In plain words
One who thus knows Puruṣa and Prakṛti together with the guṇas, however that person may live, is not born again.
Word for word
Who thus knows puruṣa, and prakṛti together with the guṇas, though living in every way, he is not born again.
य एवं वेत्ति पुरुषं प्रकृतिं च गुणैः सहसर्वथा वर्तमानोऽपि न स भूयोऽभिजायते
Other commentaries
The commentators
▸Bhagavadgītābhāṣyam
तमेतं यथोक्तलक्षणम् आत्मानम् —
यः एवं यथोक्तप्रकारेण वेत्ति पुरुषं साक्षात् अहमिति प्रकृतिं च यथोक्ताम् अविद्यालक्षणां गुणैः स्वविकारैः सह निवर्तिताम् अभावम् आपादितां विद्यया, सर्वथा सर्वप्रकारेण वर्तमानोऽपि सः भूयः पुनः पतिते अस्मिन् विद्वच्छरीरे देहान्तराय न अभिजायते न उत्पद्यते, देहान्तरं न गृह्णाति इत्यर्थः । अपिशब्दात् किमु वक्तव्यं स्ववृत्तस्थो न जायते इति अभिप्रायः ॥
ननु, यद्यपि ज्ञानोत्पत्त्यनन्तरं पुनर्जन्माभाव उक्तः, तथापि प्राक् ज्ञानोत्पत्तेः कृतानां कर्मणाम् उत्तरकालभाविनां च, यानि च अतिक्रान्तानेकजन्मकृतानि तेषां च, फलमदत्त्वा नाशो न युक्त इति, स्युः त्रीणि जन्मानि, कृतविप्रणाशो हि न युक्त इति, यथा फले प्रवृत्तानाम् आरब्धजन्मनां कर्मणाम् । न च कर्मणां विशेषः अवगम्यते । तस्मात् त्रिप्रकाराण्यपि कर्माणि त्रीणि जन्मानि आरभेरन् ; संहतानि वा सर्वाणि एकं जन्म आरभेरन् । अन्यथा कृतविनाशे सति सर्वत्र अनाश्वासप्रसङ्गः, शास्त्रानर्थक्यं च स्यात् । इत्यतः इदमयुक्तमुक्तम् ‘न स भूयोऽभिजायते’ इति । न ; ‘क्षीयन्ते चास्य कर्माणि’(मु. उ. २ । २ । ९) ‘ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति’(मु. उ. ३ । २ । ९) ‘तस्य तावदेव चिरम्’(छा. उ. ६ । १४ । २) ‘इषीकातूलवत् सर्वाणि कर्माणि प्रदूयन्ते’(छा. उ. ५ । २४ । ३) इत्यादिश्रुतिशतेभ्यः उक्तो विदुषः सर्वकर्मदाहः । इहापि च उक्तः ‘यथैधांसि’(भ. गी. ४ । ३७) इत्यादिना सर्वकर्मदाहः, वक्ष्यति च । उपपत्तेश्च — अविद्याकामक्लेशबीजनिमित्तानि हि कर्माणि जन्मान्तराङ्कुरम् आरभन्ते ; इहापि च ‘साहङ्काराभिसन्धीनि कर्माणि फलारम्भकाणि, न इतराणि’ इति तत्र तत्र भगवता उक्तम् । ‘बीजान्यग्न्युपदग्धानि न रोहन्ति यथा पुनः । ज्ञानदग्धैस्तथा क्लेशैर्नात्मा सम्पद्यते पुनः’(मो. २११ । १७) इति च । अस्तु तावत् ज्ञानोत्पत्त्युत्तरकालकृतानां कर्मणां ज्ञानेन दाहः ज्ञानसहभावित्वात् । न तु इह जन्मनि ज्ञानोत्पत्तेः प्राक् कृतानां कर्मणां अतीतजन्मकृतानां च दाहः युक्तः । न ; ‘सर्वकर्माणि’(भ. गी. ४ । ३७) इति विशेषणात् । ज्ञानोत्तरकालभाविनामेव सर्वकर्मणाम् इति चेत् , न ; सङ्कोचे कारणानुपपत्तेः । यत्तु उक्तम् ‘यथा वर्तमानजन्मारम्भकाणि कर्माणि न क्षीयन्ते फलदानाय प्रवृत्तान्येव सत्यपि ज्ञाने, तथा अनारब्धफलानामपि कर्मणां क्षयो न युक्तः’ इति, तत् असत् । कथम् ? तेषां मुक्तेषुवत् प्रवृत्तफलत्वात् । यथा पूर्वं लक्ष्यवेधाय मुक्तः इषुः धनुषः लक्ष्यवेधोत्तरकालमपि आरब्धवेगक्षयात् पतनेनैव निवर्तते, एवं शरीरारम्भकं कर्म शरीरस्थितिप्रयोजने निवृत्तेऽपि, आ संस्कारवेगक्षयात् पूर्ववत् वर्तते एव । यथा स एव इषुः प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तानारब्धवेगस्तु अमुक्तो धनुषि प्रयुक्तोऽपि उपसंह्रियते, तथा अनारब्धफलानि कर्माणि स्वाश्रयस्थान्येव ज्ञानेन निर्बीजीक्रियन्ते इति, पतिते अस्मिन् विद्वच्छरीरे ‘न स भूयोऽभिजायते’ इति युक्तमेव उक्तमिति सिद्धम् ॥ २३ ॥
In plain words
This same Self, with exactly the marks just described —
Someone who has come to know, exactly as described, puruṣa directly — not as an idea but as 'I' — and who has come to know prakṛti, also exactly as described, as nothing but ignorance, and who has, through that knowledge, watched prakṛti and all its usual workings simply stop mattering, reduced to nothing — that person, even while his body is still going about its business in every ordinary way, is done with birth. Once this body he currently wears finally falls away, there is no next one. He isn't born again; nothing new arises for him; he takes on no further body — that's the plain sense of it. And notice the word 'even' in the verse — it's not there by accident. If that much is true, what more needs saying? It means he isn't born again even right now, even while he's still living his ordinary life. The birth was already finished the moment the knowing happened.
Here's an objection worth taking seriously. Fine, someone says, you claim that once knowledge dawns, there's no more rebirth. But what about all the karma sitting on the books — actions done before that knowledge arose, actions done afterward, and the mountain of actions piled up across countless past lives? It hardly seems fair for any of that to simply vanish without ever paying out. If it doesn't vanish, then surely we'd need three separate births to work through three different piles of karma — or, if you insist they're not really different, then one single birth to burn through all of it combined. Otherwise, if karma can just be erased like that, nobody could trust the whole moral logic of action and consequence ever again, and scripture's entire teaching on karma would be worthless. Here's the answer: no, that doesn't follow. Hundreds of scriptural passages say plainly that a knower's works simply perish — that knowing Brahman means becoming Brahman, that only a little time remains for such a person, that every last karma burns away like wisps of cotton thrown into fire. This very text says the same thing, comparing karma to fuel consumed by flame, and will say it again later. And it isn't just scripture — reason backs this up too. Only karma rooted in ignorance, craving, and affliction has the power to sprout a new birth; this text itself says, again and again, that only actions driven by a sense of 'I am doing this' bear fruit, no others. And the epic tradition puts it beautifully: scorched seeds don't sprout again, and once knowledge has burnt through the afflictions, the self doesn't come back into being either. All right, someone might concede: fine, for karma done after knowledge arose, sure, it's burnt — knowledge was right there with it the whole time. But what about the karma from before that, from this life and from countless past ones? No, still no — scripture says 'all actions,' without exception, and there's no honest reason to quietly shrink that word down to mean only 'later' actions. But then comes the sharper worry: doesn't the very karma that's already shaping this present life keep running its course even after knowledge dawns, still delivering its results? So why wouldn't karma that hasn't yet started ripening deserve the same protection? That reasoning doesn't hold, and here's exactly why. Karma already bearing fruit is like an arrow already shot — once loosed at the target, it doesn't just stop the instant it hits; it keeps flying on its own momentum until that momentum runs out, and only then does it fall. That's exactly what the karma that shaped this present body does: even after its job of sustaining the body has been served, it simply keeps going under its own momentum until that momentum is spent. But karma that hasn't yet begun to fructify is a completely different arrow — one still resting on the bow, nocked but never released. And an arrow like that can simply be taken back. That's exactly what knowledge does to unripened karma: while it still sits within a person, unreleased, knowledge strips it of any power to sprout at all. So once this body — the one belonging to the person who has come to know — finally falls away, saying 'he is not born again' turns out to be exactly right. And that settles it.
Close to the Sanskrit
That very Self, whose defining marks are as stated —
He who thus, in the manner already described, knows puruṣa directly as 'I', and knows prakṛti, as already described, characterized by ignorance, together with the guṇas, its own modifications, made to cease, reduced to non-existence, by knowledge — even while still functioning in every way, in every respect — he, once this body of the knower has fallen away, is not born again, does not arise again for another body; he does not take another body: that is the meaning. From the word 'even', what more need be said: even while still abiding in his own ordinary course of life, he is not born — that is the purport.
Objection: although it has been said that immediately after the arising of knowledge there is no rebirth, nevertheless, of actions done before the arising of knowledge, and of those occurring afterward, and of those done in many bygone past lives — of all these — it is not proper that they perish without yielding their fruit. There would then have to be three [kinds of resulting] births — for it is not proper that what has been done be destroyed without effect — just as with actions already engaged in yielding fruit, which have initiated the present birth. And no distinction among these classes of actions is discernible. Therefore actions of all three kinds should either initiate three separate births, or, taken together, should initiate a single birth. Otherwise, given the destruction of what has been done, there would result, everywhere, a loss of confidence, and scripture would become pointless. Therefore this statement, 'he is not born again', has been improperly made. [Reply:] No; from hundreds of scriptural passages such as 'his works perish' (Muṇḍaka Up. 2.2.9), 'one who knows Brahman becomes Brahman itself' (Muṇḍaka Up. 3.2.9), 'for him it is only that much time [before liberation]' (Chāndogya Up. 6.14.2), 'like the down of a reed, all works are burnt up' (Chāndogya Up. 5.24.3), and so on, it is declared that the entire karma of the knower is burnt up. Here too, in this text, it is stated, beginning 'as fuel...' (Bhagavad Gītā 4.37), that all karma is burnt up, and he will state it again. And by reasoning too — actions whose seed-cause is ignorance, desire, and affliction alone initiate the sprout of another birth; here too it is repeatedly stated by the Lord that 'only actions bound up with ego-driven intention initiate fruit, not others.' 'As seeds scorched by fire do not sprout again, so, through afflictions burnt by knowledge, the self does not come into being again' (Mokṣadharma 211.17) — thus also. Granted, then, that for actions done in the time after knowledge's arising, there is burning by knowledge, because they co-occur with knowledge. But it is not proper, [one might still object], to claim the burning of actions done in this life before knowledge's arising, and of those done in past lives. No; because of the qualifying word 'all actions'. If it is said that 'all actions' means only those occurring after knowledge — no; because there is no ground for such a restriction. As for what was further said: 'just as karmas that have initiated the present birth do not perish, being actively engaged in yielding fruit even when knowledge has arisen, so too the destruction of karmas whose fruit has not begun is not proper either' — that is unsound. How so? Because those [birth-initiating karmas], unlike the others, have their fruit already set in motion, like an arrow already released. Just as an arrow released earlier to pierce a target, even after the time of piercing that target, ceases only by falling, from the exhaustion of the momentum already set going — likewise the karma that initiated this body, even once its purpose of maintaining the body has been fulfilled, continues just as before, until the exhaustion of the momentum of its impressions. But just as that same arrow, if its momentum toward action has not yet been initiated, though fitted to the bow, unreleased, can still be withdrawn — likewise karmas whose fruit has not begun, remaining in their own substrate, are rendered seedless by knowledge. Therefore, once this body of the knower has fallen, the statement 'he is not born again' is indeed rightly made — thus it is established.