back to questions
Bhagavad-Gītā with Śaṅkara's bhāṣya · 2.66
nāsti buddhirayuktasya na cāyuktasya bhāvanā | na cābhāvayataḥ śāntir aśāntasya kutaḥ sukham
Translation. There is no insight into the Self’s nature (buddhi) for one uncollected (ayukta),
nor for one uncollected is there steadfast absorption in Self-knowledge (bhāvanā).
For one who does not cultivate that absorption there is no quietude (śānti);
for one without quietude, whence happiness (sukha)?
Grammar check: 15 words pass / 0 flagged / 0 beyond the checkerPāṇini-verified
Every word's claimed grammar is re-derived with vidyut-prakriya, software implementing Pāṇini's rules. Flags are shown, never hidden; some are the text taking epic or Vedic liberties the classical rules do not generate.
Word by word
| surface | lemma | grammar |
|---|
| na | na | pass |
| asti | as | pass |
| buddhiḥ | buddhi | pass |
| ayuktasya | ayukta | pass |
| na | na | pass |
| ca | ca | pass |
| ayuktasya | ayukta | pass |
| bhāvanā | bhāvanā | pass |
| na | na | pass |
| ca | ca | pass |
| abhāvayataḥ | abhāvayat | pass |
| śāntiḥ | śānti | pass |
| aśāntasya | aśānta | pass |
| kutaḥ | kutas | pass |
| sukham | sukha | pass |
How the commentary settled it
Where the verse alone is ambiguous, the reading follows Śaṅkara's commentary; the deciding lines are quoted below each decision.
Buddhiḥ here is not generic intelligence but insight or knowledge whose object is the nature of the Self.→ insight into the nature of the Self
gita [1]buddhiḥ ātma-svarūpa-viṣayā
Buddhi has the nature of the Self as its object.
Ayukta denotes a person whose inner organ is not composed or concentrated, rather than merely someone ‘unconnected’ or ‘unharnessed.’→ uncollected—one whose inner organ is not composed
gita [1]ayuktasya asamāhitāntaḥ-karaṇasya
Of the ayukta, that is, of one whose inner organ is not composed.
Bhāvanā is specifically steadfast absorption or commitment to Self-knowledge, not imagination, emotion, or contemplation in an unspecified sense.→ steadfast absorption in Self-knowledge
gita [2]na ca asti ayuktasya bhāvanā ātma-jñānābhiniveśaḥ
Nor does the uncollected person have bhāvanā, that is, absorption in Self-knowledge.
Abhāvayataḥ is understood actively as ‘of one not cultivating that absorption in Self-knowledge,’ not lexically as ‘of an unconscious or unwise person.’ The commentary line prints abhāvayata, apparently with a defective or omitted genitive ending/sandhi, but its gloss akurvataḥ makes the intended parsing clear.→ of one not cultivating that absorption in Self-knowledge
gita [3]na cāsty abhāvayata ātma-jñānābhiniveśam akurvataḥ
Nor is there [peace] for the one who does not undertake absorption in Self-knowledge.
Śānti is rendered ‘quietude’ because Śaṅkara directly equates it with upaśama, cessation or subsidence.→ quietude
gita [3]śāntir upaśamaḥ
Śānti is subsidence or quietude.
The happiness at issue is the senses’ withdrawal from craving to engage with objects. Object-directed craving is expressly excluded from happiness and identified as suffering.→ happiness consisting in withdrawal from object-craving
gita [4, 5, 6]indriyāṇāṃ hi viṣaya-sevā-tṛṣṇātaḥ nivṛttir yā tat-sukham, na viṣaya-viṣayā tṛṣṇā | duḥkham eva hi sā | na tṛṣṇāyāṃ satyāṃ sukhasya gandha-mātram apy upapadyate ity arthaḥ
For happiness is that withdrawal of the senses from craving to engage with objects, not craving whose object is the objects of sense. That craving is suffering alone. While craving exists, not even the faintest trace of happiness is possible—this is the meaning.
Kutaḥ is rhetorically forceful: ‘whence—how could there be—happiness?’ It does not request a geographical or causal source. This agrees with the lexical value ‘whence’ ([MW s.v. kutas, 290,2]) and the commentary’s statement that no trace of happiness is possible while craving remains.→ whence—how could there be—happiness?
gita [4]aśāntasya kutaḥ sukham ?
For one without quietude, whence happiness?
gita [6]na tṛṣṇāyāṃ satyāṃ sukhasya gandha-mātram apy upapadyate ity arthaḥ
While craving exists, not even the faintest trace of happiness is possible—this is the meaning.
Although neuter sukham is formally nominative-accusative syncretic, it is nominative here: it is the subject of an existential asti understood from the preceding clauses.
→ nominative subject of an ellipsed asti
Each na ca introduces a coordinated negative existential clause, so the sequence is translated ‘nor …’ rather than taking ca or na with only one neighboring word.→ coordinated negative existential clauses
gita [2, 3]na ca asti ayuktasya bhāvanā ātma-jñānābhiniveśaḥ | tathā -- na cāsty abhāvayata ātma-jñānābhiniveśam akurvataḥ śāntir upaśamaḥ
Nor does the uncollected person have bhāvanā, absorption in Self-knowledge. Likewise, there is no quietude for one who does not cultivate absorption in Self-knowledge.
Śaṅkara's commentary on this unit
1nāsti na vidyate na bhavatīty arthaḥ, buddhiḥ ātma-svarūpa-viṣayā ayuktasya asamāhitāntaḥ-karaṇasya |
2na ca asti ayuktasya bhāvanā ātma-jñānābhiniveśaḥ |
3tathā -- na cāsty abhāvayata ātma-jñānābhiniveśam akurvataḥ śāntir upaśamaḥ |
4aśāntasya kutaḥ sukham ? indriyāṇāṃ hi viṣaya-sevā-tṛṣṇātaḥ nivṛttir yā tat-sukham, na viṣaya-viṣayā tṛṣṇā |
5duḥkham eva hi sā |
6na tṛṣṇāyāṃ satyāṃ sukhasya gandha-mātram apy upapadyate ity arthaḥ ||bhgs_2.66||
7ayuktasya kasmād buddhir nāsti ity ucyate -