Srimad Bhagavad Gita - Sri Sankaracharya's Commentary – Chapter 2 – Part -2

Srimad

Bhagavad Gita

English Translation of

Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary

Swami Gambhirananda

अविनाशि तु तद्विद्धि येन सर्वमिदं ततम् ।
विनाशमव्ययस्यास्य न कश्चित्कर्तुमर्हति ॥२- १७॥

अन्तवन्त इमे देहा नित्यस्योक्ताः शरीरिणः ।
अनाशिनोऽप्रमेयस्य तस्माद्युध्यस्व भारत ॥२- १८॥

य एनं वेत्ति हन्तारं यश्चैनं मन्यते हतम् ।
उभौ तौ न विजानीतो नायं हन्ति न हन्यते ॥२- १९॥

न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचि- न्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः ।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे ॥२- २०॥

वेदाविनाशिनं नित्यं य एनमजमव्ययम् ।
कथं स पुरुषः पार्थ कं घातयति हन्ति कम् ॥२- २१॥

वासांसि जीर्णानि यथा विहाय नवानि गृह्णाति नरोऽपराणि ।
तथा शरीराणि विहाय जीर्णान्यन्यानि संयाति नवानि देही ॥२- २२॥

नैनं छिन्दन्ति शस्त्राणि नैनं दहति पावकः ।
न चैनं क्लेदयन्त्यापो न शोषयति मारुतः ॥२- २३॥

अच्छेद्योऽयमदाह्योऽयमक्लेद्योऽशोष्य एव च ।
नित्यः सर्वगतः स्थाणुरचलोऽयं सनातनः ॥२- २४॥

अव्यक्तोऽयमचिन्त्योऽयमविकार्योऽयमुच्यते ।
तस्मादेवं विदित्वैनं नानुशोचितुमर्हसि ॥२- २५॥

2.17 But know That to be indestructible by which

all this is pervaded. None can bring about the

destruction of this Immutable.

2.17 Tu, but -- this word is used for distinguishing

(reality) from unreality; tat viddhi, know That; to

be avinasi, indestructible, by nature not subject to

destruction; what? (that) yena, by which, by which

Brahman called Reality; sarvam, all; idam, this, the

Universe together with space; is tatam, pervaded,

as pot etc. are pervaded by space. Na kascit, none;

arhati, can; kartum, bring about; vinasam, the

destruction, disappearance, nonexistence; asya, of

this avyayasya, of the Immutable, that which does

not undergo growth and depletion. By Its very

nature this Brahman called Reality does not suffer

mutation, because, unlike bodies etc., It has no

limbs; nor (does It suffer mutation) by (loss of

something) belonging to It, because It has nothing

that is Its own. Brahman surely does not suffer loss

like Devadatta suffering from loss of wealth.

Therefore no one can bring about the destruction of

this immutable Brahman. No one, not even God

Himself, can destroy his own Self, because the Self

is Brahman. Besides, action with regard to one's

Self is self-contradictory. Which, again, is that

'unreal' that is said to change its own nature? This

is being answered:

2.18 These destructible bodies are said to belong to

the everlasting, indestructible, indeterminable,

embodied One. Therefore, O descendant of

Bharata, join the battle.

2.18 Ime, these; antavantah, destructible; dehah,

bodies -- as the idea of reality which continues with

regard to water in a mirage, etc. gets eliminated

when examined with the means of knowledge, and

that is its end, so are these bodies and they have an

end like bodies etc. in dream and magic --; uktah,

are said, by discriminating people; to belong

nityasya, to the everlasting; anasinah, the

indestructible; aprameyasya, the indeterminable;

sarirnah, embodied One, the Self. This is the

meaning. The two words 'everlasting' and

'indestructible' are not repetitive, because in

common usage everlastingness and destructibility

are of two kinds. As for instance, a body which is

reduced to ashes and has disappeared is said to

have been destoryed. (And) even while existing,

when it becomes transfigured by being afflicted

with diseases etc. it is said to be 'destroyed'. [Here

the A.A. adds 'tatha dhana-nase-apyevam, similar

is the case even with regard to loss of wealth.'-Tr.]

That being so, by the two words 'everlasting' and

'indestructible' it is meant that It is not subject to

both kinds of distruction. Otherwise, the

everlastingness of the Self would be like that of the

earth etc. Therefore, in order that this contingency

may not arise, it is said, 'Of the everlasting,

indestructible'. Aprameyasya, of the

indeterminable, means 'of that which cannot be

determined by such means of knowledge as direct

perception etc.' Objection: Is it not that the Self is

determined by the scriptures, and before that

through direct perception etc.? Vedantin: No,

because the Self is self-evident. For, (only) when

the Self stands predetermined as the knower, there

is a search for a means of knolwedge by the

knower. Indeed, it is not that without first

determining oneself as, 'I am such', one takes up

the task of determining an object of knowledge. For

what is called the 'self' does not remain unknown

to anyone. But the scripture is the final authority

[when the Vedic text establishes Brahman as the

innermost Self, all the distinctions such as knower,

known and the means of knowledge become

sublated. Thus it is reasonable that the Vedic text

should be the final authority. Besides, its authority

is derived from its being faultless in as much as it

has not originated from any human being.]: By

way of merely negating superimposition of

qualities that do not belong to the Self, it attains

authoritativeness with regard to the Self, but not

by virtue of making some unknown thing known.

There is an Upanisadic text in support of this: '...the

Brahman that is immediate and direct, the Self that

is within all' (Br. 3.4.1). Since the Self is thus eternal

and unchanging, tasmat, therefore; yudhyasva,

you join the battle, i.e. do not desist from the war.

Here there is no injunction to take up war as a

duty, because be (Arjuna), though he was

determined for war, remains silent as a result of

being overpowered by sorrow and delusion.

Therefore, all that is being done by the Lord is the

removal of the obstruction to his duty. 'Therefore,

join the battle' is only an approval, not an

injunction. The scripture Gita is intended for

eradicating sorrow, delusion, etc. which are the

cases of the cycle of births and deaths; it is not

intended to enjoin action. As evidences of this idea

the Lord cites two Vedic verses: [Ka. 1.2.19-20.

There are slight verbal differences.-Tr.]

2.19 He who thinks of this One as the killer, and he

who thinks of this One as the killed -- both of them

do not know. This One does not kill, nor is It killed.

2.19 But the ideas that you have, 'Bhisma and

others are neing killed by me in war; I am surely

their killer' -- this idea of yours is false. How? Yah,

he who; vetti, thinks; of enam, this One, the

embodied One under consideration; as hantaram,

the killer, the agent of the act of killing; ca, and;

yah, he who, the other who; manyate, thinks; of

enam, this One; as hatam, the killed -- (who thinks)

'When the body is killed, I am myself killed; I

become the object of the act of killing'; ubhau tau,

both of them; owing to non-discrimination, na, do

not; vijanitah, know the Self which is the subject of

the consciousness of 'I'. The meaning is: On the

killing of the body, he who thinks of the Self (-- the

content of the consciousness of 'I' --) [The Ast.

omits this phrase from the precedig sentence and

includes it in this place. The A.A. has this phrase in

both the places.-Tr.] as 'I am the killer', and he who

thinks, 'I have been killed', both of them are

ignorant of the nature of the Self. For, ayam, this

Self; owing to Its changelessness, na hanti, does not

kill, does not become the agent of the act of killing;

na hanyate, nor is It killed, i.e. It does not become

the object (of the act of killing). The second verse is

to show how the Self is changeless:

2.20 Never is this One born, and never does It die;

nor is it that having come to exist, It will again

cease to be. This One is birthless, eternal,

undecaying, ancient; It is not killed when the body

is killed.

2.20 Na kadacit, neverl; is ayam, this One; jayate,

born i.e. the Self has no change in the form of being

born -- to which matter is subject --; va, and (-- va is

used in the sense of and); na mriyate, It never dies.

By this is denied the final change in the form of

destruction. The word (na) kadacit), never, is

connected with the denial of all kinds of changes

thus -- never, is It born never does It die, and so on.

Since ayam, this Self; bhutva, having come to exist,

having experienced the process of origination; na,

will not; bhuyah, again; abhavita, cease to be

thereafter, therefore It does not die. For, in

common parlance, that which ceases to exist after

coming into being is said to die. From the use of

the word va, nor, and na, it is understood that,

unlike the body, this Self does not again come into

existence after having been non-existent. Therefore

It is not born. For, the words, 'It is born', are used

with regard to something which comes into

existence after having been non-existent. The Self is

not like this. Therfore It is not born. Since this is so,

therefore It is ajah, birthless; and since It does not

die, therefore It is nityah, eternal. Although all

changes become negated by the denial of the first

and the last kinds of changes, still changes

occuring in the middle [For the six kinds of

changes see note under verse 2.10.-Tr.] should be

denied with their own respective terms by which

they are implied. Therefore the text says sasvatah,

undecaying,. so that all the changes, viz youth etc.,

which have not been mentioned may become

negated. The change in the form of decay is denied

by the word sasvata, that which lasts for ever. In Its

own nature It does not decay because It is free

from parts. And again, since it is without qualities,

there is no degeneration owing to the decay of any

quality. Change in the form of growth, which is

opposed to decay, is also denied by the word

puranah, ancient. A thing that grows by the

addition of some parts is said to increase and is

also said to be new. But this Self was fresh even in

the past due to Its partlessness. Thus It is puranah,

i.e. It does not grow. So also, na hanyate, It is

puranah, i.e. It does not grow. So also, na hanyate,

It is not killed, It does not get transformed; even

when sarire, the body; hanyamane, is killed,

transformed. The verb 'to kill' has to be understood

here in the sense of transformation, so that a

tautology [This verse has already mentioned

'death' in the first line. If the verb han, to kill, is

also taken in the sense of killing, then a tautology is

unavoidable.-Tr.] may be avoided. In this mantra

the six kinds of transformations, the material

changes seen in the world, are denied in the Self.

The meaning of the sentence is that the Self is

devoid of all kinds of changes. Since this is so,

therefore 'both of them do not know' -- this is how

the present mantra is connected to the earlier

mantra.

2.21 O Partha, he who knows this One as

indestructible, eternal, birthless and undecaying,

how and whom does that person kill, or whom

does he cause to be killed! [This is not a question

but only an emphatic denial.-Tr.]

2.21 In the mantra, 'He who thinks of this One as

the killer,' having declared that (the Self) does not

become the agent or the object of the actof killing,

and then in the mantra, 'Never is this One born,'

etc., having stated the reasons for (Its)

changelessness, the Lord sums up the purport of

what was declared above: He who knows this One

as indestructible, etc. Yah, he who; veda, knows --

yah is to be thus connected with Veda --; enam, this

One, possessing the characteristics stated in the

earlier mantra; as avinasinam, indestructible,

devoid of the final change of state; nityam, eternal,

devoid of transformation; ajam, birthless; and

avyayam, undecaying; katham, how, in what way;

(and kam, whom;) does sah, that man of

realization; purusah, the person who is himself an

authority [i.e. above all injunctions and

prohibitions. See 18.16.17.-Tr.]; hanti, kill,

undertake the act of killing; or how ghatayati, does

he cause (others) to be killed, (how does he)

instigate a killer! The intention is to deny both (the

acts) by saying, 'In no way does he kill any one, nor

does he cause anyone to be killed', because an

interrogative sense is absurd (here). Since the

implication of the reason [The reason for the denial

of killing etc. is the changelessness of the Self, and

this reason holds good with regard to all actions of

the man of realization.-Tr.], viz the immutability of

the Self, [The A.A. omits 'viz the immutability of

the Self'.-Tr.] is common (with regard to all

actions), therefore the negation of all kinds of

actions in the case of a man of realization is what

the Lord conveys as the only purport of this

context. But the denial of (the act of) killing has

been cited by way of an example. Objection: By

noticing what special reason for the impossibility

of actions in the case of the man of realization does

the Lord deny all actions (in his case) by saying,

'How can that person,' etc.? Vedantin: Has not the

immutability of the Self been already stated as the

reason [Some readings omit this word.-Tr.] , the

specific ground for the impossibility of all actions?

Objection: It is true that it has been stated; but that

is not a specific ground, for the man of realization

is different from the immutable Self. Indeed, may it

not be argued that action does not become

impossible for one who has known as unchanging

stump of a tree?! Vedantin: No, because of man of

Knowledge is one with the Self. Enlightenment

does not belong to the aggregate of body and

senses. Therefore, as the last laternative, the

knower is the Immutable and is the Self which is

not a part of the aggregate. Thus, action being

impossible for that man of Knowledge, the denial

in, 'How can that person...,' etc. is reasonable. As

on account of the lack of knowledge of the

distinction between the Self and the modifications

of the intellect, the Self, though verily immutable,

is imagined through ignorance to be the perceiver

of objects like sound etc. presented by the intellect

etc., in this very way, the Self, which in reality is

immutable, is said to be the 'knower' because of Its

association with the knowledge of the distinction

between the Self and non-Self, which (knowledge)

is a modification of the intellect [By buddhi-vrtti,

modification of the intellect, is meant the

transformation of the internal organ into the form

of an extension upto an object, along with its past

impressions, the senses concerned, etc., like the

extension of the light of a lamp illuminating an

object. Consciousness reflected on this

transformation and remaining indistinguishable

from that transformation revealing the object, is

called objective knowledge. Thereby, due to

ignorance, the Self is imagined to be the perceiver

because of Its connection with the vrtti,

modification. (-A.G.) The process is elsewhere

described as follows: The vrtti goes out through the

sense-organ concerned, like the flash of a

torchlight, and along with it goes the reflection of

Consciousness. Both of them envelop the object, a

pot for instance. The vrtti destroys the ignorance

about the pot; and the reflection of Consciousness,

becoming unified with only that portion of it

which has been delimited by the pot, reveals the

pot. In the case of knowledge of Brahman, it is

admitted that the vrtti in the form, 'I am Brahman',

does reach Brahman and destroys ignorance about

Brahman, but it is not admitted that Brahman is

revealed like a 'pot', for Brahman is self-effulgent.-

Tr.] and is unreal by nature. From the statement

that action is impossible for man of realization it is

understood that the conclusion of the Lord is that,

actions enjoined by the scriptures are prescribed

for the unenlightened. Objection: Is not

elightenment too enjoined for the ignorant? For,

the injunction about enlightenment to one who has

already achieved realization is useless, like

grinding something that has already been ground!

This being so, the distinction that rites and duties

are enjoined for the unenlightened, and not for the

enlightened one, does not stand to reason.

Vedantin: No. There can reasonable be a

distinction between the existence or nonexistence

of a thing to be performed. As after the knowledge

of the meaning of the injunction for rites like

Agnihotra etc. their performance becomes

bligatory on the unenlightened one who thinks,

'Agnihotra etc. has to be performed by collecting

various accessories; I am the agent, and this is my

duty', -- unlike this, nothing remains later on to be

performed as a duty after knowing the meaning of

the injunction about the nature of the Self from

such texts as, 'Never is this One born,' etc. But

apart from the rise of knowledge regarding the

unity of the Self, his non-agency, etc., in the form, 'I

am not the agent, I am not the enjoyer', etc., no

other idea arises. Thus, this distinction can be

maintained. Again, for anyone who knows himself

as, 'I am the agent', there will necessarily arise the

idea, 'This is my duty.' In relation to that he

becomes eligible. In this way duties are (enjoined)

[Ast. adds 'sambhavanti, become possible'.-Tr.] for

him. And according to the text, 'both of them do

not know' (19), he is an unenlightened man. And

the text, 'How can that person,' etc. concerns the

enlightened person distinguished above, becuase

of the negation of action (in this text). Therefore,

the enlightened person distinguished above, who

has realized the immutable Self, and the seeker of

Liberation are qualified only for renunciation of all

rites and duties. Therefore, indeed, the Lord

Narayana, making a distinction between the

enlightened man of Knowledge and the

unenlightened man of rites and duties, makes them

take up the two kinds of adherences in the text,

'through the Yoga of Knowledge for the men of

realization; through the Yoga of Action for the

yogis' (3.3). Similarly also, Vyasa said to his son,

'Now, there are these two paths,' etc. ['Now, there

are these two paths on which the Vedas are based.

They are thought of as the dharma characterized

by engagement in duties, and that by renunciation

of them' (Mbh. Sa. 241.6).-Tr.] So also (there is a

Vedic text meaning): 'The path of rites and duties,

indeed, is the earlier, and renunciation comes after

that.' [Ast. says that this is not a quotation, but only

gives the purport of Tai, Ar. 10.62.12.-Tr.] The Lord

will show again and again this very division: 'The

unenlightened man who is deluded by egoism

thinks thus: "I am the doer"; but the one who is a

knower of the facts (about the varieties of the

gunas) thinks, "I do not act"' (cf. 3.27,28). So also

there is the text, '(The embodied man of

selfcontrol,) having given up all actions mentally,

continues (happily in the town of nine gates)' (5.13)

etc. With regard to this some wiseacres say: In no

person does arise the idea, 'I am the changeless,

actionless Self, which is One and devoid of the six

kinds of changes beginning with birth to which all

things are subject', on the occurrence of which

(idea alone) can renunciation of all actions be

enjoined. That is not correct, because it will lead to

the needlessness of such scriptural instructions as,

'Never is this One born,' etc. (20). They should be

asked: As on the authority of scripural instructions

there arises the knowledge of the existence of

virtue and vice and the knowledge regarding an

agent who gets associated with successive bodies,

similarly, why should not there arise from the

scriptures the knowledge of unchangeability, nonagentship,

oneness, etc. of that very Self? Objection:

If it be said that this is due to Its being beyond the

scope of any means (of knowledge)? Vedantin: No,

because the Sruti says, 'It is to be realized through

the mind alone, (following the instruction of the

teacher)' (Br. 4.4.19). The mind that is purified by

the instructions of the scriptures and the teacher,

control of the body and organs, etc. becomes the

instrument for realizing the Self. Again, since there

exist inference and scriptures for Its realization, it

is mere bravado to say that Knowledge does not

arise. And it has to be granted that when

knowledge arises, it surely eliminates ignorance, its

opposite. And that ignorance has been shown in, 'I

am the killer', 'I am killed', and 'both of them do

not know' (see 2.19). And here also it is shown that

the idea of the Self being an agent, the object of an

action, or an indirect agent, is the result of

ignorance. Also, the Self being changeless, the fact

that such agentship etc. are cuased by ignorance is

a common factor in all actions without exception,

because only that agent who is subject to change

instigates someone else who is different from

himself and can be acted on, saying, 'Do this.' Thus,

with a view to pointing out the absence of fitness

for rites and duties in the case of an enlightened

person, the Lord [Ast, adds vasudeva after 'Lord'.-

Tr.] says, 'He who knows this One as

indestructible,' 'how can that person,' etc. -- thereby

denying this direct and indirect agentship of an

enlightened person in respect of all actions without

exception. As regards the question, 'For what,

again, is the man of enlightenment qualified?', the

answer has already been give earlier in, 'through

the Yoga of Knowledge for the men of realization'

(3.3). Similarly, the Lord will also speak of

renunication of all actions in, 'having given up all

actions mentally,' etc.(5.13). Objection: May it not

be argued that from the expression, 'mentally', (it

follows that) oral and bodily actions are not to be

renounced? Vedantin: No, because of the categoric

expression, 'all actions'. Objection: May it not be

argued that 'all actions' relates only to those of the

mind? Vedantin: No, because all oral and bodily

actions are preceded by those of the mind, for

those actions are impossible in the absence of

mental activity. Objection: May it not be said that

one has to mentally renounce all other activities

except the mental functions which are the causes of

scriptural rites and duties performed through

speech and body? Vedantin: No, because it has

been specifically expressed: 'without doing or

causing (others) to do anything at all' (5.13).

Objection: May it not be that this renunciation of

all actions, as stated by the Lord, is with regard to a

dying man, not one living? Vedantin: No, because

(in that case) the specific statement, 'The embodied

man...continues happily in the town of nine gates'

(ibid.) will become illogical since it is not possible

for a dead person, who neither acts nor makes

others act, [The words 'akurvatah akarayatah, (of

him) who neither acts nor makes others act', have

been taken as a part of the Commentator's

arguement. But A.G. points out that they can also

form a part of the next Objection. In that, case, the

translation of the Objection will be this: Can it not

be that the construction of the sentence (under

discussion) is -- Neither doing nor making others

do, he rest by depositing (sannyasya, by

renouncing) in the body', but not 'he rests in the

body by renouncing...'?] to rest in that body after

renouncing all actions. Objection: Can it not be that

the construction of the sentence (under discussion)

is, '(he rests) by depositing (sannyasya, by

renouncing) in the body', (but) not 'he rests in the

body by renouncing...'? Vedantin: No, because

everywhere it is categorically asserted that the Self

is changeless. Besides, the action of 'resting'

requires a location, whereas renunciation is

independent of this. The word nyasa preceded by

sam here means 'renunciation', not 'depositing'.

Therefore, according to this Scripture, viz the Gita,

the man of realization is eligible for renunciation,

alone, not for rites and duties. This we shall show

in the relevant texts later on in the cotext of the

knowledge of the Self. And now we shall speak of

the matter on hand: As to that, the indestructibility

[Indestructibility suggests unchangeability as

well.] of the Self, has been postulated. What is it

like? That is being said in, 'As after rejecting

wornout clothes,' etc.

2.22 As after rejecting wornout clothes a man takes

up other new ones, likewise after rejecting wornout

bodies the embodied one unites with other new

ones.

2.22 Yatha, as in the world; vihaya, after rejecting

jirnani, wornout; vasamsi, clothes; narah, a man

grhnati, takes up; aparani, other; navani, new ones;

tatha, likewise, in that very manner; vihaya, after

rejecting; jirnani, wornout; sarirani, bodies; dehi,

the embodied one, the Self which is surely

unchanging like the man (in the example); samyati,

unites with; anyani, other; navani, new ones. This

is meaning.

2.23 Weapons do not cut It, fire does not burn It,

water does not moisten It, and air does not dry It.

2.23 Why does It verily remain unchanged? This is

being answered in, 'Weapons do not cut It,' etc.

Sastrani, weapons; na, do not; chindanti, cut; enam,

It, the embodied one under discussion. It being

partless, weapons like sword etc. do not cut off Its

limbs. So also, even pavakah, fire; na dahati enam,

does not burn, does not reduce It to ashes. Ca, and

similarly; apah, water; na enam kledayanti, does

not moisten It. For water has the power of

disintegrating a substance that has parts, by the

process of moistening it. That is not possible in the

case of the partless Self. Similarly, air destroys an

oil substance by drying up the oil. Even marutah,

air; na sosayati, does not dry; (enam, It,) one's own

Self. [Ast. reads 'enam tu atmanam, but this Self', in

place of enam svatmanam.-Tr.]

2.24 It cannot be cut, It cannot be burnt, cannot be

moistened, and surely cannot be dried up. It is

eternal, omnipresent, stationary, unmoving and

changeless.

2.24 Since this is so, therefore ayam, It; acchedyah,

cannot be cut. Since the other elements which are

the causes of destruction of one ano ther are not

capable of destroying this Self, therefore It is

nityah, eternal. Being eternal, It is sarva-gatah,

omnipresent. Being omnipresent, It is sthanuh,

stationary, i.e. fixed like a stump. Being fixed,

ayam, this Self; is acalah, unmoving. Therefore It is

sanatanah, changeless, i.e. It is not produced from

any cause, as a new thing. It is not to be argued

that 'these verses are repetive since eternality and

changelessness of the Self have been stated in a

single verse itself, "Never is this One born, and

never does It die," etc. (20). Whatever has been said

there (in verse 19) about the Self does not go

beyond the meaning of this verse. Something is

repeated with those very words, and something

ideologically.' Since the object, viz the Self, is

inscrutable, therefore Lord Vasudeva raises the

topic again and again, and explains that very object

in other words so that, somehow, the unmanifest

Self may come within the comprehension of the

intellect of the transmigrating persons and bring

about a cessation of their cycles of births and

deaths.

2.25 It is said that This is unmanifest; This is

inconceivable; This is unchangeable. Therefore,

having known This thus, you ougth not to grieve.

2.25 Moreover, ucyate, it is said that; ayam, This,

the Self; is avyaktah, unmanifest, since, being

beyond the ken of all the organs, It cannot be

objectified. For this very reason, ayam, This; is

acintyah, inconceivable. For anything that comes

within the purview of the organs becomes the

object of thought. But this Self is inconceivable

becuase It is not an object of the organs. Hence,

indeed, It is avikaryah, unchangeable. This Self

does not change as milk does when mixed with

curd, a curdling medium, etc. And It is chnageless

owing to partlessness, for it is not seen that any

non-composite thing is changeful. Not being

subject to transformation, It is said to be

changeless. Tasmat, therefore; vidivata, having

known; enam, this one, the Self; evam, thus, as

described; na arhasi, you ought not; anusocitum, to

grieve, thinking, 'I am the slayer of these; these are

killed by me.'

Om Tat Sat
                                                        
(Continued...) 

(My humble salutations to the lotus feet of Bhagawan Sri Krishna Paramathma ji, Parama Hamsa Parivrajaka Paramacharya Sri Adi Sankara Bhagavad Pada ji and  H H Sri Swamy Gambhirananda ji for this devotional collection)

(The Blog  is reverently for all the seekers of truth, lovers of wisdom and   to share the Hindu Dharma with others on the spiritual path and also this is purely  a non-commercial blog)

श्रीगुर्वष्टकम्

शरीरं सुरूपं तथा वा कलत्रम्
यशश्चारु चित्रं धनं मेरु तुल्यम् ।
मनश्चेन्न लग्नं गुरोरङ्घ्रिपद्मे,
ततः किं ततः किं ततः किं ततः किम् ।।१।।

कलत्रं धनं पुत्र पौत्रादिसर्वम्
गृहे बान्धवाः सर्वमेतद्धि जातम् ।
मनश्चेन्न लग्नं गुरोरङ्घ्रिपद्मे,
ततः किं ततः किं ततः किं ततः किम् ।।२।।

षडङ्गादिवेदो मुखे शास्त्रविद्या,
कवित्वादि गद्यं सुपद्यं करोति ।
मनश्चेन्न लग्नं गुरोरङ्घ्रिपद्मे,
ततः किं ततः किं ततः किं ततः किम् ।।३।।

विदेशेषु मान्यः स्वदेशेषु धन्यः,
सदाचारवृत्तेषु मत्तो न चान्यः ।
मनश्चेन्न लग्नं गुरोरङ्घ्रिपद्मे,
ततः किं ततः किं ततः किं ततः किम् ।।४।।

क्षमामण्डले भूपभूपालबृन्दैः,
सदा सेवितं यस्य पादारविन्दम् ।
मनश्चेन्न लग्नं गुरोरङ्घ्रिपद्मे,
ततः किं ततः किं ततः किं ततः किम् ।।५।।

यशो मे गतं दिक्षु दानप्रतापात्,
जगद्वस्तु सर्वं करे यत्प्रसादात् ।
मनश्चेन्न लग्नं गुरोरङ्घ्रिपद्मे,
ततः किं ततः किं ततः किं ततः किम् ।।६।।

न भोगे न योगे न वा वाजिराजौ,
न कन्तामुखे नैव वित्तेषु चित्तम् ।
मनश्चेन्न लग्नं गुरोरङ्घ्रिपद्मे,
ततः किं ततः किं ततः किं ततः किम् ।।७।।

अरण्ये न वा स्वस्य गेहे न कार्ये,
न देहे मनो वर्तते मे त्वनर्ध्ये ।
मनश्चेन्न लग्नं गुरोरङ्घ्रिपद्मे,
ततः किं ततः किं ततः किं ततः किम् ।।८।।

गुरोरष्टकं यः पठेत्पुरायदेही,
यतिर्भूपतिर्ब्रह्मचारी च गेही ।
लभेद्वाच्छितार्थं पदं ब्रह्मसंज्ञं,
गुरोरुक्तवाक्ये मनो यस्य लग्नम् ।।९।।