Cluster 0197 — BG-5.15: The Lord does not receive anyone's pāpa or sukṛta; popular cosmic-theology is itself the ajñāna

BG-5.15

Sanskrit: नादत्ते कस्यचित्पापं न चैव सुकृतं विभुः । अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानं तेन मुह्यन्ति जन्तवः ॥१५॥

Literal English: The All-pervading-one does-not-receive anyone's pāpa, nor even the sukṛta; knowledge is covered by ignorance — by-that-covering the jīvas are deluded.

मराठी (आधुनिक): विभू (सर्वव्यापक परमेश्वर) कुणाचेही पाप घेत नाही, सुकृत-ही घेत नाही; ज्ञान अज्ञानाने झाकलेले आहे — त्या (झाकण्या)मुळे जीव भ्रमित होतात.

Where this cluster sits

Cluster 0197 is the climax of the Lord-side disavowal-arc of chapter 5. The arc began at BG-5.14 (cluster 0196): the prabhu does-not-create kartṛtva or karmāṇi of the world — svabhāva alone operates. BG-5.15 (this cluster) extends that disavowal in two radical directions.

First (5.80): not only does the Lord not-create kartṛtva, he also does-not-receive the karma-fruits — pāpa and sukṛta alike. And Jñāneśvar pushes the disavowal one step further than Sanskrit alone licenses: the vibhū does not even witness (साक्षीही होऊं न ठके — cannot-even-become-a-sākṣī) the pāpa-puṇya that are right-near him (पासींचि असतु न देखें). This is a tightening of the classical sākṣī-doctrine: the Mundaka's two-birds-on-the-tree image had the second-bird looking-on without eating (अभिचाकशीति); Jñāneśvar's vibhū here cannot-even-look-on. The disavowal is total.

Second (5.82): the popular theological-vocabulary that names the Lord as creator-preserver-destroyer (तो सृजी पाळी संहारी) — Brahmā-Viṣṇu-Maheśvara's tri-functional cosmic-job-description — is itself the ajñāna BG-5.15b refers to. The covering-of-knowledge-by-ajñāna whose by-product is jīva-delusion is specifically the popular projection of cosmic-functions onto the vibhū. This is among the most theologically-radical claims of the Dnyāneśvarī's chapter 5 — it implicates the mainstream Hindu theological-vocabulary as a form-of-ajñāna in light of the BG-5.14-15 disavowal of divine-causation.

Between these two negative-claims sits 5.81, which delivers the positive metaphysical-architecture that makes the disavowal coherent: the mūrta-amūrta toggle. The Lord becomes-form-to-play with the form-realm yet his amūrta-pana is not-soiled. This is the same two-level ontology of chapter 4's avatāra-doctrine (BG-4.6: though unborn, taking-stand-in my own prakṛti I come-into-being by my own ātma-māyā), now deployed to explain BG-5.15's immanence-yet-non-reception. The vibhū is immanent (the mūrta-play); the vibhū does-not-receive (the amūrta-substrate untouched).

The cluster's three-ovi structure is thus: disavow (5.80) → metaphysics that licenses the disavowal (5.81) → name the contrary-popular-theology as the ajñāna BG-5.15b refers to (5.82).

The next cluster (0198 / BG-5.16) opens with the uncovering: when that-very-ajñāna is uprooted, the akartṛtva of me-the-Lord becomes manifest like the sun rising in the eastern palace, dispelling darkness from all directions. Cluster 0197 is the diagnosis of the covering; cluster 0198 is the prognosis of the uncovering. They form a single doctrinal-organism.

Ovi 5.80

Original (Marathi): पापपुण्यें अशेषें । पासींचि असतु न देखें । आणि साक्षीही होऊं न ठके । येरी गोठी कायसी ? ॥८०॥

Voice: krishna-to-arjuna (sustained from cluster 0196's 5.79; same direct-instruction-register; no framing-phrase break)

Word-by-word gloss

Marathi	Meaning
पापपुण्यें	the pāpa-and-puṇya (the sin-and-merit pair as karma-fruits)
अशेषें	all-without-remainder / entirely
पासींचि	right-near / in-the-immediate-vicinity
असतु	though-they-are (existing)
न देखें	does-not-see
आणि	and
साक्षीही	even as a sākṣī (witness)
होऊं न ठके	cannot-occupy / cannot-take-the-position-of
येरी गोठी	other matters / further claims
कायसी	what-of? (rhetorical)

Literal translation

English: All the pāpa-and-puṇya, though they are right-near him, he does not see; and he cannot even occupy the position of a sākṣī (witness) — what then of other-matters (i.e. of any stronger relation such as reception or causation)?

मराठी (आधुनिक): सर्व पाप-पुण्य अगदी जवळच असली, तरी तो (विभू) ती पाहत-च नाहीत; आणि साक्षीही होऊ शकत नाहीत — मग बाकी (कर्म-फळाच्या) गोष्टींची काय बात?

Metaphor-unfold

No extended metaphor in this ovi. 5.80 is operational-doctrinal — it states the disavowal in negation-vocabulary (न देखें, न ठके) without an image. The metaphor-load of the cluster is carried by 5.81 (the mūrta-amūrta-play); 5.80 delivers the bare disavowal that 5.81 then explains.

Nāth-yogic layer

No Nāth-yogic referent in this ovi. The disavowal-vocabulary here is Vedānta-doctrinal (vibhū, sākṣī, karma-phala) not Nātha-tantric (cakra, nāḍī, kuṇḍalinī). The sākṣī-doctrine that 5.80 interpretively-tightens is the classical Upaniṣadic sākṣī-doctrine (Mundaka 3.1.1's two-birds image), not the Nātha-tantric sākṣi-bhāva somatic-witness practice. Discipline: don't conflate the classical sākṣī-Vedānta with the Nātha-tantric witness-of-the-cakra-progression.

Cross-references

Internal:
5.79 (developed-further) — cluster 0196's closing positional-claim (he is in the jīva of the world yet no-one's at-any-time) now extends into the karma-fruit-disavowal corollary.
5.81 (developed-further) — the mūrta-amūrta toggle that 5.81 introduces is what makes 5.80's disavowal metaphysically coherent.
Tukaram parallel:
Tukaram 2937 (destination-shared-deha-atita) — the bhakta-side mirror: bhakta hands over deha and pāpa-puṇya become Deva's; Jñāneśvar names the Lord-side: even when handed over, vibhū does-not-receive.
Tukaram 2922 (thematic-resonance-karma-dissolution) — same end-state (karma-categories dissolve into Nārāyaṇa) via distinct vocabulary (dvaita-advaita-bhāva-pervaded rather than non-reception).
Source citation:
BG-5.15a (direct-paraphrase with interpretive-tightening from non-reception to non-even-witnessing).
BG-9.9 (echo: udāsīna-vat āsīnam — sitting-as-if-disinterested; weaker formulation than 5.80's no-sākṣī).
Mundaka Upaniṣad 3.1.1 (echo: two-birds-on-one-tree, the other looks-on without eating — the classical sākṣī-doctrine that 5.80 interpretively-tightens beyond mere non-eating-witness).

Modern application

The believer asking if there is a benevolent Lord, why does my mother have cancer? — for whom 5.80's पासींचि असतु न देखें (though-the-suffering-is-right-near, he-does-not-see) is theologically uncomfortable but doctrinally honest: the BG-5.15 doctrine does not promise a witnessing-Lord-who-cares-about-our-pain; it disavows even the witness-relation. The pastoral question does He see what is happening to my mother? receives Jñāneśvar's structurally-difficult answer: not in the way you mean. The compensating doctrine (that the pain-itself is svabhāva-of-prakṛti, not divinely-allocated) is what bears the existential-weight in this frame.
The prosperity-gospel adherent who has been told that if you suffer, it is because you have not pleased the Lord enough — for whom 5.80 is doctrinally-corrective. The Lord does not receive your sukṛta and grant prosperity-in-exchange; he is not in the receiver-position. The transaction-theology that grounds prosperity-gospel claims (sukṛta-in-exchange-for-divine-favor) is structurally barred by BG-5.15a. Your sukṛta does not arrive at any divine-account; there is no account.
The activist who has internalized the universe will balance the books as a moral-physics claim — for whom 5.80 disrupts the consoling-mechanism. The BG-5.15 vibhū does-not-receive pāpa-and-sukṛta to-be-redistributed-later. The doctrine of svabhāva (chapter-5's actual proposal) is that karma-fruits arise from the karma-substrate itself (not from a divine-bookkeeper). The doctrinal-implication is harder than the popular the-universe-will-balance-it moralism: the work of justice is on us, in svabhāva-acted-upon-by-svabhāva, not deferred to a divine-receiver who is precisely not receiving.

Sādhanā

Today: Identify one place where, in the past week, you said-or-thought the universe heard me / God saw that / karma will come around. Spend 3 minutes writing what would change in your sense of agency-and-responsibility if BG-5.15's पासींचि असतु न देखें were literally true — if the divine-witness were truly not occupying the receiver-position. Don't try to accept the claim; just write the consequence-trace.

Arc

5.80 delivers the bare disavowal (vibhū does-not-receive, does-not-even-witness). 5.81 will deliver the metaphysical-architecture that explains how this disavowal is consistent with the immanence affirmed at cluster 0196's 5.79.

Ovi 5.81

Original (Marathi): पैं मूर्तीचेनि मेळें । तो मूर्तचि होऊनि खेळे । परि अमूर्तपण न मैळे । दादुलयाचें ॥८१॥

Voice: krishna-to-arjuna (sustained; पैं opens the ovi as Jñāneśvar's attention-marker; no voice-shift)

Word-by-word gloss

Marathi	Meaning
पैं	now (attention-marker / discourse-particle)
मूर्तीचेनि	with the form (instrumental of mūrti)
मेळें	with-the-assembly / with-the-meeting
तो	he
मूर्तचि	becoming-form-itself
होऊनि	having-become
खेळे	plays
परि	yet / but
अमूर्तपण	the amūrta-pana (the formless-condition / formlessness)
न मैळे	is-not-soiled / is-not-defiled
दादुलयाचें	of the Mighty-one / of the Dādulā (an honorific for the Lord)

Literal translation

English: Now, with the assembly-of-forms (the mūrta-realm), he plays becoming-form-itself; yet the amūrta-pana (formless-condition) of the Mighty-one is not soiled.

मराठी (आधुनिक): आता पाहा — तो मूर्त-स्वरूपांच्या (रूपवंतांच्या) मेळ्यात स्वतः मूर्त बनूनच खेळतो; परंतु त्या दादुलयाचे (तेजस्वी-समर्थ परमेश्वराचे) अमूर्तपण (निराकार-रूप) मलिन होत नाही.

Metaphor-unfold

The mūrta-amūrta-play metaphor-family:

Literal image	Philosophical referent	Modern equivalent
`मूर्तीचेनि मेळें` — the assembly-of-forms	the manifest-cosmos with its named-and-formed beings, events, transactions	The named-world we live in — the world of names-faces-jobs-pronouns-bodies — the social-and-physical world that has shape and accepts description
`मूर्तचि होऊनि खेळे` — he plays becoming-form-itself	the Lord's immanence-as-saguṇa, his being-the-world without remainder; the avatāra-logic; the līlā-of-becoming	A novelist who writes herself in as a minor character in her own novel — fully-present-in-the-page-as-a-character yet the whole-mind-from-which-the-novel-issues is not exhausted by that character
`अमूर्तपण न मैळे` — the amūrta-pana is not soiled	the nirguṇa-substrate remains untouched-by-the-saguṇa-play; the two-level ontology in operation	The actor who lives the role for three hours fully (not faking the tears, not faking the laughter) yet is not their character when the curtain falls; the role is real and the not-being-the-role is also real
`दादुलयाचें` — of the Mighty-one	the affectionate-honorific marks the Lord's immense-disengaged-capacity — strong enough to enter the play without being absorbed	The mature parent who plays the floor-game with the child fully — not condescending, genuinely-laughing — yet not-actually losing themselves into the child's frame

Metaphor-family appears elsewhere: this mūrta-amūrta-play family is the chapter-5 deployment of the chapter-4 avatāra-doctrine (BG-4.6's unborn-yet-comes-into-being). The same family will surface again in chapter 9 (BG-9.4's I-pervade-the-cosmos-yet-am-not-situated-in-it) and culminate in chapter 11's viśva-rūpa-darśana (where the full mūrta-amūrta-toggle becomes Arjuna's visible-experience). Within the Dnyāneśvarī specifically, the play-vocabulary (खेळे) is the līlā-rendering of the Sanskrit avatāra-doctrine — Jñāneśvar prefers play / sport over the more-doctrinal avatāra-vocabulary when describing the saguṇa-immanence.

Nāth-yogic layer

No Nāth-yogic referent in this ovi. The mūrta-amūrta vocabulary here is the Vedānta-doctrinal saguṇa-nirguṇa two-level-ontology, not the Nātha-tantric sthūla-sūkṣma-kāraṇa three-body-doctrine or the cakra-stack-from-mūlādhāra-to-sahasrāra somatic-progression. The दादुलयाचें honorific is Jñāneśvar's affectionate-Marathi-vocative for the Lord (literally of the Mighty-one), not a Nātha-tantric epithet. Discipline: don't read the Nātha-tantric subtle-body back into the BG-5.15 commentary; the mūrta-amūrta toggle here is metaphysical, not somatic.

Cross-references

Internal:
4.21 (developed-further) — chapter-4's BG-4.6 avatāra-doctrine (unborn-yet-comes-into-being by ātma-māyā) is the doctrinal-engine whose chapter-5 application is 5.81. The chapter-4 → chapter-5 movement is from general avatāra-doctrine to specific deployment-on-the-non-reception-of-karma-fruits.
5.80 (developed-further) — 5.81 supplies the metaphysics that licenses 5.80's bare disavowal. The two ovis form a claim-and-grounds pair.
Tukaram parallel: Tukaram 2925 (destination-shared-formless-Vitthal) — the bhakti-frame statement of the same two-level-ontology (Viṭṭhal is neither-formed-nor-formless, available-in-both-modes). Substantive parallel on the two-level-ontology that lets the same one be immanent and untouched.
Source citation:
BG-4.6 (echo: the avatāra-doctrine — unborn-yet-comes-into-being by my own ātma-māyā).
BG-9.4 (echo: all beings are situated in me, but I am not situated in them — the containing-without-being-contained logic).

Modern application

The therapist who must enter the client's emotional-world fully (mirror, validate, feel-with) yet not lose the clinical-stance that allows her to offer interpretation back — for whom 5.81's मूर्तचि होऊनि खेळे । परि अमूर्तपण न मैळे is a structural-description of the professional-discipline. The therapeutic third-position (Bion / Ogden) is precisely the not-getting-merged even-while-being-fully-merged in the dyad. The mūrta-amūrta toggle as a clinical-doctrine.
The parent of a teenager who is learning to fully-enter the teen's intensities (the heartbreak, the friend-betrayal, the college-rejection) without becoming the teen's intensity in a way that strips the teen of an adult-anchor — for whom 5.81 names a parenting-skill: the playing-fully-form-with-them (मूर्तचि होऊनि खेळे) while the amūrta-pana (the parent-as-anchor) is not-soiled. The hardest parenting-skill — full empathy without absorption.
The teacher of a difficult subject (organic-chemistry, real-analysis) who must inhabit the student's confusion (forget what you know, think like a beginner) to genuinely-teach, yet hold the expert-knowledge available for the next move — for whom 5.81 names a pedagogical-craft: the becoming-mūrta into the student's frame while the amūrta-pana of the expert-stance remains-clean. The bad-teaching failure-mode is not-entering (lecturing from-above); the other failure-mode is absorbing the confusion (losing-the-thread). 5.81 names the discipline between.

Sādhanā

Today: Pick one specific role you played-in today (parent, manager, friend-of-the-grieving, customer-with-a-rude-cashier). Spend 5 minutes writing two parallel descriptions: (a) what it looked-like from-inside the role (the mūrta-play); (b) what part of you was un-soiled by the role even-as-you-played-it (the amūrta-pana). The doctrinal-claim of 5.81 is that the second column always exists — the practice is noticing.

Arc

5.81 delivers the positive metaphysical-architecture (mūrta-amūrta toggle) that lets the disavowal of 5.80 be coherent. 5.82 will close the cluster by naming the popular-theology that denies this two-level-ontology (the creator-preserver-destroyer ascription) as the ajñāna BG-5.15b refers to.

Ovi 5.82

Original (Marathi): तो सृजी पाळी संहारी । ऐसें बोलती जे चराचरीं । तें अज्ञान गा अवधारीं । पंडुकुमरा ॥८२॥

Voice: krishna-to-arjuna (anchored by the explicit closing vocative पंडुकुमरा — O Pāṇḍu-son; the address-particle गा within तें अज्ञान गा अवधारीं reinforces direct-second-person register)

Word-by-word gloss

Marathi	Meaning
तो	he
सृजी	creates
पाळी	preserves / sustains
संहारी	destroys
ऐसें	thus
बोलती	speak / say
जे	those-who
चराचरीं	in the moving-and-unmoving (i.e. in this world of beings)
तें	that
अज्ञान	ajñāna / not-knowing
गा	(address-particle / vocative-marker)
अवधारीं	take-note / understand
पंडुकुमरा	O Pāṇḍu-son (Arjuna-vocative)

Literal translation

English: Those who, in this cara-acara world, speak he-creates, he-preserves, he-destroys — that-itself, O Pāṇḍu-son, take-note — is the ajñāna (the ignorance that covers knowledge and deludes the jīvas, as BG-5.15b says).

मराठी (आधुनिक): हे पंडुपुत्रा, `तो (परमेश्वर) सृष्टी निर्माण करतो, पाळतो आणि संहारतो' असे जे चराचरात बोलले जाते — ते-च अज्ञान आहे, हे लक्षात घे.

Metaphor-unfold

No extended metaphor in this ovi. 5.82 is operational-naming-of-the-error — it identifies what the BG-5.15b ajñāna-covering specifically is (the popular tri-functional theology) without an image. The cluster's image-load is carried by 5.81.

Nāth-yogic layer

No Nāth-yogic referent in this ovi. The सृजी पाळी संहारी (creates-preserves-destroys) vocabulary names the popular Vaiṣṇava-Śaiva-Brāhma cosmic-theology (Brahmā-creator, Viṣṇu-preserver, Maheśvara-destroyer), not the Nātha-tantric somatic-cosmology. The disavowal here is of popular theological-vocabulary, not of any somatic-yogic practice.

Cross-references

Internal:
5.79 (developed-further) — cluster 0196's 5.79 (this world arises-and-perishes; he does-not-even-know-of-it) already implicitly disavowed the popular tri-functional theology; 5.82 makes the disavowal explicit and names the popular contrary-theology as ajñāna.
5.83 (foreshadows) — cluster 0198 opens with तें अज्ञान जैं समूळ तुटे (when that-very-ajñāna is uprooted) — that-very-ajñāna refers directly back to 5.82's named-error. The 0197 → 0198 seam is the tightest in chapter 5's middle.
Tukaram parallel: Tukaram 2374 (anti-folk-deity polemic) — both Tukaram and Jñāneśvar perform a theology-as-error rhetorical-move; Tukaram targets popular lower-deities in bhakti-frame, Jñāneśvar targets popular cosmic-functions in Vedānta-frame. Same rhetorical-structure, different targets.
Source citation:
BG-5.15b (direct-paraphrase with interpretive-content-filling — the ajñāna is specifically the creator-preserver-destroyer ascription).
BG-5.14 (developed-further-source — the prior śloka's prabhuḥ na sṛjati claim is what 5.82's those-who-say-he-creates-preserves-destroys-are-in-ajñāna closes-the-loop on).
BG-13.27 (echo: यः पश्यति तथात्मानमकर्तारं स पश्यति — he who sees the Self as akartā truly sees; chapter-13 confirmation of the akartā-doctrine).

Modern application

The believer who experiences a natural disaster and asks why did God do this? — for whom 5.82's that-very-formulation-is-ajñāna is a structurally-difficult but doctrinally-honest reply. The BG-5.15 frame holds that the popular theological-grammar (God did X, allowed Y, willed Z) is itself a covering-of-jñāna. The pastoral-difficulty is that 5.82 does not give an alternative consoling theology; it disrupts the question-frame. The right consolation in this frame comes not from re-formulating divine-causation but from BG-5.16's uprooting of the ajñāna (the next cluster's promise).
The reader of pop-spiritual books who has internalized the Universe is conspiring on your behalf / sending you signs / putting people in your path — for whom 5.82 names this idiom as a contemporary form of the creator-preserver-destroyer ajñāna: the projection-of-intentional-agency onto a vibhū that is precisely not in the agent-position. The pop-spiritual claim is structurally the same as the popular Hindu tri-functional theology — something out there is doing things to and for me. 5.82 says: that-very-formulation is ajñāna.
The political-theologian who argues God-on-our-side for a war or election or movement — for whom 5.82 is a doctrinal-disruptor. Any theology that names the Lord as the cosmic-actor-on-behalf-of-our-side (preserver-of-the-righteous, destroyer-of-the-wicked) is the BG-5.15b ajñāna in political-clothing. The doctrinal-implication is that political-theologies of divine-mandate are not bad-theology-correctable-by-better-theology; they are structurally ajñāna — they project agency onto the very position that the BG-5.14-15 disavowal empties.

Sādhanā

Today: Identify one place in the past month where you (or someone close) explained an event with the formula the universe wanted X / God is testing me / it was meant to be. Spend 3 minutes writing what alternative-explanation (svabhāva — the karma-substrate operating on itself; happenstance; chains-of-cause-not-traced-to-a-divine-agent) could carry the same event. Don't try to reject the original formula; just notice whether the alternative-explanation is also fully-available.

Arc

5.82 closes BG-5.15's naming-of-the-ajñāna. The next cluster (0198 / BG-5.16) opens with तें अज्ञान जैं समूळ तुटे — when that-very-ajñāna is uprooted, the smudge-of-bhrānti is wiped-clean; then the akartṛtva of me-the-Lord becomes-manifest. The 0197 → 0198 hand-off is the tightest in chapter 5's middle: the covered is followed immediately by the uncovered, with the demonstrative तें (that-very-one) linking the two clusters into a single doctrinal-organism.

Cluster summary

Core teaching: The All-pervading-Lord does not receive anyone's pāpa or sukṛta — indeed he cannot even occupy the position of witness to them, so total is the disengagement. The popular tri-functional theology (creator-preserver-destroyer) attributed to him is itself the ajñāna BG-5.15b names — the covering-of-knowledge by which jīvas are deluded. The cluster's metaphysical-architecture is the mūrta-amūrta toggle: the same vibhū who plays in the mūrta-realm remains amūrta-untouched, and the disavowal of cosmic-causation flows directly from this two-level ontology.

Theme tags: theodicy, vibhū-non-reception, pāpa-puṇya-disavowal, mūrta-amūrta-play, creator-preserver-destroyer-as-ajñāna, popular-theology-as-error, sākṣī-doctrine-radicalized, udāsīna-vat, akartā-doctrine.

Contains extended metaphor: Yes — mūrta-amūrta-play (the Lord plays becoming-form-itself with the assembly-of-forms, yet the amūrta-pana of the Mighty-one is not-soiled) in 5.81. 5.80 and 5.82 are operational-doctrinal without sustained-images; the metaphor-load is concentrated in the middle ovi as the metaphysical-engine between the disavowal (5.80) and the naming-of-the-error (5.82).

Chapter arc position: Climax of the Lord-side disavowal-arc of chapter 5. The chapter's argumentative-build moves through: equivalence of samnyāsa-yoga (0184-0188, BG-5.1-5) → operational-asymmetry of yoga-as-prerequisite (0189-0190, BG-5.6-7) → sense-paradox of the tattvavit (0191-0194, BG-5.8-11) → Lord-side disavowal of cosmic-causation (0195-0197, BG-5.13-15). Cluster 0197 (BG-5.15) is the third and most radical step of the Lord-side disavowal: not only does the Lord not-create kartṛtva (5.14), he also does-not-receive pāpa-puṇya, cannot-even-be-the-witness, and the popular contrary-theology is itself the ajñāna BG-5.15b refers to.

Connects to next śloka: Cluster 0198 (BG-5.16) opens with तें अज्ञान जैं समूळ तुटे । तै भ्रांतीचें मसैरें फिटे । मग अकर्तृत्व प्रगटे । मज ईश्वराचें — when that-very-ajñāna is uprooted, the smudge-of-bhrānti is wiped-clean; then the akartṛtva of me-the-Lord becomes-manifest. The 0197 → 0198 seam is the tightest in chapter 5's middle: BG-5.15 names the covering (ajñāna covers jñāna; the popular creator-preserver-destroyer theology is itself that covering); BG-5.16 names the uncovering (when the ajñāna is uprooted, jñāna shines like the sun rising in the eastern palace, dispelling darkness from all directions). Cluster 0197 is the diagnosis; cluster 0198 is the prognosis. The two clusters form a single doctrinal-organism — the covered-and-uncovered sequence — and should be read as a pair. The user's hypothesized BG-5.18 (vidyā-vinaya-sampanne — the same-vision-equality verse) lies approximately three clusters ahead at ~0200, where chapter 5 transitions from the uncovering of jñāna (5.16-17) to the same-vision fruit of the uncovered jñāna (5.18-19): paṇḍita-with-vidyā-vinaya, cow, elephant, dog, dog-eater — all-seen-as-equal by the one in whom the ajñāna BG-5.15 names has been uprooted.