भक्त्या मामभिजानाति यावान्यश्चास्मि तत्त्वतः ।
ततो मां तत्त्वतो ज्ञात्वा विशते तदनन्तरम् ॥
bhaktyā mām abhijānāti yāvān yaś cāsmi tattvataḥ |
tato māṁ tattvato jñātvā viśate tad-anantaram ||
(Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā: 18.55)
“By bhakti, one knows me truly, as far as, and as to who, I am. Then, having known me truly, thereafter one enters [me].”
Commentary
tataś ca bhaktyeti | tathā ca parayā bhaktyā tattvato mām abhijānāti | kathaṁbhūtaṁ, yāvān sarva-vyāpī yaś cāsmi sac-cid-ānanda-ghanas tathābhutam | tataś ca mām evaṁ tattvato jñātvā tad-anantaraṁ tasya jñānasya uparame sati māṁ viśate paramānanda-rūpo bhavatīty arthaḥ |
(Subodhinī-ṭīkā)
“Then, furthermore, bhaktyā … [i.e., then he states this verse]. Similarly, furthermore, that is, by means of supreme bhakti [i.e., by means of the bhakti that was said to be attained by the sādhaka in the previous verse], one knowns me truly. To be of what nature [i.e., how does one come to know me]? ‘As far as’ (yāvān) I am, meaning, as all-pervading, and ‘as to who’ (yaḥ) [I am], meaning, as condensed eternal being, consciousness, and bliss—as such [one comes to know me]. Then, furthermore, having as such known me truly, thereafter, upon the termination of one’s jñāna [i.e., the relinquishment of one’s jñāna-sādhana], one enters me, that is, becomes a form of the supreme bliss. This is the meaning.”
nanu tayā labdhayā bhaktyā tadānīṁ tasya kiṁ syād ity ato’rthāntra-nyāsenāha—bhaktyeti | ahaṁ yāvān yaś cāsmi taṁ māṁ tat-padārthaṁ jñānī vā nānāvidho bhakto vā bhaktyaiva tattvato’bhijānāti, ‘bhaktyāham ekayā grāhyaḥ’ iti mad-ukteḥ | yasmād evaṁ tasmāt prastutaḥ sa jñānī tatas tayā bhaktyaiva tad-anantaraṁ vidyoparamād uttara-kāla eva māṁ jñātvā māṁ viśate mat-sāyujya-sukham anubhavati | mama māyātītatvād avidyāyāś ca māyātvād vidyayāpy aham avagamya iti bhāvaḥ | yat tu ‘sāṅkhya-yogau ca vairāgyaṁ tapo bhaktiś ca keśave | pañca-parvaiva vidyā iti nārada-pañcarātre vidyā-vṛttitvena bhaktiḥ śrūyate | tat khalu hlādinī-śakti-vṛtter bhakter eva kalā kācid vidyā-sāphalyārthaṁ vidyāyāṁ praviṣṭā | karma-sāphalyārthaṁ karma-yoge’pi praviśati | tayā vinā karma-jñāna-yogādīnāṁ śrama-mātratvokteḥ | yato nirguṇā bhaktiḥ sattva-guṇamayyā vidyāyā vṛttir vastuto na bhavati, ato hy ajñāna-nivartakatvenaiva vidyāyāḥ kāraṇatvaṁ tat-padārtha-jñāne tu bhakter eva | kiṁ ca ‘sattvāt sañjāyate jñānam’ iti smṛteḥ sattvajaṁ jñānaṁ sattvam eva | tac ca sattvaṁ vidyā-śabdenocyate yathā tathā bhakty-utthaṁ jñānaṁ bhaktir eva saiva kvacit bhakti-śabdena kvacit jñāna-śabdena cocyata iti jñānam api dvividhaṁ draṣṭavyam | tatra prathamaṁ jñānaṁ sannyasya dvitīyena jñānena brahma-sāyujyam āpnuyād ity ekādaśa-skandha-pañcaviṁśaty-adhyāya-dṛṣṭyāpi jñeyam | atra kecid bhaktyā vinaiva kevalenaiva jñānena sāyujyārthinas te jñāni-māninaḥ kleśa-mātra-phalā ativigītā eva | anye tu bhaktyā vinā kevalena jñānena na muktir iti jñātvā bhakti-miśram eva jñānam abhasyanto bhagavāṁs tu māyopādhir eveti bhagavad-vapur guṇa-mayaṁ manyamānā yogārūḍhatva-daśām api prāptās te’pi jñānino vimukta-mānino vigītā eva | yad uktam—‘mukha-bāhūru-pādebhyaḥ puruṣasyāśramaiḥ saha | catvāro jajñire varṇā guṇair viprādayaḥ pṛthak || ya evaṁ puruṣaṁ sākṣād ātma-prabhavam īśvaram | na bhajanty avajānanti sthānād bhraṣṭāḥ patanty adhaḥ ||’ iti | asyārthaḥ ye na bhajanti ye ca bhajanto’py avajānanti te sannyāsino’pi vinaṣṭāvidyā apy adhaḥ patanti | tathā ca hy uktam—‘ye’nye’ravindākṣa vimukta-māninas tvayy asta-bhāvād aviśuddha-buddhayaḥ | āruhya kṛcchreṇa paraṁ padaṁ tataḥ patanty adho’nādṛta-yuṣmad-aṅghrayaḥ ||’ iti | atrāṅghri-padaṁ bhaktyaiva prayuktaṁ vivakṣitam | anādṛta-yuṣmad-aṅghraya iti tanor guṇa-mayatva-buddhir eva tanor anādaraḥ | yad uktam—‘avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam’ iti | vastutas tu mānuṣī sā tanuḥ sac-cid-ānandamayy eva | tasyāḥ dṛśyatvaṁ tu dustarkya-tadīya-kṛpā-śakti-prabhāvād eva | yad uktam nārāyaṇādhyātma-vacanam—‘nityāvyakto’pi bhagavān īkṣyate nija-śaktitaḥ | tām ṛte paramānandaṁ kaḥ paśyet tam imaṁ prabhum || iti | evaṁ ca bhagavat-tanoḥ sac-cid-ānandamayatve kḷptaṁ ‘sac-cid-ānanda-vigraham śrī-vṛndāvana-sura-bhūruha-talāsīnam’ iti | ‘śābdaṁ brahma vapur dadhat’ ity-ādi śruti-smṛti-para-sahasra-vacaneṣu pramāṇeṣu satsv api—‘māyāṁ tu prakṛtiṁ vidyān māyinaṁ tu maheśvaram’ iti śruti-dṛṣṭyaiva bhagavān api māyopādhir iti manyante kintu svarūpa-bhūtayā nitya-śaktyā māyākhyayā yutaḥ | ‘ato māyamayaṁ viṣṇuṁ pravadanti sanātanam’ iti mādhva-bhāṣya-pramāṇita-śruteḥ | māyāṁ tv ity atra māyā-śabdena svarūpa-bhūtā cic-chaktir evābhidhīyate na tv asvarūpa-bhūtā triguṇa-mayy eva śaktir iti tasyāḥ śruter arthaṁ na manyante | yad vā, prakṛtiṁ durgāṁ māyinaṁ tu maheśvaraṁ śambhuṁ vidyād ity artham api naiva manyante | ato bhagavad-aparādhena jīvan-muktatva-daśāṁ prāptā api te’dhaḥ patanti | yad uktaṁ vāsanā-bhāṣya-dhṛtaṁ pariśiṣṭa-vacanam—‘jīvan-muktā api punar yānti saṁsāra-vāsanām | yady acintya-mahā-śaktau bhagavaty aparādhinaḥ ||’ iti | te ca phala-prāptau satyām arthāt nāsti sādhanopayoga iti matvā jñāna-sannyāsa-kāle jñānaṁ tatra guṇī-bhūtāṁ bhaktim api santyajya, mithyaivāparokṣa-brahmānubhavaṁ tv asya manyante | śrī-vigrahāparādhena bhaktyā api jñānena sārdham antardhānād bhaktiṁ te punar naiva labhante | bhaktyā vinā ca tat-padārthānanubhāvān mṛṣā-samādhayo jīvan-mukta-mānina eva te jñeyāḥ | yad uktam—‘ye’nye’ravindākṣa vimukta-māninaḥ’ iti | ye tu bhakti-miśraṁ jñānam abhyasyanto bhagavan-mūrtiṁ sac-cid-ānandamayīm eva mānayānāḥ krameṇāvidyāvidyayor uparāme parāṁ bhaktiṁ labhante | te jīvan-muktā dvividhāḥ | eke sāyujyārthaṁ bhaktiṁ kurvantas tayaiva tat-padārtham aparokṣīkṛtya tasmin sāyujyaṁ labhante te saṅgītā eva | apare bhūribhāgā yādṛcchika-śānta-mahābhāgavata-saṅga-prabhāvena tyakta-mumukṣāḥ śukādivad bhakti-rasa-mādhuryāsvāda eva nimajjanti, te tu parama-saṅgītā eva | yad uktam—‘ātmārāmāś ca munayo nirgranthā apy urukrame | kurvanty ahaitukīṁ bhaktim itthambhūta-guṇo hariḥ ||’ iti | tad evaṁ caturvidhā jñānino dvaye vigītāḥ patanti, dvaye saṅgītās taranti saṁsāram iti |
(Sārārtha-darśinī-ṭīkā)
“[The question arises:] ‘Well, as a result of that attained bhakti [i.e., the bhakti said to be attained in the previous verse], what then shall become of him [i.e., of the sādhaka mentioned in the previous verse]?’ Thus, by means of an arthāntara-nyāsa [i.e., a description of a general principle by means of a particular case], he says bhaktyā … [i.e., he speaks this verse]. A jñānī, or a bhakta of various types, truly knows me, he who is the referent of tat [in the celebrated statement tat tvam asi in Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.8.7] as far as I am, and as to who I am, only by means of bhakti as per my statement [in SB 11.14.21], ‘I am attainable by means of one-pointed bhakti.’ Since this is such, the jñānī under discussion then, only by means of that bhakti, ‘thereafter’ (tad-anantaram), that is, only at the time of the termination of [this jñānī’s] knowledge (vidyā), comes to know me and then enters me, that is, experiences the bliss of absorption (sāyujya) in me. Because of my being beyond māyā and ignorance’s (avidyā’s) being māyā, I am knowable also by means of knowledge (vidyā), since, indeed, bhakti is heard of as being a function (vṛtti) of knowledge (vidyā) in Nārada Pañcarātra, ‘Knowledge (vidyā) is verily of five limbs: sāṅkhya, yoga, non-attachment (vairāgya), austerity (tapas), and bhakti to Keśava.’ Thus, some fraction of bhakti itself, which is [in actuality] a function (vṛtti) of the hlādinī-śakti [of Śrī Bhagavān’s svarūpa-śakti], has entered knowledge (vidyā) for the sake of the fruitfulness of knowledge (vidyā) [i.e., for the sake of making knowledge (vidyā) able to confer results upon those who cultivate it since knowledge (vidyā) is unable to do this on its own without the support of bhakti]. It [i.e., bhakti, similarly] enters karma-yoga too for the sake of the fruitfulness of karma because of the statements [in śāstra] of karma, jñāna, yoga, and so forth’s being mere exertion [i.e., fruitless labor] without it [i.e., bhakti]. Since nirguṇā bhakti is actually not a function (vṛtti) of the knowledge (vidyā) constituted of sattva-guṇa, knowledge (vidyā) possesses causality only on account of being a remover of ignorance (ajñāna), whereas bhakti alone does [possesses causality] in regard to knowledge of the referent of tat. Moreover, as per the Smṛti [i.e., the statement in BG 14.17], ‘Knowledge is produced from sattva,’ knowledge produced by sattva is itself [called] sattva. Thus, furthermore, as sattva is referred to by the word ‘knowledge’ (vidyā), so knowledge arising from bhakti is bhakti itself, and that itself is referred to sometimes with the word bhakti, and sometimes with the word ‘knowledge’ (jñāna). Thus, knowledge (jñāna) too is to be seen to be of two types [i.e., that which is produced by sattva-guṇa and that which is produced by bhakti and is itself a form of bhakti]. In that regard, one should relinquish the first [type of] knowledge (jñāna) [i.e., the type constituted of sattva-guṇa] and by means of the second [type of] knowledge (jñāna) [i.e., bhakti] attain absorption (sāyujya) in Brahman—this [notion] can be understood also from observation of the twenty-fifth chapter of the Eleventh Canto [of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam]. In this regard, some [jñānīs] are seekers of sāyujya solely by means of knowledge (jñāna) alone verily without bhakti. They consider themselves jñānīs but affliction alone is their result, and they are certainly severely censured. Others, however, knowing that mukti does not come about by means of jñāna alone without bhakti, practice jñāna indeed mixed with bhakti; they consider Bhagavān’s figure to be constituted of the guṇas because Bhagavān [himself] is [supposedly according to them] only an adjunct (upādhi) of māyā, and they attain even the state of being ascended in yoga (yogārūḍha). These jñānīs too, who consider themselves fully liberated [even though they are not] are certainly censured, since it is said [in SB 11.5.2–3], ‘The four separate varṇas, brāhmaṇa and so forth, are born from the face, arms, thighs, and feet of the Puruṣa by means of the guṇas along with the [four] āśramas. Those [persons] among these [varṇas and āśramas] who do not worship and [thus] disrespect the Puruṣa himself, the Source of the self, Īśvara, become deviated from their position and fall down.’ The meaning of this [verse] is that even those sannyāsīs who do not worship [Bhagavān] or worship but also disrespect [Bhagavān] fall down even though their ignorance (avidyā) [in the general sense without reference to the nature of Bhagavān specifically] has been dispelled. Similarly also [this is so] since it is said [in SB 10.2.42], ‘O Lotus-eyed One, others, who consider themselves fully liberated yet are of not fully purified intellect because of having forsaken bhāva for you, ascend with hardship to the highest position but fall down from there because of their having disrespected your feet.’ Here [i.e., in this verse], the word ‘feet’ (aṅghri) is intended to be used specifically because of bhakti [to Śrī Bhagavān, i.e., the mention not of disrespect to Bhagavān but disrespect specifically to the feet of Bhagavān is made to imply that Bhagavān is most worthy of bhakti since one falls down even as a result of neglecting to respect not just him in general but only even his feet]. ‘They by whom your feet have been disrespected’ (anādṛta-yuṣmad-aṅghrayaḥ) thus conveys that just [fostering] the mentality of the body [of Śrī Bhagavān] being constituted of the guṇas is a disrespect of the body [of Śrī Bhagavān, and thus, of him], since it is said [in BG 9.11], ‘Fools deride me as having donned a [māyika] human form.’ In actuality, however, that human form [of Śrī Bhagavān] is constituted solely of eternal being, consciousness, and bliss. Its being visible [to people of the world] occurs indeed only because of the influence of his incomprehensible potency of grace, since it is said in a statement of the Nārāyaṇādhyātma: ‘Although eternally unmanifest, Bhagavān is seen by means of his own potency. Without that, who can see him, the Lord of paramount bliss?’ In this way, furthermore, even when Bhagavān’s figure is determined as being constituted of eternal being, consciousness, and bliss in the evidences of thousands of statements from the Śrutis and Smṛti, such as [Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad (1.33)], ‘The embodiment of eternal being, consciousness, and bliss seated at the base of a desire-tree in beautiful Vṛndāvana …,’ and [SB 3.21.8], ‘[To Kardama Muni Bhagavān] Displayed [his] form of Brahman, understandable [only] through sound [i.e., the Veda],’ [still] just by observing the [statement in the] Śruti [i.e., Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 4.2], ‘Know prakṛti to be māyā, and the Great Īśvara to be related to māyā,’ they [i.e., the jñānīs who disrespect Bhagavān] think Bhagavān too is an adjunct (upādhi) of māyā. ‘United with his own inherent eternal potency known as māyā,’ however, [is the actual meaning of this statement] as per the statement evidenced in the commentary of Madhvācārya, ‘Thus they say the eternal Viṣṇu is made of māyā.’ [Thus,] Here, in māyā tu … [i.e., in the aforecited verse from Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad that jñānīs take to be evidence of Bhagavān being an adjunct (upādhi) of māyā], the inherent conscious potency (cit-śakti) [of Śrī Bhagavān] is referred to by the word māyā, and not, rather, the potency constituted only of the three guṇas that is non-inherent [in Śrī Bhagavān’s person]. This meaning of that [statement in the] Śruti they [i.e., the aforementioned jñānīs] do not consider. Alternately, they also do not consider this [other possible] meaning [of the aforecited verse from Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad ], ‘Know prakṛti to be Durgā, and the Great Īśvara, that is, Śambhu, to be related to māyā.’ Therefore, although they have attained the state of being a jīvan-mukta, they fall down as a result of offense to Bhagavān, as stated in a statement from Pariśiṣṭa cited in the Vāsanā-bhāṣya: ‘Even jīvan-muktas again enter bondage by means of karmas if they are offenders of Bhagavān, who is possessed of immense, inconceivable potency.’ Furthermore, when attainment of the result [of their sādhana] occurs, they consider that [their] sādhana is not suitable for their aim [i.e., sāyujya-mukti], and at the time of relinquishing [their sādhana of] jñāna, they relinquish jñāna and the ancillary bhakti therein as well and consider only their verily false (mithyā) unmediated (aparokṣa) experience of Brahman [to be worthy of fixing their attention upon]. After the disappearance [their] jñāna along with bhakti, and as a result of offense to the blessed figure [of Śrī Bhagavān], they certainly do not attain bhakti again, and because of non-experience of the referent of tat [i.e., Brahman] without bhakti, they are to be known as those who only think themselves jīvan-muktas but whose meditation (samādhi) is in vain, since it is stated [in SB 10.2.42], ‘O Lotus-eyed One, others, who consider themselves fully liberated yet are of not fully purified intellect because of having forsaken bhāva for you, ascend with hardship to the highest position but fall down from there because of their having disrespected your feet.’ Those [other types of] jīvan-muktas, however, who practice jñāna mixed with bhakti, consider Bhagavān’s figure to verily be constituted of eternal being, consciousness, and bliss, and attain supreme bhakti upon the gradual [occurrence of the] termination of ignorance (avidyā) and knowledge (vidyā), are of two types. One [type] performs bhakti for the sake of [attaining] sāyujya, has unmediated (aparokṣa) experience of the referent of tat [i.e., Brahman], and [ultimately] attains sāyujya. They are certainly praised. The other [type], which is very fortunate, relinquishes the desire for mokṣa by the influence of independent (yādṛcchika) association of śānta Mahābhāgavatas [i.e., great bhaktas of Śrī Bhagavān who have śānta-rati for him and whose association comes to those jñānīs independently of its own accord, that is, as causeless grace upon those jñānīs] and become, like Śuka and others, absorbed solely in relishing the sweetness (mādhurya) of bhakti-rasa. They are certainly highly praised, since it is said [in SB 1.10.7], ‘Even ātmārāmas and sages who are free from entanglement engage in unconditional bhakti to [Hari,] he of tremendous power. Hari is possessed of such qualities.’ Thus, in this way, jñānīs are of four types. The two that are censured [i.e., the first two aforementioned types] fall, and the two that are praised [i.e., the latter two aforementioned types] cross over saṁsāra.”
tataḥ kiṁ tad āha—bhaktyeti | svarūpato guṇataś ca yo’haṁ vibhūtitaś ca yāvān aham asmi taṁ mām parayā mad-bhaktyā tattvato’bhijānāty anubhavati | tato mat-parama-bhaktito hetor ukta-lakṣaṇaṁ māṁ tattvato yāthātmyena jñātvānubhūya tad-anantaraṁ tata eva hetor māṁ viśate mayā saha yujyate | puraṁ praviśatīty atra pura-saṁyoga eva pratīyate na tu purātmakatvam | atra tattvato’bhijñāne praveśe ca bhaktir eva hetur ukto bodhyaḥ ‘bhaktyā tv ananyayā śakyaḥ’ ity ādi pūrvokteḥ | tad-anantaram iti mat-svarūpa-guṇa-vibhūti-tāttvikānubhavād uttarasmin kāle ity arthaḥ | yad vā parayā bhaktyā māṁ tattvato jñātvā tatas tāṁ bhaktim ādāyaiva māṁ viśate | ‘lyab-lope karmaṇi pañcamī’ | mokṣe’pi bhaktir astīty āha sūtra-kṛt ‘āprāyaṇāt tatrāpi hi dṛṣṭam’ iti | ā-prāyaṇād ā-mokṣāt tatrāpi ca mokse bhaktir anuvartate iti śrutau dṛṣṭam iti sūtrārthaḥ | bhaktyā vinaṣṭāvidyānāṁ bhaktyāḥ svādo vivardhate sitayā naṣṭa-pittānāṁ sitāsvādavad iti rahasya-vidaḥ | itthaṁ ca sa-niṣṭhānāṁ sādhana-sādhya-paddhatir uktā |
(Gītā-bhūṣaṇa-ṭīkā)
“[A question is raised:] ‘What then?’ Thus, he says bhaktyā … [i.e., thus Śrī Kṛṣṇa describes what is next attained by the sādhaka mentioned in the previous verse]. By means of supreme bhakti to me, one truly knows, that is, experiences, me, that is, who I am as per [my] essential nature (svarūpa) and qualities, and as far as I exist with magnificence as well. Then, having known, that is, experienced, me, who am of the aforementioned characteristics, truly (tattvataḥ), that is, in accord with my real nature, because of supreme bhakti to me, thereafter (tad-anantaram), meaning, because of this, one enters (viśate) me, that is, one is united with me. ‘One enters the city’—here [i.e., when such a statement is made], only conjunction with the city is understood, and not, rather, becoming of the nature of the city [i.e., when it is said that someone enters a city, it is readily understood that the person does not literally merge into the city such that they become the city and cease to exist as an individual person but rather that they retain their separate individuality while abiding in conjunction with the city, meaning, while existing in the same space and time as the city, and thus when it is said in the verse under discussion that one ‘enters me,’ it does not mean that someone attains sāyujya-mukti and ceases to exist as an individual entity]. Here [i.e., in the verse under discussion], it is to be understood that bhakti alone is said to be the cause in regard to knowing [me] in truth and entering [me], as per the previous statement [in SB 11.54], ‘But by exclusive bhakti, O Arjuna, O scorcher of enemies, I, in this form, am able to be known truly, to be seen [truly], and to be entered [truly].’ ‘Thereafter’ (tad-anantaram) means at a later time, after [one has had] true experience of my essential nature (svarūpa), qualities, and magnificence (vibhūti). Alternately, [the meaning is as follows,] having known me truly by means of supreme bhakti, then, specifically taking to (ādāya) that bhakti, one enters me, according to [the grammatical rule] lyab-lope karmaṇi pañcamī [i.e., the rule that the fifth (ablative) case is used in the instance of an omission of a verbal participle ending in ya, which in this case leads to that reading of tat in tad-anantaram to mean tataḥ, the ablative form of tat, and further indicates the omitted presence of the participle ‘taking to’ (ādāya) in the verse; in this way, the meaning of the phrase tad-anantaram becomes ‘taking to (ādāya) that (tām),’ viz., bhakti, and the meaning of the sentence becomes, ‘Then, having known me truly, one takes to bhakti and enters me’]. The author of the sūtras [i.e., the Vedānta-sūtras] states that there is bhakti even in mokṣa [in VS 4.1.12], ‘Āprāyaṇāt tatrāpi hi dṛṣṭam.’ The meaning of this sūtra is that bhakti continues up to departure, that is, up to mokṣa, and even therein, that is, [even] in mokṣa [as well] because this is seen in the Śruti.’ [The reason for this continuance of bhakti even in the state of mokṣa is now explained:] According to knowers of the esoteric, the taste of bhakti increases for those whose ignorance has been fully destroyed by bhakti just like the taste of sugar candy [does] for those whose jaundice has been cured by [eating] sugar candy. In this way, furthermore, the process of practice (sādhana) and attainment (sādhya) of the saniṣṭhas is described.”