60 results for “Bhagavad Gita”

That the imperishable is not characterized by particular incidental causes is denied — e.g., by saying ‘not like cutting off’ — therefore particular causal supports are negated. The present (sense) prohibition is against current perception; hence later it says: ‘not to be cut off.’ This indicates fitness to be spoken of from present perception. Why would it be unfit? Because the Lord is of special character as omnipresent etc.; ‘everlasting’ was spoken only of unity of form. The word ‘sthaṇu’ serves to exclude the opposite claim that ‘permanent’ means merely incidental; permanence is a particular qualification of omnipresence, not otherwise. Where unity is asserted, repeated statements and denominators are explained by scriptural reasons. The nature of mirror‑like relations and image–reflected properties are not contrary. Forms arise as forms and counter‑forms; they are mere semblances — established by śruti and smṛti. No contradiction arises from parts because the part follows from the whole. Neither is sameness of form opposed to parthood. The proof in both cases rests on scriptural passages. Nor is the reflection‑status of a part to be invented where the view of parts and bodies in other passages differs. Even for permanence the scripture says ‘so.’ The Lord is declared by both ways to be of both kinds of statements, owing to His inconceivable power. Nor does māyā alone in the Lord contradict Brahman, for the Lord’s sovereignty is different; the relation of cause and effect in Him is manifold. The great purport is that liberation (moksha) is the supreme human goal; that is the one end. ‘At the end they rejoice, not in the middle’ — scriptures testify that final attainment brings bliss and that liberation comes by Vishnu’s grace. Who, without worshiping Vasudeva, can attain liberation? By His grace ultimate perfection is had, no doubt. Those who are established in Him, taking refuge in the all‑pervading Self, surpass others; such are known to cross the worldly ocean. Thus by His grace one attains the supreme state — this is affirmed in many passages. That preeminence arises only by supreme knowledge and is world‑famous.

The fruit of knowledge is declared: “One established in buddhi” (2.50). Even meritorious actions can yield results displeasing to some—human pleasures and the like—and inferior fruits are given by ritual observances; action is not thereby destroyed. Scriptural passages (e.g. Brāhmaṇa statements) show that through ignorance one performs sacrifices and austerities for many thousands of years and obtains results accordingly. Hence the texts about the exhaustion of action apply everywhere to ignorance; even the passages about both exhaustions refer to undesirable objects; the exhaustion of meritorious action has no useful purpose. A knower’s activity is not annihilated. Some objects are indeed desired: if one wishes for the world of the fathers, the fathers arise at his resolve; if one longs for the assembly of Prajāpati, fame among Brahmins, companionship of women, or vehicles, those are produced by one’s wish—scriptural statements testify to this. Desire creates those very things in the soul; desire-wishes move along in the form of desires. Though numerous, because the self’s blissful nature is repeated, the pleasure from action conflicts with the self’s bliss and with power of experience and with God’s grace and with scriptural testimony. The body’s destruction does not precede that [liberation]. He goes there [to the happy realm]; that blissful self enters it—scripture and reply-state this. He is not absorbed completely by Brahman. Criticisms that in supreme knowledge the immersed one would be afflicted are answered: the removal of names and distinctions prevents those objections. The world-penetration and renunciation of worldly affairs, taught for men like Śuka, show that by relying on this knowledge one attains the sameness with me (Vishnu). On the removal of adjuncts, the reflected form is also removed. We do not find the distinct honor of the wholly absorbed in separate knowledge; the objection that the absorbed one would be miserable in supreme knowledge is answered by the absence of distinction. Nor do we see in the world the identity of reflection and reflected: upon removal of the adjunct there is an honor or estimation. The statement “in supreme knowledge what greater misery could there be?” is answered by noting that as long as the sense of self remains, suffering may be spoken of; the texts treat the adjuncts as impermanent. Therefore even a single-statement presentation, though stylistic, is acceptable. Your visions of the Lord and the differences reported by Nārada are described: branches and singlefoldness are asserted in various passages. In disputes force belongs to reasoned argument; the texts such as “the immersed one” are cited. Thus water is said to be one with water; purity remains pure—rivers meet the sea, and mutual selfhood still coexists; distinctions among great ones can arise. The sea has mouths though it is one; greatness causes difference. The poet praised the waters and their giver. The gods like Brahmā and others may not attain what the capable ones obtain; Nārada’s prohibition and the scriptural deliberation establish the decision about liberation. Where one sees nothing else, the statements such as “he is one” are to be understood as referring to the subordinate entity. Otherwise how would sovereignty and so on arise? It is not said that that place is composed of māyā; otherwise why would textually it be called “one” there? Nor is it opposed that the self has a body. The distinction and special nature of bodies are non-physical and produced by Lordly power; in the narrative of Narāyaṇa the body is born by the sixteen impulses called kalā. Scripts treat worldly signs—lack of unusual features, lack of rejoicing, un-rapture, happiness and sorrow—as applying to those bodies; they do not perish in creation nor arise in dissolution, etc. Ordinary practice refers to that. The bodies of Vaikuṇṭha-dwellers lack sense-organs; liberation is not some minor, secondary thing: one does not attain a partial absence of bondage; the scripture’s decision is that the yogi attains full release in due measure. Those who enter the Lord right here, they afterward go there; fitness is here determined. Other criticisms by Yudhiṣṭhira are also answered. Union (sāyujya) is likened to acquiring a deity-spot. Freed ones in the excellent world enjoy external enjoyments; hence separation from the undesirable is appropriate. They are free from sorrow and all sorrow — the great bliss where one does not grieve is specially mentioned. Those whose hunger is acute do not attain sāyujya; they have only proximity, etc. Because remnants of past actions remain, after enjoying those they attain union. All such scriptural statements about contraction follow from the respective authority. Entry into the supreme Lord Viṣṇu is certain. Therefore complete separation from the undesirable is affirmed. One prays even to Brahmā and others asking “I desire supreme-Brahmanhood,” proving that liberation is sought from Them too. Liberation surpasses any other happiness; Vaishṇava bliss is large and perceivable by word and mind. Thus one should strive for yoga and knowledge as means; action is the skill in means. (End of commentary excerpt.)

Hari is the recipient of all sacrificial shares. The offering given in homes is the share of Hari; I am that share in the sacrifices. Hari is my foremost portion; therefore he is called dhari (the holder). This is remembered in the teaching of moksha-dharma.

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this sloka.

Therefore the purpose is declared: ‘He who ...’ — namely one whom these mere sense-contacts do not disturb. The qualifier ‘puruṣa’ indicates one free from attachment to the body; since all distress arises from bodily connection, he alone is the person (puruṣa). How do they not disturb him? Because he is equal-minded toward pain and pleasure — that is how, by steadiness (dhairya).

“He whose knowledge is steady is said to be of steady wisdom.” The commentator (Bhāṣya) indicates the characteristic and then asks further: who is the Brahman, the Lord, Rudra in whom the samādhi one dwells? Keshava answers. Etymologies in the Harivaṃśa name Rudra as Śaṅkara in the journey to Kailāsa; earlier kings and seer-sages knew these features. The Puranic narratives are not secret to the simple-minded; they ask about duties and public matters.

Among the Daitya demons I am the devoted Prahlāda, among subduers I am time, among beasts I am the lion, and among birds I am Garuḍa.

He says: they are indeed attainable by much effort. Therefore one should make effort. ‘Mind engaged in Me’ — the soul devoted to Me; ‘I am supreme above all, he who is my devotee is my foremost’ — the sense is that the fruit is under My control.

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this verse.

By regulated eating, from the exhaustion of prāṇa by prāṇa itself one offers prāṇas into the prāṇas. Or, as heard in scriptural statements: ‘‘What the wise person cuts off by speech and mind’’ (Kaṭha 3.13). This is also established in other texts: by small eating the prāṇas are indeed offered into the prāṇas.

This explains the previous verse: 'yogastha' means established in means. 'Yogastha' is one who, renouncing attachment (saṅga) and love of fruit, is equal in pleasure and pain, success and failure. That state is the yoga spoken of by Me.

(Same as 3.31) He says the fruit is Mine. Even renouncers do not become free by mere knowledge; direct realization, not cessation of means, effects liberation. Deeds of renunciation serve to prepare for aparokṣa vision; but the aparokṣa vision itself does not proceed along any path toward moksha. Everything must be inwardly applied so that it serves as means for liberation. The Narayana-Ashtakshara-Kalpa states that the aparokṣa seer has nothing else to undertake for nirvāṇa. Therefore the rule of collecting (of teachings) is rejected.

He says even conduct is action—meaning: one should perform actions along with actions. By action one may attain knowledge, or not; the knowledges of those celebrated (like Bharata) are well known. Here also the capacity of action to lead to knowledge is affirmed—those with discrimination hold this. There is no other path. Other means do not contradict the doorway of knowledge. Where pilgrimage etc. are declared means to liberation, liberation is by Brahma‑knowledge; the pardon associated with bathing at the pilgrimage is praised. Yet sometimes liberation is declared as attainable by mere bathing (Prayāga, Gomati, proximity to Kṛṣṇa, etc.)—there the removal of sins is praised. Even there, however, only Brahma‑knowledge is truly called the means to liberation; otherwise liberation without knowledge is utterly impossible. From places like Prayāga the liberation is indeed said to be via knowledge. Pilgrimage‑praising statements do not overthrow the rule of knowledge; similar to how a king’s servant is praised, yet the king remains supreme. The Lord’s words about pilgrimages and actions may be by way of praise to attract devotees, or to remove ignorance. Liberation is by direct knowledge; action is its instrument.

Therefore, without being attached to the fruits of activities, one should act as a matter of duty, for by working without attachment one attains the Supreme.

He says the fruit is Mine. Even those who have renounced actions are not freed merely by jñāna; direct realization (aparokṣa) — not separation of means — liberates. Deeds of renunciation are meant for the vision of the aparokṣa; but the vision of the aparokṣa itself does not travel any path to liberation. All must be directed inwardly so that means become for liberation. The Narayana-Ashtakshara-Kalpa states that the aparokṣa seer does not undertake anything otherwise for nirvāṇa. Hence the rule of aggregation is rejected.

(Same as 7-8) This is knowledge: the realization ‘I am the taste’ and similar knowings. Even the non‑denying (abādya) are the same. Yet the words like rasa indicate, regarding the nature and essence of those possessing rasa, both their nature and essence; they show the rule (niyamaka) as that same entity, not something bound by non‑denial. Thus special terms like ‘rasa’ point to essentiality. ‘Bhoga’ is also particularly from rasa, stated for worship. The Gīta‑commentary declares rasas to be rasa‑natured and likewise their essence. Essence is the cause especially in all duties. The enjoyer of essence is everywhere, for he is the Lord. He is established in the bodies of those endowed with rasa. The non‑deniable and the attendants are the meditatable; he is Hari to the knowers. By possession of rasa etc., Vasudeva is lord of the world for others. The nature is the jīva. Every nature is ordained by Him — what else remains? There is nothing without that whereby moving and non‑moving are mine. This is for worship: free from dharma‑contrary desires and attachments. The commentary says one who has desire circumscribed by dharma is to be worshipped; having desire abolished, those without desire by meditation give only knowledge. ‘Puṇya’ and ‘gandha’ are mentioned with regard to expected enjoyment. Scripture confirms going to merit (puṇya), not to sin. ‘Rita’ is puṇya; rita, truth, dharma and su‑kṛta are denotations. Rita is mental dharma; truth follows conjunction. The objection about non‑eating is met by distinguishing gross and subtle eating. In the life of secluded diet, the body becomes so for the self. The jīva is not the body; from dream passages the body is threefold in relation to states. ‘From this’ denotes divine activity. The two bodies are to be known; the jīva is called īśvara. Nārada and other texts support a distinction of persons across states, not a difference of substance. Hence the supreme person is beyond the body, and enjoyer and enjoyed are the same in gross enjoyment. ‘Not “I” in them’ is untenable. The world is entirely dependent on that support.

Bhutani sashariran — that which is adhibhuta is the corporeal world, consisting of embodied beings and the claim of jivas over bodies. Kshara bhava is the destructible principle, the entity liable to dissolution. Even in the unmanifest (avyakta) there is a notion of destruction as change; thus it is said "avyaktam parame vyomni niskriye sampraliyate". Hence "avyaktam utpannam triguNam dvijasattama". "Vikara is avyakta-jana" (i.e., change arises from the unmanifest). Skanda commentary: the purusha who sleeps in the city — that is the jiva; sankarshana or Brahma may be named. He, being presiding over all gods, is called adhidaivatam (the presiding deity) or devadhikarastha. Because he enjoys all sacrifices he is adhiyajnah. "Deha" is here a specification (e.g., the recognized body). He is the enjoyer of sacrifices and austerities; "trividya mam" and related passages indicate this. The verses about Gargi praising the sacrificer (Brihadaranyaka) and other texts are cited regarding whether his sphere is certain heaven or the highest welfare — these are addressed in the doctrine of moksha. If Bhagavan's enjoyment establishes adhiyajnatva, how can that contradict moksha? The answer is given separately. The adhiyajna is to be attained in the form of the body of all living beings. Here the phrase indicates renunciation of one’s own body; there is not a separate control of Ishvara there. Brahman is not other than Bhagavan. The guidance in chapter 7 ("te brahma..." and "ye viduh...") shows the distinction of adhidharmas: adhiyajna was mentioned to indicate renunciation. Because of the established distinction of "mama" and the imperishable (akshara), the text speaks accordingly. In the Gitakalpa it is stated that Vishnu in the body is adhiyajna. The role of the lord of works (karmeshvara) in creation is also called. Adhibhuta denotes the insentient; adhyatma denotes the jiva. Hiranyagarbha is adhidaivam — a devata; sankarshana may be likewise. Brahma, Narayana, and other devatas are referred to as supreme among gods. As thus understood, there is no contradiction. In Skanda: adhyatma is that which rests in self-regard and authority. Deha (external to the self) by being very external is adhibhauta; adhidaivam is that which is governed by the authority of the devas; all of that belongs to the authority of the great elements. Thus adhibhuta is nearest to what is to be acted upon; adhidaivam is consequent upon that. In Mahakarma commentary: adhyatma pertains to the body up to its limits and is only for the benefit of the true self. The sentient beings that are of the body assist that self; adhibhuta is maya-subtle and adhidaivam pertains to the gods.

Is it indifference? No; it means ‘unattached.’ Shruti speaks of disrespect through speechlessness. Substance, action, time, nature and the jiva exist. The Bhagavata says: some things exist by grace and some by neglect. If one is attached, all potency for action resides in that attachment; whence then would binding by actions arise? Shruti says action does not increase or diminish. He who regulates actions — how can action bind him?

“Ajnānaṁ ca mad-icchayet” — ignorance and desire for Me: by yoga, by appropriate means, and by māyā. One may be deluded about Me through My own māyā. The stanza also explains the soul’s immersion and the worldly mind’s bondage: by its own power and by the goddess, the great Lord effects that condition.

‘Everywhere one Narayana stands’—by unity: though one, he is distinct everywhere, by his manifold differentiations. His forms appear in many ways, like white, red, blue or other hues—this is the view cited in the ancient teachers. Likewise some say he appears in various other ways.

(Same as 8.20) From the consideration of 'Having attained the unmanifest Lord there is no return' (verse 8.15), it follows: 'the unmanifest is the supreme Viṣṇu.' Garuḍa uses this expression. 'Dhāma' denotes the nature of the abode; it is of the form of light; it is described by the wise as abode, for it is of the nature of jñāna and of effulgence.

Mad bhavam mayi sattam nirduhkha niratishayanandatmikam — the state of being established in Me, the supreme, imperishable, whose being in Me is free from sorrow and characterized by supreme bliss. Thus it is stated in the doctrine of moksha: 'and the attainment of Brahma-kshetra is the destination of the liberated' (Madhva Bhaskara citation).

(Same as 7-8) This is knowledge: the realization ‘I am the taste’ etc. Even the abādya are the same. ‘Rasa’ and like words indicate the nature and essence of those possessing rasa and signify that the regulating entity is that same being, not something subject to negation; thus these special words disclose essentiality. ‘Bhoga’ is specifically from rasa for worship. The Gīta‑commentary declares the rasas to be of rasa‑nature and likewise in essence. Essence is the principal cause in all duties. The essence‑enjoyer pervades everything, for he is the Lord. He is present in the bodies of those endowed with rasa. The non‑deniable and the attendants are objects of meditation; to the knowers he is Hari. By possession of rasa etc., Vasudeva is lord of the world for others. The svabhāva is the jīva; every nature is ordained by Him. Nothing exists without that by which animate and inanimate are mine. This teaching aims at worship: devoid of desires contrary to dharma. The commentary says one whose desire is regulated by dharma is to be worshipped; where desire is absent, the desireless by meditation impart only knowledge. ‘Puṇya’ and ‘gandha’ are mentioned with reference to expected enjoyment. Scripture attests going to puṇya, not to sin. ‘Rita’ is puṇya; rita, satya, dharma and su‑kṛta are terms. Rita is the mental dharma; truth is by conjunction. The objection about non‑eating is met by distinguishing gross and subtle eating. In secluded diet the body becomes thus for the self. The jīva is not the body; dream passages indicate the body is threefold across states. ‘From this’ signifies the Lord’s activity. The two bodies are to be known; the jīva is termed īśvara. Nārada and others teach person‑difference across states, not substantive difference. Therefore the supreme person transcends the body; the enjoyer and enjoyed are the same in gross enjoyment. The claim ‘I am not in them’ lacks basis. The world is entirely dependent on that support.

Then how is it not known? Hence ‘tribhi’ (by threefold means). For the purpose of self‑identity it is ‘mayat’; that said, for three purposes — self‑identity, manifestation of modification, and abundant purpose — it is ‘mayat’ threefold. For surely māyā is not composed of the guṇas. ‘He will speak: the body is made of guṇas’ (7.14) — this will be explained. It is established that the sameness of the effect with the cause: the sameness is the conjunction of effect and effect‑property of a distinct thing, as Vyāsa explains. By states and entities: all states are perceivable, guṇa‑made; thus these alone are indicated by ‘ebhi’. ‘Idam’ (this) is stated to indicate the knowledge‑context. Seeing the guṇa‑made body etc., one says that even the Lord appears so — ‘māyā‑mohita’ (deluded by māyā). From the statement in Vyāsa‑yoga that the subordinate, non‑Brahman bodies etc. arose from the mundane, one sees even Viṣṇu likewise by such vision: ‘He is deluded, ignorant,’ etc. From guṇa‑made things to guṇas and beyond, it is said ‘para’ (14.19). And the scriptures declare the sole transcendental (nirguṇa) being; hence He is free from the three guṇas.

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this verse.

Only the ignorant speak of devotional service [karma-yoga] as being different from the analytical study of the material world [Sāṅkhya]. Those who are actually learned say that he who applies himself well to one of these paths achieves the results of both.

Verse 15.10 — Then what is not seen? Hence the text says 'he departs' and so on.

Salutation to the remover of obstacles to the means (sādhanavighnahartre). This chapter shows what opposes the attainment of human goals — such as tapas and brahmacharya. 'Brahmacharya-ādiṃ tapaḥ' is a designation (abhidhāna).

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this śloka.

‘The pulling of the Lord’s grace’—this is rare vision; he who truly does not see the great supreme Person even once who is the fruit of divine attraction is an exceedingly sinful man, so says the tradition. ‘Those whose resolve is demonic’—these are the determinations of the demon. ‘The gods (devas) are declared sattvic; the demons (daityas) are declared rajas, tamas’—this is the injunctional tradition.

10.26 - 10.29 Of trees I am Asvattha which is worthy of worship. Of celestial seers I am Narada. Kamadhuk is the divine cow. I am Kandarpa, the cause of progeny. Sarpas are single-headed snakes while Nagas are many-headed snakes. Aatic creatures are known as Yadamsi. Of them I am Varuna. Of subdures, I am Yama, the son of the sun-god.

10.4 - 10.5 'Intelligence' is the power of the mind to determine. 'Knowledge' is the power of determining the difference between the two entities - non-sentient matter and the individual self. 'Non-delusion' is freedom from the delusion of perceiving as silver the mother-of-pearl etc., which are different from silver etc., previously observed. 'Forbearance', is a non-disturbed state of mind, even when there is a cause for getting disturbed. 'Truth' is speech about things as they are actually seen, and meant for the good of all beings. Here, the working of the mind in conformity with the ideal is intended, because the context is with reference to the working of the mind. 'Restraint' is the checking of the outgoing organs from their tendency to move towards their objects and generate evil. 'Self-control' is the restraint of the mind in the same manner. 'Pleasure' is the experience of what is agreeable to oneself. 'Pain' is th experience of what is adverse. 'Exaltation' is that state of elation of the mind caused by experiences which are agreeable to oneself. 'Depression' is the state of mind caused by disagreeable experiences. 'Fear' is the misery which springs from the perception of the cause of future sufferings. 'Fearlessness' is the absence of such feelings. 'Non-violence' is avoidance of being the cause of sorrow to others. 'Eability' is to become eable in mind whether good or bad befalls and to look upon with the same eanimity on what happens to oneself, friends and enemies. 'Cheerfulness' is the natural disposition to feel pleased with everything seen. 'Austerity' is the chastising of the body by denying to oneself pleasures, as enjoined by the scriptures. 'Beneficence' is giving to another what contributes to one's own enjoyment. 'Fame' is the renown of possessing good alities. 'Infamy' is notoriety of possessing bad alities. The workings of the mind which are in accordance with fame and infamy must be understood here, because it is the subject-matter of the context. Austerity and beneficence are to be understood in the same way. All these mental faculties - these functioning of the mind - resulting either in activity or inactivity, are from Me alone, i.e., are dependent on My volition. Sri Krsna declares: 'Thos agents who direct the creation, sustentation etc., of all beings, have their activity dependent on My Will.'

Verse 15.8 — With 'he draws' the soul's freedom is indicated. The text prevents that: 'the body' and so on — when the soul leaves the body it departs; the Lord, however, taking those [entities], proceeds. Wherever it is joined, the substratum supports the womb repeatedly; there it abides, not where it wills itself — thus the teaching on liberation. 'Knowing both existence and non‑existence: I know the city and I know what is better, yet I do not do that' — such verses indicate constraint: one carries out duties as fixed in desires and hearts. Even after slaying and conquering, some person acts out of apparent non‑agency. From non‑doership arises the doer who acts — as said in the Brāhmaṇa: a unified self, well concentrated, if he gives up (the body) by the Self, then thus the embodied Self, having found the wise Self, departs. The subtle elements are like scents; enjoyment is prepared beforehand for them.

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this śloka.

'Kṣamā' here means absence of anger together with non-harming; one who is free of anger and of harmful faults is described as possessing forbearance (kṣamāvān), by designation.

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this verse.

Verse 15.6 — On the nature (of the Self): 'Not that' and so on (shows negation of false identifications).

Verse 15.7 — Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this sloka.

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this verse.

He is the source of light in all luminous objects. He is beyond the darkness of matter and is unmanifested. He is knowledge, He is the object of knowledge, and He is the goal of knowledge. He is situated in everyone’s heart.