- Being endowed with a pure intellect, and controlling oneself with fortitude, rejecting the objects-beginning from sound [Sound, touch, form and color, taste and smell.-Tr.], and eliminating attachment and hatred; (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Yuktah, being endowed; buddhya, with an intellect-which is identical with the faculty of determination; visuddhaya, pure, free from maya (delusion); and niyamya, controlling, subduing; atmanam, oneself, the aggregate of body and organs; dhrtya, with fortitude, with steadiness; tyaktva, rejecting; visayan, the objects; sabdadin, beginning from sound -from the context it follows that 'rejecting the objects' means rejecting all things which are meant for pleasure and are in excess of those meant only for the mere maintenance of the body; and vyudasya, eliminating; raga-dvesau, attachment and hatred with regard to things which come to hand for the maintenance of the body-.

Therefore, 18.52 One who resorts to solitude, eats sparingly, has speech, body and mind under control, to whom meditation and concentration are ever the highest (duty), and who is possessed of dispassion; (Ⅳ)

- One who resorts to solitude, eats sparingly, has speech, body and mind under control, to whom meditation and concentration are ever the highest (duty), and who is possessed of dispassion; (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Vivikta-sevi, one who resorts to solitude, is habituated to repairing into such solitary places as a forest, bank of a river, mountain caves, etc.; laghuasi, eats sparingly, is habituated to eating a little-repairing to solitary places and eating sparingly are mentioned here since they are the causes of tranquility of mind through the elimination of defects like sleep etc.-; the person steadfast in Knowledge, yata-vak-kaya-manasah, who has speech, body and mind under control. Having all his organs withdrawn thus, dhyana- yoga-parah nityam, one to whom meditation and concentration are ever the highest (duty)- meditation is thinking of the real nature of the Self, and concentration is making the mind one-pointed with regard to the Self itself; one to whom these meditation and concentration are the highest (duty) is dhyana-yoga-parah-. Nityam, (ever) is used to indicate the absence of other duties like repetition of mantra [A formula of prayer sacred to any deity.-V.S.A.] etc. Samupasritah, one who is fully possessed, i.e. ever possessed; of vairagyam, dispassion, absence of longing for objects seen or unseen-. Further, (Ⅳ)

- (That person,) having discarded egotism, force, pride, desire, anger and superfluous possessions, free from the idea of possession, and serene, is fit for becoming Brahman. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

(That person) vimucya, having discarded; ahan-karam, egotism, thinking of the body, organs, etc. as the ego; balam, force-which is associated with desire and attachment; not the other kind of strength consisting in the fitness of the body etc., because being natural it cannot be descarded-; darpam, pride, which follows elation and leads to transgression of righteousness-for the Smrti says, 'An elated person becomes proud; a proud man transgresses righteousness' (Ap. Dh. Su. 1.13.4); kamam, desire; krodham, anger, aversion; parigraham, superfluous possessions-even after removing the defects in the organs and the mind, there arises the possibility of acceptance of gifts either for the maintenance of the body or for righteous duties; discarding them as well, i.e. becoming a mendicant of the param-hamsa class; nirmamah, free from the idea of possession, becoming devoid of the idea of 'me' and 'mine' even with regard to so much as one's body and life; and for the very same reason, santah, serene, withdrawn; the monk who is effortless and steadfast in Knowledge, kalpate, becomes fit; brahma-bhuyaya, for becoming Brahman. (Ⅳ)

- One who has become Brahman and has attained the blissful Self does not grieve or desire. Becoming the same towards all beings, he attains supreme devotion to Me. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Brahma-bhutah, one who has become Brahman, attained Brahman through the above process; and prasanna-atma, [Prasada means the manifestation of the supreme Bliss of the Self as a result of the total cessation of all evils. Prasanna- atma is one who has attained this in the present life itself.] has attained the blissful Self, the indwelling Self; na, does not; socati, grieve-does not lament for the loss of something or the lack of some quality in oneself; nor kanksati, desire. By saying 'he does not grieve nor desire', this nature of one who has attained Brahman is being restated. For it does not stand to reason that in the case of a knower of Brahman there can be any hankering for something unattained. Or, (in place of kanksati) teh reading may be na hrsyati, does not become related. Becoming samah, the same; sarvesu bhutesu, towards all being-i.e., he verily judges what is happiness and sorrow in all beings by the same standard as he would apply to himself (cf. 6.32); but the meaning is not 'seeing the Self alike in all beings', for this will be spoken of in (the next verse), 'Through devotion he knows Me'-; he, the one who is of this kind and steadfast in Knowledge, labhate, attains; param, supreme; madbhaktim, devotion to Me, to the supreme Lord; (he attains) devotion which is described as Knowledge, as the 'fourth' in, '...four classes of people...adore Me' (7.16). Then, (Ⅳ)

- Through devotion he knows Me in reality, as to what and who I am. Then, having known Me in truth, he enters (into Me) immediately after that (Knowledge). (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Bhaktya, through devotion, through that devotion described as Knowledge; abhijanati, he knows; mam, Me; tattvatah, in reality; as to yavan, what I am, with the extensive differences created by limiting adjuncts; and yah asmi, who I am when all distinctions create by the limiting adjuncts are destroyed-Me who am the supreme Person comparable to space [In points of all-pervasiveness and non-attachment.] and one-without-a-second, absolute, homogeneous Consciousness, birthless, ageless, immortal, fearless and deathless. Tatah, then; jnatva, having known; mam, Me, thus; tattvatah, in truth; visate, he enters into Me, Myself; tadanantaram, immediately after that (Knowledge). Here, by saing, 'having known, he enters without delay', it is not meant that the acts of 'knowing' and 'entering immediately after' are different. What then? What is meant is the absolute Knowledge itself that has to no other result, [In place of phalantarabhava-jnana-matram eva, Ast. reads 'phalantarbhavat jnanamatram eva, absolute Knowledge itself, since there is no other result'.- Tr.] for it has been said, 'And...understand Me to be the "Knower of the field", (13.2). Opponent: Has it not been contradictory to say, he knows Me through that which is the supreme steadiness (nistha) in Knowledge?

Vedantin: If it be asked, How it is contradictory? Opponent: The answer is: Whenever any Knowledge of something arises in a knower, at that very moment the knower knows that object.

Hence, he does not depend on steadfastness in Knowledge which consists in the repetition of the act of knowing. and therefore, it is contradictory to say one knows not through knowledge, but through steadfastness in knowledge which is a repetition of the act of knowing.

Vedantin: There is no such fault, since the culmination of Knowledge-which (Knowledge) is associated with the causes of its unfoldment and maturity, and which has nothing to contradict it- in the conviction that one's own Self has been realized is what is referred to by the word nistha (consummation): When knowledge-which concerns the identity of the 'Knower of the field' and the supreme Self, and which remains associated with the renunciation of all actions that arise from the perception of the distinction among their accessories such as agent etc., and which unfolds from the instruction of the scriptures and teachers, depending on purity of the intellect etc. and humility etc. which are the auxiliary causes of the origin and maturity of Knowledge-continues in the form of the conviction that one's own Self has been realized, then that continuance is called the supreme steadfastness (nistha) in Knowledge.

This steadfastness in Knowledge that is such has been spoken of as the highest, the fourth kind of devotion in relation to the three other devotions viz of the afflicted, etc. (cf. 7.16). Through that highest devotion one realizes the Lord in truth. Immediately after that the idea of difference between the Lord and the Knower of the field vanishes totally. There-fore the statement, 'one knows Me through devotion in the form of steadfastness in Knowledge', is not contradictory. And, in this sense, all the scriptures-consisting of Vedanta (Upanishads etc.), History, Mythology and Smrtis-, as for instance, 'Knowing (this very Self the Brahmanas) renounce...and lead a mendicant's life' (Br. 3.5.1), 'therefore they speak of monasticism as excellent among these austerities' (Ma. Na. 24.1), 'Monasticism verily became supreme' (ibid. 21.2), which enjoin renunciation become meaningful.

Thus, monasticism means renunciation of rites and duties. There are also the texts, 'Having renounced the Vedas as well as this world and the next' (Ap. Dh. Su. 2.9.13), and 'Give up religion and irreligion' (Mbh. Sa. 329.40; 331.44), etc. And here (in the Gita) also various relevant) passages have been pointed out. In is not proper that those texts should be meaningless. Nor are they merely eulogistic, since they occur in their own contexts. Besides, Liberation consists in being established in the changeless real nature of the indwelling Self.

Indeed, it is not possible that one who wants to go to the eastern sea and the other who wants to go in the opposite direction to the western sea can have the same course! And steadfastness in Knowledge consists in being totally absorbed in maintaining a current of thought with regard to the indwelling Self. And that is opposed to coexistence with duties, like going to the western sea. It has been the conclusion of those versed in the valid means of knowledge that the difference between them is as wide as that between a mountain and a mustard seed!

Therefore it is established that one should have recourse to steadfastness in Knowledge only, by relinquishing all rites and duties. The fruit of the attainment of success from the Yoga of Devotion consisting in worshiping the Lord with one's own actions is the ability to remain steadfast in Knowledge, from which, follows stead-fastness in Knowledge, culminating in the result, Liberation. That Yoga of Devotion to the Lord is now being praised in this concluding section dealing with the purport of the Scripture, with a view to generating a firm conviction with regard to it (the purport of the Scripture): (Ⅳ)

- Ever engaging even in all actions, one to whom I am the refuge, attains the eternal, immutable State through My grace. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Sada, ever; kurvanah api, engaging even in; sarva-karmani, all actions, even the prohibited ones; madvyapasrayah, one to whom I am the refuge, to whom I, Vasudeva the Lord, am the refuge, i.e. one who has totally surrendered himself to Me; even he, apnoti, attains; the sasvatam, eternal; avyayam, immutable; padam, State of Visnu; mat-prasadat, through My, i.e. God's, grace. Since this is so, therefore, (Ⅳ)

- Mentally surrendering all actions to Me and accepting Me as the supreme, have your mind ever fixed on Me by resorting to the concentration of your intellect. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Cetasa, mentally, with a discriminating intellect; sannyasya, surrendering; sarva-karmani, all actions meant for seen or unseen results; mayi, to Me, to God, in the manner described in, 'Whatever you do, whatever you eat' (9.27); and matparah, accepting Me as the supreme-you to whom I, Vasudeva, am the supreme, are matparah; becoming so; satatam, ever; maccittah bhava, have your kind fixed only on Me; upasritya, by resorting-resorting implies not taking recourse to anything else-; buddhi-yogam, to the concentration of your intellect. Having the intellect (buddhi) concentrated on Me is buddhi-yoga. (Ⅳ)

- Having your mind fixed on Me, you will cross over all difficulties through My grace. If, on the other hand, you do not listen out of egotism, you will get destroyed. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Maccittah, having your mind fixed on Me; tarisyasi, you will cross over; sarva-durgani, alldifficulties, all causes of transmigration which are difficult to overcome; mat-prasadat, through My grace. Atha cet, if, on the other hand; tvam, you; na srosyasi, will not listen to, will not accept, My words; ahankarat, out of egotism, thinking 'I am learned'; then vinanksyasi, you will get destroyed, will court ruin. And this should not be thought of by you-'I am independent. Why should I follow another's bidding?' (Ⅳ)

- That you think 'I shall not fight', by relying on egotism,-vain is this determination of yours. (Your) nature impel you! (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Yat, that; manyase, you think, resolve; this- 'na yotsye, I shall not fight'; asritya, by relying; on ahankaram, egotism, mithya, vain; is esah, this; vyava-sayah, determination; te, of yours; because prakrtih, nature, your own nature of a Ksatriya; niyoksyati, will impell; ;tvam, you! (Ⅳ)

- Being bound by your own duty born of nature, O son of Kunti, you, being helpless, will verily do that which you do not wish to do owing to indiscrimination. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

And because of nibaddhah, being securely bound; svena, by your own; karmana, duty; svabhavajena, born of nature [Svabhava means those tendencies which are created by good bad actions performed in previous births, and which become the cause of performance of duties, renunciation, experience of happiness, sorrow, etc. in the present birth.-S.]-herosim etc. as stated (in 43); O son of Kunti, you avasah, being helpless, under another's control; karisyasi api, will verily do; tat, that duty; yat, which duty; you na, do not; icchasi, wish; kartum, to do; mohat, owing to indiscrimination. For, (Ⅳ)

- O Arjuna, the Lord resides in the region of the heart of all creatures, revolving through Maya all the creatures (as though) mounted on a machine! (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Arjuna, O Arjuna-one whose self is naturally white (pure), i.e. one possessing a pure internal organ. This follows from the Vedic text, 'The day is dark and the day is arjuna (white) (Rg. 6.9.1). Isvarah, the Lord , Narayana the Ruler; tisthati, resides, remains seated; hrd-dese, in the region of the heart; sarva-bhutanam, of all creatures, of all living beings. How does He reside? In answer the Lord says: bhramayan, revolving; mayaya, through Maya, through delusion; sarva-bhutani, all the creatures; as though yantra-arudhani, mounted on a machine-like man' etc., made of wood, mounted on a machine. The word iva (as though) has to be thus understood here. Bhramayan, revolving, is to be connected with tisthati, resides (conveying the idea, 'resides...while revolving'). (Ⅳ)

- Take refuge in Him alone with your whole being, O scion of the Bharata dynasty. Through His grace you will attain the supreme Peace and the eternal Abode. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Gaccha saranam, take refuge; tam eva, in Him, the Lord alone; sarva-bhavena, with your whole being, for getting rid of your mundane sufferings, O scion of the Bharata dynasty. Tat- prasadat, through His grace, through God's grace; prapsyasi, you will attain; param, the supreme; santim, Peace, the highest Tranquility; and the sasvatam, eternal; sthanam, Abode, the supreme State of Mine who am Visnu. (Ⅳ)

- To you has been imparted by Me this knowledge [Derived in the instrumental sense of 'means of knowledge'; i.e. the scripture Gita.] which is moe secret than any secret. Pondering over this as a whole, do as you like. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Te, to you; akhyatam, has been imparted, spoken of; maya, by Me who am the omniscient God; iti, this; jnanam, knowledge; which is guhyataram, more secret; guhyat, than any secret- i.e. it is extremely profound, mystical. Vimrsya, pondering over, contemplating on; etat, this, the Scripture as imparted; asesena, as a whole, and also on all the subjects dealt with; kuru, do; yatha icchasi tatha, as you like. 'Once again, hear what is beng said by Me:' (Ⅳ)

- Listen again to My highest utterance which is the profoundest of all. Since you are ever dear to Me, therefore I shall speak what is beneficial to you. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Srnu, listen; bhuyah, again; to me, My; paramam, highest; vacah, utternace; which is sarva-guhyatamam, profundest of all, most secret of all secrets, though it has been repeatedly stated. Neither from fear nor even for the sake of money am I speaking! What then? Iti, since, considering that; asi, you are; drdham, ever, unwaveringly; istah, dear; me, to Me; tatah, therefore, for that reason; vaksyami, I shall speak; what is hitam, beneficial; te, to you, what is the highest means of attaining Knowledge. That is indeed the most beneficial of all beneficial things. 'What is that (You are going to tell me)?' In answer the Lord says: (Ⅳ)

- Have your mind fixed on Me, be My devotee, be a sacrificer to Me and bow down to Me. (Thus) you will come to Me alone. (This) truth do I promise to you. (For) you are dear to Me. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Bhava manmana, have your mind fixed on Me; be mad-bhaktah, My devotee; be a madyaji, sacrificer to Me, be engaged in sacrifices to Me; namaskuru, bow down; mam, to Me. Offer ever your salutations to Me alone. Continuing thus in them, by surrendering all ends, means and needs to Vasudeva only, esyasi, you will come; mam, to Me; eva, alone. (This) satyam, truth: do I pratijane, promise; te, to you, i.e. in this matter I make this true promise. For, asi, you are; priyah, dear; me, to Me. The idea conveyed by the passage is: Having thus understood that the Lord is true in His promise, and knowing for certain that liberation is the unfailing result of devotion to the Lord, one should have dedication to God as his only supreme goal. Having summed up surrender to God as the highest secret of steadiness in Karma- yoga, there-after, with the idea that complete realization, which is the fruit of adherence to Karma-yoga and which has been enjoined in all the Upanishads, has to be spoken about, the Lord says: (Ⅳ)

- Abandoning all forms of rites and duties, take refuge in Me alone. I shall free you from all sins. (therefore) do not grieve. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Sarva-dharman, all forms of rites and duties: Here the word dharma (righteousness) includes adharma (unrighteousness) as well; for, what is intended is total renunciation of all actions, as is enjoined in Vedic and Smrti texts like, 'One who has not desisted from bad actions' (Ka. 1.2.24), 'Give up religions and irreligion' (Mbh. Sa. 329.40), etc. Parityajya, abandoning all rites and duties; [Being a Ksatriya, Arjuna is not qualified for steadfastness in Knowledge through monasticism in the primary sense. Still, the Gita being meant for mankind as a whole, monasticism is spoken of here by accepting Arjuna as a representative man.] saranam vraja, take refuge; mam ekam, in Me alone, the Self of all, the same in all, existing in all beings, the Lord, the Imperishable, free from being in the womb, birth, old age and death-by knowing that I am verily so. That is, know it for certain that there is nothing besides Me. By revealing My real nature, aham, I; moksayisyami, shall free; tva, you, who have this certitude of understanding; sarva- papebhyah, from all sins, from all bondages in the form of righteousness and unrighteousness. It has also been stated, 'I, residing in their hearts, destroy the dark-ness born of ignorance with the luminous lamp of Knowledge' (10.11).

Therefore, ma, do not; such, grieve, i.e. do not sorrow. In this scripture, the Gita, has knowledge been established as the supreme means to Liberation, or is it action, or both? Why does the doubt arise? (Because) the passages like, '...by realizing which one attains Immortality' (13.12), 'Then, having known Me in truth, he enters (into Me) immediately after that (Knowledge)' (55), etc. point to the attainment of Liberation through Knowledge alone. Texts like, 'Your right is for action alone' (2.47), '(you undertake) action itself (4.15), etc. show that actions have to be under-taken as a matter of compulsory duty. Since both Knowledge and action are thus enjoined as duties, therefore the doubt may arise that they, in combination as well, may become the cause of Liberation.

Objection: What, again, would be the result of this inquiry?

Vedantin: Well, the resut will verily be this: The ascertainment of one of these as the cause of the highest good. Hence this has to be investigated more extensively. Knowledge of the Self, however, is exclusively the cause of the highest good; for, through the removal of the idea of differences, it culminates in the result that is Liberation. The idea of distinction among action, agent and result is ever active with regard to the Self because of ignorance. This ignorance in the form, 'My work; I am the agent; I shall do this work for that result', has been at work from time without beginning. The dispeller of this ignorance is this Knowledge regarding the Self-in the form, 'I am the absolute, non agent, free from action and result; there is none else other than myself because, when it (Knowledge) arises it dispels the idea of differences which is the cause of engagement in action. The word 'however' above is used for ruling out the other two alternatives. This refutes the two other alternative views by showing that the highest good cannot be attained through mere actions, nor by a combination of Knowledge and action. Besides, since Liberation is not a product, therefore it is illogical that it should have action as its means.

Indeed, an eternal entity cannot be produced by either action of Knowledge.

Objection: In that case, ever exclusive Knowledge is purposeless.

Vedantin: No, since Knowledge, being the destroyer of ignorance, culminates in Liberation which is directly experienced result. The fact that Knowledge, which removes the darkness of ignorance, culminates in Liberation as its result is directly perceived in the same way as is the result of the light of a lamp which removes ignorance the form of sanke etc. and darkness from objects such as rope etc.

Indeed, the result of light amounts to the mere (awareness of the) rope, free from the wrong notions of snake etc. So is the case with Knowledge. As in the case of the acts like 'cutting down', 'producing fire by friction' etc., in which accessories such as the agent and others operate, and which have perceivable results, there is no possibility of (the agent etc.) engaging in any other activity giving some other result apart from 'splitting into two', 'seeing (or lighting of) fire' etc, similarly, in the case of the agent and the other factors engaged in the 'act' of steadfastness in Knowledge which has a tangible result, there is no possibility of (their) engagement in any other action which has a result different from that in the form of the sole existence of the Self.

Hence, steadfastness in Knowledge combined with action is not logical.

Objection: May it not be argued that this is possible like the acts of eating and Agnihotra sacrifice etc.? [As such a common action as eating can go hand in hand with such Vedic rites as the Agnihotra-sacrifice, so, actions can be combined with Knowledge.]

Vedantin: No, since it is unreasonable that, when Knowledge which results in Liberation is attained, there can remain a hankering for results of actions. Just as there is no desire for an action or its result [Action, i.e. digging etc.; result, i.e. bathing etc.] in connection with a well, pond, etc. when there is a flood all around, similarly when Knowledge which has Liberation for its result is attained there can be no possibility of hankering for any other result or any action which leads to it.

Indeed, when somebody is engaged in actions aimed at winning a kingdom, there can be no possibility of his engaging in any activity for securing a piece of land, or having a longing for it!

Hence, action does not constitute the means to the highest good. Nor do Knowledge and action in combination. Further, Knowledge which has Liberation as its result can have no dependence on the assistance of action, because, being the remover of ignorance, it is opposed (to action). Verily, darkness cannot be the dispeller of darkness.

Therefore Knowledge alone is the means to the highest good.

Objection: Not so, because from non-performance of nityakarmas one incurs sin. Besides, freedom (of the Self) is eternal. As for the view that Liberation is attainable through Knowledge alone, it is wrong. For, if nityakarmas [As also the occasional duties (naimittika-karmas).] which are prescribed by the Vedas are not performed, then one will incur evil in the form of going to hell etc. Counter-

Objection: If this be so, then, since Liberation cannot come from action, will there not arise the contingency of there being no Liberation at all? Pseudo-

Vedantin: Not so, for Liberation is eternal. as a result of performing nityakarmas there will not be incurring of evil, and as a result of not doing any prohibited action (nisiddha-karma) there will not be any possibility of birth in an undesirable body; from relinquishing actions meant for desired results (kamya-karmas) there will be no possibility of being born in some desirable body. Since there is no cause to produce another body when the present body falls after the results of actions that produced this body get exhausted by experiencing them, and since one does not have attachment etc., therefore Liberation consists in the mere continuance of the Self in Its own natural state.

Thus, Liberation is attained without effort.

Objection: May it not be argued that, since in the case of actions done in many past lives-which are calculated to yield such results as attainment of heaven, hell, etc. but have not commenced bearing results-there is no possiblity of their being experienced, therefore they cannot be exhausted? Pseudo-

Vedantin: No, since the suffering of pain from the effort involved in the nityakarmas can reasonably be (considered to be) the experiencing of their [i.e. of actions done in past lives, which have not commenced bearing their fruits.-Tr.] results. Or, since the nityakarmas, like expiations, may be considered as being meant for eliminating the sins incurred earlier, and since actions that have begun bearing their fruits get exhausted merely through their being experienced, therefore Liberation is attained without effort- provided no fresh actions are performed.

Vedantin: No, since there is the Upanisadic text, 'Knowing Him alone, one goes beyond death; there is no other way to go by' (Sv. 3.8), which states that for Liberation there is no other path but enlightenment; also because there is the Upanisadic statement that Liberation for an unenlightened person is as impossible as the rolling up of the sky like leather (Sv. 6.20); and since it is mentioned in the Puranas and the Smrtis that Liberation follows only from Knowledge. (From your view) it also follows that there is no possibility of the exhaustion of the results of virtuous deeds which have not as yet begun yielding their fruits. And, as there is the possibility of the persistence of sins which were incurred in the past but have not yet commenced yielding results, similarly there can be the possibility of the persistence of virtues which have not yet begun bearing fruits. And so, if there be no scope of their being exhausted without creating another body, then there is no possibility of Liberation. And since attachment, hatred and delusion, which are the causes of virtue and vice, cannot be eradicated through any means other than Knowledge, therefore the eradication of virtue and vice becomes impossible. Besides, since the Sruti [See Ch. .2.23.1 and Br. 1.5.16-Tr.] mentions that nityakarmas have heaven as their result, and there is the Smrti text, 'Persons belonging to castes and stages of life, and engaged in their own duties' ['...attain to a high, immeasurable happiness.'-Tr.] (Ap. Dh. Su. 2.2.2.3), etc., therefore the exhaustion of (the fruits of) actions (through nityakarmas) is not possible. As for those who say, 'The nityakarmas, being painful in themselves, must surely be the result of evil deeds done in the past; but apart from being what they are, they have no other result because this is not mentioned in the Vedas and they are enjoined on the basis of the mere fact that one is alive'-(this is) not so, because actions which have not become operative cannot yield any result. Besides, there is no ground for experiencing a particular consequence in the form of pain [Pain involved in the performance of nityakarmas.] The statement, that the pain one suffers from the effort involved in performing the nityakarmas is the result of sinful acts done in past lives, is false.

Indeed, it does not stand to reason that the result of any action which did not become operative at the time of death to yield its fruit is experienced in a life produced by some other actions. Otherwise, there will be no reason why the fruit of some action that is to lead to hell should not be experienced in a life that is produced by such actions as Agnihotra etc. and is meant for enjoying the result in the form of heaven! Besides, that (pain arising from the effort in performing nityakarmas) cannot be the same as the consequence in the form of the particular suffering arising from sin. Since there can be numerous kinds of sins with results productive of various kinds of sorrows, therefore, if it be imagined that their (sins') result will be merely in the form of pain arising from the effort in undertaking the nityakarmas, then it will certainly not be possible to suppose that they (the sins incurred in the past) are the causes of such obstacles as the pairs of opposites (heat and cold, etc.), disease etc., and that the result of sins incurred in the past will be only the pain arising from the exertion in performing nityakarmas, but not the sufferings like carrying stones on the head etc. Further, it is out of context to say this, that the pain resulting from the effort in performing nityakarmas is the result of sinful acts done in the past.

Objection: How?

Vedantin: What is under discussion is that the sin committed in the past, which has not begun to bear fruit, cannot be dissipated. In that context you say that pain resulting from the effort in undertaking nityakarmas is the result of action which has begun bearing fruit, not of that which has not yet commenced yielding fruit!

On the other hand, if you think that all sins committed in the past have begun yielding their results, then it is unreasonable to specify that the pain resulting from the exertion in performing the nitya-karmas is their only result. And there arises the contingency of the injunction to perform nityakarmas becoming void, because the sinful deed which has begun bearing fruit can logically be dissipated only be experiencing its result. Further, if pain be the result of nityakarmas enjoined by the Vedas, then it is seen to arise from the very effort in undertaking nityakarmas-as in the case of excercise etc. To imagine that it is the result of something else is illogical. [The pain arising from bodily exercise is the result of the exercise itself, and not the result of any past sin!

Similarly, the pain resulting from undertaking nityakarmas is the consequence of that performance itself, and need not be imagined to be the result of any past sin.] And if the nityakarmas have been enjoined simply on the basis of a person's being alive, it is unreasonable that it should be the result of sins committed in the past, any more than expiation is. An expiation that has been enjoined following a particular sinful act is not the result of that sin!

On the other hand, if the suffering arising from expiation be the result of that very sin which is its cause, then the pain from the effort in performing nityakarmas, though prescribed merely on the fact of one's being alive, may become the fruit of that very fact of one's being alive-which was itself the occasion (for enjoining the nityakarmas)-, because both the nityakarmas and expiatory duties are indistinguishable so far as their being occasioned by something is concerned.

Moreover, there is the other fact: There can be no such distinction that only the pain resulting from the performance of nityakarmas is the result of past sinful deeds, but not so the pain from performing kamya-karmas (rites and duties undertaken for desired results), because the pain in performing Agnihotra-sacrifice etc. is the same when it is performed as a nityakarma or as a kamya-karma. Thus the latter also may be the result of past sinful acts. This being the case, it is untenable to assume on the ground of circumstantial inference that, since no result is enjoined in the Vedas for nityakarmas and since its prescription cannot be justified on any other ground, therefore pain from the effort in performing nityakarmas is the result of sinful past deeds.

Thus, the (Vedic) injunction being unjustifiable otherwise, it can be inferred that nityakarmas have got some result other than the pain arising from the effort in undertaking them. It also involves this contradiction: It is contradictory to say that through the performance of nityakarma a result of some other action is experienced. And when this is admitted, it is again a contradiction to say that that very experience is the result of the nityakarma, and yet that niyakarma has no result!

Moreover, when Agnihotra and other sacrifices are performed for desirable results (Kamya- Agnihotra), then the Agnihotra etc. which are performed as nityakarma (Nitya-Agnihotra) become accomplished simultaneously (on a account of its being a part of the former).

Hence, since the Kamya-Agnihotra (as an act) is dependent on and not different from the Nitya- Agnihotra, therefore the result of the Agnihotra and other sacrifices performed with a desire for results will get exhausted through the suffering involved in the exertion in undertaking it (the Nitya-Agnihotra).

On the other hand, if the result of Kamya-Agnihotra etc. be different, viz heaven etc., then even the suffering arising from the exertion in performing them ought to be necessarily different (from the suffering involved in the Nitya-Agnihotra). And that is not the fact, because it contradicts what is directly perceived; for the pain resulting from the effort in performing only the Nitya-(-Agnihotra) does not differ from the pain resulting from the exertion in undertaking the Kamya (-Agnihotra).

Besides, there is this other consideration: Actions which have not been enjoined or prohibited (by the scriptures) produce immediate results. But those enjoined or prohibited by the scriptures do not produce immediate results; were they to do so, then there would be no effort even with regard to heaven etc. and injunctions concerning unseen results. And it cannot be imagined that only the fruit of (Nitya-) Agnihotra etc. gets exhausted through the suffering arising from the effort in performing them, but the Kamya (-Agnihotra) has exalted results like heaven etc. merely as a consequence of the fact of desire for results, though as acts there is no essential difference between them (the Nitya and the Kamya) and there is no additional subsidiary part, processes of performance, etc. (in the kamya-Agnihotra).

Therefore, it can never be established that nitya-karmas have no unseen results. And Hence, enlightenment alone, not the performance of nityakarmas, is the cause of the total dissipation of actions done through ignorance, be they good or bad. For, all actions have for their origin ignorance and desire.

Thus has it been established (in the following passages) that action (rites and duties) is meant for the ignorant, and steadfastness in Knowledge-after renunciation of all actions-is meant for the enlightened: 'both of them do not know' (2.19); 'he who knows this One as indestructible, eternal' (2.21); 'through the Yoga of Knowledge for the men of realization; through the Yoga of Action for the yogis' (3.3); 'the ignorant, who are attached to work' (3.26); 'But...the one who is a knower...does not become attached, thinking thus: "The organs rest on the objects of the organs"' (3.28); 'The embodied man...having given up all actions mentally, continues' (5.13); 'Remaining absorbed in the Self, the knower of Reality should think, "I certainly do not do anything"' (5.8); i.e; the unenlightened person thinks, 'I do'; 'For (the sage) who wishes to ascend (to Dhyana-yoga), action is said to be the means...when he has ascended (when he is established in the Yoga of Meditation), inaction alone is said to be the means' (6.3); 'noble indeed' are all the three (classes of) unenlightened persons, 'but the man of Knowledge is the very Self. (This is) My opinion' (7.18); the unenlightened who perform their rites and duties, 'who are desirous of pleasures, attain the state of going and returning' (9.21); 'becoming non-different from Me and meditative' (9.22) and endowed with steadfast devotion, they worship (Me) the Self which has been described as comparable to space and taintless; and 'I grant that possession of wisdom by which they reach Me' (10.10); i.e., the unenlightened persons who perform rites and duties 'do not reach Me.'

Those who perform works for the Lord and who, though they be the most devout, are ignorant persons performing rites and duties,-they remain involved in practices which, in a descending order, culminate in giving up the fruit of actions (cf. 12.6-11). But those who meditate on the indefinable Immutable take recourse to the disciplines stated in the passages beginning with 'He who is not hateful towards any creature' (12.13) and ending with that Chapter, and also resort to the path of Knowledge presented in the three Chapters beginning with the Chapter on the 'field'. The three results of actions, viz the undesirable etc. (cf. 12), do not accrue only to the mendicants belonging to the Order of Paramahamsas (the highest Order of monks)-who have renounced all actions that originate from the five causes beginning with the locus (cf. 14), who possess the knowledge of the oneness and non- agentship of the Self (17,20), who continue in the supreme steadfastness in Knowledge, who know the real nature of the Lord, and who have taken refuge in the unity of the real nature of the Lord with the Self. It does accrue to the others who are not monks, the ignorant persons who perform rites and duties. Such is this distinction made in the scripture Gita with regard to what is duty and what is not.

Objection: May it not be argued that it cannot be proved that all actions are due to ignorance?

Reply: No, (it can be proved,) as in the case of slaying a Brahmin. Although the nityakarmas are known from the scriptures, still they are meant only for the ignorant. As such an action as killing a Brahmin, even though known to be a source of evil from the scripture prohibiting it, is still perpetrated by one who has defects such as ignorance, passion, etc.-because impulsion to any action is otherwise not possible-, so also is it with regard to the nitya, naimittika and kamya actions.

Objection: May it not be held that impulsion to nityakarma etc. is not possible if the Self be not known as a distinct entity? [Unless one knows the Self to be distinct from the body etc. he will not perform the nityakarmas etc. meant for results in the other worlds, viz heaven etc. (Tr.:) In place of vyatiriktatmani, Ast. reads 'deha-vyatiriktatmani, the Self which is distinct from the body'.]

Reply: No, since it is seen that with regard to actions which are of the nature of motion and are accomplished by the not-Self, one engages in them with the idea, 'I do.' [The actionless Self is not the agent of the movements of the body etc. Still agentship is superimposed on It through ignorance.]

Objection: Can it not be said that the notion of egoism with regard to the aggregate of body etc. occurs in a figurative sense; it is not false?

Reply: No, since its effects [i.e. the effects of the notion of egoism.] also will become figurative.

Objection: The notion of 'I' with regard to the aggregate of one's own body etc. occurs in a figurative sense. As with regard to one's own son it is said (in the Veda), 'It is you yourself who is called the son' (Sa. Br. 14.9.4.26), and in common parlance also it is said, 'This cow is my very life', so is the case here. [As the use of the word 'I' with regard to a son is figurative, so also with regard to the body.] This is certainly not a false notion. However, a false notion (of identity) occurs in the case of a stump and a man, when the distinction between them is not evident (due to darkness).

Reply: A figuratively expressed notion cannot lead to an effect in the real sense, because that (notion) is used for the eulogy of its basis with the help of a word of comparison which remains understood. As for instance, such sentences as, 'Devadatta is a lion', 'The boy is a fire'-implying 'like a lion', 'like a fire', on the basis of the similarity of cruelty, the tawny color, etc.-are meant only for eulogizing Devadatta and the boy who are the basis (i.e. the subjects of the two sentences). But no action of a lion or a fire is accomplished because of the use of the figurative words or ideas. On the contrary, one experiences the evil effects of false notions. [

Therefore the idea of 'I' with regard to one's body etc. does not occur in a secondary sense, but it does so falsely.] And with regard to the subjects of the figurative notions, one understands, 'This Devadatta cannot be a lion; this boy cannot be a fire.'

Similarly, actions done by the aggregate of body etc., which is the 'Self' in a figurative sense, cannot be held to have been done by the Self which is the real subject of the notion of 'I'. For, actions done by the figurative lion or fire cannot be considered to have been accomplished by the real lion or fire. Nor is any action of the real lion and fire accomplished through the (figurative) cruelty or tawnyaness; for, their purpose is fully served by being used for eulogy.

And those who are praised know, 'I am not a lion; I am not fire; and neither is the work of a lion or fire mine.' So the more logical notion is, 'The action of the aggregate (of body etc.) do not belong to me who am the real Self', and not, 'I am the agent; it is my work.' As for the assertion made by some that the Self acts through Its own memory, desire and effort, which are the causes of activity-that is not so, for they are based on false knowledge. Memory, desire, effort, etc. indeed follow from the tendencies born from the experience of the desirable and the undesirable results of actions (-which actions themselves arise from the notions of the 'desirable' and the 'undesirable') caused by false knowledge. [False knowledge gives rise to the ideas of the desirable and the undesirable.

From these arise desire and repulsion. Actions which follow give rise to the experience of their desirable and undesirable results. Such experiences create impressions in the mind, from which are born memory etc.] Just as in this life virtue, vice and the experience of their results are caused by the identification (of the Self) with the aggregate of body etc. and attraction, repulsion, etc., so also was it in the previous birth, and even in the life preceding that. Thus it can be inferred that past and future mundane existence is without beginning and is a product of ignorance. And from this it becomes proved that the absolute cessation of mundane existence is caused by steadfastness in Knowledge, accompanied by renunciation of all rites and duties. Besides, since self-identification with the body is nothing but ignorance, therefore, when the (ignorance) ceases, there remains so possibility of re-birth, and so, mundane existence becomes impossible. The identification of the Self with the aggregate of body etc. is nothing but ignorance, because in common life it is not seen that anybody who knows, 'I am different from cattle etc., and the cattle etc. are different from me', entertains the notion of 'I' with regard to them. However, mistaken perceiving a stump to be a man, one may out of indiscrimination entertain the idea of 'I' with regard to the aggregate of body etc.; not so when perceiving them as distinct. As for that notion of considering the son to be oneself-as mentioned in, 'It is you yourself who is called the son' (Sa. Br. 14.9.4.26)-, that is a metaphor based on the relationship between the begotten and the begetter. And no real action like eating etc. can be accomplished through something considered metaphorically as the Self, just as actions of the real lion or fire (cannot be accomplished) by someone metaphorically thought of to be a lion or fire.

Objection: Since an injunction relating to an unseen result is valid, therefore, may it not be said that the purposes of the Self are accomplished by the body and organs which are figuratively considered to be the Self?

Reply: No, since the thinking of them as the Self is the result of ignorance. The body, organs, etc. are not the Self in a figurative sense.

Objection: How then?

Reply: Although the Self is devoid of relationship, still, by an ascription of relationship (to the Self), they (body etc.) come to be regarded as the Self, verily through a false notion. For, this identification (of body etc.) with the Self exists so long as the false notion is there, and ceases to exist when it is not there. So long as ignorance lasts, identification of the Self with the aggregate of body and organs is seen only in the case of non-discriminating, immature, ignorant people who say, 'I am tall', 'I am fair'. But in the case of discriminating persons who possess the knowledge, 'I am different from the aggregate of body etc.', there does not arise the idea of egoism with regard to the body etc. at that time (i.e. simultaneously with that knowledge).

Hence, since it (i.e. identification of the Self with the body etc.) ceases in the absence of the false notion, therefore it is a creation of that (false notion), and not a figurative notion. It is only when the common and the uncommon features of the lion and Devadatta, or of fire and the boy, are known distinctly, that a figurative notion or verbal expression can occur; not when the common and the uncommon features are unknown. As for the argument that (the figurative notion should be accepted) on the authority of the Vedas, we say, 'No', because their validity concerns unseen results. The validity of the Vedas holds good only with regard to matters concerning the relation between ends and means of Agnihotra etc., which are not known through such valid means of knowledge as direct perception; but not with regard to objects of direct perception etc., because the validity of the Vedas lies in revealing what is beyond direct perception.

Therefore it is not possible to imagine that the idea of egoism with regard to the aggregate of body etc., arising from an obviously of false knowledge, is a figurative notion. Surely, even a hundred Vedic texts cannot become valid if they assert that fire is cold or non- luminous! Should a Vedic text say that fire is cold or non-luminous, even then one has to assume that the intended meaning of the text is different, for otherwise (its) validity cannot be maintained; but one should not assume its meaning in a way that might contradict some other valid means of knowledge or contradict its own statement.

Objection: May it not be said that since actions are undertaken by one possessed of a false idea of agentship, therefore, when the agent ceases to be so ['According to you (the Vedantin), an ignorant man alone can be an agent.

Therefore, when he becomes illumined, he will cease to be ignorant and consequently the Vedas will cease to be valid for him.'] the Vedas will become invalid?

Reply: No, since the Vedas become logically meaningful in respect of knowledge of Brahman. [Though the Vedic injunctions about rituals etc. be inapplicable in the case of an enlightened person, still they have empirical validity before enlightenment. Besides, the Vedas have real validity with regard to the knowledge of Brahman.]

Objection: May it not be said that there arises the contingency of the Vedic texts enjoining knowledge of Brahman becoming as invalid as those texts enjoining rites and duties?

Reply: No, since there cannot possibly be any notion which can remove (the knowledge of Brahman). Unlike the manner in which the idea of egoism with regard to the aggregate of body etc. is removed after the realization of the Self from hearing the Vedic injunctions regarding the knowledge of Brahman, the realization of the Self in the Self can never be removed in any way in that manner by anything whatsoever-just as the knowledge that fire is hot and luminous is irremovable-, since (Self-) realization is inseparable from its result (i.e. cessation of ignorance). Besides, the Vedic texts enjoining rites (and duties) etc. are not invalid, because they, through the generation of successively newer tendencies by eliminating the successively preceding tendencies, are meant for creating the tendency to turn towards the indwelling Self. [The Vedic injunctions make people up rituals etc. by giving up their earlier worldly tendencies. Thereby their minds become purified. The purified mind then aspires to know the indwelling Self.

Thus, since the ritualistic injunctions are meant for making a person turn towards the knowledge ofthe indwelling Self, they are not invalid.] Although the means be unreal (in itself), still it may be meaningful in relation to the truth of the purpose it serves, as are the eulogistic sentences (arthavada) [See note on p. 40.-Tr.] occuring along with injunctions. Even in the world, when it becomes necessary to make to child or a lunatic drink milk etc. it is said that it will help growth of hair [Cuda, lit. hair on the top of the head; or single lock of hair left on the crown of the head after tonsure. See V.S.A.] etc.! Before the dawn of Knowledge, the (ritualistic) Vedic texts concerned with a different situation [The situation obtaining before the dawn of Self-knowledge.] are also as valid in thems (Ⅳ)

- This (that I have taught) you should not ever be taught to one who is devoid of austerities and to one who is not a devotee; also, neither to one who does not render service, nor as well to one who cavils at Me. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Idam, this Scripture; which has been taught by Me te, to you, for your good, for terminating mundane existence; an vacyam, should not be taught (-na is connected with the remote word vacyam-); atapaskaya, to one who is devoid of austerities. It should kadacana, never, under any condition whatsoever; be taught abhaktaya, to one who is not a devotee, who is devoid of devotion to his teacher and God, even if he be a man of austerity. Neither should it be taught even asurusave, to one who does not redner service- even though he may be a devotee and a man of austerity. Na ca, nor as well; to him yah, who; abhyasuyati, cavils; mam, at Me, at Vasudeva- thinking that I am an ordinary person; to him who, not knowing My Godhood, imputes self-adulation etc. to Me and cannot tolerate Me. He too is unfit; to him also it should not be imparted. From the force of the context it is understood that the Scripture should be taught to one who has devotion to the Lord, is austere, renders service, and does not cavil. As to that, since it is seen (in a Smrti)-'to one who is intelligent or to one who is austere'-that there is an option between the two, it follows that this should be imparted either to an austere person given to service and devotion, or to an intelligent person endowed with them. It should not be imparted to an austere or even an intelligent person if he lacks service and devotion. It should not be taught to one who cavils at the Lord, even though he be possessed of all the good qualities. And it should be taught to one who serves his teacher and is devout. This is the rule for transmitting the Scripture. Now the Lord states the fruit derived by one who transmits the Scripture: (Ⅳ)

- He who, entertaining supreme devotion to Me, will speak of this highest secret, to My devotees will without doubt reach Me alone. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Yah, he who; abhi-dhasyati, will speak of, i.e., will present with the help of the text and its meaning, as I have done to you; imam, this; paramam, highest-that which has Liberation as its purpose; guhyam, secret, as spoken of above-(i.e.) the text in the form of a conversation between Kesava and Arjuna; madbhaktesu, to My devotees- . How will present? This is being stated: Krtva, entertaining; param, supreme; bhaktim, devotion; mayi, to Me, i.e., entertaining an idea thus-'A service is being rendered by me to the Lord who is the supreme Teacher'-. Tho him comes this result: esyati, he will reach; mam, Me; eva, alone. He is certainly freed. No doubt should be entertained in this regard. By the repetition of (the word) bhakti (devotion) [In the word madbhaktesu.], it is understood that one becomes fit for being taught (this) Scripture by virtue of devotion alone to Him. Besides, (Ⅳ)

- And as compared with him, none else among human beings is the best accomplisher of what is dear to Me.

Moreover, nor will there be anyone else in the world dearer to Me than he. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Ca, and; tasmat, as compared with him, with the one who hands down the Scripture; na kascit, none else; manusyesu, among human beings; is priya-krt-tamah, the best accomplisher of what is dear; me, to Me, i.e., among the present human beings, surely none else other than him exists who is a better accomplisher of what I cherish.

Moreover, na bhavita, nor will there be in future; anyah, anyone else, a second person; bhuvi, in the world, here; priyatarah, dearer; tasmat, than him. [It may be argued that, since for a seeker of Liberation meditation is the best means for It, therefore he will have no inclination to transmit scriptural teachings. To this the Lord's answer is: One longing for Liberation has a duty to impart this scriptural teaching to one possessing the aforesaid qualities.] (Ⅳ)

- And he who will study this sacred conversation between us two, which is conducive to virtue, by him I shall be adored through the Sacrifice in the form of Knowledge. This is My judgement. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Ca, and; even he yah, who; adhyesyate, will study; imam, this; samvadam, conversation, the text in the form of a dialogue; between avayoh, us two; which is dharmyam, conducive to virtue, not divorced from virtue; tena, by him; this will be accomplished through that study; aham, I; syam, shall be; istah, adored; jnana-yajnena, through the Sacrifice in the form of Knowledge. Iti, this is me, My; matih, judgement. As compared with the various sacrifices, viz rituals, loud prayer, prayer uttered in a low voice and mental prayer, the Sacrifice in the from of Knowledge is the best [See 4.33.] because it is mental.

Hence, the study of the scripture Gita is praised as that Sacrifice in the form of Knowledge. Or, this (verse) may merely be a judgement about the result. The idea is that the result of the study is comparable to the result of the Sacrifice in the form of the knowledge of gods and others. Now, this is the reward for the hearer: (Ⅳ)

- Any man who, being reverential and free from cavilling, might even hear (this), he too, becoming free, shall attain the blessed worlds of those who perform virtuous deeds. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Yah narah, any man who; being sraddhavan, reverential; and anasuyah, free from cavilling; srnuyat api, might even hear this text-the word even suggests that one who knows the meaning (of the Scripture) hardly needs to be mentioned-; sah api, he too; becoming muktah, free from sin; prapnuyat, shall attain; subhan, the blessed, auspicious; lokan, worlds; punya-karmanam, of those who perform virtuous deeds, of those who perform rites like Agnihotra etc. In order to ascertain whether or not the disciple has comprehended the meaning of the Scripture, the Lord asks (the following question), the intention of the questioner beings, 'If it is known that it has not been comprehended, I shall again make him grasp it through other means.' Hereby is shown the duty of the teacher that a student should be made to achieve his goal by taking the help of a different method. (Ⅳ)

- O Partha, has this been listened to by you with a one-pointed mind? O Dhananjaya, has your delusion caused by ignorance been destroyed? (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

O Partha, kaccit etat, has this that has been said by Me; been srutam, listened to, grasped through hearing; ekagrena, with a none-pointed; cetasa, mind? Or have you been inattentive? O Dhananjaya, kaccit, has; te, your; ajnana- sammohah, delusion caused by ignorance, bewilderment, natural indiscrimination; been pranastah, destroyed, for which purpose has there been this effort on your part for hearing the Scripture, and on My part, the effort of being a teacher? (Ⅳ)

- Arjuna said -- O Acyuta, (my) delusion has been destroyed and memory has been regained by me through Your grace. I stand with my doubt removed; I shall follow Your instruction. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

O Acyuta, (my) mohah, born of ignorance and the cause of all evil in the form of mundane existence, and difficult to cross like an ocean;l nastah has been destroyed. And smrtih, memory, regarding the reality of the Self-on the acquisition of which follows the loosening of all the bonds; labdha, has been regained, tvat-prasadat, through Your grace maya, by me, who am dependent on Your grace. By this question about the destruction of delusion and the answer to it, it becomes conclusively revealed that the fruit derived from understanding the import of the entire Scripture is this much alone-which is the destruction of delusion arising from ignorance and the regaining of the memory about the Self. And similarly, in the Upanisadic text beginning with 'I grieve because I am not a knower of the Self' (Ch. 7.1.3), it is shown that all bonds become destroyed when the Self is realized. There are also the words of the Upanisadic verses, 'The knot of the heart gets untied' (Mu. 2.2.8); 'at that time (or to that Self) what delusion and what sorrow can there be for that seer of oneness?' (Is.7). Now then, sthitah, asmi, I stand under Your command; gata- sandehah, with (my) doubts removed. Karisye, I shall follow; tava, Your; vacanam, instruction. By Your grace I have achieved the goal of life. The idea is, there is no duty, as such, for me. The teaching of the Scripture is concluded. There-after, now in order to show the connection (of this) with the (main) narrative-. 18.74 Sanjaya said -- I thus heard this conversation of Vasudeva and of the great-souled Partha, which is unique and makes one's hair stand on end. (Ⅳ)

- Sanjaya said -- I thus heard this conversation of Vasudeva and of the great-souled Partha, which is unique and makes one's hair stand on end. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Aham, I; iti, thus; asrausam, heard; imam, this; samvadam, conversation, as has been narrated; vasudevasya, of Vasudeva; and mahatmanah, parthasya, of the great-soulded Partha; which is adbhutam, unique, extremely wonderful; and roma-harsanam, makes one's hair stand on end. (Ⅳ)

- Through the favor of Vyasa I heard this secret concerning the supreme Yoga from Krsna, the Lord of yogas, while He Himself was actually speaking! (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

And vyasa-prasadat, through the favor of Vyasa, by having received divine vision from him; aham, I; srutvan, heard; etat [The Commentator uses etam in the masculine gender, in place of etat in the text, because it refers to the masculine word samvada.] (should rather be etam), this; guhyam, secret dialogue, such as it is; concerning the param, supreme; Yogam, Yoga-or, this dialogue itself is the Yoga because it is meant for it-; krsnat, from Krsna; yogeswarat, from the Lord of yogas; kathayatah, while He was speaking; svayam, Himself; saksat, actually; not indirectly through others. (Ⅳ)

- And, O king, while repeatedly remembering this unique, sacred dialogue between Kesava and Arjuna, I rejoice every moment. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

And, rajan, O king, Dhrtarastra; after having heard, samsmrtya samsmrtya, while repeatedly remembering; imam, this; adbhuttam, unique; samvadam, dialogue; kesava-arjunayoh, between Kesava and Arjuna; which is punyam, sacred, removes sin even when heard; hrsyami, I rejoice; muhuh, muhuh, every moment. (Ⅳ)

- O king, repeatedly recollecting that greatly extraordinary form of Hari, I am struck with wonder. And I rejoice again and again. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

And, rajan, O King; samsmrtya samsmrtya, repeatedly recollecting; tat, that; ati-adbhutam, greatly extraordinary; rupam, form, the Cosmic form; hareh, of Hari; mahan vismayah me, I am struck with great wonder. And hrsyami, I rejoice; punah punah, again and again. (Ⅳ)

- Where there is Krsna, the Lord of yogas, and where there is Partha, the wielder of the bow, there are fortune, victory, prosperity and unfailing prudence. Such is my conviction. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

To be brief, yatra, where, the side on which; there is Krsna, yogeswarah, the Lord of yogas-who is the Lord of all the yogas and the source of all the yogas, since they originate from Him; and yatra, where, the side on which; there is Partha, dhanurdharah, the wielder of the bow, of the bow called Gandiva; tatra, there, on that side of the Pandavas; are srih, fortune; vijayah, victory; and there itself is bhutih, prosperity, great abundance of fortune; and dhruva, unfailing; nitih, prudence. Such is me, my ; matih, conviction. (Ⅳ)