B.G 13.24
ya evaṃ vetti puruṣaṃ prakṛtiṃ ca guṇaiḥ saha। sarvathā vartamāno'pi na sa bhūyo'bhijāyate ॥24॥
One who understands the Supreme Person, the being, and the Prakrti along with their qualities, despite being engaged in all ways, is not reborn.
Gīta Bhāshya 13.24
The ordinary being is described as 'puruṣaḥ sukhaduḥkhānām', i.e. person of happiness and sorrow in 13.21. The Lord and the ordinary beings are addressed together in the phrase 'puruṣaṃ prakṛtim', in the current verse. Not interpreting this way will result in a contradiction.
Denying the existence of reality and equating the identity of a living being with that of the Lord are not the right interpretations. Same is substantiated by quoting Brahma sutras and supporting Vedic scriptures. The words 'aikyam', i.e. merging with, 'ābhāsa', i.e. reflective appearance, 'pratibimbatva', i.e. reflection - analogies are explained providing context. To merge with the Lord is the goal. It is the same as realising the self as subservient to the Lord. The realization of 'I belong to Him' is described as 'ahaṅgrahaḥ'. Here, the word 'aikyam' i.e merger, means the worshipper attaining similarity and proximity to the Lord. The analogy of reflection portrays the thought that "I am similar, and also I am subservient". Because servants are under a master's control, they say, 'He is I'; it does not mean they are the same.
"puruṣaḥ sukhaduḥkhānām" iti jīva uktaḥ। "puruṣaṃ prakṛtim" iti jīveśvarau sahaiva ucyete। anyatra mahātātparyavirodhaḥ। utkarṣe hi mahātātparyam। tathāhi saukarāyaṇaśrutiḥ -
The ordinary being is described as 'puruṣaḥ sukhaduḥkhānām', i.e. person of happiness and sorrow (13.21). The Lord and the ordinary beings are addressed together in the phrase 'puruṣaṃ prakṛtim'. Not interpreting this way will result in a contradiction to greater purport being conveyed. Praising the excellence (of the Lord) is always the greater purport. Same is stated in the Saukarayana scripture:
"avācyotkarṣe mahattvāt sarvavācāṃ sarvanyāyānāṃ ca mahattatparatvam। viṣṇoranantasya parātparasya taccāpi hyastyeva na cātra śaṅkā॥
"All the words and all the principles convey the unspeakable excellence, greatness, the infinite, the supreme beyond the supreme nature of the Lord Vishnu, and there is no doubt about this.
ato viruddhaṁ tu yadatra mānaṁ tadakṣajā dāvathavāpi yuktiḥ। na tat pramāṇaṁ kavayo vadanti na cāpi yuktirhyūnamatirhi dṛṣṭeḥ॥"
Therefore, the wise say that the contradictory measure here, whether derived from the senses or logic, is not considered proof, as it is the logic perceived by an inferior mind."
iti।
- stated thus.
ato yuktibhirapi etadapālāpo na yuktaḥ। ato yayā yuktyā avidyamānatvādi kalpayati sāpi ābhāsarūpeti sadeva māhātmyaṃ vedairucyate iti siddhyati।
Therefore, even by arguments, this denial (of the reality of existence) is inappropriate. The argument by which one imagines non-existence and other such things is also just an imagination. It is well established, the Vedas only proclaim His greatness.
avāntaraṃ ca tātparyaṃ tatrāsti। uktaṃ ca tatraiva-
There is an intermediate meaning that is applicable as well. It is stated as follows:
"avāntaraṁ tatparatvaṁ ca sattve mahadvāpyekatvāttayoranante।"
"The intermediate interpretation and the principle describing reality - both describe the one principle only that is beyond, because of its greatness and infiniteness."
iti।
- stated thus.
śyāmatvādyabhidhānācca। yuktaṃ ca puruṣamatikalpitayuktyādeḥ ābhāsatvam। ajñānasambhavāt। na tu svataḥ pramāṇasya vedasya ābhāsatvam। adarśanaṃ ca sambhavatyeva। puṃsāṃ bahūnāmapi ajñānāt। tarhyasmadanadhītaśrutyādau viparyayopi syāditi na vācyam। yataḥ tatraivāha -
His attributes have been already declared in the testimonial 'śyāmatvāt' (12.1- dark-hued, he is in the heart, eight-armed, of infinite strength, endless power, the Ancient One). It is appropriate to consider as appearance (ābhāsa), that which is reasoned and imagined by the mind of the person. It is possible that it is associated with ignorance (ajñāna). Thus, it cannot, by itself, be considered as authority when it is contrary to the Vedas, because of mere appearance. Indeed, it is possible that it (i.e. the subject of discussion) has not come into view. Larger populations, in general, are ignorant. Therefore, it should not be said that contradictions might exist in our unstudied scriptures that have existed from time immemorial. Indeed, it is stated:
"naitadviruddhā vāco naitadviruddhā yuktayaḥ iti ha prajāpatiḥ uvāca।"
"Prajapati said, - 'These words are not contradictory, these arguments are not contradictory'."
iti।
- stated thus.
tad-viruddhaṃ ca jīva-sāmyam।
Equating the identity of a living being (with the Brahman) is contradictory to that (Vedas) as well.
"ābhāsa eva ca" - iti coktam।
It is said, "Indeed, it (i.e. the living being) is merely an 'ābhāsa', i.e. reflection (of the lord)." (Br.Su 2.3.50)
"janamejaya uvāca -
"Janamejaya said -
bahavaḥ puruṣā brahman utāho eka eva tu। ko hyatra puruṣaśreṣṭhaḥ tam bhavān vaktumarhati।
O Sage, are there many men, or is there only one? Who is the best of the men here? You should speak about him.
śri vaiśaṁpāyana uvāca -
Revered Vaiśaṁpāyana spoke -
naitadicchanti puruṣaṃ ekaṃ kurukulodbhava। bahūnāṃ puruṣāṇāṃ hi yathaikā yonirucyate। tathā taṃ puruṣaṃ viśvamākhyāsyāmi guṇādhikam॥
O One born in the Kuru dynasty, "the being (Puruṣa) is One" - is not the desired argument. Indeed, many are the beings (Puruṣas), born from a single womb. Among all the several beings in the universe, I shall declare to you about One Being (Purusha) who is superior in qualities."
iti mokṣadharme।
- stated thus in the Moksha Dharma section (of the Mahabharata).
na ca tatsarvaṃ svapnendrajālavat।
Not everything is an illusion, like that in a dream.
"vaidharmyācca na svapnādivat"
"Due to dissimilarity, it is not like a dream."
iti hi bhagavadvacanam।
- as stated by the Lord (Vyāsa) himself (in Br.Su 2.2.29)
na ca svapnavat ekajīvakalpitatve mānaṃ paśyāmaḥ। viparyaye māścoktā dvitīye। uktaṃ ca āyāsyaśākhāyām -
And we do not perceive any evidence that supports the idea that everything is imagined by a single being, as if in a dream. On the contrary, we have given substantiation in the second chapter to the contrary. It is also stated in the Ayasya branch of the Vedas:
"svapno ha vā ayaṃ cañcalatvānna ca svapno na hi vicchedo etaditi॥"
"This (the world) is indeed stated as a dream due to its restlessness, but is not a dream, as there is no interruption here."
iti।
- stated thus.
nāyaṃ doṣaḥ। na hi īśvarasya jīvaikyam ucyate। jīvasya hi īśvaraikyaṃ dhyeyam। tadapi na nirupādhikam। ato na pratibimbatvasya virodhi aikyam। tathā hi mādhucchandasaśrutiḥ -
The statement (i.e. 'ahaṁ brahmāsmi') is not a defect. It does not state the unity of identity of the being with the Lord. To become one with the Lord is the goal. That too is not without conditions. Therefore, the "concept of reflection" (pratibimbatva) is not opposed to the concept of "merging with" (aikyam). Indeed, same is the teaching of the Vedic testimonial from Mādhucchandas:
"aikyaṃ cāpi prātibimbyena viṣṇoḥ rjīvasyaitadṛṣayo vadanti।"
"The sages see - the merging of the being with the Lord Vishnu, same as realising the self as a reflected image of the Lord."
iti।
- stated thus.
ahaṅgrahopāsane ca phalādhikyaṃ agniveśyaśrutisiddham -
The teachings of Agniveshya establish abundance of results in the practice of meditating on the identity of the self (who am I?):
"ahaṅgrahopāsakastasya sāmyaṃ abhyāśo ha vā aśnute nātra śaṅkā।"
"The worshipper who meditates on the self-identity (who am I?) attains similarity and proximity to it (the Lord); there is no doubt about this."
iti।
- stated thus.
"tadīyo'hamiti jñānamahaṅgraha itīritaḥ।"
"The realization of 'I belong to Him' is described as 'ahaṅgrahaḥ'".
iti vāmane।
- stated thus in the Vamana Purana.
"tadvaśatvāt tu so'smīti bhṛtyaireva na tu svataḥ॥"
"Because servants are under his (master's) control, they say, 'He is I'; it does not mean they are the same."
iti ca।
- stated thus as well.
prātibimbyena so'smi bhṛtyaśca iti bhāvanā। tathā hi ayāsya śākhāyām -
The analogy of reflection portrays the thought that "I am similar, and also I am subservient". Same is stated in the Ayāsya branch of the Vedas:
"bhṛtyaścāhaṃ prātibimbyena sosmītyevaṃ hyupāsyaḥ paramaḥ pumān saḥ॥"
" 'The servant and I, by reflection, am he;' - indeed, this way, he is to be worshipped as the supreme person."
iti।
- stated thus.
prātibimbyaṃ ca tatsāmyameva ॥24॥
The analogy of reflection depicts nothing but similarity to it (the Lord).
