na hi duḥkhena viyogo na sukhena sa yo-gaḥ
“Verily, separation is not caused by suffering and union is not caused by happiness.”
Structure
na hi duḥkhena viyogo na sukhena sa yogāḥ
na hi duḥkhena (not with sorrow) viyogo (separation) na (nor) sukhena (with happiness) sa (that) yogāḥ (union)
Word-by-Word Grammar
| Word | IAST | Type | Grammar | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| na | na | indeclinable | — | not |
| hi | hi | indeclinable | — | for, indeed |
| duḥkhena | duḥkhena | noun | instrumental · singular · neuter | with suffering |
| viyogo | viyogo | noun | nominative · singular · masculine | separation |
| na | na | indeclinable | — | not |
| sukhena | sukhena | noun | instrumental · singular · neuter | with happiness |
| sa | sa | pronoun | nominative · singular · masculine | that |
| yogāḥ | yogāḥ | noun | nominative · plural · masculine | union, connection |
Scholarly Commentary
Advaita Vedānta (Ādi Śaṅkarācārya): This verse underscores the non-dual nature of reality, emphasizing that union and separation are not predicates of the ultimate reality, Brahman. Shankara's commentary on the Brahmasūtra (2.1.14) resonates with this idea, arguing that the distinctions between pleasure and pain are attributes of the transient world, not the immutable Self. The verse points to the identity of Brahman and Ātman, suggesting that true union is not a product of fleeting emotional states but an ever-present reality obscured by ignorance. Liberation, in this context, involves recognizing that suffering and happiness are equally irrelevant to the attainment of self-realization. By negating the causal efficacy of duḥkha (suffering) and sukha (happiness) in achieving viyoga (separation) and yoga (union), the verse aligns with Shankara's emphasis on the illusory nature of the world and the pursuit of knowledge as the path to liberation.
Vaiṣṇava tradition (Rāmānujācārya / Madhvācārya): Within the Vaiṣṇava tradition, this verse can be seen as highlighting the relationship between the jīva (individual soul) and Īśvara (God). Rāmānujācārya, in his Śrī Bhāṣya (2.2.42), discusses the dependency of the jīva on Īśvara for liberation, emphasizing that it is not the jīva's experiences of suffering or happiness that determine its union with God. Instead, it is the grace of Īśvara and the jīva's devotion that facilitate liberation. The verse can be interpreted as underscoring the importance of bhakti (devotion) over emotional states, suggesting that true union with God is not a function of one's emotional experience but of one's devotion and surrender. Madhvācārya, with his emphasis on the difference between the soul and God, might interpret the verse as illustrating that the soul's union with God is facilitated not by ephemeral emotional experiences but by recognizing and embracing this difference, thereby fostering a deeper devotion and reliance on God's grace.
Neo-Vedānta (Swami Vivekānanda / S. Rādhākrishnan): Swami Vivekānanda, in his lectures on the practical applications of Vedānta, often emphasized the universal principles that could be derived from scriptural verses like this one. The idea that union and separation are not caused by happiness or suffering, respectively, can be seen as a call to look beyond fleeting emotional states and to cultivate a deeper, more abiding sense of self. This aligns with Vivekānanda's teachings on the importance of self-realization and the cultivation of inner strength and peace. Similarly, S. Rādhākrishnan, in his philosophical writings, highlighted the human quest for lasting fulfillment and the transient nature of worldly pleasures and pains. This verse, in the context of contemporary life, can serve as a reminder of the importance of seeking fulfillment and union through spiritual practices and self-reflection rather than through external, ephemeral sources of happiness. It encourages a universal and practical approach to life, emphasizing the pursuit of an inner, unshakeable peace and unity that transcends the vicissitudes of worldly experience.