Gita 06.09 – Equal vision towards those who relate unequally is challenging
suhṛn-mitrāry-udāsīna-
madhyastha-dveṣya-bandhuṣu
sādhuṣv api ca pāpeṣu
sama-buddhir viśiṣyate (Bg 6.9)
Word-for-word:
su-hṛt — to well-wishers by nature; mitra — benefactors with affection; ari — enemies; udāsīna — neutrals between belligerents; madhya-stha — mediators between belligerents; dveṣya — the envious; bandhuṣu — and the relatives or well-wishers; sādhuṣu — unto the pious; api — as well as; ca — and; pāpeṣu — unto the sinners; sama-buddhiḥ — having equal intelligence; viśiṣyate — is far advanced.
Translation:
A person is considered still further advanced when he regards honest well-wishers, affectionate benefactors, the neutral, mediators, the envious, friends and enemies, the pious and the sinners all with an equal mind.
Explanation:
In this verse, Kṛṣṇa continues His description of one who has ascended to the highest rung of the yoga ladder—the yogārūḍha stage. The previous verse concluded with the phrase “sama-loṣṭrāśma-kāñcanaḥ,” illustrating that the advanced yogī regards stone, pebbles, and gold with equal vision. In the present verse (6.9), that vision of equality is taken further—the yogī extends this impartial outlook to all people.
suhṛn-mitrāry-udāsīna: Suhṛn refers to a very close, intimate friend. Kṛṣṇa Himself uses this word in 5.29, declaring that He is the suhṛdaṁ sarva-bhūtānām, the well-wishing friend of all beings. Mitra denotes a general friend, while ari means enemy—hence one of Kṛṣṇa’s names is Murāri, the enemy of the demon Mura. Udāsīna refers to one who is detached, who does not take sides, who remains unconcerned.
madhyastha-dveṣya-bandhuṣu: Madhyastha means a mediator. Although both udāsīna and madhyastha appear externally neutral, their dispositions differ. The udāsīna is indifferent, whereas the madhyastha actively seeks reconciliation between opposing parties. Dveṣya refers to those who are envious, and bandhu to those who are friendly.
sādhuṣv api ca pāpeṣu: This refers to both saintly people and sinners.
sama-buddhir viśiṣyate: Those who maintain equal vision towards all such categories of people are viśiṣyate—exceptional or superior. This comparative term indicates that such a yogī is on a higher level than one who has equal vision only towards objects, as described in the previous verse.
Kṛṣṇa has previously used the comparative sense of the word “viśiṣyate” in 3.7, where He states: yas tv indriyāṇi manasā niyamyārabhate ’rjuna karmendriyaiḥ karma-yogam asaktaḥ sa viśiṣyate.
Here, He explains that those who control their senses and engage them constructively in karma-yoga are viśiṣyate—superior. Superior to whom? To those mentioned in the previous verse (3.6): karmendriyāṇi saṁyamya ya āste manasā smaran indriyārthān vimūḍhātmā mithyācāraḥ sa ucyate. Such persons externally restrain their senses but internally dwell on sense objects. Kṛṣṇa calls them deluded hypocrites (mithyācāraḥ). In contrast, those who genuinely regulate their senses and engage them in proper action are considered better—thus, viśiṣyate.
Of course, in Chapter 3 the comparison was drastic, contrasting hypocritical inaction with genuine karma-yoga. Here in 6.8–9 both descriptions lie on the same continuum, yet Kṛṣṇa indicates that the one who sees people equally is higher. He uses the phrase “sama-buddhir viśiṣyate.”
The same word “sama” and the same principle of equal vision were already highlighted by Kṛṣṇa in 5.18, in a much more celebrated and frequently quoted verse:
vidyā-vinaya-sampanne brāhmaṇe gavi hastini
śuni caiva śva-pāke ca paṇḍitāḥ sama-darśinaḥ
Kṛṣṇa says in 5.18 that a paṇḍita sees all living beings equally. At one level, that vision may appear even more elevated than in 6.9, because it extends beyond humans to include non-human beings as well.
Today, there is growing appreciation for a universal human consciousness, where people feel that national, racial, and other such boundaries are limiting, and that we should instead see ourselves as belonging to one human family. While this is indeed a broader vision, the Vedic scriptures present an even broader one—that all living beings, not just humans, deserve equal regard. What is often termed humanism is valuable, but we are called to go beyond it.
A question naturally arises: Is 5.18, by going beyond humanism, presenting a vision higher than that described in 6.9? Not exactly. The two verses are set in different contexts.
In 5.18, the emphasis is on a universal vision that transcends human-centered thinking and extends to all living beings. In contrast, 6.9 describes a subtler and more demanding level of vision, because it deals with how people personally interact with us.
The yogi maintains equal vision toward people who deal with him in different ways—whether they are friendly, inimical, or neutral. In contrast, the paṇḍita in 5.18 is simply observing others, without personal relationships influencing that vision. It is not that the brāhmaṇa is the paṇḍita’s friend and the śva-pāka his enemy. The verse conveys the idea of seeing all living beings equally from a distance, without the complications of personal dealings.
Seeing people we don’t know equally is far easier than seeing equally those we do know and toward whom we carry different emotions—ranging from deep friendship to outright enmity. That is why the vision described here is considered higher.
Of course, it is not necessary to go into comparisons. What truly matters is that we each aspire for some level of spiritual vision. Since we are still far from the higher stages, there is no need to measure ourselves against those with far more evolved vision. What is important here is the principle being described—to see equally those who see us variably.
The word “sama-buddhir” is significant because it is not merely sama-dṛṣṭi. We do not see only with our eyes. The eyes gather information, the mind processes it, and then the integrated picture is presented to us, the soul. If the intelligence is not active, we do not consciously interpret what we see; rather, we process the image according to our default worldview.
For example, if someone’s default worldview is nationalistic, then an Indian may automatically see a Pakistani as an enemy. Thus, sama-buddhir means perceiving with intelligence that has transcended duality. Only then can one truly see with equality.
If the intelligence has transcended duality, then what is the point of saying that someone is a friend and someone else an enemy? Doesn’t that seem contradictory—if a person sees equally, why make such distinctions at all?
Actually, these labels reflect the disposition of others, not of the yogi. The yogi remains equal toward everyone, regardless of how others behave toward him. As the Gītā states earlier in 5.25, such a person is sarva-bhūta-hite ratāḥ—engaged in the welfare of all living beings.
Something similar is the vision of the yogi toward all living beings. His own vision remains equal, but the vision of others toward him may differ. Some may see him as an enemy, others as a friend. Yet, in all these situations, the yogi remains sama-buddhir—maintaining steady intelligence and equal vision.
This vision of seeing everyone equally arises from spiritual perception, where we recognize all living beings as souls, connected with God and therefore connected with us. Despite their varied material positions and differing mental dispositions toward us, we can still see them with equal vision—provided we become sufficiently spiritually realized.
Thank you.
Leave A Comment