________________
GĪTĀ, TRANSLATION & COMMENTARY, CH. XIV 1131
m
मानापमानयोस्तुल्यस्तुल्यो मित्रारिपक्षयोः।
सर्वारम्भपरित्यागी गुणातीतः स उच्यते ॥ २५॥ courageful ; (25) to whom, honour and dishonour are 'tulya' (that is, alike), and a friend's party, or an enemy's side are both alike; whose (desireful) activities have come to an end, (because he has realised that it is Prakrti, which is doing everything), such a man is known as a 'trigunātīta' (that is, one who has transcended the three constituents-Trans.).
(This is the reply to the two questions : (i) what are the characteristics and (ii) the conduct of the person, who is a trigunūtīta' (that is, who has transcended the three constituents)? These characteristics are the same as those of the Steady-in-Reason (stathaprajña) described in Chapter II, and of the Devotee (bhaktımān) described in Chapter XII. Nay, some of the adjectives (namely, “ sarvärambha-parityāgi", “ tulya-nındā-stutih", "udāsınah" etc.) are the same in two of the three or even in all the three places. From this it becomes clear, that whichever path, out of the four paths mentioned in the last chapter (13. 24, 25), is followed, the characteristics and the conduct of the man, who has reached Perfection (siddhi), are the same in all paths. Nevertheless, as the doctrine firmly established in the 3rd, 4th, 5th and other chapters, namely, that no one can escape the performance of Desireless Action', remains unaffected throughout, one must remember that all these persons, whether called stathaprajña' or 'bhagavad-bhakta' or
trigunātīta', all belong to the Path of Karma-Yoga. The reader is referred to the explanation of the word ' sarvārambha-parityāgi' given in the commentary on Gi. 12. 19. Commentators subscribing to the Path of Renunciation imagine that these descriptions of the person, who has reached the State of Perfection (siddhāvastha) are independent of each other; and maintain that the Gitā supports their own doctrine. But, I have explained at great length in Chapters XI and XII of the Gitā-Rahasya, that such an interpretation is inconsistent with the anterior and posterior contexts, and not the correct interpretation (See
65-66
.20 mbo
