2.2 Kutah etc. To commence with, the Bhagavat exhorts Arjuna just by following the worldly (common) practice; but, in due course, He will impart knowledge. Hence He says 'practised by men of low birth'.
Uttering words of ruke such as 'unmanliness' etc., the Bhagavat causes [Arjuna] to know that he misconceives demerit as meritorious :
अर्जुन उवाच।
कथं भीष्ममहं सङ्ख्ये द्रोणं च मधुसूदन।
इषुभिः प्रतियोत्स्यामि पूजार्हावरिसूदन ॥
Commentary · Sanskrit
।।2.4 2.6।।क्लैव्यादिभिर्निर्भर्त्सनमभिदधत् अधर्मे तव धर्माभिमानोऽयम् (N K (n) omit अयम् S omits the entire sentence) इत्यादि दर्शयति कथमित्यादि। कथं भीष्ममहं संख्ये द्रोणं च इत्यादिना भुञ्जीय भोगान् इत्यनेन च कर्मविशेषानुसन्धानं फलविशेषानुसन्धानं च हेयतया पूर्वपक्षे ( N omit पूर्वपक्षे) सूचयति। नैतद्विद्मः इत्यनेन च कर्मविशेषानुसन्धानमाह। निरनुसन्धानं (S K निरभिसन्धानं) तावत् कर्म नोपपद्यते। न च पराजयमभिसन्धाय युद्धे प्रवर्तते। जयोऽपि नश्चायमनर्थ (S k omit नः) एव। तदाह अहत्वा गुरून् भैक्षमपि चर्तुं श्रेयः। एतच्च निश्चेतुमशक्यं किं जयं कांक्षामः किं वा पराजयम् जयेऽपि बन्धूनां विनाशात्।
।।2.4 2.6।।क्लैव्यादिभिर्निर्भर्त्सनमभिदधत् अधर्मे तव धर्माभिमानोऽयम् (N K (n) omit अयम् S omits the entire sentence) इत्यादि दर्शयति कथमित्यादि। कथं भीष्ममहं संख्ये द्रोणं च इत्यादिना भुञ्जीय भोगान् इत्यनेन च कर्मविशेषानुसन्धानं फलविशेषानुसन्धानं च हेयतया पूर्वपक्षे ( N omit पूर्वपक्षे) सूचयति। नैतद्विद्मः इत्यनेन च कर्मविशेषानुसन्धानमाह। निरनुसन्धानं (S K निरभिसन्धानं) तावत् कर्म नोपपद्यते। न च पराजयमभिसन्धाय युद्धे प्रवर्तते। जयोऽपि नश्चायमनर्थ (S k omit नः) एव। तदाह अहत्वा गुरून् भैक्षमपि चर्तुं श्रेयः। एतच्च निश्चेतुमशक्यं किं जयं कांक्षामः किं वा पराजयम् जयेऽपि बन्धूनां विनाशात्।
न चैतद्विद्मः कतरन्नो गरीयो
यद्वा जयेम यदि वा नो जयेयुः।
यानेव हत्वा न जिजीविषामस्-
तेऽवस्थिताः प्रमुखे धार्तराष्ट्राः ॥
Commentary · Sanskrit
।।2.4 2.6।।क्लैव्यादिभिर्निर्भर्त्सनमभिदधत् अधर्मे तव धर्माभिमानोऽयम् (N K (n) omit अयम् S omits the entire sentence) इत्यादि दर्शयति कथमित्यादि। कथं भीष्ममहं संख्ये द्रोणं च इत्यादिना भुञ्जीय भोगान् इत्यनेन च कर्मविशेषानुसन्धानं फलविशेषानुसन्धानं च हेयतया पूर्वपक्षे ( N omit पूर्वपक्षे) सूचयति। नैतद्विद्मः इत्यनेन च कर्मविशेषानुसन्धानमाह। निरनुसन्धानं (S K निरभिसन्धानं) तावत् कर्म नोपपद्यते। न च पराजयमभिसन्धाय युद्धे प्रवर्तते। जयोऽपि नश्चायमनर्थ (S k omit नः) एव। तदाह अहत्वा गुरून् भैक्षमपि चर्तुं श्रेयः। एतच्च निश्चेतुमशक्यं किं जयं कांक्षामः किं वा पराजयम् जयेऽपि बन्धूनां विनाशात्।
Translation · English
2.4-6 Katham etc. upto Dhartarastrah. By the portion Bhisma and Drona in war' etc., and by the portion 'I would [not] enjoy the objects of pleasure', the Sage indicates that in Arjuna's objection, the intention for a particular act and the intention for a particular result are the points deserving rejection. By the portion 'We do not know this' etc., he speaks of the intention for a particular action. For, without intention no action is possible. Certainly one does not proceed on a war with an intention of getting defeated. '[In the present war] even our victory would be surely our misfortune.' This he says by the portion 'It is good even to go about begging without killing the elders'. It is also impossible to conclude 'Whether we desire victory or defeat'; for even in the case of our victory our relatives would perish totally.'
2.7-10 Karpanya-etc. upto vacah. By the portion 'in between the two armies' etc., [the Sage] indicates this : Beings possessed by doubt, Arjuna had not abstained from the war totally; for, he says thus : 'Please teach me, who am taking refuge in you'. Therefore while he still remains just in between both knowledge and ignorance, he is taught by the glorious Bhagavat.
2.11 Asocyan etc. You lament for the body that cannot be lamented over, because it is of incessantly perishing nature; and also for the Soul that does not reire to be lamented. No one, either of departed life, i.e., the dead, or of non-departed life, i.e., the living, is to be mourned for. As for instance, the Soul is ever non-perishing. What sort of lamentability can be for It, as It is plessantly travelling in different bodies ? Nor is it right to say that Its lamentability is due only to Its travel in another body. For, in that case, It should be lamented for, even when the stage of youth etc., is attained.
In this manner, the two ideas [the Lord] relates :
न त्वेवाहं जातु नासं न त्वं नेमे जनाधिपाः।
न चैव न भविष्यामः सर्वे वयमतः परम् ॥
Commentary · Sanskrit
।।2.12।।अशोच्यानिति। शोचितुमशक्यं कलेबरं सदा नश्वरत्वात्। अशोचनार्हं च आत्मानं शोचसि। न कश्चित् गतासुः मृतः अगतासुः जीवन् वा शोच्योऽस्ति। तथाहि ( S omits हि) आत्मा तावदविनाशी। नानाशरीरेषु संचरतः का अस्य शोच्यता न च देहान्तरसंचारे एव शोच्यता। एवं हि (S omits हि) यौवनादावपि शोच्यता भवेत्।
देहिनोऽस्मिन्यथा देहे कौमारं यौवनं जरा।
तथा देहान्तरप्राप्तिर्धीरस्तत्र न मुह्यति ॥
Commentary · Sanskrit
।।2.13 2.14।।एवमर्थद्वयमाह न हीत्यादि। अहं हि नैव नासम् अपि तु आसम् एवं त्वम् अमी च राजानः। आकारान्तरे च सति यदि शोच्यता तर्हि कौमारात् यौवनावाप्तौ किमिति न शोच्यते यो धीरः स न शोचति। धैर्यं च (N धैर्ये च) एतच्छरीरेऽपि यस्यास्था नास्ति तेन सुकरम्। अतस्त्वं धैर्यमन्विच्छ।
Translation · English
2.12-13 Na hi etc. Dehinah etc Never indeed did I not exist, but I did exist [always]. Likewise are you and these kings. If there can be lamentability for one, on attaining change in physical form then why is one not lamented over when one attains the youth from the boyhood ? He, who is wise, does not lament. But, wisdom is easily attainable for him whose concern is not even for this [present] body. Therefore you must seek wisdom.
मात्रास्पर्शास्तु कौन्तेय शीतोष्णसुखदुःखदाः।
आगमापायिनोऽनित्यास्तांस्तितिक्षस्व भारत ॥
Commentary · Sanskrit
।।2.13 2.14।।एवमर्थद्वयमाह न हीत्यादि। अहं हि नैव नासम् अपि तु आसम् एवं त्वम् अमी च राजानः। आकारान्तरे च सति यदि शोच्यता तर्हि कौमारात् यौवनावाप्तौ किमिति न शोच्यते यो धीरः स न शोचति। धैर्यं च (N धैर्ये च) एतच्छरीरेऽपि यस्यास्था नास्ति तेन सुकरम्। अतस्त्वं धैर्यमन्विच्छ।
Translation · English
2.14 Matra etc. But the unwise lament even over those passing situations of cold and heat, pleasure and pain that are created by those touches i.e., the contacts of the sense-objects-referable with the term matra - with the Soul through the door of the sense-organs; but the wise do not do so. Thus says [the Lord].
Or, the passage may be interpreted as : The touches (contacts) of these objects are with the matras, i.e., with the sense-organs, and not directly with the Supreme Self, Coming : birth. Going : destruction, Those situations that have these two you must forbear i.e., put up with.
यं हि न व्यथयन्त्येते पुरुषं पुरुषर्षभ।
समदुःखसुखं धीरं सोऽमृतत्वाय कल्पते ॥
Commentary · Sanskrit
।।2.15।।मात्रेति। अधीरास्तु मात्राशब्दवाच्यैरर्थैर्ये (S वाच्यैरर्था ये) कृताः स्पर्शा इन्द्रियद्वारेणात्मनः (K णात्मना) सम्बन्धाः तत्कृता याः शीतोष्णसुखदुःखाद्यवस्था अनित्याः तास्वपि शोचन्ति न त्वेवं धीरा इत्याह। अथवा मात्राभिरिन्द्रियैरेषां स्पर्शा न तु साक्षात् परमात्मना ( N परमात्मनः)। आगमः उत्पत्तिः अपायः विनाशः एतद्युक्तांस्तितिक्षस्व ( एतद्युक्तम्) सहस्व।
Translation · English
2.15 But, because all these different situations are of the nature of coming and going, on that account itself are they not to be lamented on ? It is not so. As for instance : What is this which is termed 'coming' ? If it is 'birth', what is that 'birth' itself ? It is wrong to say that is the same as gaining the self by what is non-existent. For, to be of the nature of non-existence, is indeed to be devoid of every inherent nature and to be devoid of the very self. If a thing is devoid of the self and devoid of every nature, how is it possible to convert it into what has an intrinsic nature ? Surely, it is impossible to convert the non-blue into blue. For, it is faulty and undesirable to covert the non-blue into blue. For, it is faulty and undesirable to conclude that a thing with certain in nature changes to be of a different nature. Hence the scritpure goes -
'The intrinsic nature of beings would not cease to
exist, e.g., the heat of the sun'.
On the other hand, if the 'birth' signifies the gaining of self just by what [really] exists, even then, why the lamentability on its coming ? For, what has gained a self, could never be non-existent and conseently it would be eternal.
Likewise, is the act of 'going' also meant for the existent or the non-existent ? What is non-existent is just non-existent [for ever.] How can there be a non-existence-nature even in the case of that which is of the existence-nature ? If it is said that it is of the non-existence-nature in the second moment; [since its birth], then it should be so even in the first moment; and so nothing would be existent. For, the intrinsic nature [ever] remains unabandoned.
But is it not that the destruction of it (i.e., of a given thing, like a pot) is brought about by the stroke of a hammer etc.? Yet, if that destruction is altogether different [from the existent one i.e. the pot], then what does it matter for what is existent ? But, it is not be seen [at that time] ? Yet, what is actually existent (pot) may not be seen just as when it is covered with a cloth; but it has not turned to be altogether different. In fact, it has been said [in the scriptures] that this is not different [from the existent]. Summarising all these, [the Lord] says -
।।2.16।।ननु यत एवागमापायिनः सर्वे दशाविशेषास्तत एव शोच्यन्ते मैवम्। तथाहि कोऽयमागमो नाम उत्पत्तिरिति चेत् (S नामेति चेत्)। सापि का असत आत्मलाभः सा इति त्वसत्। असत्स्वभावता हि निःस्वभावता निरात्मता ( N omit निरात्मता) निरात्मा निःस्वभावः कथं सस्वभावीकर्तुं शक्यः अनीलं हि न नीलीकर्तुं शक्यम् स्वभावान्तरापत्तेर्दुष्टत्वात्। तथा च शास्त्रम् न हि स्वभावो भावानां व्यावर्तेतौष्ण्यवद्रवेः इति।अथ सत एवात्मलाभ उत्पत्तिः तदा (S तदलब्ध जात्वप्यभावा ) लब्धात्मनोऽस्य जात्वप्यनभावान्नित्यतैव इति आगमे का शोच्यता एवमपायोऽति सतः असतो वा असत्तावदसदेव। सत्स्वभावस्यापि कथमसत्तास्वभावः द्वितीये क्षणेऽसौ असत्स्वभाव इति चेत् आद्येऽपि तथा स्यादिति न कश्चिद्भावः स्यात्। स्वभावस्यात्यागात्। अथ मुद्गरपातादिना (S K मुद्गरादिना) अस्य नाशः क्रियते। स यदि व्यतिरिक्तः भावस्य किं वृत्तम् न दृश्यते इति चेत्। मा नाम दर्शि भावः न त्वन्यथाभूतः पटावृत इव। अव्यतिरिक्तस्तु नासौ इत्युक्तम्।
Translation · English
2.16 Nasatah etc. And then, also following the common worldly practice [the Lord] says this : There is no [real] existence for what is non-existent i.e., the body [etc.], that is continuously perishing; for it is changing incessantly by stages. Again, never there is destruction for the ever existing Supreme Self, because of Its unchanging nature. So says the Veda too :
'Lo ! This Soul is of unchanging nature and [hence]
is destructions' (the Br. U, IV, v. 14).
Of These two : of what is existent and what is non-existent. Finality : the point of boundary where they come to an end.
But is this permanent or transient which is perceived by persons who are prone to see the truth ? Having raised this doubt, [the Lord] says :
अन्तवन्त इमे देहा नित्यस्योक्ताः शरीरिणः।
अनाशिनोऽप्रमेयस्य तस्माद्युध्यस्व भारत ॥
Commentary · Sanskrit
।।2.18।।यस्तत्त्वदर्शिभिर्दृष्टः स खलु नित्योऽनित्यो वा इत्याशङ्क्याह अविनाशि इति। तुश्चार्थे। आत्मा त्वविनाशी।
Translation · English
2.18 Antavantah etc. The bodies, at the time of their attaining the unobservable stage, meet their apparent destruction. This would be impossible if they do not suffer the peculiar destruction, that it to say they undergo changes every moment. For, it has been said-
'By observing the dilapidated condition of beings at their last moment, the loss of newness is very moment is inferred'
The same has been said by the Sage (Vyasa) also as-
'In every being, in every moment, there is mutual difference between its tiny parts that have different purposes. But on account of its subtlity, it is not cleary comprehended (MB, Santi., Moksa. Ch. 308, verse 121).
[In theabove passage] having different purposes amounts to say 'because they perform different acts having their own respective special purposes.;
Now, the bodies have thier end and are ever changing. On the other hand, the Self is destructionless, because It is incomprehensible. Changing nature belongs only to the insentient thing which is comprehensible, but not to what is non-insentient and is exclusively consciousness in nature. Because, it is not possible [for one] to gain an altogether different nature. Thus, the bodies meet permanently their end and hence they cannot be lamented for; the Self ever remains without destruction (or without changing) and hence need not be lamented for. Thus a single krtya-suffix has been employed on both the senses simultaneously by the sage in the expression asocyan.
2.19 Ya enam etc. Whosoever veiws This i.e., the Self and the body, to be the slayer and the slain, ignorance is in him. That is why he is in bondage.
The same [point the Lord] clarifies -
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्
नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो
न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे ॥
Commentary · Sanskrit
।।2.20।।य एनमिति। एनमात्मानं देहं च यो हन्तारं हतं च वेत्ति तस्याज्ञानम्। अत एव स बद्धः ( S सम्बन्धः)।
Translation · English
2.20 Na jayate etc. Having not been at one time, This etc. : this Self will come to be, having not been at any time non-existent, but only having been existent. Therefore This is not born, This does not die too. For, having been [at one time], This will never be non-existent [at another time]; but certainly This will be [always] existent.
वेदाविनाशिनं नित्यं य एनमजमव्ययम्।
कथं स पुरुषः पार्थ कं घातयति हन्ति कम् ॥
Commentary · Sanskrit
।।2.21।।एतदेव स्फुटयति न जायते इति। नायं भूत्वेति। अयमात्मा न न भूत्वा भाविता (S omits भविता) अपि तु भूत्वैव। अतो न जायते न च म्रियते यतो भूत्वा न न भविता अपि तु भवितैव।
Translation · English
2.21 Veda etc. Whosoever, because of his realisation, under-stands this Self as 'This neither slays [any one]. nor is This slain [by any one] - how could there be any bondage for him ?
।।2.22।।वेदेति। य एनमात्मानं प्रबुद्धत्वात् जानाति स न हन्ति न स हन्यते इति तस्य कथं बन्धः (N omits इति बन्धः)।
Translation · English
2.22 Vasamsi etc. just as a well - dressed person, on the destruction of his garment, gets himself dressed in another more suitable garment, and he does not perish on that account, in the same way the Self, dressed with different bodies [behaves].
।।2.24 2.26।।नैनमित्यादि। नास्य नाशकारणं शस्त्रादि किंचित्करम्। चिदेकस्वभावस्य अनाश्रितस्य ( N K add निरपेक्षस्य after अनाश्रितस्य) निरंशस्य (N omits निरंशस्य S adds निरवयवस्य after निरंशस्य) स्वतन्त्रस्य स्वभावान्तरापत्त्याश्रयविनाशावयवविभाग विरोधिप्रादुर्भावादिक्रमेण (S प्रक्रमेण) नाशयितुमशक्यत्वात्। न च देहान्तरगमनमस्य अपूर्वम् देहान्वितोऽपि (N अपूर्वदेहान्नित्योऽपि) सततं देहान्तरं गच्छति तेन संबध्यते इत्यर्थः। देहस्य क्षणमात्रमप्यनवस्थायित्वात्। एवंभूतं विदित्वा एनमात्मानं शोचितुं नार्हसि।
Translation · English
2.23-25 Nainam etc. upto arhasi. The weapons etc., that cause destruction, haldly do anything to This. For, being, by nature, exclusively pure Consciousness, remaining without support, having no component parts and being independent, this cannot be destroyed through the process of either assumption of an altogether different nature, or the destruction of the support, or the mutual separation of the component parts, or the rise of an opponent, and so on. Nor the act to going to another body is a new thing for This. For, even when This is [apparently] with a single body, This travels always to different body; for the body does not remain the same even for a moment. By understanding this Self to be as such, you should not lament This.
।।2.24 2.26।।नैनमित्यादि। नास्य नाशकारणं शस्त्रादि किंचित्करम्। चिदेकस्वभावस्य अनाश्रितस्य ( N K add निरपेक्षस्य after अनाश्रितस्य) निरंशस्य (N omits निरंशस्य S adds निरवयवस्य after निरंशस्य) स्वतन्त्रस्य स्वभावान्तरापत्त्याश्रयविनाशावयवविभाग विरोधिप्रादुर्भावादिक्रमेण (S प्रक्रमेण) नाशयितुमशक्यत्वात्। न च देहान्तरगमनमस्य अपूर्वम् देहान्वितोऽपि (N अपूर्वदेहान्नित्योऽपि) सततं देहान्तरं गच्छति तेन संबध्यते इत्यर्थः। देहस्य क्षणमात्रमप्यनवस्थायित्वात्। एवंभूतं विदित्वा एनमात्मानं शोचितुं नार्हसि।
Translation · English
2.26 Atha va etc. On the other hand if you deam 'This' to be the body and to be born constantly,-because its stream does not stop-even then, there is no necessity to lament. Or, if, following the [Vainasika Buddhists' ?] doctrine of continuous decay of things, you deem This to be constantly dying, even then where is the need for lamenting ? If you, in the same manner, deem the Self to be constantly born or to be constantly dying on account of Its contacts and separations with bodies, even then it is unwarranted, on every account, on the part of the men of rational thinking, to lament.
Otherwise this [division of] permanence and impermanence does not stand reasoning. For-
जातस्य हि ध्रुवो मृत्युर्ध्रुवं जन्म मृतस्य च।
तस्मादपरिहार्येऽर्थे न त्वं शोचितुमर्हसि ॥
Commentary · Sanskrit
।।2.27।।अथ वैनमिति। अथाप्येनं देहं मन्यसे नित्यजातं प्रवाहस्याविनाशात् तथापि न शोच्यता। क्षणिकप्रक्रियया वा नित्यविनाशिनम् तथापि का शोच्यता एवं यद्यात्मनः तत्तद्देहयोगवियोगाभ्यां (S K तद्देहयोग (K संयोग) नित्यजातत्वं नित्यमृतत्वं वा मन्यसे तथापि सर्वथा शोचनं प्रामाणिकानामयुक्तम् ( N प्राकरणि )।
Translation · English
2.27 Jatasya etc. Destruction comes after birth, and after the destruction comes birth. Thus, this series of birth-and-death is like a circle. Hence to what extent is this to be lamented for ?
Furthermore-
2.28 Avyaktadini etc. Whether beings are permanent or impermanent, this much is certain : The person, who laments over a given object - as far as that person is concerned, that object is at the beginning unmanifest and at the end also it is unmanifest. Its manifestation in between is therefore a deviation from its natural state, Rather, there may be need to lament over the deviation from natural state and nor over the natural state [itself]. Further, whatever has been approved as its root cause, that itself permanently exhibits, within itself, a variety of different and endless creation, sustenance and absorption as its own manifold nature, in a set pattern. Hence what is the necessity for lamenting over the same nature of this (its effect) ?
And enowed with the above mentioned nature-
।।2.29।।अपि च अव्यक्तादीनीति। नित्यः सन्तु अनित्या वा यस्तावदस्य शोचकस्तं प्रत्येष आदावव्यक्तः अन्ते चाव्यक्तः। मध्ये तस्य व्यक्तता विकारः ( N omit विकारः) इति। प्रत्युत विकारे शोचनीयं ( N शोचनीयस्वभावे) न स्वभावे। किं च यत् (N omits यत्) तन्मूलकारणं किञ्चिदभिमतं तदेव यथाक्रमं (S तथाक्रमविचित्र) विचित्रस्वभावतया स्वात्ममध्ये दर्शिततत्तदनन्तसृष्टिस्थितिसंहृतिवैचित्र्यं (S सृष्टिप्रतिसंहृति) नित्यमेव। तथास्वभावेऽपि कास्य (S स्वभावमिति कास्य) शोच्यता।
Translation · English
2.39 Ascaryavat etc. But, if this Self is, in this manner, changeless (or destructionless), why is This not observed just as such by all ? It is so because, as if by a rare chance, only some one observes [This]. Even after listening, not even one understands This i.e., realises This.
।।2.30।।एवंविधं च आश्चर्यवदिति। ननु यद्येवमयमात्मा अविनाशी किमिति सर्वेण तथैव नोपलभ्यते यतः अद्भुतवत्कश्चिदेव पश्यति श्रुत्वापि एनं (N omit एनम्) न कश्चित् (S N न कश्चिदेव जा ( N कश्चिज्जा) नाति न वेत्ति) वेत्ति न (K omits न) जानाति।
Translation · English
2.30 Dehi etc. On these grounds, the permanent destruction-lessness of the Self [is established].
।।2.32।।स्वधर्ममिति। स्वधर्मस्य च अनपहार्यत्वात् (S N अपरिहार्यत्त्वात्) युद्धविषयः कम्पो न युक्तः।
Translation · English
2.32 Yadrcchaya etc. A war of this nature, because it is conducive to the heaven, should not be avoided even by other such Ksatriyas who are full of desires How much less [it is to be avoided] in the case of one to whom the science of knowledge of this nature has been taught ? This is what is intended to be conveyed [here] And the verse does not at all end with [determining how to attain] the heaven.
The very thing (i.e. sin), fearing which you withdraw from the battle, will befall you branching off hundredfold. This [the Lord] says-
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि ॥
Commentary · Sanskrit
।।2.33।।यदृच्छयेति। अन्येऽपि ये (N omits ये) काममयाः क्षत्रियाः तैरपीदृशं युद्धं स्वर्गहेतुत्वात् न त्याज्यम्। किं पुनर्यस्य ईदृशं ज्ञानमुपदिष्टम् इति तात्पर्यम्। न पुनः स्वर्गपर्यवसायी श्लोकः ( N omit न पुनः श्लोकः)।
2.33-37 Atha ca etc., upto krta-niscavah. Accepting what the opponent has stated, this pentad of verses is narrated as an argument : 'If your goodself prefers to abide by the generally accepted practice, even then this [fighting] must be undertaken necessarily'.
।।2.39।।सुखदुःखे इति। तव तु स्वधर्मतयैव कर्माणि कुर्वतो न कदाचित् पापसंबन्धः।
Translation · English
2.39 Esa te etc. And this knowledge in th form of determination has been declared [to you] for your sankhya, i.e., perfect knowledge. Now, how the self-same determinate knowledge is also taught for the Yoga i.e., dexerity in action - in that manner only you must listen to by means of which determinate knowledge you shall avoid the binding nature of the actions. Truely, the actions do not themselves bind as they are insentient. Hence, it is the Self which binds Itself by means of the actions in the form of mental impressions.
नेहाभिक्रमनाशोऽस्ति प्रत्यवायो न विद्यते।
स्वल्पमप्यस्य धर्मस्य त्रायते महतो भयात् ॥
Commentary · Sanskrit
।।2.40।।एषा त इति। एषा च तव सांख्ये सम्यग्ज्ञाने बुद्धिर्निश्चयात्मिका उक्ता। एषैव च यथा योगे कर्मकौशलाय उच्यते (S K कौशले यो (S य) ज्यते) तथैव श्रृणु यया बुद्ध्या कर्मणां बन्धकत्वं त्यक्ष्यसि। न हि कर्माणि स्वयं बध्नन्ति जडत्वात्। अतः स्वयमात्मा कर्मभिः वासनात्मकैरात्मानं बध्नाति।
Translation · English
2.40 Neha etc. Here in this determinate knowledge there arises no loss through transgression, an offence due to negligence; because negligence is [itself] absent there. And just as a burning oil in the boiler get cooled soon, due to a limited antity of sandal (put in it), in the same way due to this knowledge of Yoga-eventhough it is very little-the great danger in the form of the cycle of birth-and-death perishes completely.
And this knowledge is not introduced as a new thing. Then what ?
।।2.41।।नेहेति। इह (S K omit इह) अस्यां बुद्धौ अतिक्रमेण अपराधेन प्रमादेन नाशो न भवति प्रमादस्याभावात्। यथा च (S N तथा च) परिमितेन श्रीखण्डकणेन ज्वालायमानोऽपि तैलकटाहः सद्यः शीतीभवति (N शीतो भवति) एवं अनया स्वल्पयापि (S omits अपि) योगबुद्ध्या महाभयं संसाररूपं विनश्यति।
Translation · English
2.41 Vyavasayatmika etc. The knowledge in the form of determination is just one and natural in the case of everyone; but it suffers manifoldedness according to the objects to be determined.
Therefore -
कामात्मानः स्वर्गपरा जन्मकर्मफलप्रदाम्।
क्रियाविशेषबहुलां भोगैश्वर्यगतिं प्रति ॥
Commentary · Sanskrit
।।2.43 2.45।।तथाच यामिमामित्यादि। ये कामाभिलाषिणः ते स्वयमेतां वाचं वेदात्मिकां पुष्पितां भविष्यत्स्वर्गफलेन ( N omit भविष्यत् S reads भविष्यता) व्याप्तां वदन्ति। अत एव जन्मनः कर्मैव फलमिच्छन्ति ते अविपश्चितः। ते च तयैव स्वयं कल्पितया वेदवाचा अपहृतचित्ताः व्यवसायबुद्धियुक्ता अपि न समाधियोग्याः तत्र फलनिश्चयत्वात्। इति श्लोकत्रयस्य तात्पर्यम्।
भोगैश्वर्यप्रसक्तानां तयापहृतचेतसाम्।
व्यवसायात्मिका बुद्धिः समाधौ न विधीयते ॥
Commentary · Sanskrit
।।2.43 2.45।।तथाच यामिमामित्यादि। ये कामाभिलाषिणः ते स्वयमेतां वाचं वेदात्मिकां पुष्पितां भविष्यत्स्वर्गफलेन ( N omit भविष्यत् S reads भविष्यता) व्याप्तां वदन्ति। अत एव जन्मनः कर्मैव फलमिच्छन्ति ते अविपश्चितः। ते च तयैव स्वयं कल्पितया वेदवाचा अपहृतचित्ताः व्यवसायबुद्धियुक्ता अपि न समाधियोग्याः तत्र फलनिश्चयत्वात्। इति श्लोकत्रयस्य तात्पर्यम्।
Translation · English
2.42-44 Yam imam etc., upto na vidhiyate. Those, who crave for objects of desire, speak, on their own accord, of this flowery Vedic speech which is pervaded by the fruits i.e., the heaven in the future; and who, hence, desire the action itself as the fruit of their birth - these are men without insight. further, having their mind carried away by the same Vedic sentence imagined by themselves, these persons, eventhough they are endowed with the determinate knowledge, are not fit for concentration, because they do not decide this (concentration) as a fruit [of their action]. This is the purport of the traid of these verses.
।।2.43 2.45।।तथाच यामिमामित्यादि। ये कामाभिलाषिणः ते स्वयमेतां वाचं वेदात्मिकां पुष्पितां भविष्यत्स्वर्गफलेन ( N omit भविष्यत् S reads भविष्यता) व्याप्तां वदन्ति। अत एव जन्मनः कर्मैव फलमिच्छन्ति ते अविपश्चितः। ते च तयैव स्वयं कल्पितया वेदवाचा अपहृतचित्ताः व्यवसायबुद्धियुक्ता अपि न समाधियोग्याः तत्र फलनिश्चयत्वात्। इति श्लोकत्रयस्य तात्पर्यम्।
Translation · English
2.45 Traigunya-etc. The Vedas bind very much [only] by means of the three Strands and they do not bind on their own accord. For, the rituals prescribed in the Vedas, create bondage if they are performed with an intention of pleasure, or of (avoiding) pain, or with an illlusion of attachment. Hence the traid of Strands in the form of desire (or in a pleasing form) must be abandoned.
If the present passage were intended to condemn the Vedas, then the act of fighting the battle in estion would be spoiled, because there is nothing other than the Vedas do not bind those, from whom the desire for fruit has completely gone.
Because the Vedas alone are useful for proper knowledge in the case of those persons [free from the Strands] hence [the Lord] says-
।।2.46।।अत एव च त्रैगुण्येति। वेदास्त्रैगुण्येन करणेन ( N कारणेन) विशेषेण सिन्वन्ति बध्नन्ति (N बध्नन्तीति) न ( N omit न तु) तु स्वयं बन्धका यस्मात् सुखदुःखमोहबुद्ध्या कर्माणि वैदिकानि क्रियमाणानि बन्धकानि अतः त्रैगुण्यं कामरूपं त्याज्यम्। यदि तु वेददूषणपरमेतदभविष्यत् प्रकृतं युद्धकरणं व्यघटिष्यत वेदादन्यस्य स्वधर्मनिश्चायकत्वाभावात्। येषां तु फलाभिलाषो विगलितः तेषां न वेदाः बन्धकाः।
Translation · English
2.46 Yavan etc. He, according to whom the importance lies in his own duty alone or in the knowledge - for him the purpose is served even from a limited portion of the Vedic teaching
Therefore-
2.47 Karmani etc. You should be concerned in the action alone, but not in the fruits of actions. But, if an action has been performed, then will not its fruit just inevitably befall [to the performer] ? No. It is not so. For, in that case, if you are covered with the dirt of desire for fruits, then you become a cuase for the fruit of action. What is prayed for is known to be the fruit; and it does not befall him who does not desire it. Thus, what attachment a person entertains with regard to the negation of action, that alone is like a firm seizure, and is of the nature of false conception, and hence it must be abandoned.
Then what ?-
2.49 Durena etc. Due to the contact (one has) with determining faculty [one's] inferior action i.e., the action that bears bad fruits and is empty, remains far away [from him]. Therefore seek i.e., pray for a refuge in the determining faculty of that nature, on account of which that determining faculty is gained.
बुद्धियुक्तो जहातीह उभे सुकृतदुष्कृते।
तस्माद्योगाय युज्यस्व योगः कर्मसु कौशलम् ॥
Commentary · Sanskrit
।।2.50।।No commentary.
Translation · English
2.50 Buddhiyuktah etc. Both indicates the mutual exclusion [of the good and bad actions]. Therefore [strive] for Yoga etc. : Working in that manner alone constitutes the supreme proficiency, by [working] in which manner the good action and the bad action perish. This is the idea here.
2.51 Karmajam etc. The persons who are endowed with the determining faculty with regard to the Yoga, renounce the birth-bondage, by renouncing the fruit of actions; and they attain the Brahman-existence.
श्रुतिविप्रतिपन्ना ते यदा स्थास्यति निश्चला।
समाधावचला बुद्धिस्तदा योगमवाप्स्यसि ॥
Commentary · Sanskrit
।।2.53।।कर्मजमिति। योगबुद्धियुक्ताः कर्मणां फलं त्यक्त्वा जन्मबन्धं त्यजन्ति ब्रह्मसत्तामाप्नुवन्ति (S K अवाप्नुवन्ति)।
Translation · English
2.52-53 Yada te etc. Sruti-etc. At the time, when the determining facult with regard to the Yoga is attained, the clear sign of recognizing it, is this : An attitude of futility about the revealed literature that has to be listened to, that has been listened to and that is being declared. What has been declared by the above is this : 'This present view of yours about the ruination of your race is out of place and it is due to the influence of your deceptive notion, born of mental impressions created by your listening to the teachings of those scriptures that favour the observers who are fallen deep into the course of ignorance. But, that view shall vanish when the respect for such a teaching disappears.
अर्जुन उवाच।
स्थितप्रज्ञस्य का भाषा समाधिस्थस्य केशव।
स्थितधीः किं प्रभाषेत किमासीत व्रजेत किम् ॥
Commentary · Sanskrit
।।2.54 2.55।।यदा ते इति। श्रुतीति। तत्र च योगबुद्धिप्राप्त्यबसरे तव स्फुटमेवेदमभिज्ञानम् श्रोतव्यस्य (S omits श्रोतव्यस्य) श्रुतस्य अभिलष्यमाणस्य च (N वा instead of च) आगमस्य उभस्यापि निर्वेदभावत्वम् (SK भाक्त्वम्)। अनेन चेदमुक्तम् अविद्यापद ( N अविद्यमद) निपतितप्रमात्रनुग्राहकशास्त्रश्रवणसंस्कारविप्रलम्भमहिमा अयं यत् तवास्थाने कुलक्षयादिदोषदर्शनम्। तत्तु तथाशासनबहुमानविगलने विगलिष्यति इति।
Translation · English
2.54 Sthita-prajnasya etc. By the statement 'When the determing faculty shall stand [firm in concentration, at that time you shall attain Yoga - above II, 55]' it has been [virtually] stated there that the appellation sthita-prajna (man-of-stabilized-intellect) is a nomenclature signifying man-of-Yoga who is fixed in concentration. Now, what is the connotation of it, i.e., what is the basis for the usage of this nomenclature ? For, [connotation is that] basing on which a particular meaning is connoted by words. Does the appellation sthita-prajna of the man-of-Yoga speak of him through its traditional (or conventional) force of the word or through its force of etymology ? This is the first estion. Of course, regarding the traditional force of the word there is no doubt at all. [For, it has no such force in it]. Yet, the present estion is to make the etymological meaning-though it is already available-clear by explaining the basis for definition of special nature.
The expression sthira-dhih has for its imports both the expression [itself] and its meaning 'the fixed-minded'. Of them, does the expression sthira-dhih denote that meaning alone which is indicated by the force of its components; or else does it denote the ascetic also ? This is the second estion.
Again, where would that firm-minded man-of-Yoga abide i.e., what would he practise; or what would his firmness depend on ? This is the third [estion].
And what world he achieve by practising ? This is the fourth [estion].
These four estions are decided one by one by the Bhagavat [in the seel].
।।2.54 2.55।।यदा ते इति। श्रुतीति। तत्र च योगबुद्धिप्राप्त्यबसरे तव स्फुटमेवेदमभिज्ञानम् श्रोतव्यस्य (S omits श्रोतव्यस्य) श्रुतस्य अभिलष्यमाणस्य च (N वा instead of च) आगमस्य उभस्यापि निर्वेदभावत्वम् (SK भाक्त्वम्)। अनेन चेदमुक्तम् अविद्यापद ( N अविद्यमद) निपतितप्रमात्रनुग्राहकशास्त्रश्रवणसंस्कारविप्रलम्भमहिमा अयं यत् तवास्थाने कुलक्षयादिदोषदर्शनम्। तत्तु तथाशासनबहुमानविगलने विगलिष्यति इति।
Translation · English
2.55 Prajahati etc. [The expression 'a man-of-stabilized-intellect' denotes] a man whose intellect has stabilized, i.e., has grown roots. Growing roots is growing roots permanently on the Self. For, if that is achieved, the agitation in the form of desire born of the distraction by sense-objects comes to an end. Therefore, the nomenclature 'a man-of-stabilized-intellect' applied to a man-of-Yoga, has an etymological sense and it is appropriate in this way. In this manner one estion has been answered.
।।2.56।।स्थितप्रज्ञस्येति। यदा स्थास्यति बुद्धिः इत्यनेन वचसा समाधिस्थस्य योगिनो यः स्थितप्रज्ञशब्दः (स्थित and स्थिर are found often interchanged in CA.) ( N omit शब्दः) तत्र वाचक उक्तस्तस्य का भाषा किं प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तम् भाष्यते येन निमित्तेन शब्दैरर्थ इति कृत्वा। योगिनः स्थितप्रज्ञशब्दः ( N omit शब्दः) किं रूढ्या वाचकः अन्वर्थतया वा (S omits वा) इत्येकः प्रश्नः। यद्यपि रूढौ शङ्कैव नास्ति तथापि अन्वर्थतां लब्धामपि स्वरूपलक्षणनिमित्तानिरूपणेन ( N त्तरूपेण) स्फुटीकर्तुमेष (S प्रस्फुटी) प्रश्नः। स्थिरधीरिति शब्दपदार्थकः अर्थपदार्थकश्च। तत्र ( N omit च तत्र) स्थिरधीशब्दः किं प्रयोगलक्षणमेवार्थमाह आहो तपस्विनमपि इति द्वितीयः प्रश्नः। स च स्थिरधीर्योगी किमासीत किमभ्यसेत् क्वास्य स्थैर्यं स्यात् इति तृतीयः। अभ्यस्यंश्च (N अभ्यसंश्च) किमाप्नुयात् इति चतुर्थः। एतदेव प्रश्नचतुष्टयं क्रमेण निर्णीयते भगवता (S इति प्रश्नचतुष्यम् अज्ञा (र्जु) नेन कृतं क्रमेण निर्णीयते श्रीभगवता)।
Translation · English
2.56 Dukkhesu etc. Only that sage whose mental attitude is free from desire and hatred in the midst of pleasure and pain, and not anyone else, is a man-of-stabilized-intellect.
This is also proper. For-
।।2.58।।दुःखेष्विति। सुखदुःखयोर्यस्य रागद्वेषरहिता (S विरहिता) वृत्तिः स मुनिरेव स्थितप्रज्ञः नान्यः।
Translation · English
2.58 Yada samharate etc. the nomenclature is not an expression having a composite of both the forces of etymological and traditional meanings, like the word pankaja 'a lotus'. But it has only the etymological force like the word pacaka 'a cook'. Whenever he (the sage) withdraws just in his own self-just as a tortoise keeps its limbs in its bossom-from the sense-objects i.e., warding off from the sense-objects, then and then [only] he is man-of-stabilized-intellect.
Or [the passage may mean :] Whenever he withdraws, within his own Self, [all], beginning from the sense-objects upto sense-organs i.e., when he approprites in his own Self all in the form of sense-objects and sense-organs.
But, how is it that the nomenclature 'a man-of-stabilized-intellect' does not hold good in the case of an ascetic ? It is answered-
।।2.59।।युक्तं चैतत् यतः यः सर्वत्रेति। शुभाशुभप्राप्तौ तस्याह्लादतापौ न भवतः।
Translation · English
2.59 Visayah etc. Of course, in his (ascetic's) case there is no contact with sense-objects, colour and the rest that are enjoyable. Yet, the sense-obects retreat [from him] leaving a taste in the form of longing that exists in his internal organ. Hence he is not a man-of-stabilized-intellect. Some (commentators) say that 'taste' denotes the sweetness etc., of the objects of experience. But, in the case of a man of Yoga there exists no longing as he has seen the Supreme Lord. On the other hand, in the case of the other, i.e. an ascetic, this does not retreat (disappear).
2.60 Yattasyapi etc. For, the mind of that ascetic too is carried away by the sense-organs. Or, the expression yattasya api denotes 'even of one who exerts'. [So], it is but the mind that is to be subdued by a man of Yoga. Thus the second [estion] is decided.
।।2.61।।ननु तपस्विनोऽपि कथं स्थितप्रज्ञशब्दो न प्रवर्तते उच्यते विषया इति। यद्यपि आह्ार्यैः रूपादिभिर्विषयैः संबन्धोऽस्य नास्ति तथापि तस्य विषया अन्तःकरणगतमुपरागलक्षणं रसं वर्जयित्वा एव निवर्तन्ते। अतो नासौ स्थिरप्रज्ञः। रसं केचिदास्वाद्यं मधुरादिकमाहुः (K omits this entire sentence )। योगिनस्तु परमेश्वरदर्शनात् उपरागो न (N omits न) भवति। अन्यस्य तु तपस्विनो नासौ निवर्तते।
Translation · English
2.61 Tani etc. He, who restrains his sense-organs in this manner by means of his mind, but not by inactivity-he alone is a man-of-stabilized-intellect. He would remain viewing Me alone as his goal i.e., he would concentrate his attention on nothing but Me, the Supreme Lord, the Consciousness-Self.
।।2.63।।तानीति। य एवं मनसा इन्द्रियाणि नियमयति न त्वप्रवृत्त्या स एव स्थिरप्रज्ञः। स च मत्पर आसीत मामेव चिदात्मानं परमेश्वरमभ्यस्येत् ( N अभ्यसेत्)।
Translation · English
2.63 Dhyayatah etc. krodhat etc. In the case of an ascetic, the very act of abandoning sense-objects itself resutls in undertaking the sense-objects. For, they abandon indeed by meditating [on them], and at the very time of such a meditation, attachment etc., are born in regular succession. Hence the act of abandoning objects is harmless only in the case of a man-of-stabilized-intellect. (65)
।।2.66 2.70।।रागद्वेषेत्यादि प्रतिष्ठितेत्यन्तम्। यस्तु मनसो नियामकः स विषयान् सेवमानोऽपि न क्रोधादिकल्लोलैरभिभूयते इति स एव स्थितप्रज्ञो योगीति तात्पर्यम्।
Translation · English
2.64-68 Raga-dvesa-etc. upto pratisthita. Here the purport is this : He, who controls his mind, is not tossed by the waves of wrath etc., even while he is enjoying the sense-objects; hence he alone is a man of Yoga, a man-of-stabilized-intellect.
Extraordinary is the man of Yoga, even while he is attending to the worldly business. While examining this point, the characteristics mark of his (man of Yoga), is briefly related by the Supreme Lord-
।।2.66 2.70।।रागद्वेषेत्यादि प्रतिष्ठितेत्यन्तम्। यस्तु मनसो नियामकः स विषयान् सेवमानोऽपि न क्रोधादिकल्लोलैरभिभूयते इति स एव स्थितप्रज्ञो योगीति तात्पर्यम्।
Translation · English
2.69 Ya nisa etc. Infatuating is the Illusion which is night for all beings. In that , the sage is awake (vigilant) with the thought 'How It could be avoided' The stage where the worldly men keep awake i.e., perform multifarious [worldly] activities, that stage is the night for the sage, as he is ignorant regarding the worldly activities.
It amounts to this statement : What is well-known as illusion, Its nature is indeed two-ford, viz., to delude and also to wear a deceptive appearance of spinning pleasure. Of them (the two natures), the worldly man, not considering Its former nautre, remains with a memory well teid to the second nature. On the other hand, the man of Yoga, who is contrary to the other, observes Its deluding nature in order to root It out. Thus the man of perfect knowledge, while seeing [properly], pays no attention to Its nature of spinning pleasure. His indifference to Its nature of spinning pleasure is due to the destruction of his false knowledge. That stage is night to him, even while he sees. Hence this is strange. The man of Yoga is awake (or understands) in the field of wisdom, where everyone else is unconscious (or totally perplexed); but in [the field] of ignorance he is not awake (or does not understand), where ordinary man is awake (or understands well). This is also strange.
That is why-
आपूर्यमाणमचलप्रतिष्ठं
समुद्रमापः प्रविशन्ति यद्वत्।
तद्वत्कामा यं प्रविशन्ति सर्वे
स शान्तिमाप्नोति न कामकामी ॥
Commentary · Sanskrit
।।2.66 2.70।।रागद्वेषेत्यादि प्रतिष्ठितेत्यन्तम्। यस्तु मनसो नियामकः स विषयान् सेवमानोऽपि न क्रोधादिकल्लोलैरभिभूयते इति स एव स्थितप्रज्ञो योगीति तात्पर्यम्।
Translation · English
2.70 Apuryamanam etc. the man of Yoga does not run out for the sake of pleasure; but, rather just as the floods of the rivers enter into the sea, the objects of pleasure [themselves] continuously enter into him on account of their being peculiar attributes of the sense-organs; and they do not create in him waves [of agitation]. thus the third estion is decided.
।।2.72।।अत एव आपूर्यमाणमिति। योगी न कामार्थ बहिर्धावति अपि तु इन्द्रियधर्मतया तं ( N omit तं and read विषयानुप्रविशन्तो नतरां यान्ति ( न तरंगयन्ति) विषया अनुप्रविशन्तो न तरङ्गयन्ति नदीवेगा इवोदधिम्। एवं तृतीयो निर्णीतः।
Translation · English
2.72 Esa etc. This is the Brahman-existance by remaining, i.e., having dwalt in which, even for a moment, one attains the Supreme Brahman [after] one's body breaks. Thus [all the] four estions have been decided.
सञ्जय उवाच। तं तथा कृपयाविष्टमश्रुपूर्णाकुलेक्षणम्। विषीदन्तमिदं वाक्यमुवाच मधुसूदनः ॥
।।2.1।।No commentary.
2.1 Sri Abhinavagupta did not comment upon this sloka.
श्रीभगवानुवाच। कुतस्त्वा कश्मलमिदं विषमे समुपस्थितम्। अनार्यजुष्टमस्वर्ग्यमकीर्तिकरमर्जुन ॥
।।2.2।।कुत इति। आदो लोकव्यवहाराश्रयेणैव भगवान् अर्जुनं प्रतिबोधयति। क्रमात्तु ज्ञानं करिष्यति इत्यतः अनार्यजुष्टमित्याह।
2.2 Kutah etc. To commence with, the Bhagavat exhorts Arjuna just by following the worldly (common) practice; but, in due course, He will impart knowledge. Hence He says 'practised by men of low birth'. Uttering words of ruke such as 'unmanliness' etc., the Bhagavat causes [Arjuna] to know that he misconceives demerit as meritorious :
क्लैब्यं मा स्म गमः पार्थ नैतत्त्वय्युपपद्यते। क्षुद्रं हृदयदौर्बल्यं त्यक्त्वोत्तिष्ठ परन्तप ॥
।।2.3।।No commentary.
2.3 Sri Abhinavagupta did not comment upon this sloka.
अर्जुन उवाच। कथं भीष्ममहं सङ्ख्ये द्रोणं च मधुसूदन। इषुभिः प्रतियोत्स्यामि पूजार्हावरिसूदन ॥
।।2.4 2.6।।क्लैव्यादिभिर्निर्भर्त्सनमभिदधत् अधर्मे तव धर्माभिमानोऽयम् (N K (n) omit अयम् S omits the entire sentence) इत्यादि दर्शयति कथमित्यादि। कथं भीष्ममहं संख्ये द्रोणं च इत्यादिना भुञ्जीय भोगान् इत्यनेन च कर्मविशेषानुसन्धानं फलविशेषानुसन्धानं च हेयतया पूर्वपक्षे ( N omit पूर्वपक्षे) सूचयति। नैतद्विद्मः इत्यनेन च कर्मविशेषानुसन्धानमाह। निरनुसन्धानं (S K निरभिसन्धानं) तावत् कर्म नोपपद्यते। न च पराजयमभिसन्धाय युद्धे प्रवर्तते। जयोऽपि नश्चायमनर्थ (S k omit नः) एव। तदाह अहत्वा गुरून् भैक्षमपि चर्तुं श्रेयः। एतच्च निश्चेतुमशक्यं किं जयं कांक्षामः किं वा पराजयम् जयेऽपि बन्धूनां विनाशात्।
2.4 See Comment under 2.6
गुरूनहत्वा हि महानुभावान् श्रेयो भोक्तुं भैक्ष्यमपीह लोके। हत्वार्थकामांस्तु गुरूनिहैव भुञ्जीय भोगान् रुधिरप्रदिग्धान् ॥
।।2.4 2.6।।क्लैव्यादिभिर्निर्भर्त्सनमभिदधत् अधर्मे तव धर्माभिमानोऽयम् (N K (n) omit अयम् S omits the entire sentence) इत्यादि दर्शयति कथमित्यादि। कथं भीष्ममहं संख्ये द्रोणं च इत्यादिना भुञ्जीय भोगान् इत्यनेन च कर्मविशेषानुसन्धानं फलविशेषानुसन्धानं च हेयतया पूर्वपक्षे ( N omit पूर्वपक्षे) सूचयति। नैतद्विद्मः इत्यनेन च कर्मविशेषानुसन्धानमाह। निरनुसन्धानं (S K निरभिसन्धानं) तावत् कर्म नोपपद्यते। न च पराजयमभिसन्धाय युद्धे प्रवर्तते। जयोऽपि नश्चायमनर्थ (S k omit नः) एव। तदाह अहत्वा गुरून् भैक्षमपि चर्तुं श्रेयः। एतच्च निश्चेतुमशक्यं किं जयं कांक्षामः किं वा पराजयम् जयेऽपि बन्धूनां विनाशात्।
2.5 See Comment under 2.6
न चैतद्विद्मः कतरन्नो गरीयो यद्वा जयेम यदि वा नो जयेयुः। यानेव हत्वा न जिजीविषामस्- तेऽवस्थिताः प्रमुखे धार्तराष्ट्राः ॥
।।2.4 2.6।।क्लैव्यादिभिर्निर्भर्त्सनमभिदधत् अधर्मे तव धर्माभिमानोऽयम् (N K (n) omit अयम् S omits the entire sentence) इत्यादि दर्शयति कथमित्यादि। कथं भीष्ममहं संख्ये द्रोणं च इत्यादिना भुञ्जीय भोगान् इत्यनेन च कर्मविशेषानुसन्धानं फलविशेषानुसन्धानं च हेयतया पूर्वपक्षे ( N omit पूर्वपक्षे) सूचयति। नैतद्विद्मः इत्यनेन च कर्मविशेषानुसन्धानमाह। निरनुसन्धानं (S K निरभिसन्धानं) तावत् कर्म नोपपद्यते। न च पराजयमभिसन्धाय युद्धे प्रवर्तते। जयोऽपि नश्चायमनर्थ (S k omit नः) एव। तदाह अहत्वा गुरून् भैक्षमपि चर्तुं श्रेयः। एतच्च निश्चेतुमशक्यं किं जयं कांक्षामः किं वा पराजयम् जयेऽपि बन्धूनां विनाशात्।
2.4-6 Katham etc. upto Dhartarastrah. By the portion Bhisma and Drona in war' etc., and by the portion 'I would [not] enjoy the objects of pleasure', the Sage indicates that in Arjuna's objection, the intention for a particular act and the intention for a particular result are the points deserving rejection. By the portion 'We do not know this' etc., he speaks of the intention for a particular action. For, without intention no action is possible. Certainly one does not proceed on a war with an intention of getting defeated. '[In the present war] even our victory would be surely our misfortune.' This he says by the portion 'It is good even to go about begging without killing the elders'. It is also impossible to conclude 'Whether we desire victory or defeat'; for even in the case of our victory our relatives would perish totally.'
कार्पण्यदोषोपहतस्वभावः पृच्छामि त्वां धर्मसम्मूढचेताः। यच्छ्रेयः स्यान्निश्चितं ब्रूहि तन्मे शिष्यस्तेऽहं शाधि मां त्वां प्रपन्नम् ॥
।।2.7 2.10।।कार्पण्येत्यादि। सेनयोरुभयोर्मध्ये इत्यादिनेदं सूचयति संशयाविष्टोऽर्जुनो नैकपक्षेण ( नोऽनेक ) युद्धान्निवृत्तः यत एवमाह स्म शाधि मा त्वां (S omits त्वाम्) प्रपन्नम् इति। अतः उभयोरपि ज्ञानाज्ञानयोर्मध्यगः श्रीभगवतानुशिष्यते।
2.7 See Comment under 2.10
न हि प्रपश्यामि ममापनुद्याद् यच्छोकमुच्छोषणमिन्द्रियाणाम्। अवाप्य भूमावसपत्नमृद्धं राज्यं सुराणामपि चाधिपत्यम् ॥
।।2.7 2.10।।कार्पण्येत्यादि। सेनयोरुभयोर्मध्ये इत्यादिनेदं सूचयति संशयाविष्टोऽर्जुनो नैकपक्षेण ( नोऽनेक ) युद्धान्निवृत्तः यत एवमाह स्म शाधि मा त्वां (S omits त्वाम्) प्रपन्नम् इति। अतः उभयोरपि ज्ञानाज्ञानयोर्मध्यगः श्रीभगवतानुशिष्यते।
2.8 See Comment under 2.10
सञ्जय उवाच। एवमुक्त्वा हृषीकेशं गुडाकेशः परन्तप। न योत्स्य इति गोविन्दमुक्त्वा तूष्णीं बभूव ह ॥
।।2.7 2.10।।कार्पण्येत्यादि। सेनयोरुभयोर्मध्ये इत्यादिनेदं सूचयति संशयाविष्टोऽर्जुनो नैकपक्षेण ( नोऽनेक ) युद्धान्निवृत्तः यत एवमाह स्म शाधि मा त्वां (S omits त्वाम्) प्रपन्नम् इति। अतः उभयोरपि ज्ञानाज्ञानयोर्मध्यगः श्रीभगवतानुशिष्यते।
2.9 See Comment under 2.10
तमुवाच हृषीकेशः प्रहसन्निव भारत। सेनयोरुभयोर्मध्ये विषीदन्तमिदं वचः ॥
।।2.7 2.10।।कार्पण्येत्यादि। सेनयोरुभयोर्मध्ये इत्यादिनेदं सूचयति संशयाविष्टोऽर्जुनो नैकपक्षेण ( नोऽनेक ) युद्धान्निवृत्तः यत एवमाह स्म शाधि मा त्वां (S omits त्वाम्) प्रपन्नम् इति। अतः उभयोरपि ज्ञानाज्ञानयोर्मध्यगः श्रीभगवतानुशिष्यते।
2.7-10 Karpanya-etc. upto vacah. By the portion 'in between the two armies' etc., [the Sage] indicates this : Beings possessed by doubt, Arjuna had not abstained from the war totally; for, he says thus : 'Please teach me, who am taking refuge in you'. Therefore while he still remains just in between both knowledge and ignorance, he is taught by the glorious Bhagavat.
श्रीभगवानुवाच। अशोच्यानन्वशोचस्त्वं प्रज्ञावादांश्च भाषसे। गतासूनगतासूंश्च नानुशोचन्ति पण्डिताः ॥
।।2.11।।No commentary.
2.11 Asocyan etc. You lament for the body that cannot be lamented over, because it is of incessantly perishing nature; and also for the Soul that does not reire to be lamented. No one, either of departed life, i.e., the dead, or of non-departed life, i.e., the living, is to be mourned for. As for instance, the Soul is ever non-perishing. What sort of lamentability can be for It, as It is plessantly travelling in different bodies ? Nor is it right to say that Its lamentability is due only to Its travel in another body. For, in that case, It should be lamented for, even when the stage of youth etc., is attained. In this manner, the two ideas [the Lord] relates :
न त्वेवाहं जातु नासं न त्वं नेमे जनाधिपाः। न चैव न भविष्यामः सर्वे वयमतः परम् ॥
।।2.12।।अशोच्यानिति। शोचितुमशक्यं कलेबरं सदा नश्वरत्वात्। अशोचनार्हं च आत्मानं शोचसि। न कश्चित् गतासुः मृतः अगतासुः जीवन् वा शोच्योऽस्ति। तथाहि ( S omits हि) आत्मा तावदविनाशी। नानाशरीरेषु संचरतः का अस्य शोच्यता न च देहान्तरसंचारे एव शोच्यता। एवं हि (S omits हि) यौवनादावपि शोच्यता भवेत्।
2.12 See Comment under 2.13
देहिनोऽस्मिन्यथा देहे कौमारं यौवनं जरा। तथा देहान्तरप्राप्तिर्धीरस्तत्र न मुह्यति ॥
।।2.13 2.14।।एवमर्थद्वयमाह न हीत्यादि। अहं हि नैव नासम् अपि तु आसम् एवं त्वम् अमी च राजानः। आकारान्तरे च सति यदि शोच्यता तर्हि कौमारात् यौवनावाप्तौ किमिति न शोच्यते यो धीरः स न शोचति। धैर्यं च (N धैर्ये च) एतच्छरीरेऽपि यस्यास्था नास्ति तेन सुकरम्। अतस्त्वं धैर्यमन्विच्छ।
2.12-13 Na hi etc. Dehinah etc Never indeed did I not exist, but I did exist [always]. Likewise are you and these kings. If there can be lamentability for one, on attaining change in physical form then why is one not lamented over when one attains the youth from the boyhood ? He, who is wise, does not lament. But, wisdom is easily attainable for him whose concern is not even for this [present] body. Therefore you must seek wisdom.
मात्रास्पर्शास्तु कौन्तेय शीतोष्णसुखदुःखदाः। आगमापायिनोऽनित्यास्तांस्तितिक्षस्व भारत ॥
।।2.13 2.14।।एवमर्थद्वयमाह न हीत्यादि। अहं हि नैव नासम् अपि तु आसम् एवं त्वम् अमी च राजानः। आकारान्तरे च सति यदि शोच्यता तर्हि कौमारात् यौवनावाप्तौ किमिति न शोच्यते यो धीरः स न शोचति। धैर्यं च (N धैर्ये च) एतच्छरीरेऽपि यस्यास्था नास्ति तेन सुकरम्। अतस्त्वं धैर्यमन्विच्छ।
2.14 Matra etc. But the unwise lament even over those passing situations of cold and heat, pleasure and pain that are created by those touches i.e., the contacts of the sense-objects-referable with the term matra - with the Soul through the door of the sense-organs; but the wise do not do so. Thus says [the Lord]. Or, the passage may be interpreted as : The touches (contacts) of these objects are with the matras, i.e., with the sense-organs, and not directly with the Supreme Self, Coming : birth. Going : destruction, Those situations that have these two you must forbear i.e., put up with.
यं हि न व्यथयन्त्येते पुरुषं पुरुषर्षभ। समदुःखसुखं धीरं सोऽमृतत्वाय कल्पते ॥
।।2.15।।मात्रेति। अधीरास्तु मात्राशब्दवाच्यैरर्थैर्ये (S वाच्यैरर्था ये) कृताः स्पर्शा इन्द्रियद्वारेणात्मनः (K णात्मना) सम्बन्धाः तत्कृता याः शीतोष्णसुखदुःखाद्यवस्था अनित्याः तास्वपि शोचन्ति न त्वेवं धीरा इत्याह। अथवा मात्राभिरिन्द्रियैरेषां स्पर्शा न तु साक्षात् परमात्मना ( N परमात्मनः)। आगमः उत्पत्तिः अपायः विनाशः एतद्युक्तांस्तितिक्षस्व ( एतद्युक्तम्) सहस्व।
2.15 But, because all these different situations are of the nature of coming and going, on that account itself are they not to be lamented on ? It is not so. As for instance : What is this which is termed 'coming' ? If it is 'birth', what is that 'birth' itself ? It is wrong to say that is the same as gaining the self by what is non-existent. For, to be of the nature of non-existence, is indeed to be devoid of every inherent nature and to be devoid of the very self. If a thing is devoid of the self and devoid of every nature, how is it possible to convert it into what has an intrinsic nature ? Surely, it is impossible to convert the non-blue into blue. For, it is faulty and undesirable to covert the non-blue into blue. For, it is faulty and undesirable to conclude that a thing with certain in nature changes to be of a different nature. Hence the scritpure goes - 'The intrinsic nature of beings would not cease to exist, e.g., the heat of the sun'. On the other hand, if the 'birth' signifies the gaining of self just by what [really] exists, even then, why the lamentability on its coming ? For, what has gained a self, could never be non-existent and conseently it would be eternal. Likewise, is the act of 'going' also meant for the existent or the non-existent ? What is non-existent is just non-existent [for ever.] How can there be a non-existence-nature even in the case of that which is of the existence-nature ? If it is said that it is of the non-existence-nature in the second moment; [since its birth], then it should be so even in the first moment; and so nothing would be existent. For, the intrinsic nature [ever] remains unabandoned. But is it not that the destruction of it (i.e., of a given thing, like a pot) is brought about by the stroke of a hammer etc.? Yet, if that destruction is altogether different [from the existent one i.e. the pot], then what does it matter for what is existent ? But, it is not be seen [at that time] ? Yet, what is actually existent (pot) may not be seen just as when it is covered with a cloth; but it has not turned to be altogether different. In fact, it has been said [in the scriptures] that this is not different [from the existent]. Summarising all these, [the Lord] says -
नासतो विद्यते भावो नाभावो विद्यते सतः। उभयोरपि दृष्टोऽन्तस्त्वनयोस्तत्त्वदर्शिभिः ॥
।।2.16।।ननु यत एवागमापायिनः सर्वे दशाविशेषास्तत एव शोच्यन्ते मैवम्। तथाहि कोऽयमागमो नाम उत्पत्तिरिति चेत् (S नामेति चेत्)। सापि का असत आत्मलाभः सा इति त्वसत्। असत्स्वभावता हि निःस्वभावता निरात्मता ( N omit निरात्मता) निरात्मा निःस्वभावः कथं सस्वभावीकर्तुं शक्यः अनीलं हि न नीलीकर्तुं शक्यम् स्वभावान्तरापत्तेर्दुष्टत्वात्। तथा च शास्त्रम् न हि स्वभावो भावानां व्यावर्तेतौष्ण्यवद्रवेः इति।अथ सत एवात्मलाभ उत्पत्तिः तदा (S तदलब्ध जात्वप्यभावा ) लब्धात्मनोऽस्य जात्वप्यनभावान्नित्यतैव इति आगमे का शोच्यता एवमपायोऽति सतः असतो वा असत्तावदसदेव। सत्स्वभावस्यापि कथमसत्तास्वभावः द्वितीये क्षणेऽसौ असत्स्वभाव इति चेत् आद्येऽपि तथा स्यादिति न कश्चिद्भावः स्यात्। स्वभावस्यात्यागात्। अथ मुद्गरपातादिना (S K मुद्गरादिना) अस्य नाशः क्रियते। स यदि व्यतिरिक्तः भावस्य किं वृत्तम् न दृश्यते इति चेत्। मा नाम दर्शि भावः न त्वन्यथाभूतः पटावृत इव। अव्यतिरिक्तस्तु नासौ इत्युक्तम्।
2.16 Nasatah etc. And then, also following the common worldly practice [the Lord] says this : There is no [real] existence for what is non-existent i.e., the body [etc.], that is continuously perishing; for it is changing incessantly by stages. Again, never there is destruction for the ever existing Supreme Self, because of Its unchanging nature. So says the Veda too : 'Lo ! This Soul is of unchanging nature and [hence] is destructions' (the Br. U, IV, v. 14). Of These two : of what is existent and what is non-existent. Finality : the point of boundary where they come to an end. But is this permanent or transient which is perceived by persons who are prone to see the truth ? Having raised this doubt, [the Lord] says :
अविनाशि तु तद्विद्धि येन सर्वमिदं ततम्। विनाशमव्ययस्यास्य न कश्चित्कर्तुमर्हति ॥
Sanskrit Commentary By Sri Abhinavgupta।।2.17।।तदेतत्संक्षिप्याह नासत इति। अथ च लोकवृत्तेनेदमाह असतः नित्यविनाशिनः शरीरस्य न भावः अनवरतमवस्थाभिः परिणामित्वात्। नित्यसतश्च परमात्मनो नास्ति कदाचिद्विनाशः अपरिणामधर्मत्वात्। तथा च वेदः अविनाशी वा अरेऽप्यमात्मानुच्छित्तिधर्मा (बृ. उप. 4.5.14) इति। अनयोः सदसतोः अन्तः प्रतिष्ठापदं यत्रानयोर्विश्रान्तिः।
2.17 Avinasi etc [Here] tu is in the sense of ca 'and'. So, 'and' the Soul is not of perishing nature.
अन्तवन्त इमे देहा नित्यस्योक्ताः शरीरिणः। अनाशिनोऽप्रमेयस्य तस्माद्युध्यस्व भारत ॥
।।2.18।।यस्तत्त्वदर्शिभिर्दृष्टः स खलु नित्योऽनित्यो वा इत्याशङ्क्याह अविनाशि इति। तुश्चार्थे। आत्मा त्वविनाशी।
2.18 Antavantah etc. The bodies, at the time of their attaining the unobservable stage, meet their apparent destruction. This would be impossible if they do not suffer the peculiar destruction, that it to say they undergo changes every moment. For, it has been said- 'By observing the dilapidated condition of beings at their last moment, the loss of newness is very moment is inferred' The same has been said by the Sage (Vyasa) also as- 'In every being, in every moment, there is mutual difference between its tiny parts that have different purposes. But on account of its subtlity, it is not cleary comprehended (MB, Santi., Moksa. Ch. 308, verse 121). [In theabove passage] having different purposes amounts to say 'because they perform different acts having their own respective special purposes.; Now, the bodies have thier end and are ever changing. On the other hand, the Self is destructionless, because It is incomprehensible. Changing nature belongs only to the insentient thing which is comprehensible, but not to what is non-insentient and is exclusively consciousness in nature. Because, it is not possible [for one] to gain an altogether different nature. Thus, the bodies meet permanently their end and hence they cannot be lamented for; the Self ever remains without destruction (or without changing) and hence need not be lamented for. Thus a single krtya-suffix has been employed on both the senses simultaneously by the sage in the expression asocyan.
य एनं वेत्ति हन्तारं यश्चैनं मन्यते हतम्। उभौ तौ न विजानीतो नायं हन्ति न हन्यते ॥
।।2.19।।अन्तवन्त इति। देहाः निरुपाख्याताकले (S निरुपाख्यकाले) स्थूलविनाशयोगिनः तदन्यथानुपपत्तेरेव च विनाशिनः प्रतिक्षणमवस्थान्तरभागिनः। यदुक्तम् अन्ते पुराणतां (S पुराणं दृष्ट्वा) दृष्ट्वा प्रतिक्षणं नवत्वहानिरनुमीयते इति। मुनिनापि कलानां पृथगर्थानां प्रतिभेदः क्षणे क्षणे।वर्तते सर्वभावेषु सौक्ष्म्यात्तु न विभाव्यते।।(M Santi. Moksa. Ch. 308 verse 121 ) इति।पृथगर्थानामति पृथगर्थक्रियाकारित्वादिति यावत्। देहा अन्तवन्तः विनाशिनश्च। आत्मा तु नित्यः यतोऽप्रमेयः। प्रमेयस्य तु जडस्य परिणामित्वम् न तु अजडस्य चिदेकरूपस्य स्वभावान्तरायोगात्। एवं देहा नित्यमन्तवन्त इति शोचितुमशक्याः। आत्मा नित्यमविनाशी तेन न शोचनार्हः। तन्त्रेण अयमेकः कृत्यप्रत्ययो द्वयोरर्थयोर्मुनिना दर्शितः अशोच्यान् इति।
2.19 Ya enam etc. Whosoever veiws This i.e., the Self and the body, to be the slayer and the slain, ignorance is in him. That is why he is in bondage. The same [point the Lord] clarifies -
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन् नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः। अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे ॥
।।2.20।।य एनमिति। एनमात्मानं देहं च यो हन्तारं हतं च वेत्ति तस्याज्ञानम्। अत एव स बद्धः ( S सम्बन्धः)।
2.20 Na jayate etc. Having not been at one time, This etc. : this Self will come to be, having not been at any time non-existent, but only having been existent. Therefore This is not born, This does not die too. For, having been [at one time], This will never be non-existent [at another time]; but certainly This will be [always] existent.
वेदाविनाशिनं नित्यं य एनमजमव्ययम्। कथं स पुरुषः पार्थ कं घातयति हन्ति कम् ॥
।।2.21।।एतदेव स्फुटयति न जायते इति। नायं भूत्वेति। अयमात्मा न न भूत्वा भाविता (S omits भविता) अपि तु भूत्वैव। अतो न जायते न च म्रियते यतो भूत्वा न न भविता अपि तु भवितैव।
2.21 Veda etc. Whosoever, because of his realisation, under-stands this Self as 'This neither slays [any one]. nor is This slain [by any one] - how could there be any bondage for him ?
वासांसि जीर्णानि यथा विहाय नवानि गृह्णाति नरोऽपराणि। तथा शरीराणि विहाय जीर्णा- न्यन्यानि संयाति नवानि देही ॥
।।2.22।।वेदेति। य एनमात्मानं प्रबुद्धत्वात् जानाति स न हन्ति न स हन्यते इति तस्य कथं बन्धः (N omits इति बन्धः)।
2.22 Vasamsi etc. just as a well - dressed person, on the destruction of his garment, gets himself dressed in another more suitable garment, and he does not perish on that account, in the same way the Self, dressed with different bodies [behaves].
नैनं छिन्दन्ति शस्त्राणि नैनं दहति पावकः। न चैनं क्लेदयन्त्यापो न शोषयति मारुतः ॥
।।2.23।।वासांसि इति। यथा वस्त्राच्छादितः तद्वस्त्रनाशे समुचितवस्त्रान्तरावृतो न विनश्यति (N omits यथा न विनश्यति) एवमात्मा देहान्तरावृतः।
2.23 See Comment under 2.25
अच्छेद्योऽयमदाह्योऽयमक्लेद्योऽशोष्य एव च। नित्यः सर्वगतः स्थाणुरचलोऽयं सनातनः ॥
।।2.24 2.26।।नैनमित्यादि। नास्य नाशकारणं शस्त्रादि किंचित्करम्। चिदेकस्वभावस्य अनाश्रितस्य ( N K add निरपेक्षस्य after अनाश्रितस्य) निरंशस्य (N omits निरंशस्य S adds निरवयवस्य after निरंशस्य) स्वतन्त्रस्य स्वभावान्तरापत्त्याश्रयविनाशावयवविभाग विरोधिप्रादुर्भावादिक्रमेण (S प्रक्रमेण) नाशयितुमशक्यत्वात्। न च देहान्तरगमनमस्य अपूर्वम् देहान्वितोऽपि (N अपूर्वदेहान्नित्योऽपि) सततं देहान्तरं गच्छति तेन संबध्यते इत्यर्थः। देहस्य क्षणमात्रमप्यनवस्थायित्वात्। एवंभूतं विदित्वा एनमात्मानं शोचितुं नार्हसि।
2.24 See Comment under 2.25
अव्यक्तोऽयमचिन्त्योऽयमविकार्योऽयमुच्यते। तस्मादेवं विदित्वैनं नानुशोचितुमर्हसि ॥
।।2.24 2.26।।नैनमित्यादि। नास्य नाशकारणं शस्त्रादि किंचित्करम्। चिदेकस्वभावस्य अनाश्रितस्य ( N K add निरपेक्षस्य after अनाश्रितस्य) निरंशस्य (N omits निरंशस्य S adds निरवयवस्य after निरंशस्य) स्वतन्त्रस्य स्वभावान्तरापत्त्याश्रयविनाशावयवविभाग विरोधिप्रादुर्भावादिक्रमेण (S प्रक्रमेण) नाशयितुमशक्यत्वात्। न च देहान्तरगमनमस्य अपूर्वम् देहान्वितोऽपि (N अपूर्वदेहान्नित्योऽपि) सततं देहान्तरं गच्छति तेन संबध्यते इत्यर्थः। देहस्य क्षणमात्रमप्यनवस्थायित्वात्। एवंभूतं विदित्वा एनमात्मानं शोचितुं नार्हसि।
2.23-25 Nainam etc. upto arhasi. The weapons etc., that cause destruction, haldly do anything to This. For, being, by nature, exclusively pure Consciousness, remaining without support, having no component parts and being independent, this cannot be destroyed through the process of either assumption of an altogether different nature, or the destruction of the support, or the mutual separation of the component parts, or the rise of an opponent, and so on. Nor the act to going to another body is a new thing for This. For, even when This is [apparently] with a single body, This travels always to different body; for the body does not remain the same even for a moment. By understanding this Self to be as such, you should not lament This.
अथ चैनं नित्यजातं नित्यं वा मन्यसे मृतम्। तथापि त्वं महाबाहो नैवं शोचितुमर्हसि ॥
।।2.24 2.26।।नैनमित्यादि। नास्य नाशकारणं शस्त्रादि किंचित्करम्। चिदेकस्वभावस्य अनाश्रितस्य ( N K add निरपेक्षस्य after अनाश्रितस्य) निरंशस्य (N omits निरंशस्य S adds निरवयवस्य after निरंशस्य) स्वतन्त्रस्य स्वभावान्तरापत्त्याश्रयविनाशावयवविभाग विरोधिप्रादुर्भावादिक्रमेण (S प्रक्रमेण) नाशयितुमशक्यत्वात्। न च देहान्तरगमनमस्य अपूर्वम् देहान्वितोऽपि (N अपूर्वदेहान्नित्योऽपि) सततं देहान्तरं गच्छति तेन संबध्यते इत्यर्थः। देहस्य क्षणमात्रमप्यनवस्थायित्वात्। एवंभूतं विदित्वा एनमात्मानं शोचितुं नार्हसि।
2.26 Atha va etc. On the other hand if you deam 'This' to be the body and to be born constantly,-because its stream does not stop-even then, there is no necessity to lament. Or, if, following the [Vainasika Buddhists' ?] doctrine of continuous decay of things, you deem This to be constantly dying, even then where is the need for lamenting ? If you, in the same manner, deem the Self to be constantly born or to be constantly dying on account of Its contacts and separations with bodies, even then it is unwarranted, on every account, on the part of the men of rational thinking, to lament. Otherwise this [division of] permanence and impermanence does not stand reasoning. For-
जातस्य हि ध्रुवो मृत्युर्ध्रुवं जन्म मृतस्य च। तस्मादपरिहार्येऽर्थे न त्वं शोचितुमर्हसि ॥
।।2.27।।अथ वैनमिति। अथाप्येनं देहं मन्यसे नित्यजातं प्रवाहस्याविनाशात् तथापि न शोच्यता। क्षणिकप्रक्रियया वा नित्यविनाशिनम् तथापि का शोच्यता एवं यद्यात्मनः तत्तद्देहयोगवियोगाभ्यां (S K तद्देहयोग (K संयोग) नित्यजातत्वं नित्यमृतत्वं वा मन्यसे तथापि सर्वथा शोचनं प्रामाणिकानामयुक्तम् ( N प्राकरणि )।
2.27 Jatasya etc. Destruction comes after birth, and after the destruction comes birth. Thus, this series of birth-and-death is like a circle. Hence to what extent is this to be lamented for ? Furthermore-
अव्यक्तादीनि भूतानि व्यक्तमध्यानि भारत। अव्यक्तनिधनान्येव तत्र का परिदेवना ॥
।।2.28।।न चैतदन्यथा नित्यानित्यत्वमुपपत्तिमत् (NK नित्यत्वानित्यत्वम्)। यतः (S adds कुत इत्याह after यतः) जातस्येति। जन्मनः अनन्तरं नाशः नाशादनन्तरं जन्मेति चक्रवदयं जन्ममरणसन्तान इति किंपरिमाणं शोच्यताम् (N शोच्यतायाम) इति।
2.28 Avyaktadini etc. Whether beings are permanent or impermanent, this much is certain : The person, who laments over a given object - as far as that person is concerned, that object is at the beginning unmanifest and at the end also it is unmanifest. Its manifestation in between is therefore a deviation from its natural state, Rather, there may be need to lament over the deviation from natural state and nor over the natural state [itself]. Further, whatever has been approved as its root cause, that itself permanently exhibits, within itself, a variety of different and endless creation, sustenance and absorption as its own manifold nature, in a set pattern. Hence what is the necessity for lamenting over the same nature of this (its effect) ? And enowed with the above mentioned nature-
आश्चर्यवत्पश्यति कश्चिदेन- माश्चर्यवद्वदति तथैव चान्यः। आश्चर्यवच्चैनमन्यः शृणोति श्रुत्वाप्येनं वेद न चैव कश्चित् ॥
।।2.29।।अपि च अव्यक्तादीनीति। नित्यः सन्तु अनित्या वा यस्तावदस्य शोचकस्तं प्रत्येष आदावव्यक्तः अन्ते चाव्यक्तः। मध्ये तस्य व्यक्तता विकारः ( N omit विकारः) इति। प्रत्युत विकारे शोचनीयं ( N शोचनीयस्वभावे) न स्वभावे। किं च यत् (N omits यत्) तन्मूलकारणं किञ्चिदभिमतं तदेव यथाक्रमं (S तथाक्रमविचित्र) विचित्रस्वभावतया स्वात्ममध्ये दर्शिततत्तदनन्तसृष्टिस्थितिसंहृतिवैचित्र्यं (S सृष्टिप्रतिसंहृति) नित्यमेव। तथास्वभावेऽपि कास्य (S स्वभावमिति कास्य) शोच्यता।
2.39 Ascaryavat etc. But, if this Self is, in this manner, changeless (or destructionless), why is This not observed just as such by all ? It is so because, as if by a rare chance, only some one observes [This]. Even after listening, not even one understands This i.e., realises This.
देही नित्यमवध्योऽयं देहे सर्वस्य भारत। तस्मात्सर्वाणि भूतानि न त्वं शोचितुमर्हसि ॥
।।2.30।।एवंविधं च आश्चर्यवदिति। ननु यद्येवमयमात्मा अविनाशी किमिति सर्वेण तथैव नोपलभ्यते यतः अद्भुतवत्कश्चिदेव पश्यति श्रुत्वापि एनं (N omit एनम्) न कश्चित् (S N न कश्चिदेव जा ( N कश्चिज्जा) नाति न वेत्ति) वेत्ति न (K omits न) जानाति।
2.30 Dehi etc. On these grounds, the permanent destruction-lessness of the Self [is established].
स्वधर्ममपि चावेक्ष्य न विकम्पितुमर्हसि। धर्म्याद्धि युद्धाच्छ्रेयोऽन्यत्क्षत्रियस्य न विद्यते ॥
।।2.31।।देहीति। अतो नित्यमात्मनोऽविनाशित्वम्।
2.31 Sva-Dharmam etc. Because one's duty cannot be avoided, wavering with regard to fighting the war is not proper [on the part of Arjuna].
यदृच्छया चोपपन्नं स्वर्गद्वारमपावृतम्। सुखिनः क्षत्रियाः पार्थ लभन्ते युद्धमीदृशम् ॥
।।2.32।।स्वधर्ममिति। स्वधर्मस्य च अनपहार्यत्वात् (S N अपरिहार्यत्त्वात्) युद्धविषयः कम्पो न युक्तः।
2.32 Yadrcchaya etc. A war of this nature, because it is conducive to the heaven, should not be avoided even by other such Ksatriyas who are full of desires How much less [it is to be avoided] in the case of one to whom the science of knowledge of this nature has been taught ? This is what is intended to be conveyed [here] And the verse does not at all end with [determining how to attain] the heaven. The very thing (i.e. sin), fearing which you withdraw from the battle, will befall you branching off hundredfold. This [the Lord] says-
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि। ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि ॥
।।2.33।।यदृच्छयेति। अन्येऽपि ये (N omits ये) काममयाः क्षत्रियाः तैरपीदृशं युद्धं स्वर्गहेतुत्वात् न त्याज्यम्। किं पुनर्यस्य ईदृशं ज्ञानमुपदिष्टम् इति तात्पर्यम्। न पुनः स्वर्गपर्यवसायी श्लोकः ( N omit न पुनः श्लोकः)।
2.33 See Comment under 2.37
अकीर्तिं चापि भूतानि कथयिष्यन्ति तेऽव्ययाम्। सम्भावितस्य चाकीर्तिर्मरणादतिरिच्यते ॥
।।2.34 2.38।।यद्भयाच्च भवान् युद्धात् निवर्तते (K निवर्तेत) तदेव शतशाखमुपनिपतिष्यति भवत इत्याह अथ चेत्यादि। श्लोकपञ्चकमिदम् अभ्युपगम्यवादरूपमुच्यते ( N उपगम्य) यदि लौकिकेन व्यवहारेणास्ते भवान् तथाप्यवश्यानुष्ठेयमेतत्।
2.34 See Comment under 2.37
भयाद्रणादुपरतं मंस्यन्ते त्वां महारथाः। येषां च त्वं बहुमतो भूत्वा यास्यसि लाघवम् ॥
।।2.34 2.38।।यद्भयाच्च भवान् युद्धात् निवर्तते (K निवर्तेत) तदेव शतशाखमुपनिपतिष्यति भवत इत्याह अथ चेत्यादि। श्लोकपञ्चकमिदम् अभ्युपगम्यवादरूपमुच्यते ( N उपगम्य) यदि लौकिकेन व्यवहारेणास्ते भवान् तथाप्यवश्यानुष्ठेयमेतत्।
2.35 See Comment under 2.37
अवाच्यवादांश्च बहून्वदिष्यन्ति तवाहिताः। निन्दन्तस्तव सामर्थ्यं ततो दुःखतरं नु किम् ॥
।।2.34 2.38।।यद्भयाच्च भवान् युद्धात् निवर्तते (K निवर्तेत) तदेव शतशाखमुपनिपतिष्यति भवत इत्याह अथ चेत्यादि। श्लोकपञ्चकमिदम् अभ्युपगम्यवादरूपमुच्यते ( N उपगम्य) यदि लौकिकेन व्यवहारेणास्ते भवान् तथाप्यवश्यानुष्ठेयमेतत्।
2.36 See Comment under 2.37
हतो वा प्राप्स्यसि स्वर्गं जित्वा वा भोक्ष्यसे महीम्। तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः ॥
।।2.34 2.38।।यद्भयाच्च भवान् युद्धात् निवर्तते (K निवर्तेत) तदेव शतशाखमुपनिपतिष्यति भवत इत्याह अथ चेत्यादि। श्लोकपञ्चकमिदम् अभ्युपगम्यवादरूपमुच्यते ( N उपगम्य) यदि लौकिकेन व्यवहारेणास्ते भवान् तथाप्यवश्यानुष्ठेयमेतत्।
2.33-37 Atha ca etc., upto krta-niscavah. Accepting what the opponent has stated, this pentad of verses is narrated as an argument : 'If your goodself prefers to abide by the generally accepted practice, even then this [fighting] must be undertaken necessarily'.
सुखदुःखे समे कृत्वा लाभालाभौ जयाजयौ। ततो युद्धाय युज्यस्व नैवं पापमवाप्स्यसि ॥
।।2.34 2.38।।यद्भयाच्च भवान् युद्धात् निवर्तते (K निवर्तेत) तदेव शतशाखमुपनिपतिष्यति भवत इत्याह अथ चेत्यादि। श्लोकपञ्चकमिदम् अभ्युपगम्यवादरूपमुच्यते ( N उपगम्य) यदि लौकिकेन व्यवहारेणास्ते भवान् तथाप्यवश्यानुष्ठेयमेतत्।
2.38 Sukha-duhkhe etc. For you, performing actions as your own duty, never there is any connection with sin.
एषा तेऽभिहिता साङ्ख्ये बुद्धिर्योगे त्विमां शृणु। बुद्ध्या युक्तो यया पार्थ कर्मबन्धं प्रहास्यसि ॥
।।2.39।।सुखदुःखे इति। तव तु स्वधर्मतयैव कर्माणि कुर्वतो न कदाचित् पापसंबन्धः।
2.39 Esa te etc. And this knowledge in th form of determination has been declared [to you] for your sankhya, i.e., perfect knowledge. Now, how the self-same determinate knowledge is also taught for the Yoga i.e., dexerity in action - in that manner only you must listen to by means of which determinate knowledge you shall avoid the binding nature of the actions. Truely, the actions do not themselves bind as they are insentient. Hence, it is the Self which binds Itself by means of the actions in the form of mental impressions.
नेहाभिक्रमनाशोऽस्ति प्रत्यवायो न विद्यते। स्वल्पमप्यस्य धर्मस्य त्रायते महतो भयात् ॥
।।2.40।।एषा त इति। एषा च तव सांख्ये सम्यग्ज्ञाने बुद्धिर्निश्चयात्मिका उक्ता। एषैव च यथा योगे कर्मकौशलाय उच्यते (S K कौशले यो (S य) ज्यते) तथैव श्रृणु यया बुद्ध्या कर्मणां बन्धकत्वं त्यक्ष्यसि। न हि कर्माणि स्वयं बध्नन्ति जडत्वात्। अतः स्वयमात्मा कर्मभिः वासनात्मकैरात्मानं बध्नाति।
2.40 Neha etc. Here in this determinate knowledge there arises no loss through transgression, an offence due to negligence; because negligence is [itself] absent there. And just as a burning oil in the boiler get cooled soon, due to a limited antity of sandal (put in it), in the same way due to this knowledge of Yoga-eventhough it is very little-the great danger in the form of the cycle of birth-and-death perishes completely. And this knowledge is not introduced as a new thing. Then what ?
व्यवसायात्मिका बुद्धिरेकेह कुरुनन्दन। बहुशाखा ह्यनन्ताश्च बुद्धयोऽव्यवसायिनाम् ॥
।।2.41।।नेहेति। इह (S K omit इह) अस्यां बुद्धौ अतिक्रमेण अपराधेन प्रमादेन नाशो न भवति प्रमादस्याभावात्। यथा च (S N तथा च) परिमितेन श्रीखण्डकणेन ज्वालायमानोऽपि तैलकटाहः सद्यः शीतीभवति (N शीतो भवति) एवं अनया स्वल्पयापि (S omits अपि) योगबुद्ध्या महाभयं संसाररूपं विनश्यति।
2.41 Vyavasayatmika etc. The knowledge in the form of determination is just one and natural in the case of everyone; but it suffers manifoldedness according to the objects to be determined. Therefore -
यामिमां पुष्पितां वाचं प्रवदन्त्यविपश्चितः। वेदवादरताः पार्थ नान्यदस्तीति वादिनः ॥
।।2.42।।न चैषा बुद्धिरपूर्वानीयते। किं तर्हिव्यवसायात्मिकेति। व्यवसायात्मिका सर्वस्यैकैव (S सर्वस्यैव) सहजा (N omits सहजा) धीः निश्चेतव्यवशात् तु बहुत्वं गच्छति।
2.42 See Comment under 2.44
कामात्मानः स्वर्गपरा जन्मकर्मफलप्रदाम्। क्रियाविशेषबहुलां भोगैश्वर्यगतिं प्रति ॥
।।2.43 2.45।।तथाच यामिमामित्यादि। ये कामाभिलाषिणः ते स्वयमेतां वाचं वेदात्मिकां पुष्पितां भविष्यत्स्वर्गफलेन ( N omit भविष्यत् S reads भविष्यता) व्याप्तां वदन्ति। अत एव जन्मनः कर्मैव फलमिच्छन्ति ते अविपश्चितः। ते च तयैव स्वयं कल्पितया वेदवाचा अपहृतचित्ताः व्यवसायबुद्धियुक्ता अपि न समाधियोग्याः तत्र फलनिश्चयत्वात्। इति श्लोकत्रयस्य तात्पर्यम्।
2.43 See Comment under 2.44
भोगैश्वर्यप्रसक्तानां तयापहृतचेतसाम्। व्यवसायात्मिका बुद्धिः समाधौ न विधीयते ॥
।।2.43 2.45।।तथाच यामिमामित्यादि। ये कामाभिलाषिणः ते स्वयमेतां वाचं वेदात्मिकां पुष्पितां भविष्यत्स्वर्गफलेन ( N omit भविष्यत् S reads भविष्यता) व्याप्तां वदन्ति। अत एव जन्मनः कर्मैव फलमिच्छन्ति ते अविपश्चितः। ते च तयैव स्वयं कल्पितया वेदवाचा अपहृतचित्ताः व्यवसायबुद्धियुक्ता अपि न समाधियोग्याः तत्र फलनिश्चयत्वात्। इति श्लोकत्रयस्य तात्पर्यम्।
2.42-44 Yam imam etc., upto na vidhiyate. Those, who crave for objects of desire, speak, on their own accord, of this flowery Vedic speech which is pervaded by the fruits i.e., the heaven in the future; and who, hence, desire the action itself as the fruit of their birth - these are men without insight. further, having their mind carried away by the same Vedic sentence imagined by themselves, these persons, eventhough they are endowed with the determinate knowledge, are not fit for concentration, because they do not decide this (concentration) as a fruit [of their action]. This is the purport of the traid of these verses.
त्रैगुण्यविषया वेदा निस्त्रैगुण्यो भवार्जुन। निर्द्वन्द्वो नित्यसत्त्वस्थो निर्योगक्षेम आत्मवान् ॥
।।2.43 2.45।।तथाच यामिमामित्यादि। ये कामाभिलाषिणः ते स्वयमेतां वाचं वेदात्मिकां पुष्पितां भविष्यत्स्वर्गफलेन ( N omit भविष्यत् S reads भविष्यता) व्याप्तां वदन्ति। अत एव जन्मनः कर्मैव फलमिच्छन्ति ते अविपश्चितः। ते च तयैव स्वयं कल्पितया वेदवाचा अपहृतचित्ताः व्यवसायबुद्धियुक्ता अपि न समाधियोग्याः तत्र फलनिश्चयत्वात्। इति श्लोकत्रयस्य तात्पर्यम्।
2.45 Traigunya-etc. The Vedas bind very much [only] by means of the three Strands and they do not bind on their own accord. For, the rituals prescribed in the Vedas, create bondage if they are performed with an intention of pleasure, or of (avoiding) pain, or with an illlusion of attachment. Hence the traid of Strands in the form of desire (or in a pleasing form) must be abandoned. If the present passage were intended to condemn the Vedas, then the act of fighting the battle in estion would be spoiled, because there is nothing other than the Vedas do not bind those, from whom the desire for fruit has completely gone. Because the Vedas alone are useful for proper knowledge in the case of those persons [free from the Strands] hence [the Lord] says-
यावानर्थ उदपाने सर्वतः सम्प्लुतोदके। तावान्सर्वेषु वेदेषु ब्राह्मणस्य विजानतः ॥
।।2.46।।अत एव च त्रैगुण्येति। वेदास्त्रैगुण्येन करणेन ( N कारणेन) विशेषेण सिन्वन्ति बध्नन्ति (N बध्नन्तीति) न ( N omit न तु) तु स्वयं बन्धका यस्मात् सुखदुःखमोहबुद्ध्या कर्माणि वैदिकानि क्रियमाणानि बन्धकानि अतः त्रैगुण्यं कामरूपं त्याज्यम्। यदि तु वेददूषणपरमेतदभविष्यत् प्रकृतं युद्धकरणं व्यघटिष्यत वेदादन्यस्य स्वधर्मनिश्चायकत्वाभावात्। येषां तु फलाभिलाषो विगलितः तेषां न वेदाः बन्धकाः।
2.46 Yavan etc. He, according to whom the importance lies in his own duty alone or in the knowledge - for him the purpose is served even from a limited portion of the Vedic teaching Therefore-
कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन। मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूर्मा ते सङ्गोऽस्त्वकर्मणि ॥
।।2.47।।यतो वेदाः परं तेषां सम्यग्ज्ञानोपयोगिनः अत एवाह (K omits एव) यावानिति। यस्य स्वधर्ममात्रे (N omits स्व ) ज्ञाने वा प्राधान्यं तस्य परिमितादपि वेदभाषितात् कार्यं सम्पद्यते ।
2.47 Karmani etc. You should be concerned in the action alone, but not in the fruits of actions. But, if an action has been performed, then will not its fruit just inevitably befall [to the performer] ? No. It is not so. For, in that case, if you are covered with the dirt of desire for fruits, then you become a cuase for the fruit of action. What is prayed for is known to be the fruit; and it does not befall him who does not desire it. Thus, what attachment a person entertains with regard to the negation of action, that alone is like a firm seizure, and is of the nature of false conception, and hence it must be abandoned. Then what ?-
योगस्थः कुरु कर्माणि सङ्गं त्यक्त्वा धनञ्जय। सिद्ध्यसिद्ध्योः समो भूत्वा समत्वं योग उच्यते ॥
।।2.48।।अतश्च कर्मणीति। कर्ममात्रे त्वं व्यापृतो भव न तु कर्मफलेषु। ननु कर्मणि कृते ( omits कृते N substitutes जाते) नान्तरीयकतयैव फलमापततीति मैवम्। तत्र हि यदि त्वं फलकामनाकालुष्यव्याप्तो भवसि तदा कर्मणां फलं प्रति हेतुत्वम्। यत् अप्रार्थ्यमानं फलं तत् (S N omit तत्) ज्ञानं नानिच्छोस्तत् इति। कर्माभावेन यः संगः स एव गाढग्रहरूपो मिथ्याज्ञानस्वरूपः इति त्याज्य एव ( N इत्यत्याज्य एव)।
2.48 Yogasthah etc. Being established in Yoga you must perform actions. Evenness [of mind] is the Yoga.
दूरेण ह्यवरं कर्म बुद्धियोगाद्धनञ्जय। बुद्धौ शरणमन्विच्छ कृपणाः फलहेतवः ॥
।।2.49।।किं तर्हि योगस्थ इति। योगे स्थित्वा कर्माणि कुरु। साम्यं च योगः।
2.49 Durena etc. Due to the contact (one has) with determining faculty [one's] inferior action i.e., the action that bears bad fruits and is empty, remains far away [from him]. Therefore seek i.e., pray for a refuge in the determining faculty of that nature, on account of which that determining faculty is gained.
बुद्धियुक्तो जहातीह उभे सुकृतदुष्कृते। तस्माद्योगाय युज्यस्व योगः कर्मसु कौशलम् ॥
।।2.50।।No commentary.
2.50 Buddhiyuktah etc. Both indicates the mutual exclusion [of the good and bad actions]. Therefore [strive] for Yoga etc. : Working in that manner alone constitutes the supreme proficiency, by [working] in which manner the good action and the bad action perish. This is the idea here.
कर्मजं बुद्धियुक्ता हि फलं त्यक्त्वा मनीषिणः। जन्मबन्धविनिर्मुक्ताः पदं गच्छन्त्यनामयम् ॥
।।2.51।।दूरेण हीति। बुद्धियोगात्किल हेतोः अवरं दुष्टफलयुक्तं (K omits युक्तं) रिक्तं ( omits रिक्तं) कर्म दूरीभवति। अतस्तादृश्यां बुद्धौ शरणमन्विच्छ प्रार्थयस्व येन सा बुद्धिः लभ्यते।
2.51 Karmajam etc. The persons who are endowed with the determining faculty with regard to the Yoga, renounce the birth-bondage, by renouncing the fruit of actions; and they attain the Brahman-existence.
यदा ते मोहकलिलं बुद्धिर्व्यतितरिष्यति। तदा गन्तासि निर्वेदं श्रोतव्यस्य श्रुतस्य च ॥
।।2.52।।बुद्धियुक्त इति। उभे इति परस्परव्यभिचारं दर्शयति। तस्माद्योगायेति। यथा हि सुकृतदुष्कृते नश्यतः (N दुष्कृते न नश्यतः) तथाकरणमेव परमं कौशलमिति भावः।
2.52 See Comment under 2.53
श्रुतिविप्रतिपन्ना ते यदा स्थास्यति निश्चला। समाधावचला बुद्धिस्तदा योगमवाप्स्यसि ॥
।।2.53।।कर्मजमिति। योगबुद्धियुक्ताः कर्मणां फलं त्यक्त्वा जन्मबन्धं त्यजन्ति ब्रह्मसत्तामाप्नुवन्ति (S K अवाप्नुवन्ति)।
2.52-53 Yada te etc. Sruti-etc. At the time, when the determining facult with regard to the Yoga is attained, the clear sign of recognizing it, is this : An attitude of futility about the revealed literature that has to be listened to, that has been listened to and that is being declared. What has been declared by the above is this : 'This present view of yours about the ruination of your race is out of place and it is due to the influence of your deceptive notion, born of mental impressions created by your listening to the teachings of those scriptures that favour the observers who are fallen deep into the course of ignorance. But, that view shall vanish when the respect for such a teaching disappears.
अर्जुन उवाच। स्थितप्रज्ञस्य का भाषा समाधिस्थस्य केशव। स्थितधीः किं प्रभाषेत किमासीत व्रजेत किम् ॥
।।2.54 2.55।।यदा ते इति। श्रुतीति। तत्र च योगबुद्धिप्राप्त्यबसरे तव स्फुटमेवेदमभिज्ञानम् श्रोतव्यस्य (S omits श्रोतव्यस्य) श्रुतस्य अभिलष्यमाणस्य च (N वा instead of च) आगमस्य उभस्यापि निर्वेदभावत्वम् (SK भाक्त्वम्)। अनेन चेदमुक्तम् अविद्यापद ( N अविद्यमद) निपतितप्रमात्रनुग्राहकशास्त्रश्रवणसंस्कारविप्रलम्भमहिमा अयं यत् तवास्थाने कुलक्षयादिदोषदर्शनम्। तत्तु तथाशासनबहुमानविगलने विगलिष्यति इति।
2.54 Sthita-prajnasya etc. By the statement 'When the determing faculty shall stand [firm in concentration, at that time you shall attain Yoga - above II, 55]' it has been [virtually] stated there that the appellation sthita-prajna (man-of-stabilized-intellect) is a nomenclature signifying man-of-Yoga who is fixed in concentration. Now, what is the connotation of it, i.e., what is the basis for the usage of this nomenclature ? For, [connotation is that] basing on which a particular meaning is connoted by words. Does the appellation sthita-prajna of the man-of-Yoga speak of him through its traditional (or conventional) force of the word or through its force of etymology ? This is the first estion. Of course, regarding the traditional force of the word there is no doubt at all. [For, it has no such force in it]. Yet, the present estion is to make the etymological meaning-though it is already available-clear by explaining the basis for definition of special nature. The expression sthira-dhih has for its imports both the expression [itself] and its meaning 'the fixed-minded'. Of them, does the expression sthira-dhih denote that meaning alone which is indicated by the force of its components; or else does it denote the ascetic also ? This is the second estion. Again, where would that firm-minded man-of-Yoga abide i.e., what would he practise; or what would his firmness depend on ? This is the third [estion]. And what world he achieve by practising ? This is the fourth [estion]. These four estions are decided one by one by the Bhagavat [in the seel].
श्रीभगवानुवाच। प्रजहाति यदा कामान्सर्वान्पार्थ मनोगतान्। आत्मन्येवात्मना तुष्टः स्थितप्रज्ञस्तदोच्यते ॥
।।2.54 2.55।।यदा ते इति। श्रुतीति। तत्र च योगबुद्धिप्राप्त्यबसरे तव स्फुटमेवेदमभिज्ञानम् श्रोतव्यस्य (S omits श्रोतव्यस्य) श्रुतस्य अभिलष्यमाणस्य च (N वा instead of च) आगमस्य उभस्यापि निर्वेदभावत्वम् (SK भाक्त्वम्)। अनेन चेदमुक्तम् अविद्यापद ( N अविद्यमद) निपतितप्रमात्रनुग्राहकशास्त्रश्रवणसंस्कारविप्रलम्भमहिमा अयं यत् तवास्थाने कुलक्षयादिदोषदर्शनम्। तत्तु तथाशासनबहुमानविगलने विगलिष्यति इति।
2.55 Prajahati etc. [The expression 'a man-of-stabilized-intellect' denotes] a man whose intellect has stabilized, i.e., has grown roots. Growing roots is growing roots permanently on the Self. For, if that is achieved, the agitation in the form of desire born of the distraction by sense-objects comes to an end. Therefore, the nomenclature 'a man-of-stabilized-intellect' applied to a man-of-Yoga, has an etymological sense and it is appropriate in this way. In this manner one estion has been answered.
दुःखेष्वनुद्विग्नमनाः सुखेषु विगतस्पृहः। वीतरागभयक्रोधः स्थितधीर्मुनिरुच्यते ॥
।।2.56।।स्थितप्रज्ञस्येति। यदा स्थास्यति बुद्धिः इत्यनेन वचसा समाधिस्थस्य योगिनो यः स्थितप्रज्ञशब्दः (स्थित and स्थिर are found often interchanged in CA.) ( N omit शब्दः) तत्र वाचक उक्तस्तस्य का भाषा किं प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तम् भाष्यते येन निमित्तेन शब्दैरर्थ इति कृत्वा। योगिनः स्थितप्रज्ञशब्दः ( N omit शब्दः) किं रूढ्या वाचकः अन्वर्थतया वा (S omits वा) इत्येकः प्रश्नः। यद्यपि रूढौ शङ्कैव नास्ति तथापि अन्वर्थतां लब्धामपि स्वरूपलक्षणनिमित्तानिरूपणेन ( N त्तरूपेण) स्फुटीकर्तुमेष (S प्रस्फुटी) प्रश्नः। स्थिरधीरिति शब्दपदार्थकः अर्थपदार्थकश्च। तत्र ( N omit च तत्र) स्थिरधीशब्दः किं प्रयोगलक्षणमेवार्थमाह आहो तपस्विनमपि इति द्वितीयः प्रश्नः। स च स्थिरधीर्योगी किमासीत किमभ्यसेत् क्वास्य स्थैर्यं स्यात् इति तृतीयः। अभ्यस्यंश्च (N अभ्यसंश्च) किमाप्नुयात् इति चतुर्थः। एतदेव प्रश्नचतुष्टयं क्रमेण निर्णीयते भगवता (S इति प्रश्नचतुष्यम् अज्ञा (र्जु) नेन कृतं क्रमेण निर्णीयते श्रीभगवता)।
2.56 Dukkhesu etc. Only that sage whose mental attitude is free from desire and hatred in the midst of pleasure and pain, and not anyone else, is a man-of-stabilized-intellect. This is also proper. For-
यः सर्वत्रानभिस्नेहस्तत्तत्प्राप्य शुभाशुभम्। नाभिनन्दति न द्वेष्टि तस्य प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठिता ॥
।।2.57।।प्रजहातीति। स्थिता रूढा प्रज्ञा यस्य। रूढिश्च नित्यमात्मरूढित्वे सति विषयविक्षेपकृतस्य कामरूपस्य (N omits कामरूपस्य) भ्रमस्य निवृत्तत्वात् योगिनो यः स्थितप्रज्ञशब्दः अन्वर्थः स च इत्थं (N omits इत्थं) युक्तः इत्येकः प्रश्नो निर्णीतः।
2.57 Yah sarvatra etc. There is no joy or sorrow in him while meeting the good or the bad.
यदा संहरते चायं कूर्मोऽङ्गानीव सर्वशः। इन्द्रियाणीन्द्रियार्थेभ्यस्तस्य प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठिता ॥
।।2.58।।दुःखेष्विति। सुखदुःखयोर्यस्य रागद्वेषरहिता (S विरहिता) वृत्तिः स मुनिरेव स्थितप्रज्ञः नान्यः।
2.58 Yada samharate etc. the nomenclature is not an expression having a composite of both the forces of etymological and traditional meanings, like the word pankaja 'a lotus'. But it has only the etymological force like the word pacaka 'a cook'. Whenever he (the sage) withdraws just in his own self-just as a tortoise keeps its limbs in its bossom-from the sense-objects i.e., warding off from the sense-objects, then and then [only] he is man-of-stabilized-intellect. Or [the passage may mean :] Whenever he withdraws, within his own Self, [all], beginning from the sense-objects upto sense-organs i.e., when he approprites in his own Self all in the form of sense-objects and sense-organs. But, how is it that the nomenclature 'a man-of-stabilized-intellect' does not hold good in the case of an ascetic ? It is answered-
विषया विनिवर्तन्ते निराहारस्य देहिनः। रसवर्जं रसोऽप्यस्य परं दृष्ट्वा निवर्तते ॥
।।2.59।।युक्तं चैतत् यतः यः सर्वत्रेति। शुभाशुभप्राप्तौ तस्याह्लादतापौ न भवतः।
2.59 Visayah etc. Of course, in his (ascetic's) case there is no contact with sense-objects, colour and the rest that are enjoyable. Yet, the sense-obects retreat [from him] leaving a taste in the form of longing that exists in his internal organ. Hence he is not a man-of-stabilized-intellect. Some (commentators) say that 'taste' denotes the sweetness etc., of the objects of experience. But, in the case of a man of Yoga there exists no longing as he has seen the Supreme Lord. On the other hand, in the case of the other, i.e. an ascetic, this does not retreat (disappear).
यततो ह्यपि कौन्तेय पुरुषस्य विपश्चितः। इन्द्रियाणि प्रमाथीनि हरन्ति प्रसभं मनः ॥
।।2.60।।यदा संहरते इति। न चास्य पाचकवद्योगरूढत्वम्। यदा यदा किलायमिन्द्रियाणि संहरते आत्मन्येव कूर्म इवाङ्गानि क्रोडीकरोति विषयेभ्यः विषयान्निवार्य (S विषयेभ्यः विषयार्थस्यैव विषयान्निवार्य) तदा तदा स्थिरप्रज्ञः। यद्वा इन्द्रियार्थेभ्यः प्रभृति इन्द्रियाणि आत्मनि संहरते विषयेन्द्रियात्मकं (K न्द्रियादिकम्) सर्वम् ( N आसन्नं instead सर्वम्) आत्मसात्कुरुते।
2.60 Yattasyapi etc. For, the mind of that ascetic too is carried away by the sense-organs. Or, the expression yattasya api denotes 'even of one who exerts'. [So], it is but the mind that is to be subdued by a man of Yoga. Thus the second [estion] is decided.
तानि सर्वाणि संयम्य युक्त आसीत मत्परः। वशे हि यस्येन्द्रियाणि तस्य प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठिता ॥
।।2.61।।ननु तपस्विनोऽपि कथं स्थितप्रज्ञशब्दो न प्रवर्तते उच्यते विषया इति। यद्यपि आह्ार्यैः रूपादिभिर्विषयैः संबन्धोऽस्य नास्ति तथापि तस्य विषया अन्तःकरणगतमुपरागलक्षणं रसं वर्जयित्वा एव निवर्तन्ते। अतो नासौ स्थिरप्रज्ञः। रसं केचिदास्वाद्यं मधुरादिकमाहुः (K omits this entire sentence )। योगिनस्तु परमेश्वरदर्शनात् उपरागो न (N omits न) भवति। अन्यस्य तु तपस्विनो नासौ निवर्तते।
2.61 Tani etc. He, who restrains his sense-organs in this manner by means of his mind, but not by inactivity-he alone is a man-of-stabilized-intellect. He would remain viewing Me alone as his goal i.e., he would concentrate his attention on nothing but Me, the Supreme Lord, the Consciousness-Self.
ध्यायतो विषयान्पुंसः सङ्गस्तेषूपजायते। सङ्गात्सञ्जायते कामः कामात्क्रोधोऽभिजायते ॥
।।2.62।।यत्तस्यापीति। यत् यस्मात् तस्यापि तपस्विनो मन इन्द्रियैः ह्रियते। अथवा यत्तस्य सयत्नस्यापि। योगिना च मन एव जेतव्यमिति द्वितीयो निर्णीतः।
2.62 See Comment under 2.63
क्रोधाद्भवति सम्मोहः सम्मोहात्स्मृतिविभ्रमः। स्मृतिभ्रंशाद् बुद्धिनाशो बुद्धिनाशात्प्रणश्यति ॥
।।2.63।।तानीति। य एवं मनसा इन्द्रियाणि नियमयति न त्वप्रवृत्त्या स एव स्थिरप्रज्ञः। स च मत्पर आसीत मामेव चिदात्मानं परमेश्वरमभ्यस्येत् ( N अभ्यसेत्)।
2.63 Dhyayatah etc. krodhat etc. In the case of an ascetic, the very act of abandoning sense-objects itself resutls in undertaking the sense-objects. For, they abandon indeed by meditating [on them], and at the very time of such a meditation, attachment etc., are born in regular succession. Hence the act of abandoning objects is harmless only in the case of a man-of-stabilized-intellect. (65)
रागद्वेषविमुक्तैस्तु विषयानिन्द्रियैश्चरन् | (or वियुक्तैस्तु) आत्मवश्यैर्विधेयात्मा प्रसादमधिगच्छति ॥
।।2.64 2.65।।ध्यायत इति। क्रोधादिति। तपस्विनो विषयत्याग एव विषयग्रहणे पर्यवस्यति। ध्यात्वा हि ते त्यजन्ते। ध्यानकाले एव च (S omits च) संगादयः उपजायन्ते इति अनपायो (K अनुपायो) विषयत्यागः स्थिरप्रज्ञस्य एव ।
2.64 See Comment under 2.68
प्रसादे सर्वदुःखानां हानिरस्योपजायते। प्रसन्नचेतसो ह्याशु बुद्धिः पर्यवतिष्ठते ॥
।।2.64 2.65।।ध्यायत इति। क्रोधादिति। तपस्विनो विषयत्याग एव विषयग्रहणे पर्यवस्यति। ध्यात्वा हि ते त्यजन्ते। ध्यानकाले एव च (S omits च) संगादयः उपजायन्ते इति अनपायो (K अनुपायो) विषयत्यागः स्थिरप्रज्ञस्य एव ।
2.65 See Comment under 2.68
नास्ति बुद्धिरयुक्तस्य न चायुक्तस्य भावना। न चाभावयतः शान्तिरशान्तस्य कुतः सुखम् ॥
।।2.66 2.70।।रागद्वेषेत्यादि प्रतिष्ठितेत्यन्तम्। यस्तु मनसो नियामकः स विषयान् सेवमानोऽपि न क्रोधादिकल्लोलैरभिभूयते इति स एव स्थितप्रज्ञो योगीति तात्पर्यम्।
2.66 See Comment under 2.68
इन्द्रियाणां हि चरतां यन्मनोऽनुविधीयते। तदस्य हरति प्रज्ञां वायुर्नावमिवाम्भसि ॥
।।2.66 2.70।।रागद्वेषेत्यादि प्रतिष्ठितेत्यन्तम्। यस्तु मनसो नियामकः स विषयान् सेवमानोऽपि न क्रोधादिकल्लोलैरभिभूयते इति स एव स्थितप्रज्ञो योगीति तात्पर्यम्।
2.67 See Comment under 2.68
तस्माद्यस्य महाबाहो निगृहीतानि सर्वशः। इन्द्रियाणीन्द्रियार्थेभ्यस्तस्य प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठिता ॥
।।2.66 2.70।।रागद्वेषेत्यादि प्रतिष्ठितेत्यन्तम्। यस्तु मनसो नियामकः स विषयान् सेवमानोऽपि न क्रोधादिकल्लोलैरभिभूयते इति स एव स्थितप्रज्ञो योगीति तात्पर्यम्।
2.64-68 Raga-dvesa-etc. upto pratisthita. Here the purport is this : He, who controls his mind, is not tossed by the waves of wrath etc., even while he is enjoying the sense-objects; hence he alone is a man of Yoga, a man-of-stabilized-intellect. Extraordinary is the man of Yoga, even while he is attending to the worldly business. While examining this point, the characteristics mark of his (man of Yoga), is briefly related by the Supreme Lord-
या निशा सर्वभूतानां तस्यां जागर्ति संयमी। यस्यां जाग्रति भूतानि सा निशा पश्यतो मुनेः ॥
।।2.66 2.70।।रागद्वेषेत्यादि प्रतिष्ठितेत्यन्तम्। यस्तु मनसो नियामकः स विषयान् सेवमानोऽपि न क्रोधादिकल्लोलैरभिभूयते इति स एव स्थितप्रज्ञो योगीति तात्पर्यम्।
2.69 Ya nisa etc. Infatuating is the Illusion which is night for all beings. In that , the sage is awake (vigilant) with the thought 'How It could be avoided' The stage where the worldly men keep awake i.e., perform multifarious [worldly] activities, that stage is the night for the sage, as he is ignorant regarding the worldly activities. It amounts to this statement : What is well-known as illusion, Its nature is indeed two-ford, viz., to delude and also to wear a deceptive appearance of spinning pleasure. Of them (the two natures), the worldly man, not considering Its former nautre, remains with a memory well teid to the second nature. On the other hand, the man of Yoga, who is contrary to the other, observes Its deluding nature in order to root It out. Thus the man of perfect knowledge, while seeing [properly], pays no attention to Its nature of spinning pleasure. His indifference to Its nature of spinning pleasure is due to the destruction of his false knowledge. That stage is night to him, even while he sees. Hence this is strange. The man of Yoga is awake (or understands) in the field of wisdom, where everyone else is unconscious (or totally perplexed); but in [the field] of ignorance he is not awake (or does not understand), where ordinary man is awake (or understands well). This is also strange. That is why-
आपूर्यमाणमचलप्रतिष्ठं समुद्रमापः प्रविशन्ति यद्वत्। तद्वत्कामा यं प्रविशन्ति सर्वे स शान्तिमाप्नोति न कामकामी ॥
।।2.66 2.70।।रागद्वेषेत्यादि प्रतिष्ठितेत्यन्तम्। यस्तु मनसो नियामकः स विषयान् सेवमानोऽपि न क्रोधादिकल्लोलैरभिभूयते इति स एव स्थितप्रज्ञो योगीति तात्पर्यम्।
2.70 Apuryamanam etc. the man of Yoga does not run out for the sake of pleasure; but, rather just as the floods of the rivers enter into the sea, the objects of pleasure [themselves] continuously enter into him on account of their being peculiar attributes of the sense-organs; and they do not create in him waves [of agitation]. thus the third estion is decided.
विहाय कामान्यः सर्वान्पुमांश्चरति निःस्पृहः। निर्ममो निरहङ्कारः स शान्तिमधिगच्छति ॥
।।2.71।।योगी च सर्वव्यवहारान् कुर्वाणोऽपि (S omits अपि) लोकोत्तर इति निरूपयता परमेश्वरेण संक्षिप्यास्य स्वरूपं कथ्यते या निशेति। या सर्वेषां भूतानां निशा मोहिनी (K मोहनी) माया तस्यां मुनिर्जागर्त्ति कथमियं हेया इति। यस्यां च दशायां लोको जगर्त्ति नानाविधां (S विविधां) चेष्टां कुरुते सा मुनेः रात्रिः यतोऽसौ व्यवहारं प्रत्यबुद्धः।एतदुक्तं भवति येयं माया खलु तस्या द्वे रूपे ( N omit द्वे रूपे) मोहकत्वं ( N मोहकत्वे) नाम रूपं सुखतन्त्र ( N तन्तु for तन्त्र hereinafter ) ताभासनं च। तत्र लोकः प्राच्यं स्वरूपमस्या अपरामृश्यैव द्वितीयस्मिन् रूपे निबद्धस्मृतिरास्ते। योगी तु तद्विपरीतस्तदीयं मोहकत्वं तदुन्मूलनाय पश्यति। सुखतन्त्रतां च नाद्रियते (N नाश्रीयते) पश्यन् सम्यग्ज्ञानी। मिथ्याज्ञानोपघाताच्च सुखतन्त्रतानादरः (S तन्त्रतायां नादरः)। एवं च पश्यत एव सा रात्रिरिति चित्रम्। विद्याया वा बुध्यते (S K यां चावधत्ते) योगी यत्र सर्वोऽपि (S N omit अपि) विमूढः अविद्यायां त्वबुद्धः यत्र जनः प्रबुद्ध इत्यपि चित्रम्।
2.71 Vihaya etc. Because he has renounced all desires, the man of Yoga, attains emancipation in the form of peace.
एषा ब्राह्मी स्थितिः पार्थ नैनां प्राप्य विमुह्यति। स्थित्वास्यामन्तकालेऽपि ब्रह्मनिर्वाणमृच्छति ॥
।।2.72।।अत एव आपूर्यमाणमिति। योगी न कामार्थ बहिर्धावति अपि तु इन्द्रियधर्मतया तं ( N omit तं and read विषयानुप्रविशन्तो नतरां यान्ति ( न तरंगयन्ति) विषया अनुप्रविशन्तो न तरङ्गयन्ति नदीवेगा इवोदधिम्। एवं तृतीयो निर्णीतः।
2.72 Esa etc. This is the Brahman-existance by remaining, i.e., having dwalt in which, even for a moment, one attains the Supreme Brahman [after] one's body breaks. Thus [all the] four estions have been decided.