In plain words
Learn from Me briefly, son of Kunti, how one who has attained perfection reaches Brahman, the supreme culmination of jñāna.
Word for word
Learn from Me, only in brief, O son of Kuntī, how one who has gained perfection attains Brahman, which is the supreme culmination of knowledge.
The commentators
Bhagavadgītābhāṣyam
पूर्वोक्तेन स्वकर्मानुष्ठानेन ईश्वराभ्यर्चनरूपेण जनितां प्रागुक्तलक्षणां सिद्धिं प्राप्तस्य उत्पन्नात्मविवेकज्ञानस्य केवलात्मज्ञाननिष्ठारूपा नैष्कर्म्यलक्षणा सिद्धिः येन क्रमेण भवति, तत् वक्तव्यमिति आह —
सिद्धिं प्राप्तः स्वकर्मणा ईश्वरं समभ्यर्च्य तत्प्रसादजां कायेन्द्रियाणां ज्ञाननिष्ठायोग्यतालक्षणां सिद्धिं प्राप्तः — सिद्धिं प्राप्तः इति तदनुवादः उत्तरार्थः । किं तत् उत्तरम् , यदर्थः अनुवादः इति, उच्यते — यथा येन प्रकारेण ज्ञाननिष्ठारूपेण ब्रह्म परमात्मानम् आप्नोति, तथा तं प्रकारं ज्ञाननिष्ठाप्राप्तिक्रमं मे मम वचनात् निबोध त्वं निश्चयेन अवधारय इत्येतत् । किं विस्तरेण ? न इति आह — समासेनैव सङ्क्षेपेणैव हे कौन्तेय, यथा ब्रह्म प्राप्नोति तथा निबोधेति । अनेन या प्रतिज्ञाता ब्रह्मप्राप्तिः, ताम् इदन्तया दर्शयितुम् आह — ‘निष्ठा ज्ञानस्य या परा’ इति । निष्ठा पर्यवसानं परिसमाप्तिः इत्येतत् । कस्य ? ब्रह्मज्ञानस्य या परा । कीदृशी सा ? यादृशम् आत्मज्ञानम् । कीदृक् तत् ? यादृशः आत्मा । कीदृशः सः ? यादृशो भगवता उक्तः, उपनिषद्वाक्यैश्च न्यायतश्च ॥
ननु विषयाकारं ज्ञानम् । न ज्ञानविषयः, नापि आकारवान् आत्मा इष्यते क्वचित् । ननु ‘आदित्यवर्णम्’(श्वे. उ. ३ । ८)‘आदित्यवर्णम्’(श्वे. उ. ३ । ८) ‘भारूपः’(छा. उ. ३ । १४ । २) ‘स्वयञ्ज्योतिः’(बृ. उ. ४ । ३ । ९) इति आकारवत्त्वम् आत्मनः श्रूयते । न ; तमोरूपत्वप्रतिषेधार्थत्वात् तेषां वाक्यानाम् — द्रव्यगुणाद्याकारप्रतिषेधे आत्मनः तमोरूपत्वे प्राप्ते तत्प्रतिषेधार्थानि ‘आदित्यवर्णम्’ इत्यादीनि वाक्यानि । ‘अरूपम्’(क. उ. १ । ३ । १५) इति च विशेषतः रूपप्रतिषेधात् । अविषयत्वाच्च — ‘न सन्दृशे तिष्ठति रूपमस्य न चक्षुषा पश्यति कश्चनैनम्’(श्वे. उ. ४ । २०) ‘अशब्दमस्पर्शम्’(क. उ. १ । ३ । १५) इत्यादेः । तस्मात् आत्माकारं ज्ञानम् इति अनुपपन्नम् ॥
कथं तर्हि आत्मनः ज्ञानम् ? सर्वं हि यद्विषयं यत् ज्ञानम् , तत् तदाकारं भवति । निराकारश्च आत्मा इत्युक्तम् । ज्ञानात्मनोश्च उभयोः निराकारत्वे कथं तद्भावनानिष्ठा इति ? न ; अत्यन्तनिर्मलत्वातिस्वच्छत्वातिसूक्ष्मत्वोपपत्तेः आत्मनः । बुद्धेश्च आत्मवत् नैर्मल्याद्युपपत्तेः आत्मचैतन्याकाराभासत्वोपपत्तिः । बुद्ध्याभासं मनः, तदाभासानि इन्द्रियाणि, इन्द्रियाभासश्च देहः । अतः लौकिकैः देहमात्रे एव आत्मदृष्टिः क्रियते ॥
देहचैतन्यवादिनश्च लोकायतिकाः ‘चैतन्यविशिष्टः कायः पुरुषः’ इत्याहुः । तथा अन्ये इन्द्रियचैतन्यवादिनः, अन्ये मनश्चैतन्यवादिनः, अन्ये बुद्धिचैतन्यवादिनः । ततोऽपि आन्तरम् अव्यक्तम् अव्याकृताख्यम् अविद्यावस्थम् आत्मत्वेन प्रतिपन्नाः केचित् । सर्वत्र बुद्ध्यादिदेहान्ते आत्मचैतन्याभासता आत्मभ्रान्तिकारणम् इत्यतश्च आत्मविषयं ज्ञानं न विधातव्यम् । किं तर्हि ? नामरूपाद्यनात्माध्यारोपणनिवृत्तिरेव कार्या, नात्मचैतन्यविज्ञानं कार्यम् , अविद्याध्यारोपितसर्वपदार्थाकारैः अविशिष्टतया दृश्यमानत्वात् इति । अत एव हि विज्ञानवादिनो बौद्धाः विज्ञानव्यतिरेकेण वस्त्वेव नास्तीति प्रतिपन्नाः, प्रमाणान्तरनिरपेक्षतां च स्वसंविदितत्वाभ्युपगमेन । तस्मात् अविद्याध्यारोपितनिराकरणमात्रं ब्रह्मणि कर्तव्यम् , न तु ब्रह्मविज्ञाने यत्नः, अत्यन्तप्रसिद्धत्वात् । अविद्याकल्पितनामरूपविशेषाकारापहृतबुद्धीनाम् अत्यन्तप्रसिद्धं सुविज्ञेयम् आसन्नतरम् आत्मभूतमपि, अप्रसिद्धं दुर्विज्ञेयम् अतिदूरम् अन्यदिव च प्रतिभाति अविवेकिनाम् । बाह्याकारनिवृत्तबुद्धीनां तु लब्धगुर्वात्मप्रसादानां न अतः परं सुखं सुप्रसिद्धं सुविज्ञेयं स्वासन्नतरम् अस्ति । तथा चोक्तम् — ‘प्रत्यक्षावगमं धर्म्यम्’(भ. गी. ९ । २) इत्यादि ॥
केचित्तु पण्डितंमन्याः ‘निराकारत्वात् आत्मवस्तु न उपैति बुद्धिः । अतः दुःसाध्या सम्यग्ज्ञाननिष्ठा’ इत्याहुः। सत्यम् ; एवं गुरुसम्प्रदायरहितानाम् अश्रुतवेदान्तानाम् अत्यन्तबहिर्विषयासक्तबुद्धीनां सम्यक्प्रमाणेषु अकृतश्रमाणाम् । तद्विपरीतानां तु लौकिकग्राह्यग्राहकद्वैतवस्तुनि सद्बुद्धिः नितरां दुःसम्पादा, आत्मचैतन्यव्यतिरेकेण वस्त्वन्तरस्य अनुपलब्धेः, यथा च ‘एतत् एवमेव, न अन्यथा’ इति अवोचाम ; उक्तं च भगवता ‘यस्यां जाग्रति भूतानि सा निशा पश्यतो मुनेः’(भ. गी. २ । ६९) इति । तस्मात् बाह्याकारभेदबुद्धिनिवृत्तिरेव आत्मस्वरूपावलम्बनकारणम् । न हि आत्मा नाम कस्यचित् कदाचित् अप्रसिद्धः प्राप्यः हेयः उपादेयो वा ; अप्रसिद्धे हि तस्मिन् आत्मनि स्वार्थाः सर्वाः प्रवृत्तयः व्यर्थाः प्रसज्येरन् । न च देहाद्यचेतनार्थत्वं शक्यं कल्पयितुम् । न च सुखार्थं सुखम् , दुःखार्थं दुःखम् । आत्मावगत्यवसानार्थत्वाच्च सर्वव्यवहारस्य । तस्मात् यथा स्वदेहस्य परिच्छेदाय न प्रमाणान्तरापेक्षा, ततोऽपि आत्मनः अन्तरतमत्वात् तदवगतिं प्रति न प्रमाणान्तरापेक्षा ; इति आत्मज्ञाननिष्ठा विवेकिनां सुप्रसिद्धा इति सिद्धम् ॥
येषामपि निराकारं ज्ञानम् अप्रत्यक्षम् , तेषामपि ज्ञानवशेनैव ज्ञेयावगतिरिति ज्ञानम् अत्यन्तप्रसिद्धं सुखादिवदेव इति अभ्युपगन्तव्यम् । जिज्ञासानुपपत्तेश्च — अप्रसिद्धं चेत् ज्ञानम् , ज्ञेयवत् जिज्ञास्येत । यथा ज्ञेयं घटादिलक्षणं ज्ञानेन ज्ञाता व्याप्तुम् इच्छति, तथा ज्ञानमपि ज्ञानान्तरेण ज्ञातव्यम् आप्तुम् इच्छेत् । न एतत् अस्ति । अतः अत्यन्तप्रसिद्धं ज्ञानम् , ज्ञातापि अत एव प्रसिद्धः इति । तस्मात् ज्ञाने यत्नो न कर्तव्यः, किं तु अनात्मनि आत्मबुद्धिनिवृत्तावेव । तस्मात् ज्ञाननिष्ठा सुसम्पाद्या ॥ ५० ॥
In plain words
A man does his own work as worship of the Lord, and out of that a first perfection is born — the one already described. He reaches it, and the discrimination of the Self opens in him. Now there is a second perfection: naiṣkarmya, standing in the knowledge of the Self and nothing else. By what steps does he come to that? That still has to be said. So the Lord says —
'Having attained perfection' means: having truly worshipped the Lord through his own work, and having gained, as the fruit of that grace, a body and senses now fit to stand firm in knowledge. Why does Krishna repeat this phrase from before? To set up what comes next. And what is that? Just as one reaches Brahman, the Supreme Self, through the path of steadfast knowledge, so too you should learn from my own words exactly how that steadfastness comes about — grasp it, and hold it with real certainty. Should this be explained at length? No, he says — only in brief, only in summary, Kaunteya: 'understand how one reaches Brahman.' And to show, concretely and specifically, the very attainment of Brahman he promised earlier, he says: 'that supreme culmination of knowledge.' Niṣṭhā simply means culmination, completion. Culmination of what? Of the knowledge of Brahman, the supreme kind. What kind of knowledge is that? The kind that is knowledge of the Self. What kind of knowledge is that? Whatever kind the Self itself calls for. And what is the Self like? Exactly as the Lord himself has declared, as the words of the Upaniṣads confirm, and as reasoning itself establishes.
'But knowledge always takes the shape of its object,' someone objects. And yet the Self is never an object of knowledge, nor is it ever said to have any shape at all. 'But scripture itself,' the objection continues, 'calls the Self sun-colored (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 3.8), sun-colored again, made of light (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 3.14.2), self-luminous (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.3.9) — so the Self does have form after all!' No — because those very statements exist only to deny that the Self is dark. Once every ordinary form belonging to substances and qualities has been denied of the Self, it might wrongly seem to follow that the Self is simply darkness; texts like 'sun-colored' exist purely to rule that out. This is confirmed by scripture's explicit denial of form itself: 'formless' (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.3.15). It is confirmed, too, by the Self's simply not being an object of perception at all — as it is said: 'His form cannot be seen; no one perceives Him with the eye' (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 4.20), 'without sound, without touch' (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.3.15), and so on. So the claim that 'knowledge takes the form of the Self' simply does not hold up.
So how, then, can there even be knowledge of the Self? All knowledge that has an object takes on the very form of that object — and yet we have already established that the Self has no form at all. If both knowledge and the Self are formless, how can any steady contemplation of the Self ever take hold? This is not actually a problem — because the Self's extreme purity, extreme transparency, and extreme subtlety make it possible after all. And because the intellect shares this same purity, in its own measure, it becomes capable of shining with a reflection of the Self's own consciousness. From there, the mind is simply a reflection of the intellect's light; the senses are a reflection of the mind's; and the body is a reflection of the senses'. That is exactly why ordinary people, following this chain all the way down, end up mistaking the body alone for the Self.
The materialists, who think the body itself is conscious, put it this way: 'the person is just the body, lit up with consciousness.' Others say it is the senses that are conscious; others, the mind; others, the intellect. And some go further still, taking as the Self something inward and unmanifest — what is called the 'undifferentiated', which is really nothing but ignorance itself, wearing a disguise. In every one of these cases, from the intellect all the way down to the body, the same thing is happening: the Self's own consciousness shows up as a reflection in each of them, and that reflection is exactly what tricks people into these mistaken identities. So knowledge of the Self is not something you can command into existence like a duty. What is there to do, then? Only this: let the superimposition of name and form — everything that is not really the Self — fall away. It is not that cognizing the Self's consciousness is some separate task to accomplish, because that consciousness is already showing through, without distinction, in every single object ignorance has ever thrown up. That is exactly why the Buddhist idealists concluded there is no real thing at all apart from cognition, and that cognition needs nothing outside itself to prove it is real — it simply reveals itself. In just the same way, all that has to be done with Brahman is clear away what ignorance has piled on top of it; no separate effort is needed to 'produce' knowledge of Brahman, because Brahman is already, utterly, self-evident. For people whose minds are still caught up chasing the particular shapes of name and form that ignorance dreams up, Brahman — though utterly well-known, easy to know, closer than close, their very own Self — ends up looking unfamiliar, hard to grasp, impossibly far away, as if it were something else entirely. But for those whose minds have turned away from outer appearances, who have received the grace of both guru and Self, nothing is more blissful, more obviously real, more easily known, or nearer to who they are. And that is just what scripture says: 'directly realized, in keeping with righteousness' (Bhagavad Gita 9.2), and so on.
But some self-styled scholars say: 'Because the Self is formless, the intellect simply cannot reach it — so real steadfastness in knowledge is nearly impossible.' True enough — for people who have never sat with a teacher, never heard the Vedānta, whose minds are wholly caught up chasing the outside world, who have never made the effort in real means of knowing. But for the opposite kind of person, it is actually the ordinary business of subject and object — the whole grasp-and-grasped duality — that turns out to be nearly impossible to make sense of, because nothing apart from the Self's own consciousness is ever really found there at all. That is exactly what we already said: 'This is precisely so, never otherwise.' And Krishna himself says: 'What is night for every other being, in that the disciplined sage is wide awake' (Bhagavad Gita 2.69). So the one thing that actually leads to resting in your own true nature is simply letting go of the sense of difference built out of external appearances. The Self is never, for anyone, ever unfamiliar — never something still to be reached, rejected, or chosen. If it really were unfamiliar, every single thing you do for your own sake would be utterly pointless. And it makes no sense to say the body and things like it, being unconscious, act for their own sake; nor does pleasure exist for the sake of more pleasure, or pain for the sake of more pain. Every single thing we do ultimately points toward one thing: understanding the Self. So just as you need no outside proof to know your own body, the Self — being even more intimate to you than your body — needs no outside proof either, to be known. And that settles it: steadfastness in knowing the Self is, for anyone with real discernment, the most self-evident thing there is.
Even those who think knowledge is formless and cannot itself be directly perceived have to admit it, since it is only through knowledge's own operation that anything is ever grasped at all: knowledge must be self-evident, just as obviously as pleasure is. Here is another way to see it: if knowledge were not self-evident, people would go looking to know it, the way they go looking to know a pot. Just as a knower uses knowledge to grasp a knowable thing like a pot, knowledge itself would then need some further act of knowing to grasp it. But that never happens. So knowledge is utterly self-evident — and the knower, for exactly the same reason, is self-evident too. So there is no effort to be made toward knowledge itself; the only real effort belongs to letting go of the false idea of 'Self' wherever it has been mistakenly attached to what is not the Self. And that is why steadfastness in knowledge is, in the end, so easy to achieve.
Close to the Sanskrit
For one who has attained the siddhi described earlier — the siddhi produced by the performance of one's own duty as already stated, that performance having the form of worship of the Lord — for one in whom the discriminating knowledge of the Self has arisen: by what sequence the siddhi characterised by naiṣkarmya, whose form is steadfastness in the knowledge of the Self alone, comes about — that is to be stated. Thus he says —
'Having attained perfection' means: having duly worshipped Īśvara through one's own action, having attained the perfection born from His grace, characterized by the fitness of body and senses for steadfastness in knowledge — 'having attained perfection'; this repetition serves the purpose of what follows. What is that 'what follows', for whose sake this repetition is made? It is explained: In the manner, by whatever method, in the form of steadfastness in knowledge, one attains Brahman, the Supreme Self, in that same way, that method, the sequence of attaining steadfastness in knowledge, understand from my words; ascertain it with certainty — this is the meaning. At length? 'No' — he says — 'only in brief', only in summary, O Kaunteya, 'understand how one attains Brahman' — thus. By this, in order to show with definiteness that promised attainment of Brahman, he says — 'that supreme culmination of knowledge' — thus. 'Niṣṭhā' means culmination, that is completion — this is the meaning. Of what? Of the knowledge of Brahman, which is supreme. Of what kind is it? Of the kind that is knowledge of the Self. Of what kind is that? Of the kind determined by what the Self is. Of what kind is that Self? Of the kind declared by the Lord, and by the statements of the Upaniṣads, and by reasoning.
Objection: Knowledge has the form of its object. But the Self is not an object of knowledge, nor is the Self ever held to possess form. Objection: But it is heard in scripture that the Self has possession of form — 'having the color of the sun' (Śve. Up. 3.8), 'having the color of the sun' (Śve. Up. 3.8), 'having the form of light' (Chā. Up. 3.14.2), 'self-luminous' (Bṛ. Up. 4.3.9). Reply: No; because those statements have the purpose of denying the nature of darkness — when, upon the denial of the form characteristic of substance, quality, and so on, regarding the Self, the false conclusion that the Self has the nature of darkness would otherwise arise, statements such as 'having the color of the sun' serve the purpose of denying that. And this is confirmed because scripture specifically denies form: 'formless' (Ka. Up. 1.3.15). And because the Self is not an object of perception — as it is said: 'His form does not stand within sight; no one sees Him with the eye' (Śve. Up. 4.20), 'without sound, without touch' (Ka. Up. 1.3.15), and so on. Therefore, the claim that 'knowledge has the form of the Self' is untenable.
How then can there be knowledge of the Self? For all knowledge which has something as its object, that becomes of that object's form. And it has been said that the Self is formless. And, both knowledge and the Self being formless, how can there be steadfastness in the contemplation of that? No, this is not a real difficulty; because of the tenability of the Self's extreme stainlessness, extreme transparency, and extreme subtlety. And, because of the tenability of the intellect's own stainlessness and so on, like the Self's, there is the tenability of its appearing as a reflection of the form of the Self's consciousness. The mind is a reflection of the intellect; the senses are reflections of that mind; and the body is a reflection of the senses. Therefore, by ordinary people, the view of the Self is formed only in the body alone.
And the Lokāyatikas, who maintain that the body is conscious, say: 'The person is the body qualified by consciousness.' Likewise, others maintain that the senses are conscious; others, that the mind is conscious; others, that the intellect is conscious. Beyond even that, some have accepted, as the Self, the inner, unmanifest principle, called 'avyākṛta', the state of ignorance itself. Everywhere, from the intellect down to the body, the appearance-as-a-reflection of the Self's consciousness is the cause of this delusion about the Self; and therefore knowledge having the Self as its object is not to be prescribed. What then? Only the cessation of the superimposition of name-and-form and other non-Self factors is to be accomplished; not that cognizing the Self's consciousness itself is to be accomplished, because it is seen without distinction amid all the object-forms superimposed by ignorance. For this very reason, the Vijñānavādin Buddhists have concluded that no external entity at all exists apart from cognition, and that cognition is independent of any other means of valid knowledge, through accepting its self-revealing nature. Therefore, only the removal of what is superimposed by ignorance is to be done with regard to Brahman, but not any effort toward producing knowledge of Brahman, because Brahman is utterly self-evident. For those whose intellects have been carried away by the particular forms of name and form imagined by ignorance, Brahman — though utterly well-known, easily knowable, nearer than the nearest, their very own Self — appears, to the undiscriminating, as unfamiliar, hard to know, exceedingly distant, and as if it were something other. But for those whose intellects have withdrawn from external forms, who have obtained the grace of the Guru and the Self, there is nothing more blissful, more thoroughly well-known, more easily knowable, or nearer to their own self than this. And accordingly it is said — 'directly realizable, in accordance with righteousness' (Bhagavad Gītā 9.2) and so on.
But some, who consider themselves learned, say: 'Because it is formless, the intellect does not reach the reality of the Self. Therefore, right steadfastness in knowledge is hard to accomplish.' True — this is so for those devoid of a guru's tradition, who have not heard the Vedānta, whose intellects are utterly attached to external objects, who have made no effort in the right means of valid knowledge. But for those who are the opposite of that, sound cognition regarding the ordinary duality of the graspable and the grasper is, on the contrary, extremely difficult to achieve, because no entity apart from the Self's own consciousness is ever actually apprehended — just as we have already said: 'This is exactly so, not otherwise'; and it has been said by the Lord: 'That which is night for all beings, in that the disciplined sage is awake' (Bhagavad Gītā 2.69). Therefore, only the cessation of the cognition of difference based on external forms is the cause of resting in one's own true nature as the Self. For indeed, the Self is never, for anyone, at any time, unfamiliar, something to be attained, something to be rejected, or something to be accepted; for, were that Self unfamiliar, all activities undertaken for one's own sake would become meaningless. And it is not possible to conceive that the body and the like, being insentient, exist for their own sake. Nor can pleasure exist for the sake of pleasure, or pain for the sake of pain. And this is because the entire range of practical activity has, as its ultimate purpose, the understanding of the Self. Therefore, just as, for the knowing of one's own body, there is no need for any other means of valid knowledge, so too, since the Self is even more inward than that, there is no need for any other means of valid knowledge with regard to its realization; thus it is established that steadfastness in Self-knowledge is thoroughly self-evident for those with discrimination.
Even for those for whom knowledge is formless and not directly perceptible — even for them, since it is by the power of knowledge alone that the apprehension of the knowable occurs, it must be accepted that knowledge is utterly self-evident, just like pleasure and so on. And because of the untenability of any desire-to-know regarding it — if knowledge were unfamiliar, it would be desired to be known, just like an object of knowledge. Just as the knower wishes, by means of knowledge, to grasp a knowable object such as a pot, so knowledge itself, too, would wish to attain, as something to be known, by another act of knowledge. This does not happen. Therefore, knowledge is utterly self-evident, and the knower, too, is for this very reason self-evident. Therefore, no effort is to be made regarding knowledge; rather, effort is to be made only in the cessation of the notion of 'Self' with regard to the non-Self. Therefore, steadfastness in knowledge is easily accomplished.