Verse 69

In plain words

All this activity — both worldly and ritual — is simply a product of ignorance. So for someone of steady wisdom, in whom discriminating knowledge has already dawned, this activity naturally falls away once ignorance itself has ceased. And ignorance ceases because knowledge directly opposes it. Making this point clear, Śaṅkara now says —

'Night' here means whatever, by its very nature of darkness, blinds every being to the discrimination of things. And what is that, for someone of steady wisdom? It is the truth of ultimate reality itself — that is his true object of awareness. Consider nocturnal creatures: for them, ordinary daylight, though it is daylight to others, is effectively night. In just the same way, for all ordinary, ignorant beings — who are really playing the role of nocturnal creatures here — the truth of ultimate reality is like night, simply because it lies completely beyond the reach of minds not attuned to it. Someone awakened from that sleep of ignorance about ultimate reality — the self-controlled one, the one who has conquered his senses, the yogi — is the one who is truly 'awake.' That is the meaning. In this night of ignorance, structured around the split between what is perceived and who perceives it, beings who are actually fast asleep call themselves 'awake' — asleep like dreamers lost inside their own dream. And that very state — the ordinary waking state everyone else takes for granted — is, for the sage who actually sees ultimate reality, nothing but night, because it is itself simply a form of ignorance.

That is why actions are prescribed only in the state of ignorance, never in the state of knowledge. Once knowledge is present, once the sun has risen, ignorance simply dissolves, the way night's darkness dissolves at sunrise. Before knowledge arises, ignorance — taken as valid by an ordinary, practical way of knowing, structured around the difference between an action, its agent, and its result — plays the role of causing all action. But if that same ignorance were grasped as invalid, there would be no coherent way for it to cause action at all; because someone actually acts thinking, 'this action is enjoined on me by the Veda, which I trust as valid, and it must be done' — never thinking, 'all of this is just ignorance, like a night.' But someone who does have that knowledge — 'all this multiplicity of distinctions is just ignorance, like a mere night' — that knower of the Self belongs only with the renunciation of all action, not with continuing to act. And Kṛṣṇa will go on to show exactly this: in the verse 'those whose understanding, whose very self, is fixed on That...' (5.17) and what follows, he shows that such a person's place is only in abiding in knowledge.

Someone might object: but even so, without some proof that impels you toward it, how could a knower's own state of being simply carry on? No — because Self-knowledge has one's own Self as its object. The Self needs no external proof to impel it toward its own nature, for the simple reason that it already is the Self; and every means of knowledge ultimately terminates in it anyway. Once you have actually reached the Self's own true nature, the whole business of knower-and-known, proof-and-proven, no longer applies. In fact, that final proof of Self-knowledge cancels out the very status of being 'a knower' belonging to the Self — and in the very act of cancelling it, that proof itself stops being a valid proof, the way what counted as knowledge inside a dream stops counting once you wake up. And in ordinary life, we never see a proof go on causing further activity once the thing it was proving has already been established. So it is proven: the knower of the Self has no entitlement to action.

Close to the Sanskrit

This worldly and Vedic activity, since it is an effect of ignorance, ceases, for one of steady wisdom in whom discriminating knowledge has arisen, upon the cessation of ignorance; and the cessation of ignorance itself [follows] because knowledge is opposed to it — making this point clear, he [Śaṅkara] says —

'Which is night' — night — that obscures discrimination regarding all things, because of its very nature of darkness, for all beings, for all creatures. What is that? It is the truth of ultimate reality, the object [of awareness] of one of steady wisdom. Just as, for nocturnal creatures, day itself, though it is [day], becomes night for others — in the same way, for all ignorant beings who play the role of nocturnal creatures, the truth of ultimate reality is like a night, because it lies beyond the range [of perception] of those whose understanding is not of that. Awakened from that sleep of ignorance which is characterized as the truth of ultimate reality, the self-controlled one, possessing self-control, one who has conquered the senses, the yogi, 'is awake': such is the meaning. In that night of ignorance, characterized by the distinction of the graspable and the grasper, beings who are indeed asleep are said to be 'awake'; in that night, [ordinary beings are] asleep, like dreamers — that [ordinary waking state] is [itself] night, because it is a form of ignorance, for the sage who sees the truth of ultimate reality.

Therefore, actions are enjoined only in the state of ignorance, not in the state of knowledge. For when knowledge is present, when the sun has risen, ignorance goes to destruction, like nocturnal darkness. Before the arising of knowledge, ignorance, grasped by a [merely practical, not ultimately valid] cognition, having the form of the distinction between action, factor, and result, assumes the role of the cause of all action. There is no tenability in ignorance's being the cause of action if it is grasped by an invalid cognition; for the agent engages in action [thinking,] 'action, enjoined for me, to be done, by the Veda which serves as a valid means' — not [thinking,] 'all this is mere ignorance, like a night.' But for one who has the knowledge 'like a night, all this is mere ignorance, this whole multiplicity of distinctions,' for that knower of the Self, entitlement lies only in the renunciation of all action, not in engagement [in action]. And accordingly he will show, by [the verse] 'those whose understanding, whose self, is fixed on That' (Gītā 5.17) and so on, that his entitlement lies only in the grounding of knowledge.

If it be objected that, even so, in the absence of an impelling means of valid knowledge, [the knower's own] engagement [in anything] is untenable — no; because Self-knowledge has one's own Self as its object. For the Self has no dependence, with regard to its own nature, on an impelling means of valid knowledge, simply because it is [already] the Self; and because the validity of all means of valid knowledge culminates in that [Self]. For, once the Self's own nature has been attained, the transactional relation of valid means and validated object is no longer possible. For the final means of valid knowledge removes the [very] status of being a knower belonging to the Self; and in the very act of negating it, it itself becomes invalid — like the valid knowledge of the dream-state, upon waking. And in the world, a means of valid knowledge is never observed to be a cause of activity once the thing has [already] been ascertained. Therefore it is established that there is no entitlement to action for the knower of the Self. [End of commentary on verse 69.]

In plain words

"To control the senses in every direction is the mark of the sthitaprajña." What is night for all beings, in that the sthitaprajña stays awake. When all beings are awake, the sthitaprajña is asleep. (That is, day is night to him, and night is day.) Commonly in the world people take this in its literal meaning, but that does not measure up to the mark of the sthitaprajña. That is, they think that when ordinary people sleep at night the sthitaprajña is awake, and that the day, when ordinary people are awake, is night for the sthitaprajña. The hidden meaning of this is very subtle. Ordinary people stay wakeful in worldly matters. That is, to run rampant in the senses among their objects is what waking means. But the sthitaprajña stays turned away from such senses and their objects; that is, he sleeps. To restrain the senses among their objects is sleeping; to stir up sense objects is waking. When ordinary people let their senses run rampant, the sthitaprajña's senses sleep. This can also be put another way. Forgetting the state of the Ātma and taking on the state of the body: these are the states of ordinary people. Ordinary people forget, and sleep in the state of the Ātma, and are awake in the state of the body. The sthitaprajña is not like that: he is awake in the state of the Ātma and asleep in the state of the body. This is "the state of the sthitaprajña". In the state of the Ātma, where ordinary people are unwakeful, the sthitaprajña moves wakefully; among the vāsanās for sense objects, where ordinary people are wakeful, the sthitaprajña moves unwakefully. This is the subtle meaning. But if one gives only the literal meaning, that the sthitaprajña sleeps when everyone is awake and wakes when everyone sleeps, then thieves, Gurkhas, watchmen and all such people stay awake through the nights and sleep by day, do they not? Must all of them be sthitaprajñas, then?