Shloka
आश्चर्यवत्पश्यति कश्चिदेन-
माश्चर्यवद्वदति तथैव चान्यः |
आश्चर्यवच्चैनमन्यः शृणोति
श्रुत्वाप्येनं वेद न चैव कश्चित् ||२-२९||Transliteration
āścaryavatpaśyati kaścidenam āścaryavadvadati tathaiva cānyaḥ .
āścaryavaccainamanyaḥ śṛṇoti śrutvāpyenaṃ veda na caiva kaścit ||2-29||Translations
Dr.S.Sankaranarayan
2.29. This someone observes as a wonder; similarly another speaks of This as a wonder; another hears This as a wonder; but even after hearing, not even one understands This.
Shri Purohit Swami
2.29 One hears of the Spirit with surprise, another thinks It marvellous, the third listens without comprehending. Thus, though many are told about It, scarcely is there one who knows It.
Sri Abhinav Gupta
2.39 Ascaryavat etc. But, if this Self is, in this manner, changeless (or destructionless), why is This not observed just as such by all ? It is so because, as if by a rare chance, only some one observes [This]. Even after listening, not even one understands This i.e., realises This.
Sri Ramanuja
2.29 Among innumerable beings, someone, who by great austerity has got rid of sins and has increased his merits, realises this self possessing the above mentioned nature, which is wonderful and distinct in kind from all things other than Itself. Such a one speaks of It to another. Thus, someone hears of It. And even after hearing of It, no one knows It exactly that It really exists. The term ‘ca’ (and) implies that even amongst the seers, the speakers and hearers, one with authentic percepetion, authentic speech and authentic hearing, is a rarity.
Sri Shankaracharya
2.29 ‘This Self under discussion is inscrutable. Why should I blame you alone regarding a thing that is a source of delusion to all!’ How is this Self inscrutable? [It may be argued that the Self is the object of egoism. The answer is: Although the individualized Self is the object of egoism, the absolute Self is not.] This is being answered in, ‘Someone visualizes It as a wonder,’ etc. Kascit, someone; pasyati, visualizes; enam, It, the Self; ascaryavat, as a wonder, as though It were a wonder a wonder is something not seen before, something strange, something seen all on a sudden; what is comparable to that is ascarya-vat; ca, and; tatha, similarly; eva, indeed; kascit, someone; anyah, else; vadati, talks of It as a wonder. And someone else srnoti, hears of It as a wonder. And someone, indeed, na, does not; veda, realize It; api, even; srutva, after hearing, seeing and speaking about It. Or, (the meaning is) he who sees the Self is like a wonder. He who speaks of It and the who hears of It is indeed rare among many thousands. Therefore, the idea is that the Self is difficult to understand. Now, in the course of concluding the topic under discussion, [viz the needlessness of sorrow and delusion,from the point of view of the nature of things.] He says, ‘O descendant of Bharata, this embodied Self’, etc.
Swami Adidevananda
2.29 One looks upon This (self) as a wonder; likewise another speaks of It as a wonder; still another hears of It as a wonder; and even after hearing of It, one knows It not.
Swami Gambirananda
2.29 Someone visualizes It as a wonder; and similarly indeed, someone else talks of It as a wonder; and someone else hears of It as a wonder. And some one else, indeed, does not realize It even after hearing about It.
Swami Sivananda
2.29 One sees This (the Self) as a wonder; another speaks of It as a wonder; another hears of It as a wonder; yet having heard, none understands It at all.
Commentaries
Swami Sivananda
2.29 आश्चर्यवत् as a wonder? पश्यति sees? कश्चित् sone one? एनम् this (Self)? आश्चर्यवत् as a wonder? वदति speaks of? तथा so? एव also? च and? अन्यः another? आश्चर्यवत् as a wonder? च and? एनम् this? अन्यः another? श्रृणोति hears? श्रुत्वा having heard? अपि even? एनम् this? वेद knows? न not? च and? एव also? कश्चित् any one.Commentary The verse may also be interpreted in this manner. He that sees? hears and speaks of the Self is a wonderful man. Such a man is very rare. He is one among many thousands. Thus the Self is very hard to understand.