श्रेयो हि ज्ञानमभ्यासाज्ज्ञानाद्ध्यानं विशिष्यते ।
ध्यानात्कर्मफलत्यागस्त्यागाच्छान्तिरनन्तरम् ॥
śreyo hi jñānam abhyāsāj jñānād dhyānaṁ viśiṣyate |
dhyānāt karma-phala-tyāgas tyāgāc chāntir anantaram ||
(Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā: 12.12)
“Contemplation is indeed better than repeated concentration, and meditation is superior to contemplation. From meditation comes relinquishment of the results of action, and thereafter, from relinquishment, peace.”
Commentary
athoktānāṁ smaraṇa-mananābhyāsānāṁ yathā-pūrvaṁ śraiṣṭhyaṁ spaṣṭīkṛtyāha śreyo hīti | abhyāsāj jñānaṁ mayi buddhiṁ niveśayety uktaṁ man-mananaṁ śreyaḥ śreṣṭham | abhyāse saty āyāsata eva dhyānaṁ syāt | manane sati tv anāyāsata eva dhyānam iti viśeṣāt tasmāt jñānād api dhyānaṁ viśiṣyate śreṣṭham ity arthaḥ | kuta ity ata āha—dhyānāt karma-phalānāṁ svargādi-sukhānāṁ niṣkāma-karma-phalasya mokṣasya ca tyāgas tat-spṛhā-rāhityaṁ syāt | svataḥ prāptasyāpi tasyopekṣā | niścala-dhyānāt pūrvaṁ tu bhaktānām ajāta-ratīnāṁ mokṣa-tyāgecchaiva bhavet | niścala-dhyānavatāṁ tu mokṣopekṣā | saiva mokṣa-laghutā-kāriṇī | yad uktaṁ bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhau—‘kleśa-ghnī śubhadā’ ity atra ṣaḍbhiḥ padair etan-māhātmyaṁ kīrtitam iti | yad uktaṁ—‘na pārameṣṭhyaṁ na mahendra-dhiṣṇyaṁ na sārvabhaumaṁ na rasādhipatyam | na yoga-siddhīr apunar-bhavaṁ vā mayy arpitātmecchati mad vinānyat ||’ iti | mayy arpitātmā mad-dhyāna-niṣṭhaḥ | tyāgād vaitṛṣṇyād anantaram eva śāntir mad-rūpa-guṇādikaṁ vinā sarva-viṣayeṣv evendriyāṇām uparatiḥ | atra pūrvārdhe śreyaḥ iti viśiṣyate iti pada-dvayenānvayād uttarārdhe tu anantaram ity anenaivānvayād eṣaiva vyākhyā samyag upapadyate nānyety avadheyam |
(Sārārtha-varṣiṇī-ṭīkā)
“Then, clarifying the preceding superiority of meditation (smaraṇa), contemplation (manana), and repeated concentration (abhyāsa), he [i.e., Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa] says śreyo hi … [i.e., he speaks this verse]. Contemplation (jñāna), that is, contemplation of me as stated [in BG 12.8], ‘Absorb the intellect in me’ (mayi buddhiṁ niveśaya) is better (śreyaḥ) than repeated concentration (abhyāsa). When repeated concentration (abhyāsa) occurs, meditation (dhyāna) shall occur only with difficulty whereas when contemplation (manana) occurs, meditation (dhyāna) shall occur indeed without difficulty. Because of this distinction, meditation is superior (viśiṣyate) even to contemplation (jñāna). This is the meaning. ‘Why?’ [One may ask]. Thus, he says that from meditation shall occur relinquishment (tyāgaḥ) of, that is, an absence of desire for, the results of [desireous] action (karma-phala), that is, the pleasures of Svarga and so on, and of the results of desireless action, that is, mokṣa. Disregard for these even when [they are] attained of their own accord shall occur. Prior to unwavering meditation, bhaktas in whom rati [i.e., bhāva-bhakti] has not manifested shall have only a desire to relinquish mokṣa, whereas those who have unwavering meditation shall have [actual] disregard of mokṣa. That specifically [i.e., rati—bhāva-bhakti] is a belittler of liberation, as is described in Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu [1.1.17], ‘It [i.e., uttamā-bhakti] is (1) a destroyer of affliction and (2) a bestower of good fortune [in the stage of sādhana], (3) a belittler of mokṣa and (4) very difficult to attain [at the stage of bhāva], and (5) a special form of intense bliss and (6) an attractor of Śrī Kṛṣṇa [at the stage of prema].’ Here, the greatness of this [i.e., bhakti-yoga] is praised with six terms. [Bhāva-bhakti’s being a belittler of mokṣa is also] Described as follows [in SB 11.14.14], ‘One who has offered oneself to me desires neither the post of Brahmā, nor the abode of Indra, nor dominion over the entire earth, nor reign over Pātāla, nor the siddhis of yoga, nor non-repetition of birth [i.e., mokṣa], nor anything else apart from me.’ Here, ‘One who has offered oneself to me’ refers to one who has fixity in meditation upon me. From relinquishment (tyāgaḥ), that is, the absence of desire—only thereafter—is there peace (śāntiḥ), that is, desisting of the senses from all objects except my forms, qualities, and so forth. Here [i.e., in the verse under discussion], because of the syntactic connection between the words ‘better’ (śreyaḥ) and ‘is superior’ (viśiṣyate) in the first half, and because of the syntactic connection with [the word] ‘thereafter’ (anantaram) in the second half, this explanation alone is completely befitting. No other is to be considered.”