Verse 6.82

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

ध्यानिकं सर्वमेवैतद् यदेतदभिशब्दितम् ।
न ह्यनध्यात्मवित् कश्चित् क्रियाफलमुपाश्नुते ॥ ८२ ॥

dhyānikaṃ sarvamevaitad yadetadabhiśabditam |
na hyanadhyātmavit kaścit kriyāphalamupāśnute || 82 ||

All this that has been declared here is appurtenant to Meditation; he who does not realise and cultivate the said mental attitude does not obtain the reward of the acts.—(82)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Appurtenant to Meditation’,—i.e., what comes about only when there is Meditation; what is attained only when meditation is properly done.

“All this that has been declared here’—directly described, not merely indirectly implied. That is, the cultivating of the feeling that good and bad deeds are the causes of agreeable and disagreeable experiences;—when man does something disagreeable, it is always the outcome of natural fortes of one’s own acts) and stands on the same footing as when fever causes suffering or fire burns; and just as the man, who has been burnt by fire, does not hate fire, so also he should not hate the man that causes him pain; nor shall he forbid him to do it (just as no one goes to forbid the fire).

All this becomes possible only when there is meditation, when the mind is duly concentrated. Consequently one should at all times, cultivate the following thought;—Pleasure and pain are the effect of past Actions; in reality the King is not the bestower of happiness, of landed property and other things; in fact it is by my own effort that the first approach to him was obtained; it is my own past meritorious act that is the real bestower of the gift, and not the King; similarly the fine imposed (Penalty inflicted) is not what causes me trouble; it is my own acts that are troubling me; neither the King nor any one else is able to do it.’

All this shall always be pondered over, reflected upon; and all that has been described above as conducive to disgust with the world—thinking of the body a hut having bones for pillars &c. (76)—this also has to be always pondered over.

(A) ‘Anadhyātmavit’;—‘adhyātma’ here stands tor mental attitude;—he who does not realise, does not cultivate—the above-described mental attitude,—‘does not obtain the reward of the acts’; of such acts of the Renunciate, for instance, as begging alms, living in the village for a single night and so forth, he does not obtain the ‘reward,’ in the shape of Liberation. That is to say, the mere cotemplation (contemplation?) of the body as a hut with bones for its pillars and so forth does not always bring about freedom from longing, so long as love and hatred have not been got rid of by the attributing of all that happens to one’s own acts. When this attitude of the mind becomes permanently fixed, then alone is the reward obtained, and not when it comes about only once in a way.

(B) [ Second explanation of ‘anadhyātmavit’]—Or, ‘what has been declared’ may refer to the ‘reposing in Brahman’ (81); and the meaning thus is that this ‘reposing in Brahman’ is ‘appurtenant to meditation,’ and is not attained merely by the performance of acts. And as regards the question as to what is it that has to be meditated upon, the text adds ‘nahyanadhyātmavit’—and the term ‘adhyātma’ stands for those treatises on Vedānta that have been composed on the subject of the Soul;—he who does not know this.—Or ‘adhyātma’ may stand for that which pertains to the soul; i.e., such ideas as—‘the Soul is something distinct from the body, the sense-organs, the mind, the intellect, the life-breath and so forth, and it does not perish when these perish;—it is neither the doer of acts nor the enjoyer of their fruits’;—all these notions belong to one who is swayed by the idea of diversity;—when it has destroyed all evil, it is not affected by the taints or their effects;—being one, it is all this, there is nothing apart from it;—diversity is only, apparent. One who does not know all this as described in the Harisavama, Sadaka and other (?) Upaniṣads, and does not strengthen these ideas by constant and one-pointed meditation, does not obtain the said ‘reward of acts.’ The sense of the verse in this case would be that—‘Except at the time that one is either taking food or engaged in some necessary act, one should always keep meditating upon the soul as described in the Vedānta and other treatises’.

(C) (Third Explanation) Or, even though the text occurs in the section dealing with Renunciation, yet the ‘reward of acts’ may be taken as referring to the Householder also; specially as it is this latter for whom the performance of acts constitutes the most important duly. According to this view, the meaning of the verse comes to be this:—Though Householders may duly perform the Agnihotra and other rites, yet, if they happen to be ignorant of the esoteric sciences,—those sciences which form the very essence of the rites, in the shape of the Udgītha, which is described as permeating all acts, and with which all persona learned in rituals ore thoroughly conversant,—they do not obtain the full reward of those rites, which appear after a long time. This is what has been described in two Śruti texts of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka and the Chāndogya Upaniṣads:—(a) ‘O Gārgi, he who without knowing this syllable, performs sacrifices and practises austerities even for several thousand years, all this becomes only perishable; but what is done through full knowledge, with faith and in full accordance with the esoteric science, becomes extremely virile’;—that is, excellent results accrue only to him who performs acts only after having understood the philosophy of the soul. (b) This has also been declared in the Chāṇḍoyya—‘Those who know this and meditate upon it as frith and austerity etc., etc.,’ (5.10.1). It is with reference to these persons equipped with full knowledge and performing the prescribed acts that the Śruti has declared that they reach the region of Brahman by the path of light etc.(82).

The object to be meditated upon, for the sake of obtaining the knowledge of the Soul, having been thus indicated, it would appear as if the repeating of Vedic mantras were not required at all; hence it is this that is enjoined by the next verse.

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

‘Yadetadabhiśabditam’—‘What has been described in the immediately preceding verses’ (Medhātithi);—‘what has been described in the preceding one verse’ (Kullūka);—‘what has been described in all the preceding chapters’ (Govindarāja and Nandana);—‘what can be expressed by words’ (Nārāyaṇa).

‘Kriyāphalam’—‘The reward of fulfilling the duties of the Renunciate’ (Medhātithi);—‘reward of the act of meditation’ (Kullūka);—‘reward of the performance of rites’ (Govindarāja, Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

Buhler has misunderstood Kullūka, who does not explain ‘adhiyajñam’ as ‘Brahma-veda’; he explains it as yajñam adhikṛtya pravṛttam brahma vedam’—where ‘brahma’ of the text is explained as ‘veda’.