described in the words " It is not said to be existent or non-existent " (xiii. 12) is his own Self, when he is convinced that, like the elephants and palaces projected by a juggler's art, or like a thing seen in a dreani, or like a gandharvanagara (an imaginary city in the sky), Kshetra is nonexistent and only appears to be existent. As the cause of birth has vanished in the case of such a man, it stands to reason that the wise man is not born again (xiii. 23).

The one Self in all. It has been said (xiii. 23) that the effect of right knowledge is tlie cessation of births through the removal of avidya (nescience) and the like '■'■■ which form the seed of sa;wsara. It has also been said that the cause of birth is the union of Kshetra and Kshetrajna caused by avidya. Therefore, the right knowledge which alone can remove avidyji, though already described, will again be described in other words as follows : 27. He sees, who sees the Supreme Lord, * J. e., effects (sa»iskara) ot avidya — A. remaining the same in all bcinjj^s, the undying in the dying. The Supreme Lord exists, without any difference, in all living beings, from Brahma down to the unmoving object (sthavara). He is the Lord Supreme as compared with the body, senses, Manas, Buddhi, the Avyakta (the unmanifested, i. e., the causal body, the ktiray/a-sarira, avidya) and the individual soul (x\tman, Jiva). All living beings are perishable while the Supreme Lord is imperishable. Thus there is a great disparity between the Supreme Lord and the created beings. For, of all changing states of a being (bhava-vikaras), the change of state called birth is the root; all the other changes ending with destruction occur subsequently to birth. There can be no change of state subsequent to destruction, since the object itself does not exist. Attributes can exist only when the substance exists. Wherefore, the denial of the final change of state comprehends the denial of all the preceding changes as well as their effects. Thus it may be seen that the Supreme Lord is quite unlike all beings and that He is one and immutable in all. He sees (rightly) who sees the Supreme Lord as now described.