Shrimad Bhagavad-gita

by Narayana Gosvami | 2013 | 327,105 words

The Bhagavad-gita Verse 12.5, English translation, including the Vaishnava commentaries Sarartha-varsini-tika, Prakashika-vritti and Rasika-ranjana (excerpts). This is verse Verse 12.5 from the chapter 12 called “Bhakti-yoga (Yoga through Pure Devotional Service)”

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration, Word-for-word and English translation of verse 12.5:

क्लेशोऽधिकतरस् तेषाम् अव्यक्तासक्त-चेतसाम् ।
अव्यक्ता हि गतिर् दुःखं देहवद्भिर् अवाप्यते ॥ ५ ॥

kleśo'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām |
avyaktā hi gatir duḥkhaṃ dehavadbhir avāpyate
|| 5 ||

kleśaḥ–trouble; adhikataraḥ–more; teṣām–for those; avyakta-āsakta–are attached to the impersonal, unmanifest feature; cetasām–whose minds; avyaktā–the unmanifest; hi–because; gatiḥ–state; duḥkham–with difficulty; dehavadbhiḥ–by those who are embodied; avāpyate–is obtained.

Those whose minds are attached to the impersonal feature experience great difficulty, because for those who identify the body with the self, it is difficult to develop steadiness in something that is not manifest.

Commentary: Sārārtha-Varṣiṇī Ṭīkā

(By Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura; the innermost intention of the commentary named ‘the shower of essential meanings’)

“How, then, are the jñānīs inferior?” In response to Arjuna’s question, Śrī Bhagavān speaks this verse beginning with kleśo’dhikataras teṣām. “Those who desire to experience the unmanifest brahma (infinite spirit) must undergo extreme difficulty to attain it. It is troublesome for the jīva to try to perceive something that has no manifest existence. The senses are only able to gain knowledge from that which has attributes pertaining to the respective senses, such as sound. They are unable to attain knowledge of that which is devoid of qualities, or attributes.”

It is essential for those who desire nirviśeṣa-jñāna, knowledge of the impersonal aspect of the Absolute, to control the senses, but to do so is as difficult as suppressing the flow of a river. As Sanat Kumāra says to Pṛthu Mahārāja in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (4.22.39), “The devotees can easily cut the knot of the heart, which consists of fruitive desires, by remembering with devotion the effulgence of the petal-like toes of the lotus feet of Bhagavān. The yogīs, however, who are bereft of bhakti, are not able to cut the knot of the heart as devotees can, even though they are free from any mundane enjoying propensity and can control their senses. Therefore, give up the separate endeavour to control the senses, etc., and engage in the worship of Śrī Vāsudeva. Those who practise yoga and other processes, desiring to cross this ocean of material existence, which is filled with the crocodiles of the senses, must face extreme difficulties if they fail to take shelter of Bhagavān. Therefore, O King, you should also accept the lotus feet of the most worshipable Bhagavān as the boat in which to cross this insurmountable ocean that is full of obstacles.”

Even if, after much trouble, one achieves nirviśeṣa-brahma, the feature-less aspect of Absolute Spirit, it happens only with the help of bhakti. Without bhakti to Bhagavān, the worshipper of the impersonal brahma not only undergoes misery but also fails to attain brahma. As Lord Brahmā said, “The only gain of a person who beats an emptied husk of rice is the trouble he takes to beat it” (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.14.4).

Commentary: Sārārtha-Varṣiṇī Prakāśikā-vṛtti

(By Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Gosvāmī Mahārāja; the explanation that illuminates the commentary named Sārārtha-varṣiṇī)

Worshippers of nirviśeṣa-brahma face misery, both during practice (sādhana) and in perfection (siddha). No method of practice can give perfection without the help of bhakti. By taking support of bhakti as a secondary process, those who worship the featureless aspect of the Absolute strive for knowledge of spirit, or brahma-jñāna. In turn, Bhakti-devī awards them the secondary result of bhaktibrahma-jñāna–and then disappears. Such persons thus remain bereft of relishing the supremely beneficial name, form, pastimes and qualities of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. They eternally submerge themselves in an ocean of great misery in the form of sāyujya-mukti. This is self-destructive.

For this reason Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.14.4) states:

śreyaḥ-sṛtiṃ bhaktim udasya te vibho kliśyanti ye kevala-bodha-labdhaye
teṣām asau kleśala eva śiṣyate nānyad yathā sthūla-tuṣāvaghātinām

My dear Lord, worship of You is the best path to realize the self. One who gives it up to cultivate speculative knowledge will simply undergo a troublesome process and will not achieve one’s desired ends. As one who beats an empty husk of wheat cannot get grain, one who simply speculates cannot achieve self-realization. His only gain is trouble.

For the nirviśeṣa-jñānīs, the stages of both practice (sādhana) and perfection (sādhya) are described as troublesome. On the other hand, bhakti is supremely pleasurable and auspicious in both practice and perfection.

Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 4.22.39 states:

yat-pāda-paṅkaja-palāśa-vilāsa-bhaktyā karmāśayaṃ grathitam udgrathayanti santaḥ
tadvan na rikta-matayo yatayo’pi ruddha-sroto-gaṇās tam araṇaṃ bhaja vāsudevam

Devotees of Śrī Bhagavān, who remain perpetually engaged in serving the toes of His lotus feet, can eliminate with ease the strong knot of yearning to enjoy the fruits of one’s prescribed duties. This task cannot be performed by those who are not devoted to Him, such as jñānīs and yogīs, despite their attempt to put an end to the swelling waves of sense enjoyment. You are thus advised to perform bhajana of Śrī Kṛṣna, the son of Vasudeva.

And furthermore, in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 12.4.40:

saṃsāra-sindhum ati-dustaram uttitīrṣor nānyaḥ plavo bhagavataḥ puruṣottamasya
līlā-kathā-rasa-niṣevaṇam antareṇa puṃso bhaved vividha-duḥkha-davārditasya

For those who are being scorched in the forest fire of material existence, which generates various types of miseries, and who desire to cross over the insurmountable ocean of material nescience, there is no other boat than serving the nectarean narrations of the pastimes of Bhagavān Śrī Hari.

Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura says, “The difference between a jñānī-yogī and a bhakti-yogī is that in the stage of practice, a bhakti-yogī can easily cultivate the process to achieve the supreme objective, Śrī Bhagavān, and at the appropriate time, he attains the stage of perfection without fear. On the other hand, in the course of the jñānī-yogī’s practice, he becomes fixed in the unmanifest reality and has to suffer the trouble of practising a conception based on negating what he perceives. This process of negation requires one to think in a way that is opposed to the natural aptitude to love, so it is a cause of unhappiness for the living entity. In this process, the stage of perfection is also not free from fear, because the eternal svarūpa of Bhagavān is not realized before the stage of practice is complete. Therefore, for the jñāna-yogī, even his supreme destination is miserable.

“The jīva is an eternal conscious entity. If the jīva becomes merged in the unmanifest state, then his constitutional nature, which he should accept, is destroyed. Because he has identified himself with brahma, he has cultivated deep impressions by which he considers himself to be the Supreme. Once he has arrived at this imperfect understanding of his real nature, it is difficult for him to give up this conditioned consciousness.

“For the embodied living entity, embarking upon meditation on the unmanifest only results in misery, both at the time of practice and upon attaining the goal. In reality, the living entity is conscious by nature and has a spiritual body. Therefore, this unmanifest, or impersonal, meditation is contrary to the living entity’s own eternal form and is simply a source of misery. Bhakti-yoga alone is the source of eternal auspiciousness for the jīva. Jñāna-yoga, when bereft of bhakti and practised independently, always becomes a source of inauspiciousness. Therefore, adhyātma-yoga, the process of self-realization that is performed by worshipping the formless, immutable and all-pervading nirviśeṣa-svarūpa, is not at all praiseworthy.”

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: