In plain words
Through Bhakti one knows Me in tattva—how great I am and what I am. Then, knowing Me in tattva, one enters into Me immediately.
Word for word
By devotion he knows Me in truth, how great and who I am; then, having known Me in truth, he enters [Me] immediately after.
The commentators
Bhagavadgītābhāṣyam
ततः ज्ञानलक्षणया —
भक्त्या माम् अभिजानाति यावान् अहम् उपाधिकृतविस्तरभेदः, यश्च अहम् अस्मि विध्वस्तसर्वोपाधिभेदः उत्तमः पुरुषः आकाशकल्पः, तं माम् अद्वैतं चैतन्यमात्रैकरसम् अजरम् अभयम् अनिधनं तत्त्वतः अभिजानाति । ततः माम् एवं तत्त्वतः ज्ञात्वा विशते तदनन्तरं मामेव ज्ञानानन्तरम् । नात्र ज्ञानप्रवेशक्रिये भिन्ने विवक्षिते ‘ज्ञात्वा विशते तदनन्तरम्’ इति । किं तर्हि ? फलान्तराभावात् ज्ञानमात्रमेव, ‘क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि’(भ. गी. १३ । २) इति उक्तत्वात् ॥
ननु विरुद्धम् इदम् उक्तम् ‘ज्ञानस्य या परा निष्ठा तया माम् अभिजानाति’ इति । कथं विरुद्धम् इति चेत् , उच्यते — यदैव यस्मिन् विषये ज्ञानम् उत्पद्यते ज्ञातुः, तदैव तं विषयम् अभिजानाति ज्ञाता इति न ज्ञाननिष्ठां ज्ञानावृत्तिलक्षणाम् अपेक्षते इति ; अतश्च ज्ञानेन न अभिजानाति, ज्ञानावृत्त्या तु ज्ञाननिष्ठया अभिजानातीति । नैष दोषः ; ज्ञानस्य स्वात्मोत्पत्तिपरिपाकहेतुयुक्तस्य प्रतिपक्षविहीनस्य यत् आत्मानुभवनिश्चयावसानत्वं तस्य निष्ठाशब्दाभिलापात् । शास्त्राचार्योपदेशेन ज्ञानोत्पत्तिहेतुं सहकारिकारणं बुद्धिविशुद्धत्वादि अमानित्वादिगुणं च अपेक्ष्य जनितस्य क्षेत्रज्ञपरमात्मैकत्वज्ञानस्य कर्तृत्वादिकारकभेदबुद्धिनिबन्धनसर्वकर्मसंन्याससहितस्य स्वात्मानुभवनिश्चयरूपेण यत् अवस्थानम् , सा परा ज्ञाननिष्ठा इति उच्यते । सा इयं ज्ञाननिष्ठा आर्तादिभक्तित्रयापेक्षया परा चतुर्थी भक्तिरिति उक्ता । तया परया भक्त्या भगवन्तं तत्त्वतः अभिजानाति, यदनन्तरमेव ईश्वरक्षेत्रज्ञभेदबुद्धिः अशेषतः निवर्तते । अतः ज्ञाननिष्ठालक्षणया भक्त्या माम् अभिजानातीति वचनं न विरुध्यते ।
अत्र च सर्वं निवृत्तिविधायि शास्त्रं वेदान्तेतिहासपुराणस्मृतिलक्षणं न्यायप्रसिद्धम् अर्थवत् भवति — ‘विदित्वा . . . व्युत्थायाथ भिक्षाचर्यं चरन्ति’(बृ. उ. ३ । ५ । १) ‘तस्मान्न्यासमेषां तपसामतिरिक्तमाहुः’(तै. ना. ७९) ‘न्यास एवात्यरेचयत्’(तै. ना. ७८) इति । ‘संन्यासः कर्मणां न्यासः’(?) ‘वेदानिमं च लोकममुं च परित्यज्य’(आ. ध. २ । ९ । १३) ‘त्यज धर्ममधर्मं च’(मो. ध. ३२९ । ४०) इत्यादि । इह च प्रदर्शितानि वाक्यानि । न च तेषां वाक्यानाम् आनर्थक्यं युक्तम् ; न च अर्थवादत्वम् , स्वप्रकरणस्थत्वात् , प्रत्यगात्माविक्रियस्वरूपनिष्ठत्वाच्च मोक्षस्य । न हि पूर्वसमुद्रं जिगमिषोः प्रातिलोम्येन प्रत्यक्समुद्रजिगमिषुणा समानमार्गत्वं सम्भवति । प्रत्यगात्मविषयप्रत्ययसन्तानकरणाभिनिवेशश्च ज्ञाननिष्ठा ; सा च प्रत्यक्समुद्रगमनवत् कर्मणा सहभावित्वेन विरुध्यते । पर्वतसर्षपयोरिव अन्तरवान् विरोधः प्रमाणविदां निश्चितः । तस्मात् सर्वकर्मसंन्यासेनैव ज्ञाननिष्ठा कार्या इति सिद्धम् ॥ ५५ ॥
In plain words
Then, by what is marked by knowledge —
'Through devotion he comes to know Me' — how vast I am, all that manifold distinction thrown up by limiting conditions, and who I truly am, the Supreme Person in whom every such distinction has already dissolved, boundless as space itself. That is the Me he comes to know in truth: non-dual, pure consciousness through and through, ageless, fearless, deathless. 'Thereafter' — having known Me this way, in truth, he 'enters', 'immediately thereafter' — enters Me, that is, the very instant this knowledge dawns. Now, in this phrase 'having known, he enters immediately thereafter', do not take knowing and entering as two separate acts. What is really meant, then? Simply knowledge itself — because there is no further result beyond it, exactly as it was already said: 'And know Me also as the knower of the field' (Bhagavad Gita 13.2).
Someone objects: isn't this a contradiction? The verse says 'by that supreme fixity of knowledge you know Me' — but ordinary knowing happens the instant a thought arises, with no need for any sustained fixity at all. So how can mere momentary knowledge and this so-called fixity be the same thing? It is no contradiction. The 'fixity' meant here isn't a repeated act of thinking — it is knowledge itself, fully ripened, uncontradicted by any doubt, that has come to rest in the direct, certain experience of the Self. That resting — arrived at through a teacher's instruction, a purified mind, humility and the rest, and carrying with it the complete relinquishing of every trace of 'I am the doer' — that resting in the felt oneness of yourself and the Supreme is what 'fixity in knowledge' means. And this very fixity has always been called, beyond the devotion of the distressed, the seeker, and the seeker of wealth, the fourth and highest devotion. By that devotion you know the Lord exactly as He is — and the instant you do, the very sense that 'He' and 'I' were ever different falls away completely. So no, the verse contradicts nothing: to know Me through devotion that is fixity in knowledge is simply to know Me.
And here every scripture that points toward renunciation — the Upaniṣads, the epics, the purāṇas, the law-books — carries real weight, backed by reasoning, not mere piety. 'Having known the Self... they rise up and live on alms.' 'They call renunciation greater than any austerity.' 'Renunciation alone outweighed everything.' 'Renunciation is the laying down of action.' 'Abandon this world and the next.' 'Let go of both merit and wrongdoing.' These words are not empty ornament — they belong exactly where they stand, and they rest on something unchanging: mokṣa is grounded in the Self's own nature, which never moves at all. Here is why the two paths can't be walked together: someone journeying east toward one ocean and someone journeying west toward another cannot possibly be on the same road. Fixity in knowledge is exactly this — the steady, unbroken current of awareness turned toward your innermost Self. And like that western-bound traveler, it simply cannot coexist with action pointed the other way. The difference between them is not small; those who truly know say it is as vast as the gap between a mountain and a mustard seed. And so it stands settled: fixity in knowledge is reached only by letting go of every action — nothing less will do.
Close to the Sanskrit
Then, by that which has knowledge as its defining mark —
'Through devotion he comes to know Me' — how great I am, that is, the extent of distinction caused by limiting adjuncts, and who I am, that is, the Supreme Person in whom all distinction due to limiting adjuncts has been destroyed, comparable to space — that Me, non-dual, of the single essence of pure consciousness alone, unaging, fearless, undying, he comes to know in truth. 'Thereafter' — having thus known Me in truth, 'he enters', 'immediately thereafter', that is, into Me indeed, immediately after this knowledge. Here, in this phrase 'having known, he enters immediately thereafter', two distinct actions — knowing and entering — are not intended. What then? Only knowledge itself, because there is no other result, since it has been said: 'And know Me also as the knower of the field' (Bhagavad Gītā 13.2).
Now: this is said to be contradictory — 'by that supreme fixity of knowledge one knows Me,' thus. How is it contradictory, if one asks — it is said: as soon as, in whatever object, knowledge arises for the knower, at that very moment the knower knows that object — thus [the ordinary act of knowing] does not require a fixity of knowledge characterized by repetition of knowledge; and therefore, one does not know [the Lord] by [mere] knowledge, but by repetition of knowledge, that is, by fixity in knowledge, one knows [Him] — thus [runs the objection]. This is not a fault; because it is to that state of knowledge — endowed with the causes of its own arising and maturation, free of any counter-position — which culminates in the ascertained experience of the Self, that the word 'niṣṭhā' is applied. That abiding, in the form of ascertained experience of one's own Self, of the knowledge of the oneness of the field-knower and the Supreme Self generated by relying on the instruction of scripture and teacher, on the auxiliary cause of purity of intellect and the rest, and on qualities beginning with humility — accompanied by the renunciation of all action bound up with the notion of distinct factors of action such as agency — that is called the supreme fixity in knowledge. This very fixity in knowledge has been called, relative to the triad of devotion beginning with that of the distressed, the fourth, supreme devotion. By that supreme devotion one knows the Blessed Lord in His true nature, immediately after which the notion of difference between the Lord and the field-knower ceases completely. Therefore the statement 'one knows Me by devotion characterized as fixity in knowledge' is not contradicted.
And here, all scripture that prescribes renunciation — Vedānta, epic, purāṇa, and law-text — established by reasoning, is meaningful. [As it is said]: 'having known [the Self]... then, having risen up, they wander in mendicancy' (Bṛh. Up. 3.5.1); 'therefore of these they declare renunciation surpassing austerities' (Tai. Nā. 79); 'renunciation alone surpassed [all]' (Tai. Nā. 78) — thus. 'Renunciation is the laying-down of actions' (?); 'having wholly abandoned these Vedas and that world' (Ā. Dh. 2.9.13); 'abandon merit and demerit' (Mo. Dha. 329.40) and so on. And here these statements have been shown. And it is not right that these statements be pointless; nor are they mere eulogy, because they stand in their own proper topic and because liberation is grounded in the unchanging essential nature of the inner Self. For sameness of path is not possible between one who wishes to go to the eastern ocean and, by the reverse course, one who wishes to go to the western ocean. And the resolute effort to produce a continuous stream of cognition directed at the inner Self is fixity in knowledge; and that, like going to the western ocean, conflicts with action by virtue of co-existing with it. Like the opposition between a mountain and a mustard seed, an opposition of vast difference is determined by those who know the valid means of knowledge. Therefore it is established that fixity in knowledge is to be accomplished only by the renunciation of all action. || 55 ||