Format by A.K. Aruna, 2019 ver.4.1: UpasanaYoga. If downloaded, requires installed Devanāgarī Siddhanta1.ttf font, downloadable from UpasanaYoga. If run from UpasanaYoga website, it alternatively can use online Web Font. Any Devanāgarī in parentheses () is an alternate reading of text in Red. Top button "Collapse all panels" contracts the view in which individual items can be re-expanded, or again the top button "Restore all panels" reloads page to original view. The Devanagari text source is the Sharada Peetham, Sringeri (advaitasharada.sringeri.net).Bhagavad-Gītā is a part of the Mahā-Bhārata, attributed to Śrī Veda-Vyāsa. It is a report of a dialogue between Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa and Śrī Arjuna. The English translation of Śaṅkara's Commentary (Bhāṣyam) is from Swami Gambhirananda (1899-1988) of Ramakhrishma Mission. The Commentary starts with an Introduction to the entire Gītā, then restart as the Introduction to Verse 2.11, where Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa starts teaching Arjuna. The translations of the Commentary sentences have been interspersed between the matching lines of the text, so that those familiar with Sanskrit may more easily learn how to render the individual sentences into English.
by A.K. Aruna
First Update to HTML Apr 2022 with Creative Commons International License:
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/, or click the following logo:
नारायणः परोऽव्यक्ताद् अण्डम् अव्यक्त-संभवम्। अण्डस्यान्तस् त्व् इमे लोकाः सप्त-द्वीपा च मेदिनी॥१॥ (BrAPur) The primordial Egg has from Māyā (the unmanifest) sprung, and beyond Māyā is Nārāyaṇa. ln the Primordial Egg these worlds are strung the Dvīpas (continents) seven and the earth.स भगवान् सृष्ट्वेदं जगत्, तस्य च स्थितिं चिकीर्षुर्, मरीच्यादीन् अग्रे सृष्ट्वा प्रजा-पतीन्, प्रवृत्ति-लक्षणं धर्मं ग्राहयामास वेदोक्तम्। The Lord created this universe and wishing its sustenance, He first created Marīci and other Prajāpatis who were made to accept the Pravṛtti dharma (i.e. the principle on which man's actions are based) as enunciated in the Vedas.
ततोऽन्यांश् च सनक-स-नन्दनादीन् उत्पाद्य, निवृत्ति-लक्षणं धर्मं ज्ञान-वैराग्य-लक्षणं ग्राहयामास। Thereafter, He created Sanaka, Sanandana and others who were make to accept the Nivṛtti dharma (i.e. the principles enabling one to attain liberation) of which the characteristics are knowledge and dispassion.
द्वि-विधो हि वेदोक्तो धर्मः, प्रवृत्ति-लक्षणो निवृत्ति-लक्षणश् च। The dharma (principle) enunciated in the Vedas is of two kinds. (They are) pravṛtti dharma (which relates to action) and nivṛtti dharma which relates to liberation).
(तत्रैको) जगतः स्थिति-कारणम्। प्राणिनां साक्षाद्-अभ्युदय-निःश्रेयस-हेतुर् यः स धर्मः ब्राह्मणाद्यैर् वर्णिभिर् आश्रमिभिश् च श्रेयोर्थिभिर् अनुष्ठीयमानः। That dharma (principle) which serves as the cause for the sustenance of the world as well as the well-being and salvation of beings had been observed by all those belonging to all varṇas (classes) beginning from Brāhmaṇas, and āśramas (institution, such as householders, etc.), who aspire after liberation.
दीर्घेण कालेनानुष्ठातॄणां कामोद्भवाद् धीयमान-विवेक-विज्ञान-हेतुकेनाधर्मणाभिभूयमाने धर्मे, प्रवर्धमाने चाधर्मे, जगतः स्थितिं परिपिपालयिषुः स आदि-कर्ता नारायणाख्यो विष्णुर् भौमस्य ब्रह्मणो ब्राह्मणत्वस्य रक्षणार्थं देवक्यां वसु-देवाद् अंशेन कृष्णः किल संबभूव (BhG.4.6)। When, in the course of a long period (of such observance), on account of the rise of proud passions in the minds of the adherents, the sense of (righteousness consisting of) discrimination, and wisdom deteriorated giving rise to unrighteousness, He, the creator Viṣṇu, known as Nārāyaṇa, incarnated as the son of Devakī and Vāsudeva, by the name Kṛṣṇa, for the preservation of the Brahma of the earth and the Brāhmaṇa-hood.
ब्राह्मणत्वस्य हि रक्षणेन रक्षितः स्याद् वैकिको धर्मः, तद्-अधीनत्वाद् वर्णाश्रमभेदानाम्। Through the protection of Brahmanattva (Brāhmaṇa qualities) the Veda dharma can be preserved, for the system of Varṇa-āśrama-dharma rests on it.
स च भगवान् ज्ञानैश्वर्य-शक्ति-बल-वीर्य-तेजोभिः सदा संपन्नस् त्रि-गुणात्मिकां वैष्णवीं स्वां मायां मूल-प्रकृतिं वशी-कृत्याजोऽव्ययो भूतानाम् ईश्वरो नित्य-शुद्ध-बुद्ध-मुक्त-स्व-भावोऽपि सन्, स्व-मायया देहवान् इव जात इव (च) लोकानुग्रहं कुर्वन् (इव) लक्ष्यते। That Bhagavān (Lord) though eternally the embodiment of wisdom, prosperity, power, strength, virtue and affluence, assumed His own Vaiṣṇavī Māyā which is called Mūla-prakṛti (first cause) represented by the three guṇas. Though lord of all beings, unborn and indestructible, eternal, pure, intelligent and free, He, by His own Māyā, appeared as though He has a body and is achieving redemption of mankind.
स्व-प्रयोजनाभावेऽपि भूतानुजिघृक्षया वैदिकं हि धर्म-द्वयम् अर्जुनाय शोक-मोह-महोदधौ निमग्नायोपदिदेश, गुणाधिकैर् हि गृहीतोऽनुष्ठीयमानश् च धर्मः प्रचयं गमिश्यतीति। Though not of any benefit to Himself, out of compassion for all mankind, He taught Arjuna who was sinking in the vast ocean of śoka (grief) and moha (delusion), the twofold Veda dharma, so that if the virtuous ones absorbed and practised this dharma it would spread quickly.
तं धर्मं भगवता यथोपदिष्टं वेद-व्यासः सर्व-ज्ञो भगवान् गीताख्यैः सप्तभिः श्लोक-शतैर् उपनिबबन्ध। Veda-vyāsa, the omniscient and worshipful sage, compiled the dharma thus taught by the Lord, in seven hundred verses under the name Gītā.
तद् इदं गीता-शास्त्रं समस्त-वेदार्थ-सार-संग्रह-भूतं दुर्-विज्ञेयार्थं। This Gītā Śāstra is the quint-essence of the meaning of all the Vedas in a condensed form, most difficult to understand.
तद्-अर्थाविष्करणायानेकैर् विवृत-पदार्थ-वाक्यार्थ-न्यायम् अप्य्, अत्यन्त-विरुद्धानेकार्थत्वेन लौकिकैर् गृह्यमाणम् उपलभ्याहं विवेकतोऽर्थ-निर्धारणार्थं संक्षेपतो विवरणं करिष्यामि। To make clear its (Gītā's) meaning, although several have commented upon it, critically examining and explaining each word and sentence, it is seen that it has been conceived by the wordly people with many highly objectionable meaning. In order to pitch at the discriminative meaning, I shall explain it in brief.
तस्यास्य गीता-शास्त्रस्य संक्षेपतः प्रयोजनं परं निःश्रेयसं स-हेतुकस्य संसारस्यात्यन्तोपरम-लक्षणम्। तच् च सर्व-कर्म-सन्न्यास-पूर्वकाद् आत्म-ज्ञान-निष्ठा-रूपाद् धर्माद् भवति। The benefit derived from this brief explanation of the Gita is the attainment of the highest goal resulting in termination of all worldly longings with their root cause. This is achieved by the observance of Dharma which consists of unflinching devotion to the knowledge of the Self, preceded by the renunciation of (the fruits of) all action (karma).
तथेमम् एव गीतार्थं धर्मम् उद्दिश्य भगवतैवोक्तम् – ‘स हि धर्मः सुपर्याप्तो ब्रह्मणः पद-वेदने’ (MBhAsv.13.12) इति अनुगीतासु। Keeping this purpose of the Gītā in view only, it has been uttered by Bhagavān in the Anugītā: “That dharma is quite enough to attain the state of Brahman.”
किंचान्यद् अपि तत्रैव चोक्तम् – ‘नैव धर्मी न चाधर्मी न चैव हि शुभाशुभी’ (MBhAsv.19.7), ‘यः स्याद् एकासने लीनस् तूष्णीं किंचिद् अचिन्तयन्’ (MBhAsv.19.1), ‘ज्ञानं सन्न्यास-लक्षणम्’ (MBhAsv.43.25) इति च। There again it has been said: “He who sits in one position absorbed and silent, thinking of nothing else (but meditating on the Supreme) is not a dharmī (doer of virtue) nor a-dharmī (doer of sin) nor a śubhāśubhī (doer of what is auspicious and inauspicious)”. (This also has been said:) The characteristics of knowledge (jñāna) is sannyāsa (renunciation).
इहापि चान्ते उक्तम् अर्जुनाय – ‘सर्व-धर्मान् परित्यज्य माम् एकं शरणं व्रज’ (BhG.18.66) इति। In this (Śāstra i.e. Gītā) it has also been said at the end (by the Lord) to Arjuna: “Renouncing all dharmas, take refuge in me alone” (BhG.18.66).
अभ्युदयार्थोऽपि यः प्रवृत्ति-लक्षणो धर्मो वर्णाश्रमांश् चोद्दिश्य विहितः स देवादि-स्थान-प्राप्ति-हेतुर् अपि सन्न् ईश्वरार्पण-बुद्ध्यानुष्ठीयमानः सत्त्व-शुद्धये भवति फलाभिसन्धि-वर्जितः। The ethical principles (Pravṛtti-lakṣaṇa dharma) which have been laid down for all the Varṇas (classes) and Āśramas (institutions), are means to the attainment of material prosperity, as well as the Deva-sthāna (the position of the Devas) and the like, and if observed without desire for the fruits thereof, in a spirit of dedication to God, they will tend to purity the mind.
शुद्ध-सत्त्वस्य च ज्ञान-निष्ठा-योग्यता-प्राप्ति-द्वारेण ज्ञानोत्पत्ति-हेतुत्वेन च निःश्रेयस-हेतुत्वम् अपि प्रतिपद्यते। And the one who is pure in mind becomes fit to devote oneself to knowledge and through the attainment of knowledge, mokṣa (immortality) too becomes possible.
तथाचेमम् एवार्थम् अथिसंधाय वक्ष्यति – ‘ब्रह्मणि आधाय कर्माणि’ (BhG.5.10), ‘योगिनः कर्म कुर्वन्ति सङ्गं त्यक्त्वात्म-शुद्धये’ (BhG.5.11) इति। Keeping this object in view only, it shall be said: “He who performs actions dedicating them to Brahman...Yogīs perform karma, renouncing attachment in order to purity the mind” (BhG.5.10-11).
इमं द्वि-प्रकारं धर्मं निःश्रेयस-प्रयोजनं परमार्थ-तत्त्वं च वासु-देवाख्यं पर-ब्रह्माभिधेय-भूतं विशेषतोऽभिव्यञ्जयद् विशिष्ट-प्रयोजन-संबन्धाभिधेयवद् गीता-शास्त्रम्। The Gītā-Śāstra which reveals distinctly the twofold dharma with the supreme goal as its object, and the supreme Reality called Vāsu-deva [•The one who dwells and shines within all.•], the supreme Brahman, as its subject, is distinguished as having an object, a subject and relation (between these two).
यतस् तद्-अर्थे विज्ञाते समस्त-पुरुषार्थ-सिद्धिर् अतस् तद्-विवरणे यत्नः क्रियते मया॥ [समाप्तेयं श्रीमच्-छांकर-भाष्योपक्रमणिका।] Because a (proper) understanding of its meaning will lead to the fulfilment of all objects of human life, therefore I endeavour to explain it.
धृत-राष्ट्रः उवाच। धर्म-क्षेत्रे कुरु-क्षेत्रे युयुत्सवः समवेताः मामकाः पाण्डवाः च एव किम् अकुर्वत, सञ्जय॥ 🔗 Dhṛta-rāṣṭra said: What indeed did my people and the Pāṇḍavas do, assembled at Kuru-kṣetra, the field of dharma, desiring to fight, O Sañjaya?
सञ्जयः उवाच। तदा तु राजा दुर्-योधनः पाण्डव-अनीकं व्यूढं दृष्ट्वा आचार्यं [द्रोणम्] उपसङ्गम्य वचनम् अब्रवीत्॥ 🔗 Sañjaya said: Then, seeing the army of the sons of Pāṇḍu in battle formation, King Duryodhana, approaching his teacher Droṇa, spoke these words.
आचार्य, तव धीमता शिष्येण द्रुपद-पुत्रेण व्यूढां पाण्डु-पुत्राणाम् एतां महतीं चमूं पश्य॥ 🔗 O Teacher, please look at this great army of the sons of Pāṇḍu (your deceased younger brother), formed and led by your brilliant disciple, the son of Drupada (a rival of yours).
अत्र महा-इष्वासाः युधि भीम-अर्जुन-समाः शूराः – युयुधानः, विराटः च, महा-रथः द्रु-पदः च, धृष्ट-केतुः, चेकितानः, वीर्यवान् काशि-राजः च, पुरु-जित्, कुन्ति-भोजः च, नर-पुङ्गवः शैब्यः च, विक्रान्तः युधा-मन्युः च, वीर्यवान् उत्तम-ओजाः च, सौभद्रः, द्रौ-पदेयाः च – सर्वे एव महा-रथाः [सन्ति]॥ 🔗 Here are the heroes, great archers, equal in battle to Bhīma and Arjuna – Yuyudhāna (Sātyaki), Virāṭa, the great warrior Drupada, Dhṛṣṭa-ketu, Cekitāna, the valiant king of Kāśi, Purujit, Kunti-bhoja, the best of men Śaibya, the powerful Yudhāmanyu, the valiant Uttamaujas, the son of Subhadrā (Abhimanyu), and the five sons of Draupatī – every one a great warrior.
द्विज-उत्तम, ये तु अस्माकं विशिष्टाः [सन्ति] मम सैन्यस्य नायकाः तान् निबोध। तान् ते सञ्ज्ञा-अर्थं ब्रवीमि॥ 🔗 Whereas, O Best of brāhmaṇas, please know those leaders of my army who are distinguished among us. I mention them for your recognition.
भवान्, भीष्मः च, कर्णः च, समितिञ्-जयः कृपः च, अश्वत्थामा, विकर्णः च, तथा एव च सौम-दत्तिः [सन्ति]॥ 🔗 There are: Your Honor (Droṇa), Bhīṣma, Karṇa, the victorious in battle Kṛpa, Aśvatthāman, Vikarṇa, and the son of Soma-datta.
अन्ये च बहवः शूराः मद्-अर्थे त्यक्त-जीविताः, सर्वे नाना-शस्त्र-प्रहरणाः युद्ध-विशारदाः [सन्ति]॥ 🔗 And many other heroes who have given up their lives for me, all armed with many kinds of hand-held weapons and missiles, experts in warfare.
अस्माकं तद् भीष्म-अभिरक्षितं बलम् अ-पर्याप्तम्, एतेषां तु इदं भीम-अभिरक्षितं बलं पर्याप्तम्॥ 🔗 That army of ours, protected by Bhīṣma, is not overwhelmed; whereas this army of theirs, protected by Bhīma, is overwhelmed.
प्रतापवान् कुरु-वृद्धः पिता-महः तस्य हर्षं सञ्जनयन् उच्चैः सिंह-नादं विनद्य शङ्खं दध्मौ॥ 🔗 Grandfather Bhīṣma, the powerful elder of the Kurus, loudly let out a lion’s roar and blew his conch, elating him, Duryodhana.
ततः शङ्खाः च भेर्यः च पणव-आनक-गोमुखाः सहसा एव अभ्यहन्यन्त। सः शब्दः तुमुलः अभवत्॥ 🔗 Then, all at once (on Duryodhana’s side), conches, kettle drums, various small and large drums and horns were sounded. The noise was tumultuous.
हृषीक-ईशः पाञ्च-जन्यं [दध्मौ], धनञ्-जयः देव-दत्तं [दध्मौ], भीम-कर्मा वृक-उदरः महा-शङ्खं पौण्ड्रं दध्मौ॥ 🔗 Kṛṣṇa blew His conch called Pāñca-janya; Arjuna blew his conch called Deva-datta. Bhīma, the Wolf-Bellied, blew his huge conch called Pauṇḍra.
कुन्ती-पुत्रः राजा युधि-ष्ठिरः अन्-अन्त-विजयं [दध्मौ], नकुलः सह-देवः च सु-घोष-मणि-पुष्पकौ [दध्मतुः]॥ 🔗 King Yudhi-ṣṭhira, the son of Kuntī, blew his conch called An-anta-vijaya. Nakula and Saha-deva blew their conches called Su-ghoṣa and Maṇi-puṣpaka.
परम-इष्वासः काश्यः च, महा-रथः शिखण्डी च, धृष्ट-द्युम्नः, विराटः च, अ-पराजितः सात्यकिः च, द्रु-पदः, द्रौ-पदेयाः च, महा-बाहुः सौभद्रः च – पृथिवी-पते, सर्वशः पृथक् पृथक् शङ्खान् दध्मुः॥ 🔗 The expert archer king of Kāśi, the great warrior Śikhaṇḍin, Dhṛṣṭa-dyumna, Virāṭa, and the unsurpassed Sātyaki, Drupada, the five sons of Draupadī, and the mighty-armed son of Su-bhadrā (Abhimanyu) – O King Dhṛta-rāṣṭra, all on the Pāṇḍava side blew their individual conches.
मही-पते, अथ शस्त्र-सम्पाते प्रवृत्ते धार्त-राष्ट्रान् व्यवस्थितान् दृष्ट्वा कपि-ध्वजः पाण्डवः धनुः उद्यम्य, तदा हृषीक-ईशम् इदं वाक्यम् आह। अर्जुनः उवाच। अ-च्युत, मे रथम् उभयोः सेनयोः मध्ये स्थापय, यावद् अहम् एतान् अवस्थितान् योद्धु-कामान् निरीक्षे, अस्मिन् रण-समुद्यमे मया कैः सह योद्धव्यम्॥ 🔗 O King Dhṛta-rāṣṭra, then as the clash of swords was about to begin, Arjuna, with Lord Hanumān as his banner, seeing the allies of Dhṛta-rāṣṭra assembled, raised his bow and then said these words to Kṛṣṇa. Arjuna said: O Kṛṣṇa, place my chariot between both armies so that I can examine these assembled wishing to do battle, and with whom I should fight at the outset of this war.
ये एते युद्धे दुर्-बुद्धेः धार्त-राष्ट्रस्य प्रिय-चिकीर्षवः अत्र समागताः [तान्] योत्स्यमानान् [यावद्] अहम् अवेक्षे॥ 🔗 So I can see those about to fight who have assembled here, wishing to please in war the distorted-thinking Duryodhana.
सञ्जयः उवाच। भारत, गुडाका-ईशेन एवम् उक्तः हृषीक-ईशः उभयोः सेनयोः मध्ये भीष्म-द्रोण-प्रमुखतः सर्वेषां मही-क्षिताम् [प्रमुखतः] च रथ-उत्तमं स्थापयित्वा – ‘पार्थ, एतान् समवेतान् कुरून् पश्य’ इति उवाच॥ 🔗 Sañjaya said: O Dhṛta-rāṣṭra, having thus been ordered by Arjuna, Lord Kṛṣṇa placed the great chariot between both armies, right in front of Bhīṣma and Droṇa and all these kings, and then said, “Arjuna, behold these assembled Kurus.”
तत्र पार्थः उभयोः सेनयोः अपि स्थितान् – पितॄन्, अथ पिता-महान्, आचार्यान्, मातुलान्, भ्रातॄन्, पुत्रान्, पौत्रान्, सखीन्, श्वशुरान्, सु-हृदः तथा एव च अपश्यत्। सः कौन्तेयः, तान् सर्वान् अवस्थितान् बन्धून् समीक्ष्य, परया कृपया आविष्टः, विषीदन् इदम् अब्रवीत्॥ 🔗 There Arjuna saw stationed in both armies fathers, grandfathers, teachers, uncles, brothers, sons, grandsons, comrades, fathers-in-law, and friends. That Arjuna, seeing all those assembled relatives and being overwhelmed with great pity, became sad and said this.
अर्जुनः उवाच। कृष्ण, इमं स्व-जनं युयुत्सुं समुपस्थितं दृष्ट्वा, मम गात्राणि सीदन्ति, मुखं च परिशुष्यति, मे शरीरे वेपथुः च, रोम-हर्षः च जायते॥ 🔗 Arjuna said: O Kṛṣṇa, seeing these, my people (on both sides), who have come ready to fight, my limbs are limp, my mouth is dry, my body is trembling, and my hairs are on end.
कृष्ण, विजयं न काङ्क्षे, न राज्यं च सुखानि च। गो-विन्द, किं नः राज्येन, किं भोगैः जीवितेन वा॥ 🔗 O Kṛṣṇa, I do not desire for myself victory, nor kingdom, nor pleasures. O Kṛṣṇa, what is the use of a kingdom to us? What is the use of pleasures or living?
येषाम् अर्थे नः राज्यं भोगाः सुखानि च काङ्क्षितं, ते इमे प्राणान् धनानि च त्यक्त्वा युद्धे अवस्थिताः – आचार्याः, पितरः, पुत्राः, तथा एव च पिता-महाः, मातुलाः, श्वशुराः, पौत्राः, श्यालाः, तथा सम्बन्धिनः॥ 🔗 For whose sake we have desired kingdom, experiences, and pleasures – those same are assembled here in battle, giving up their lives and wealth: teachers, fathers, sons, grandfathers, uncles, fathers-in-law, grandsons, brothers-in-law, and other relations.
मधु-सूदन, एतान् घ्नतः अपि त्रै-लोक्य-राज्यस्य हेतोः अपि हन्तुं न इच्छामि, किं नु मही-कृते॥ 🔗 O Kṛṣṇa, though they are about to kill me, I do not wish to kill them – even for dominion over the three worlds (earth, sky, and heaven), much less for a kingdom on this earth.
धार्त-राष्ट्रान् निहत्य नः का प्रीतिः स्यात्, जन-अर्दन। एतान् आतत-आयिनः हत्वा पापम् एव अस्मान् आश्रयेत्॥ 🔗 What satisfaction would we have by killing the sons of Dhṛta-rāṣṭra, O Kṛṣṇa? By killing these felons, only sin would befall us.
तस्मात् वयं स्व-बान्धवान् धार्त-राष्ट्रान् हन्तुं न अर्हाः। स्व-जनं हि हत्वा कथं [वयं] सुखिनः स्याम, माधव॥ 🔗 Therefore, we ought not to kill our own relatives, the sons of Dhṛta-rāṣṭra. By killing our own relations, how would we be happy, O Kṛṣṇa?
यदि अपि एते लोभ-उपहत-चेतसः कुल-क्षय-कृतं दोषं मित्र-द्रोहे पातकं च न पश्यन्ति, कुल-क्षय-कृतं दोषम् अस्माभिः प्रपश्यद्भिः अस्मात् पापात् निवर्तितुं कथं न ज्ञेयम्, जन-अर्दन॥ 🔗 Even if these – whose minds are overwhelmed by greed – do not see the problem wrought by destroying the family or the crime in betraying friends, how can we – who clearly see the problem wrought by destroying the family – not know to withdraw from this sin, O Kṛṣṇa?
कुल-क्षये सनातनाः कुल-धर्माः प्रणश्यन्ति, धर्मे नष्टे अ-धर्मः कृत्स्नं कुलम् अभिभवति उत॥ 🔗 When the family is destroyed (by this killing of the men, the protectors of the family), the ancient traditions (dharmas) of the family are destroyed. When tradition is destroyed, corruption (a-dharma) indeed overwhelms the entire family.
कृष्ण, अ-धर्म-अभिभवात् कुल-स्त्रियः प्रदुष्यन्ति। वार्ष्णेय, स्त्रीषु दुष्टासु वर्ण-सङ्करः जायते॥ 🔗 O Kṛṣṇa, due to the family being overpowered by corruption, the women of the family (can become) debased (kept from maintaining their traditions). O Kṛṣṇa, when the women are debased, there arises confusion of the social groups.
सङ्करः कुल-घ्नानां कुलस्य च नरकाय एव [गमयति]। एषां पितरः हि लुप्त-पिण्ड-उदक-क्रियाः पतन्ति॥ 🔗 Confusion leads to hell for the destroyers of the family, as well as for the family. Their ancestors, being deprived of the post-death rituals of offerings of rice balls, water, etcetera, indeed fall (to a lower status).
कुल-घ्नानाम् एतैः वर्ण-सङ्कर-कारकैः दोषैः शाश्वताः जाति-धर्माः कुल-धर्माः च उत्साद्यन्ते॥ 🔗 Because of these crimes of the destroyers of the family, bringing about the confusion of the social groups, the ancient community traditions – as well as the family traditions – are destroyed.
अहो बत, यद् राज्य-सुख-लोभेन स्व-जनं हन्तुम् उद्यताः, वयं महत् पापं कर्तुं व्यवसिताः॥ 🔗 Oh! We are fixed to perpetrate a great sin, if, out of greed for kingdom and its pleasures, we are prepared to kill our own people.
यदि शस्त्र-पाणयः धार्त-राष्ट्राः माम् अ-प्रतीकारम् अ-शस्त्रं रणे हन्युः, तद् मे क्षेमतरं भवेत्॥ 🔗 If the armed sons of Dhṛta-rāṣṭra were in battle to kill me, unresisting and unarmed, that would be better for me (than this sin).
सञ्जयः उवाच। अर्जुनः एवम् उक्त्वा सङ्ख्ये स-शरं चापं विसृज्य शोक-संविग्न-मानसः रथ-उपस्थे उपाविशत्॥ 🔗 Sañjaya said: Speaking thus, Arjuna, giving up his bow and arrows in the middle of the battle-field, sat down on the chariot seat, his mind overcome with sorrow (in the form of guilt and hurt).
Om (brahman, the witness of all) is that (only) reality (sat). Thus ends the first chapter, called ‘The Topic of Arjuna’s Sorrow,’ of the (eighteen chapters of) Songs of the Glorious Lord, which is (looked upon as) sacred teaching (Upaniṣad) and (whose teaching is) in (the form of) a dialogue between Śrī Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna, (the subject matter being) knowledge of brahman and yoga.
सञ्जयः उवाच। मधु-सूदनः तम् [अर्जुनं] तथा कृपया आविष्टम् अश्रु-पूर्ण-आकुल-ईक्षणं विषीदन्तम् [च] इदं वाक्यम् उवाच॥ 🔗 Sañjaya said: Kṛṣṇa spoke these words to him, Arjuna, who in that way was overwhelmed by pity, with eyes stressed and full of tears and was sad.
श्री-भगवान् उवाच। विषमे इदम् अन्-आर्य-जुष्टम् अ-स्वर्ग्यम् अ-कीर्ति-करं [च] कश्मलं कुतः त्वा समुपस्थितम्, अर्जुन॥ 🔗 The Lord said: In such a crisis, at the outset of this war, from where came to you this despair, unacceptable for a person of the Veda culture, not leading to heaven, and engendering dishonor, O Arjuna?
क्लैब्यं मा स्म गमः, पार्थ। एतद् त्वयि न उपपद्यते। क्षुद्रं हृदय-दौर्बल्यं त्यक्त्वा उत्तिष्ठ, परन्-तप॥ 🔗 Do not yield to impotency, O Arjuna. It does not befit you. Give up this lowly weakness of heart and get up, O Arjuna (Vexer of Foes)!
अर्जुनः उवाच। मधु-सूदन अरि-सूदन, कथम् अहं सङ्ख्ये पूजा-अर्हौ भीष्मं द्रोणं च [उभौ] इषुभिः प्रतियोत्स्यामि॥ 🔗 Arjuna said: O Kṛṣṇa (Destroyer of Demons and Foes), how will I fight in battle with arrows against Bhīṣma and Droṇa, who are worthy of my worship, thus becoming a destroyer of my gurus?
महा-अनुभावान् गुरून् अ-हत्वा हि इह लोके भैक्ष्यम् अपि भोक्तुं श्रेयः [स्यात्], अर्थ-कामान् तु गुरून् हत्वा इह एव रुधिर-प्रदिग्धान् भोगान् भुञ्जीय॥ 🔗 It would be better I not kill these highly honored gurus and even beg alms here in the world, become a renunciate, than kill these gurus seeking their own ends and then indulge here in pleasures, drenched with their blood.
कतरद् च नः गरीयः एतद् न विद्मः – यद् वा जयेम यदि वा नः जयेयुः। यान् एव हत्वा न जिजीविषामः, ते धार्त-राष्ट्राः प्रमुखे अवस्थिताः॥ 🔗 We, I, do not know which one of the two is better for us – whether by my fighting we should conquer or by my withdrawal they should conquer us. Those allies of Dhṛta-rāṣṭra, after slaying whom we would not want to live, stand facing us.
[अहं] कार्पण्य-दोष-उपहत-स्व-भावः धर्म-सम्मूढ-चेताः [च] त्वां पृच्छामि – यद् निश्चितं श्रेयः स्यात्, तद् मे ब्रूहि। अहं ते शिष्यः। त्वां प्रपन्नं, मां शाधि॥ 🔗 With my mind overcome by miserliness, yet to be spent seeking the ultimate good (śreyas), and confused about dharma, I ask You – what is definitely śreyas? That, please tell me. I am Your student. Having surrendered to You, please teach me.
भूमौ हि (=यस्मात्) अ-सपत्नम् ऋद्धं राज्यं, सुराणाम् अपि च आधिपत्यम् अवाप्य, यद् मम इन्द्रियाणाम् उच्छोषणं शोकम् अपनुद्यात्, [तद्] न प्रपश्यामि॥ 🔗 Because, though gaining an unrivalled and prosperous kingdom on earth and even lordship over the heavenly deities, I do not see on my own what would remove the sorrow, the guilt and hurt, drying up my senses.
सञ्जयः उवाच। हृषीक-ईशम् एवम् उक्त्वा, परन्-तपः गुडाका-ईशः गो-विन्दं ‘न योत्स्ये’ इति उक्त्वा, तूष्णीं बभूव ह॥ 🔗 Sañjaya said: Having thus spoken to Kṛṣṇa, Arjuna, the Vexer of Foes, told Kṛṣṇa “I will not fight” and became silent.
भारत, हृषीक-ईशः प्रहसन् इव तम् उभयोः सेनयोः मध्ये विषीदन्तम् इदं वचः उवाच॥ 🔗 O Dhṛta-rāṣṭra, with a smile at the new-found student in Arjuna and at the bold request to teach Arjuna between two armies at the outset of war, Kṛṣṇa said these words to him, Arjuna, who was sad in the midst of both armies.
‘दृष्ट्वा तु पाण्डवानीकम्’ इति (BhG.1.2) आरभ्य ‘न योत्स्य इति गो-विन्दम् उक्त्वा तूष्णीं बभूव ह’ इति (BhG.2.9) एतद्-अन्तः प्राणिनां शोक-मोहादि-संसार-बीज-भूत-दोषोद्भव-कारण-प्रदर्शनार्थत्वेन व्याख्येयो ग्रन्थः। And here, the commencing from ‘But seeing the army of the Pāṇḍavas‘ (BhG.1.2)) and ending with ‘(he) verily became silent, telling Him (Govinda), “I shall not fight” is to be explained as revealing the cause of the origin of the defect in the from of sorrow, delusion, etc. [•Delusion means want of discrimination, etc. stands for the secondary manifestations of sorrow and delusion, as also ignorance which is the root cause of all these.•] which are the sources of the cycles of births and deaths of creatures.
तथा ह्य् अर्जुनेन राज्य-गुरु-पुत्र-मित्र-सुहृत्-स्व-जन-संबन्धि-बान्धवेष्व् ‘अहम् एषां’ ‘ममैते’ इति एवं भ्रान्ति-प्रत्यय-निमित्त-स्नेह-विच्छेदादि-निमित्ताव् आत्मनः शोक-मोहौ प्रदर्शितौ ‘कथं भीष्मम् अहं संख्ये’ इत्य्-आदिना (BhG.2.4)। Thus indeed, Arjuna’s own sorrow and delusion, caused by the ideas of affection, parting, etc., originating from the erroneous belief, ‘I belong to these; they belong to me’, with regard to kingdom (BhG.2.8), elders, sons, comrades, well-wishers (BhG.1.26), kinsmen (BhG.1.37), relatives (BhG.1.34) and friends, have been shown by him with the words, ‘How can I (fight)...in battle (against) Bhīṣma’ (BhG.2.4), etc.
शोक-मोहाभ्यां ह्य् अभिभूत-विवेक-विज्ञानः स्वत एव क्षात्र-धर्मे युद्धे प्रवृत्तोऽपि तस्माद् युद्धाद् उपरराम। पर-धर्मं च भिक्षा-जीवनादिकं कर्तुं प्रववृते। It is verily because his discriminating insight was overwhelmed by sorrow and delusion that, even though he had become engaged in battle out of his own accord as a duty of the Kṣatriyas, he desisted from that war and chose to undertake other’s duties like living on alms etc.
तथाच सर्व-प्राणिनां शोक-मोहादि-दोषाविष्ट-चेतसां स्व-भावत एव स्व-धर्म-परित्यागः प्रतिषिद्ध-सेवा च स्यात्। It is thus that in the case of all creatures whose minds come under the sway of the defects of sorrow, delusion, etc. there verily follows, as a matter of course, abandoning their own duties and resorting to prohibited ones.
स्व-धर्मे प्रवृत्तानाम् अपि तेषां वाङ्-मनः-कायादीनां प्रवृत्तिः फलाभिसन्धि-पूर्विकैव साहं-कारा च भवति। Even when they engage in their own duties their actions with speech, mind, body, etc., are certainly motivated by hankering for rewards, and are accompanied by egoism. [•Egoism consists in thinking that one is the agent of some work and the enjoyer of its reward.•]
तत्रैवं सति धर्माधर्मोपचयाद् इष्टानिष्ट-जन्म-सुख-दुःख-संप्राप्ति-लक्षणः संसारोऽनुपरतो भवतीति अतः संसार-बीज-भूतौ शोक-मोहौ। Such being the case, the cycle of births and deaths – characterized by passing through desirable and undesirable births, and meeting with happiness, sorrow, etc. [•From virtuous deeds follow attainment of heaven and happiness. From unvirtuous, sinful deeds follow births as beasts and other lowly beings, and sorrow. From the performance of both virtuous and sinful deeds follows birth as a human being, with a mixture of happiness and sorrow.•] from the accumulation of virtue and vice, continues unendingly. Thus, sorrow and delusion are therefore the sources of the cycles of births and deaths.
तयोश् च सर्व-कर्म-सन्न्यास-पूर्वकाद् आत्म-ज्ञानान् नान्यतो निवृत्तिर् इति। तद्-उपदिदिक्षुः सर्व-लोकानुग्रहार्थम् अर्जुनं निमित्ती-कृत्याह भगवान् वासु-देवः – ‘अशोच्यान्’ इत्य्-आदि (BhG.2.11)। And their cessation comes from nothing other than the knowledge of the Self which is preceded by the renunciation of all duties. Hence, wishing to impart that (knowledge of the Self) for favouring the whole world, Lord Vāsudeva, making Arjuna the medium, said, ‘You grieve for those who are not to be grieved for,’ etc.
अत्र केचिद् आहुः, सर्व-कर्म-सन्न्यास-पूर्वकाद् आत्म-ज्ञान-निष्ठामात्राद् एव केवलात् कैवल्यं न प्राप्यत एव। किं तर्हि? अग्नि-होत्रादि-श्रौत-स्मार्त-कर्म-सहिताज् ज्ञानात् कैवल्य-प्राप्तिर् इति सर्वासु गीतासु निश्चितोऽर्थ इति। As to that some (opponents) [•According to A.G. the opponent is the Vṛttikara who, in the opinion of A. Mahadeva Sastri, is none other than Bodhāyana referred to in Śaṅkarācarya's commentary on BrSEng.1.1.11–19.-Tr•] say: Certainly, Liberation cannot be attained merely from continuance in the knowledge of the Self which is preceded by renunciation of all duties and is independent of any other factor. What then? The well-ascertained conclusion of the whole of the Gītā is that Liberation is attained through Knowledge associated with rites and duties like Agni-hotra etc. prescribed in the Vedas and the Smṛtis.
ज्ञापकं चाहुर् अस्यार्थस्य ‘अथ चेत् त्वम् इमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि’ (BhG.2.33), ‘कर्मणि एवाधिकारस् ते’ (BhG.2.47), ‘कुरु कर्मैव तस्मात् त्वम्’ (BhG.4.15) इत्य्-आदि। And as an indication of this point of view they quote (the verses): ‘On the other hand, if you will not fight this righteous (battle)’ (BhG.2.33); ‘Your right is for action (rites and duties) alone’ (BhG.2.47); ‘Therefore you undertake action (rites and duties) itself’ (BhG.4.15), etc.
हिंसादि-युक्तत्वाद् वैदिकं कर्म अधर्माय इतीयम् अपि आशङ्का न कार्या। कथम्? क्षात्रं कर्म युद्ध-लक्षणं गुरु-भ्रातृ-पुत्रादि-हिंसा-लक्षणम् अत्यन्त-क्रूरम् अपि ‘स्व-धर्म’ इति कृत्वा नाधर्माय, तद्-अकरणे च ‘ततः स्व-धर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापम् अवाप्स्यसि’ (BhG.2.33) इति ब्रुवता ‘यावज्-जीव’-आदि-श्रुति-चोदितानां स्व-कर्मणां पश्वादि-हिंसा-लक्षणानां च कर्मणां प्राग् एव नाधर्मत्वम् इति सुनिश्चितम् उक्तं भवतीति। Even this objection should not be raised ‘that Veda rites and duties lead to sin since they involve injury etc.’. Objection: How? Opponent: The duties of the Kṣatriyas, characterized by war, do not lead to sin when undertaken as one’s duty, even though they are extremely cruel since they involve violence against elders, brothers, sons and others. And from the Lord’s declaration that when they are not performed, ‘then, forsaking your own duty and fame, you will incur sin’ (BhG.2.33), it stands out as (His) clearly stated foregone conclusion that one’s own duties prescribed in such texts as, ‘(One shall perform Agni-hotra) as long as one lives’ etc., and actions which involve crutely to animals etc. are not sinful.
तद् असत्, ज्ञान-कर्म-निष्ठयोर् विभाग-वचनाद् बुद्धि-द्वयाश्रययोः। Vedāntin: That is wrong because of the assertion of the distinction between firm adherence (niṣṭhā) to Knowledge and to action, which are based on two (different) convictions (buddhi).
‘अशोच्यान्’ इत्य्-आदिना (BhG.2.11) भगवता यावत् ‘स्व-धर्मम् अपि चावेक्ष्य’ इति (BhG.2.31) एतद्-अन्तेन ग्रन्थेन यत्-परमार्थात्म-तत्त्व-निरूपणं कृतं तत् सांख्यं, तद्-विषया बुद्धिर् आत्मनो जन्मादि-षड्-विक्रियाभावाद् अकर्तात्मेति प्रकरणार्थ-निरूपणाद् या जायते सा सांख्य-बुद्धिः, सा येषां ज्ञानिनाम् उचिता भवति ते सांख्याः। The nature of the Self, the supreme Reality, determined by the Lord in the text beginning with ‘Those who are not to be grieved for’ (BhG.2.11) and running to the end of the verse, ‘Even considering your own duty’ (BhG.2.31), is called Sāṅkhya. Sāṅkhya-buddhi [•Sāṅkhya is that correct (samyak) knowledge of the Vedas which reveals (khyāyate) the reality of the Self, the supreme Goal. The Reality under discussion, which is related to this sāṅkhya by way of having been revealed by it, is Sāṅkhya.•] (Conviction about the Reality) is the conviction with regard to That (supreme Reality) arising from the ascertainment of the meaning of the context [•Ascertainment...of the context, i.e., of the meaning of the verses starting from, ‘Never is this One born, and never does It die,’ etc. (BhG.2.20).•] – that the Self is not an agent because of the absence in It of the six kinds of changes, viz birth etc. [•Birth, continuance, growth, transformation, decay and death.•] Sāṅkhyas are those men of Knowledge to whom that (conviction) becomes natural.
एतस्या बुद्धेर् जन्मनः प्राग् आत्मनो देहादि-व्यतिरिक्तत्व-कर्तृत्व-भोक्तृत्वाद्य्-अपेक्षो धर्माधर्म-विवेक-पूर्वको मोक्ष-साधनानुष्ठान-लक्षणो योगः, तद्-विषया बुद्धिर् योग-बुद्धिः, सा येषां कर्मिणाम् उचिता भवति ते योगिनः। Prior to the rise of this Conviction (Sāṅkhya-buddhi), the ascertained [•Ast. and A.G. omit this word ‘ascertainment, nirūpaṇa’-Tr.•] of the performance of the disciplines leading to Liberation -- which is based on a discrimination between virtue and vice, [•And adoration of God•]. and which presupposes the Self’s difference from the body etc. and Its agentship and enjoyership – is called Yoga. The conviction with regard to that (Yoga) is Yoga-buddhi. The performers of rites and duties, for whom this (conviction) is appropriate, are called yogīs.
तथाच भगवता विभक्ते द्वे बुद्धी निर्दिष्टे ‘एषा तेऽभिहिता सांख्ये बुद्धिर् योगे त्व् इमां शृणु’ इति (BhG.2.39)। Accordingly, the two distinct Convictions have been pointed out by the Lord in the verse, ‘This wisdom (buddhi) has been imparted to you from the standpoint of Self-realization (Sāṅkhya). But listen to this (wisdom) from the standpoint of (Karmayoga’ (BhG.2.39).
तयोश् च सांख्य-बुद्ध्य्-आश्रयां ‘ज्ञान-योगेन’ निष्ठां ‘सांख्यानां’ विभक्तां वक्ष्यति ‘पुरा’ वेदात्मना ‘मया प्रोक्ता’ इति (BhG.3.3)। And of these two, the Lord will separately speak, with reference to the Sāṅkhyas, of the firm adherence to the Yoga of Knowledge. [•Here Yoga and Knowledge are identical. Yoga is that through which one gets connected, identified. with Brahman.•] which is based on Sāṅkya-buddhi, in, ‘Two kinds of adherences were spoken of by Me in the form of the Vedas, in the days of yore.’
तथाच योग-बुद्ध्य्-आश्रयां कर्म-योगेन निष्ठां विभक्तां च वक्ष्यति ‘कर्म-योगेन योगिनाम्’ इति (BhG.3.3)। [•This portion is ascending to G1.Pr. and A.A.; Ast. omits this and quotes exactly the first line of (BhG.3.3). By saying, ‘in the form of the Vedas’, the Lord indicates that the Vedas, which are really the knowledge inherent in God and issue out of Him, are identical with Himself.-Tr.•] similarly, in, ‘through the Yoga of Action for the yogīs’ (BhG.3.3), He will separately speak of the firm adherence to the Yoga [•Here also Karma and Yoga are identical, and lead to Liberation by bringing about purity of heart which is followed by steadfastness in Knowledge.•] of Karma which is based on Yoga-buddhi (Conviction about Yoga).
एवं सांख्य-बुद्धिं योग-बुद्धिं चाश्रित्य द्वे निष्ठे विभक्ते भगवतैवोक्ते ज्ञान-कर्मणोः कर्तृत्वाकृतृत्वैकत्वानेकत्व-बुद्ध्य्-आश्रययोर् एक-पुरुषाश्रयत्वासंभवं पश्यता। Thus, the two kinds of steadfastness – that based on the conviction about the nature of the Self, and that based on the conviction about rites and duties – have been distinctly spoken of by the Lord Himself, who saw that the coexistence of Knowledge and rites and duties is not possible in the same person, they being based on the convictions of non-agentship and agentship, unity and diversity (respectively).
यथैतद् विभाग-वचनं तथैव दर्शितं शात-पथीये ब्राह्मणे ‘एतम् एव प्रव्राजिनो लोकम् इच्छन्तो (ब्राह्मणाः) प्रव्रजन्ति’ इति (BrhUEng.4.4.22) सर्व-कर्म-सन्न्यासं विधाय तच्-छेषेण ‘किं प्रजया करिष्यामो येषां नोऽयम् आत्मायं लोकः’ इति (BrhUEng.4.4.22)। As is this teaching about the distinction (of the two adherences), just so has it been revealed in the Śātapatha Brāhmaṇa: ‘Desiring this world (the Self) alone monks and Brāhmaṇas renounce their homes’ (cf. BrhUEng.4.4.22). After thus enjoining renunciation of all rites and duties, it is said in continuation, ‘What shall we acheive through children, we who have attained this Self, this world (result).’ [•The earlier quotation implies an injunction (vidhi) for renunciation, and the second is an arthavāda, or an emphasis on that injunction. Arthavada: A sentence which usually recommends a vidhi, or precept, by stating the good arising from its proper observance, and the evils arising from its omission; and also by adducing historical instances in its support.-V.S.A•]
तत्रैव च प्राग् दार-परिग्रहात् पुरुष ‘आत्मा…’ प्राकृतो धर्म-जिज्ञासोत्तर-कालं लोक-त्रय-साधनं पुत्रं, द्वि-प्रकारं च वित्तं मानुषं दैवं च, तत्र मानुषं वित्तं कर्म-रूपं पितृ-लोक-प्राप्ति-साधनं, विद्यां च दैवं वित्तं देव-लोक-प्राप्ति-साधनं, ‘…सोऽकामयत’ इति (BrhUEng.1.4.17) अविद्या-कामवत एव सर्वाणि कर्माणि श्रौतादीनि दर्शितानि। Again, there itself it is said that, before accepting a wife a man is in his natural state [•The state of ignorance owing to non-realization of Reality. Such a person is a Brahmacarin, who goes to a teacher for studying the Vedas•]. And (then) after his enquiries into rites and duties, [•The Brahmacārin first studies the Vedas and then enquires into their meaning. Leaving his teacher’s house after completing his course, he becomes a house holder.•] ‘he’ for the attainment of the three worlds [•This world, the world of manes and heaven.-Tr.•] ‘desired’ (see BrhUEng.1.4.17) as their means a son and the two kinds of wealth consists of rites and duties that lead to the world of manes, and the divine wealth of acquisition of vidyā (meditation) which leads to heaven.
तेभ्यो ‘व्युत्थाय’ ‘प्रव्रजन्ति’ इति (BrhUEng.4.4.22) व्युत्थानम् आत्मानम् एव लोकम् इच्छतोऽकामस्य विहितम्। In this way it is shown that rites and duties enjoined by the Vedas etc. are meant only for one who is unenlightened and is possessed of desire. And in the text, ‘After renouncing they take to mendicancy’ (see BrhUEng.4.4.22), the injunction to renounce is only for one who desires the world that is the Self, and who is devoid of hankering (for anything else).
तद् एतद् विभाग-वचनम् अनुपपन्नं स्याद् यदि श्रौत-कर्म-ज्ञानयोः समुच्चयोऽभिप्रेतः स्याद् भगवतः। Now, if the intention of the Lord were the combination of Knowledge with Veda rites and duties, then this utterance (of the Lord) (BhG.3.3) about the distinction would have been illogical.
न चार्जुनस्य प्रश्न उपपन्नो भवति। ‘ज्यायसी चेत् कर्मणस् ते’ इत्य्-आदिः (BhG.3.1)। Nor would Arjuna’s question, ‘If it be your opinion that wisdom (Knowledge) is superior to action (rites and duties)...,’ etc. (BhG.3.1) be proper.
एक-पुरुषानुष्ठेयत्वासंभवं बुद्धि-कर्मणोर् भगवता पूर्वम् अनुक्तं कथम् अर्जुनोऽश्रुतं बुद्धेश् च कर्मणो ज्यायस्त्वं भगवति अध्यारोपयेन् मृषैव ‘ज्यायसी चेत् कर्मणस् ते मता बुद्धिर्’ इति (BhG.3.1)। If the Lord had not spoken earlier of the impossibility of the pursuit of Knowledge and rites and duties by the same person (at the same time), then how could Arjuna falsely impute to the Lord – by saying, ‘If it be your opinion that wisdom is superior to action....’ – (of having spoken) what was not heard by him, viz the higher status of Knowledge over rites and duties? Moreover, if it be that the combination of Knowledge with rites and duties was spoken of for all, then it stands enjoined, ipso facto, on Arjuna as well.
किंच यदि बुद्धि-कर्मणोः सर्वेषां समुच्चय उक्तः स्याद् अर्जुनस्यापि स उक्त एवेति, ‘यच् छ्रेय एतयोर् एकं तन् मे ब्रूहि सुनिश्चितम्’ इति (BhG.5.1) कथम् उभयोर् उपदेशे सति अन्यतर-विषय एव प्रश्नः स्यात्। Therefore, if instruction had been given for practising both, then how could the question about ‘either of the two’ arise as in, ‘Tell me for certain one of these (action and renunciation) by which I may attain the highest Good’ (BhG.5.1)?
न हि पित्त-प्रशमार्थिनो वैद्येन मधुरं शीतलं च भोक्तव्यम् इति उपदिष्टे ‘तयोर् अन्यतरत् पित्त-प्रशमन-कारणं ब्रूहि’ इति प्रश्नो संभवति। Indeed, when a physician tells a patient who has come for a cure of his biliousness that he should take things which are sweet and soothing, there can arise no such request as, ‘Tell me which one of these two is to be taken as a means to cure biliousness’!
अथार्जुनस्य भगवद्-उक्त-वचनार्थ-विवेकानवधारण-निमित्तः प्रश्नः कल्प्येत, तथापि भगवता प्रश्नानुरूपं प्रति-वचनं देयं – ‘मया बुद्धि-कर्मणोः समुच्चय उक्तः किम्-अर्थम् इत्थं त्वं भ्रान्तोऽसि’ इति। Again, if it be imagined that Arjuna put the question because of his non-comprehension of the distinct meaning of what the Lord had said, even then the Lord ought to have answered in accordance with the question: ‘The combination of Knowledge with rites and duties was spoken of by Me. Why are you confused thus?’
न तु पुनः प्रति-वचनम् अननुरूपं, पृष्टाद् अन्यद् एव ‘द्वे निष्ठे मया पुरा प्रोक्ते’ इति (BhG.3.3) वक्तुम् युक्तम्। On the other hand, it was not proper to have answered, ‘Two kinds of steadfastness were spoken of by Me it the days of yore,’ in a way that was inconsistent and at variance with the question.
नापि स्मार्तेनैव कर्मणा बुद्धेः समुच्चयेऽभिप्रेते विभाग-वचनादि सर्वम् उपपन्नं स्यात्। Nor even do all the statements about distinction etc. become logical if it were intended that Knowledge was to be combined with rites and duties enjoined by the Smṛtis only.
किं-च क्षत्रियस्य युद्धं स्मार्तं कर्म स्व-धर्मम् इति जानतः ‘तत् किं कर्मणि घोरे मां नियोजयसि’ इति (BhG.3.1) उपालम्भोऽनुपपन्नः। Besides, the accusation in the sentence, ‘Why then do you urge me to horrible action’ (BhG.3.1) becomes illogical on the part of Arjuna who knew that fighting was a Kṣatriya’s natural duty enjoined by the Smṛtis.
तस्माद् गीता-शास्त्र ईषन्-मात्रेणापि श्रौतेन स्मार्तेन वा कर्मणात्म-ज्ञानस्य समुच्चयो न केनचिद् दर्शयितुं शक्यः। Therefore, it is not possible for anyone to show that in the scripture called the Gītā there is any combination, even in the least, of Knowledge of the Self with rites and duties enjoined by the Śrutis or the Smṛtis.
यस्य त्व् अज्ञानाद् रागादि-दोषतो वा कर्मणि प्रवृत्तस्य यज्ञेन दानेन तपसा वा विशुद्ध-सत्त्वस्य ज्ञानम् उत्पन्नं परमार्थ-तत्त्व-विषयम् – ‘एकम् एवेदं सर्वं ब्रह्माकर्तृ च’ इति, तस्य कर्मणि कर्म-प्रयोजने च निवृत्तेऽपि लोक-संग्रहार्थं यत्न-पूर्वं यथा प्रवृत्तस् तथैव कर्मणि प्रवृत्तस्य यत् प्रवृत्ति-रूपं दृश्यते न तत् कर्म येन बुद्धेः समुच्चयः स्यात्। But in the case of a man who had engaged himself in rites and duties because of ignorance and defects like the attachment, and then got his mind purified through sacrifices, charities or austerities (see BrhUEng.4.4.22), there arises the knowledge about the supreme Reality – that all this is but One, and Brahman is not an agent (of any action). With regard to him, although there is a cessation of rites and duties as also of the need for them, yet, what may, appear as his diligent continuance, just as before, in those rites and duties for setting an example before people -- that is no action in which case it could have stood combined with Knowledge.
यथा भगवतो वासु-देवस्य क्षात्र-कर्म चेष्टितं न ज्ञानेन समुच्चीयते पुरुषार्थ-सिद्धये तद्वत् तत्-फलाभिसन्ध्य्-अहंकाराभावस्य तुल्यत्वाद् विदुषः। Just as the actions of Lord Vāsudeva, in the form of performance of the duty of a Kṣatriya, do not get combined with Knowledge for the sake of achieving the human goal (Liberation), similar is the case with the man of Knowledge because of the absence of hankering for results and agentship.
तत्त्व-वित् तु ‘नाहं करोमि’ इति मन्यते न च तत्-फलम् अभिसन्धत्ते। Indeed, a man who has realized the Truth does not think 'I am doing (this)' nor does he hanker after its result.
यथा च स्वर्गादि-कामार्थिनोऽग्नि-होत्रादि-काम-साधनानुष्ठानाय आहिताग्नेः काम्य एवाग्नि-होत्रादौ प्रवृत्तस्य सामि-कृते विनष्टेऽपि कामे तद् एवाग्नि-होत्राद्य् अनुतिष्ठतोऽपि न तत् काम्यम् अग्नि-होत्रादि भवति। Again, as for instance, person hankering after such desirable things as heaven etc. may light up a fire for performing such rites as Agni-hotra etc. which are the mans to attain desirable things; [•The Ast. reading is: Agnihotrādi-karma-lakṣaṇa-dharmānuṣṭhānāya, for the performance of duties in the form of acts like Agni-hotra etc.-Tr.•] then, while he is still engaged in the performance of Agni-hotra etc. as the means for the desirable things, the desire may get destroyed when the rite is half-done. He may nevertheless continue the performance of those very Agni-hotra etc.; but those performance of those very Agni-hotra etc.; but those Agni-hotra etc. cannot be held to be for this personal gain.
तथा च दर्शयति भगवान् ‘कुर्वन्न् अपि… न करोति न लिप्यते’ इति (BhG.5.7… BhG.13.31) तत्र तत्र। Accordingly does the Lord also show in various places that, ‘even while perfroming actions,’ he does not act, ‘he does not become tainted’ (BhG.5.7).
यच् च ‘पूर्वैः पूर्वतरं कृतं’ (BhG.4.15) ‘कर्मणैव हि संसिद्धिम् आस्थिता जनकादयः’ इति (BhG.3.20) तत् तु प्रविभज्य विज्ञेयम्। As for the texts, ‘...as was performed earlier by the ancient ones’ (BhG.4.15), ‘For Janaka and others strove to attain Liberation through action itself’ (BhG.3.20), they are to be understood analytically.
तत् कथम्? यदि तावत् पूर्वे जनकादयस् तत्त्व-विदोऽपि प्रवृत्त-कर्माणः स्युस्, ते लोक-संग्रहार्थं ‘गुणा गुणेषु वर्तन्ते’ इति (BhG.3.28) ज्ञानेनैव संसिद्धिम् आस्थिताः। कर्म-सन्न्यासे प्राप्तेऽपि कर्मणा सहैव संसिद्धिम् आस्थिता न कर्म-सन्न्यासं कृतवन्त इति एषोऽर्थः। Objection: How so? Vedāntin: As to that, if Janaka and others of old remained engaged in activity even though they were knowers of Reality, they did so for preventing people from going astray, while remaining established in realization verily through the knowledge that ‘the organs rest (act) on the objects of the organs’ (BhG.3.28). The idea is this that, though the occasion for renunciation of activity did arise, they remained established in realization along with actions; they did not give up their rites and duties.
अथ न ते तत्त्व-विद, ईश्वर-समर्पितेन कर्मणा साधन-भूतेन संसिद्धिं सत्त्व-शुद्धिं ज्ञानोत्पत्ति-लक्षणां वा – ‘संसिद्धिम् आस्थिता जनकादय’ इति (BhG.3.20) व्याख्येयम्। On the other hand, if they were not knowers of Reality, then the explanation should be this; Through the discipline of dedicating rites and duties to God, Janaka and others remained established in perfection (saṃsiddhi) either in the form of purification of mind or rise of Knowledge.
एतम् एवार्थं वक्ष्यति भगवान् ‘सत्त्व-शुद्धये कर्म कुर्वन्ति’ इति (BhG.5.11)। This very idea [•The idea that rites and duties become the cause of Knowledge through the purification of the mind.•] will be expressed by the Lord in, ‘(the yogīs) undertake action for the purification of oneself (i.e. of the heart, or the mind)’ (BhG.5.11).
‘स्व-कर्मणा तम् अभ्यर्च्य सिद्धिं विन्दति मानवः’ इति (BhG.18.46) उक्त्वा सिद्धिं प्राप्तस्य च पुनर् ज्ञान-निष्ठां वक्ष्यति ‘सिद्धिं प्राप्तो यथा ब्रह्म’ इत्य्-आदिना (BhG.18.50)। After having said, ‘A human being achieves success by adoring Him through his own duties’ [•By performing one’s own duty as enjoined by scriptures and dedicating their results to God, one’s mind becomes purified. Then, through Gods grace one becomes fit for steadfastness in Knowledge. From that steadfastness follows Liberation. Therefore rites and duites do not directly lead to Liberation. (See Common. under BhG.5.12)•] (BhG.18.46), He will again speak of the steadfastness in Knowledge of a person who has attained success, in the text, ‘(Understand...from Me...that process by which) one who has achieved success attains Brahman’ (BhG.18.50).
तस्माद् गीतासु केवलाद् एव तत्त्व-ज्ञानान् मोक्ष-प्राप्तिः न कर्म-समुच्चिताद् इति निश्चितोऽर्थः। So, the definite conclusion in the Gītā is that Liberation is attained only from the knowledge of Reality, and not from its combination with action.
यथा चायम् अर्थस् तथा प्रकरणशो विभज्य तत्र तत्र दर्शयिष्यामः॥ And by pointing out in the relevant contexts the (aforesaid) distinction, we shall show how this conclusion stands. [•In this Gītā there are three distinct parts, each part consisting of six chapters. These three parts deal with the three words of the great Upaniṣad saying, ‘Tat tvam asi, thou art That’, with a view to finding out their real meanings. The first six chapters are concerned with the word tvam (thou); the following six chapters determine the meaning of the word tat (that); and the last six reveal the essential identity of tvam and tat. The disciplines necessary for realization this identity are stated in the relevant places.•]
तत्रैवं धर्म-संमूढ-चेतसो महति शोक-सागरे निमग्नस्यार्जुनस्यान्यत्रात्म-ज्ञानाद् उद्धरणम् अपश्यन् भगवान् वासु-देवस् ततोऽर्जुनम् उद्दिधारयिषुर् आत्म-ज्ञानायावतारयन्न् आह – अशोच्यान् इत्य्-आदि। That being so, Lord Vāsudeva found that for Arjuna, whose mind was thus confused about what ought to be done [•The ast. and A.A., have an additional word – mithyā-jñānavataḥ, meaning ‘who had false knowledge’.-Tr.•] and who was sunk in a great ocean of sorrow, there could be no rescue other than through the knowledge of the Self. And desiring to rescue Arjuna from that, He said, ‘(You grieve for) those who are not to be grieved for,’ etc. by way of introducing the knowledge of the Self.
श्री-भगवान् उवाच। त्वम् अ-शोच्यान् अन्वशोचः, प्रज्ञा-वादान् च भाषसे। पण्डिताः गत-असून् अ-गत-असून् च न अनुशोचन्ति॥ 🔗 The Lord said: You have grieved for those not to be grieved, yet proclaim words of wisdom. The wise do not grieve for those whose life’s breath is gone or not yet gone.
न शोच्या अशोच्या भीष्म-द्रोणादयः सद्-वृत्तत्वात् परमार्थ-रूपेण च नित्यत्वात्, तान् अशोच्यान् अन्वशोचोऽनुशोचितवान् असि ‘ते म्रियन्ते मन्-निमित्तम्, अहं तैर् विनाभूतः, किं करिष्यामि राज्य-सुखादिना’ इति। त्वं प्रज्ञा-वादान् प्रज्ञावतां बुद्धिमतां वादांश् च वचनानि च भाषसे।Bhīṣma, Droṇa and others are not to be grieved for, because they are of noble character and are eternal in their real nature. With regard to them, a-śocyān, who are not to be grieved for; tvam, you; anvaśocāḥ, grieve, (thinking) ‘They die because of me; without them what shall I do with dominion and enjoyment?’; ca, and; bhāṣase, you speak; prajnā-vādān, words of wisdom, words used by men of wisdom, of intelligence.तद् एतन् मौढ्यं पाण्डित्यं च विरुद्धम् आत्मनि दर्शयस्य् उन्मत्त इवेति अभिप्रायः। The idea is, ‘Like one mad, you show in yourself this foolishness and learning which are contradictory.’यस्माद् गतासून् गत-प्राणान् मृतान् अगतासून् अगत-प्राणाञ् जीवतश् च नानुशोचन्ति पण्डिता आत्म-ज्ञाः। पण्डात्म-विषया बुद्धिर् येषां ते हि पण्डिताः, ‘पाण्डित्यं निर्विद्य’ इति (BrhUEng.3.5.1) श्रुतेः।Because, paṇḍitāḥ, the learned, the knowers of the Self – paṇḍa means wisdon about the Self; those indeed who have this are paṇḍitāḥ, on the authority of the Upaniṣad text, ‘...the knowers of Brahman, having known all about scholarship,...’ (BrhUEng.3.5.1); na anuśocanti, do not grieve for; gatāsūn, the departed, whose life has become extinct; a-gatāsūn ca, and for those who have not departed, whose life has not left, the living.परमार्थतस् तु नित्यान् अशोच्यान् अनुशोचस्य्, अतो मूढोऽसीति अभिप्रायः॥The ideas is, ‘You are sorrowing for those who are eternal in the real sense, and who are not to be grieved for. Hence you are a fool!’
कुतस् ते शोच्या, यतो नित्याः। कथम् – न त्व् इति। Why are they not to be grieved for? Because they are eternal. How?
न तु एव जातु अहं न आसं, न त्वं, न इमे जन-अधिपाः। न च एव सर्वे वयम् अतः परं न भविष्यामः॥ 🔗 Never was there a time that I was not, nor you, nor these kings. Nor will any of us cease to exist hereafter.
न त्व् एव जातु कदाचिद् अहं नासं किं-त्व् आसम् एव, अतीतेषु देहोत्पत्ति-विनाशेषु नित्य एवाहम् आसम् इति अभिप्रायः। Na tu eva, but certainly it is not (a fact); that jātu, at any time; aham, I; na āsam, did not exist; on the contrary, I did exist. The idea is that when the bodies were born or died in the past, I existed eternally. [•Here Ast. adds ghatādiṣu viyad iva, like Space in pot etc.-Tr.•]
तथा न त्वं नासीः, किं-त्व् आसीर् एव। तथा च नेमे जनाधिपा नासन्, किं-त्व् आसन्न् एव। Similarly, na tvam, nor is it that you did not exist; but you surely existed. Ca, and so also; na ime, nor is it that these; jana-adhipāḥ, rulers of men, did not exist. On the other hand, they did exist.
तथा न चैव न भविष्यामः, किंतु भविष्याम एव, सर्वे वयम् अतोऽस्माद् देह-विनाशात् परम् उत्तर-कालेऽपि। त्रिष्व् अपि कालेषु नित्या आत्म-स्व-रूपेणेति अर्थः। देह-भेदानुवृत्त्या बहु-वचनं नात्म-भेदाभिप्रायेण॥And similarly, na eva, it is surely not that; vayam, we; sarve, all; na bhaviṣyāmaḥ, shall cease to exist; ataḥ param, after this, even after the destruction of this body. On the contrary, we shall exist. The meaning is that even in all the three times (past, present and future) we are eternal in our nature as the Self. The plural number (in we) is used following the diversity of the bodies, but not in the sense of the multiplicity of the Self.
तत्र कथम् इव नित्य आत्मेति दृष्टान्तम् आह – देहिन इति। As to that, to show how the Self is eternal, the Lord cites an illustration by saying, ‘...of the embodied,’ etc.
देहिनः, यथा अस्मिन् देहे कौमारं यौवनं जरा [च], तथा देह-अन्तर-प्राप्तिः। तत्र धीरः न मुह्यति॥ 🔗 For the one with a body (the dehī), like passing through childhood, maturity, and old age in this body, so too for the dehī who remains the same there is the gain of another body after this body dies. Concerning this, the wise person is not confused.
देहोऽस्यास्तीति देही तस्य देहिनो देहवत आत्मनोऽस्मिन् वर्तमाने देहेयथा येन प्रकारेण कौमारं कुमार-भावो बाल्यावस्था, यौवनं यूनो भावो मध्यावस्था, जरा वयो-हानिर् जीर्णावस्थेति एतास् तिस्रोऽवस्था अन्योन्य-विलक्षणाः। Yathā, as are, the manner in which; kaumāram, boyhood; yauvanam, youth, middle age; and jarā, decrepitude, advance of age; dehinaḥ, to an embodied being, to one who possesses a body (deha), to the Self possessing a body; asmin, in this, present; dehe, body – These three states are mutually distinct.
तासां प्रथमावस्था-नाशे न नाशो द्वितीयावस्थोपजनने नोपजननम् आत्मनः। किं तर्ह्य्? अविक्रियस्यैव द्वितीय-तृतीयावस्था-प्राप्तिर् आत्मनो दृष्टा यथा, तथा तद्वद् एव देहाद् अन्यो देहो देहान्तरं तस्य प्राप्तिर् देहान्तर-प्राप्तिर् अविक्रियस्यैवात्मन इत्यर्थः। On these, when the first state gets destroyed the Self does not get destroyed; when the second state comes into being It is not born. What then? It is seen that the Self, which verily remains unchanged, acquires the second and third states. Tathā, similar, indeed; is Its, the unchanging Self's dehāntara-praptiḥ, acquisition of another body, a body different from the present one. This is the meaning.धीरो धीमांस् तत्र एवं सति न मुह्यति न मोहम् आपद्यते॥Tatra, this being so; dhīraḥ, an intelligent person; na, does not; muhyati, get deluded.
यद्य्-अप्य् आत्म-विनाश-निमित्तो मोहो न संभवति ‘नित्य आत्मा’ इति विजानतस्, तथापि शीतोष्ण-सुख-दुःख-प्राप्ति-निमित्तो मोहो लौकिको दृश्यते। सुख-वियोग-निमित्तो दुःख-संयोग-निमित्तश् च शोक इति एतद् अर्जुनस्य वचनम् आशङ्क्य आह – मात्रा-स्पर्शा इति। ‘In the case of a man who knows that the Self is eternal, although there is no possibility of delusion concerning the destruction of the Self, still delusion, as of ordinary people, caused by the experience of cold, heat, happiness and sorrow is noticed in him. Delusion arises from being deprived of happiness, and sorrow arises from contact with pain etc.’ apprehending this kind of a talk from Arjuna the Lord said, ‘But the contacts of the organs,‘ etc.
कौन्तेय, मात्रा-स्पर्शाः (=इन्द्रिय-स्पर्शाः मात्र-स्पर्श-विषयाः वा) तु शीत-उष्ण-सुख-दुःख-दाः आगम-अपायिनः अ-नित्याः। तान् तितिक्षस्व, भारत॥ 🔗 O Arjuna, the contacts of the senses, or rather, the sense objects – from a distance or in contact, which give cold/hot and pleasure/pain, the natural pairs of opposites, have a beginning and an end and therefore are time bound. Endure them, accept them objectively as they are, O Arjuna.
मात्रा-स्पर्शा इति। मात्रा आभिर् मीयन्ते शब्दादय इति श्रोत्रादीनीन्द्रयाणि, मात्राणां स्पर्शाः शब्दादिभिः संयोगास् ते शीतोष्ण-सुख-दुःख-दाः शीतम् उष्णं सुखं दुःखं च प्रयच्छन्तीति। Mātra-sparśāḥ, the contacts of the organs with objects; are śīta-uṣṇa-sukha-duḥkha-dāḥ, producers of cold, heat, happiness and sorrow. Mātrāḥ means those by which are marked off (measured up) sounds etc., i.e. the organs of hearing etc. The sparsāḥ, contacts, of the organs with sound etc. are mātra-sparsāḥ.
अथवा स्पृश्यन्ते इति स्पर्शा विषयाः शब्दादयः, मात्राश् च स्पर्शाश् च शीतोष्ण-सुख-दुःख-दाः। Or, sparsāḥ means those which are contacted, i.e. objects, viz sound etc. Mātra-sparsāḥ, the organs and objects, are the producers of cold, heat, happiness and sorrow.
शीतं कदाचित् सुखं कदाचिद् दुःखं तथोष्णम् अप्य् अनियत-रूपं, सुख-दुःखे पुनर् नियत-रूपे यतो न व्यभिचरतोऽतस् ताभ्यां पृथक् शीतोष्णयोर् ग्रहणम्। Cold sometimes produces pleasure, and sometimes pain. Similarly the nature of heat, too, is unpredictable. On the other hand, happiness and sorrow have definite natures since they do not change. Hence they are mentioned separately from cold and heat.
यस्मात् ते मात्रा-स्पर्शादयः आगमापयिन आगमापाय-शीलास् तस्माद् अनित्या। अतस् ताञ् शीतोष्णादींस् तितिक्षस्व प्रसहस्व। तेषु हर्षं विषादं च मा कार्षीर् इत्यर्थः॥
Since they, the organs, the contacts, etc., āgamāpayinaḥ, have a beginning and an end, are by nature subject to origination and destruction; therefore, they are a-nityāḥ, transient. Hence, titikṣasva, bear; tān, them – cold, heart, etc., i.e. do not be happy or sorry with regard to them.
शीतोष्णादिन् सहतः किं स्याद् इति शृणु – यं हीति। What will happen to one who bears cold and heat? Listen: ‘Verily, the person...,’ etc.
पुरुष-ऋषभ, यं हि पुरुषम् एते [स्पर्शाः विषयाः वा] न व्यथयन्ति, सम-दुःख-सुखं धीरं [च], सः अ-मृतत्वाय कल्पते॥ 🔗 O Arjuna, the person whom these unavoidable contacts or sense objects do not afflict, who is the same in pleasure and pain, and who is discerning – that one is fit for freedom.
यं हि पुरुषं सम-दुःख-सुखं समे दुःख-सुखे यस्य तं सम-दुःख-सुखं सुख-दुःख-प्राप्तौ हर्ष-विषाद-रहितं धीरं धीमन्तं न व्यथयन्ति न चालयन्ति नित्यात्म-दर्शनाद् एते यथोक्ताः शीतोष्णादयः। (O Arjuna) hi, verily; yam puruṣam, the person whom; ete, these, cold and heat mentioned above; na, do not; vyathayanti, torment, do not perturb; dhīram, the wise man; sama-duḥkha-sukham, to whom sorrow and happiness are the same, who is free from happiness and sorrow when subjected to pleasure and pain, because of his realization of the enternal Self. स नित्यात्म-दर्शन-निष्ठो द्वन्द्व-सहिष्णुर् अमृतत्वाय अमृत-भावाय मोक्षाय इत्यर्थः। कल्पते समर्थो भवति॥Saḥ, he, who is established in the realization of the enternal Self, who forbears the opposites; kalpate, becomes fit; a-mṛtatvāya, for Immortality, for the state of Immortality, i.e. for Liberation.
इतश् च शोक-मोहाव् अकृत्वा शीतोष्णादि-सहनं युक्तं यस्मात् – नासत इति। Since ‘the unreal has no being,’ etc., for this reason also it is proper to bear cold, heat, etc. without becoming sorrowful or deluded.
अ-सतः (=सतः अन्यस्य) भावः न विद्यते, सतः अ-भावः न विद्यते। तत्त्व-दर्शिभिः उभयोः अपि अनयोः अन्तः तु दृष्टः॥ 🔗 A-sat (the unreal, the time-bound form) has no being of its own, and sat (the real, existence) has no nonbeing. This conclusion, regarding both these, is discerned by the seers of the truth. (In ‘this form exists,’ ‘that form exists,’ existence is constant. But the unreal, time-bound forms constantly change.)
नासतोऽविद्यमानस्य शीतोष्णादेः स-कारणस्य न विद्यते नास्ति भावो भवनम् अस्तिता। न हि शीतोष्णादि स-कारणं प्रमाणैर् निरूप्यमाणं वस्तु संभवति। A-sataḥ, of the unreal, of cold, heat, etc. together with their causes; na vidyate, there is no; bhavaḥ, being, existence, reality; because heat, cold, etc. together with their causes are not substantially real when tested by means of proof.
विकारो हि सः। विकारश् च व्यभिचरति। यथा घटादि-संस्थानं चक्षुषा निरूप्यमाणं मृद्-व्यतिरेकेणानुपलब्धेर् असत्, तथा सर्वो विकारः कारण-व्यतिरेकेणानुपलब्धेर् असन्। For they are changeful, and whatever is changeful is inconstant. As configurations like pot etc. are unreal since they are not perceived to be different from earth when tested by the eyes, so also are all changeful things unreal because they are not perceived to be different from their (material) causes.
जन्म-प्रध्वंसाभ्यां प्राग् ऊर्ध्वं चानुपलब्धेः। And also because they are not perceived before (their) origination and after destruction.
कार्यस्य घटादेर् मृद्-आदि-कारणस्य तत्-कारणस्य च तत्-कारण-व्यतिरेकेणानुपलब्धेर् असत्त्वम्। तद्-असत्त्वे सर्वाभाव-प्रसङ्ग इति चेत्। Objection: If it be that [•Here Ast. has the additional words ‘kāryasya ghaṭādeḥ, the effect, viz pot etc. (and)’.-Tr.•] such (material) causes as earth etc. as also their causes are unreal since they are not perceived differently from their causes, may it not be urged that owing to the nonexistence of those (causes) there will arise the contingency of everything becoming unreal [•An entity cannot be said to be unreal merely because it is non-different from its cause. Were it to be asserted as being unreal, then the cause also should be unreal, because there is no entity which is not subject to the law of cause and effect.•]?
न, सर्वत्र बुद्धि-द्वयोपलब्धेः सद्-बुद्धिर् असद्-बुद्धिर् इति। Vedāntin: No, for in all cases there is the experience of two awarenesses, viz the awareness of reality, and the awareness of unreality. [•In all cases of perception two awarenesses are involved: one is invariable, and the other is variable. Since the variable is imagined on the invariable, therefore it is proved that there is something which is the substratum of all imagination, and which is neither a cause nor an effect.•]
यद्-विषया बुद्धिर् न व्यभिचरति तत् सत्, यद्-विषया बुद्धिर् व्यभिचरति तद् असद् इति सद्-असद्-विभागे बुद्धि-तन्त्रे स्थिते – सर्वत्र द्वे बुद्धी सर्वैर् उपलभ्येते समानाधिकरणेन (समानाधिकरणे न) नीलोत्पलवत् ‘सन् घटः सन् पटः सन् हस्ती’ इति एवं सर्वत्र। That in relation to which the awareness does not change is real; that in relation to which it changes is unreal. That in relation to which the awareness does not change is real; that in relation to which it changes is unreal. Thus, since the distinction between the real and the unreal is dependent on awareness, therefore in all cases (of empirical experiences) everyone has two kinds of awarenesses with regard to the same substratum: (As for instance, the experiences) ‘The pot is real’, ‘The cloth is real’, ‘The elephant is real’ – (which experiences) are not like (that of) ‘A blue lotus’. [•In the empirical experience, ‘A blue lotus’, there are two awarenesses concerned with two entities, viz the substance (lotus) and the quality (blueness). In the case of the experience, ‘The pot is real’, etc. the awarenesses are not concerned with substratum and qualities, but the awareness of pot, of cloth, etc. are superimposed on the awareness of ‘reality’, like that of ‘water’ in a mirage.•] This is how it happens everywhere. [•The coexistence of ‘reality’ and ‘pot’ etc. are valid only empirically – according to the non-dualists; whereas the coexistence of ‘blueness’ and ‘lotus’ is real according to the dualists.•]
तयोर् बुद्ध्योर् घटादि-बुद्धिर् व्यभिचरति, तथाच दर्शितम्। Of these two awareness, the awareness of pot etc. is inconstant; and thus has it been shown above.
न तु सद्-बुद्धिः। तस्माद् घटादि-बुद्धि-विषयोऽसन् व्यभिचाराद्, न तु सद्-बुद्धि-विषयोऽव्यभिचारात्। But the awareness of reality is not (inconstant). Therefore the object of the awareness of pot etc. is unreal because of inconstancy; but not so the object of the awareness of reality, because of its constancy.
घटे विनष्टे घट-बुद्धौ व्यभिचरन्त्यां सद्-बुद्धिर् अपि व्यभिचरतीति चेत्। Objection: If it be argued that, since the awareness of pot also changes when the pot is destroyed, therefore the awareness of the pot’s reality is also changeful?
न, पटादाव् अपि सद्-बुद्धि-दर्शनात्। विशेषण-विषयैव सा सद्-बुद्धिः। (अतोऽपि न विनश्यति।) Vedāntin: No, because in cloth etc. the awareness of reality is seen to persist. That awareness relates to the adjective (and not to the noun ‘pot’). For this reason also it is not destroyed. [•This last sentence has been cited in the f.n. of A.A.- Tr.•]
सद्-बुद्धिवद् घट-बुद्धिर् अपि घटान्तरे दृश्यत इति चेत्। Objection: If it be argued that like the awareness of reality, the awareness of a pot also persists in other pots?
न, पटादाव् अदर्शनात्। Vedāntin: No, because that (awareness of pot) is not present in (the awareness of) a cloth etc.
सद्-बुद्धिर् अपि नष्टे घटे न दृश्यत इति चेत्। Objection: May it not be that even the awareness of reality is not present in relation to a pot that has been destroyed?
न, विशेष्याभावात्। सद्-बुद्धिर् विशेषण-विषया सती विशेष्याभावे विशेषणानुपपत्तौ किं-विषया स्याद्, न तु पुनः सद्-बुद्धेर् विषयाभावात्। Vedāntin: No, because the noun is absent (there). Since the awareness of reality corresponds to the adjective (i.e. it is used adjectivally), therefore, when the noun is missing there is no possibility of its (that awareness) being an adjective. So, to what should it relate? But, again, the awareness of reality (does not cease) with the absence of an object. [•Even when a pot is absent and the awareness of reality does not arise with regard to it, the awareness of reality persists in the region where the pot had existed. Some read nanu in place of na tu ('But, again'). In that case, the first portion (No,...since...adjective. So,...relate?) is a statement of the Vedāntin, and the Objection starts from nanu punaḥ sad-buddheḥ, etc. so, the next Objection will run thus: 'May it not be said that, when nouns like pot etc. are absent, the awareness of existence has no noun to qualify, and therefore it becomes impossible for it (the awareness of existence) to exist in the same substratum?'-Tr.•]
एकाधिकरणत्वं घटादि-विशेष्याभावे न युक्तम् इति चेत्। Objection: May it not be said that, when nouns like pot etc. are absent, (the awareness of existence has no noun to qualify and therefore) it becomes impossible for it to exist in the same substratum? [•The relationship of an adjective and a noun is seen between two real entities. Therefore, if the relationship between ‘pot’ and ‘reality’ be the same as between a noun and an adjective, then both of them will be real entities. So, the coexistence of reality with a non-pot does not stand to reason.•]
न, ‘इदम् उदकम्’ इति मरीच्यादाव् अन्यतराभावेऽपि सामानाधिकरण्य-दर्शनात्। Vedāntin: No, because in such experiences as, ‘This water exists’, (which arises on seeing a mirage etc.) it is observed that there is a coexistence of two objects though one of them is non-existent.
तस्माद् देहादेर् द्वन्द्वस्य च स-कारणस्य असतो न विद्यते भाव इति। Therefore, a-sataḥ, of the unreal, viz body etc. and the dualities (heat, cold, etc.), together with their causes; na vidyate, there is no; bhāvaḥ, being.
तथा सतश् चात्मनोऽभावऽविद्यमानता न विद्यते सर्वत्राव्यभिचाराद् इति अवोचाम। And similarly, sataḥ, of the real, of the Self; na vidyate, there is no; a-bhāvaḥ, nonexistence, because It is constant everywhere. This is what we have said.
एवम् आत्मानात्मनोः सद्-असतोर् उभयोर् अपि दृष्ट उपलब्धोऽन्तो निर्णयः ‘सत् सद् एवासद् असद् एव’ इति त्व् अनयोर् यथोक्तयोस् तत्त्व-दर्शिभिः। Tu, but; antaḥ, the nature, the conclusion (regarding the nature of the real and the unreal) that the Real is verily real, and the unreal is verily unreal; ubhayoḥ api, of both these indeed, of the Self and the non-Self, of the Real and the unreal, as explained above; dṛṣṭaḥ, has been realized thus; tattva-darśibhiḥ, by the seers of Truth.
‘तद्’ इति सर्व-नाम, सर्वं च ब्रह्म, तस्य नाम ‘तद्’ इति, तद्-भावस् तत्त्वं ब्रह्मणो याथात्म्यं, तद् द्रष्टुं शीलं येषां ते तत्व-दर्शिनस् तैर् तत्त्व-दर्शिभिः। Tat is a pronoun (Sarva-nāma, lit. name of all) which can be used with regard to all. And all is Brahman. And Its name is tat. The abstraction of tat is tattva, the true nature of Brahman. Those who are apt to realize this are tattva-darśinaḥ, seers of Truth.
त्वम् अपि तत्त्व-दर्शिनां दृष्टिम् आश्रित्य शोकं मोहं च हित्वा शीतोष्णादीनि नियतानियत-रूपाणि द्वन्द्वानि ‘विकारोऽयं असन्न् एव मरीचि-जलवन् मिथ्यावभासत’ इति मनसि निश्चित्य तितिक्षस्व इति अभिप्रायः॥Therefore, you too, by adopting the vision of the men of realization and giving up sorrow and delusion, forbear the dualities, heat, cold, etc. – some of which are definite in their nature, and others inconstant – mentally being convinced that this (phenomenal world) is changeful, verily unreal and appears falsely like water in a mirage. This is the idea.
किं पुनस् तत् यत् सद् एव सर्वदा एव अस्ति इति उच्यते – अविनाशीति। What, again, is that reality which remains verily as the Real and surely for ever? This is being answered in, ‘But know That’, etc.
येन तु इदं सर्वं ततं, तद् [सत्] अ-विनाशि विद्धि। न कश्-चिद् अस्य अ-व्ययस्य विनाशं कर्तुम् अर्हति॥ 🔗 By which sat (existence/reality) all this, the a-sat (the ‘this and that’ time-bound world, including this body-mind complex), is pervaded, know that, the timeless and real, to be indestructible. Nothing is able to bring about the destruction of this that does not change.
अविनाशि न विनष्टुं शीलम् अस्येति। तु-शब्दोऽसतो विशेषणार्थः। तद् विद्धि विजानीहि। Tu, but – this word is used for distinguishing (reality) from unreality; tat viddhi, know That; to be a-vināśi, indestructible, by nature not subject to destruction.
किम्? येन सर्वम् इदं जगत् ततं व्याप्तं सद्-आख्येन ब्रह्मणा साकाशम्, आकाशेनेव घटादयः। What? (that) yena, by which, by which Brahman called Reality; sarvam, all; idam, this, the Universe together with space; is tatam, pervaded, as pot etc. are pervaded by space.विनाशम् अदर्शनम् अभावम् अव्ययस्य – न व्येत्य्, उपचयापचयौ न यातीति अव्ययं तस्याव्ययस्य। नैतत् सद्-आख्यं ब्रह्म स्वेन रूपेण व्येति व्यभिचरति निरवयवत्वाद् देहादिवत्। नाप्य् आत्मीयेन आत्मीयाभावाद्, यथा देव-दत्तो धन-हान्या व्येति न त्व् एवं ब्रह्म व्येति। अतोऽव्ययस्य अस्य ब्रह्मणो विनाशं न कश्चित् कर्तुम् अर्हति। न कश्चिद् आत्मानं (=स्व-रूपं) विनाशयितुं शक्नोतीश्वरोऽपि। Na kaścit, none; arhati, can; kartum, bring about; vināśam, the destruction, disappearance, nonexistence; asya, of this a-vyayasya, of the Immutable, that which does not undergo growth and depletion. By Its very nature this Brahman called Reality does not suffer mutation, because, unlike bodies etc., It has no limbs; nor (does It suffer mutation) by (loss of something) belonging to It, because It has nothing that is Its own. Brahman surely does not suffer loss like Deva-datta suffering from loss of wealth. Therefore no one can bring about the destruction of this immutable Brahman. No one, not even God Himself, can destroy his own Self.
आत्मा हि ब्रह्म, स्वात्मनि च क्रिया-विरोधात्॥Because the Self is Brahman. Besides, action with regard to one's Self is self-contradictory.
किं पुनस् तद् असद् यत् स्वात्म-सत्तां व्यभिचरति? इति उच्यते – अन्तवन्त इति। Which, again, is that ‘unreal’ that is said to change its own nature? This is being answered:
नित्यस्य (=अ-कालस्य) अ-नाशिनः अ-प्रमेयस्य (=मनो-विषयत्वम् अयोग्यस्य) शरीरिणः इमे देहाः अन्तवन्तः [अ-सत्-रूपेण] उक्ताः। तस्माद् युध्यस्व, भारत॥ 🔗 These bodies of the timeless, indestructible, non-objectifiable as the self-evident subject embodied one who obtains as the being/reality of these body-mind complexes are said to be subject to unavoidable death. Therefore fight, O Arjuna.
अन्तवन्त इति। अन्तो विनाशो विद्यते येषां तेऽन्तवन्तो, यथा मृग-तृष्णिकादौ सद्-बुद्धिर् अनुवृत्ता प्रमाण-निरूपणान्ते विच्छिद्यते स [विच्छेदः] तस्या अन्तस्, तथा इमे देहाः, स्वप्न-माया-देहादिवच् चान्तवन्तः। Ime, these; antavantaḥ, destructible; dehāḥ, bodies – as the idea of reality which continues with regard to water in a mirage, etc. gets eliminated when examined with the means of knowledge, and that is its end, so are these bodies and they have an end like bodies etc. in dream and magic –;नित्यस्य शरीरिणः शरीरवतोऽनाशिनोऽप्रमेयस्यात्मनोऽन्तवन्त इति उक्ता विवेकिभिर् इति अर्थः। uktāḥ, are said, by discriminating people; to belong nityasya, to the everlasting; a-nāśinaḥ, the indestructible; a-prameyasya, the indeterminable; śarīrṇaḥ, embodied One, the Self. This is the meaning.
नित्यस्यानाशिन इति न पुनर्-उक्तं, नित्यत्वस्य द्वि-विधत्वाल् लोके, नाशस्य च। The two words ‘everlasting’ and ‘indestructible’ are not repetitive, because in common usage everlastingness and destructibility are of two kinds.
यथा देहो भस्मी-भूतोऽदर्शनं गतो नष्ट उच्यते, विद्यमानोऽप्य् अन्यथा परिणतो व्याध्यादि-युक्तो जातो नष्ट उच्यते। As for instance, a body which is reduced to ashes and has disappeared is said to have been destroyed. (And) even while existing, when it becomes transfigured by being afflicted with diseases etc. it is said to be 'destroyed'. [Here the A.A. adds ‘tathā dhana-nāśe apy evam, similar is the case even with regard to loss of wealth.’-Tr.•]
तत्रानाशिनो नित्यस्येति द्वि-विधेनापि नाशेनासंबन्धोऽस्येति अर्थः। That being so, by the two words ‘everlasting’ and ‘indestructible’ it is meant that It is not subject to both kinds of destruction.
अन्यथा पृथिव्यादिवद् अपि [परिणामि-]नित्यत्वं स्याद् आत्मनस्, तन् मा भूद् इति ‘नित्यस्यानाशिन’ [कूट-स्थ-नित्यस्य] इति आह। Otherwise, the everlastingness of the Self would be like that of the earth etc. Therefore, in order that this contingency may not arise, it is said, ‘Of the everlasting, indestructible’.अप्रमेयस्य न प्रमेयस्य, प्रत्यक्षादि-प्रमाणैर् अपरिच्छेद्यस्येति अर्थः। A-prameyasya, of the indeterminable, means ‘of that which cannot be determined by such means of knowledge as direct perception etc.’
नन्व् आगमेनात्मा परिच्छिद्यते, प्रत्यक्षादिना च पूर्वम्। Objection: Is it not that the Self is determined by the scriptures, and before that through direct perception etc.?
न, आत्मनः स्वतः-सिद्धत्वात्। सिद्धे ह्य् आत्मनि प्रमातरि प्रमित्सोः प्रमाणान्वेषणा भवति। Vedāntin: No, because the Self is self-evident. For, (only) when the Self stands predetermined as the knower, there is a search for a means of knowledge by the knower.
न हि पूर्वम् ‘इत्थम् [प्रमाता] अहम्’ इति आत्मानम् अप्रमाय पश्चात् प्रमेय-परिच्छेदाय प्रवर्तते। न ह्य् आत्मा नाम कस्यचिद् अप्रसिद्धो भवति। Indeed, it is not that without first determining oneself as, ‘I am such’, one takes up the task of determining an object of knowledge. For what is called the ‘self’ does not remain unknown to anyone.
शास्त्रं त्व् अन्त्यं प्रमाणम् अतद्-धर्माध्यारोपणमात्र-निवर्तकत्वेन प्रमाणत्वम् आत्मनि प्रतिपद्यते, न त्व् अज्ञातार्थ-ज्ञापकत्वेन। But the scripture is the final authority
[•when the Vedic text establishes Brahman as the innermost Self, all the distinctions such as knower, known and the means of knowledge become sublated. Thus it is reasonable that the Vedic text should be the final authority. Besides, its authority is derived from its being faultless in as much as it has not originated from any human being.•]:
By way of merely negating superimposition of qualities that do not belong to the Self, it attains authoritativeness with regard to the Self, but not by virtue of making some unknown thing known.
तथाच श्रुतिः ‘यत् साक्षाद् अपरोक्षाद् ब्रह्म य आत्मा सर्वान्तरः’ इति (BrhUEng.3.4.1)। यस्माद् एवं नित्योऽविक्रियश् चात्मा तस्माद् युध्यस्व युद्धाद् उपरमं मा कार्षीर् इति अर्थः। There is an Upanisad text in support of this: ‘...the Brahman that is immediate and direct, the Self that is within all’ (BrhUEng.3.4.1). Since the Self is thus eternal and unchanging, tasmāt, therefore; yudhyasva, you join the battle, i.e. do not desist from the war.
न ह्य् अत्र युद्ध-कर्तव्यता विधीयते। युद्धे प्रवृत्त एव ह्य् असौ शोक-मोह-प्रतिबद्धस् तूष्णीम् आस्ते। तस्य कर्तव्य-प्रतिबन्धापनयनमात्रं भगवता क्रियते। तस्माद् ‘युध्यस्व’ इति अनुवादमात्रं न विधिः॥Here there is no injunction to take up war as a duty, because he (Arjuna), though he was determined for war, remains silent as a result of being overpowered by sorrow and delusion. Therefore, all that is being done by the Lord is the removal of the obstruction to his duty. ‘Therefore, join the battle’ is only an approval, not an injunction.
शोक-मोहादि-संसार-कारण-निवृत्त्य्-अर्थं गीता-शास्त्रं न प्रवर्तकम् इत्य्, एतस्यार्थस्य साक्षि-भूते ऋचाव् (KathU.1.2.19,18] आनिनाय भगवान्। [
यत् तु मन्यसे ‘युद्धे भीष्मादयो मया हन्यन्तेऽहम् एव तेषां हन्ता’ इति एषा बुद्धिर् मृषैव ते। कथम्? – य एनम् इति। The scripture Gītā is intended for eradicating sorrow, delusion, etc. which are the cases of the cycle of births and deaths; it is not intended to enjoin action. As evidences of this idea the Lord cites two Veda verses:KathU.1.2.18-18 [•There are slight verbal differences.-Tr.•]. But the ideas that you have, ‘Bhīṣma and others are being killed by me in war; I am surely their killer’ – this idea of yours is false. How?
यः एनं [देहिनम्/सत्] हन्तारं वेत्ति, यः च एनं हतं मन्यते, उभौ तौ न विजानीतः। अयं न हन्ति, न हन्यते॥ 🔗 The one who thinks this (the embodied one, the real, the self-evident subject) is the agent of destruction, change, etcetera, and the one who thinks this (the embodied one, the real) is the object of destruction – both do not know. This neither destroys nor is destroyed.
य एनं प्रकृतं देहिनं वेत्ति जानाति हन्तारं हनन-क्रियायाः कर्तारं, यश् चैनम् अन्यो मन्यते हतं देह-हननेन ‘हतोऽहम्’ इति हनन-क्रियायाः कर्म-भूतम्। Yaḥ, he who; vetti, thinks; of enam, this One, the embodied One under consideration; as hantāram, the killer, the agent of the act of killing; ca, and; yaḥ, he who, the other who; manyate, thinks; of enam, this One; as hatam, the killed – (who thinks) ‘When the body is killed, I am myself killed; I become the object of the act of killing’;ताव् उभौ न विजानीयो न ज्ञानवन्ताव् अविवेकेनात्मानम् अहं-प्रत्यय-विषयम्। ubhau tau, both of them; owing to non-discrimination, na, do not; vijānītaḥ, know the Self which is the subject of the consciousness of ‘I’.
‘हन्ताहं, हतोऽस्म्य् अहम्’ इति देह-हननेनात्मानम् यौ विजानीतस् ताव् आत्म-स्व-रूपानभिज्ञाव् इति अर्थः। The meaning is: On the killing of the body, he who thinks of the Self (– the content of the consciousness of 'I' –) [•The Ast. omits this phrase from the preceding sentence and includes it in this place. The A.A. has this phrase in both the places.-Tr.•] as ‘I am the killer’, and he who thinks, ‘I have been killed’, both of them are ignorant of the nature of the Self.
यस्मान् नायम् आत्मा हन्ति न हनन-क्रियायाः कर्ता भवति, न हन्यते न च कर्म भवति इत्यर्थः, अविक्रियत्वात्॥For, ayam, this Self; owing to Its changelessness, na hanti does not kill, does not become the agent of the act of killing; na hanyate, nor is It killed, i.e. It does not become the object (of the act of killing).
कथम् अविक्रिय आत्मेति द्वितीयो मन्त्रः – The second verse is to show how the Self is changeless:
अयं न कदा-चिद् जायते, म्रियते वा। न [अस्ति] – भूत्वा भूयः अ-भविता, न वा [–अभूत्वा भूयः भविता इत्यर्थः]। अयम् अ-जः नित्यः शाश्वतः पुराणः शरीरे हन्यमाने न हन्यते॥ 🔗 This, the embodied one, the real, is never born, nor dies. It is not that, coming to be, it again comes not to be, nor the opposite – becoming nonexistent, it again comes to be. This – which is unborn, permanent, ever the same, and always there – is not destroyed, not changed, when the body is being destroyed, changed.
न जायते नोत्पद्यते, जनि-लक्षणा वस्तु-विक्रिया नात्मनो विद्यत इत्यर्थः। (तथा) न म्रियते वा। वा-शब्दश् चार्थे। ‘न म्रियते’ चेत्य् अन्त्या विनाश-लक्षणा विक्रिया प्रतिषिध्यते। कदाचिच्-छब्दः सर्व-विक्रिया-प्रतिषेधैः संबध्यते ‘न कदाचिज् जायते, न कदाचिन् म्रियत’ इत्य् एवम्। Na kadācit, never; is ayam, this One; jāyate, born i.e. the Self has no change in the form of being born – to which matter is subject –; vā, and (– vā is used in the sense of ‘and’); namriyate, It never dies. By this is denied the final change in the form of destruction. The word (na) kadācit, never, is connected with the denial of all kinds of changes thus – never, is It born never does It die, and so on.
यस्माद् अयम् आत्मा भूत्वा भवन-क्रियाम् [अस्ति-विकार-लक्षणाम्] अनुभूय पश्चाद् अभविता अभावं गन्ता न भूयः पुनस् तस्मान् न म्रियते, यो हि भूत्वा न भविता स ‘म्रियत’ इत्य् उच्यते लोके। Since ayam, this Self; bhutva, having come to exist, having experienced the process of origination; na, will not; bhūyaḥ, again; a-bhavitā, cease to be thereafter, therefore It does not die. For, in common parlance, that which ceases to exist after coming into being is said to die.वा-शब्दान् न-शब्दाच् चायम् आत्मा अभूत्वा भविता वा देहवन् न भूयः पुनस् तस्मान् न जायते। यो ह्य् अभूत्वा भविता स जायत इत्य् उच्यते, नैवम् आत्मा अतो न जायते। From the use of the word va, nor, and na, it is understood that, unlike the body, this Self does not again come into existence after having been non-existent. Therefore It is not born. For, the words, ‘It is born’, are used with regard to something which comes into existence after having been non-existent. The Self is not like this. Therefore It is not born.
यस्माद् एवं तस्माद् अ-जो, यस्मान् न म्रियते तस्मान् नित्यश् च। Since this is so, therefore It is a-jaḥ, birthless; and since It does not die, therefore It is nityaḥ, eternal.
यद्य्-अप्य् आद्य्-अन्तयोर् विक्रिययोः प्रतिषेधे सर्वा विक्रियाः प्रतिषिद्धा भवन्ति, तथापि मध्य-भाविनीनां विक्रियाणां स्व-शब्दैर् एव तद्-अर्थैः प्रतिषेधः कर्तव्य, इत्य् अनुक्तानाम् अपि यौवनादि-समस्त-विक्रियाणां प्रतिषेधो यथा स्याद्, इत्य् आह ‘शाश्वत’ इत्य्-आदिना। Although all changes become negated by the denial of the first and the last kinds of changes, still changes occurring in the middle should be denied with their own respective terms by which they are implied. Therefore the text says śāśvataḥ, undecaying, so that all the changes, viz youth etc., which have not been mentioned may become negated.
शाश्वत इत्य् अपक्षय-लक्षणा विक्रिया प्रतिषिध्यते। शश्वद्-भवः शाश्वतः। नापक्षीयते स्व-रूपेण निर्-अवयवत्वान्, निर्-गुणत्वाच् च नापि गुण-क्षयेणापक्षयः। The change in the form of decay is denied by the word śāśvata, that which lasts for ever. In Its own nature It does not decay because It is free from parts. And again, since it is without qualities, there is no degeneration owing to the decay of any quality.
अपक्षय-विपरीतापि वृद्धि-लक्षणा विक्रिया प्रतिषिध्यते पुराण इति। यो ह्य् अवयवागमेनोपचीयते, स वर्धतेऽभिनव इति चोच्यते। अयं त्व् आत्मा निर्-अवयवत्वात् ‘पुरापि नव एव’ इति पुराणो, न वर्धत इत्यर्थः। Change in the form of growth, which is opposed to decay, is also denied by the word purāṇaḥ, ancient. A thing that grows by the addition of some parts is said to increase and is also said to be new. But this Self was fresh even in the past due to Its partlessness. Thus It is purāṇaḥ, i.e. It does not grow. So also, na hanyate, It is purāṇaḥ, i.e. It does not grow.
तथा न हन्यते न विपरिणम्यते हन्यमाने विपरिणम्यमानेऽपि शरीरे। So also, na hanyate, It is not killed, It does not get transformed; even when śarīre, the body; hanyamāne, is killed, transformed.
हन्तिर् अत्र विपरिणामार्थो द्रष्टव्योऽपुनर्-उक्ततायै, न विपरिणम्यत इत्यर्थः। The verb ‘to kill‘ has to be understood here in the sense of transformation, so that a tautology [•This verse has already mentioned ‘death‘ in the first line. If the verb han, to kill, is also taken in the sense of killing, then a tautology is unavoidable.-Tr.•] may be avoided.
अस्मिन् मन्त्रे षड्-भावविकारा लौकिक-वस्तु-विक्रिया आत्मनि प्रतिषिध्यन्ते। सर्व-प्रकार-विक्रिया-रहित आत्मेति वाक्यार्थः। In this mantra the six kinds of transformations, the material changes seen in the world, are denied in the Self. The meaning of the sentence is that the Self is devoid of all kinds of changes.
यस्माद् एवं तस्माद् ‘उभौ तौ न विजानीत’ इति (BhG.2.19) पूर्वेण मन्त्रेणास्य संबन्धः॥Since this is so, therefore ‘both of them do not know’ – this is how the present mantra is connected to the earlier mantra.
‘य एनं वेत्ति हन्तारम्’ इत्य् (BhG.2.19) अनेन मन्त्रेण हनन-क्रियायाः कर्ता कर्म च न भवतीति प्रतिज्ञाय, ‘न जायत’ इत्य् अनेनाविक्रियत्वे हेतुम् उक्त्वा, प्रतिज्ञातार्थम् उपसंहरति – वेदाविनाशिनम् इति। In the mantra, ‘He who thinks of this One as the killer,’ having declared that (the Self) does not become the agent or the object of the act of killing, and then in the mantra, ‘Never is this One born,’ etc., having stated the reasons for (Its) changelessness, the Lord sums up the purport of what was declared above: ‘He who knows this One as indestructible,’ etc.
पार्थ, यः एनम् [देहिनम्/सत्] अ-विनाशिनं नित्यम् अ-जम् अ-व्ययं [च] वेद, कथं सः पुरुषः कं घातयति, कं [च] हन्ति॥ 🔗 O Arjuna, when one knows this, the dehī (oneself, the embodied one, the real), to be indestructible, permanent, unborn, and unchanging, then how does that person cause the death of whom, or kill whom?
वेद विजानात्य् अविनाशिनम् अन्त्य-भाव-विकार-रहितं नित्यं विपरिणाम-रहितं यो वेदेति संबन्धः एनं पूर्वेण मन्त्रेणोक्त-लक्षणम् अजं जन्म-रहितम् अव्ययम् अपक्षय-रहितम्। Yaḥ, he who; veda knows – yaḥ is to be thus connected with Veda –; enam, this One, possessing the characteristics stated in the earlier mantra; as a-vināśinam, indestructible, devoid of the final change of state; nityam, eternal, devoid of transformation; a-jam, birthless; and a-vyayam undecaying;कथं केन प्रकारेण स विद्वान् पुरुषोऽधिकृतो हन्ति हनन-क्रियां करोति। कथं वा घातयति हन्तारं प्रयोजयति। Katham, how, in what way; (and kam, whom;) does saḥ, that man of realization; puruṣaḥ, the person who is himself an authority [•i.e. above all injunctions and prohibitions. See 18.16.17.-Tr.•]; hanti, kill, undertake the act of killing; or how ghātayati, does he cause (others) to be killed, (how does he) instigate a killer!
न कथं-चित् कं-चिद् हन्ति, न कथं-चित् कं-चिद् घातयतीति उभयत्राक्षेप एवार्थः, पश्नार्थासंभवात्। The intention is to deny both (the acts) by saying, ‘In no way does he kill any one, nor does he cause anyone to be killed’, because an interrogative sense is absurd (here).
हेत्व्-अर्थस्याविक्रियत्वस्य तुल्यत्वाद् विदुषः सर्व-कर्म-प्रतिषेध एव प्रकरणार्थोऽभिप्रेतो भगवतः। Since the implication of the reason [•The reason for the denial of killing etc. is the changelessness of the Self, and this reason holds good with regard to all actions of the man of realization.-Tr.•], viz the immutability of the Self, [•The A.A. omits ‘viz the immutability of the Self’.-Tr.•] is common (with regard to all actions), therefore the negation of all kinds of actions in the case of a man of realization is what the Lord conveys as the only purport of this context.
हन्तेस् त्व् आक्षेप उदाहरणार्थत्वेन कथितः। But the denial of (the act of) killing has been cited by way of an example.
विदुषः कं कर्मासंभवे हेतु-विशेषं पश्यन्, कर्माण्य् आक्षिपति भगवान् – ‘कथं स पुरुष’ इति? Objection: By noticing what special reason for the impossibility of actions in the case of the man of realization does the Lord deny all actions (in his case) by saying, ‘How can that person,’ etc.?
ननूक्त एव – आत्मनोऽविक्रियत्वं सर्व-कर्मासंभव-कारण-विशेषः। Vedāntin: Has not the immutability of the Self been already stated as the reason [•Some readings omit this word.-Tr.•], the specific ground for the impossibility of all actions?
सत्यम् उक्तो, न तु स [अ-विक्रियत्व-रूपः] कारण-विशेषो, अन्यत्वाद् विदुषोऽविक्रियाद् आत्मन इति। न ह्य् अविक्रियं स्थाणुं विदितवतः कर्म – न संभवतीति चेत्। Objection: It is true that it has been stated; but that is not a specific ground, for the man of realization is different from the immutable Self. Indeed, may it not be argued that action does not become impossible for one who has known as unchanging stump of a tree?!
न, विदुष आत्मत्वात्, न देहादि-संघातस्य विद्वत्ता। अतः पारिशेष्याद् अ-संहत आत्मा विद्वान् अविक्रिय इति तस्य विदुषः कर्मासंभवाद्, आक्षेपो युक्तः – ‘कथं स पुरुष’ इति। Vedāntin: No, because of man of Knowledge is one with the Self. Enlightenment does not belong to the aggregate of body and senses. Therefore, as the last alternative, the knower is the Immutable and is the Self which is not a part of the aggregate. Thus, action being impossible for that man of Knowledge, the denial in, ‘How can that person...,’ etc. is reasonable.
यथा बुद्ध्य्-आद्य्-आहृतस्य शब्दाद्य्-अर्थस्याविक्रिय एव सन् बुद्धि-वृत्त्य्-अविवेक-विज्ञानेनाविद्ययोपलब्धात्मा कल्प्यते। As on account of the lack of knowledge of the distinction between the Self and the modifications of the intellect, the Self, though verily immutable, is imagined through ignorance to be the perceiver of objects like sound etc. presented by the intellect etc.,
एवम् एवात्मानात्म-विवेक-ज्ञानेन बुद्धि-वृत्त्या विद्ययासत्य-रूपयैव परमार्थतोऽविक्रिय एवात्मा ‘विद्वान्’ उच्यते। In this very way, the Self, which in reality is immutable, is said to be the ‘knower’ because of Its association with the knowledge of the distinction between the Self and non-Self, which (knowledge) is a modification of the intellect [•By buddhi-vṛtti, modification of the intellect, is meant the transformation of the internal organ into the form of an extension upto an object, along with its past impressions, the senses concerned, etc., like the extension of the light of a lamp illuminating an object. Consciousness reflected on this transformation and remaining indistinguishable from that transformation revealing the object, is called objective knowledge. Thereby, due to ignorance, the Self is imagined to be the perceiver because of Its connection with the vrtti, modification. (-A.G.) The process is elsewhere described as follows: The vṛtti goes out through the sense-organ concerned, like the flash of a torchlight, and along with it goes the reflection of Consciousness. Both of them envelop the object, a pot for instance. The vṛtti destroys the ignorance about the pot; and the reflection of Consciousness, becoming unified with only that portion of it which has been delimited by the pot, reveals the pot. In the case of knowledge of Brahman, it is admitted that the vṛtti in the form, ‘I am Brahman’, does reach Brahman and destroys ignorance about Brahman, but it is not admitted that Brahman is revealed like a ‘pot’, for Brahman is self-effulgent.- Tr.•] and is unreal by nature.
विदुषः कर्मासंभव-वचनाद्, यानि कर्माणि शास्त्रेण विधीयन्ते तान्य् अ-विदुषो विहितानीति भगवतो निश्चयोऽवगम्यते। From the statement that action is impossible for man of realization it is understood that the conclusion of the Lord is that, actions enjoined by the scriptures are prescribed for the unenlightened.
ननु विद्याप्य् अ-विदुष एव विधीयते, विदित-विद्यस्य पिष्ट-पेषणवद् विद्या-विधानानर्थक्यात्। तत्र ‘अ-विदुषः कर्माणि विधीयन्ते न विदुष’ इति विशेषो नोपपद्यते, इति चेत्। Objection: Is not enlightenment too enjoined for the ignorant? For, the injunction about enlightenment to one who has already achieved realization is useless, like grinding something that has already been ground! This being so, the distinction that rites and duties are enjoined for the unenlightened, and not for the enlightened one, does not stand to reason.
न, अनुष्ठेयस्य भावाभाव-विशेषोपपत्तेः। अग्नि-होत्रादि-विध्य्-अर्थ-ज्ञानोत्तर-कालम् ‘अग्नि-होत्रादि-कर्म अनेक-साधनोपसंहार-पूर्वकम् अनुष्ठेयं, कर्ताहं, मम कर्तव्यम्’ इत्य् एवं-प्रकार-विज्ञानवतो(ऽ)विदुषो यथानुष्ठेयं भवति, न तु तथा ‘न जायत’ इत्य्-आद्य् (BhG.2.20) आत्म-स्व-रूप-विध्य्-अर्थ-ज्ञानोत्तर-काल-भावि किंचिद् अनुष्ठेयं भवति। Vedāntin: No. There can reasonable be a distinction between the existence or nonexistence of a thing to be performed. As after the knowledge of the meaning of the injunction for rites like Agni-hotra etc. their performance becomes obligatory on the unenlightened one who thinks, ‘Agni-hotra etc. has to be performed by collecting various accessories; I am the agent, and this is my duty’, – unlike this, nothing remains later on to be performed as a duty after knowing the meaning of the injunction about the nature of the Self from such texts as, ‘Never is this One born,’ etc.
किं-तु ‘नाहं कर्ता न भोक्ता’ इत्य्-आद्य्-आत्मैकत्वाकर्तृत्वादि-विषय-ज्ञानाद् अन्यन् नोत्पद्यत इत्य् एष विशेष उपपद्यते। But apart from the rise of knowledge regarding the unity of the Self, his non-agency, etc., in the form, ‘I am not the agent, I am not the enjoyer’, etc., no other idea arises. Thus, this distinction can be maintained.
यः पुनः ‘कर्ताहम्’ इति वेत्त्य् आत्मानं तस्य ‘ममेदं कर्तव्यम्’ इत्य् अवश्यं-भाविनी बुद्धिः स्यात्, तद्-अपेक्षया सोऽधिक्रियत इति तं प्रति कर्माणि। स चाविद्वान् ‘उभौ तौ न विजानीतः’ इति (BhG.2.19) वचनाद्। Again, for anyone who knows himself as, ‘I am the agent’, there will necessarily arise the idea, ‘This is my duty.’ In relation to that he becomes eligible. In this way duties are (enjoined) [•Ast. adds ‘sambhavanti, become possible’.-Tr.•] for him. And according to the text, ‘both of them do not know’ (BhG.2.19), he is an unenlightened man.
विशेषितस्य च विदुषः कर्माक्षेप-वचनात् ‘कथं स पुरुषः’ इति। तस्माद् विशेषितस्याविक्रियात्म-दर्शिनो विदुषो मुमुक्षोश् च सर्व-कर्म-सन्न्यास एवाधिकाः। And the text, ‘How can that person,’ etc. concerns the enlightened person distinguished above, because of the negation of action (in this text). Therefore, the enlightened person distinguished above, who has realized the immutable Self, and the seeker of Liberation are qualified only for renunciation of all rites and duties.
अत एव भगवान् नारायणः सांख्यान् विदुषोऽविदुषश् च कर्मिणः प्रविभज्य द्वे निष्ठे ग्राहयति ‘ज्ञान-योगेन सांख्यानां कर्म-योगेन योगिनाम्’ इति (BhG.3.3)। Therefore, indeed, the Lord Nārāyaṇa, making a distinction between the enlightened man of Knowledge and the unenlightened man of rites and duties, makes them take up the two kinds of adherences in the text, ‘through the Yoga of Knowledge for the men of realization; through the Yoga of Action for the yogīs’ (BhG.3.3).
तथाच पुत्रायाह भगवान् व्यासो ‘द्वाव् इमाव् अथ पन्थानौ’ इत्य्-आदि (MBhSant.241.6)। तथाच ‘क्रिया-पथश् चैव पुरस्तात् पश्चात् सन्न्यासश् च’ इति (TaitAr.10.62.12)। Similarly also, Vyāsa said to his son, ‘Now, there are these two paths,’ etc. [•‘Now, there are these two paths on which the Vedas are based. They are thought of as the dharma characterized by engagement in duties, and that by renunciation of them’ (Mbh. Sa. 241.6).-Tr.•] So also (there is a Veda text meaning): ‘The path of rites and duties, indeed, is the earlier, and renunciation comes after that.’ [•Ast. says that this is not a quotation, but only gives the purport of Tai. Ar. 10.62.12.-Tr.•]
एतम् एव विभागं पुनः पुनर् दर्शयिष्यति भगवान्। अ-तत्त्व-विद् ‘अहंकार-विमूढात्मा कर्ताहम् इति मन्यते, तत्त्व-वित् तु’… ‘नाहं करोमि’ इति (BhG.3.27–28), तथाच ‘सर्व-कर्माणि मनसा संन्यस्यास्त’ इत्य्-आदि (BhG.5.13)। The Lord will show again and again this very division: ‘The unenlightened man who is deluded by egoism thinks thus: “I am the doer”; but the one who is a knower of the facts (about the varieties of the guṇas) thinks, “I do not act”’ (cp. BhG.3.27–28). So also there is the text, ‘(The embodied man of selfcontrol,) having given up all actions mentally, continues (happily in the town of nine gates)’ (BhG.5.13) etc.
तत्र केचित् पण्डितं-मन्या वदन्ति – ‘जन्मादि-षड्-भाव-विक्रिया-रहितोऽविक्रियोऽकर्तैकऽहम् आत्मा इति न कस्यचिज् ज्ञानम् उत्पद्यते, यस्मिन् सति सर्व-कर्म-सन्न्यास उपदिश्यते’ इति। With regard to this some wiseacres say: In no person does arise the idea, ‘I am the changeless, actionless Self, which is One and devoid of the six kinds of changes beginning with birth to which all things are subject’, on the occurrence of which (idea alone) can renunciation of all actions be enjoined.
तन् न, ‘न जायत’ (KathU.1.2.18, BhG.2.20) इत्य्-आदि-शास्त्रोपदेशानर्थक्यात्। That is not correct, because it will lead to the needlessness of such scriptural instructions as, ‘Never is this One born,’ etc. (BhG.2.20).
‘यथाच शास्त्रोपदेश-सामर्थ्याद् धर्मास्तित्व-विज्ञानं कर्तुश् च देहान्तर-संबन्धि-ज्ञानं चोत्पद्यते, तथा शास्त्रात् तस्यैवात्मनोऽविक्रियत्वाकर्तृत्वैकत्वादि-विज्ञानं कस्मान् नोपपद्यत’ इति प्रष्टव्यास् ते। They should be asked: As on the authority of scriptural instructions there arises the knowledge of the existence of virtue and vice and the knowledge regarding an agent who gets associated with successive bodies, similarly, why should not there arise from the scriptures the knowledge of unchangeability, non-agentship, oneness, etc. of that very Self?
करणागोचरत्वाद् इति चेत्। Objection: If it be said that this is due to Its being beyond the scope of any means (of knowledge)?
न, ‘मनसैवानुद्रष्टव्यम्’ इति (BrhUEng.4.4.19) श्रुतेः। शास्त्राचार्योपदेश-शम-दमादि-संस्कृतं मन आत्म-दर्शने करणम्। Vedāntin: No, because the Śruti says, ’It is to be realized through the mind alone, (following the instruction of the teacher)’ (BrhUEng.4.4.19). The mind that is purified by the instructions of the scriptures and the teacher, control of the body and organs, etc. becomes the instrument for realizing the Self.
तथाच तद्-अधिगमायानुमान आगमे च सति ज्ञानं नोत्पद्यत इति साहसम् एतत्। Again, since there exist inference and scriptures for Its realization, it is mere bravado to say that Knowledge does not arise.
ज्ञानं चोत्पद्यमानं तद्-विपरीतम् अज्ञानम् अवश्यं बाधत इत्य् अभ्युपगन्तव्यम्। And it has to be granted that when knowledge arises, it surely eliminates ignorance, its opposite.
तच् चाज्ञानं दर्शितं ‘हन्ताहं हतोऽस्मि’ इति – ‘उभौ तौ न विजानीत’ (BhG.2.19) इति, अत्र (BhG.2.21) चात्मनो हनन-क्रियायाः कर्तृत्वं कर्मत्वं हेतु-कर्तृत्वं चाज्ञान-कृतं दर्शितम्। And that ignorance has been shown in, ‘I am the killer’, ‘I am killed’, and ‘both of them do not know’ (see BhG.2.19). And here also it is shown that the idea of the Self being an agent, the object of an action, or an indirect agent, is the result of ignorance.
तच् च सर्व-क्रियास्व् अपि समानं कर्तृत्वादेर् अविद्या-कृतत्वम् अविक्रियत्वाद् आत्मनः। विक्रियावान् हि कर्तात्मनः कर्म-भूतम् अन्यं प्रयोजयति ‘कुरु’ इति। Also, the Self being changeless, the fact that such agentship etc. are caused by ignorance is a common factor in all actions without exception, because only that agent who is subject to change instigates someone else who is different from himself and can be acted on, saying, ‘Do this.’
तद् एतद् अविशेषेण विदुषः सर्व-क्रियासु कर्तृत्वं हेतु-कर्तृत्वं च प्रतिषेधति भगवान् विदुषः कर्माधिकाराभाव-प्रदर्शनार्थं ‘वेदाविनाशिनं… कथं स पुरुष’ इत्य्-आदिना। Thus, with a view to pointing out the absence of fitness for rites and duties in the case of an enlightened person, the Lord [•Ast, adds Vāsudeva after ‘Lord’.- Tr.•] says, ‘He who knows this One as indestructible,’ ‘how can that person,’ etc. – thereby denying this direct and indirect agentship of an enlightened person in respect of all actions without exception.
क्व पुनर् विदुषोऽधिकार इत्य् एतद् उक्तं पूर्वम् एव ‘ज्ञान-योगेन सांख्यानाम्’ इति (BhG.3.3)। तथाच सर्व-कर्म-सन्न्यासं वक्ष्यति ‘सर्व-कर्माणि मनसा’ इत्य्-आदिना (BhG.5.13)। As regards the question, ‘For what, again, is the man of enlightenment qualified?’, the answer has already been give earlier in, ‘through the Yoga of Knowledge for the men of realization’ (BhG.5.13). Similarly, the Lord will also speak of renunciation of all actions in, ‘having given up all actions mentally,’ etc. (BhG.5.13).
ननु ‘मनसा’ इति वचनान् न वाचिकानां कायिकानां च सन्न्यास इति चेत्। Objection: May it not be argued that from the expression, ‘mentally’, (it follows that) oral and bodily actions are not to be renounced?
न, ‘सर्व-कर्माणि’ इति विशेषितत्वात्। Vedāntin: No, because of the categoric expression, ‘all actions’.
मानसानाम् एव सर्व-कर्मणाम् इति चेत्। Objection: May it not be argued that ‘all actions’ relates only to those of the mind?
न, मनो-व्यापार-पूर्वकत्वाद् वाक्-काय-व्यापाराणां मनो-व्यापाराभावे तद्-अनुपपत्तेः। Vedāntin: No, because all oral and bodily actions are preceded by those of the mind, for those actions are impossible in the absence of mental activity.
शास्त्रीयाणां वाक्-काय-कर्मणां कारणानि मानसानि वर्जयित्वाऽन्यानि सर्व-कर्माणि मनसा संन्यसेद् इति चेत्। Objection: May it not be said that one has to mentally renounce all other activities except the mental functions which are the causes of scriptural rites and duties performed through speech and body?
न, ‘नैव कुर्वन् न कारयन्’ इति (BhG.5.13) विशेषणात्। Vedāntin: No, because it has been specifically expressed: ‘without doing or causing (others) to do anything at all’ (BhG.5.13).
सर्व-कर्म-सन्न्यासोऽयं भगवतोक्तो मरिष्यतो न जीवत इति चेत्। Objection: May it not be that this renunciation of all actions, as stated by the Lord, is with regard to a dying man, not one living?
न, ‘नव-द्वरे पुरे देह्य् आस्ते’ इति (BhG.5.13) विशेषणानुपपत्तेः। न हि सर्व-कर्म-सन्न्यासेन मृतस्य तद्-देहे आसनं संभवति, अकुर्वतोऽकारयतश् च। Vedāntin: No, because (in that case) the specific statement, ‘The embodied man...continues happily in the town of nine gates’ (ibid.) will become illogical since it is not possible for a dead person, who neither acts nor makes others act, [•The words ‘a-kurvataḥ a-kārayataḥ, (of him) who neither acts nor makes others act’, have been taken as a part of the Commentator’s argument. But A.G. points out that they can also form a part of the next Objection. In that, case, the translation of the Objection will be this: Can it not be that the construction of the sentence (under discussion) is – ’Neither doing nor making others do, he rests by depositing (sannyasya, by renouncing) in the body’, but not ‘he rests in the body by renouncing...’?•] to rest in that body after renouncing all actions.
‘देहे संन्यस्य’ इति संबन्धो [मरिष्यतः…], न ‘देहे आस्त’ इति चेत्। Objection: Can it not be that the construction of the sentence (under discussion) is, ‘(he rests) by depositing (sannyasya, by renouncing) in the body’, (but) not ‘he rests in the body by renouncing...’?
न, सर्वत्रात्मनोऽविक्रियत्वावधारणात्। आसन-क्रियायाश् चाधिकरणापेक्षत्वात्, तद्-अनपेक्षत्वाच् च सन्न्यासस्य। सं-पूर्वस् तु न्यास-शब्द इह त्यागार्थो न निक्षेपार्थः। Vedāntin: No, because everywhere it is categorically asserted that the Self is changeless. Besides, the action of ‘resting’ requires a location, whereas renunciation is independent of this. The word nyāsa preceded by sam here means ‘renunciation’, not ‘depositing’.
तस्माद् गीता-शास्त्रे ‘आत्म-ज्ञानवतः सन्न्यास एवाधिकारो न कर्मणि’ इति तत्र तत्रोपरिष्टाद् आत्म-ज्ञान-प्रकरणे दर्शयिष्यामः॥Therefore, according to this Scripture, viz the Gītā, the man of realization is eligible for renunciation, alone, not for rites and duties. This we shall show in the relevant texts later on in the cotext of the knowledge of the Self.
प्रकृतं तु वक्ष्यामः, तत्रात्मनोऽविनाशित्वं प्रतिज्ञातम्। तत् किम् इव? इत्य् उच्यते – वासांसीति। And now we shall speak of the matter on hand: As to that, the indestructibility [•Indestructibility suggests unchangeability as well.•] of the Self, has been postulated. What is it like? That is being said in, ‘As after rejecting wornout clothes,’ etc.
यथा नरः जीर्णानि वासांसि विहाय अपराणि नवानि गृह्णाति, तथा देही जीर्णानि शरीराणि विहाय अन्यानि नवानि संयाति॥ 🔗 Just as a person discarding worn-out clothes takes other new ones; similarly, the embodied one, discarding worn-out bodies, takes on other new ones.
वासांसि वस्त्राणि जीर्णानि दुर्-बलतां गतानि यथा लोके विहाय परित्यज्य नवान्य् अभिनवानि गृह्णात्य् उपादत्ते नरः पुरुषोऽपराण्य् अन्यानि, तथा तद्वद् एव शरीराणि विहाय जीर्णान्य् अन्यानि संयाति संगच्छति नवानि देह्य् आत्मा पुरुषवद् अविक्रिय एवेत्य् अर्थः॥Yathā, as in the world; vihāya, after rejecting jīrṇāni, wornout; vāsāṃsi, clothes; naraḥ, a man grhṇāti, takes up; aparāṇi, other; navāni, new ones; tathā, likewise, in that very manner; vihāya, after rejecting; jīrṇāni, wornout; śarīrāṇi, bodies; dehī, the embodied one, the Self which is surely unchanging like the man (in the example); saṃyāti, unites with; anyāni, other; navāni, new ones. This is meaning.
कस्माद् अविक्रिय एवेत्य् आह – नैनं छिन्दन्तीति। Why does It verily remain unchanged? This is being answered in, ‘Weapons do not cut It,’ etc.
[भूमिमयानि] शस्त्राणि एनं न छिन्दन्ति, पावकः एनं न दहति, आपः एनं न क्लेदयन्ति, मारुतः न च शोषयति॥ 🔗 Weapons made from the element earth do not cut it, nor does the element fire burn it, nor does the element water soak it, nor does the element wind wither it.
एनं प्रकृतं देहिनं न छिन्दन्ति शस्त्राणि निर्-अवयवत्वान् नावयव-विभागं कुर्वन्ति शस्त्राण्य् अस्य्-आदीनि। Śastrāṇi, weapons; na, do not; chindanti, cut; enam, It, the embodied one under discussion. It being partless, weapons like sword etc. do not cut off Its limbs.
तथा नैनं दहति पावकोऽग्निर् अपि न भस्मी-करोति। So also, even pāvakaḥ, fire; na dahati enam, does not burn, does not reduce It to ashes.
तथा न चैनं क्लेदयन्त्य् आपः। अपां हि सावयवस्य वस्तुन आर्द्री-भाव-करणेनावयव-विश्लेषापादने सामर्थ्यं। तन् न निर्-अवयवे आत्मनि संभवति। Ca, and similarly; āpaḥ, water; na enam kledayanti, does not moisten It. For water has the power of disintegrating a substance that has parts, by the process of moistening it. That is not possible in the case of the partless Self.
तथा स्नेहवद् द्रव्यं स्नेह-शोषणेन नाशयति वायुः। एनं स्वात्मानं न शोषयति मारुतोऽपि॥Similarly, air destroys an oil substance by drying up the oil. Even mārutaḥ, air; na śoṣayati, does not dry; (enam, It,) one’s own Self. [•Ast. reads ‘enam tu ātmānam, but this Self’, in place of enam svātmānam.-Tr.•]
अयम् अ-च्छेद्यः, अयम् अ-दाह्यः, अ-क्लेद्यः अ-शोष्यः एव च। अयं नित्यः सर्व-गतः (=अ-देशः) स्थाणुः अ-चलः सना-तनः [च]॥ 🔗 This is uncutable. This is unburnable, unwetable, and unwitherable. This is timeless, locationless, stable, unmoving, and always existing.
अच्छेद्योऽयम् इति। यस्माद् अन्योन्य-नाश-हेतूनि भूतान्य् एनम् आत्मानं नाशयितुं नोत्सहन्ते, तस्मान् नित्यः। Ayam, It; a-cchedyaḥ, cannot be cut. Since the other elements which are the causes of destruction of one another are not capable of destroying this Self, therefore It is nityaḥ, eternal.
नित्यत्वात् सर्वगतः। सर्व-गतत्वात् स्थाणुः, स्थाणुर् इव स्थिरः इत्य् एतत्। स्थिरत्वाद् अचलोऽयम् आत्मा। अतः सना-तनश् चिरन्-तनः। न कारणात् कुतश्चिन् निष्पन्नोऽभिनव इत्यर्थः। Being eternal, It is sarva-gataḥ, omnipresent. Being omnipresent, It is sthāṇuḥ, stationary, i.e. fixed like a stump. Being fixed, ayam, this Self; is a-calaḥ, unmoving. Therefore It is sanā-tanaḥ, changeless, i.e. It is not produced from any cause, as a new thing.
नैतेषां श्लोकानां पौनर्-उक्त्यं चोदनीयम्। यद् एकेणैव श्लोकेनात्मनो नित्यत्वम् अ-विक्रियत्वं चोक्तं ‘न जायते म्रियते वा’ इत्य्-आदिना (BhG.2.20)। तत्र यद् एवात्म-विषयं किंचिद् उच्यते तद् एतस्माच् छ्लोकार्थान् नातिरिच्यते, किंचिच्-छब्दतः पुनर्-उक्तं किंचिद्-अर्थत इति। It is not to be argued that ‘these verses are repetive since eternality and changelessness of the Self have been stated in a single verse itself, “Never is this One born, and never does It die,” etc. (BhG.2.20). Whatever has been said there (in verse BhG.2.19) about the Self does not go beyond the meaning of this verse. Something is repeated with those very words, and something ideologically.’
दुर्-बोधत्वाद् आत्म-वस्तुनः पुनः पुनः प्रसङ्गम् आपाद्य शब्दान्तरेण तद् एव वस्तु निरूपयति भगवान् वासु-देवः, कथं नु नाम संसारिणाम् अ-व्यक्तं तत्त्वं बुद्धि-गो-चरताम् आपन्नं सत् संसार-निवृत्तये स्याद् इति॥Since the object, viz the Self, is inscrutable, therefore Lord Vāsudeva raises the topic again and again, and explains that very object in other words so that, somehow, the unmanifest Self may come within the comprehension of the intellect of the transmigrating persons and bring about a cessation of their cycles of births and deaths.
अयम् अ-व्यक्तः, अयम् अ-चिन्त्यः (=मनो-विषयत्वम् अ-योग्यः), अयम् अ-विकार्यः उच्यते। तस्मात् एवम् एनं विदित्वा अनुशोचितुं न अर्हसि॥ 🔗 This is said to be not manifest to the senses, not an object of thought since it is the conscious being that is aware of all thoughts, and not subject to change. Therefore, since there is no basis for grief regarding the self, knowing this as such, you cannot grieve.
अ-व्यक्तः सर्व-करणाविषयत्वान् न व्यज्यते इत्य् अ-व्यक्तोऽयम् आत्मा। ucyate, it is said that; ayam, This, the Self; is a-vyaktaḥ, unmanifest, since, being beyond the ken of all the organs, It cannot be objectified.
अत एव अ-चिन्त्योऽयम्। यद् धीन्द्रिय-गोचरं वस्तु तच् चिन्ता-विषयत्वम् आपद्यते, अयं त्व् आत्मा अन्-इन्द्रिय-गोचरत्वाद् अ-चिन्त्यः। For this very reason, ayam, This; is a-cintyaḥ, inconceivable. For anything that comes within the purview of the organs becomes the object of thought. But this Self is inconceivable because It is not an object of the organs.
(अत एव) अ-विकार्योऽयम्। यथा क्षीरं दध्य्-आतञ्चनादिना विकारि न तथा अयम् आत्मा। Hence, indeed, It is a-vikāryaḥ, unchangeable. This Self does not change as milk does when mixed with curd, a curdling medium, etc.
निर्-अवयवत्वाच् चाविक्रियः। न हि निर्-अवयवं किंचिद् विक्रियात्मकं दृष्टम्। अ-विक्रियत्वाद् अ-विकार्योऽयम् आत्मा उच्यते। And It is changeless owing to partlessness, for it is not seen that any non-composite thing is changeful. Not being subject to transformation, It is said (ucyate) to be changeless.तस्माद् एवं यथोक्त-प्रकारेण एनम् आत्मानं विदित्वा त्वं नानुशोचितुम् अर्हसि ‘हन्ताहम् एषां, मयैते हन्यन्ते’ इति॥Tasmāt, therefore; vidivatvā, having known; enam, this one, the Self; evam, thus, as described; na arhasi, you ought not; anuśocitum, to grieve, thinking, ‘I am the slayer of these; these are killed by me.’
आत्मनोऽनित्यत्वम् अभ्युपगम्येदम् उच्यते – अथ चैनम् इति। This (verse), ‘On the other hand,’ etc., is uttered assuming that the Self is transient:
महा-बाहो, अथ च एनं नित्य-जातं नित्यं मृतं वा मन्यसे, तथा अपि एवं त्वं शोचितुं न अर्हसि॥ 🔗 O Arjuna, now if you consider this, the self – as the body or as an individual soul, to continually be born and die – even in that way, you should not in this way grieve.
अथ च इत्य् अभ्युपगमार्थः। Atha ca, on the other hand, if (– conveys the sense of assumption –); following ordinary experience,एनं प्रकृतम् आत्मानं नित्य-जातं लोक-प्रसिद्ध्या प्रत्य्-अनेक-शरीरोत्पत्तिं जातो जात इति मन्यसे। तथा प्रति-तद्-विनाशं नित्यं वा मन्यसे मृतं मृतो मृत इति। Manyase, you think; enam, this One, the Self under discussion; is nitya-jātam, born continually, becomes born with the birth of each of the numerous bodies; vā, or; nityam, constantly; mṛtam, dies, along with the death of each of these (bodies);तथापि तथा-भाविन्य् अप्य् आत्मनि त्वं महा-बाहोनैवं शोचितुम् अर्हसि, जन्मवतो नाशो नाशवतो जन्म चेत्य् एताव् अ-वश्यं-भाविनाव् इति॥Tathā api, even then, even if the Self be of that nature; tvam, you; mahā-bāho, O mighty armed one; na arhasi, ought not; śocitum, to grieve; evam, thus, since that which is subject to birth will die, and that which is subject to death will be born; these two are inevitable.
तथाच सति – जातस्येति। This being so, ‘death of anyone born’, etc.
जातस्य हि (=यस्मात्) मृत्युः ध्रुवः, मृतस्य च जन्म ध्रुवं, तस्मात् अ-परिहार्ये अर्थे त्वं शोचितुं न अर्हसि॥ 🔗 Because, for what is born, death is certain, and for what is dead, birth in another form is certain, then you should not grieve over a situation that cannot be avoided.
जातस्य हि लब्ध-जन्मनो ध्रुवोऽव्यभिचारी मृत्युर् मरणं, ध्रुवं जन्म मृतस्य च, तस्माद् अ-परिहार्योऽयं जन्म-मरण-लक्षणोऽर्थः। तस्मिन्न् अ-परिहार्येऽर्थे न त्वं शोचितुम् अर्हसि॥ Hi, for; mṛtyuḥ, death; jātasya, of anyone born; dhruvaḥ, is certain; is without exception; ca, and mṛtasya, of the dead; janma, (re-) birth; is dhruvam, a certainly. Tasmāt, therefore, this fact, viz birth and death, is inevitable. With regard to that (fact), a-parihārye, over an inevitable; arthe, fact; tvam, you; na arhasi, ought not; śocitum, to grieve.
कार्य-करण-संघातात्मकान्य् अपि भूतान्य् उद्दिश्य शोको न युक्तः कर्तुं, यतः – अ-व्यक्तादीनीति। It is not reasonable to grieve even for beings which are constituted by bodies and organs, since ‘all beings remain unmanifest’ etc.
भारत, भूतानि अ-व्यक्त-आदीनि व्यक्त-मध्यानि अ-व्यक्त-निधनानि एव [च]। तत्र का परिदेवना॥ 🔗 O Arjuna, all beings are unseen before their beginning, unknown as to whom or what they were before their birth; are seen in between; and are unseen after their end, unknown as to their lot after death. Regarding that, why grieve?
अ-व्यक्तादीन्य् अ-व्यक्तम् अ-दर्शनम् अन्-उपलब्धिर् आदिर् येषां भूतानां पुत्र-मित्रादि-कार्य-करण-संघातात्मकानां तान्य् अ-व्यक्तादीनि भूतानि प्राग् उत्पत्तेः। (Bhārata, O descendant of Bharata;) bhūtāni, all beings, a-vyaktādīni, remain unmanifest in the beginning. Those beings, viz sons, friends, and others, constituted by bodies and organs, [•Another reading is kārya-kāraṇa-saṅghāta, aggregates formed by material elements acting as causes and effects.-Tr.•] who before their origination have unmanifestedness (a-vyakta), invisibility, non-perception, as their beginning (adi) are a-vyaktaadini.
उत्पन्नानि च प्राङ् मरणाद् व्यक्त-मध्यानि। अ-व्यक्त-निधनान्य् एव पुनर् अ-व्यक्तम् अ-दर्शनं निधनं मरणं येषां तान्य् अ-व्यक्त-निधनानि। मरणाद् ऊर्ध्वम् अपि अ-व्यक्तताम् एव प्रतिपद्यन्त इत्यर्थः। Ca, and; after origination, before death, they become vyakta-madhyāni, manifest in the middle. Again, they eva, certainly; become a-vyakta-nidhanāni, unmanifest after death. Those which have unmanifestness (a-vyakta), invisibility, as their death (nidhana) are a-vyakta-nidhanāni. The idea is that even after death they verily attain unmanifestedness.
तथा चोक्तम् – अ-दर्शनाद् आपतितः पुनश् चादर्शनं गतः। नासौ तव न तस्य त्वं वृथा का परिदेवना॥ इति (MBhStri.2.13)। Accordingly has it been said: 'They emerged from invisibility, and have gone back to invisibility. They are not yours, nor are you theirs. What is this fruitless lamentation!' (MBhStri.2.13).तत्र का परिदेवना को वा प्रलापोऽदृष्ट-दृष्ट-प्रनष्ट-भ्रान्ति-भूतेषु भूतेष्व् इत्यर्थः॥Kā, what; paridevanā, lamentation, or what prattle, can there be; tatra, with regard to them, i.e. with regard to beings which are objects of delusion, which are invisible, (become) visible, (and then) get destroyed!
दुर्-विज्ञेयोऽयं प्रकृत आत्मा। किं त्वाम् एवैकम् उपालभे साधारणे भ्रान्ति-निमित्ते? कथं दुर्-विज्ञेयोऽयम् आत्मा? इति आह – आश्चर्यवद् इति। ‘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.
कश्-चिद् एनम् [देहिनम्/सत्] आश्चर्यवत् पश्यति। तथा एव च अन्यः आश्चर्यवत् वदति, अन्यः च एनम् आश्चर्यवत् शृणोति। कश्-चिद् च श्रुत्वा अपि एनं न एव वेद॥ 🔗 As a wonder, someone sees, knows, this timeless, location-less, embodied one – the real! Similarly, as a wonder, another, the teacher, speaks of this and, as a wonder, another listens about this! Even after listening, another still does not know this which is oneself!
आश्चर्यवद् आश्चर्यम् अ-दृष्ट-पूर्वम् अद्भुतम् अ-कस्माद् दृश्यमानं तेन तुल्यम् आश्चर्यवद् आश्चर्यम् इव एनम् आत्मानं पश्यति कश्चैत्। Kaścit, someone; paśyati, visualizes; enam, It, the Self; āścaryavat, 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 āścarya-vat;आश्चर्यवद् एनं वदति तथैव चान्यः। आश्चर्यवच् चैनम् अन्यः शृणोति। श्रुत्वा दृष्ट्वोक्त्वा अप्य् एनं (आत्मानं) वेद न चैव कश्चित्। Ca, and; tathā, similarly; eva, indeed; kaścit, someone; anyaḥ, else; vadati, talks of It as a wonder. And someone else śṛṇoti, hears of It as a wonder. And someone, indeed, na, does not; veda, realize It; api, even; śrutvā, after hearing, seeing and speaking about It.
अथवा योऽयम् आत्मानं पश्यति स आश्चर्य-तुल्यो, यो वदति, यश् च शृणोति। सोऽनेक-सहस्रेषु कश्चिद् एव भवति। अतो दुर्-बोध आत्मेत्य् अभिप्रायः॥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.
अथेदानीं प्रकरणार्थम् उपसंहरन् ब्रूते – देहीति। 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.
भारत, सर्वस्य देहे अयं देही नित्यम् अ-वध्यः। तस्मात् त्वं सर्वाणि भूतानि शोचितुं न अर्हसि॥ 🔗 O Arjuna, this embodied one in every body is ever indestructible; therefore, you should not grieve over all these beings.
देही शरीरी नित्यं सर्वदा सर्वावस्थास्व् अवध्यो निर्-अवयवत्वान् नित्यत्वाच् च, तत्रावध्योऽयं देहे शरीरे सर्वस्य सर्व-गतत्वात् स्थावरादिषु स्थितोऽपि। Because of being partless and eternal, ayam, this dehī, embodied Self; nityam avadhyaḥ, can never be killed, under any condition. That being so, although existing sarvasya dehe, in all bodies, in trees etc., this One cannot be killed on account of Its being all-pervasive.
सर्वस्य प्राणि-जातस्य देहे वध्यमानेऽप्य् अयं देही न वध्यो यस्मात्, तस्माद् भीष्मादीनि सर्वाणि भूतान्य् उद्दिश्य न त्वं शोचितुम् अर्हसि॥Since the indewelling One cannot be killed although the body of everyone of the living beings be killed, tasmāt, therefore; tvam, you; na arhasi, ought not; śocitum, to grieve; for sarvāṇi bhūtāni, all (these) beings, for Bhīṣma and others.
इह परमार्थ-तत्त्वापेक्षायां शोको वा मोहो वा न संभवतीत्य् उक्तं, न केवलं परमार्थ-तत्त्वापेक्षायाम् एव किंतु – स्व-धर्मम् इति। Here [•i.e. in the earlier verse.•] it has been said that, from the standpoint of the supreme Reality, there is no occasion for sorrow or delusion. (This is so) not merely from the standpoint of the supreme Reality, but:
स्व-धर्मम् अपि च अवेक्ष्य विकम्पितुं न अर्हसि, क्षत्रियस्य हि (=यस्मात्) धर्म्यात् युद्धात् अन्यद् श्रेयः न विद्यते॥ 🔗 Even in regard to your own dharma (nature and duty), you should not waver. Because, for a warrior such as you – by nature and duty, there is no greater good than a battle on the side of dharma, a battle for the protection of what supports people through their maturation to wisdom.
स्व-धर्मम् अपि स्वो धर्मः क्षत्रियस्य धर्मो युद्धं, तम् अप्य् अवेक्ष्य त्वं न विकम्पितुं प्रचलितुं न अर्हसि, क्षत्रियस्य स्वा-भाविकाद् धर्माद् आत्म-स्वा-भाव्याद् इत्य् अभिप्रायः। Api, even; avekṣya, considering; sva-dharmam, your own duty, the duty of a Kṣatriya, viz battle – considering even that –; na arhasi, you ought not; vikampitum, to waver, to deviate from the natural duty of the Kṣatriya, i.e. from what is natural to yourself.
तच् च युद्धं पृथिवी-जय-द्वारेण धर्मार्थं प्रजा-रक्षणार्थं च इति, धर्माद् अन्-अपेतं परं धर्म्यम्। तस्माद् धर्म्याद् युद्धाच् छ्रेयोऽन्यत् क्षत्रियस्य न विद्यते, हि यस्मात्॥And hi, since that battle is not devoid of righteousness, (but) is supremely righteous – it being conducive to virtue and meant for protection of subjects through conquest of the earth –; therefore, na vidyate, there is nothing; anyat, else; śreyaḥ, better; kṣatriyasya, for a kṣatriya; than that dharmyāt, righteous; yuddhāt, battle.
कुतश् च? तद् युद्धं कर्तव्यम् इत्य् उच्यते – यद्-ऋच्छयेति। Why, again, does that battle become a duty? This is being answered (as follows) [•A specific rule is more authoritative than a general rule. Non-violence is a general rule enjoined by the scriptures, but the duty of fighting is a specific rule for a Kṣatriya.•]:
यद्-ऋच्छया च अपावृतं स्वर्ग-द्वारम् उपपन्नम्। पार्थ, सुखिनः क्षत्रियाः ईदृशं युद्धं लभन्ते॥ 🔗 By happenstance an open door to heaven has come. O Arjuna, fortunate are warriors who get such a battle.
यद्-ऋच्छया च अप्रार्थितया उपपन्नम् आगतं स्वर्ग-द्वारम् अपावृतम् उद्घाटितम्। य एतद् ईदृशं युद्धं लभन्ते क्षत्रियाः, हे पार्थ, किं न सुखिनस् ते॥Pārtha, O son of Pṛthā; are not (kim na) those Kṣatiryāḥ sukhinaḥ, happy [•Happy in this world as also in the other.•] who labhante, come across; a yuddham, battle; īdṛśam, of this kind; upapannam, which presents itself; yad-ṛcchayā, unsought for; and which is an apāvṛtam, open; svarga-dvāram, gate to heaven? [•Rites and duties like sacrifices etc. yield their results after the lapse of some time. But the Kṣatriyas go to heaven immediately after dying in battle, because, unlike the minds of others, their minds remained fully engaged in their immediate duty.•]
एवं कर्तव्यता-प्राप्तम् अपि – अथेति। Even after becoming aware of the duty:-
अथ चेद् त्वम् इमं धर्म्यं सङ्ग्रामं न करिष्यसि, ततः स्व-धर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापम् अवाप्स्यसि॥ 🔗 Now if you will not undertake this battle on the side of dharma, then forfeiting your dharma (nature and duty) and honor, you will incur karma demerit (pāpa).
अथ चेत् त्वम् इमं धम्यं धर्माद् अन्-अपेतं संग्रामं युद्धं न करिष्यसि चेत्, ततस् तद्-अकरणात् स्व-धर्मं कीर्तिं च महा-देवादि-समागम-निमित्तां हित्वा केवलं पापम् अवाप्स्यसि॥Atha, on the other hand; cet, if; tvam, you; na kariṣyasi, will not fight; even imam, this; dharmyam, righteous; saṅgrāmam, battle, which has presented itself as a duty, which is not opposed to righteousness, and which is enjoined (by the scriptures); tataḥ, then, because of not undertaking that; hitvā, forsaking; sva-dharmam, your own duty; ca, and; kīrtim, fame, earned from encountering Mahādeva (Lord Śiva) and others; avāpsyasi, you will incur; only pāpam, sin.
न केवलं स्व-धर्म-कीर्ति-परित्यागः – अकीर्तिम् इति। Not only will there be the giving up of your duty and fame, but:
भूतानि च अपि ते (=तव) अ-व्ययाम् अ-कीर्तिं कथयिष्यन्ति। सम्भावितस्य च अ-कीर्तिः मरणात् अतिरिच्यते॥ 🔗 These creatures, even yesterday’s recruits, will also recount your unfading infamy. Dishonor for one who had been honored is worse than death.
अकीर्तिं चापि भूतानि कथयिष्यन्ति ते तव अव्ययां दीर्घ-कालाम्। धर्मात्मा शूर इत्य् एवम्-आदिभिर् गुणैः संभावितस्य चाकीर्तिर् मरणाद् अतिरिच्यते। संभावितस्य चाकीर्तेर् वरं मरणम् इत्यर्थः॥Bhūtāni, people; ca api, also; kathayiṣyanti, will speak; te, of your; a-vyayām, unending, perpetual; a-kīrtim, infamy. Ca, and; sambhāvitasya, to an honoured person, to a person honoured with such epithets as ‘virtuous’, ‘heroic’, etc.; a-kīrtiḥ, infamy; atiricyate, is worse than; maraṇāt, death. The meaning is that, to an honoured person death is preferable to infamy.
महा-रथाः त्वां भयात् रणात् उपरतं मंस्यन्ते। येषां च बहु-मतः भूत्वा त्वं लाघवं यास्यसि॥ 🔗 The great warriors will think you withdrew from battle out of fear. Among whom, having been highly honored, you will become insignificant.
भयात् कर्णादिभ्यो रणाद् युद्धाद् उपरतं निवृत्तं संस्यन्ते चिन्तयिष्यन्ति न कृपयेति त्वां महा-रथा दुर्-योधन-प्रभृतयः। येषां च त्वं दुर्-योधनादीनां बहु-मतो बहुभिर् गुणैर् युक्त इत्य् एवं बहु-मतो भूत्वा पुनर् यास्यसि लाघवं लघु-भावम्॥Mahā-rathāḥ, the great chariot-riders, Duryodhana and others; maṃsyante, will think; tvam, of you; as uparatam, having desisted; raṇāt, from the fight; not out of compassion, but bhayāt, out of fear of Karṇa and others; ca, and; yāsyasi lāghavam, you will again fall into disgrace before them, before Duryodhana and others; yeṣām, to whom; tvam, you; bahu-mato bhūtvā, had been estimable as endowed with many qualities.
तव च अ-हिताः तव सामर्थ्यं निन्दन्तः बहून् अ-वाच्य-वादान् वदिष्यन्ति। किं नु ततः दुःखतरम्॥ 🔗 Moreover, your enemies, belittling your prowess, will speak many unutterable words about you. What is more painful than that?
अ-वाच्य-वादान् अ-वक्तव्य-वादांश् च बहून् अन्-एक-प्रकारान् वदिष्यन्ति तवाहिताः शत्रवो निन्दन्तः कुत्सयन्तस् तव त्वदीयं सामर्थ्यं निवात-कवचादि-युद्ध-निमित्तम्। Ca, and besides; tava, your; a-hitāḥ, enemies; vadiṣyanti, will speak; bahūn, many, various kinds of; a-vācya-vādān, indecent words, unutterable words; nindantaḥ, while denigrating, scorning; tava, your; sāmarthyam, might earned from battles against Nivāta-kavaca and others.
तस्मात् ततो निन्दा-प्राप्तेर् दुःखाद् दुःखतरं नु किम्? ततः कष्टतरं दुःखं नास्तीत्य् अर्थः॥Therefore, kim nu, what can be; duḥkhataram, more painful; tataḥ, than that, than the sorrow arising from being scorned? That is to say, there is no greater pain than it.
युद्धे पुनः क्रियमाणे कर्णादिभिः – हतो वेति। Again, by undertaking the fight with Karṇa and others:
हतः वा स्वर्गं प्राप्स्यसि। जित्वा वा महीं भोक्ष्यसे। कौन्तेय, तस्मात् युद्धाय कृत-निश्चयः उत्तिष्ठ॥ 🔗 Killed, you will gain heaven; conquer and you will enjoy the world. Therefore, O Arjuna, resolve to fight, and get up!
हतो वा प्राप्स्यसि स्वर्गं, हतः सन् स्वर्गं प्राप्स्यसि। जित्वा वा कर्णादीन् शूरान् भोक्ष्यसे महीम्। उभयथापि तव लाभ एवेत्य् अभिप्रायः। Vā, either; hataḥ, by being killed; prāpsyasi, you will attain; svargam, heaven; or jitvā, by winning over Karṇa and other heroes; bhokṣyase, you will enjoy; mahīm, the earth. The purport is that in either case you surely stand to gain.
यत एवं तस्माद् उत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय, युद्धाय कृत-निश्चयः। ‘जेष्यामि शत्रून् मरिष्यामि वा’ इति निश्चयं कृत्वेत्य् अर्थः॥Since this is so, Kaunteya, O son of Kuntī (Pṛthā); tasmāt, therefore; uttiṣtha, rise up; kṛta-niścayaḥ, with determination; yuddhāya, for fighting, i.e. with the determination, ‘I shall either defeat the enemies or shall die.’
तत्र ‘युद्धं स्व-धर्मः’ इत्य् एवं युध्यमानस्योपदेशम् इमं शृणु – सु-दुःखे इति। As regards that, listen to this advice for you when you are engaged in battle considering it to be your duty:
सुख-दुःखे लाभ-अ-लाभौ जय-अ-जयौ [च] समे कृत्वा, ततः युद्धाय युज्यस्व। एवं पापं न अवाप्स्यसि॥ 🔗 Being the same in pleasure/pain, gain/loss, or victory/defeat, thus prepare for battle, for your duty (sva-dharma), whatever it is, as it presents itself throughout life’s changes. In this way you will incur no karma demerit (pāpa).
सुख-दुःखे समे तुल्ये कृत्वा राग-द्वेषाव् अकृत्वेत्य् एतत्। तथा लाभालाभौ जयाजयौ च समौ कृत्वा, ततो युद्धाय युज्यस्व घटस्व। नैवं युद्धं कुर्वन् पापम् अवाप्स्यसि इत्य् एष उपदेशः प्रासङ्गिकः॥Kṛtvā, treating; sukha-duḥkhe, happiness and sorrow; same, same, with equanimity, i.e. without having likes and dislikes; so also treating lābha-alābhau, gain and loss; jaya-ajayau, conquest and defeat, as the same; tataḥ, then; yuddhāya yujyasva, engage in battle. Evam, thus by undertaking the fight; na avāpsyasi, you will not incur; pāpam, sin. This advice is incidental. [•The context here is that of the philosophy of the supreme Reality. If fighting is enjoined in that context, it will amount to accepting combination of Knowledge and actions. To avoid this contingency the Commentator says, ‘incidental’. That is to say, although the context is of the supreme Reality, the advice to fight is incidental. It is not an injunction to combine Knowledge with actions, since fighting is here the natural duty of Arjuna as a Kṣatriya.•]
शोक-मोहापनयनाय लौकिको न्यायः ‘स्व-धर्मम् अपि चावेक्ष्यः’ इत्य्-आद्यैः (BhG.2.31) श्लोकैर् उक्तो न तु तात्पर्येण। The generally accepted argument for the removal of sorrow and delusion has been stated in the verses beginning with, ‘Even considering your own duty’ (BhG.2.31), etc., but this has not been presented by accepting that as the real intention (of the Lord).
परमार्थ-दर्शनं त्व् इह प्रकृतम्। तच् चोक्तम् उपसंहरति – ‘एषा तेऽभिहिता’ इति (BhG.2.39) शास्त्र-विषय-विभाग-प्रदर्शनाय। The real context here (in 2.12 etc.), however, is of the realization of the supreme Reality. Now, in order to show the distinction between the (two) topics dealt with in this scripture, the Lord concludes that topic which has been presented above (in 2.20 etc.), by saying, ‘This (wisdom) has been imparted,’ etc.
इह हि दर्शिते पुनः शास्त्र-विषय-विभागे उपरिष्टाद् ‘ज्ञान-योगेन सांख्यानां कर्म-योगेन योगिनाम्’ इति (BhG.3.3) निष्ठा-द्वय-विषयं शास्त्रं सुखं प्रवर्तिष्यते श्रोतारश् च विषय-विभागेन सुखं ग्रहीष्यन्तीत्य् अत आह – एषा ते इति। For, if the distinction between the topics of the scripture be shown here, then the instruction relating to the two kinds of adherences – as stated later on in, ‘through the Yoga of Knowledge for the men of realization; through the Yoga of Action for the yogīs’ (BhG.3.3) – will proceed again smoothly, and the hearer also will easily comprehend it by keeping in view the distinction between the topics. Hence the Lord says:
साङ्ख्ये (=सद्-वस्तु-विवेक-विषये श्रेयो-विषये) एषा बुद्धिः ते (=तुभ्यम्) अभिहिता। पार्थ, योगे तु इमां [बुद्धिं] शृणु, यया बुद्ध्या युक्तः कर्म-बन्धं प्रहास्यसि॥ 🔗 This wisdom regarding sāṅkhya (the knowledge of reality), the ultimate good (śreyas) that you asked for, has been told to you. On the other hand, O Arjuna, listen to this wisdom regarding yoga (the means for preparing for this knowledge); endowed with which, you will be free from the bondage that is karma.
एषा ते तुभ्यम् अभिहिता उक्ता सांख्ये परमार्थ-वस्तु-विवेक-विषये बुद्धिर् ज्ञानं साक्षाच्-छोक-मोहादि-संसार-हेतु-दोष-निवृत्ति-कारणम्। योगे तु तत्-प्राप्त्य्-उपाये निः-सङ्गतया द्वन्द्व-प्रहाण-पूर्वकम् ईश्वराराधनार्थे (BhG.18.46) कर्म-योगे कर्मानुष्ठाने समाधि-योगे च इमाम् अन्-अन्तरम् एवोच्यमानां बुद्धिं शृणु। Pārtha, O son of Pṛthā (Arjuna); eṣā, this; buddhiḥ, wisdom, the Knowledge which directly removes the defect (viz ignorance) that is responsible for sorrow, delusion, etc. [•Mundane existence consists of attraction and repulsion, agentship and enjoyership, etc. These are the defects, and they arise from ignorance about one's Self. Enlightenment is the independent and sole cause that removes this ignorance.•] constituting mundane existence; abhihitā, has been imparted; te, to you; sāṅkhye, from the standpoint of Self-realization, with regard to the discriminating knowledge of the supreme Reality. Tu, but; śṛṇu, listen; imām, to this wisdom which will be imparted presently; yoge, from the standpoint of Yoga, from the standpoint of the means of attaining it (Knowledge) – i.e., in the context of Karma-yoga, the performance of rites and duties with detachment after destroying the pairs of opposites, for the sake of adoring God, as also in the context of the practice of spiritual absorption.
तां बुद्धिं स्तौति प्ररोचनार्थम् – बुद्ध्या यया योग-विषयया युक्तो, हे पार्थ, कर्म-बन्धं कर्मैव धर्माधर्माख्यो बन्धः कर्म-बन्धस् तं प्रहास्यसि ईश्वर-प्रसाद-निमित्त-ज्ञान-प्राप्तेर् इत्य् अभिप्रायः॥As as inducement, He (the Lord) praises that wisdom: Yuktaḥ, endowed; yayā, with which; buddhyā, wisdom concerning Yoga; O Pārtha, prahāsyasi, you will get rid of; karma-bandham, the bondage of action – action is itself the bondage described as righteousness and unrighteousness; you will get rid of that bondage by the attainment of Knowledge through God's grace. This is the idea.
इह [कर्म-योगे श्रेयो-मार्गे] अभिक्रम-नाशः न अस्ति, प्रत्यवायः न विद्यते। अस्य [कर्म-योगस्य] धर्मस्य सु-अल्पम् अपि महतः भयात् त्रायते॥ 🔗 In this, the means for complete freedom (śreyas), there is no loss of progress, nor adverse result. Even a little of this yoga, this means – which is also dharma (one’s nature and duty, which will support one through the maturation process) – protects from great fear.
नेह मोक्ष-मार्गे कर्म-योगे अभिक्रम-नाशोऽभिक्रमणम् अभिक्रमः प्रारम्भस् तस्य नाशो न अस्ति यथा कृष्यादेः। योग-विषये प्रारम्भस्य नानैकान्तिक-फलत्वम् इत्यर्थः। Iha, here, in the path to Liberation, viz the Yoga of Action (rites and duties); na, there is no; abhikrama-nāśaḥ, waste of an attempt, of a beginning, unlike as in agriculture etc. The meaning is that the result of any attempt in the case of Yoga is not uncertain.
किं-च न अपि चिकित्सावत् प्रत्यवायो विद्यते। Besides, unlike as in medical care, na vidyate, nor is there, nor does there arises; any pratyavāyaḥ, harm.
किं तु भवति? स्व्-अल्पम् अप्य् अस्य योग-धर्मस्य अनुष्ठितं त्रायते रक्षति महतः संसार-भयाज् जन्म-मरणादि-लक्षणात्॥But, svalpam api, even a little; asya, of this; dharmasya, righteousness in the form of Yoga (of Action); when pracised, trāyate, saves (one); mahato bhayāt, from great fear, of mundane existence characterized by death, birth, etc.
येयं सांख्ये बुद्धिर् उक्ता योगे च वक्ष्यमाण-लक्षणा सा – व्यवसायेति। The Sāṅkhya wisdom already explained and the Yoga wisdom which is going to be explained are of the following characteristics.
इह व्यवसाय-आत्मिका बुद्धिः एका, कुरु-नन्दन। अ-व्यवसायिनां [श्रेयो-मार्गे] बुद्धयः बहु-शाखाः हि अन्-अन्ताः च॥ 🔗 Regarding this, the means for śreyas, the well-discerned knowledge is but one, O Arjuna. However, for those with no discernment of this fact, the notions regarding the means for śreyas are indeed many-branched and endless.
व्यवसायात्मिका निश्चय-स्व-भावा एक एव बुद्धिर् इतर-विपरीत-बुद्धि-शाखा-भेदस्य बाधिका सम्यक्-प्रमाण-जनितत्वाद् इह श्रेयो-मार्गे, हे कुरु-नन्दन। Kuru-nandana, O scion of the Kuru dynasty; iha, is this path to Liberation; there is only eka, a single; vyavasāyātmikā, one-pointed; buddhiḥ, conviction, which has been spoken of in the Yoga of Knowledge and which has the characteristics going to be spoken of in (Karma-) yoga. It is resolute by nature and annuls the numerous branches of the other opposite thoughts, since it originates from the right source of knowledge. [•The right source of knowledge, viz the Veda texts, which are above criticism.•]
याः पुनर् इतरा बुद्धयो – यासां शाखा-भेद-प्रचार-वशाद् अन्-अन्तोऽपारोऽन्-उपरतः संसारो नित्य-प्रततो विस्तीर्णो भवति, प्रमाण-जनित-विवेक-बुद्धि-निमित्त-वशाच् च उपरतास्व् अन्-अन्त-भेद-बुद्धिषु संसारोऽप्य् उपरमते – ता बुद्धयो बहु-शाखा बह्व्यः शाखा यासां ता बहु-शाखा, बहु-भेदा इत्य् एतत्। प्रति-शाखा-भेदेन ह्य् अन्-अन्ताश् च बुद्धयः, केषाम्? अ-व्यवसायिनां प्रमाण-जनित-विवेक-बुद्धि-रहितानाम् इत्यर्थः॥Those again, which are the other buddhayaḥ, thoughts; they are bahu-sakhāḥ, possessed of numerous branches, i.e. possessed of numerous variations. Owing to the influence of their many branches the worldly state becomes endless, limitless, unceasing, ever-growing and extensive. [•Endless, because it does not cease till the rise of full enlightenment; limitless, because the worldly state, which is an effect, springs from an unreal source.•] But even the worldly state ceases with the cessation of the infinite branches of thoughts, under the influence of discriminating wisdom arising from the valid source of knowledge. (And those thoughts are) hi, indeed; an-antāḥ, innumerable under every branch. Whose thoughts? A-vyavasāyinām, of the irresolute ones, i.e. of those who are devoid of discriminating wisdom arising from the right source of knowledge.
येषां व्यवसायात्मिका बुद्धिर् नास्ति ते – याम् इति। As for those devoid of a determinate will:
पार्थ, अ-विपश्चितः वेद-वाद-रताः ‘न अन्यद् अस्ति’ इति वादिनः काम-आत्मानः स्वर्ग-पराः याम् इमां भोग-ऐश्वर्य-गतिं प्रति क्रिया-विशेष-बहुलां जन्म-कर्म-फल-प्रदां पुष्पितां वाचं प्रवदन्ति॥ 🔗 O Arjuna, the unwise – who remain engrossed in the bulk of the words of the Vedas (scriptures) that deal with heaven-going and gaining power, wealth, and progeny; arguing that there is nothing more; who are full of desires, requirements/anticipations; and who hold heaven as primary – they spout flowery discourse full of special rituals directed toward gaining power and objects of consumption, but yield further birth as a result of their actions.
याम् इमां वक्ष्यमाणां पुष्पितां पुष्पित-वृक्ष इव शोभमानां श्रूयमाण-रमणीयां वाचं वाक्य-लक्षणां प्रवदन्ति। Pārtha, O son of Pṛthā; those devoid of one-pointed conviction, who pravadanti, utter; imām, this; yām puṣpitām vācam, flowery talk, which is going to be stated, which is beautiful like a tree in bloom, pleasant to hear, and appears to be (meaningful) sentences. [•Sentences that can be called really meaningful are only those that reveal the self.-Tr.•]
के? अविपश्चितोऽल्प-मेधसः, अविवेकिन इत्यर्थः। वेद-वाद-रता बह्व्-अर्थ-वाद-फल-साधन-प्रकाशकेषु वेद-वाक्येषु रताः। – Who are they? they are – a-vipaścitaḥ, people who are undiscerning, of poor intellect, i.e. non-discriminating; veda-vāda-ratāḥ, who remain engrossed in the utterances of the Vedas, in the Veda sentences which reveal many panegyrics, fruits of action and their means;
हे पार्थ, नान्यत् स्वर्ग-प्राप्त्य्-आदि-फल-साधनेभ्यः कर्मभ्योऽस्तीत्य् एवं वादिनो वदन-शीलाः। And vādinaḥ, who declare, are apt to say; iti, that; na anyat, nothing else [•God, Liberation, etc.•]; asti, exists, apart from the rites and duties conducive to such results as attainment of heaven etc.
ते च –
कामात्मान इति। कामात्मानः काम-स्व-भावाः, काम-परा इत्यर्थः। स्वर्ग-पराः स्वर्गः परः पुरुषार्थो येषां ते स्वर्ग-पराः स्वर्ग-प्रधाना। जन्म-कर्म-फल-प्रदां कर्मणः फलं कर्म-फलं जन्मैव कर्म-फलं जन्म-कर्म-फलं तत् प्रददातीति जन्म-कर्म-फल-प्रदा तां ‘वाचं प्रवदन्ति’ इत्य् अनुषज्यते। And they are kāmātmānaḥ, have their minds full of desires, i.e. they are swayed by desires, they are, by nature, full of desires; (and) svarga-parāḥ, have heaven as the goal. Those who accept heaven (svarga) as the supreme (para) human goal, to whom heaven is the highest, are svarga-parāḥ. They utter that speech (– this is supplied to construct the sentence –) which janma-karma-phala-pradām, promises birth as a result of rites and duties. The result (phala) of rites and duties (karma) is karma-phala. Birth (janma) itself is the karma-phala. That (speech) which promises this is janma-karma-phala-pradā..क्रिया-विशेष-बहुलां क्रियाणां विशेषाः क्रिया-विशेषास् ते बहुला यस्यां वाचि तां, स्वर्ग-पशु-पुत्राद्य्-अर्था यया वाचा बाहुल्येन प्रकाश्यन्ते। भोगैश्वर्य-गतिं प्रति भोगश् चैश्वर्यं च भोगैश्वर्ये तयोर् गतिः प्राप्तिर् भोगैश्वर्य-गतिस् तां प्रति साधन-भूता ये क्रिया-विशेषास् तद्-बहुलां तां वाचं प्रवदन्तो मूढाः संसारे परिवर्तन्त इत्य् अभिप्रायः॥(This speech) is kriyā-viśeṣa-bahulām, full of various special rites; bhoga-aiśvarya-gatim prati, for the attainment of enjoyment and affluence. Special (viśeṣa) rites (kriyās) are kriyā-viśeṣāḥ. The speech that is full (bahulā) of these, the speech by which that is full (bahula) of these, the speech by which these, viz objects such as heaven, animals and sons, are revealed plentifully, is kriyā-viśeṣa-bahulā. Bhoga, enjoyment, and aiśvarya, affluence, are bhoga-aisśvaryā. Their attainment (gatiḥ) is bhoga-aiśvarya-gatiḥ. (They utter a speech) that is full of the specialized rites, prati, meant for that (attainment). The fools who utter that speech move in the cycle of transmigration. This is the idea
तया [पुष्पितया वाचा] अपहृत-चेतसां भोग-ऐश्वर्य-प्रसक्तानां व्यवसाय-आत्मिका बुद्धिः समाधौ (=अन्तः-करणे) न विधीयते॥ 🔗 For those whose minds are carried away by that flowery talk and who are attached to consumption and power, a well-discerned knowledge is not formed in their mind (samādhi).
भोगैश्वर्य-प्रसक्तानां भोगः कर्तव्यम् ऐश्वर्यं चेति भोगैश्वर्ययोर् एव प्रणयवतां तद्-आत्म-भूतानां तया क्रिया-विशेष-बहुलया वाचा अपहृत-चेतसाम् आच्छादित-विवेक-प्रज्ञानां व्यवसायात्मिका सांख्ये योगे वा बुद्धिः समाधौ समाधीयतेऽस्मिन् पुरुषोपभोगाय सर्वम् इति समाधिर् अन्तः-करणं बुद्धिस् तस्मिन् समाधौ न विधीयते न भवतीत्य् अर्थः॥And vyavasāyātmikā, one-pointed; buddhiḥ, conviction, with regard to Knowledge or Yoga; na vidhīyate, does not become established, i.e. does not arise; samādhau, in the minds – the word samādhi being derived in the sese of that into which everthing is gathered together for the enjoyment of a person –; bhoga-aiśvarya-prasaktānām, of those who delight in enjoyment and wealth, of those who have the hankering that only enjoyment as also wealth is to be sought for, of those who identify themselves with these; and apahṛta-cetasām, of those whose intellects are carried away, whose discriminating judgement becomes covered; tayā, by that speech which is full of various special rites.
य एवं विवेक-बुद्धि-रहितास् तेषां कामात्मनां यत् फलं तद् आह – त्रै-गुण्येति। To those who are thus devoid of discriminating wisdom, who indulge in pleasure, [•Here Ast. adds ‘yat phalam tad āha, what result accrues, that the Lord states:’-Tr.•]:
[तेषां] वेदाः त्रै-गुण्य-विषयाः [एव]। अर्जुन, निस्-त्रै-गुण्यः [तु] निर्-द्वन्-द्वः नित्य-सत्त्व-स्थः निर्-योग-क्षेमः आत्मवान् भव॥ 🔗 For them, the Vedas are only about the three-fold universe (traiguṇya). O Arjuna, be [•more and more•] free from traiguṇya, free from the pairs of opposites, ever established in a contemplative disposition (sattva), free from acquiring and protecting, and be attentive.
त्रै-गुण्य-विषयास् त्रै-गुण्यं संसारो विषयः प्रकाशयितव्यो येषां ते वेदास् त्रैगुण्य-विषयाः। त्वं तु निस्-त्रै-गुण्यो भवार्जुन, निष्-कामो भवेत्य् अर्थः। O Arjuna, vedāḥ, the Vedas; traiguṇya-viśayāḥ, have the three qualities as their object, have the three guṇas, [•Trai-guṇya means the collection of the three qualities, viz sattva (purity), rajas (energy) and tamas (darkness); i.e. the collection of virtuous, vicious and mixed activities, as also their results. In this derivative sense traiguṇya means the worldly life.•] i.e. the worldly life, as the object to be revealed. But you bhava, become; nistrai-guṇyah, free from the three qualities, i.e. be free from desires. [•There is a seeming conflict between the advices to be free from the three qualities and to be ever-poised in the quality of sattva. Hence, the Commentator takes the phrase nistraigunya to mean niṣkāma, free from desires.•]निर्-द्वन्द्वः सुख-दुःख-हेतू स-प्रतिपक्षौ पदार्थौ द्वन्द्व-शब्द-वाच्यौ ततो निर्-गतो निर्-द्वन्द्वो भव। त्वं नित्य-सत्त्व-स्थः सदा सत्त्व-गुणाश्रितो भव। (Be) nirdvandvaḥ, free from the pairs of duality – by the word dvandva, duality, are meant the conflicting pairs [•Of heat and cold, etc.•] which are the causes of happiness and sorrow; you become free from them. [•From heat, cold, etc. That is, forbear them.•] You become nitya-sattva-sthaḥ, ever-poised in the quality of sattva;
तथा निर्-योग-क्षेमः। अन्-उपात्तस्योपादानं योग, उपात्तस्य रक्षणं क्षेमः। योग-क्षेम-प्रधानस्य श्रेयसि प्रवृत्तिर् दुष्-करा इति अतो निर्-योग-क्षेमो भव। (And) so also niryoga-kṣemaḥ, without (desire for) acquisition and protection. Yoga means acquisition of what one has not, and kṣema means the protection of what one has. For one who as ‘acquisition and protection’ foremost in his mind, it is difficult to seek Liberation. Hence, you be free from acquisition and protection.आत्मवान् अ-प्रमत्तश् च भव। एष तवोपदेशः स्व-धर्मम् अनुतिष्ठतः॥And also be ātmavān, self-collected, vigilant. This is the advice given to you while you are engaged in your own duty. [•And not from the point of view of seeking Liberation.•]
सर्वेषु वेदोक्तेषु कर्मसु यान्य् अन्-अन्तानि फलानि तानि नापेक्ष्यन्ते चेत्, किम्-अर्थं तानीश्वराय इति अनुष्ठीयन्त? इति उच्यते, शृणु – यावान् इति। If there be no need for the infinite results of all the rites and duties mentioned in the Vedas, then why should they be performed as a dedication to God? Listen to the answer being given:
यावान् सर्वतः सम्प्लुत-उदके उद-पाने अर्थः (=प्रयोजनं), तावान् [सद्-वस्तु] विजानतः ब्राह्मणस्य सर्वेषु वेदेषु [अर्थः]॥ 🔗 For a contemplative person (a brāhmaṇa) who knows sat (the all pervading reality), there is as much usefulness in all the Veda rituals as there is in a small watering hole in a once-dry river bed, when the river is in flood everywhere. Seeing the truth everywhere, one is no longer dependent on the Veda rituals.
यथा लोके कूप-तडागाद्य्-अन्-एकस्मिन्न् उदपाने परिच्छिन्नोदके यावान् यावत्-परिमाणः स्नान-पानादिर् अर्थः फलं प्रयोजनं स सर्वोऽर्थः सर्वतः संप्लुतोदके तावान् एव संपद्यते तत्रान्तर्-भवतीत्य् अर्थः। In the world, yāvān, whatever; arthaḥ, utility, use, like bathing, drinking, etc.; one has uda-pāne, in a well, pond and other numerous limited reservoirs; all that, indeed, is achieved, i.e. all those needs are fulfilled to that very extent; samplutodake, when there is a flood; sarvataḥ, all around.
एवं तावांस् तावत्-परिमाण एव संपद्यते सर्वेषु वेदेषु वेदोक्तेषु कर्मसु योऽर्थो यत् कर्म-फलम्, सोऽर्थो ब्राह्मणस्य सन्न्यासिनः परमार्थ-तत्त्वं विजानतो योऽर्थ विज्ञान-फलं सर्वतः संप्लुतोदक-स्थानीयं तस्मिंस् तावान् एव संपद्यते। तत्रैवान्तर्-भवतीत्य् अर्थः। In a similar manner, whatever utility, result of action, there is sarveṣu, in all; the vedeṣu, Vedas, i.e. in the rites and duties mentioned in the Vedas; all that utility is achieved, i.e. gets fulfilled; tāvān, to that very extent; in that result of realization which comes brāhmaṇasya, to a Brāhmaṇa, a sannyāsin; vijānataḥ, who knows the Reality that is the supreme Goal – that result being comparable to the flood all around.
‘सर्वं तद् अभिसमेति यत् किंच प्रजाः साधु कुर्वन्ति। यस् तद् वेद यत् स वेद’ इति (ChanU.4.1.4) श्रुतेः। ‘सर्वं कर्माखिलम्’ इति (BhG.4.33) च वक्ष्यति। For there is the Upaniṣad text, ‘...so all virtuous deeds performed by people get included in this one...who knows what he (Raikva) knows...’ (ChanU.4.1.4). The Lord also will say, ‘all actions in their totality culminate in Knowledge’ (BhG.4.33). [•The Commentators quotation from the Ch. relates to meditation on the qualified Brahman. Lest it be concluded that the present verse relates to knowledge of the qualified Brahman only, he quotes again from the Gītā to show that the conclusion holds good in the case of knowledge of the absolute Brahman as well.•]
तस्मात् प्राग् ज्ञान-निष्ठाधिकार-प्राप्तेः कर्मण्य् अधिकृतेन कूप-तडागाद्य्-अर्थ-स्थानीयम् अपि कर्म कर्तव्यम्॥Therefore, before one attains the fitness for steadfastness in Knowledge, rites and duties, even though they have (limited) utility as that of a well, pond, etc., have to be undertaken by one who is fit for rites and duties.
कर्मणि एव ते (=तव) अधिकारः (=प्रभुत्वं), फलेषु मा कदा-चन। कर्म-फल-हेतुः मा भूः [मा मन्यस्व इत्यर्थः]। अ-कर्मणि ते (=तव) सङ्गः मा अस्तु॥ 🔗 You, as a human, have control only in doing action, never in its results. Do not think yourself to be the cause of the results of action (that cause being but the Lord as embodied in the universal laws of karma – action and its result). Nor should you have attachment to inaction. Or – You, Arjuna, are entitled only in doing your duty (c.f. BhG.3.19), never claiming the results. Do not promote further results of action as rebirths, nor be inclined toward inaction.
कर्मण्य् एवाधिकारो न ज्ञान-निष्ठायां ते तव। तत्र च कर्म कुर्वतो मा फलेष्व् अधिकारोऽस्तु कर्म-फल-तृष्णा मा भूत् कदाचन। कस्यांचिद् अप्य् अवस्थायाम् इत्यर्थः। Te, your; adhikāraḥ, right; is karmāṇi eva, for action alone, not for steadfastness in Knowledge. Even there, when you are engaged in action, you have mā kadācana, never, i.e. under no condition whatever; a right phaleṣu, for the results of action – may you not have a hankering for the results of action.
यदा कर्म-फले तृष्णा ते स्यात् तदा कर्म-फल-प्राप्तेर् हेतुः स्याः, एवं मा कर्म-फल-हेतुर् भूः। Whenever you have a hankering for the fruits of action, you will become the agent of acquiring the results of action. Mā, do not; thus bhūḥ, become; karma-phala-hetuḥ, the agent of acquiring the results of action.
यदा हि कर्म-फल-तृष्णा-प्रयुक्तः कर्मणि प्रवर्तते तदा कर्म-फलस्यैव जन्मनो हेतुर् भवेत्। For when one engages in action by being impelled by thirst for the results of action, then he does become the cause for the production of the results of action.
‘यदि कर्म-फलं नेष्यते, किं कर्मणा दुःख-रूपेण?’ इति मा ते तव सङ्गोऽस्त्व् अ-कर्मण्य्, अ-करणे प्रीतिर् मा भूत्॥Mā, may you (te) not; astu, have; saṅgaḥ, an inclination; a-karmaṇi, for inaction, thinking, ‘If the results of work be not desired, what is the need of work which involves pain?’
यदि कर्म-फल-प्रयुक्तेन न कर्तव्यं कर्म कथं तर्हि कर्तव्यम्? इत्य् उच्यते – योग-स्थ इति। If action is not to be undertaken by one who is under the impulsion of the fruits of action, how then are they to be undertaken? This is being stated:
धनञ्-जय, [कर्म-फले] सङ्गं त्यक्त्वा, सिद्धि-अ-सिद्ध्योः समः भूत्वा, [एवं] योग-स्थः [सन्], कर्माणि कुरु। [कर्मणि कर्म-फले च बुद्धेः] समत्वं योगः उच्यते॥ 🔗 O Arjuna, being free from attachment toward anticipated results, being the same (sama) toward success or failure, established in yoga, in this attitude, then perform action. Sameness of attitude (buddhi) toward results – whatever they are is called yoga.
योग-स्थः सन् कुरु कर्माणि केवलम् ईश्वरार्थं, तत्रापि ‘ईश्वरो मे तुष्यत्व्’ इति सङ्गं त्यक्त्वा, धनं-जय। Yoga-sthaḥ, by becoming established in Yoga; O Dhanañ-jaya, kuru, undertake; karmāṇi, actions, for the sake of God alone; even there, tyaktvā, casting off; saṅgam, attachment, in the form, ‘God will be pleased with me.’ [•‘Undertake work for pleasing God, but not for propitiating Him to become favourable towards yourself.’•]
फल-तृष्णा-शून्येन क्रियमाणे कर्मणि सत्त्व-शुद्धि-जा ज्ञान-प्राप्ति-लक्षणा सिद्धिस् तद्-विपर्यय-जा असिद्धिस् तयोः सिद्ध्य्-असिद्ध्योर् अपि समस् तुल्यो भूत्वा कुरु कर्माणि। Undertake actions bhūtvā, remaining; samaḥ, equipoised; siddhi-asiddhyoḥ, in success and failure – even in the success characterized by the attainment of Knowledge that arises from the purification of the mind when one performs actions without hankering for the results, and in the failure that arises from its opposite. [•Ignorance, arising from the impurity of the mind.•]
कोऽसौ योगो यत्र-स्थः ‘कुरु’ इत्य् उक्तम्? इदम् एव तद् सिद्ध्य्-असिद्ध्योः समत्वं योग उच्यते॥What is that Yoga with regard to being established in which it is said, ‘undertake’? This indeed is that: the samatvam, equanimity in success and failure; ucyate, is called; yogaḥ, Yoga.
यत् पुनः समत्व-बुद्धि-युक्तम् ईश्वराराधनार्थं कर्म, एतस्मात् कर्मणः – दूरेणेति। Compared to the equanimity of mind (painful or not) with which action is performed as a service unto the Lord:
कर्म बुद्धि-योगात् दूरेण हि अवरम्, धनञ्-जय। [योगे ततस् साङ्ख्ये] बुद्धौ शरणम् अन्विच्छ। कृपणाः फल-हेतवः॥ 🔗 Action or ritual, by itself, is indeed far inferior to the means which is this attitude (buddhi-yoga), O Arjuna. Seek refuge in this attitude. Those whose motives are only for the results of action are misers, are yet to spend their intellect in motivation for śreyas.
दूरेण अतिविप्रकर्षेण ह्य् अवरं निकृष्टं कर्म फलार्थिना क्रियमाणं बुद्धि-योगात् समत्व-बुद्धि-युक्तात् कर्मणो जन्म-मरणादि-हेतुत्वाद्, धनं-जय। Then again, O Dhanañ-jaya, as against action performed with equanimity of mind for adoring God, karma, action undertaken by one longing for the results; is, hi, indeed; dureṇa, quite, by far; avaram, inferior, very remote; buddhi-yogāt, from the yoga of wisdom, from actions undertaken with equanimity of mind, because it (the former) is the cause of birth, death, etc.
यत एवं योग-विषयायां बुद्धौ तत्-परिपाक-जायां वा सांख्य-बुद्धौ शरणम् आश्रयम् अ-भय-प्राप्ति-कारणम् अन्विच्छ प्रार्थयस्व। परमार्थ-ज्ञान-शरणो भवेत्य् अर्थः। Since this is so, therefore, śaraṇam anviccha, take resort to, seek shelter; buddhau, under wisdom, which relates to Yoga, or to the Conviction about Reality that arises from its (the former’s) maturity and which is the cause of (achieving) fearlessness. The meaning is that you should resort to the knowledge of the supreme Goal.
यतोऽवरं कर्म कुर्वाणाः कृपणा दीनाः फल-हेतवः फल-तृष्णा-प्रयुक्ताः सन्तः ‘यो वा एतद् अ-क्षरं गार्ग्य् अविदित्वास्माल् लोकात् प्रैति स कृपणः’ इति (BrhUEng.3.8.10) श्रुतेः॥Because those who under take inferior actions, phala-hetavaḥ, who thirst for rewards, who are impelled by results; are kṛpaṇāḥ, pitiable, according to the Śruti, 'He, O Gārgi, who departs from this world without knowing this Immutable, is pitiable' (BrhUEng.3.8.10).
समत्व-बुद्धि-युक्तः सन् स्व-धर्मम् अनुतिष्ठन् यत् फलं प्राप्नोति तच् छृणु – बुद्धीति। Listen to the result that one possessed of the wisdom of equanimity attains by performing one’s own duties:
बुद्धि-युक्तः इह उभे सु-कृत-दुष्-कृते जहाति। तस्मात् योगाय युज्यस्व। कर्मसु कौशलं (=यथा-अर्थता) योगः॥ 🔗 Endowed with this attitude, one sheds in this world both karma merit and demerit. Therefore, commit to this yoga. Propriety in actions, acting within dharma (your natural duty) where the means are as important as the end, is called yoga.
बुद्धि-युक्तः समत्व-विषयया बुद्ध्या युक्तो बुद्धि-युक्तः, जहाति परित्यजति इह अस्मिँल् लोके उभे सु-कृत-दुष्-कृते पुण्य-पापे सत्त्व-शुद्धि-ज्ञान-प्राप्ति-द्वारेण यतस्, तस्मात् समत्व-बुद्धि-योगाय युज्यस्व घटस्व। Buddhi-yuktaḥ, possessed of wisdom, possessed of the wisdom of equanimity; since one jahāti, rejects; iha, here, in this world; ubhe, both; sukṛta-duṣkṛte, virtue and vice (righteousness and unrighteousness), through the purification of the mind and acquisition of Knowledge; tasmāt, therefore; yujyasva, devote yourself; yogāya, to (Karma-) yoga, the wisdom of equanimity.योगो हि कर्मसु कौशलं स्व-धर्माख्येषु कर्मसु वर्तमानस्य या सिद्ध्य्-असिद्ध्योः समत्व-बुद्धिर् ईश्वरार्पित-चेतस्-तया तत् कौशलं कुशल-भावः। For Yoga is kauśalam, skilfulness (or propriety); karmasu, in action. Skilfulness means the attitude of the skilful (or the nature of being proper, appropriate BhG.Dic ‘Kauśala’), the wisdom of equanimity with regard to one’s success and failure while engaged in actions (karma) – called one’s own duties (sva-dharma) – with the mind dedicated to God.
तद् धि कौशलं, यद् बन्धन-स्व-भावान्य् अपि कर्माणि समत्व-बुद्ध्या स्व-भावान् निवर्तन्ते। तस्मात् समत्व-बुद्धि-युक्तो भव त्वम्॥That indeed is skilfulness (propriety) which, through equanimity, makes actions that by their very nature bind give up their nature! Therefore, be you devoted to the wisdom of equanimity.
बुद्धि-युक्ताः हि (=यस्मात्) कर्म-जं फलं त्यक्त्वा, मनीषिणः [भूत्वा] जन्म-बन्ध-विनिर्मुक्ताः [सन्तः], [ते] अन्-आमयं पदं गच्छन्ति॥ 🔗 Because the wise, endowed with this attitude – after discarding the pressure for result born of action, appreciating dharma as ‘to be done,’ accepting the results gracefully, freed by knowledge from the bondage that is birth – they reach the attainment that is free from affliction.
‘कर्म-जं’ ‘फलं त्यक्त्वा’ इति व्यवहितेन संबन्धः। The words ‘phalam tyaktvā, by giving up the fruits’ are connected with the remote word ‘karma-jam, produced by actions‘.
इष्टानिष्ठ-देह-प्राप्तिः कर्म-जं फलं कर्मभ्यो जातं, बुद्धि-युक्ताः समत्व-बुद्धि-युक्ताः हि यस्मात् फलं त्यक्त्वा परित्यज्य, मनीषिणो ज्ञानिनो भूत्वा जन्म-बन्ध-विनिर्मुक्ताः जन्मैव बन्धो जन्म-बन्धस् तेन विनिर्मुक्ता जीवन्त एव जन्म-बन्ध-विनिर्मुक्ताः सन्तः पदं परमं विष्णोर् मोक्षाख्यं गच्छन्त्य् अन्-आमयं सर्वोपद्रव-रहितम् इत्यर्थः। Hi, because; [•Because, when actions are performed with an attitude of equanimity, it leads to becoming freed from sin etc. Therefore, by stages, it becomes the cause of Liberation as well.•] buddhi-yuktāḥ, those who are devoted to wisdom, who are imbued with the wisdom of equanimity; (they) becoming manīṣiṇah, men of Enlightenment; tyaktvā, by giving up; phalam, the fruit, the acquisition of desirable and undesirable bodies; [•Desirable: the bodies of gods and others; undesirable: the bodies of animals etc.•] karma-jam, produced by actions; gacchanti, reach; padam, the state, the supreme state of Viṣṇu, called Liberation; an-āmayam, beyond evils, i.e. beyond all evils; by having become janma-bandha-vinirmuktāḥ, freed from the bondage of birth – birth (janma) itself is a bondage (bandha); becoming freed from that –, even while living.
अथवा ‘बुद्धि-योगाद् धनं-जय’ इत्य् (BhG.2.49) आरभ्य परमार्थ-दर्शन-लक्षणा एव ‘सर्वतः-संप्लुतोदक’-स्थानीया (BhG.2.46) कर्म-योग-ज-सत्त्व-शुद्धि-जनिता बुद्धिर् दर्शिता साक्षात् ‘सु-कृत-दुष्-कृत’-प्रहाणादि-हेतुत्व-श्रवणात् (BhG.2.50)॥Or: – Since it (buddhi) has been mentioned as the direct cause of the elimination of righteousness and unrighteousness, and so on, therefore what has been presented (in the three verses) beginning with, ‘O Dhanañjaya,...to the yoga of wisdom’ (BhG.2.49), is enlightenment itself, which consists in the realization of the supreme Goal, which is comparable to a flood all around, and which arises from the purification of the mind as a result of Karma-yoga. [•In the first portion of the Commentary buddhi has been taken to mean samattva-buddhi (wisdom of equanimity); the alternative meaning of buddhi has been taken as ‘enlightenment’. So, action is to be performed by taking the help of the ‘wisdom about the supreme Reality’ which has been chosen as one’s Goal.•]
योगानुष्ठान-जनित-सत्त्व-शुद्धि-जा बुद्धिः कदा प्राप्स्यते? इत्य् उच्यते – यदेति। When is attained that wisdom which arises from the purification of the mind brought about by the pursuit of (karma-) yoga? This is being stated:
यदा ते बुद्धिः मोह-कलिलं व्यतितरिष्यति, तदा श्रुतस्य श्रोतव्यस्य च निस्-वेदं गन्तासि॥ 🔗 When your intellect crosses over the confusion that is delusion, then you will gain a dispassion for what has been heard and is yet to be heard from the secular and spiritual marketers.
यदा यस्मिन् काले ते तव मोह-कलिलं मोहात्मकम् अ-विवेक-रूपं कालुष्यं, येनात्मानात्म-विकेक-बोधं कलुषी-कृत्य विषयं प्रत्य् अन्तः-करणं प्रवर्तते तत्, तव बुद्धिर् व्यतितरिष्यति व्यतिक्रमिष्यति। शुद्ध-भावम् आपत्स्यत इत्यर्थः। Yadā, when, [•Yadā: when maturity of discrimination is attained.•] at the time when; te, your; buddhiḥ, mind; vyatitariṣyati, will go beyond, cross over; moha-kalilam, the turbidity of delusion, the dirt in the form of delusion, in the form of non-discrimination, which, after confounding one's understanding about the distinction between the Self and the not-Self, impels the mind towards objects – that is to say, when your mind will attain the state of purity;तदा तस्मिन् काले गन्तासि प्राप्स्यसि निर्वेदं वैराग्यं श्रोतव्यस्य श्रुतस्य च तदा श्रोतव्यं श्रुतं च निष्-फलं प्रितिपद्यत इत्य् अभिप्रायः॥Tadā, then, [•Tadā: then, when the mind, becoming purified, leads to the rise of discrimination, which in turn matures into detachment.•] at that time; gantāsi, you will acquire; nirvedam, dispassion; for śrotavyasya, what has to be heard; ca, and; śrutasya, what has been heard. The idea implied is that, at that time what has to be heard and what has been heard [•What has to be heard...has been heard, i.e. the scriptures other than those relating to Self-knowledge. When discrimination referred to above gets matured, then the fruitlessness of all things other than Self-knowledge becomes apparent.•] becomes fruitless.
मोह-कलिलात्यय-द्वारेण लब्धात्म-विकेक-ज-प्रज्ञः कदा कर्म-योग-जं फलं परमार्थ-योगम् अवाप्स्यसि (अव्याप्स्यामि)? इति चेत् तच् छृणु – श्रुति-विप्रतिपन्नेति। If it be asked, ‘By becoming possessed of the wisdom arising from the discrimination about the Self after overcoming the turbidity of delusion, when shall I attain the yoga of the supreme Reality which is the fruit that results from Karma-yoga?’, then listen to that;
यदा श्रुति-विप्रतिपन्ना ते बुद्धिः निश्-चला स्थास्यति, समाधौ (=आत्मनि) अ-चला, तदा योगम् अवाप्स्यसि॥ 🔗 When your intellect – previously distracted by the śruti, the bulk of the Vedas concerned with providing means for gaining heaven, power, wealth, and progeny – becomes steady and centered on your self (samādhi), then you will attain yoga.
श्रुति-विप्रतिपन्ना अनेक-साध्य-साधन-संबन्ध-प्रकाशन-श्रुतिभिः श्रवणैर् विप्रतिपन्ना नाना-प्रतिपन्ना श्रुति-विप्रतिपन्ना विक्षिप्ता सती ते तव बुद्धिर् यदा यस्मिन् काले स्थास्यति स्थिरी-भूता भविष्यति निश्-चला विक्षेप-चलन-वर्जिता सती समाधौ समाधीयते चित्तम् अस्मिन्न् इति समाधिर् आत्मा तस्मिन्न्, आत्मनीत्य् एतद्। अचला तत्रापि विकल्प-वर्जितेत्य् एतद्। बुद्धिर् अन्तः-करणं। Yadā, when at the time when; te, your; buddhiḥ, mind; that has become śruti-vipratipannā, bewildered, tossed about, by hearing (the Vedas) that reveal the diverse ends, means, and (their) relationship, i.e. are filled with divergent ideas; sthāsyati, will become; niścalā, unshakable, free from the trubulence in the form of distractions; and a-calā, steadfast, that is to say, free from doubt even in that (unshakable) state; samādhau, in samādhi, that is to say, in the Self – samādhi being derived in the sense of that in which the mind is fixed;तदा तस्मिन् काले योगम् अवाप्स्यसि विवेक-प्रज्ञां समाधिं प्राप्स्यसि॥Tadā, then, at that time; avāpsyasi, you will attain; yogam, Yoga, the enlightenment, Self-absorption, that arises from discrimination.
प्रश्न-बीजं प्रतिलभ्य अर्जुन उवाच लब्ध-समाधि-प्रज्ञस्य लक्षण-बुभुत्सया – स्थित-प्रज्ञस्य इति। Having got an occasion for inquiry, Arjuna, with a view to knowing the characteristics of one who has the realization of the Self, [•By the word samādhi is meant the enlightenment arising from discrimination, which has been spoken of in the commentary on the previous verse. The steadfastness which the monks have in that enlightenment is called steadfastness in Knowledge. Or the phrase may mean, 'the enlightenment achieved through meditation on the Self', i.e. the realization of the supreme Goal.•] asked:
अर्जुनः उवाच। स्थित-प्रज्ञस्य समाधि-स्थस्य का भाषा, केशव? स्थित-धीः किं प्रभाषेत? किम् आसीत? किं व्रजेत॥ 🔗 Arjuna said: What is the description of the one whose wisdom is firm (sthita-prajña), who is established within the self (samādhi), O Kṛṣṇa? What would the one whose wisdom is firm speak? How would that one sit? How would that one wander about?
स्थित-प्रज्ञस्य इति। स्थिता प्रतिष्ठता ‘अहम् अस्मि परं ब्रह्म’ इति प्रज्ञा यस्य स स्थित-प्रज्ञस्, तस्य का भाषा किं भाषणं वचनं कथम् असौ परैर् भाष्यते, समाधि-स्थस्य समाधौ स्थितस्य, केशव? O Keśava, kā, what; is the bhāṣā, description, the language (for the description) – how is he described by others –; sthita-prajñasya, of a man of steady wisdom, of one whose realization, ‘I am the supreme Brahman’, remains steady; samādhi-sthasya, of one who is Self-absorbed?स्थित-धीः स्थित-प्रज्ञः स्वयं वा किं प्रभाषेत? किम् आसीत, व्रजेत किम्? आसनं व्रजनं वा तस्य कथम् इत्यर्थः।
स्थित-प्रज्ञस्य लक्षणम् अनेन श्लोकेन पृच्छति॥Or kim, how; does the sthita-dhīḥ, man of steady wisdom; himself probhāṣeta, speak? How does he āsīta, sit? How does he vrajeta, move about? That is to say, of what kind is his sitting or moving? Through this verse Arjuna asks for a description of the man of steady wisdom.
यो ह्य् आदित एव संन्यस्य कर्माणि ज्ञान-योग-निष्ठायां प्रवृत्तो यश् च कर्म-योगेन तयोः स्थित-प्रज्ञस्य ‘प्रजहाति’ इत्य् (BhG.2.55) आरभ्य अध्याय-परिसमाप्तिर् पर्यन्तं (स्थित-प्रज्ञ-)लक्षणं साधनं चोपदिश्यते। In the verses beginning from, ‘When one fully renounces...’, and ending with the completion the Chapter, instruction about the characteristics of the man of steady wisdom and the disciplines (he had to pass through) is being given both for the one who has, indeed, applied himself to steadfastness in the Yoga of Knowledge after having renounced rites and duties from the very beginning [•Even while he is in the stage of celibacy.•], and for the one who has (applied himself to this after having passed) through the path of Karma-yoga.
सर्वत्रैव ह्य् अध्य्-आत्म-शास्त्रे कृतार्थ-लक्षणानि यानि तान्य् एव साधनान्य् उपदिश्यन्ते यत्न-साध्यत्वात्। यानि यत्न-साध्यानि साधनानि लक्षणानि (च) भवति तानि – प्रजहातीति। For in all the scriptures without exception, dealing, with spirituality, whatever are the characteristics of the man of realization are themselves presented as the disciplines for an aspirant, because these (characteristics) are the result of effort. And those that are the disciplines requiring effort, they become the characteristics (of the man of realization). [•There are two kinds of sannyāsa – vidvat (renunciation that naturally follows Realization), and vividiṣā, formal renunciation for undertaking the disciplines which lead to that Realization. According to A.G. the characteristics presented in this and the following verses describe not only the vidvat-sannyāsin, but are also meant as disciplines for the vividiṣā-sannyāsin.-Tr.•]
श्री-भगवान् उवाच। पार्थ, यदा सर्वान् कामान् मनो-गतान् प्रजहाति, आत्मनि एव आत्मना (=बुद्ध्या) तुष्टः, तदा [सः] स्थित-प्रज्ञः उच्यते॥ 🔗 The Lord said: O Arjuna, when one abandons all desires, notional requirements in order to become happy, as they arise in the mind and is happy by oneself, by an informed intellect, in one’s self alone, then that one is called one whose wisdom is firm (sthita-prajña).
प्रजहाति प्रकर्षेण जहाति परित्यजति यदा यस्मिन् काले सर्वान् समस्तान् कामान् इच्छा-भेदान्, हे पार्थ, मनो-गतान् मनसि प्रविष्टान् हृदि प्रविष्टान्। O Pārtha, yadā, when, at the time when; prajahāti, one fully renounces; sarvān, all; the kāmān, desires, varieties of desires; mano-gatān, that have entered the mind, entered into the heart.
सर्व-काम-परित्यागे तुष्टि-कारणाभावाच् छरीर-धारण-निमित्त-शेषे च सत्य् उन्मत्त-प्रमत्तस्येव प्रवृत्तिः प्राप्तेत्य् अत उच्यते – If all desires are renounced while the need for maintaining the body persists, then, in the absence of anything to bring satisfaction, there may arise the possibility of one's behaving like lunatics or drunkards. [•A lunatic is one who has lost his power of discrimination, and a drunkard is one who has that power but ignores it.•]आत्मन्य् एव प्रत्यग्-आत्म-स्व-रूप एव आत्मना स्वेनैव बाह्य-लाभ-निर्-अपेक्षस् तुष्टः परमार्थ-दर्शनामृत-रस-लाभेन अन्यस्माद् अलं-प्रत्ययवान् स्थित-प्रज्ञः स्थिता प्रतिष्ठिता आत्मानात्म-विवेक-जा प्रज्ञा यस्य स स्थित-प्रज्ञो विद्वांस् तदोच्यते। Hence it is said: Tuṣṭaḥ, remains satisfied; ātmani eva, in the Self alone, in the very nature of the inmost Self; ātmanā, by the Self which is his own – indifferent to external gains, and satiated with everything else on account of having attained the nector of realization of the supreme Goal; tadā, then; ucyate, he is called; sthita-prajñaḥ, a man of steady wisdom, a man of realization, one whose wisdom, arising from the discrimination between the Self and the not-Self, is stable.
त्यक्त-पुत्र-वित्त-लोकैषणः (BrhUEng.4.4.22–3) ‘सन्न्यासी’ आत्माराम आत्म-क्रीडः ‘स्थित-प्रज्ञ’ इत्यर्थः॥The idea is that the man of steady wisdom is a monk, who has renounced the desire for progeny, wealth and the worlds, and who delights in the Self and disports in the Self.
दुःखेषु अन्-उद्विग्न-मनाः सुखेषु विगत-स्पृहः वीत-राग-भय-क्रोधः मुनिः स्थित-धीः उच्यते॥ 🔗 The one whose mind is not afflicted in adversities, who has no longing in pleasures, and who is free from attraction (rāga), fear, and anger, that wise person is called one whose wisdom is firm.
दुःखेष्व् आध्य्-आत्मिकादिषु प्राप्तेषु नोद्विग्नं न प्रक्षुभितं दुःख-प्राप्तौ मनो यस्य सोऽयम् अन्-उद्विग्नमनाः। तथा सुखेषु प्राप्तेषु विगता स्पृहा तृष्णा यस्य, नाग्निर् इव इन्धनाद्याधाने सुखान्य् अनु विवर्धते, स विगत-स्पृहः। वीत-राग-भय-क्रोधो रागश् च भयं च क्रोधश् च वीता विगता यस्मात् स वीत-राग-भय-क्रोधः, स्थित-धीः स्थित-प्रज्ञो मुनिः सन्न्यासी तदा उच्यते॥ That muniḥ, monk [•Śaṅkarācarya identifies the monk with the man of realization.•] ucyate, is then called; sthita-dhīḥ, a man of steady wisdom;
When an-udvigna-manāḥ, his mind is unperturbed; duḥkheṣu, in sorrow – when his mind remains unperturbed by the sorrows that may come on the physical or other planes [•Fever, headache, etc. are physical (ādhyātmika) sorrows; sorrows caused by tigers, snakes, etc. are environmental (ādhibhautika) sorrows; those caused by cyclones, floods, etc. are super-natural (ādhidaivika). Similarly, delights also may be experienced on the three planes.•]; So also, when he is vigata-spṛhaḥ, free from longing; sukheṣu, for delights – when he, unlike fire which flares up when fed with fuel etc., has no longing for delights when they come to him –; and vīta-rāga-bhaya-krodhaḥ, has gone beyond attachment, fear and anger.
यः सर्वत्र अन्-अभिस्नेहः तद् तद् शुभ-अ-शुभं प्राप्य न अभिनन्दति न द्वेष्टि, तस्य प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठिता॥ 🔗 The one who is unattached in all situations, who neither rejoices on getting anything pleasant, nor hates getting anything unpleasant – that one’s wisdom is firm.
यो मुनिः सर्वत्र देह-जीवितादिष्व् अप्य् अन्-अभिस्नेहः अभिस्नेह-वर्जितस् तत् तत् प्राप्य शुभाशुभं तत् तत् शुभम् अ-शुभं वा लब्ध्वा, नाभिनन्दति न द्वेष्टि। शुभं प्राप्य न तुष्यति न हृष्यत्य् अ-शुभं च प्राप्य न द्वेष्टीत्य् अर्थः। The prajñā, wisdom; tasya, of that person, of that sannyasin; pratiṣṭhitā, remains established; yaḥ, who; an-abhisnehaḥ, has no attachment for; sarvatra, anything anywhere, even for body, life, etc.; who na abhinandati, neither welcomes; na dveṣṭi, nor rejects; tat tat, anything whatever; śubha-aśubham, good or bad; prāpya, when he comes across it, i.e. who does not rejoice on meeting with the good, nor reject the bad on meeting with it.तस्य एवं हर्ष-विषाद-वर्जितस्य विवेक-जा प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठिता भवति॥Tasya, of such a person, who is thus free from elation or dejection, prajñā, the wisdom arising from discrimination; pratiṣṭhitā, remains established.
यदा च अयं, कूर्मः अङ्गानि इव, इन्द्रिय-अर्थेभ्यः इन्द्रियाणि सर्वशः संहरते [संहर्तुम् अर्हति इत्यर्थः], तस्य प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठिता॥ 🔗 When, like a turtle and its limbs, one is at will able to completely withdraw the senses from their sense pursuits and again extend them out at will – that one’s wisdom is firm.
यदा संहरते सम्यग् उपसंहरते चायं ज्ञान-निष्ठायां प्रवृत्तो यतिः, कूर्मोऽङ्गानीव सर्वशो यथा कूर्मो भयात् स्वान्य् अङ्गान्य् उपसंहरति सर्वत, एवं ज्ञान-निष्ठ इन्द्रियाणीन् इन्द्रियार्थेभ्यः सर्व-विषयेभ्य उपसंहरते। Yadā, when; ayam, this one, the sannyāsin practising steadfastness in Knowledge; saṃharate, fully withdraws; [•‘Fully’ suggests absolute firmness in withdrawal, and ‘withdraws’ suggests full control over the organs•] indriyāṇi, the senses; indriya-arthebhyaḥ, from all the objects of the senses; iva, as; kūrmaḥ, a tortoise; sarvaśaḥ, wholly (withdraws); aṅgāni, its limbs, from all sides out of fear; – when the man engaged in steadfastness to Knowledge withdraws thus,तस्य प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठिता इत्य् उक्तार्थं वाक्यम्॥Then tasya, his; prajñā, wisdom; pratiṣṭhitā, remains established – the meaning of this portion has already been explained.
तत्र विषयान् अन्-आहरत आतुरस्यापीन्द्रियाणि निवर्तन्ते कूर्माङ्गानीव संह्रियन्ते, न तु तद्-विषयो रागः। स कथं संह्रियते? इत्य् उच्यते – विषया इति। As to that, [•That is, so far as the phenomenal world is concerned.•] the organs of a sick person, too, cease to be active when he refrains from sense-objects; they get fully withdrawn like the limbs of a tortoise, but not so the hankering for those objects. How that (hankering) gets completely withdrawn is being stated:
निर्-आहारस्य देहिनः विषयाः रस-वर्जं विनिवर्तन्ते। परं दृष्ट्वा अस्य रसः अपि निवर्तते॥ 🔗 For the embodied one who does not feed, does not indulge the senses, the objects turn back, are not pursued, but the longing remains. Knowing the ultimate (para, brahman reality), even one’s longing ceases.
विषया इति। यद्य् अपि विषयोपलक्षितानि विषय-शब्द-वाच्यानि इन्द्रियाण्य् अथवा विषया एव निर्-आहारस्य अन्-आह्रियमाण-विषयस्य कष्टे तपसि स्थितस्य मूर्खस्यापि विनिवर्तन्ते देहिनो देहवतः, रस-वर्जं रसो रागो विषयेषु यस् तं वर्जयित्वा। Although viṣayāḥ, the objects, (i.e.) the organs, figuratively implied and expressed by the word 'objects', or, the objects themselves; vinivartante, recede; nirāhārasya dehinaḥ, from an abstinent man, from an embodied being, even from a fool who engages in painful austerity and abstains from objects; (still, they do so) rasa-varjam, with the exception of the taste (for them), with the exception of the hankering that one has for objects.
रस-शब्दो रागे प्रसिद्धः – ‘स्व-रसेन प्रवृत्तो’ ‘रसिको’ ‘रस-ज्ञ’ इत्य्-आदि-दर्शनात्। The word rasa is well known as referring to the sense of taste (hankering), as in such expressions as, ‘sva-rasena pravṛttaḥ, induced by his own taste (i.e. willingly)’, ‘rasikaḥ, a man of tastes’, ‘rasa-jñaḥ, a connoisseur (of tastes)’, etc.
सोऽपि रसो रञ्जन-रूपः सूक्ष्मोऽस्य यतेः परं परमार्थ-तत्त्वं ब्रह्म दृष्ट्वा उपलभ्य ‘अहम् एव तद्’ इति वर्तमानस्य निवर्तते। निर्-बीजं विषय-विज्ञानं संपद्यत इत्यर्थः। Api, even that; rasaḥ, taste of the nature of subtle attachment; asya, of this person, of the sannyāsin; nivartate, falls away, i.e. his objective perception becomes seedless; when dṛṣṭvā, after attaining; param, the Absolute, the Reality which is the supreme Goal, Brahman, he continues in life with the realization, ‘I verily am That (Brahman).’
नासति सम्यग्-दर्शने रसस्योच्छेदस्, तस्मात् सम्यग्-दर्शनात्मिकायाः प्रज्ञायाः स्थैर्यं कर्तव्यम् इत्य् अभिप्रायः॥In the absence of full realization there can be no eradication of the ‘hankering’. The idea conveyed is that, one should therefore stabilize one’s wisdom which is characterized by full realization. [•If it be held that attachment cannot be eliminated without the knowledge of Brahman, and at the same time that the knowledge of Brahman cannot arise until attachment is eradicated, then we get involved in a vicious circle. In answer it is said that gross attachments are eliminated through discrimination which restrains the senses from being overpowered by objects. And the full Knowledge arising thereof eliminates the subtle inclinations as well. Hence there is no vicious circle involved.•]
सम्यग्-दर्शन-लक्षण-प्रज्ञा-स्थैर्यं चिकीर्षता आदाव् इन्द्रियाणि स्व-वशे स्थापयितव्यानि, यस्मात् तद्-अनवस्थापने दोषम् आह – यतत इति। Since the organs have to be first brought under his own control by one who desires to establish firmly the wisdom which is characterized by full realization, therefore the Lord speaks of the evil that arises from not keeping them under control:
कौन्तेय, विपश्चितः हि (=यस्मात्) पुरुषस्य यततः अपि, प्रमाथीनि इन्द्रियाणि मनः प्रसभं हरन्ति॥ 🔗 Because, O Arjuna, even though a discerning person puts forth effort, the distracting senses forcefully take away the mind.
यततः प्रयत्नं कुर्वतोऽपि हि यस्मात्, कौन्तेय, पुरुषस्य विपश्चितो मेधाविनो‘ऽपि’ इति व्यवहितेन संबन्धः। इन्द्रियाणि प्रमाथीनि प्रमथन-शीलानि विषयाभिमुखं हि पुरुषं विक्षोभयन्त्य् आकुली-कुर्वन्ति। आकुली-कृत्य च हरन्ति प्रसभं प्रसह्य प्रकाशम् एव पश्यतो विवेक-विज्ञान-युक्तं मनः॥Hi, for; kaunteya, O son of Kuntī; pramāthīni, the turbulent; indriyāṇi, organs; prasabham, violently; haranti, snatch away; manaḥ, the mind; vipaścitaḥ, of an intelligent; puruṣasya, person; api, even; yatataḥ, while he is striving diligently [•Repeatedly being mindful of the evils that arise from sense-objects.•] – (or,) the words puruṣasya vipaścitaḥ (of an intelligent person) are to be connected with the remote word api (even). [•The Commentator says that api may be construed either with yatataḥ or with vipaścitaḥ puruṣasya.- Tr.•] Indeed, the organs confound a person who is inclined towards objects, and after confounding him, violently carry away his mind endowed with discriminating knowledge, even when he is aware of this.
यतस् तस्मात् – तानीति। Since this is so, therefore:
[यतः तस्मात्] तानि सर्वाणि [इन्द्रियाणि] संयम्य युक्तः [सन्] मत्-परः आसीत। यस्य हि इन्द्रियाणि [संस्कृत-बुद्धेः see भ॰गी॰३.४२-३] वशे, तस्य प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठिता॥ 🔗 Mastering all those senses, the one who is disciplined should remain with Me, the Lord, reality, as the para (highest, the limitless). For the one whose senses are indeed under authority of an informed intellect, wisdom is firm.
तानि सर्वाणि संयम्य संयमनं वशी-करणं कृत्वा युक्तः समाहितः सन्न् आसीत। मत्-परोऽहं वासु-देवः सर्व-प्रत्यग्-आत्मा परो यस्य स मत्-परो ‘नान्योऽहं तस्माद्’ इत्य् आसीतेत्य् अर्थः। Saṃyamya, controlling, having subdued; sarvāṇi, all; tāni, of them; āsīta, one should remain; yuktaḥ, concentrated; mat-paraḥ, on Me as the supreme – he to whom I, Vāsu-deva, the inmost Self of all, am the supreme (paraḥ) is mat-paraḥ. The idea is, he should remain (concentrated) thinking, ‘I am not different from Him.’
एवम् आसीनस्य यतेर् वशे हि यस्येन्द्रियाणि वर्तन्तेऽभ्यास-बलात् तस्य प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठिता॥Hi, for; the prajñā, wisdom; tasya, of one, of the sannyāsin remaining thus concentrated; yasya, whose; indriyāṇi, organs; are vaśe, under control, by dint of practice; [•The organs come under control either by constantly thinking of oneself as non-different from the Self, or by constantly being mindful of the evils that result from objects.•] pratiṣṭhitā, becomes steadfast.
अथेदानीं पराभविष्यतः सर्वानर्थ-मूलम् इदम् उच्यते – ध्यायत इति। Now, then, is being stated this [•This: what is described in the following two verses, and is also a matter of common experience.•] root, cause of all the evils that beset one who is the verge of being overwhelmed:
विषयान् ध्यायतः पुंसः तेषु सङ्गः उपजायते, सङ्गात् कामः सञ्जायते, कामात् क्रोधः अभिजायते, क्रोधात् सम्मोहः भवति, सम्मोहात् स्मृति-विभ्रमः [भवति], स्मृति-भ्रंशात् बुद्धि-नाशः [भवति], बुद्धि-नाशात् [पुमान्] प्रणश्यति॥ 🔗 For a person who mentally dwells on objects, attachment to them arises; from attachment allowed to flame up by one’s value structure arises binding desire, requirements in order to be happy and anticipations of their fruition; from thwarted anticipations arises anger; from anger is delusion, error in judgment; from delusion is lapse of memory, what has been taught; from lapse of memory is lapse of intellect, wisdom; from lapse of intellect, what distinguishes the human condition, the person is destroyed. [•The unique human opportunity to attain the ultimate good (śreyas) is wasted, and the person remains in the life of unbecoming becoming (in saṃsāra).•]
ध्यायतश् चिन्तयतो विषयाञ् शब्दादिन् विषय-विशेषान् आलोचयतः पुंसः पुरुषस्य सङ्ग आसक्तिः प्रीतिस् तेषु विषयेषु उपजायते। सङ्गात् प्रीतेः संजायते समुत्पद्यते कामस् तृष्णः। (तस्मात्) कामात् कुतश्चित् प्रतिहतात् क्रोधोऽभिजायते॥ Puṃsaḥ, in the case of a person; dhyāyataḥ, who dwells on, thinks of; viṣayān, the objects, the specialities [•Specialities: The charms imagined in them.•] of the objects such as sound etc.; upajāyate, there arises; saṅgaḥ, attachment, fondness, love; teṣu, for them, for those objects. Saṅgāt, from attachment, from love; sañjāyate, grows; kāmaḥ, hankering, thirst. When that is obstructed from any quarter, kāmāt, from hankering; abhijāyate, springs; krodhaḥ, anger.क्रोधाद् भवति संमोहोऽविवेकः कार्याकार्य-विषयः। क्रुद्धो हि संमूढः सन् गुरुम् अप्य् आक्रोशति।Krodhāt, from anger; bhavati, follows; sammohaḥ, delusion, absence of discrimination with regard to what should or should not be done. For, an angry man, becoming deluded, abuses even a teacher.संमोहात् स्मृति-विभ्रमः शास्त्राचार्योपदेशाहित-संस्कार-जनितायाः स्मृतेः स्याद् विभ्रमो भ्रंशः स्मृत्य्-उत्पत्ति-निमित्त-प्राप्ताव् अन्-उत्पत्तिः। Sammohāt, from delusion; (comes) smṛti-vibhramaḥ, failure of memory originating from the impressions acquired from the instructions of the scriptures and teachers. When there is an occasion for memory to rise, it does not occur.
ततः स्मृति-भ्रंशात्बुद्धेर् नाशः। कार्याकार्य-विषय-विवेकायोग्यता अन्तः-करणस्य बुद्धेर् नाश उच्यते। Smṛti-bhraṃśāt, from that failure of memory; (results) buddhi-nāśaḥ, loss of understanding. The unfitness of the mind to discriminate between what should or should not be done is called loss of understanding.बुद्धि-नाशात् प्रणश्यति। तावद् एव हि पुरुषो यावद् अन्तः-करणं तदीयं कार्याकार्य-विषय-विवेक-योग्यं, तद्-अयोग्यत्वे नष्ट एव पुरुषो भवति। Buddhi-nāśāt, from the loss of understanding; praṇaśyati, he perishes. Indeed, a man continues to be himself so long as his mind remains fit to distinguish between what he ought to and ought not do. When it becomes unfit, a man is verily ruined.
अतस् तस्यान्तः-करणस्य बुद्धेर् नाशात् प्रणश्यति। पुरुषार्थायोग्यो भवतीत्य् अर्थः॥
Therefore, when his internal organ, his understanding, is destroyed, a man is ruined, i.e. he becomes unfit for the human Goal.
सर्वानर्थस्य मूलम् उक्तं विषयाभिध्यानम्। अथेदानीं मोक्ष-कारणम् इदम् उच्यते – राग-द्वेषेति। Thinking of objects has been said to be the root of all evils. After that, this which is the cause of Liberation is being now stated: [•If even the memory of objects be a source of evil, then their enjoyment is more so. Hence, a sannyāsin seeking Liberation cannot avoid this evil, since he has to move about for food which is necessary for the maintenance of his body. The present verse is an answer to this apprehension.•]
राग-द्वेष-वियुक्तैः तु आत्म-वश्यैः इन्द्रियैः विषयान् चरन्, विधेय-आत्मा (=वश्य-अन्तः-करणः) प्रसादम् (=शान्तिम्) अधिगच्छति॥ 🔗 Whereas, moving among the objects with the senses under authority of the intellect and freed from being overpowered by attraction and repulsion (rāga-dveṣa – see BhG.3.34), the one whose mind is disciplined attains clarity.
राग-द्वेष-वियुक्तैः रागश् च द्वेषश् च राग-द्वेषौ, तत्-पुरः-सरा हीन्द्रियाणां प्रवृत्तिः स्वा-भाविकी, तत्र यो मुमुक्षुर् भवति स ताभ्यां वियुक्तैः श्रोत्रादिभिर् इन्द्रियैः विषयान् अवर्जनीयांश् चरन्न् उपलभमान, आत्म-वश्यैर् आत्मनो वश्यानि वशी-भूतानि तैर् आत्म-वश्यैर् विधेयात्मा इच्छातो विधेय आत्मा अन्तः-करणं यस्य सोऽयं प्रसादम् अधिगच्छति। प्रसादः प्रसन्नता स्वा-स्थ्यम्॥ Certainly the functions of the organs are naturally preceded by attraction and repulsion. This being so, caran, by perceiving; viṣayān, objects, which are unavoidable; indriyaiḥ, with the organs such as ears etc.; rāga-dveṣa-viyuktaiḥ, that are free from those attraction and repulsion; and are ātma-vaśyaiḥ, under his own control; vidheyātmā, [•A.G. takes ātma-vaśyaiḥ in the sense of '(with the organs) under the control of the mind'. He then argues that if the mind be not under control, there can be no real control, over the organs. Hence the text uses the second expression, 'vidheyātmā, whose mind can be subdued at will'. Here ātmā is used in the sense of the mind, according to the Commentator himself.•] the self-controlled man, whose mind can be subdued at will, a seeker after Liberation; adhigacchati, attains; prasādam, serenity, self-poise.
प्रसादे सति किं स्वाद्, इत्य् उच्यते – प्रसाद इति। What happens when there is serenity? This is being answered:
प्रसादे [सति] अस्य सर्व-दुःखानां हानिः उपजायते, प्रसन्न-चेतसः हि (=यस्मात्) बुद्धिः आशु पर्यवतिष्ठते॥ 🔗 When there is clarity, there comes the destruction of all one’s sorrows in the form of guilt and hurt, because, for the one whose mind is clear, the self-knowledge which destroys the sorrow quickly becomes firm.
प्रसादे सर्व-दुःखानाम् आध्यात्मिकादीनां हानिर् विनाशोऽस्य यतेर् उपजायते। Prasāde, when there is serenity; upajāyate, there follows; hāniḥ, eradication; asya sarva-duḥkhānām, of all his, the sannyāsin's, sorrow on the physical and other planes.
किं-च प्रसन्न-चेतसः स्व-स्थान्तः-करणस्य हि यस्माद् आशु शीघ्रं बुद्धिः पर्यवतिष्ठत आकाशम् इव परि समन्ताद् अवतिष्ठते। आत्म-स्व-रूपेणैव निश्चली-भवतीत्य् अर्थः। Moreover, (this is so) hi, because; buddhiḥ, the wisdom; prasanna-cetasaḥ, of one who has a serene mind, of one whose mind is poised in the Self; āśu, soon; paryavatiṣṭhate, becomes firmly established; remains steady (avatiṣṭhate) totally (pari), like the sky, i.e. it becomes unmoving in its very nature as the Self.
एवं प्रसन्न-चेतसोऽवस्थित-बुद्धेः कृत-कृत्यता यतस्, तस्माद् राग-द्वेष-वियुक्तैर् इन्द्रियैः शास्त्राविरुद्धेष्व् अवर्जनीयेषु युक्तः समाचरेद् इति वाक्यार्थः॥The meaning of the sentence is this: Since a person with such a poised mind and well-established wisdom attains fulfilment, therefore a man of concentration [•A man who is free whom slavery to objects of the senses.•] ought to deal with the indispensable and scripturally non-forbidden objects through his senses that are free from love and hatred.
सेयं प्रसन्नता स्तूयते – नास्तीति। That same serenity is being eulogized:
अ-युक्तस्य बुद्धिः न अस्ति, न च अ-युक्तस्य भावना (=धारणम्)। न च अ-भावयतः शान्तिः। अ-शान्तस्य कुतः सुखम्॥ 🔗 For the one who is not disciplined, knowledge is not there, nor contemplation. For the non-contemplative, there is no clarity. For the nonclear, how can there be the appreciation of the sukha (fulfillment that is the nature of the limitless self, known as I)?
नास्ति न विद्यते। न भवतीत्य् अर्थः। बुद्धिर् आत्म-स्व-रूप-विषया अयुक्तस्य असमाहितान्तः-करणस्य। न च अस्त्य् अयुक्तस्य भावना आत्म-ज्ञानाभिनिवेशः। A-yuktasya, for the unsteady, for one who does not have a concentrated mind; na asti, there is no, i.e. there does not arise; buddhiḥ, wisdom, with regard to the nature of the Self; ca, and; there is no bhāvanā, meditation, earnest longing [•Longing to have a continuous remembrance of the knowledge of Brahman which arises in the mind from hearing the great Upaniṣad sayings (mahā-vākyas).•] for the knowledge of the Self; a-yuktasya, for an unsteady man.
तथा न च अस्त्य् अभावयत आत्म-ज्ञानाभिनिवेशम् अकुर्वतः शान्तिर् उपशमः। And similarly, a-bhāvayataḥ, for an unmeditative man, who does not ardently desire the knowledge of the Self; there is no śāntiḥ, peace, restraint of the senses.अशान्तस्य कुतः सुखम्? इन्द्रियाणां हि विषय-सेवा-तृष्णातो निवृत्तिर् या तत् सुखं, न विषय-विषया तृष्णा, दुःखम् एव हि सा। Kutaḥ, how can there be; sukham, happiness; a-śāntasya, for one without peace? That indeed is happiness which consists in the freedom of the senses from the thirst for enjoyment of objects; not the thirst for objects – that is misery to be sure.
न तृष्णायां सत्यां सुखस्य गन्धमात्रम् अपि उपपद्यत इत्यर्थः॥The implication is that, so long as thirst persists, there is no possibility of even an iota of happiness!
अयुक्तस्य कस्माद् बुद्धिर् नास्तीत्य् उच्यते – इन्द्रियाणाम् इति। It is being stated why a man without concentration does not possess wisdom:
यद् मनः हि (=यस्मात्) चरताम् इन्द्रियाणाम् अनुविधीयते, तद् [मनः] अस्य प्रज्ञां हरति, वायुः अम्भसि नावम् इव [हरति]॥ 🔗 Because, that very mind, which follows after the roaming senses, takes away one’s wisdom, like a small boat on the water, which follows after the wind.
इन्द्रियाणां हि यस्माच् चरतां स्व-स्व-विषयेषु प्रवर्तमानानां यन् मनोऽनुविधीयतेऽनुप्रवर्तते तद् इन्द्रिय-विषय-विकल्पने प्रवृत्तं मनोऽस्य यतेर् हरति प्रज्ञाम् आत्मानात्म-विवेक-जां नाशयति। Hi, for; yat manaḥ, the mind which; anuvidhīyate, follows in the wake of; caratām, the wandering; indriyāṇām, senses that are tending towards their respective objects; tat, that, the mind engaged in thinking [•Perceiving objects like sound etc. in their respective varieties.•] of the objects of the senses; harati, carries away, destroys; asya, his, the sannyāsin's; prajñām, wisdom born from the discrimination between the Self and the not-Self.
कथम्? वायुर् नावम् इवाम्भस्य् उदके जिगमिषतां मार्गाद् उद्धृत्योन्मार्गे यथा वायुर् नावं प्रवर्तयत्य्, एवम् आत्म-विषयां प्रज्ञां हृत्या मनो विषय-विषयां करोति॥How? Iva, like; vāyuḥ, the wind; diverting a nāvam, boat; ambhasi, on the waters. As wind, by diverting a boat on the waters from its intended course, drives it along a wrong course, similarly the mind, by diverting the wisdom from the pursuit of the Self, makes it engage in objects.
‘यततो ह्य् अपि’ इत्य् (BhG.2.60) उपन्यस्तस्यार्थस्यानेकधोपपत्तिम् उक्त्वा तं चार्थम् उपपाद्योपसंहरति – तस्माद् इति। After having stated variously the reasons for the idea conveyed through the verse, ‘For, O son of Kuntī,’ etc. (BhG.2.60), and having established that very idea, the Lord concludes thus:
महा-बाहो, तस्मात् यस्य इन्द्रियाणि इन्द्रिय-अर्थेभ्यः सर्वशः निगृहीतानि [निगृहीतुम् अर्ह्यन्ते इत्यर्थः], तस्य प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठिता॥ 🔗 Therefore, O Arjuna, the one whose senses under authority of the intellect are, or rather, are capable of being, completely withdrawn from the sense pursuits – that one has wisdom that is firm.
इन्द्रियाणां प्रवृत्तौ दोष उपपादितो यस्मात् – तस्माद् यस्य यतेः, हे महा-बाहो, निगृहीतानि सर्वशः सर्व-प्रकारैर् मानसादि-भेदैर् इन्द्रियाणीन्द्रियार्थेभ्यः शब्दादिभ्यस् तस्य प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठिता॥Since the evils arising from the activities of the organs have been described, tasmāt, therefore; mahā-bāho, O mighty-armed one; tasya, his, the sannyāsin's; prajñā, wisdom; pratiṣṭhitā, becomes established; yasya, whose; indriyāṇi, organs; sarvaśaḥ, in all their varieties, differentiated as mind etc.; nigṛhītāṇi, are withdrawn; indriya-arthebhyaḥ, from their objects such as sound etc.
योऽयं लौकिको वैदिकश् च व्यवहारः स उत्पन्न-विवेक-ज्ञानस्य स्थित-प्रज्ञस्याविद्या-कार्यत्वाद् अविद्या-निवृत्तै निवर्तते। अविद्यायाश् च विद्या-विरोधान् निवृत्तिर् इत्य् एतम् अर्थं स्फुटी-कुर्वन्न् आह – या निशेति। In the case of a man of steady wisdom in whom has arisen discriminating knowledge, those which are these ordinary and Veda dealings cease on the eradication of ignorance, they being effects of ignorance. And ignorance ceases because it is opposed to Knowledge. For clarifying this idea, the Lord says:
या सर्व-भूतानां निशा [इव], तस्यां संयमी [मुनिः] जागर्ति। यस्यां भूतानि जाग्रति, सा [सद्-वस्तु] पश्यतः मुनेः निशा [इव]॥ 🔗 What is like night for all beings – in that, the wise who is disciplined is awake. In what it is that beings are awake to, that is like night for the wise one who sees clearly. [•The wise are awake to reality (sat), and others are only awake to what they believe is reality, but is unreal (a-sat).•]
या निशा रात्रिः सर्व-पदार्थानाम् अ-विवेक-करी तमः-स्व-भावत्वान् सर्वेषां भूतानां सर्व-भूतानाम्। किं तत्? परमार्थ-तत्त्वं स्थित-प्रज्ञस्य विषयः। यथा नक्तं-चराणाम् अहर् एव सद् अन्येषां निशा भवति, तद्वन् नक्तं-चर-स्थानीयानाम् अ-ज्ञानां सर्व-भूतानां निशा इव निशा परमार्थ-तत्त्वम्, अ-गोचरत्वाद् अ-तद्-बुद्धीनाम्। Yā, that which; sarva-bhūtānām, for all creatures; is niśā, night – which being darkness (tamaḥ) by nature, obliterates distinctions among all things; what is that? that is the Reality which is the supreme Goal, accessible to the man of steady wisdom. As that which verily appears as day to the nocturnal creatures is night for others, similarly the Reality which is the supreme Goal appears to be night, as it were, to all unenlightened beings who are comparable to the nocturnal creatures, because It is beyond the range of vision of those who are devoid of that wisdom.तस्यां परमार्थ-तत्त्व-लक्षणायाम् अ-ज्ञान-निशायाः प्रवृद्धो जागर्ति संयमी संयमवान् जितेन्द्रियो योगीत्य् अर्थः। Saṃyamī, the self-restrained man, whose organs are under control, i.e. the yogī [•The man of realization.•] who has arisen from the sleep of ignorance; jāgarti, keeps awake; tasyām, in that (night) characterized as the Reality, the supreme Goal.यस्यां ग्राह्य-ग्राहक-भेद-लक्षणायाम् अ-विद्या-निद्रायां(-निशायां) प्रसुप्तान्य् एव भूतानि ‘जाग्रति’ इत्य् उच्यते यस्यां निशायां प्रसुप्ता इव स्वप्न-दृशः सा निशा अ-विद्या-रूपत्वात् परमार्थ-तत्त्वं पश्यतो मुनेः। That night of ignorance, characterized by the distinctions of subjects and objects, yasyām in which; bhūtāni, the creatures, who are really asleep; are said to be jāgrati, keeping awake, in which night they are like dreamers in sleep; sā niśā, it is night; paśyataḥ, to the seeing; muneḥ, sage, who perceives the Reality that is the supreme Goal, because that (night) is ignorance by nature.
अतः कर्माण्य् अ-विद्यावस्थायाम् एव चोद्यन्ते, न विद्यावस्थायाम्। विद्यायां हि सत्याम्, उदिते सवितरि शार्वरम् इव तमः, प्रणाशम् उपगच्छत्य् अ-विद्या। Therefore, rites and duties are enjoined only during the state of ignorance, not in the state of enlightenment. For, when Knowledge dawns, ignorance becomes eradicated like the darkness of night after sun-rise. [•It may be argued that even after illumination the phenomenal world, though it is known to be false, will continue to be perceived because of the persistence of past impressions; therefore there is scope for the validity of the scriptural injunctions even in the case of an illumined soul. The answer is that there will be no scope for the injunctions, because the man of realization will then have no ardent leaning towards this differentiated phenomenal world which makes an injunction relevant.•]
प्राग् विद्योत्पत्तेर् अ-विद्या प्रमाण-बुद्ध्या गृह्यमाणा क्रिया-कारक-फल-भेद-रूपा सती सर्व-कर्म-हेतुत्वं प्रतिपद्यते, न अ-प्रमाण-बुद्ध्या गृह्यमाणायाः कर्म-हेतुत्वोपपत्तिः। Before the rise of Knowledge, ignorance, accepted as a valid means of knowledge and presenting itself in the different forms of actions, means and results, becomes the cause of all rites and duties. It cannot reasonably become the source of rites and duties (after Realization) when it is understood as an invalid means of knowledge.
प्रमाण-भूतेन वेदेन ‘मम चोदितं कर्तव्यं कर्म’ इति हि कर्मणि कर्ता प्रवर्तते, न अ-विद्यामात्रम् इदं सर्वं ‘निशा इव’ इति। For an agent becomes engaged in actions when he has the idea, ‘Actions have been enjoined as a duty for me by the Vedas, which are a valid means of knowledge’; but not when he understands that ‘all this is mere ignorance, like the night’.
यस्य पुनर् ‘निशा इव अ-विद्यामात्रम् इदं सर्वं भेद-जातम्’ इति ज्ञानं तस्यात्म-ज्ञस्य सर्व-कर्म-सन्न्यास एवाधिकारो न प्रवृत्तौ। Again, the man to whom has come the Knowledge that all these differences in their totality are mere ignorance like the night, to that man who has realized the Self, there is eligibility only for renouncing all actions, not for engaging in actions.
तथा च दर्शयिष्यति – ‘तद्-बुद्धयस् तद्-आत्मानः’ इत्य्-आदिना (BhG.5.17), ज्ञान-निष्ठायाम् एव तस्याधिकारम्। In accordance with this the Lord will show in the verse, ‘Those who have their intellect absorbed in That, whose Self is That’ (BhG.5.17) etc., that he has competence only for steadfastness in Knowledge.
तत्रापि प्रवर्तक-प्रमाणाभावे प्रवृत्त्य्-अनुपपत्तिर् इति चेत्। Objection: May it not be argued that, there will be no reason for being engaged even in that (steadfastness in Knowledge) if there be no valid means of knowledge [•Veda injunctions.•] to impel one to that. [•Because, without an injunction nobody would engage in a duty, much less in steadfastness to Knowledge.•]
न, स्वात्म-विषयत्वाद् आत्म-विज्ञानस्य। न ह्य् आत्मनः स्वात्मनि प्रवर्तक-प्रमाणापेक्षता आत्मत्वाद् एव, तद्-अन्तत्वाच् च सर्व-प्रमाणानां प्रमाणत्वस्य। न ह्य् आत्म-स्व-रूपाधिगमे सति पुनः प्रमाण-प्रमेय-व्यवहारः संभवति। Answer: No, since ‘knowledge of the Self’ relates to one's own Self. Indeed, by the very fact that It is the Self, and since the validity of all the means of knowledge culminates in It, [•The validity of all the means of knowledge holds good only so long as the knowledge of the Self has not arisen.•] therefore the Self does not depend on an injunction to impel It towards Itself. [•Does the injunction relate to the knowledge of the Self. or to the Self Itself? The first alternative is untenable because a valid means of knowledge reveals its objects even without an injunction. The second alternative also is untenable because the Self is self-revealing, whereas an injunction is possible in the case of something yet to be achieved. And one’s own Self is not an object of that kind.•] Surely, after the realization of the true nature of the Self, there is no scope again for any means to, or end of, knowledge. The last valid means of (Self-) knowledge eradicates the possibility of the Self’s becoming a perceiver.
प्रमातृत्वं ह्य् आत्मनो निवर्तयत्य् अन्त्यं प्रमाणम्। निवर्तयद् एव चाप्रमाणी-भवति, स्वप्न-काल-प्रमाणम् इव प्रबोधे। And even as it eradicates, it loses its own authoritativeness, in the same way as the means of knowledge which is valid in dream becomes unauthoritative during the waking state.
लोके च वस्त्व्-अधिगमे प्रवृत्ति-हेतुत्वादर्शनात् प्रमाणस्य। In the world, too, after the perception of an object, the valid means of that perception is not seen to be a cause impelling the knower (to any action with regard to that object).
तस्मान् नात्म-विदः कर्मण्य् अधिकार (cf. BhG.2.47) इति सिद्धम्॥Hence, it is established that, for an knower of the Self, there remains no eligibility for rites and duties.
विदुषस् त्यक्तैषणस्य स्थित-प्रज्ञस्य यतेर् एव मोक्ष-प्राप्तिर् न त्व् अ-सन्न्यासिनः काम-कामिन इत्य् एतम् अर्थं दृष्टान्तेन प्रतिपादयिष्यन्न् आह – आपूर्येति। The attainment of Liberation is only for the sannyāsin [•Liberation is attained only by one who, after acquiring an intellectual knowledge of the Self in a general way, is endowed with discrimination and detachment, has arisen above all desires, has become a monk in the primary sense, and has directly realized the Self by going through the process of śravaṇa (understanding of Upaniṣad texts about the Self), etc.•], the man of enlightenment, who has renounced all desires and is a man of steady wisdom; but not for him who has not renounced and is desirous of the objects (of the senses). Such being the case, with a view to establishing this with the help of an illustration, the Lord says:
यद्वत् आपः आपूर्यमाणं [स्वरूपतः] अ-चल-प्रतिष्ठं समुद्रं प्रविशन्ति, तद्वत् सर्वे कामाः यं प्रविशन्ति – सः शान्तिम् आप्नोति, न काम-कामी॥ [cf. KathU.2.2.12] 🔗 Like the full and unmoved ocean into which the waters enter, their source being the ocean, yet its nature being unaffected by their variations, the one whom all objects of desire enter yet remains the same in nature – that one attains peace. Not so the one who requires/anticipates these objects [like a small pond requires its streams].
आपूर्यमाणम् अद्भिर् अ-चल-प्रतिष्ठम् अ-चलतया प्रतिष्ठा अवस्थितिर् यस्य तम् अ-चल-प्रतिष्ठं समुद्रम् आपः सर्वतो गताः प्रविशन्ति स्वात्म-स्थम् अ-विक्रियम् एव सन्तं यद्वत्, तद्वत् कामा विषय-संनिधाव् अपि सर्वत इच्छा-विशेषा यं पुरुषं समुद्रम् इव आपोऽविकुर्वन्तः प्रविशन्ति सर्वे आत्मन्य् एव प्रलीयन्ते न स्वात्म-वशं कुर्वन्ति। स शान्तिं मोक्षम् आप्नोति, Saḥ, that man; āpnoti, attains; śāntim, peace Liberation; yam, into whom, into which person; sarve, all; kāmāḥ, desires, all forms of wishes; praviśanti, enter, from all directions, like waters entering into a sea, without overwhelming him even in the presence of objects; they vanish in the Self, they do not bring It under their own influence, tadvat, in the same way; Yadvat, as; āpaḥ, waters, coming from all sides; praviśanti, flow into; samudram, a sea; that remains a-cala-pratiṣṭham, unchanged, that continues to be its own self, without any change; āpūryamāṇam, (even) when filled up from all sides with water.न इतरः काम-कामी – काम्यन्त इति कामा विषयास् तान् कामयितुं शीलं यस्य स काम-कामी नैव प्राप्नोतीत्य् अर्थः॥Na, not so the other; who is kāma-kāmī, desirous of objects. Kāma means objects which are sought after. He who is given to desire them is kāma-kāmī. The idea implied is that he never attains (peace).
यस्माद् एवं तस्मात् – विहायेति। Since this is so, therefore:
सर्वान् कामान् विहाय, यः पुमान् निः-स्पृहः निर्-ममः निर्-अहङ्कारः चरति, सः शान्तिम् अधिगच्छति॥ 🔗 Giving up all binding desires, requirements/anticipations, the person who moves about free from longing, free from the judgment “this is mine” and free from the judgment “I am only this much” – that person attains peace.
विहाय परित्यज्य कामान् यः सन्न्यासी पुमान् सर्वान् अ-शेषतः कार्त्स्न्येन चरति। जीवनमात्र-चेष्टा-शेषः पर्यटतीत्य् अर्थः। निः-स्पृहः शरीर-जीवनमात्रेऽपि निर्गता स्पृहा यस्य स निः-स्पृहः सन्। निर्-मम इति ममत्व-वर्जितः शरीर-जीवनमात्राक्षिप्त-परिग्रहेऽपि ‘मम इदम्’ इत्य् अभिनिवेश-वर्जितः। निर्-अहंकारो विद्यावत्त्वादि-निमित्तात्म-संभावना-रहित इत्यर्थः। स एवं-भूतः स्थित-प्रज्ञो ब्रह्म-विच् छान्तिं सर्व-संसार-दुःखोपरम-लक्षणां निर्वाणाख्याम् अधिगच्छति प्राप्नोति। ब्रह्म-भूतो भवतीत्य् अर्थः॥ Sah pumān, that man who has become thus, the sannyāsin, the man of steady wisdom, the knower of Brahman; adhigacchati, attains; śāntim, peace, called Nirvāṇa, consisting in the cessation of all the sorrows of mundane existence, i.e. he becomes one with Brahman; Yaḥ, who; vihāya, after rejecting; sarvān, all; kāmān, desires, without a trace, fully; carati, moves about, i.e. wanders about, making efforts only for maintaining the body; Niḥ-spṛhaḥ, free from hankering, becoming free from any longing even for the maintenance of the body; nir-mamaḥ, without the idea of (‘me’ and) ‘mine’, without the deep-rooted idea of ‘mine’ even when accepting something needed merely for the upkeep of the body; and nir-ahaṅkāraḥ, devoid of pride, i.e. free from self esteem owing to learning etc.
सैषा ज्ञान-निष्ठा स्तूयते – एषा ब्राह्मीति। This steadfastness in Knowledge, which is such, is being praised:
एषा ब्राह्मी (=ब्रह्मणि अधिष्ठिता) स्थितिः, पार्थ। प्राप्य एनां, न विमुह्यति। अन्त-काले अपि अस्यां स्थित्वा ब्रह्म-निर्वाणम् ऋच्छति॥ 🔗 This is being firm in/as reality (brahman, sat), O Arjuna. Attaining this, one is not any longer deluded. Being firm in this, even just at the moment of death, one attains liberation in/as brahman.
एषा यथोक्ता ब्राह्मी ब्रह्मणि भवा इयं स्थितिः सर्वं कर्म संन्यस्य ब्रह्म-रूपेणैवावस्थानम् इत्य् एतत्। हे पार्थ, नैनां स्थितिं प्राप्य लब्ध्वा विमुह्यति मोहं प्राप्नोति। O Pārtha, eṣā, this, the aforesaid; is brāhmī sthitiḥ, the state of being established in Brahman, i.e. continuing (in life) in identification with Brahman, after renouncing all actions. Na vimuhyati, one does not become deluded; prāpya, after attaining; enām, this. स्थित्वा अस्यां स्थितौ ब्राह्म्यां यथोक्तायाम् अन्त-कालेऽन्ते वयस्य् अपि ब्रह्म-निर्वाणं ब्रह्म-निर्वृतिं मोक्षम् ऋच्छति गच्छति, किम्-उ वक्तव्यं ब्रह्म-चर्याद् एव संन्यस्य यावज्-जीवं यो ब्रह्मण्य् एवावतिष्ठते स ब्रह्म-निर्वाणम् ऋच्छतीति॥ Ṛcchati, one attains; brahma-nirvāṇam, identification with Brahman, Liberation; sthitvā, by being established; asyām, in this, in the state of Brahman-hood as described; api, even; anta-kāle, in the closing years of one's life. What need it be said that, one who remains established only in Brahman during the whole life, after having espoused monasticism even from the stage of celibacy, attains identification with Brahman!
इति श्रीमत्-परम-हंस-परिव्राजकाचार्य-गोविन्द-भगवत्-पूज्य-पाद-शिष्य-श्रीमच्-छङ्कर-भगवतः कृतौ श्री-भगवद्-गीता-भाष्ये साङ्ख्य-योगो नाम द्वितीयोऽध्यायः॥२॥
ओं तद् सत्। इति श्रीमद्-भगवद्-गीतासु उपनिषत्सु ब्रह्म-विद्यायां योग-शास्त्रे श्री-कृष्ण-अर्जुन-संवादे साङ्ख्य-योगः नाम द्वितीयः अध्यायः॥ Om (brahman, the witness of all) is that (only) reality (sat). Thus ends the second chapter, called ‘The Topic of Knowledge,’ of the (eighteen chapters of) Songs of the Glorious Lord, which is (looked upon as) sacred teaching (Upaniṣad) and (whose teaching is) in (the form of) a dialogue between Śrī Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna, (the subject matter being) knowledge of brahman and yoga.
शास्त्रस्य प्रवृत्ति-निवृत्ति-विषय-भूते द्वे बुद्धी भगवता निर्दिष्टे, ‘साङ्ख्ये बुद्धिः योगे बुद्धिः’ (BhG.2.39) इति च। Two kinds of Convictions, viz the Conviction concerning Reality, and the Conviction concerning Yoga, associated with detachment from and engagement in action (respectively), which are dealt with in this Scripture (Gītā), have been indicated by the Lord.तत्र ‘प्रजहाति यदा कामान्’ (BhG.2.55) इत्यारभ्य आ अध्याय-परिसमाप्तेः साङ्ख्य-बुद्ध्य्-आश्रितानां सन्न्यासं कर्तव्यम् उक्त्वा तेषां तन्-निष्ठतयैव च कृतार्थता उक्ता – ‘एषा ब्राह्मी स्थितिः’ (BhG.2.72) इति। As to that, beginning with ‘When one fully renounces all the desires’ (BhG.2.55) and ending with the close of the Chapter, the Lord, having stated the sannyāsa, monasticism, has to be resorted to by those who are devoted to the Conviction about the Reality (Sāṅkhya-buddhi), has also added in the verse, ‘this is the state of being established in Brahman’ (BhG.2.72), that their fulfilment comes from devotion to that alone.अर्जुनाय च ‘कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते … मा ते सङ्गोऽस्त्वकर्मणि’ (BhG.2.47) इति कर्मैव कर्तव्यम् उक्तवान् योग-बुद्धिम् आश्रित्य, न तत एव श्रेयः-प्राप्तिम् उक्तवान्। Besides, in the verse, ‘Your right is for action alone....May you not have any inclination for inaction’ (BhG.2.47), the Lord said to Arjuna that duty had to be undertaken with the aid of the Conviction about Yoga (Yoga-buddhi). But he did not say that Liberation is attained through that alone.तद् एतद् आलक्ष्य पर्याकुली-कृत-बुद्धिः अर्जुनः उवाच। Noticing this, such as it was, Arjuna got his mind puzzled and said (to himself):कथं भक्ताय श्रेयोर्थिने यत् साक्षात् श्रेयः-साधनं साङ्ख्य-बुद्धि-निष्ठां श्रावयित्वा मां कर्मणि दृष्टानेकानर्थ-युक्ते पारंपर्येणापि अनेकान्तिक-श्रेयः-प्राप्ति-फले नियुञ्ज्यात् इति युक्तः पर्याकुली-भावः अर्जुनस्य। ‘Having first made me, who am His devotee seeking Liberation, hear about steadfastness in the Conviction about Reality, which is the direct cause of Liberation, why should He urge me to action which is seen to bristle with many evils, and from which, even through an indirect process, the result, viz Liberation, is unpredictable?’तद्-अनुरूपश् च प्रश्नः ‘ज्यायसी चेद्’ (BhG.3.1) इत्यादिः। Thus, Arjuna’s becoming perplexed is reasonable. And the question, ‘If it be Your opinion that Wisdom is superior to action....’ etc., is consistent with that.प्रश्नापाकरण-वाक्यं च भगवता उक्तं यथोक्त-विभाग-विषये शास्त्रे। The statement answering the question has been uttered by the Lord in this Scripture, where the division of the subject-matter referred to above has been dealt with.
केचित् तु – अर्जुनस्य प्रश्नार्थम् अन्यथा कल्पयित्वा तत्-प्रतिकूलं भगवतः प्रतिवचनं वर्णयन्ति, यथा च आत्मना सम्बन्ध-ग्रन्थे गीतार्थो निरूपितः तत्-प्रतिकूलं च इह पुनः प्रश्न-प्रतिवचनयोः अर्थं निरूपयन्ति। Some, however, imagine the meaning of Arjuna’s question to be otherwise, and explain the Lord’s answer contrarily to that. Here again, [•In the beginning of the third chapter.•] they ascertain the meaning of the question and the answer inconsistently with what they themselves have determined in their Introduction to be the purport of the Gītā.
कथम्? तत्र सम्बन्ध-ग्रन्थे तावत् – सर्वेषाम् आश्रमिणां ज्ञान-कर्मणोः समुच्चयः गीता-शास्त्रे निरूपितः अर्थः इत्युक्तम्; पुनर् विशेषितं च ‘यावज्-जीव’-श्रुति-चोदितानि कर्माणि परित्यज्य केवलाद् एव ज्ञानात् मोक्षः प्राप्यते इत्येतत् एकान्तेनैव प्रतिषिद्धम् इति। How? As to that, in that Introduction it has been said by them that in the scripture Gītā, the conclusion presented for people in all the stages of life is the combination of Knowledge and action. It has been again specifically stated by them that (in the Gītā) it is absolutely denied that Liberation is attained through Knowledge alone, by renouncing action enjoined by the Veda text, ‘(One should perform the Agni-hotra sacrifice) throughout life.’
इह तु आश्रम-विकल्पं दर्शयता ‘यावज्-जीव’-श्रुति-चोदितानाम् एव कर्मणां परित्याग उक्तः। But here (in the third chapter), when they show that the stages of life are distinct, the renunciation of those very actions which have been enjoined by the Veda text, ‘(One should perform the Agni-hotra sacrifice) throughout one’s life’, becomes admitted by them, ipso facto.
तत् कथम् ईदृशं विरुद्धम् अर्थम् अर्जुनाय ब्रूयात् भगवान्, श्रोता वा कथं विरुद्धम् अर्थम् अवधारयेत्? Therefore, how can the Lord say such a contradictory thing to Arjuna? Or how can the hearer comprehend a contradictory statement?
तत्रैतत् स्यात् – गृहस्थानाम् एव श्रौत-कर्म-परित्यागेन केवलाद् एव ज्ञानात् मोक्षः प्रतिषिध्यते, न तु आश्रमान्तराणाम् इति। Objection: In that case, let it be thus: With regard to the householders alone it is denied that, by renouncing all Veda rites and duties, Liberation can be attained through (superficial) Knowledge alone; but not so with regard to those belonging to the other stages of life.
एतद् अपि पूर्वोत्तर-विरुद्धम् एव। कथम्? सर्वाश्रमिणां ज्ञान-कर्मणोः समुच्चयो गीता-शास्त्रे निश्चितः अर्थः इति प्रतिज्ञाय इह कथं तद्-विरुद्धं केवलाद् एव ज्ञानात् मोक्षं ब्रूयात् आश्रमान्तराणाम्? Reply: Even this involves a contradiction between the earlier and the later statements. Objection: How? Reply: After having proposed in their Introduction that the ascertained teaching of the scripture Gītā is the combination of Knowledge and action for people in all the stages of life, how can they assert here contradictorily that, in the case of persons in stages of life other than that of the householders, Liberation comes from Knowledge alone?
अथ मतं श्रौत-कर्मापेक्षया एतद् वचनम् ‘केवलाद् एव ज्ञानात् श्रौतकर्मरहितात् गृहस्थानां मोक्षः प्रतिषिध्यते’ इति; तत्र गृहस्थानां विद्यमानम् अपि स्मार्तं कर्म अ-विद्यमानवत् उपेक्ष्य ‘ज्ञानादेव केवलात् न मोक्षः’ इत्युच्यते इति। Objection: Suppose it is held that this assertion is made with regard to Veda rites and duties, i.e. it is denied that householders can have Liberation through Knowledge alone which is unassociated with Veda rituals. By ignoring those duties of the householders which are prescribed by the Smṛtis, as if they (the duties) were nonexistent – even though they are present in fact–, it is said in that context that there can be no Liberation only from Knowledge. [•The duties sanctioned by the Smṛtis have to be performed by all, irrespective of the stages of life they are in; they are a common factor in the lives of all spiritual aspirants, and hence, their existence need not be considered separately with regard to the householders. So, when it is said that those other than the householders cannot have Liberation from Knowledge alone, it is to be understood that they attain Liberation through Knowledge combined with duties prescribed by the Smṛtis.-Tr.•]
एतद् अपि विरुद्धम्। कथम्? गृहस्थस्यैव स्मार्त-कर्मणा समुच्चितात् ज्ञानात् मोक्षः प्रतिषिध्यते न तु आश्रमान्तराणाम् इति कथं विवेकिभिः शक्यम् अवधारयितुम्? Reply: Even this is contradictory! Objection: How? Reply: After having proposed in their Introduction that the ascertained teaching of the scripture Gītā is the combination of Knowledge and action for people in all the stages of life, how can they assert here contradictorily that, in the case of persons in stages of life other than that of the householders, Liberation comes from Knowledge alone?
किञ्च – यदि मोक्ष-साधनत्वेन स्मार्तानि कर्माणि ऊर्ध्व-रेतसां समुच्चीयन्ते, तथा गृहस्थस्यापि इष्यतां स्मार्तैर् एव समुच्चयो न श्रौतैः। अथ श्रौतैः स्मार्तैश् च गृहस्थस्यैव समुच्चयः मोक्षाय, ऊर्ध्व-रेतसां तु स्मार्त-कर्ममात्र-समुच्चितात् ज्ञानात् मोक्ष इति। Objection: Suppose it is held that this assertion is made with regard to Veda rites and duties, i.e. it is denied that householders can have Liberation through Knowledge alone which is unassociated with Veda rituals. By ignoring those duties of the householders which are prescribed by the Smṛtis, as if they (the duties) were nonexistent – even though they are present in fact–, it is said in that context that there can be no Liberation only from Knowledge. [•The duties sanctioned by the Smṛtis have to be performed by all, irrespective of the stages of life they are in; they are a common factor in the lives of all spiritual aspirants, and hence, their existence need not be considered separately with regard to the householders. So, when it is said that those other than the householders cannot have Liberation from Knowledge alone, it is to be understood that they attain Liberation through Knowledge combined with duties prescribed by the Smṛtis.-Tr.•]
तत्रैवं सति गृहस्थस्य आयास-बाहुल्यात् श्रौतं स्मार्तं च बहु-दुःख-रूपं कर्म शिरसि आरोपितं स्यात्। Reply: Even this is contradictory! Objection: How? Reply: How can it be understood by discrimination people that, Liberation through Knowledge combined with action (rites and duties) prescribed by the Smṛtis is denied in the case of householders alone, but not with regard to others? Moreover, if, in the case of the sannyāsins, actions (rites and duties) prescribed by the Smṛtis have to be combined with Knowledge as a means to Liberation, then even for the householders you should accept the combination of Knowledge with actions sanctioned by the Smṛtis only not with those sanctioned by the Vedas.
अथ गृहस्थस्यैव आयास-बाहुल्य-कारणात् मोक्षः स्यात्, न आश्रमान्तराणां श्रौत-नित्य-कर्म-रहितत्वात् इति। On the other hand, if it be held that for Liberation, Knowledge has to be combined with actions sanctioned by the Vedas and the Smṛtis in the case the householders only, but for the sannyāsins the combination has to be with actions sanctioned by the Smṛtis alone, then, in that case, on the householder’s head will be placed the burden of much exertion in the form of greatly painful actions prescribed by the Vedas and the Smṛtis!
तद् अप्य् अ-सत्, सर्वोपनिषत्सु इतिहास-पुराण-योग-शास्त्रेषु च ज्ञानाङ्गत्वेन मुमुक्षोः सर्व-कर्म-सन्न्यास-विधानात्, आश्रम-विकल्प-समुच्चय-विधानाच् च श्रुति-स्मृत्योः। Again, if it be argued that Liberation will be attained by householders alone on account of their undertaking tasks requiring much diligence, but people in other stages of life will not have It because of their non-performance of the Veda and the daily obligatory duties (nitya-karma, prescribed by the Smṛtis), then that too is wrong since, with regard to the seekers of Liberation, renunciation of all actions has been prescribed as an accessory of Knowledge by all the Upaniṣads, History, Purāṇas and Yoga-scripures. And this follows also from the sanction in the Vedas and the Smṛtis for following the stages of life either optionally or successively. [•The Jābāla Upaniṣad says: ‘After completing (the stage of) Celibacy, one should become a householder; from householder-ship he should become an anchorite (lit. a forest-dweller), and then become a mendicant. Or, if it happens otherwise, one should espouse monasticism even from the stage of Celibacy, or from his house (i.e. from the stage of the Householder), or from the forest’ (see Ja. 4.1). The first sentence speaks of successive progress towards monasticism, and the second speaks of optional adoption of monasticism. Combination of Knowledge with action may be of two kinds, krama-samuccaya and saha-samuccaya, Krama-samuccaya is where an aspirant embraces monasticism by gradually passing through the different stages of life. This is an indirect combination of Knowledge with action (rites and duties). Śaṅkarācarya is ready to concede this in the case of some people. There is also the other alternative of saha-samuccaya, where Knowledge is sought to be directly combined with action. Śaṅkarācarya rejects this standpoint totally. The Jābāla first speaks of krama-samuccaya, and then, by holding that one can become a monk from any stage of life, it rejects saha-samuccaya. Besides, there is the Upaniṣad text, ‘yadahar eva virajet tadahar eva pravrajet, one should renounce the very moment he acquires detachment’ (Ja. 4). A.G. quotes a Smṛtis which, too, says, ‘One should have recourse to that stage of life to which he is inclined.’-Tr.•]
सिद्धस् तर्हि सर्वाश्रमिणां ज्ञान-कर्मणोः समुच्चयः। Objection: In that case, the conclusion is that Knowledge and action should be combined by people in all stages of life?
न, मुमुक्षोः सर्व-कर्म-सन्न्यास-विधानात्। Reply: No, because it is enjoined in the Upaniṣad texts that a man aspiring for Liberation should give up all actions:
‘(पुत्रैषणाया वित्तैषणायाश् च लोकैषणायाश् च) व्युत्थाय अथ भिक्षा-चर्यं चरन्ति’ (BrhUEng.3.5.1) ‘तस्मात् न्यासम् एषां तपसाम् अतिरिक्तम् आहुः’ (MNārU.2.79) ‘न्यास एवात्यरेचयत्’ (MNārU.2.78) इति, ‘न कर्मणा न प्रजया धनेन त्यागेनैके अमृतत्वम् आनशुः’ (MNārU.2.12) इति च। ‘ब्रह्म-चर्याद् एव प्रव्रजेत्’ (JābU.4) इत्याद्याः श्रुतयः। ‘(Knowing this very Self the Brāhmaṇas) renounce (the desire for sons, for wealth and for the worlds), and lead a mendicant life’ (BrhUEng.3.5.1; also see BrhUEng.4.4.22); ‘Therefore they speak of monasticism as something surpassing all these austerities’ (Ma. Na. 24.1); ‘Monasticism verily became supreme’ (ibid. 21.2); ‘The few who obtained Immortality did so not through action, nor progeny,nor wealth, but through renunciation alone’ (ibid. 10.5; Kai. 2); [•The references to these quotations from the Ma. Na. are numbered according to C.P.U. According to the Ma. Na. published from the Ramakrishna Math, Madras, the reference numbers are 79.16, 78.12 and 12.14 respectively.-Tr.•] and, ‘One should take to monasticism from the stage of Celibacy itself’ (JābU.4), etc.
‘त्यज धर्मम् अ-धर्मं च उभे सत्यानृते त्यज। उभे सत्यानृते त्यक्त्वा येन त्यजसि तत् त्यज।’ (MBhSant.329.40) ‘संसारम् एव निःसारं दृष्ट्वा सार-दिदृक्षया। प्रव्रजन्त्य् अ-कृतोद्वाहाः परं वैराग्यम् आश्रिताः’ (some Smṛti and NārParU.3.15) इति बृहस्पतिः। ‘कर्मणा बध्यते जन्तुर् विद्यया च विमुच्यते। तस्मात् कर्म न कुर्वन्ति यतयः पार-दर्शिनः’ (MBhSant.241.7) इति शुकानुशासनम्। Besides, (in the Smṛti) it is said: ‘Giving up religion and irreligion, give up both the real and the unreal, give up that [•The idea of agentship.•] through which they are renounced’ (MBhSant.329.40; MBhSant.331.44). And Bṛhas-pati said to Kaca: ‘Noticing that the phenomenal world is verily hollow, and desiring to realize the Essence (Brahman), they, even while remaining unmarried, take to monasticism by embracing supreme renunciation.’ [•Ast. omits ‘kacam prati, to Kaca’, and notes that this verse occurs in Na. Par. (3.15) without any reference to Brahas-pati.-Tr.•] (Vyāsa’s) instruction to Śuka is this: ‘A being gets bound down by actions, and he is liberated by Illumination. Therefore, the sannyāsins who have realized the Transcendental (Self) do not undertake any action (rites and duties)’ (MBhSant.241.7).
इहापि च ‘सर्व-कर्माणि मनसा संन्यस्य’ (BhG.5.13) इत्यादि। मोक्षस्य च अ-कार्यत्वात् मुमुक्षोः कर्मानर्थक्यम्। Here also occurs the text, ‘having given up all actions mentally,’ etc. (BhG.5.13). Further, as Liberation is not a result (of action), actions become useless for one aspiring for Liberation.
नित्यानि प्रत्यवाय-परिहारार्थम् अनुष्ठेयानि इति चेत्। Objection: May it not be argued that the daily obligatory duties (nitya-karmas) have to be performed as to avoid sin? [•Cf: ‘By not performing the enjoined rites, and doing those which are prohibited, and indulging in sense-objects, a man suffers downfall.’ (quoted by A.G.) Rites are divided under three categories – nitya, naimittika and kāmya. Nityas are daily obligatory duties such as Agni-hotra. repeating Gāyatrī, etc. every morning and evening; naimittikas are occasional duties such as śrāddha (obsequies, prāyaścitta (expiation), etc.; kāmyas are rites performed for some particular purpose and with a view to future fruition, e.g. kārīrī-sacrifice performed to get rains; putreṣṭi done for getting a son; a svamedha for going to heaven. Nitya-karmas are supposed to yield no result, but their non-performance brings evil. Śaṅkarācarya refutes this theory. According to him, nitya-karmas have a positive result in as much as they purify the mind, or they lead to heaven.-Tr.•]
न; अ-सन्न्यासि-विषयत्वात् प्रत्यवाय-प्राप्तेः। न हि अग्नि-कार्याद्य्-अकरणात् सन्न्यासिनः प्रत्यवायः कल्पयितुं शक्यः, यथा ब्रह्म-चारिणाम् अ-सन्न्यासिनाम् अपि कर्मिणाम्। Reply: No, because the incurring of sin concerns those who are not monks. As by not performing rituals etc. connected with fire, sin accrues even to the Brahmacarins who are performers of rites and duties and are not monks, it certainly cannot be imagined similarly with regard to a sannyāsin. [•Sin is incurred by one who fails to perform the rites and duties enjoined on him according to his stage of life. A Brahmacarin, whose duty is to study the Vedas and keep the sacred fire burning with fuel, incurs sin by not doing so. But the sannyāsin cannot incur sin by the non-performance of what is not his duty.•]
न तावत् नित्यानां कर्मणाम् अ-भावाद् एव भाव-रूपस्य प्रत्यवायस्य उत्पत्तिः कल्पयितुं शक्या (युक्ता च), ‘कथम् अ-सतः सज् जायेत?’ (ChanU.6.2.2) इति अ-सतः सज्-जन्मासम्भव-श्रुतेः। For that matter, neither can it be imagined that sin which is a positive entity can be generated from the mere absence of daily obligatory duties (nitya-karmas), because of the Upaniṣad text, ‘How can existence come out of nonexistence?’ (ChanU.6.2.2), which speaks of the impossibility of the birth of existence from nonexistence.
यदि विहिताकरणात् अ-सम्भाव्यम् अपि प्रत्यवायं ब्रूयात् वेदः, तदा अन्-अर्थकरः वेदः अ-प्रमाणम् इत्युक्तं स्यात्। Should the Vedas speak even of the impossible, that sin accrues from the non-performance of enjoined rites, then it will amount to saying that the Vedas are a source of evil and hence invalid!
विहितस्य करणाकरणयोः दुःखमात्र-फलत्वात्। For the result of either doing or not doing what is enjoined would be pain. [•Performance of rites involves pain such as irritation of the eyes due to smoke, monetary expenses, etc., and non-performance too would produce sin!•]
तथा च ‘कारकं शास्त्रं, न ज्ञापकम्’ इत्य् अन्-उपपन्नार्थं कल्पितं स्यात्। न चैतद् इष्टम्। And thereby an illogical conjecture would have been made that the scriptures are creative and not informative. [•The scriptures proceed by accepting the powers of objects as they are known, and not by imparting to them powers they (the objects) do not have In this sense the Vedas are informative, and not creative.•] And this is not desirable.
तस्मात् न सन्न्यासिनां कर्माणि। अतो ज्ञान-कर्मणोः समुच्चयानुपपत्तिः। Therefore, rites and duties are not for monks. Hence, the combination of Knowledge and action does not stand to reason.
‘ज्यायसी चेत् कर्मणस् ते मता बुद्धिः’ (BhG.3.1) इति अर्जुनस्य प्रश्नानुपपत्तेश् च। Moreover, Arjuna’s question, ‘If it be Your opinion that Wisdom is superior to action,’ etc. becomes unjustifiable.
यदि हि भगवता द्वितीयाध्याये ज्ञानं कर्म च समुच्चयेन त्वया अनुष्ठेयम् इत्युक्तं स्यात्, ततः अर्जुनस्य प्रश्नः अन्-उपपन्नः ‘ज्यायसी चेत् कर्मणस् ते मता बुद्धिः’ (BhG.3.1) इति। For, if it be that the Lord had said in the second chapter, ‘Knowledge and action, in combination, have to be pursued by you’, then Arjuna’s question, ‘O Janārdana, if it be Your opinion that Wisdom is superior to action,’ etc. becomes unreasonable.
अर्जुनाय चेत् बुद्धि-कर्मणी त्वया अनुष्ठेय इत्युक्ते, या कर्मणो ज्यायसी बुद्धिः सापि उक्तैव इति ‘तत् किं कर्मणि घोरे मां नियोजयसि केशव’ (BhG.3.1) इति प्रश्नो न कथंचन उपपद्यते। Had it been said to Arjuna, ‘Wisdom and action are to be practised by you’, then that Wisdom which is superior to action also stands stated as a matter of course. In that case, Arjuna’s [•Here, Ast. adds ‘upalambho vā, accusation, or’.-Tr.•] question, ‘why then do you urge me to horrible action?’, cannot in any way be logical.
न च ‘अर्जुनस्यैव ज्यायसी बुद्धिः न अनुष्ठेया इति भगवता उक्तं पूर्वम्’ इति कल्पयितुं युक्तम्, येन ‘ज्यायसी चेत्’ इति प्रश्नः स्यात्। Nor can it be reasonably imagined that the Lord had said earlier that Wisdom which is superior should not be practised by Arjuna alone, from which could arise the question, ‘If it be your opinion that Wisdom is superior to action...?’ [•Ast. adds ‘vivekataḥ, by making a distinction (between the pursuit of Knowledge and of action)’.-Tr.•]
यदि पुनः एकस्य पुरुषस्य ज्ञान-कर्मणोर् विरोधात् युगपद् अनुष्ठानं न सम्भवतीति भिन्न-पुरुषानुष्ठेयत्वं भगवता पूर्वम् उक्तं स्यात्, ततोऽयं प्रश्न उपपन्नः ‘ज्यायसी चेद्’ इत्यादिः। Again, had it been stated earlier by the Lord that Knowledge and actions are to be pursued by different persons since they, owing to mutual contradiction, cannot be simultaneously pursued by one and the same person, they only would this question, ‘If it be Your opinion,’ etc. become logical.
अ-विवेकतः प्रश्न-कल्पनायाम् अपि भिन्न-पुरुषानुष्ठेयत्वेन भगवतः प्रतिवचनं नोपपद्यते। Even if it be supposed that the question has been put owing to non-discrimination, still, the Lord’s reply that they (Knowledge and action) are to be pursued by different persons does not become rational.
न च अ-ज्ञान-निमित्तं भगवत्-प्रतिवचनं कल्प्यम्। Besides, it should not be imagined that the Lord’s answer is given out of His misunderstanding.
अस्माच् च भिन्न-पुरुषानुष्ठेयत्वेन ज्ञान-कर्म-निष्ठयोः भगवतः प्रतिवचन-दर्शनात्, ज्ञान-कर्मणोः समुच्चयानुपपत्तिः। And from these considerations, since the Lord’s answer is seen to be that the steadfastness in Knowledge and in action are meant for different persons. Therefore it follows that combination of Knowledge and action is illogical.
तस्मात् केवलाद् एव ज्ञानात् मोक्ष इत्य् एषोऽर्थो निश्चितो गीतासु सर्वोपनिषत्सु च। Hence, the well-ascertained conclusion in the Gītā and all the Upaniṣads is that Liberation follows from Knowledge alone.
ज्ञान-कर्मणोः ‘एकं वद निश्चित्य’ (BhG.3.2) इति च एक-विषयैव प्रार्थना अन्-उपपन्ना, उभयोः समुच्चय-सम्भवे। Further, if it were possible to combine both of them, then the prayer, ‘Tell me for certain one of these,’ with regard to either Knowledge or action, becomes inconsistent.
‘कुरु कर्मैव तस्मात् त्वम्’ (BhG.4.15) इति च ज्ञान-निष्ठासम्भवम् अर्जुनस्य अवधारणेन दर्शयिष्यति॥ And by His emphatic statement, ‘Therefore you undertake action itself’ (BhG.4.15Arjuna to be steadfast in Knowledge.
अर्जुनः उवाच। जन-अर्दन, कर्मणः चेद् ज्यायसी बुद्धिः ते (=तव) मता, तद् किं घोरे कर्मणि मां नियोजयसि, केशव॥ 🔗 Arjuna said: O Kṛṣṇa, if it is Your contention that knowledge is better than action, then why do You compel me into this gruesome action, O Kṛṣṇa?
ज्यायसी श्रेयसी चद् यदि कर्मणः सकाशात् ते तव मता अभिप्रेता बुद्धिः ज्ञानं, हे जनार्दन। O Janārdana, cet, if it be; te, Your; matā, opinion, intention; that buddhiḥ, Wisdom; jyāyasī, is superior; karmaṇaḥ, to action-.
यदि बुद्धि-कर्मणी समुच्चिते इष्टे, तदा ‘एकं श्रेयः-साधनम्’ इति, ‘कर्मणो ज्यायसी बुद्धिः’ इति कर्मणः अतिरिक्त-करणं बुद्धेर् अनुपपन्नम् अर्जुनेन कृतं स्यात्। न हि ‘तद् एव तस्मात्’ फलतोऽतिरिक्तं स्यात्। If the combination of Wisdom and action be intended (by the Lord), then the means to Liberation is only one. [•The path combining Wisdom and action.•] In that case, Arjuna would have done something illogical in separating Wisdom from action by saying that Wisdom is superior to action. For, that (Wisdom or action, which is a constituent of the combination) cannot be greater than that (Combination, even) from the point of view of the result. [•Since what is intended is a combination, therefore, the separation of Knowledge from action, from the point of view of the result, is not justifiable. When Knowledge and action are considered to form together a single means to Liberation, in that case each of them cannot be considered separately as producing its own distinct result. Arjuna's question can be justified only if this separation were possible.•]
तथा च कर्मणः श्रेयस्करी भगवतोक्ता बुद्धिः, ‘अ-श्रेयस्करं कर्म कुरु’ इति मां प्रतिपादयति, तत् – किं नु कारणम्? इति भगवत उपालम्भम् इव कुर्वन् ‘तत् किं कस्मात् कर्मणि घोरे क्रूरे हिंसा-लक्षणे मां नियोजयसि केशव?’ इति च यद् आह तच् च नोपपद्यते। Similarly, what Arjuna said by way of censuring the Lord, as it were, in, ‘It has been stated by the Lord that Wisdom is superior to action, and He exhorts me saying, “Undertake action,” which is a source of evil! What may be the reason for this?’, and also in, ‘Tat kim, why then, O Keśava; niyojayasi, do You urge; mām, me; to ghore, horrible, cruel; karmaṇi, action; involving injury?’ -that (censure) also does not become reasonable.
अथ च स्मार्तेनैव कर्मणा समुच्चयः सर्वेषां भगवता उक्तः अर्जुनेन च अवधारितश् चेत्, ‘तत् किं कर्मणि घोरे मां नियोजयसि’ इत्यादि कथं युक्तं वचनम्॥ On the other hand, [•If the opponent’s view be that Knowledge is to be combined with rites and duties sanctioned by the Vedas and the Smṛtis in the case of the householders only, whereas for others those sanctioned by the Smṛtis alone are to be combined with Knowledge...., then....•] if it be supposed that the combination (of Knowledge) with action sanctioned only by the Smṛtis has been enjoined for all by the Lord, and Arjuna also comprehended (accordingly), then, how can the statement, ‘Why then do you urge me to horrible action’, be rational?
व्यामिश्रेण इव वाक्येन मे बुद्धिं मोहयसि इव। तद् एकं निश्चित्य वद, येन अहं श्रेयः आप्नुयाम्॥ 🔗 With apparently contradictory words, You seem to confuse my mind. Please decide on just one and tell me that one by which I may gain complete freedom (śreyas).
व्यामिश्रेणेव, यद्यपि विविक्ताभिधायी भगवान्, तथापि मम मन्द-बुद्धेः व्यामिश्रम् इव भगवद्-वाक्यं प्रतिभाति। तेन मम बुद्धिं मोहयसि इव। ‘Though the Lord speaks lucidly, still, to me who am of a dull understanding, the Lord’s utterance appears to be conflicting.’ ‘Mohayasi, You bewilder; me, my; buddhim, understanding; iva, as it were; vyāmiśreṇa iva, by that seemingly conflicting; vakyena, statement!’
मम बुद्धि-व्यामोहापनयाय हि प्रवृत्तः त्वं तु कथं मोहयसि? अतः ब्रवीमि ‘बुद्धिं मोहयसि इव मे’ मम इति। ‘You have surely undertaken to dispel the confusion of my understanding; but why do You bewildered (it)? Hence I say, “You bewildered my understanding, as it were.”’
त्वं तु भिन्न-कर्तृकयोः ज्ञान-कर्मणोः एक-पुरुषानुष्ठानासम्भवं यदि मन्यसे, तत्रैवं सति तत् तयोः एकं बुद्धिं कर्म वा ‘इदम् एव अर्जुनस्य योग्यं बुद्धि-शक्त्यवस्थानुरूपम्’ इति निश्चित्य वद ब्रूहि, येन ज्ञानेन कर्मणा वा अन्यतरेण श्रेयः अहम् आप्नुयां प्राप्नुयाम्। ‘However, if You [•In some readings, ‘tvam tu, however, you’, is substituted by ‘tatra, as to that’.-Tr.•] think that it is impossible for a single person to pursue both Knowledge and action, which can be undertaken (only) by different persons then, that being the case, vada, tell me; niścitya, for certain; tad ekam, one of these, either Knowledge or action: “This indeed is fit for Arjuna, according to his understanding, strength and situation”; yena, by which, by one of either Knowledge or action; aham, I; āpnuyām, may attain; śreyaḥ, the highest Good.’
यदि हि कर्मिष्ठायां गुण-भूतम् अपि ज्ञानं भगवता उक्तं स्यात्, तत् कथं तयोः ‘एकं वद’ इति एक-विषयैव अर्जुनस्य शुश्रूषा स्यात्। Even if Knowledge had been spoken of at all by the Lord as being subsidiary to steadfastness in action, how then could there be the desire in Arjuna to know of only one of them, as expressed in ‘Tell me one of these two?’
न हि भगवता पूर्वम् उक्तम् ‘अन्यतरद् एव ज्ञान-कर्मणोः वक्ष्यामि, नैव द्वयम्’ इति, येन उभय-प्राप्त्यसम्भवम् आत्मनो मन्यमानः एकम् एव प्रार्थयेत्॥ Certainly the Lord did not say, ‘I shall speak of only one among Knowledge and action, but surely not of both’, owing to which, Arjuna, considering it impossible for himself to acquire both, should have prayed for one only!
प्रश्नानुरूपम् एव प्रतिवचनं (श्री-भगवान् उवाच) – The answer was in accordance with the question:
श्री-भगवान् उवाच। अन्-अघ, अस्मिन् लोके पुरा मया द्वि-विधा निष्ठा प्रोक्ता – ज्ञान-योगेन साङ्ख्यानां कर्म-योगेन योगिनाम्॥ 🔗 The Lord said: O Arjuna, long ago in this world I taught (in the Upaniṣads) two different lifestyles – one through the means that is knowledge (jñāna-yoga) for those dedicated to knowledge, and the other through the means that is duty (karma-yoga) for yogīs, (those dedicated to duty as a means).
लोके अस्मिन् शास्त्रार्थानुष्ठानाधिकृतानां त्रै-वर्णिकानां द्वि-विधा द्वि-प्रकारा निष्ठा स्थितिः अनुष्ठेय-तात्पर्यं पुरा पूर्वं सर्गादौ प्रजाः सृष्ट्वा तासाम् अभ्युदय-निःश्रेयस-प्राप्ति-साधनं वेदार्थ-सम्प्रदायम् आविष्कुर्वता प्रोक्ता मया सर्वज्ञेन ईश्वरेण हे अनघ अपाप। An-agha, O unblemished one, O sinless one; [•This word of address suggests that Arjuna is qualified to receive the Lord’s instruction.•] dvi-vidhā, two kinds of ; niṣṭhā, steadfastness, persistence in what is undertaken; asmin loke, in this world, for the people of the three societal-classes who are qualified for following the scriptures; proktā, were spoken of; mayā, by Me, the omniscient God, who had revealed for them the traditional teachings of the Vedas, which are the means of securing prosperity and the highest Goal; purā, in the days of yore, in the beginning the creation, after having brought into being the creatures.
तत्र का सा द्वि-विधा निष्ठा? इत्याह – ज्ञान-योगेन ज्ञानम् एव योगः तेन सांख्यानाम् आत्मानात्म-विषय-विवेक-विज्ञानवतां ब्रह्मचर्याश्रमाद् एव कृत-सन्न्यासानां वेदान्त-विज्ञान-सुनिश्चितार्थानां (KaivU.4) परम-हंस-परिव्राजकानां ब्रह्मण्येव अवस्थितानां निष्ठा प्रोक्ता। Now then, which is that steadfastness of two kinds? In answer the Lord says: The steadfastness jñāna-yogena, through the Yoga of Knowledge – Knowledge itself being the Yoga [•Here jñāna, Knowledge, refers to the knowledge of the supreme Reality, and Yoga is used in the derivative sense of ‘that (Knowledge) through which one gets united with Brahman’.•]-; had been stated sāṅkhyānām, for the men of realization – those possessed of the Knowledge arising from the discrimination with regard to the Self and the not-Self, those who have espoused monasticism from the stage of Celibacy; itself, those to whom the entity presented by the Vedānta knowledge has become fully ascertained (see MunU.3.2.6)-,the monks who are known as the parama-haṃsas, those who are established in Brahman alone.कर्म-योगेन कर्मैव योगः कर्म-योगः तेन कर्म-योगेन योगिनां कर्मिणां निष्ठा प्रोक्ता इत्यर्थः। And the steadfastness karma-yogena, through the Yoga of Action – action itself being the Yoga [•Yoga here means ‘that through which one gets united with, comes to have, prosperity’, i.e. such actions as go by the name of righteousness and are prescribed by the scriptures.•] had been stated yoginām, for the yogīs, the men of action (rites and duties). This is the idea.
यदि च एकेन पुरुषेण एकस्मै पुरुषार्थाय ज्ञानं कर्म च समुच्चित्य अनुष्ठेयं भगवता इष्टम् उक्तं वक्ष्यमाणं वा गीतासु वेदेषु चोक्तम्, कथम् इह अर्जुनाय उपसन्नाय प्रियाय विशिष्ट-भिन्न-पुरुष-कर्तृके एव ज्ञान-कर्म-निष्ठे ब्रूयात्? Again, had it been intended or stated or if it will be stated in the Gītā by the Lord – and if it has also been so stated in the Vedas – that Knowledge and action are to be practised in combination by one and the same person for attaining the same human Goal, why then should He here tell His dear supplicant Arjuna, that steadfastness in either Knowledge or action is to be practised only by different persons who are respectively qualified?
यदि पुनः ‘अर्जुनः ज्ञानं कर्म च द्वयं श्रुत्वा स्वयम् एवानुष्ठास्यति अन्येषां तु भिन्न-पुरुषानुष्ठेयतां वक्ष्यामि’ इति मतं भगवतः कल्प्येत, तदा राग-द्वेषवान् अप्रमाण-भूतो भगवान् कल्पितः स्यात्। तच् च अयुक्तम्। If, on the other hand, it be supposed that the Lord’s idea is, ‘After hearing about both Knowledge and action, Arjuna will himself practise them (in combination); but, to others, I shall speak of them as being meant to be pursued by different persons’, then the Lord would be imagined to be unreliable, being possessed of likes and dislikes! And that is untenable.
तस्मात् कयापि युक्त्या न समुच्चयो ज्ञान-कर्मणोः। So, from no point of view whatsoever can there be a combination of Knowledge and action.
यत् अर्जुनेन उक्तं कर्मणो ज्यायस्त्वं बुद्धेः, तच्च स्थितम्, अनिराकरणात्। तस्याश्च ज्ञान-निष्ठायाः सन्न्यासिनाम् एवानुष्ठेयत्वम्, भिन्न-पुरुषानुष्ठेयत्व-वचनात्, भगवतः एवम् एव अनुमतम् इति गम्यते॥ And what has been said by Arjuna regarding superiority of Wisdom over action, that stands confirmed for not having been refuted; and (it also stands confirmed) that steadfastness in Knowledge is suitable for being practised by monks alone. And from the statement that they (Knowledge and action) are to be followed by different persons, it is understood that this has the Lord‘s approval.
‘मां च बन्ध-कारणे कर्मण्येव नियोजयसि’ इति विषण्ण-मनसम् अर्जुनम् ‘कर्म न आरभे’ इत्येवं मन्वानम् आलक्ष्य आह भगवान् – ‘न कर्मणाम् अनारम्भात्’ इति। Noticing that Arjuna had become dejected under the impression, ‘You are urging me to that very action which is a source of bondage’, and was thinking thus, ‘I shall not undertake action’, the Lord said, ‘Na karmaṇām anārambhāt, not by abstaining from action,’ etc.
अथवा – ज्ञान-कर्म-निष्ठयोः परस्पर-विरोधात् एकेन पुरुषेण युगपत् अनुष्ठातुम् अशक्त्यत्वे सति इतरेतरानपेक्षयोर् एव पुरुषार्थ-हेतुत्वे प्राप्ते – कर्म-निष्ठाया ज्ञान-निष्ठा-प्राप्ति-हेतुत्वेन पुरुषार्थ-हेतुत्वम्, न स्वा-तन्त्र्येण; ज्ञान-निष्ठा तु कर्म-निष्ठोपाय-लब्धात्मिका सती स्वा-तन्त्र्येण पुरुषार्थ-हेतुः अन्यानपेक्षा, इत्येतम् अर्थं प्रदर्शयिष्यन् आह भगवान् – Or – When steadfastness in Knowledge and steadfastness in action become incapable of being pursued simultaneously by one and the same person owing to mutual contradiction, then, since it may be concluded that they become the cause of attaining the human Goal independently of each other, therefore, in order to – that the steadfastness in action is a means to the human Goal, not independently, but by virtue of being instrumental in securing steadfastness in Knowledge; and that, on the other hand, steadfastness in Knowledge, having come into being through the means of steadfastness in action, leads to the human Goal independently without anticipating anything else-,the Lord said:
पुरुषः कर्मणाम् अन्-आरम्भात् नैष्कर्म्यं न अश्नुते, [ज्ञान-ज्ञानयोग्य-रहितात्] सन्न्यसनात् एव च सिद्धिं न समधिगच्छति॥ 🔗 A person does not gain actionlessness, (complete freedom), by not undertaking action, nor does one gain this success, complete freedom, merely by (taking the vow of) renunciation (sannyāsa).
न कर्मणाम् अनारम्भाद् अप्रारम्भात् कर्मणां क्रियाणां यज्ञादीनाम् इह जन्मनि जन्मान्तरे वा अनुष्ठितानाम् उपात्त-दुरित-क्षय-हेतुत्वेन सत्त्व-शुद्धि-कारणानां तत्कारणत्वेन च ज्ञानोत्पत्ति-द्वारेण ज्ञान-निष्ठा-हेतूनाम्, ‘ज्ञानम् उत्पद्यते पुंसां क्षयात् पापस्य कर्मणः। (यथादर्श-तले प्रख्ये पश्यत्यात्मानम् आत्मनि)’ (MBhSant.204.8) इत्यादिस्मरणात्, अनारम्भात् अननुष्ठानात्। नैष्कर्म्यं निष्कर्म-भावं कर्म-शून्यतां ज्ञान-योगेन निष्ठां निष्क्रियात्म-स्वरूपेणैव अवस्थानम् इति यावत्। पुरुषः न अश्नुते न प्राप्नोतीत्यर्थः। Purusah, a person; na does not; aśnute, attain; naiṣkarmyam, freedom from action, the state of being free from action, steadfastness in the Yoga of Knowledge, i.e. the state of abiding in one’s own Self which is free from action; an-ārambhāt, by abstaining; karmaṇām, from actions – by the non-performance of actions such as sacrifices etc. which are or were performed in the present or past lives, which are the causes of the purification of the mind by way of attenuating the sins incurred, and which, by being the cause of that (purification), become the source of steadfastness in Knowledge through the generation of Knowledge, as stated in the Smṛti (text), ‘Knowledge arises in a person from the attenuation of sinful acts’ [•the whole verse is: Jnānam utpadyate puṃsām kṣayāt pāpasya karmaṇaḥ; Yathādarśa-tale prakhye paśyatyātmānām ātmani. ‘Knowledge arises....acts. One sees the Self in oneself as does one (see oneself) in a cleaned surface of a mirror’.-Tr.•] (MBhSant.204.8). This is the import.
‘कर्मणाम् अनारम्भान् नैष्कर्म्यं नाश्नुते’ इति वचनात् तद्विपर्ययात् ‘तेषाम् आरम्भात् नैष्कर्म्यम् अश्नुते’ इति गम्यते। कस्मात् पुनः कारणात् कर्मणाम् अनारम्भान् नैष्कर्म्यं नाश्नुते इति? From the statement that one does not attain freedom from action by abstaining from actions, it may be concluded that one attains freedom from action by following the opposite course of performing actions. What, again, is the reason that one does not attain freedom from action by abstaining from actions?
उच्यते, कर्मारम्भस्यैव नैष्कर्म्योपायत्वात्। न ह्युपायम् अन्तरेण उपेय-प्राप्तिर् अस्ति। कर्म-योगोपायत्वं च नैष्कर्म्य-लक्षणस्य ज्ञान-योगस्य, श्रुतौ इह च प्रतिपादनात्। The answer is: Because performing actions is itself a means to freedom from action. Indeed, there can be no attainment of an end without (its) means. And Karma-yoga is the means to the Yoga of Knowledge characterized by freedom from action, because it has been so established in the Upaniṣads and here as well.
श्रुतौ तावत् प्रकृतस्य आत्म-लोकस्य वेद्यस्य वेदनोपायत्वेन ‘तम् एतं वेदानुवचनेन ब्राह्मणा विविदिषन्ति यज्ञेन’ (BrhUEng.4.4.22) इत्यादिना कर्म-योगस्य ज्ञान-योगोपायत्वं प्रतिपादितम्। As for the Upaniṣads, it has been shown in the texts, ‘The Brāhmaṇās seek to know It through the study of the Vedas, sacrifices, (charity, and austerity consisting in a dispassionate enjoyment of sense-objects)’ (BrhUEng.4.4.22), etc. which deal with the means of realizing the goal of Knowledge under discussion, viz the Realm of the Self, that the Yoga of Karma is a means to the Yoga of Knowledge.
इहापि च – ‘सन्न्यासस्तु महा-बाहो दुःखम् आप्तुम् अयोगतः’ (BhG.5.6), ‘योगिनः कर्म कुर्वन्ति सङ्गं त्यक्त्वात्म-शुद्धये’ (BhG.5.11), ‘यज्ञो दानं तपश् चैव पावनानि मनीषिणाम्’ (BhG.18.5) इत्यादि प्रतिपादयिष्यति। And even here (in the Gītā), the Lord will established that, ‘But, O mighty-armed one, renunciation is hard to attain without (Karma-)yoga’ (BhG.5.6); ‘By giving up attachment, the yogīs undertake work....for the purification of themselves’ (BhG.5.11); ‘Sacrifice, charity and austerity are verily the purifiers of the wise’ (BhG.18.5), etc.
ननु च ‘अभयं सर्व-भूतेभ्यो दत्त्वा नैष्कर्म्यम् आचरेद्’ (MBhAsv.46.18) इत्यादौ कर्तव्य-कर्म-सन्न्यासाद् अपि नैष्कर्म्य-प्राप्तिं दर्शयति। लोके च कर्मणाम् अनारम्भान् ‘नैष्कर्म्यम्’ इति प्रसिद्धतरम्। अतश्च नैष्कर्म्यार्थिनः किं कर्मारम्भेण? इति प्राप्तम्। Objection: Is it not that in such texts as – ‘Extending to all creatures immunity from fear’ (Na. Par. 5.43), (one should take recourse to freedom from action)-, it is shown that attainment of freedom from action follows even from the renunciation of obligatory duties? And in the world, too, it is a better known fact that freedom from action follows abstention from actions. Hence also arises the question, ‘Why should one who desires freedom from action undertake action?’
अत आह – न च संन्यसनाद् एव इति। नापि संन्यसनाद् एव केवलात् कर्म-परित्यागमात्राद् एव ज्ञान-रहितात् सिद्धिं नैष्कर्म्य-लक्षणां ज्ञान-योगेन निष्ठां समधिगच्छति न प्राप्नोति॥ Reply: Therefore the Lord said: Na ca, nor; samadhigacchati, does he attain; siddhim, fulfilment steadfastness in the Yoga of Knowledge, characterized by freedom from action; sannyasanāt eva, merely through renunciation – even from the mere renunciation of actions which is devoid of Knowledge.
कस्मात् पुनः कारणात् कर्म-सन्न्यासमात्राद् एव ज्ञान-रहितात् सिद्धिं नैष्कर्म्य-लक्षणां पुरुषो नाधिगच्छति? इति हेत्वाकाङ्क्षायाम् आह – What, again, is the reason that by the mere giving up of actions which is not accompanied with Knowledge, a person does not attain fulfilment in the form of freedom from actions? To this query seeking to know the cause, the Lord says:
न हि (=यस्मात्) कश्-चिद् क्षणम् अपि जातु अ-कर्म-कृत् तिष्ठति। सर्वः हि (=यस्मात्) अ-वशः प्रकृति-जैः गुणैः कर्म कार्यते॥ 🔗 Because nobody ever remains, even for a second, without performing action. Because everybody, being helpless, is made to perform action by the modifications of the three constituent principles of the universe (guṇas) born of nature (prakṛti).
न हि यस्मात् क्षणम् अपि कालं जातु कदाचित् कश्चित् तिष्ठति अकर्म-कृत् सन्। कस्मात्? कार्यते प्रवर्त्यते हि यस्मात् अवश एव कर्म सर्वः प्राणी प्रकृति-जैः प्रकृतितो जातैः सत्व-रजस्-तमोभिः गुणैः। Hi, because; na kaścit, no one; jātu, ever; tiṣṭhati, remains; api, even; for so much time as a kṣaṇam, moment; a-karma-kṛt, without doing work. Why? Hi, for; sarvaḥ, all creatures; kāryate karma, are made to work; verily a-vaśaḥ, under compulsion; guṇaiḥ, by the guṇas - sattva (goodness); rajas (activity), and tamas (mental darkness); prakṛti-jaiḥ, born of Nature.
‘अज्ञ’ इति वाक्यशेषः, यतो वक्ष्यति ‘गुणैर्यो न विचाल्यते’ (BhG.14.23) इति। साङ्ख्यानां पृथक्-करणात् अज्ञानाम् एव हि कर्म-योगः, न ज्ञानिनाम्। The word ‘unenlightened’ has to be added to the sentence, since the men of realization have been spoken of separately in, ‘who is not distracted by the three guṇas (qualities)’ (BhG.14.23). For Karma-yoga is meant only for the unenlightened, not for the men of Knowledge.
ज्ञानिनां तु गुणैर् अचाल्यमानानां स्वतश् चलनाभावात् कर्म-योगो नोपपद्यते। Karma-yoga, on the other hand, is not pertinent for the men of Knowledge who, because of their not moving away from their own Self, are not shaken by the guṇas.
तथा च व्याख्यातम् ‘वेदाविनाशिनम्’ (BhG.2.21) इत्यत्र॥ This has been explained similarly in, ‘he who has known this One as indestructible’ (BhG.2.21).
यत् तु अनात्म-ज्ञः चोदितं कर्म नारभते इति तद् असद् एवेत्याह – But, if one who is not a knower of the self does not perform prescribed action, then this is certainly bad. Hence the Lord says:
यः कर्म-इन्द्रियाणि संयम्य मनसा इन्द्रिय-अर्थान् स्मरन् आस्ते, सः विमूढ-आत्मा मिथ्या-आचारः उच्यते॥ 🔗 The one who sits, restraining the organs of action, yet contemplating the sense objects with the mind – that one is called one whose mind is deluded and whose conduct is useless. (Such is the predicament of a renunciate not prepared for a contemplative lifestyle.)
कर्मेन्द्रियाणि हस्तादीनि संयम्य संहृत्य यः आस्ते तिष्ठति मनसा स्मरन् चिन्तयन् इन्द्रियार्थान् विषयान् विमूढात्मा विमूढान्तःकरणः मिथ्याचारो मृषाचारः पापाचारः सः उच्यते॥ Yaḥ, one who; saṃyamya, after withdrawing; karma-indriyāṇi, the organs of action – hands etc.; āste, sits; manasā, mentally; smaran, recollecting, thinking; indriya-arthān, the objects of the senses; saḥ, that one; vimūḍha-ātmā, of deluded mind; ucyate, is called; mithyā-ācāraḥ, a hypocrite, a sinful person.
अर्जुन, यः तु इन्द्रियाणि मनसा नियम्य अ-सक्तः कर्म-इन्द्रियैः कर्म-योगम् आरभते, सः विशिष्यते॥ 🔗 However, O Arjuna, the one who rules the senses with the mind, is unattached, (not anticipating results), who through the organs of action undertakes action as a yajña, (means for preparing for knowledge) – that one is better (than the deluded of useless conduct).
यस् तु पुनः कर्मण्यधिकृतः अज्ञः बुद्धि-इन्द्रियाणि मनसा नियम्य आरभते अर्जुन कर्मेन्द्रियैः वाक्-पाण्यादिभिः। किम् आरभते? इत्याह – कर्म-योगम् असक्तः सन् (फलाभिसंधि-वर्जितः) सः विशिष्यते इतरस्मात् मिथ्याचारात्॥ Tu, but, on the other hand, O Arjuna; yaḥ, one who is unenlightened and who is eligible for action; ārabhate, engages in; – what does he engage in? the Lord says in answer – karma yogam, Karma-yoga; karma-indriyaiḥ, with the organs of action, with speech, hands, etc.; niyamya, controlling; indriyāṇi, the sense-organs; manasā, with the mind; and becoming a-saktaḥ unattached; [•Here Ast; adds ‘phalābhisandhi-varjitaḥ, free from hankering for results’.-Tr.•] saḥ, that one; viśiṣyate, excels the other one, the hypocrite.
त्वं नियतं कर्म कुरु, कर्म हि अ-कर्मणः ज्यायः, अ-कर्मणः च ते शरीर-यात्रा अपि न प्रसिद्ध्येत्॥ 🔗 You Arjuna, (personally), should do your enjoined duty (rather than do nothing or try to take to a contemplative life of sannyāsa), since duty is superior to inaction and, through inaction, even the maintenance of your body would be impossible.
नियतं नित्यं शास्त्रोपदिष्टं, यो यस्मिन् कर्मणि अधिकृतः फलाय च अश्रुतं तत् नियतं कर्म, तत् कुरु त्वं हे अर्जुन, यतः कर्म ज्यायः अदिकतरं फलतः, हि यस्मात् अकर्मणः अकरणात् अनारम्भात्। Tvam, you, O Arjuna; kuru, perform; niyatam, the obligatory; karma, duties, those daily obligatory duties (nitya-karmas) or which one is competent (according to the scriptures), and which are not heard of [•although no result of daily obligatory duties is mentioned in the scriptures, still Saṅkarācarya holds that it is either heaven or purification of the heart, because something done must have its consequence.-Tr.•] as productive of any result; hi, for, from the point of view of result; karma, action; is jyāyaḥ, superior; a-karmaṇaḥ, to inaction, to non-performance (of duties).
कथम्? शरीर-यात्रा शरीर-स्थितिः अपि च ते तव न प्रसिध्येत् प्रसिद्धिं न गच्छेत् अकर्मणः अकरणात्। अतः दृष्टः कर्माकर्मणोर् विशेषो लोके॥ Why? Ca, and; a-karmaṇaḥ, through inaction; api, even; te śarīra-yātrā, the maintenance of your body; na prasiddhyet, will not be possible. Therefore, the distinction between action and in action is obvious in this world.
यच् च मन्यसे ‘बन्धार्थत्वात् कर्म न कर्तव्यम्’ इति तद् अप्यसत्। कथम्? – ‘And as regards your idea that action should not be undertaken because it leads to bondage – that too is wrong.’ How?
यज्ञ-अर्थात् कर्मणः अन्यत्र अयं लोकः कर्म-बन्धनः। कौन्तेय, मुक्त-सङ्गः तद्-अर्थं कर्म समाचर॥ 🔗 A person is one whose actions bind, apart from duty/action performed as a yajña (act of worship). O Arjuna, free from attachment (to the results of action), perform action for the sake of that yajña.
‘यज्ञो वै विष्णुः’ (TaitSamh.1.7.4) इति श्रुतेः यज्ञः ईश्वरः, तद्-अर्थं यत् क्रियते तत् यज्ञार्थं कर्म। तस्मात् यज्ञार्थात् कर्मणः अन्यत्र अन्येन कर्मणा लोकः अयम् अधिकृतः कर्मकृत् कर्म-बन्धनः कर्म बन्धनं यस्य सोऽयं कर्म-बन्धनः लोकः, न तु यज्ञार्थात्। Ayam, this; lokaḥ, man, the one who is eligible for action; karma-bandhanaḥ, becomes bound by actions – the person who has karma as his bondage (bandhana) is karma-bandhanaḥ-; anyatra, other than; that karmaṇaḥ, action; yajñārthāt, meant for God, (i.e. but) not by that meant for God. According to the Veda text, 'Sacrifice is verily Viṣṇu' (TaitSamh.1.7.4), yajñaḥ means God; whatever is done for Him is yajñārtham.
अतः तद्-अर्थं यज्ञार्थं कर्म कौन्तेय, मुक्त-सङ्गः कर्म-फल-सङ्ग-वर्जितः सन् समाचर निर्वर्तय॥ Therefore, mukta-saṅgaḥ, without being attached, being free from attachment to the results of actions; O son of Kuntī, samācara, you perform; karma, actions; tad-artham, for Him, for God.
इतश् च अधिकृतेन कर्म कर्तव्यम् – An eligible person should engage in work for the following reason also:
पुरा प्रजा-पतिः सह-यज्ञाः [सह-यज्ञ-ज्ञान-रूप-वेदाः इत्यर्थः] प्रजाः सृष्ट्वा उवाच – ‘अनेन प्रसविष्यध्वम्, एषः वः इष्ट-काम-धुक् अस्तु’॥ 🔗 In the beginning, the Lord of the universe manifested the people along with yajña and said (through the Vedas), ‘With this yajña may all of you multiply. Let this yajña be what yields all your desired results.’
सह-यज्ञाः यज्ञ-सहिताः प्रजाः त्रयो वर्णाः ताः सृष्ट्वा उत्पाद्य पुरा पूर्वं सर्गादौ उवाच उक्तवान् प्रजा-पतिः प्रजानां स्रष्टा। अनेन यज्ञेन प्रसविष्यध्वं प्रसवः वृद्धिः उत्पत्तिः तं कुरुध्वम्। एष यज्ञः वः युष्माकम् अस्तु भवतु इष्ट-काम-धुक् इष्टान् अभिप्रेतान् कामान् फल-विशेषान् दोग्धीति इष्ट-काम-धुक्॥ Purā, in the days of yore, in the beginning of creation; śṛṣṭvā, having created; prajāḥ, the beings, the people of the three societal-classes; saha-yajñāḥ, together with the sacrifices; Prajā-pati, the creator of beings, uvāca, said; ‘Anena, by this sacrifice; prasaviṣyadhvam, you multiply.’ Prasava means origination, growth. ‘You accomplish that. Eṣaḥ astu, let this sacrifice be; vaḥ, your; iṣṭa-kāma-dhuk, yielder of coveted objects of desire.’ That which yields (dhuk) coveted (iṣṭa) objects of desire (kāma), particular results, is iṣṭa-kāma-dhuk.
देवान् अनेन भावयत, ते देवाः वः भावयन्तु, परस्-परं भावयन्तः परं श्रेयः अवाप्स्यथ॥ 🔗 Support the deities, (the Lord viewed through all the various aspects of nature), with this yajña. May those deities support all of you. Supporting one another, all of you will attain limitless śreyas (complete freedom), (or heaven if this is your ultimate goal).
देवान् इन्द्रादीन् भावयत वर्धयत अनेन यज्ञेन। ते देवा भावयन्तु आप्याययन्तु वृष्ट्यादिना वः युष्मान्। एवं परस्-परम् अन्योन्यं भावयन्तः श्रेयः परम् मोक्ष-लक्षणं ज्ञान-प्राप्ति-क्रमेण अवाप्स्यथ। स्वर्गं वा परं श्रेयोऽवाप्स्यथ॥ ‘Bhāvayata, you nourish; devān, the gods, Indra and others; anena, with this sacrifice. Let te devāḥ, those gods; bhāvayantu, nourish; vaḥ, you – make you contented with rainfall etc. Thus bhāvayantaḥ, nourishing; paras-param, one another; avāpsyatha, you shall attain; the param, supreme; śreyaḥ, Good, called Liberation, through the attainment of Knowledge;’ or, ‘you shall attain heaven – which is meant by param śreyaḥ.’ [•The param śreyaḥ (supreme Good) will either mean liberation or heaven in accordance with aspirant’s hankering for Liberation or enjoyment.•]
यज्ञ-भाविताः देवाः वः इष्टान् भोगान् हि दास्यन्ते। यः तैः दत्तान् एभ्यः अ-प्रदाय भुङ्क्ते, सः स्तेनः एव॥ 🔗 Supported through yajña, the deities will give to all of you desired objects indeed. One who consumes the objects given by those deities, (the forces of nature), without offering to these deities is but a thief.
इष्टान् अभिप्रेतान् भोगान् हि वः युष्मभ्यं देवाः दास्यन्ते वितरिष्यन्ति स्त्री-पशु-पुत्रादीन् यज्ञ-भाविताः यज्ञैः वर्धिताः तोषिताः इत्यर्थः। ‘Yajña-bhāvitāḥ, being nourished, i.e. being satisfied, by sacrifices; devāḥ, the gods; dāsyante hi, will indeed give, will distribute; among vaḥ, you; the iṣṭān, coveted; bhogān, enjoyments, such as wife, children and cattle.
तैः देवैः दत्तान् भोगान् अप्रदाय अदत्त्वा, आनृण्यम् अकृत्वा इत्यर्थः, एभ्यः देवेभ्यः, यः भुङ्क्ते स्व-देहेन्द्रियाण्येव तर्पयति स्तेन एव तस्कर एव सः देवादि-स्वापहारी॥ Saḥ, he; is eva, certainly; a stenaḥ, thief, a stealer of the wealth of gods and others; yaḥ, who; bhuṅkte, enjoys, gratifies only his own body and organs; with dattān, what enjoyable things have been given; taiḥ, by them, by the gods; a-pradāya, without offering (these); ebhyaḥ, to them, i.e. without repaying the debt [•The three kinds of debt – to the gods, to the ṛṣis (sage), and to the manes – are repaid by satisfying them through sacrifices, celibacy (including study of the Vedas, etc.), and procreation, respectively. Unless one repays these debts, he incurs sin.•] to them.’
यज्ञ-शिष्ट-अशिनः सन्तः सर्व-किल्बिषैः मुच्यन्ते। ये तु आत्म-कारणात् पचन्ति, ते पापाः अघं भुञ्जते॥ 🔗 Those who eat the food left after first offering to the Lord are freed from all transgressions; whereas those who cook only for themselves, those sinners, eat sin (karma demerit).
देव-यज्ञादीन् निर्वर्त्य तच्-छिष्टम् अशनम् अमृताख्यम् अशितुं शीलं येषां ते यज्ञ-शिष्टाशिनः सन्तः मुच्यन्ते सर्व-किल्बिषैः सर्व-पापैः चुल्ल्यादि-पञ्च-सूनाकृतैः प्रमाद-कृत-हिंसादि-जनितैश्च अन्यैः। Those again, who are yajña-siṣṭa-aśinaḥ, partakers of the remnants of sacrifices, who, after making offering to the gods and others, [•The pañca-mahā-yajñas, five great offerings, which have to be made by every householder are offerings to gods, manes, humans, creatures and ṛṣis (sages).•] are habituated to eat the remnants (of those offerings), called nectar; they, santaḥ, by being (so); mucyante, become freed; sarva-kilbiṣaiḥ, from all sins – from those sins incurred through the five things [•The five things are; oven, water-pot, cutting instruments, grinding machines and broom. A householder incurs sin by killing insects etc. with these things, knowingly or unknowingly. It is atoned by making the aforesaid five offerings.•], viz oven etc., and also from those others incurred owing to injury etc. caused inadvertently.
ये तु आत्म-संभरयः, भुञ्जते ते तु अघं पापं स्वयम् अपि पापाः – ये पचन्ति पाकं निर्वर्तयन्ति आत्म-कारणात् आत्म-हेतोः॥ Tu, but; the pāpāḥ, unholy persons, who are selfish; ye, who; pacanti, cook; ātma-kāraṇāt, for themselves; te, they, being themselves sinful; bhuñjate, incur; agham, sin.
इतश् च अधिकृतेन कर्म कर्तव्यम् जगच्-चक्र-प्रवृत्ति-हेतुर् हि कर्म। कथम्? इति उच्यते – For the following reasons also actions should be undertaken by an eligible person. Action is definitely the cause of the movement of the wheel of the world. How? This is being answered:
अन्नात् भूतानि भवन्ति। पर्जन्यात् अन्न-सम्भवः। यज्ञात् पर्जन्यः भवति। कर्म-समुद्भवः यज्ञः॥ 🔗 All creatures are born from food. Food is born from rain. Rain is born from (the cyclic karma results of) ritual (yajña). That yajña is born from karma (action – ritual, prayer, duty, etcetera).
अन्नात् भुक्तात् लोहित-रेतः-परिणतात् प्रत्यक्षं भवन्ति जायन्ते भूतानि। पर्जन्यात् वृष्टेः अन्नस्य सम्भवः अन्न-सम्भवः। यज्ञात् भवति पर्जन्यः – It is a matter of direct perception that annāt, from food, which is eaten and is transformed into blood and semen; bhavanti, are born; bhūtāni, the creatures. Anna-sambhavaḥ, the origin of food; is parjanyāt, from rainfall. Parjanyaḥ, rainfall; bhavati, originates; from yajñāt, from sacrifice.
‘अग्नौ प्रास्ताहुतिः सम्यग् आदित्यम् उपतिष्ठते।
आदित्याज् जायते वृष्टिर् वृष्टेर् अन्नं ततः प्रजाः’ (ManSmrt.3.76) इति स्मृतेः। This accords with the Smṛti, ‘The oblations properly poured into fire reaches the sun. From the sun comes rain, from rain comes food, and from the sun comes rain, from rain comes food, and from that the creatures’ (ManSmrt.3.76).यज्ञः अपूर्वम्। स च यज्ञः कर्म-समुद्भवः ऋत्विग्-यजमानयोश् च व्यापारः कर्म, ततः समुद्भवः यस्य यज्ञस्य अपूर्वस्य स यज्ञः कर्म-समुद्भवः॥ (Here) sacrifice means its unique [•Also termed as the unseen result (a-dṛṣṭa).-Tr.•] result. And that sacrifice, i.e. the unique result, which arises (samudbhavaḥ) from action (karma) undertaken by the priest and the sacrificer, is karma-samudbhavaḥ; it has action for its origin.
तच् चैवंविधं कर्म कुतो जातम्? इत्याह – Again, [•a different reading in place of this is: ‘Tat ca vividham karma kuto jātam ityāha, From where did those various kinds of action originate? In reply the Lord says...’ Still another reading is: ‘Tat ca karma brahmodbhavam iti aha, And the Lord says: That action has the Vedas as its origin.’-vide A.A., 1936, p. 116). Astekar’s reading (the one above)) is: ‘Tat ca evam vidham karma kuto jātam ityāha, And from where has this kind of action originated? The answers this.’-Tr.•]
कर्म ब्रह्म-उद्भवं विद्धि, ब्रह्म (=वेद-शास्त्रम्) अ-क्षर-समुद्भवं [विद्धि]। तस्मात् सर्व-गतं ब्रह्म, नित्यं यज्ञे प्रतिष्ठितम्॥ 🔗 Know that karma is born from the Brahman (the Veda, the scriptures), and the Veda comes from the imperishable Lord. Therefore, (being given by the all-knowing Lord for all humankind), the Veda is all encompassing and is ever established in yajña (ritual and duty).
कर्म ब्रह्मोद्भवं ब्रह्म वेदः सः उद्भवः कारणं प्रकाशको यस्य तत् कर्म ब्रह्मोद्भवं विद्धि विजानीहि। ब्रह्म पुनः वेदाख्यम् अक्षर-समुद्भवम् अक्षरं ब्रह्म परमात्मा समुद्भवो यस्य तत् अक्षर-समुद्भवं ब्रह्म वेद इत्यर्थः। Viddhi, know; that karma, action; is brahmodbhavam, it has Brahma, the Veda, as its udbhavam, origin. [•Here Ast. adds ‘revealer’-Tr.•] Further, Brahma, called the Veda, is a-kṣara-samudbhavam, it has a-kṣara, the Immutable, Brahman, the supreme Self, as its source. This is the meaning.
यस्मात् साक्षात् परमात्माख्यात् अक्षरात् पुरुष-निःश्वासवत् समुद्भूतं ब्रह्म तस्मात् सर्वार्थ-प्रकाशकत्वात् सर्वगतम्। Since the Veda came out, like the breath of a man, from the supreme Self Itself, called the Immutable, therefore the Veda, being the revealer of everything, is sarva-gatam, all-pervading.
सर्व-गतम् अपि सत् नित्यं सदा यज्ञ-विधि-प्रधानत्वात् यज्ञे प्रतिष्ठितम्॥ Even though all-pervading, the Veda is nityam, for ever; pratiṣṭhitam, based; yajñe, on sacrifice, because the injunctions about sacrifices predominate in it.
पार्थ, यः एवं प्रवर्तितं चक्रम् इह न अनुवर्तयति, अघ-आयुः इन्द्रिय-आरामः [च], सः मोघं जीवति॥ 🔗 O Arjuna, the one who does not cause oneself to follow in this life the cosmic wheel thus set in motion, whose life is (thus mostly of) karma demerit, and whose pleasure is through the senses – that one lives in vain.
एवम् इत्थम् ईश्वरेण वेद-यज्ञ-पूर्वकं जगच्-चक्रं प्रवर्तितं न अनुवर्तयति इह लोके यः कर्मणि अधिकृतः सन् अघायुः अघं पापम् आयुः जीवनं यस्य सः अघायुः, पाप-जीवनः इति यावत्। इन्द्रियारामः इन्द्रियैः आरामः आरमणम् आक्रीडा विषयेषु यस्य सः इन्द्रियारामः मोघं वृथा, हे पार्थ, स जीवति। O Pārtha, saḥ, he; jīvati, lives; mogham, in vain; yaḥ, who, though competent for action; na anuvartayati, does not follow; iha, here, in the world; cakram, the wheel of the world; evam, thus; pravartitam, set in motion, by God, on the basis of the Vedas and the sacrifices; aghāyuḥ, whose life (āyuḥ) is sinful (agham), i.e. whose life is vile; and indriya-ārāmaḥ, who indulges in the senses – who has his ārāma, sport, enjoyment, with objects, indriyaiḥ, through the senses.
तस्मात् अज्ञेन अधिकृतेन कर्तव्यम् एव कर्मेति प्रकरणार्थः। Therefore, the gist of the topic under discussion is that action must be undertaken by one who is qualified (for action) but is unenlightened.
प्राग् आत्म-ज्ञान-निष्ठा-योग्यता-प्राप्तेः तादर्थ्येन कर्म-योगानुष्ठानम् अधिकृतेन अनात्मज्ञेन कर्तव्यम् एवेत्येतत् ‘न कर्मणाम् अनारम्भात्’ (BhG.3.4) इत्यत आरभ्य ‘शरीर-यात्रापि च ते न प्रसिध्येद् अकर्मणः’ (BhG.3.8) इत्येवम् अन्तेन प्रतिपाद्य, ‘यज्ञार्थात् कर्मणोऽन्यत्र’ (BhG.3.9) इत्यादिना ‘मोघं पार्थ स जीवति’ इत्येवम् अन्तेनापि ग्रन्थेन प्रासङ्गिकम् अधिकृतस्य अनात्म-विदः कर्मानुष्ठाने बहु-कारणम् उक्तम्। (तद् अकरणे च दोष-संकीर्तनं कृतम्)॥ In the verses beginning from, ‘(A person) does not attain freedom from action by abstaining from action’ (BhG.3.4) and ending with, ‘You perform the obligatory duties....And, through inaction, even the maintenance of your body will not be possible’ (BhG.3.8), it has been proved that before one attains fitness for steadfastness in the knowledge of the Self, it is the bounden duty of a person who is qualified for action, but is not enlightened, to undertake Karma-yoga for that purpose. And then, also in the verses commencing from ‘(This man becomes bound) by actions other than that action meant for God’ (BhG.3.9) and ending with ‘O Partha, he lives in vain,’ many reasons [•Such as, that it pleases God, secures the affection of the gods, and so on.•] have been incidentally stated as to why a competent person has to undertake actions; and the evils arising from their non-performance have also been emphatically declared.
एवं स्थिते किम् एवं प्रवर्तितं चक्रं सर्वेणानुवर्तनीयम्? आहोस्वित् पूर्वोक्त-कर्म-योगानुष्ठानोपाय-प्राप्याम् अनात्म-विदः ज्ञान-योगेनैव निष्ठाम् आत्म-विद्भिः सांख्यैः अनुष्ठेयाम् अप्राप्तेनैव, इत्येवम् अर्थम् अर्जुनस्य प्रश्नम् आशङ्क्य; स्वयम् एव वा शास्त्रार्थस्य विवेक-प्रतिपत्त्यर्थम् ‘एतं वै तम् आत्मानं विदित्वा निवृत्त-मिथ्या-ज्ञानाः सन्तः ब्राह्मणाः मिथ्या-ज्ञानवद्भिः अवश्यं कर्तव्येभ्यः पुत्रैषणादिभ्यो व्युत्थाय अथ भिक्षाचर्यं शरीर-स्थितिमात्र-प्रयुक्तं चरन्ति न तेषाम् आत्म-ज्ञान-निष्ठा-व्यतिरेकेण अन्यत् कार्यम् अस्ति’ (BrhUEng.3.5.1) इत्येवं श्रुत्यर्थम् इह गीता-शास्त्रे प्रतिपिपादयिषितम् आविष्कुर्वन् आह भगवान् – Such being the conclusion, the question arises whether the wheel thus set in motion should be followed by all, or only by one who is ignorant of the Self and has not attained to the steadfastness which is fit to be practised by the Sāṅkhyas, the knowers of the Self, through the Yoga of Knowledge only, and which is acquired by one ignorant of the Self through the means of the practice of Karma-yoga mentioned above? Either anticipating Arjuna's question to this effect, or in order to make the meaning of the scripture (Gītā) clearly understood, the Lord, revealing out of His own accord that the following substance of the Upaniṣads – ‘Becoming freed from false knowledge by knowing this very Self, the Brāhmaṇas renounce what is a compulsory duty for those having false knowledge, viz, desire for sons, etc., and then lead a mendicant life just for the purpose of maintaining the body; they have no duty to perform other than steadfastness in the knowledge of the Self’ (cf. BrhUEng.3.5.1) – has been presented here in the Gītā, says:
यः तु मानवः आत्म-रतिः एव, आत्म-तृप्तः च, आत्मनि एव च सन्तुष्टः स्यात्, तस्य कार्यं न विद्यते॥ 🔗 Whereas, the person who would find pleasure within the self alone, be satisfied with the self, and be contented in the self alone – that one has nothing yet to be done.
यस् तु सांख्यः आत्म-ज्ञान-निष्ठः आत्म-रतिः आत्मनि एव रतिः न विषयेषु यस्य सः आत्म-रतिर् एव स्यात् भवेत्, आत्म-तृप्तश् च आत्मनैव तृप्तः न अन्न-रसादिना सः मानवः मनुष्यः सन्न्यासी। आत्मन्येव च सन्तुष्टः संतोषो हि बाह्यार्थ-लाभे सर्वस्य भवति – तम् अनपेक्ष्य आत्मन्येव सन्तुष्टः सर्वतो वीत-तृष्ण इत्येतत्। यः ईदृशः आत्म-वित् तस्य कार्यं करणीयं न विद्यते नास्ति इत्यर्थः॥ Tu, but; that mānavaḥ, man, the sannyāsin, the man of Knowledge, steadfast in the knowledge of the Self; yaḥ, who; ātma-ratiḥ eva syāt, rejoices only in the Self – not in the sense objects; and ātma-tṛptaḥ, who is satisfied only with the Self – not with food and drink; and is santuṣṭaḥ, contented; eva, only; ātmani, in the Self; tasya, for him; na vidyate, there is no; kāryam, duty [•Duty with a view to securing Liberation.•] to perform. [•Rati, tṛpti and santoṣa, though synonymous, are used to indicate various types of pleasures. Or, rati means attachment to objects; tṛpti means happiness arising from contact with some particular object; and santoṣa means happiness in general, arising from the acquisition of some coveted object only. All people surely feel contented by acquiring an external thing. But this one, without depending on it, remains contented only with the Self; that is to say, he remains detached from everything. The idea it that, for a man who is such a knower of the Self, there is no duty to undertake.•]
तस्य इह न एव कश्चन अर्थः कृतेन, न [वा अनर्थः] अ-कृतेन। न च अस्य सर्व-भूतेषु कश्-चिद् अर्थ-व्यपाश्रयः॥ 🔗 For that one in this world, there is, indeed, no goal by doing, nor by not doing. Nor for that one is there any dependence for any-thing toward any being.
नैव तस्य परमात्म-रतेः कृतेन कर्मणा अर्थः प्रयोजनम् अस्ति। Moreover, tasya, for him, who rejoices in the supreme Self; na, there is no; artham, concern; eva, at all; kṛtena, with performing action.
अस्तु तर्हि अकृतेन अकरणेन प्रत्यवायाख्यः अनर्थः। Objection: In that case, let there be some evil called sin owing to non-performance!
न, अकृतेन इह लोके कश्चन कश्चिदपि प्रत्यवाय-प्राप्ति-रूपः आत्म-हानि-लक्षणो वा न एव अस्ति। न च अस्य सर्व-भूतेषु ब्रह्मादि-स्थावरान्तेषु भूतेषु कश्चित् अर्थ-व्यपाश्रयः प्रयोजन-निमित्त-क्रिया-साध्यः व्यपाश्रयः व्यपाश्रयणम्। Reply: Iha, here, in this world; na, nor is there; for him kaścana, any (concern); a-kṛtena, with non-performance. Certainly there is no evil in the form of incurring sin or in the form of self-destruction. Ca, moreover; asya, for him; na asti, there is no; kaścit artha-vyapāśrayaḥ sarva-bhūteṣu, dependence on any object, from Brahma to an unmoving thing, to serve any purpose. Vyapāśrayaḥ is the same as vyapāśrayaṇam, dependence, which is possible of being created by action promoted by necessity.
आलम्बनं कंचिद् भूत-विशेषम् आश्रित्य न साध्यः कश्चिद् अर्थः अस्ति, येन तद्-अर्था क्रिया अनुष्ठेया स्यात्॥ (For him) there is no end to gain by depending on any particular object, due to which there can be some action for that purpose.
न त्वम् एतस्मिन् सर्वतः सम्प्लुतोदक-स्थानीये (BhG.2.46) सम्यग्दर्शने वर्तसे। यतः एवम् – ‘You (Arjuna) are not established in this fullest realization which is comparable to a flood all around.’ Since this is so, therefore:
तस्मात् अ-सक्तः कार्यं कर्म सततं समाचर, अ-सक्तः हि (=यस्मात्) पूरुषः कर्म आचरन् परम् आप्नोति॥ 🔗 Therefore, unattached, please always perform action that is to be done, because the person who is unattached (in attitude, then eventually in knowledge, while) performing action attains the limitless.
तस्मात् असक्तः सङ्ग-वर्जितः सततं सर्वदा कार्यं कर्तव्यं नित्यं कर्म समाचर निर्वर्तय। असक्तो हि यस्मात् सम्-आचरन् ईश्वरार्थं कर्म कुर्वन् परं मोक्षम् आप्नोति पूरुषः सत्त्व-शुद्धि-द्वारेण इत्यर्थः॥ A-saktaḥ, remaining unattached; samācara, perform; satatam, always; kāryam, the obligatory; daily karma, duty; hi, for; ācaran, by performing; (one’s) karma, duty; a-saktaḥ, without attachment, by doing work as a dedication to God; pūruṣaḥ, a person; āpnoti, attains; param, the Highest, Liberation, through the purification of the mind. This is meaning.
यस्माच् च – And (you should perform your duty) for the following reason also:
कर्मणा [सह] एव हि जनक-आदयः संसिद्धिम् आस्थिताः। लोक-सङ्ग्रहम् एव सम्पश्यन् अपि कर्तुम् अर्हसि॥ 🔗 Indeed, along with performing their duties, King Janaka and others attained complete freedom. Even considering just the rallying of the people (to the path of dharma, i.e., not leading others astray), you ought to act (appropriately).
कर्मणैव हि यस्मात् पूर्वे च क्षत्रियाः विद्वांसः संसिद्धिं मोक्षं गन्तुम् आस्थिताः प्रवृत्ताः जनकादयः जनकाश्वपति-प्रभृतयः। Hi, for; in the olden days, the learned Kṣatriyas, janakādayaḥ, Janaka and others such as Asva-pati; āsthitāḥ, strove to attain; saṃsiddim, Liberation; karmaṇā eva, through action itself.
यदि ते प्राप्त-सम्यग्दर्शनाः, ततः लोक-सङ्ग्रहार्थं प्रारब्ध-कर्मत्वात् (-कर्म-बलात्) कर्मणा सहैव अ-संन्यस्यैव कर्म संसिद्धिम् आस्थिता इत्यर्थः। अथ अप्राप्त-सम्यग्दर्शनाः जनकादयः, तदा कर्मणा सत्त्व-शुद्धि-साधन-भूतेन क्रमेण संसिद्धिम् आस्थिता इति व्याख्येयः श्लोकः। If it be that they were possessed of the fullest realization, then the meaning is that they remained established in Liberation while continuing, because of past momentum, to be associated with action itself – without renouncing it – with a view to preventing mankind from going astray. Again, if (it be that) Janaka and others had not attained fullest realization, then, they gradually became established in Liberation through action which is a means for the purification of the mind. The verse is to be explained thus.
अथ मन्यसे ‘पूर्वैर् अपि जनकादिभिः अपि अ-जानद्भिर् एव कर्तव्यं कर्म कृतम्, तावता नावश्यम् अन्येन कर्तव्यं सम्यग्दर्शनवता कृतार्थेन’ इति। On the other hand, if you think, ‘Obligatory duty was performed even by Janaka and others of olden days who were surely unenlightened. [•A-jānadbhiḥ: This is also translated as, ‘surely because they were unenlightened’.-Tr.•] Thereby it does not follow that action has to be undertaken by somebody else who has the fullest enlightenment and has reached his Goal’.
तथापि प्रारब्ध-कर्मायत्तः त्वं लोक-सङ्ग्रहम्एव अपि लोकस्य उन्मार्ग-प्रवृत्ति-निवारणं लोक-सङ्ग्रहः तम् एवापि प्रयोजनं सम्पश्यन् कर्तुम् अर्हसि॥ Nevertheless, tvam, you, who are under the influence of past actions; arhasi, ought; kartum, to perform (your duties); sampaśyan api, keeping also in view; loka-saṅgraham, [•V.S.A gives the meanings of the phrase as ‘the welfare of the world’, and ‘propitiation of mankind’.-Tr.•] the prevention of mankind from going astray; even that purpose.
लोक-सङ्ग्रहः किमर्थं कर्तव्य (लोक-सङ्ग्रहं कः कर्तुम् अर्हति कथं च) इत्युच्यते – By whom, and how, is mankind to be prevented from going astray? That is being stated: [•In Ast. this introductory sentence (as above) is as follows: loka-sañgrahaḥ kimartham kartavyam iti ucyate.-Tr.•]
यद् यद् श्रेष्ठः आचरति तद् तद् एव इतरः जनः [आचरति]। यद् प्रमाणं सः कुरुते, तद् लोकः अनुवर्तते॥ 🔗 Whatever an important person does, that alone the other people do. The authority which this one accepts, that the people follow.
यद् यत् कर्म आचरति करोति श्रेष्ठः प्रधानः, तत् तद् एव कर्म आचरति इतरः अन्यः जनः तद्-अनुगतः। Yat yat, [•This is according to the Ast. The G1. Pr. reads, yat yat yeṣu yeṣu.-Tr.•] whatever action; a śreṣṭhaḥ, superior person, a leader; ācarati, does; itaraḥ, another; janaḥ, person, who follows him; does tat tat eva, that very action. Further, yat, whatever;
किञ्च सः श्रेष्ठः यत् प्रमाणं कुरुते लौकिकं वैदिकं वा लोकः तत् अनुवर्तते तद् एव प्रमाणी-करोति इत्यर्थः॥ Saḥ, he, the superior person; kurute, upholds; as pramāṇam, authority, be it Veda or secular; lokaḥ, an ordinary person; anuvartate, follows; tat, that, i.e. he accepts that very thing as authoritative.
यदि अत्र ते लोक-सङ्ग्रह-कर्तव्यतायां विप्रतिपत्तिः तर्हि मां किं न पश्यसि? – ‘If you have a doubt here with regard to the duty of preventing people from straying, then why do you not observe Me?’
पार्थ, मे त्रिषु लोकेषु न किञ्-चन कर्तव्यम् अस्ति, न [किञ्-चन] अवाप्तव्यम् अन्-अवाप्तं, कर्मणि एव च वर्ते॥ 🔗 O Arjuna, for me (as an individual who has this knowledge) there is nothing in the three worlds (earth, sky, and heaven) that must be done, nothing to be attained that has not been attained; yet I indeed engage in action.
न मे मम पार्थ अस्ति न विद्यते कर्तव्यं त्रिषु अपि लोकेषु किञ्चन किञ्चिद् अपि। कस्मात्? न अनवाप्तम् अप्राप्तम् अवाप्तव्यं प्रापणीयम्, तथापि वर्ते एव च कर्मणि अहम्॥ O Pārtha, na asti, there is no; kartavyam, duty; kiñcana, whatsoever; me, for Me (to fulfill); even triṣu lokeṣu, in all the three worlds. Why? There is na an-avāptam, nothing (that remains) unachieved; or avāptavyam, to be achieved. Still varte eva, do I continue; karmaṇi, in action.
पार्थ, यदि हि अहम् अ-तन्द्रितः कर्मणि जातु न वर्तेयं, मनुष्याः मम वर्त्म सर्वशः अनुवर्तन्ते॥ 🔗 O Arjuna, if indeed I (as Kṛṣṇa, as an incarnation of the Lord and as leader of the province of Dvārakā, thus an important person,) were ever to not engage in action unwearied, then the people would follow my path in every way (including into lazy inaction).
यदि हि पुनः अहं न वर्तेय जातु कदाचित् कर्मणि अ-तन्द्रितः अन्-अलसः सन् मम श्रेष्ठस्य सतः वर्त्म मार्गम् अनुवर्तन्ते मनुष्याः हे पार्थ, सर्वशः सर्व-प्रकारैः॥ Again, O Pārtha, yadi, if; jātu, at any time; aham, I; na, do not; varteyam, continue; a-tandritaḥ, vigilantly, untiringly; karmaṇi, in action; manuṣyāḥ, men: anuvartante, will follow; mama, My; vartma, path; sarvaśaḥ, in every way, I being the Highest.
तथा च को दोष इति आह – And if that be so, what is the harm? In reply the Lord says: [•Ast. omits this sentence completely.-Tr.•]
अहं चेद् कर्म न कुर्याम् इमे लोकाः उत्सीदेयुः। सङ्करस्य कर्ता स्याम्, इमाः प्रजाः च उपहन्याम्॥ 🔗 If I were not to perform action, these people would perish. I would become the author of social confusion, and I would thus destroy these people.
उत्सीदेयुः विनश्येयुः इमे सर्वे लोकाः लोक-स्थिति-निमित्तस्य कर्मणः अभावात् न कुर्यां कर्म चेत् अहम्। किञ्च, सङ्करस्य च कर्ता स्याम्। तेन कारणेन उपहन्याम् इमाः प्रजाः। ‘प्रजानाम् अनुग्रहाय प्रवृत्तः उपहतिम् उपहननं कुर्याम्’ इत्यर्थः। ‘मम ईश्वरस्य अन्-अनुरूपम् आपद्येत’॥ Cet, if; aham, I; na kuryām, do not perform; karma, action; all ime, these; lokāḥ, worlds; utsīdeyuḥ, will be ruined, owing to the absence of work responsible for the maintenance of the worlds. Ca, and, further; syām, I shall become; kartā, the agent; saṅkarasya, of intermingling (of societal-classes). Consequently, upahanyām, I shall be destroying; imāḥ, these; prajāḥ, beings. That is to say, I who am engaged in helping the creatures, shall be destroying them. This would be unbefitting of Me, who am God.
यदि पुनः अहम् इव त्वं च कृतार्थ-बुद्धिः, आत्म-वित् अन्यो वा, तस्यापि आत्मनः कर्तव्याभावेऽपि परानुग्रह एव कर्तव्य इत्याह – ‘On the other, if, like Me, you or some one else possesses the conviction of having attained Perfection and is a knower of the Self, it is a duty of such a one, too, to help others even if there be no obligation on his own part.’
भारत, कर्मणि सक्ताः अ-विद्वांसः यथा कुर्वन्ति, लोक-सङ्ग्रहं चिकीर्षुः अ-सक्तः विद्वान् तथा कुर्यात्॥ 🔗 O Arjuna, as (dedicatedly as) the unwise, who are bound (to the results of) action, engage in action, so the wise – unattached, (not requiring/anticipating results), and desirous for rallying the people (to dharma) – would likewise engage in action.
सक्ताः कर्मणि ‘अस्य कर्मणः फलं मम भविष्यति’ इति केचित् अ-विद्वांसः यथा कुर्वन्ति भारत, कुर्याद् विद्वान् आत्म-वित् तथा अ-सक्तः सन्। O scion of the Bharata dynasty, yathā, as; some a-vidvāṃsaḥ, unenlightened people; kurvanti, act; saktāḥ, with attachment; karmaṇi, to work, (thinking) ‘The reward of this work will accrue to me’; tathā, so; should vidvān, the enlightened person, the knower of the Self; kuryāt, act; a-saktaḥ, without attachment, remaining unattached. [•Giving up the idea of agentship and the hankering for the rewards of actions to oneself.•]
तद्वत् किम् अर्थं करोति? तत् शृणु – चिकीर्षुः कर्तुम् इच्छुः लोक-सङ्ग्रहम्॥ Why does he (the enlightened person) act like him (the former)? Listen to that: Cikīrḥuḥ, being desirous of achieving; loka-saṅgraham, prevention of people from going astray.
एवं लोक-सङ्ग्रहं चिकीर्षोः मम आत्म-विदः न कर्तव्यम् अस्ति अन्यस्य वा लोक-सङ्ग्रहं मुक्त्वा। ततः तस्य आत्म-विदः इदम् उपदिश्यते – ‘Neither for Me who am a knower of the Self, nor for any other (knower of the Self) who wants thus prevent people from going astray, is there any duty apart from working for the welfare of the world. Hence, the following advice is being given to such a knower of the Self:’
अ-ज्ञानां कर्म-सङ्गिनां बुद्धि-भेदं न जनयेत्, विद्वान् युक्तः सर्व-कर्माणि समाचरन् [तान् अ-विदुषः] जोषयेत्॥ 🔗 One should not sow dissension in the understanding of the unwise who are bound to (the results of) action. The wise one, who is committed (to dharma) and to performing all duties (appropriate to one’s status), should encourage (the others).
बुद्धेर् भेदः बुद्धि-भेदः ‘मया इदं कर्तव्यं भोक्तव्यं चास्य कर्मणः फलम्’ इति निश्चय-रूपाया बुद्धेः भेदनं चालनं बुद्धि-भेदः तं बुद्धि-भेदं न जनयेत् न उत्पादयेत् अ-ज्ञानाम् अ-विवेकिनां कर्म-सङ्गिनां कर्मणि आसक्तानाम् आसङ्गवताम्। किं तु कुर्यात्? जोषयेत् कारयेत् सर्व-कर्माणि विद्वान् स्वयं तद् एव अ-विदुषां कर्म युक्तः अभियुक्तः समाचरन्॥ Vidvān the enlightened man; na janayet, should not create; buddhi-bhedam, disturbance in the beliefs – disturbance in the firm belief, ‘This has to be done; and the result of this action is to be reaped by me’; a-jñānām, of the ignorant, of the non-discriminating one; karma-saṅginām, who are attached to work. But what should he do? Himself samācaran, working, performing those very activities of the ignorant; yuktaḥ, while remaining diligent; joṣayet, he should make them do; sarva-karmāṇi, all the duties.
अविद्वान् अज्ञः कथं कर्मसु सज्जते? इत्याह – How does an unillumined, ignorant person become attached to actions? In reply the Lord says:
प्रकृतेः गुणैः कर्माणि सर्वशः क्रियमाणानि। अहङ्कार-विमूढ-आत्मा ‘अहं कर्ता’ इति मन्यते॥ 🔗 Actions are in all ways done by the constituent principles (guṇas, i.e., products) of nature (prakṛti). But one whose mind is confused – (in many and various ways) by a notion about ‘I’ – thinks ‘I am the doer.’
प्रकृतेः प्रकृतिः प्रधानं सत्त्व-रजस्-तमसां गुणानां साम्यावस्था तस्याः प्रकृतेः गुणैः विकारैः कार्य-करण-रूपैः क्रियमाणानि कर्माणि लौकिकानि शास्त्रीयाणि च सर्वशः सर्व-प्रकारैः। अहङ्कार-विमूढात्मा कार्य-करण-सङ्घाते आत्म-प्रत्ययः अहङ्कारः, तेन विविधं नाना-विधं मूढः आत्मा अन्तःकरणं यस्य सः अयं, कार्य-करण-धर्मा कार्य-करणाभिमानी – अ-विद्यया कर्माणि आत्मनि मन्यमानः तत्-तत्-कर्मणाम् ‘अहं कर्ता’ इति मन्यते॥ Karmāṇi kriyamāṇāni, while actions, secular and scriptural, are being done; sarvaśaḥ, in ever way; guṇaiḥ, by the guṇas, (i.e.) by the modifications in the form of body and organs; (born) prakṛteḥ, of Nature – Nature, (otherwise known as) Pradhāna [•Pradhāna, Māyā, the Power of God.•], being the state of equilibrium of the three qualities of sattva, rajas and tamas; Ahaṅkāra-vimūḍha-ātmā, one who is deluded by egoism; manyate, thinks; iti, thus; ‘Aham kartā, I am the doer.’ Ahaṅkāra is self-identification with the aggregate of body and organs. He whose ātmā, mind, is vimūḍham, deluded in diverse ways, by that (ahaṅkāra) is ahaṅkāra-vimūḍha-ātmā. He who imagines the characteristics of the body and organs to be his own, who has self-identification with the body and the organs, and who, through ignorance, believes the activities to be his own –, he thinks, ‘I am the doer of those diverse activities.’
महा-बाहो, गुण-कर्म-विभागयोः तत्त्व-विद् तु ‘गुणाः गुणेषु वर्त्तन्ते’ इति मत्वा न सज्जते॥ 🔗 Whereas, O Arjuna, the one who knows the truth of the distinction of the guṇas (from ‘I’) and of their actions (from ‘I’), thinking, ‘the guṇas (as the body and mind) engage amongst the guṇas (as the objects: physical and mental),’ that one is not bound.
तत्त्व-वित् तु महा-बाहो। कस्य तत्त्व-वित्? गुण-कर्म-विभागयोः गुण-विभागस्य कर्म-विभागस्य च तत्त्व-विद् इत्यर्थः। गुणाः करणात्मकाः गुणेषु विषयात्मकेषु वर्तन्ते न आत्मा इति मत्वा न सज्जते सक्तिं न करोति॥ Tu, but, on the other hand; he who is a knower, tattva-vit, a knower of the facts; – knower of what kinds of facts? – guṇa-karma-vibhāgayoḥ, about the varieties of the guṇas and actions, i.e. a knower of the diversity of the guṇas and the diversity of actions; [•Guṇa-vibhāga means the products of Prakṛti which consists of the three guṇas. They are the five subtle elements, mind, intellect, ego, five sensory organs, five motor organs and five objects (sound etc.) of the senses. Karma-vibhāga means the varieties of inter-actions among these.-Tr.•] na sajjate, does not become attached; iti matvā, thinking thus; ‘Guṇāḥ, the guṇas in the form of organs; – not the Self – vartante, rest (act); guṇeṣu, on the guṇas in the form of objects of the organs.’
प्रकृतेः गुण-सम्मूढाः गुण-कर्मसु सज्जन्ते। तान् अ-कृत्स्न-विदः मन्दान् कृत्स्न-विद् न विचालयेत्॥ 🔗 Those who confuse themselves with the guṇas of nature are bound in the guṇas and their actions (or the actions of the guṇas). Lacking this discernment and of incomplete knowledge, they are the ones that one who has complete knowledge should not disturb.
प्रकृतेः गुणैः समयक् मूढाः संमोहिताः सन्तः सज्जन्ते गुणानां कर्मसु गुण-कर्मसु ‘वयं कर्म कुर्मः फलाय’ इति। तान् कर्म-सङ्गिनः अ-कृत्स्न-विदः कर्म-फलमात्र-दर्शिनः मन्दान् मन्द-प्रज्ञान् कृत्स्न-विद् आत्म-वित् स्वयं न विचालयेत्। बुद्धि-भेद-करणम् एव चालनं, तद् न कुर्याद् इत्यर्थः॥ guṇa-sam-mūḍhāḥ, who are wholly deluded by the guṇas; prakṛteḥ, of Nature; sajjante, become attached; guṇa-karmasu, to the activities of the guṇas, thinking, ‘We do actions for results.’ Kṛtsna-vit, the knower of the All, one who is himself a knower of the Self; na vicālayet, should not disturb; tān, those who are attached to actions; (who are) mandān, of dull intellect; a-kṛtsna-vidaḥ, who do not know the All, who are all attention on the results of actions. Unsettling of beliefs is itself the disturbance. That he should not do. This is the idea.
कथं पुनः कर्मण्य् अधिकृतेन अज्ञेन मुमुक्षुणा कर्म कर्तव्यम्? इति उच्यते – Again, in what manner should duties be undertaken by a seeker after Liberation who is not enlightened, who is qualified for actions (rites and duties)? As to this, the answer is being stated:
अधि-आत्म-चेतसा सर्वाणि कर्माणि मयि सन्न्यस्य निर्-आशीः निर्-ममः भूत्वा विगत-ज्वरः युध्यस्व॥ 🔗 With a mind centered on oneself (in relation to the Lord, to reality), offering all action in Me, (the Lord – as prakṛti, nature, the cosmic order, the wielder of this order), being free from anticipations, free from the judgment ‘this is mine,’ and without anguish, O Arjuna, fight.
मयि वासु-देवे परमेश्वरे सर्व-ज्ञे सर्वात्मनि सर्वाणि कर्माणि संन्यस्य निक्षिप्य अध्यात्म-चेतसा विवेक-बुद्ध्या ‘अहं कर्ता ईश्वराय भृत्यवत् करोमि’ इत्य् अनया बुद्ध्या। किञ्च, निराशीः त्यक्ताशीः निर्ममः मम-भावश् च निर्गतः यस्य तव स त्वं निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगत-ज्वरः विगत-संतापः विगत-शोकः सन्न् इत्यर्थः॥ Vigata-jvaraḥ, devoid of the fever of the soul, i.e. being free from repentance, without remorse; yuddhyasva, engage in battle; sannyasya, by dedicating; sarvāṇi, all; karmāṇi, actions; mayi, to Me, who am Vasudeva, the omniscient supreme Lord, the Self of all; adhyātma-cetasā, with (your) mind intent on the Self – with discriminating wisdom, with this idea, ‘I am an agent, and I work for God as a servant’; and further, bhūtvā, becoming; nirāśiḥ, free from expectations [•‘Free from expectations of results for yourself’•]; and nirmamaḥ, free from egoism. You from whom has vanished the idea, ‘(this is) mine’, are nirmamaḥ.
यद् एतन् मम मतं ‘कर्म कर्तव्यम्’ इति स-प्रमाणम् उक्तं तत् तथा – Keeping in view the doctrine regarding the actions to be performed which has been explained with authority:
ये मानवाः श्रद्धावन्तः अन्-असूयन्तः मे इदं मतं नित्यम् अनुतिष्ठन्ति, ते अपि कर्मभिः मुच्यन्ते॥ 🔗 Those people who have trust (in My teaching), who are not cynical and who constantly follow this, My teaching – they also, (whether karma-yogīs or sannyāsīs – who pursue this teaching while engaged in duties or as renunciates) are freed from (the bond that is) karma.
ये मे मदीयम् इदं मतं नित्यम् अनुतिष्ठन्ति अनुवर्तन्ते मानवाः मनुष्याः श्रद्धावन्तः श्रद्दधानाः अनसूयन्तः असूयां च मयि परम-गुरौ वासु-देवे अकुर्वन्तः, मुच्यन्ते तेऽपि एवं भूताः कर्मभिः धर्माधर्माख्यैः॥ Ye, those; mānavaḥ, men; who nityam, ever; anutiṣṭhanti, follow accordingly; me matam, My teaching – this teaching of Mine, viz that ‘duty must be performed’, which has been stated with valid reasoning; śraddhāvantaḥ, with faith; and an-asūyantaḥ, without cavil, without detracting Me, Vāsudeva, the Teacher [•Here Ast. adds 'parama, supreme'-Tr.•]; te api, they also, who are such; mucyante, become freed; karmabhiḥ, from actions called the righteous and the unrighteous.
ये तु अभ्यसूयन्तः, मे एतद् मतं न अनुतिष्ठन्ति, तान् सर्व-ज्ञान-विमूढान् अ-चेतसः [च] नष्टान् विद्धि॥ 🔗 Whereas, those who are cynical, who do not follow this, My teaching, know them – who are thus variously confused in all other areas of knowledge (because they do not know who the ‘I’ is) and lacking discernment – as lost.
ये तु तद्-विपरीताः एतत् मम मतम् अभ्यसूयन्तः निन्दन्तः न अनुतिष्ठन्ति नानुवर्तन्ते मे मतम्, सर्वेषु ज्ञानेषु विविधं मूढाः ते। सर्व-ज्ञान-विमूढान् तान् विद्धि नष्टान् नाशं गतान् अचेतसः अविवेकिनः॥ Tu, but; ye, those who are the opposite of them (the former); who abhyasūyantaḥ, decrying; etat, this instruction of Mine; na, do not; anutiṣṭhanti, follow; me, My; matam, teaching, they are deluded in various ways with respect to all knowledge. Viddhi, know; tān, them; sarva-jñāna-vimūḍhān, who are deluded about all knowledge; a-cetasaḥ, who are devoid of discrimination; naṣṭān, to have gone to ruin.
कस्मात् पुनः कारणात् त्वदीयं मतं नानुतिष्ठन्ति, पर-धर्मान् अनुतिष्ठन्ति, स्व-धर्मं च नानुवर्तन्ते, त्वत्-प्रतिकूलाः कथं न बिभ्यति त्वच्-छासनातिक्रम-दोषात्? तत्राह – ‘For what reason, again, do they not follow your teachings, perform duties that are not theirs and not follow their own duties? How is it that by remaining opposed to You, they do not fear the evil which will arise from transgressing Your commandments?’ As to that, the Lord says:
ज्ञानवान् अपि स्वस्याः प्रकृतेः स-दृशं चेष्टते। भूतानि प्रकृतिं यान्ति – निग्रहः किं करिष्यति॥ 🔗 Even a wise person acts in keeping with his or her own nature. Creatures go (with their own) nature. What will (external behavioural) restraint accomplish?
स-दृशम् अनुरूपं चेष्टते (चेष्टां करोति), कस्य? स्वस्याः स्वकीयायाः प्रकृतेः। प्रकृतिर् नाम पूर्व-कृत-धर्माधर्मादि-संस्कारः वर्तमान-जन्मादौ अभिव्यक्तः, सा प्रकृतिः। तस्याः स-दृशम् एव सर्वो जन्तुः ज्ञानवान् अपि चेष्टते, किं पुनर् मूर्खः। Api, even; jñānavān, a man of wisdom – what to speak of a fool!; ceṣṭate, behaves; sa-dṛśam, according to;– what? svasyāḥ, his own; prakṛteḥ, nature. Nature means the impressions of virtue, vice, etc. [•Also, knowledge, desires, and so on.•] acquired in the past (lives) and which become manifest at the commencement of the present life. All creatures (behave) according to that only.
तस्मात् प्रकृतिं यान्ति अनुगच्छन्ति भूतानि (प्राणिनः)। निग्रहः निषेध-रूपः किं करिष्यति मम वा अन्यस्य वा॥ Therefore, bhūtāni, beings; yānti, follow; (their) prakṛtim, nature. Nigrahaḥ kim kariṣyati, what can restraint do, be it from Me or anybody else?
यदि सर्वो जन्तुः आत्मनः प्रकृति-सदृशम् एव चेष्टते, न च प्रकृति-शून्यः कश्चिद् अस्ति, ततः पुरुष-कारस्य विषयानुपपत्तेः शास्त्रानर्थक्य-प्राप्तौ इदम् उच्यते – If all beings behave only according to their own nature – and there is none without his nature –, then, since there arises the contingency of the scriptures becoming purposeless owing to the absence of any scope for personal effort, therefore the following is being stated:
इन्द्रियस्य इन्द्रियस्य अर्थे राग-द्वेषौ व्यवस्थितौ, तयोः वशं न आगच्छेत्, तौ हि (=यस्मात्) अस्य परिपन्थिनौ॥ 🔗 Attraction and repulsion (rāga and dveṣa) are (naturally) there toward the object of each of the senses. One should not come under their control, because those two are one’s enemies, (not the object, nor the resulting, natural behavior).
इन्द्रियस्येन्द्रियस्य अर्थे सर्वेन्द्रियाणाम् अर्थे शब्दादि-विषये इष्टे रागः अन्-इष्टे द्वेषः इत्येवं प्रतीन्द्रियार्थे राग-द्वेषौ [व्यवस्थितौ] अवश्यं-भाविनौ। Rāga-dveṣau, attraction and repulsion, in the following manner – attraction towards desirable things, and repulsion against undesirable things; (vyavasthitau, are ordained,) are sure to occur, arthe, with regard to objects such as sound etc.; indriyasya indriyasya, of all the organs, with regard to each of the organs.
तत्र अयं पुरुष-कारस्य शास्त्रार्थस्य च विषय उच्यते – शास्त्रार्थे प्रवृत्तः पूर्वम् एव राग-द्वेषयोर् वशं नागच्छेत्। As to that, the scope of personal effort and scriptural purpose are being stated as follows: One who is engaged in the subject-matter of the scriptures should, in the very beginning, not come under the influence of love and hatred.
या हि पुरुषस्य प्रकृतिः सा राग-द्वेष-पुरःसरैव स्व-कार्ये पुरुषं प्रवर्तयति। तदा स्व-धर्म-परित्यागः पर-धर्मानुष्ठानं च भवति। For, that which is the nature of a person impels him to his actions, verily under the influence of love and hatred (i.e. attraction and repulsion). And then follow the rejection of one’s own duty and the undertaking of somebody else’s duty.
यदा पुनः राग-द्वेषौ तत्-प्रतिपक्षेण नियमयति तदा शास्त्र-दृष्टिर् एव पुरुषः भवति, न प्रकृति-वशः। On the other hand, when a person controls love and hatred with the help of their opposites [•Ignorance, the cause of love and hatred, has discrimination as its opposite.•], then he becomes mindful only of the scriptural teachings; he ceases to be led by his nature.
तस्मात् तयोः राग-द्वेषयोः वशं न आगच्छेत्। यतः तौ हि अस्य पुरुषस्य परिपन्थिनौ श्रेयो-मार्गस्य विघ्न-कर्तारौ तस्करौ इव पथीत्यर्थः॥ Therefore, na āgacchet, one should not come; vaśam, under the sway; tayoḥ, of these two, of love and hatred; hi because; tau, they; are asya, his, this person’s pari-panthinau, adversaries, who, like robbers, put obstacles on his way to Liberation. This is the meaning.
तत्र राग-द्वेष-प्रयुक्तो मन्यते शास्त्रार्थम् अप्यन्यथा ‘पर-धर्मोऽपि धर्मत्वात् अनुष्ठेय एव’ इति, तद् असत् – In this world, one impelled by love and hatred misinterprets even the teaching of the scriptures, and thinks that somebody else’s duty, too, has to be undertaken just because it is a duty! That is wrong:
सु-अनुष्ठितात् पर-धर्मात् स्व-धर्मः वि-गुणः [अपि] श्रेयान्। स्व-धर्मे निधनं श्रेयः, [यस्मात्] पर-धर्मः भय-आवहः॥ 🔗 One’s own duty, (though sometimes) lacking virtue, is better than a different duty, (even though) well performed (or more enjoyable). Death in one’s own duty is better; as a different duty brings fear (in the forms of conflict, regret, and retribution).
श्रेयान् प्रशस्यतरः स्वो धर्मः स्व-धर्मः वि-गुणः अपि विगत-गुणोऽपि अनुष्ठीयमानः पर-धर्मात् स्वनुष्ठितात् साद्गुण्येन सम्पादिताद् अपि। Sva-dharmaḥ, one’s own duty; being practised even though vi-guṇaḥ, defective, deficient; is śreyān, superior to, more commendable than; para-dharmāt, another's duty; though svanuṣṭhitāt, well-performed, meritoriously performed.स्व-धर्मे स्थितस्य निधनं मरणम् अपि श्रेयः पर-धर्मे स्थितस्य जीवितात्। कस्मात्? पर-धर्मः भयावहः नरकादि-लक्षणं भयम् आवहति यतः॥ Even nidhanam, death; is śreyaḥ, better; while engaged sva-dharme, in one’s own duty, as compared with remaining alive while engaged in somebody else’s duty. Why? Para-dharmaḥ, another’s duty; is bhayāvahaḥ, fraught with fear, since it invites dangers such as hell etc.
यद्यपि अनर्थ-मूलम् ‘ध्यायतो विषयान् पुंसः’ (BhG.2.62) ‘राग-द्वेषौ ह्यस्य परिपन्थिनौ’ (BhG.3.34) इति च उक्तम्, विक्षिप्तम् अनवधारितं च तद् उक्तम्। तत् संक्षिप्तं निश्चितं च ‘इदम् एव’ इति ज्ञातुम् इच्छन् अर्जुनः उवाच ‘ज्ञाते हि तस्मिन् तद्-उच्छेदाय यत्नं कुर्याम्’ इति – Although the root cause of evil was stated in, ‘In the case of a person who dwells on objects’ (BhG.2.62) and ‘.....because they (attraction and repulsion) are his adversaries‘ (BhG.3.34), that was presented desultorily and vaguely. Wishing to know it briefly and definitely as, ‘This is thus, to be sure’, Arjuna, with the idea, ‘When this indeed becomes known, I shall make effort for its eradication’, said:
अर्जुनः उवाच। वार्ष्णेय, अथ केन प्रयुक्तः अयं पूरुषः अन्-इच्छन् अपि पापं चरति, बलात् इव नियोजितः॥ 🔗 Arjuna said: O Kṛṣṇa, now what compels a person – even though not choosing – to commit prohibited acts, as if pushed by force?
अथ केन हेतु-भूतेन प्रयुक्तः सन् राज्ञा इव भृत्यः अयं पापं कर्म चरति आचरति पूरुषः (पुरुषः) स्वयम् अनिच्छन् अपि हे वार्ष्णेय वृष्णि-कुल-प्रसूत, बलात् इव नियोजितः राज्ञा इव इत्युक्तो दृष्टान्तः॥ Atha, now then; vārṣṇeya, O scion of the Vṛṣṇi dynasty; being prayuktaḥ, impelled; kena, by what acting as the cause; as a servant is by a king, does ayam, this; pūruṣaḥ, man; carati, commit; pāpam, sin, a sinful act; api, even; an-icchan, against his wish, though not himself willing; niyojitaḥ, being constrained; balāt, by force; iva, as it were – as if by a king, which illustration has already been given?
शृणु त्वं तं वैरिणं सर्वानर्थ-करं यं त्वं पृच्छसि – The Lord (Bhaga-vān) said: ‘You hear about that enemy, the source of all evil, of which you ask:’(भगवान् उवाच)
‘ऐश्वर्यस्य समग्रस्य धर्मस्य यशसः श्रियः।
वैराग्यस्याथ मोक्षस्य षण्णां भग इतीङ्गना॥’ (VisPur.6.5.74) ऐश्वर्यादि-षट्कं यस्मिन् वासु-देवे नित्यम् अ-प्रतिबद्धत्वेन सामस्त्येन च वर्तते,
‘उत्पत्तिं प्रलयं चैव भूतानाम् आगतिं गतिम्।
वेत्ति विद्याम् अविद्यां च स वाच्यो भगवान् इति॥’ (VisPur.6.5.78) उत्पत्त्यादि-विषयं च विज्ञानं यस्य स वासु-देवः वाच्यः भगवान् इति। ‘Bhaga is said to consist of all kinds of majesty, virtue, fame, beauty, detachment as well as Liberation [•Liberation stands for its cause, Illumination.•],’ (V.P.6.5.74). That Vāsudeva, in whom reside for ever, unimpeded and in their fullness, the six qualities of majesty etc. And who has the knowledge of such subjects as creation etc., is called Bhaga-vān. ‘He is spoken of as Bhaga-vān who is aware of creation and dissolution, gain and loss, [•Gain and loss stand for future prosperity and adversity.•] ignorance and Illumination of all beings’ (ibid. 78).
श्री-भगवान् उवाच। एषः कामः एषः क्रोधः [च]। [एषः] रजो-गुण-समुद्भवः महा-अशनः महा-पाप्मा। इह एनं वैरिणं विद्धि॥ 🔗 The Lord said: (That seeming force is) this binding desire (kāma – whether positive or negative, empowered attraction or repulsion) (and when thwarted) this anger. It, kāma, is born of the agitation principle (rajas guṇa), is a glutton, and accumulates a lot of karma demerit. Know it to be the enemy here.
काम एषः सर्व-लोक-शत्रुः यन्-निमित्ता सर्वानर्थ-प्राप्तिः प्राणिनाम्। स एष कामः प्रतिहतः केनचित् क्रोधत्वेन परिणमते। अतः क्रोधः अपि एष एव। Eṣaḥ, this; kāmaḥ, desire, is the enemy of the whole world, because of which the creatures incur all evil. This desire when obstructed in any way turns into anger. Therefore, krodhaḥ, anger, is also identical with this (desire).रजो-गुण-समुद्भवः रजश् च तद् गुणश् च रजो-गुणः सः समुद्भवः यस्य सः कामः रजो-गुण-समुद्भवः। रजो-गुणस्य वा समुद्भवः, कामः हि उद्भूतः रजः प्रवर्तयन् पुरुषं प्रवर्तयति। ‘तृष्णया हि अहं कारितः’ इति दुःखिनां रजः-कार्ये सेवादौ प्रवृत्तानां प्रलापः श्रूयते। It is rajo-guṇa-samudbhavaḥ, born of the quality of rajas; or, it is the origin of the quality of rajas. For, when desire comes into being, it instigates a person by arousing rajas. People who are engaged in service etc., which are effects of rajas, and who are stricken with sorrow are heard to lament, ‘I have been led to act by desire indeed!’महाशनः महत् अशनं अस्य इति महाशनः। अत एव महा-पाप्मा, कामेन हि प्रेरितः जन्तुः पापं करोति। अतः विद्धि एनं कामम् इह संसारे वैरिणम्॥ It is mahā-aśanaḥ, a great devourer, whose food is enormous. And hence, indeed, it is mahā-pāpmā, a great sinner. For a being commits sin when goaded by desire. Therefore, viddhi, know; enam, this desire; to be vairiṇam, the enemy; iha, here in this world.
कथं वैरी? इति दृष्टान्तैः प्रत्याययति – With the help of examples the Lord explains how it is an enemy:
[यथा] धूमेन वह्निः आव्रियते, यथा मलेन आदर्शः [आव्रियते], यथा च उल्बेन गर्भः आवृतः, तथा तेन इदम् [ज्ञानम्] आवृतम्॥ 🔗 Like fire is covered by smoke, like a mirror covered by dirt, and like a fetus covered by the womb, similarly, by that (kāma) this (knowledge) is covered. (And that covering is removed by the breath of teaching, by the action of dharma (duty and justice), and by time, respectively).
धूमेन सह-जेन आव्रियते वह्निः प्रकाशात्मकः अप्रकाशात्मकेन, यथा वा आदर्शो मलेन च, यथा उल्बेन च जरायुणा गर्भ-वेष्टनेन आवृतः आच्छादितः गर्भः तथा तेन इदम् आवृतम्॥ Yathā, as; vahniḥ, fire, which is naturally bright; āvriyate, is enveloped; dhūmena, by smoke, which is born concomitantly (with fire) and is naturally dark; or as ādarśaḥ, a mirror; is covered malena, by dirt; ca, and; garbhaḥ, a foetus; is āvṛtaḥ, enclosed; ulbena, in the womb by the amnion; tathā, so; is idam, this; āvṛtam, shrouded; tena, by that.
किं पुनस् तद् इदं-शब्द-वाच्यं यत् कामेनावृतम्? इत्युच्यते – Again, what is that which is indicated by the word idam (this), and which is covered by desire? The answer is:
कौन्तेय, एतेन नित्य-वैरिणा काम-रूपेण दुष्-पूरेण अन्-अलेन च ज्ञानिनः ज्ञानम् आवृतम्॥ 🔗 O Arjuna, by this constant enemy in the form of binding desire, insatiable like fire, the knowledge of the (one who is yet to be) wise is covered.
आवृतम् एतेन ज्ञानं ज्ञानिनः नित्य-वैरिणा, ज्ञानी हि जानाति ‘अनेन अहम् अनर्थे प्रयुक्तः’ पूर्वम् एव इति। दुःखी च भवति नित्यम् एव। अतः असौ ज्ञानिनो नित्य-वैरी, न तु मूर्खस्य। स हि कामं तृष्णा-काले मित्रम् इव पश्यन् तत्-कार्ये दुःखे प्राप्ते जानाति – ‘तृष्णया अहं दुःखित्वम् आपादितः’ इति, न पूर्वम् एव। अतः असौ ज्ञानिन एव नित्य-वैरी। Jñānam, Knowledge; is āvṛtam, covered; etena, by this; nitya-vairiṇā, constant enemy; jñāninaḥ, of the wise. For the wise person knows even earlier, ‘I am being induced by this into evil.’ And he always [•Both at the time when desire arises in him, and also when he is forced to act by it.•] feels distressed. Therefore, it is the constant enemy of the wise but not of a fool. For the fool looks upon desire as a friend so long as hankering lasts. When sorrow comes as a consequence, he realizes, ‘I have been driven into sorrow because of longings’, but certainly not earlier. Therefore it is the constant enemy of the wise alone.
किं-रूपेण? काम-रूपेण कामः इच्छैव रूपम् अस्य इति काम-रूपः तेन दुष्पूरेण दुःखेन पूरणम् अस्य इति दुष्पूरः तेन अन्-अलेन न अस्य अलं पर्याप्तिः विद्यते इत्यनलः तेन च॥ In what form? Kāma-rūpeṇa, in the form of desire – that which has wish itself as its expression is kāma-rūpa; in that form-; (and) duṣpūreṇa, which is an insatiable; an-alena, fire. That which is difficult to satisfy is duṣpūraḥ; and (derivatively) that which never has enough (alam) is an-alam.
किम्-अधिष्ठानः पुनः कामः ज्ञानस्य आवरणत्वेन वैरी सर्वस्य? इत्यपेक्षायाम् आह। ज्ञाते हि शत्रोर् अधिष्ठाने सुखेन शत्रु-निबर्हणं कर्तुं शक्यत इति – Again, having what as its abode does desire, in the form of a veil over Knowledge, become the enemy of all? Since when the abode of an enemy is known, it is possible to easily slay the enemy, therefore the Lord says:
अस्य अधिष्ठानम् इन्द्रियाणि मनः बुद्धिः [च] उच्यते। एषः [कामः] एतैः ज्ञानम् आवृत्य देहिनं विमोहयति॥ 🔗 Its, (desire’s), abode is said to be the senses, the mind, and the intellect. Covering knowledge through (misdirecting) these, it variously deludes the individual, (the one identified with one’s body).
इन्द्रियाणि मनः बुद्धिश् च अस्य कामस्य अधिष्ठानम् आश्रयः उच्यते। एतैः इन्द्रियादिभिः आश्रयैः विमोहयति विविधं मोहयति एषः कामः ज्ञानम् आवृत्य आच्छाद्य देहिनं शरीरिणम्॥ Indriyāṇi, the organs; manaḥ, mind; and buddhiḥ, the intellect; ucyate, are said to be; asya, its, desire’s; adhiṣṭhānam, abode. Eṣaḥ, this one, desire; vimohayati, diversely deludes; dehinam, the embodied being; āvṛtya, by veiling; jñānam, Knowledge; etaiḥ, with the help of these, with the organs etc. which are its abodes. [•The activities of the organs etc. are the media for the expression of desire. Desire covers the Knowledge of the Self by stimulating these.•]
भरत-ऋषभ, तस्मात् त्वम् आदौ इन्द्रियाणि नियम्य, प्रजहिहि (प्रजहि हि) एनं पाप्मानं ज्ञान-विज्ञान-नाशनम्॥ 🔗 Therefore, O Arjuna, exercising authority over the senses at their source, please indeed destroy this sinful destroyer of knowledge and of the assimilation (of that knowledge).
तस्मात् त्वम् इन्द्रियाणि आदौ पूर्वम् एव नियम्य वशी-कृत्य भरतर्षभ पाप्मानं पापाचारं कामं प्रजहिहि परित्यज एनं प्रकृतं वैरिणं ज्ञान-विज्ञान-नाशनम्। ज्ञानं शास्त्रतः आचार्यतश् च आत्मादीनाम् अवबोधः, विज्ञानं विशेषतः तद्-अनुभवः, तयोः ज्ञान-विज्ञानयोः श्रेयः-प्राप्ति-हेत्वोः नाशनं नाश-करं प्रजहिहि आत्मनः परित्यज इत्यर्थः॥ O scion of the Bharata dynasty, ādau niyamya, after first controlling; indriyāṇi, the organs; prajahihi, renounce; enam, this one, the enemy under consideration; which is pāpmānam, sinful – which is desire that is accustomed to sinning; and jñāna-vijñāna-nāśanam, a destroyer of learning and wisdom. Jñāna, learning, means knowledge about the Self etc. from the scriptures and a teacher. Vijñāna, wisdom, means the full experience (i.e. first-person assimilation) of that. Renounce, i.e. discard, from yourself the destroyer of those two – learning and wisdom, which are the means to the achievement Liberation.
इन्द्रियाण्य्-आदौ नियम्य कामं शत्रुं जहिहि इत्य् उक्तम्, तत्र किम्-आश्रयः कामं जह्यात्? इत्य् उच्यते – It has been said, ‘After first controlling the organs, renounce desire the enemy’. As to that, by taking the support of what should one give up desire? This is being answered:
[अर्थेभ्यः] पराणि इन्द्रियाणि, इन्द्रियेभ्यः परं मनः, मनसः तु परा बुद्धिः, यः तु बुद्धेः परतः सः [परः आत्मा] [इति] आहुः॥ 🔗 They say that the senses are superior (to the body and all other objects), the mind is superior to the senses, the intellect is superior to the mind; whereas the one who is superior to the intellect is that (limitless self).
इन्द्रियाणि श्रोत्रादीनि पञ्च देहं स्थूलं बाह्यं परिच्छिन्नं च अपेक्ष्य सौक्ष्म्यान्तरस्थत्व-व्यापित्वाद्य्-अपेक्षया पराणि प्रकृष्टानि आहुः पण्डिताः। The learned ones āhuḥ, say; that indriyāṇi, the five [•Five sense-organs: of vision, hearing, taste, smell and touch; five motor-organs: hands, feet, speech, and for excretion and generation-these latter five are also understood in the present context.•] organs – ear etc., are parāṇi, superior, to the external, gross and limited body, from the point of view of subtlety, inner position, pervasiveness, etc.
तथा इन्द्रियेभ्यः परं मनः सङ्कल्प-विकल्पात्मकम्। तथा मनसः तु परा बुद्धिः निश्चयात्मिका। So also, manaḥ, the mind, having the nature of thinking and doubting; [•Saṅkalpa: will, volition, intention, thought, reflection, imagination, etc. vikalpa: doubt, uncertainly, indecision, suspicion, error, etc.-V.S.A.•] is param, superior; indriyebhyaḥ, to the organs. Similarly, buddhiḥ, the intellect, having the nature of determination; is para, superior; manasaḥ, to the mind.
तथा यः सर्व-दृश्येभ्यः बुद्ध्यन्तेभ्यः अभ्यन्तरः, यं देहिनम् इन्द्रियादिभिः आश्रयैः युक्तः कामः ज्ञानावरण-द्वारेण मोहयति इत्युक्तम्, बुद्धेः परतस् तु सः। सः बुद्धेः द्रष्टा पर आत्मा॥ And yaḥ, the one who is innermost as compared with all the objects of perception ending with the intellect, and with regard to which Dweller in the body it has been said that desire, in association with its ‘abodes’ counting from the organs, deludes It by shrouding Knowledge; saḥ, that one; is tu, however; parataḥ, superior; buddheḥ, to the intellect – He, the supreme Self, is the witness of the intellect. [•The portion, ‘with regard to which Dweller...the supreme Self,’ is translated from Ast. Which has the same reading here as the A.A. The G1. Pr. Makes the ‘abode’, ‘counting from the organs’ an adjective of ‘the Dweller in the body’, and omits the portion, ‘is tu, however...buddheḥ, to the intellect’.-Tr.•]
महा-बाहो, एवं बुद्धेः परं [आत्मानं] बुद्ध्वा, आत्मानम् आत्मना संस्तभ्य, काम-रूपं दुर्-आसदं शत्रुं जहि॥ 🔗 O Arjuna, in this way knowing (oneself) as superior to the intellect, steadying the one by the other one, (steadying the senses by the mind, the mind by the intellect, and the intellect by self-knowledge), destroy the enemy in the form of kāma, (otherwise so) difficult to get a fix on.
एवं बुद्धेः परम् आत्मानं बुद्ध्वा ज्ञात्वा संस्तभ्य सम्यक् स्तम्भनं कृत्वा (आत्मानं) स्वेन एव आत्मना संस्कृतेन मनसा, सम्यक् समाधाय इत्यर्थः। Buddhvā, understanding; ātmānam, the Self; evam, thus; as param, superior; buddheḥ, to the intellect; and saṃstabhya, completely establishing; ātmanā, with the mind, i.e. establishing (the Self) fully in spiritual absorption with the help of your own purified mind.जहि एनं शत्रुं हे महा-बाहो काम-रूपं दुर्-आसदं दुःखेन आसदः आसादनं प्राप्तिः यस्य तं दुर्-आसदं दुर्-विज्ञेयानेक-विशेषम् इति॥ O mighty-armed one, jahi, vanquish; this śatrum, enemy; kāma-rūpam, in the form of desire; which is dur-āsadam, difficult to subdue – which can be got hold of with great difficulty, it being possessed of many inscrutable characteristics.
इति श्रीमत्-परम-हंस-परिव्राजकाचार्य-गोविन्द-भगवत्-पूज्य-पाद-शिष्य-श्रीमच्-छङ्कर-भगवतः कृतौ श्री-भगवद्-गीता-भाष्ये कर्म-प्रशंसा-योगो नाम तृतीयोऽध्यायः॥३॥
Om (brahman, the witness of all) is that (only) reality. Thus ends the third chapter, called ‘The Topic of Action,’ of the (eighteen chapters of) Songs of the Glorious Lord, which is (looked upon as) sacred teaching (Upaniṣad) and (whose teaching is) in (the form of) a dialogue between Śrī Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna, (the subject matter being) knowledge of brahman and yoga.
योऽयं योगः अध्याय-द्वयेन उक्तः ज्ञान-निष्ठा-लक्षणः स-सन्न्यासः कर्म-योगोपायः, यस्मिन् वेदार्थः परिसमाप्तः प्रवृत्ति-लक्षणः निवृत्ति-लक्षणश् च, गीतासु च सर्वासु अयम् एव योगो विवक्षितो भगवता। अतः परिसमाप्तं वेदार्थं मन्वानः तं वंश-कथनेन स्तौति श्री-भगवान् – This Yoga which has been spoken of in the preceding two chapters, and which is characterized by steadfastness in Knowledge associated with renunciation, can be achieved through Karma-yoga. The import of the Vedas, characterized by engagement in, and detachment from, action, culminates in it. And this very Yoga is sought to be taught by the Lord in the whole of the Gītā. So, considering that the purport of the Vedas stands concluded, the Lord praises it by recounting how it was traditionally handed down:
श्री-भगवान् उवाच। अहं विवस्वते इमम् अ-व्ययं योगं प्रोक्तवान्। विवस्वान् मनवे प्राह। मनुः इक्ष्वाकवे अब्रवीत्॥ 🔗 I taught this unchanging yoga (both jñāna-yoga and karma-yoga) to Vivasvān (the sun deity – considered the progenitor of the solar-clan of rulers on earth). Vivasvān taught it to Manu (the first human and first of the solar kings on earth in this age, kalpa). Manu taught it to (his son) Ikṣvāku
इमम् अध्याय-द्वयेन उक्तं योगं विवस्वते आदित्याय सर्गादौ प्रोक्तवान् अहं जगत्-परिपालयितॄणां क्षत्रियाणां बलाधानाय, तेन योग-बलेन युक्ताः समर्था भवन्ति ब्रह्म-परिरक्षितुम्। ब्रह्म-क्षत्रे परिपालिते जगत्-परिपालयितुम् अलम्। In the beginning of creation, with a view to infusing vigour into the Kṣatriyas who are the protectors of the world, aham, I; proktavān, imparted; imam, this; a-vyayam, imperishable; yogam, Yoga, presented in the (preceding) two chapters; vivasvate, to Vivasvān, the Sun. Being endowed with this power of Yoga, they would be able to protect the Brāhmaṇa caste. The protection of the world becomes ensured when the Brāhmaṇas and the Kṣatriyas are protected.अ-व्ययम् अ-व्यय-फलत्वात्। न ह्य् अस्य (योगस्य) सम्यग्-दर्शन-निष्ठा-लक्षणस्य मोक्षाख्यं फलं व्येति। स च विवस्वान् मनवे प्राह। मनुः इक्ष्वाकवे स्व-पुत्राय आदि-राजाय अब्रवीत्॥ It (this Yoga) is a-vyayam, imperishable, because its result is undecaying. For, the result – called Liberation – of this (Yoga), which is characterized by steadfastness in perfect Illumination, does not decay. And he, Vivasvān, prāha, taught (this); manave, to Manu. Manuabravīt, transmitted (this); ikṣvākave, to Iksvāku, his own son who was the first king. [•First king of the Ikṣvāku dynasty, otherwise known as the Solar dynasty.•]
एवं राज-ऋषयः परम्-परा-प्राप्तम् इमं [योगं] विदुः। इह सः योगः महता कालेन नष्टः, परन्-तप॥ 🔗 In this way, being handed down from one to another, the kings who were sages (or the kings and sages) knew this yoga. After a long time, here (today, among these kings), that yoga has been lost, O Arjuna.
एवं क्षत्रिय-परम्परा-प्राप्तम् इमं राज-र्षयः राजानश् च ते ऋषयश् च राज-र्षयः विदुः इमं योगम्। स योगः कालेन इह महता दीर्घेण नष्टः विच्छिन्न-सम्प्रदायः संवृत्तः, हे परन्-तप, आत्मनः वि-पक्ष-भूताः परे उच्यन्ते, तान् शौर्य-तेजो-गभस्तिभिः भानुर् इव तापयति इति परन्-तपः शत्रु-तापन इत्यर्थः॥ Rāja-rṣayaḥ, the king-sages, those who were kings and sages (at the same time); viduḥ, knew; imam, this Yoga; which was evam param-para-prāptam, received thus through a regular succession of Kṣatriyas. Saḥ, that; yogaḥ, Yoga; naṣṭaḥ, is lost, has got its traditional line snapped; iha, now; mahatā kālena, owing to a long lapse of time. paran-tapa, O destroyer of foes. By para are meant those against oneself. He who, like the sun, ‘scorches’ (tāpayati) them by the ‘rays’ of the ‘heat’ of his prowess is paran-tapa, i.e. scorcher of antagonists.
दुर्-बलान् अ-जितेन्द्रियान् प्राप्य, नष्टं योगम् इमम् उपलभ्य, लोकं च अ-पुरुषार्थ-सम्बन्धिनम् – Noticing that the Yoga has got lost by reaching people who are weak and have no control of their organs, and that the world has become associated with goals that do not lead to Liberation:
मया सः एव अयं पुरा-तनः योगः ते अद्य प्रोक्तः, ‘मे भक्तः सखा च असि’ इति (=यस्मात्)। एतद् [योग-ज्ञानम्] हि (=यस्मात् च) उत्तमं रहस्यम्॥ 🔗 I just taught to you that very same ancient yoga because you are My devotee and friend. This secret (teaching of yoga) is the most profound indeed.
स एव अयं मया ते तुभ्यम् अद्य इदानीं योगः प्रोक्तः पुरा-तनः, ‘भक्तः असि मे सखा च असि’ इति। रहस्यं हि यस्माद् एतद् उत्तमं योगः ज्ञानम् इत्यर्थः॥ Sah, that; purā-tanaḥ, ancient; yogaḥ, Yoga; eva, itself; ayam, which is this; proktaḥ, has been taught; te, to you; mayā, by Me; adya, today; iti, considering that; asi, you are; me, My; bhaktaḥ, devotee; ca sakhā, and friend. Hi, for; etat, this Yoga, i.e. Knowledge; is a uttamam, profound; rahasyam, secret.
‘भगवता विप्रतिषिद्धम् उक्तम् इति मा भूत् कस्यचिद् बुद्धिः’ इति परिहारार्थं चोद्यम् इव कुर्वन् अर्जुन उवाच – Lest someone should understand that the Lord has said something contradictory, therefore, in order to prevent that (doubt), as though raising a question, Arjuna said:
अर्जुनः उवाच। भवतः जन्म अ-परं, विवस्वतः जन्म परम्। त्वम् आदौ ‘प्रोक्तवान्’ इति – एतद् कथं विजानीयाम्॥ 🔗 Arjuna said: Your birth was not long ago. Vivasvān’s birth was long ago. How should I understand that You “taught” Vivasvān in the beginning?
अपरम् अर्वाक् वसु-देव-गृहे भवतो जन्म। परं पूर्वं सर्गादौ जन्म उत्पत्तिः विवस्वतः आदित्यस्य। तत् कथम् एतद् विजानीयाम् अ-विरुद्धार्थतया, यः त्वम् एव आदौ प्रोक्तवान् इमं योगं, सः एव त्वम् इदानीं मह्यं प्रोक्तवान् असि, इति॥ Bhavataḥ, Your; janma, was aparam, later, in the abode of Vasu-deva; (whereas) the birth vivasvataḥ, of Vivasvān, the Sun; was param, earlier, in the beginning of creation. Therefore, katham, how; vijānīyām, am I to understand; etat, this, as not inconsistent; iti, that; tvam, You, yourself; who proktavān, instructed this Yoga; ādau, in the beginning, are the same person who is now teaching me?
या वासु-देवे अन्-ईश्वरासर्वज्ञाशङ्का मूर्खाणाम्, तां परिहरन् श्री-भगवान् उवाच, यद्-अर्थो ह्य् अर्जुनस्य प्रश्नः – By way of demolishing the doubt of fools with regard to Vāsudeva, that He has no God-hood and omniscience – to which very purpose was Arjuna’s question:
श्री-भगवान् उवाच। मे तव च बहूनि जन्मानि व्यतीतानि, अर्जुन। अहं तानि सर्वाणि वेद, त्वं न वेत्थ, परन्-तप॥ 🔗 The Lord said: Many births have passed for Me and for you, O Arjuna. I know them all. You do not know (yours), O Arjuna.
बहूनि मे मम व्यतीतानि अतिक्रान्तानि जन्मानि तव च हे अर्जुन। तानि अहं वेद जाने सर्वाणि न त्वं वेत्थ न जानीषे, धर्माधर्मादि-प्रतिबद्ध-ज्ञान-शक्तित्वात्। अहं पुनः नित्य-शुद्ध-बुद्ध-मुक्त-स्व-भावत्वाद् अन्-आवरण-ज्ञान-शक्तिर् इति वेद अहं हे परन्-तप॥ O Arjuna, bahūuni, many; janmāni, lives; me, of Mine; vyatītāni, have passed; tava ca, and so have yours. Aham, I; veda know; tāni, them; sarvāni, all; (but) tvam, you; na vettha, know not, due to your power of understanding being obstructed by righteousness, unrighteousness, etc. However, paran-tapa, O scorcher of foes; aham, I know, possessing as I do unobstructed power of knowledge, because by nature I am eternal, pure, enlightened and free.
कथं तर्हि तव नित्येश्वरस्य धर्माधर्माभावेऽपि जन्म? इति, उच्यते – ‘In that case, how, in spite of the absence of righteousness and unrighteousness, can there be any birth for You who are the eternal God?’ That is being answered:
अ-जः अपि सन् अ-व्यय-आत्मा [सन्] भूतानाम् ईश्वरः अपि सन् स्वां प्रकृतिम् अधिष्ठाय आत्म-मायया सम्भवामि॥ 🔗 Though unborn, undiminished, and the Lord of all beings, wielding My prakṛti (the projecting power of the Lord, which manifests as all of nature), I (as an incarnate form) am (as though) born by My own māyā (projecting power, My prakṛti).
अ-जोऽपि जन्म-रहितोऽपि सन्, तथा अ-व्ययात्मा अ-क्षीण-ज्ञान-शक्ति-स्व-भावोऽपि सन्, तथा भूतानां ब्रह्मादि-स्तम्ब-पर्यन्तानाम् ईश्वरः ईशन-शीलोऽपि सन्, प्रकृतिं स्वां मम वैष्णवीं मायां त्रि-गुणात्मिकाम्, यस्या वशे सर्वं जगद् वर्तते, यया मोहितं सत् स्वम् आत्मानं वासु-देवं न जानाति, तां प्रकृतिं स्वाम् अधिष्ठाय वशी-कृत्य सम्भवामि देहवान् इव भवामि जात इव आत्म-मायया आत्मनः मायया, न परमार्थतो लोकवत्॥ Api, san a-jaḥ, though I am birthless; and a-vyayātmā, undecaying by nature, though I am naturally possessed of an undiminishing power of Knowledge; and so also api san, though; īśvaraḥ, the Lord, natural Ruler; bhūtānām, of beings, from Brahma to a clump of grass; (still) adhiṣṭhāya, by subjugating; svām, My own; prakṛtim, Prakṛti, the Māyā of Viṣṇu consisting of the three guṇas, under whose spell the whole world exists, and deluded by which one does not know one’s own Self, Vāsudeva; – by subjugating that Prakṛti of Mine, sambhavāmi, I take birth, appear to become embodied, as though born; ātma-māyayā, by means of My own Māyā; but not in reality like an ordinary man.
तच् च जन्म कदा, किम्-अर्थं च? इत्य् उच्यते – It is being stated when and why that birth occurs:
भारत, यदा यदा हि धर्मस्य ग्लानिः अ-धर्मस्य [च] अभ्युत्थानं भवति, तदा अहम् आत्मानं (=स्वं) सृजामि॥ 🔗 O Arjuna, whenever indeed there is a wane of dharma (tradition and justice) and an ascendancy of a-dharma (disorder and injustice), then I manifest Myself (appropriate to the situation).
यदा यदा हि धर्मस्य ग्लानिः हानिः वर्णाश्रमादि-लक्षणस्य प्राणिनाम् अभ्युदय-निःश्रेयस-साधनस्य भवति भारत, अभ्युत्थानम् उद्भवः अ-धर्मस्य, तदा आत्मानं सृजामि अहं मायया॥ O scion of the Bharata dynasty, yadā yadā hi, whenever; bhavati, there is; a glāniḥ, decline, decrease; dharmasya, of virtue consisting of the duties of societal-classes and stages of life of living beings, which are the means to achieving prosperity and Liberation; and abhyutthānam, increase, rise; a-dharmasya, of vice; tadā, then; do aham, I; sṛjāmi, manifest; ātmānam, Myself, through Māyā.
साधूनां परित्राणाय, दुष्-कृतां विनाशाय, धर्म-संस्थापन-अर्थाय च युगे युगे सम्भवामि॥ 🔗 I appear in various yugas (the various ages within the cycles of the universe) for the protection of those committed to dharma, for the destruction of those committed to a-dharma (what is opposed to dharma), and for the reestablishment of dharma.
परित्राणाय परिरक्षणाय साधूनां सन्-मार्ग-स्थानाम्, विनाशाय च दुष्-कृतां पाप-कारिणाम्, किञ्च धर्म-संस्थापनार्थाय धर्मस्य सम्यक् स्थापनं तद्-अर्थं सम्भवामि युगे युगे प्रति-युगम्॥ Paritrāṇāya, for the protection; sādhūnām, of the pious, the followers of the virtuous path; vināśāya, for the destruction; duṣkṛtām, of the evil-doers, of the sinful ones; and also dharma-samsthāpanārthāya, for establishing virtue fully;– for that purpose, sambhavāmi, I manifest Myself; yuge yuge, in every age.
यः एवं मे दिव्यं जन्म कर्म च तत्त्वतः वेत्ति, सः देहं त्यक्त्वा पुनर्-जन्म न एति। माम् एति, अर्जुन॥ 🔗 The one who thus knows in reality My divine birth and action (knows the nature of Me and prakṛti) – that one, upon giving up the body, is not reborn. That one attains Me, O Arjuna.
जन्म माया-रूपं कर्म च साधु--परित्राणादि मे मम दिव्यम् अ-प्राकृतम् ऐश्वरम् एवं यथोक्तं यः वेत्ति तत्त्वतः तत्त्वेन यथावत्, त्यक्त्वा देहम् इमं पुनर्-जन्म पुनर्-उत्पत्तिं न एति न प्राप्नोति। माम् एति आगच्छति सः मुच्यते हे अर्जुन॥ Yaḥ, he who; evam, thus, as described; vetti, knows tattvataḥ, truly, as they are in reality; that divyam, divine, supernatural; janma, birth, which is a form of Māyā; ca karma, and actions, such as protection of the pious, etc.; me, of Mine; na eti, does not get; punar-janma, rebirth; tyaktvā, after casting off; this deham, body. Saḥ, he; eti, attains, comes to; mām, Me – he gets Liberated, O Arjuna.
न एष मोक्ष-मार्ग इदानीं प्रवृत्तः, किं तर्हि? पूर्वम् अपि – This path of Liberation has not been opened recently. What then? Even in earlier days [•or, This path of liberation is not of recent origin, but it was there even before•]:
वीत-राग-भय-क्रोधाः, मन्मयाः माम् उपाश्रिताः, ज्ञान-तपसा पूताः – बहवः मद्-भावम् आगताः॥ 🔗 Freed from longing, fear, and anger, having taken refuge in Me by being Me alone, and purified by the discipline that is knowledge – many have attained My nature (complete freedom).
वीत-राग-भय-क्रोधाः रागश् च भयं च क्रोधश् च वीताः विगताः येभ्यः ते वीत-राग-भय-क्रोधाः, मन्मयाः ब्रह्म-विदः ईश्वराभेद-दर्शिनः माम् एव परमेश्वरम् उपाश्रिताः केवल-ज्ञान-निष्ठाः इत्यर्थः। बहवः अन्-एके ज्ञान-तपसा ज्ञानम् एव च परमात्म-विषयं तपः तेन ज्ञान-तपसा पूताः परां शुद्धिं गताः सन्तः, मद्-भावम् ईश्वर-भावं मोक्षम् आगताः समनुप्राप्ताः। Bahavaḥ, many; vīta-rāga-bhaya-krodhaḥ, who were devoid of attachment, fear and anger; manmayāḥ, who were absorbed in Me, who were knowers of Brahman, who were seers of (their) identity with God; mām upāśritāḥ, who had taken refuge only in Me, the supreme God, i.e. who were steadfast in Knowledge alone; and were pūtāḥ, purified, who had become supremely sanctified; jñāna-tapasā, by the austerity of Knowledge – Knowledge itself, about the supreme Reality, being the austerity; becoming sanctified by that austerity of Knowledge-; āgatāḥ, have attained; mad-bhāvam, My state, Godhood, Liberation.
इतर-तपो-निर्-अपेक्ष-ज्ञान-निष्ठाः इत्य् अस्य लिङ्गम् ‘ज्ञान-तपसा’ इति विशेषणम्॥ The particular mention of ‘the austerity of Knowledge’ is to indicate that steadfastness in Knowledge does not depend on any other austerity.
तव तर्हि राग-द्वेषौ स्तः, येन केभ्यश्चिद् एव आत्म-भावं प्रयच्छसि न सर्वेभ्यः इत्य् उच्यते – ‘In that case, You have love and aversion, because of which You grant the state of identity with Yourself only to a few but not to others?’ The answer is:
यथा ये मां प्रपद्यन्ते, तथा एव अहं तान् भजामि। पार्थ, मनुष्याः मम वर्त्म सर्वशः अनुवर्तन्ते॥ 🔗 In which-ever way the people worship to Me, in that very same way I bless them. O Arjuna, people follow My path in every way.
ये यथा येन प्रकारेण येन प्रयोजनेन यत्-फलार्थितया मां प्रपद्यन्ते तान् तथा एव तत्-फल-दानेन भजामि अनुगृह्णामि अहम् इत्येतत्। तेषां मोक्षं प्रति अन्-अर्थित्वात्। न हि एकस्य मुमुक्षुत्वं फलार्थित्वं च युगपत् सम्भवति। Yathā, according to the manner in which, the purpose for which, seeking, whatever fruit; prapadyante, they approach; mām, Me; aham, I; bhajāmi, favour; tān, them; tathā eva, in that very manner, by granting that fruit. This is the idea. For they are not seekers of Liberation. It is certainly impossible for the same person to be a seeker of Liberation and, at the same time, a seeker of rewards (of actions).
अतः ये फलार्थिनः तान् फल-प्रदानेन, ये यथोक्त-कारिणस् तु अ-फलार्थिनः मुमुक्षवश् च तान् ज्ञान-प्रदानेन, ये ज्ञानिनः सन्न्यासिनः मुमुक्षवश् च तान् मोक्ष-प्रदानेन, तथा आर्तान् आर्ति-हरणेन इत्य् एवं यथा प्रपद्यन्ते ये तान् तथ एव भजामि इत्यर्थः। न पुनः राग-द्वेष-निमित्तं मोह-निमित्तं वा कञ्चिद् भजामि। Therefore, by granting fruits to those who hanker after fruits; by granting Knowledge to those who follow what has been stated (in the scriptures) and are seekers of Liberation, but do not hanker after rewards; and by granting Liberation to those who are men of wisdom and are monks aspiring for Liberation; and so also by removing the miseries of those who suffer – in these ways I favour them just according to the manner, in which they approach Me. This is the meaning. On the other hand, I do not favour anybody out of love or aversion, or out of delusion.
सर्वथा अपि सर्वावस्थस्य मम ईश्वरस्य वर्त्म मार्गम् अनुवर्तन्ते मनुष्याः – यत्-फलार्थितया यस्मिन् कर्मणि अधिकृताः, ये प्रयतन्ते ते मनुष्या अत्र उच्यन्ते – हे पार्थ सर्वशः सर्व-प्रकारैः॥Under all circumstances, O son of Pṛthā, manuṣyāḥ, human beings; anuvartante, follow; sarvaśaḥ, in every way; mama, My; vartma, path, [•The paths characterized by Knowledge and by action (rites and duties).•] the path of God who am omnipresent. By ‘human beings’ are meant those people who become engaged in their respective duties to which they are qualified according to the results they seek.
यदि तव ईश्वरस्य रागादि-दोषाभावात् सर्व-प्राणिषु अनुजिघृक्षायां तुल्यायां, सर्व-फल-प्रदान-समर्थे च त्वयि सति, ‘वासु-देवः सर्वम्’ इति ज्ञानेन एव मुमुक्षवः सन्तः कस्मात् त्वाम् एव सर्वे न प्रतिपद्यन्ते? इति शृणु तत्र कारणम् – 'If Your wish to be favourable is the same towards all creatures on account of the absence of the defects of love and aversion in You who are God, and You are there with Your capacity to grant all rewards, Why then do not all, becoming desirous of Liberation, take refuge in You alone with the very knowledge that Vasudeva is everything?' As to that, hear the reason for this:
कर्मणां सिद्धिं काङ्क्षन्तः इह [बहवः मनुष्याः] देवताः [प्रति] यजन्ते, मानुषे लोके हि (=यस्मात्) कर्म-जा सिद्धिः क्षिप्रं भवति॥ 🔗 Desiring a result of action here, many worship the deities – because in the human world a result born of action comes quickly.
काङ्क्षन्तः अभीप्सन्तः कर्मणां सिद्धिं फल-निष्पत्तिं प्रार्थयन्तः यजन्ते इह अस्मिन् लोके देवताः इन्द्राग्न्याद्याः, ‘अथ योऽन्यां देवताम् उपास्ते ‘अन्योऽसाव् अन्योऽहम् अस्मि’ इति न स वेद यथा पशुर् एवं स देवानाम्’ (BrhUEng.1.4.10, cf.BrhUEng.1.4.7) इति श्रुतेः। Kāṅkṣantaḥ, longing for, praying for; siddhim, fruition, fructification of the results; karmaṇām, of actions; yajante, they worship; iha, here, in this world; devatāḥ, the gods, Indra, Fire and others – which accords with the Upaniṣad text, ‘While he who worships another god thinking, “He is one, and I am another,” does not know. He is like an animal to the gods’ (BrhUEng.1.4.10). [•This text points out that the reason for adoring other deities is the ignorance of the Self, which gives rise to the ideas of difference between the worshipped and the worshipper. As animals are beneficial to human beings, so also is the sacrificer to the gods, because through oblations he works for their pleasure!•] तेषां हि भिन्न-देवता-याजिनां फलाकाङ्क्षिणां क्षिप्रं शीघ्रं हि यस्मान् मानुषे लोके, मनुष्य-लोके हि शास्त्राधिकारः। ‘क्षिप्रं हि मानुषे लोके’ इति विशेषणाद् अन्येष्व् अपि कर्म-फल-सिद्धिं दर्शयति भगवान्। मानुषे लोके वर्णाश्रमादि-कर्मधिकरणः इति विशेषः, तेषां वर्णाश्रमाद्य्-अधिकारि-कर्मणां फल-सिद्धिः क्षिप्रं भवति कर्म-जा कर्मणो जाता॥ Hi, for, in the case of those, indeed, who sacrifice to other gods and long for results; siddhiḥ, success; karma-jā, from action; bhavati, comes; kṣipram, quickly; mānuṣe loke, in the human world, because the authority of the scriptures extends only over the human world. By the specific statement, ‘For, in the human world, success comes quickly,’ the Lord shows that results of actions can accrue even in the other worlds. The difference lies in this that, in the human world eligibility for [•Ast. and A.A. omit ‘adhikāra, eligibility for’, and read karmaṇi.-Tr.•] actions is according to societal-classes, stages of life, etc. The fruition of the results of those actions of persons who are eligible according to societal-classes, stages of life, etc. comes quickly.
मानुषे एव लोके वर्णाश्रमादि-कर्माधिकारः, न अन्येषु लोकेषु इति (BhG.4.12) नियमः किं-निमित्त? इति।
अथवा, वर्णाश्रमादि-प्रविभागोपेताः मनुष्याः मम वर्त्म अनुवर्तन्ते सर्वशः इत्य् (BhG.4.11) उक्तम् , कस्मात् पुनः कारणान् नियमेन तव एव वर्त्म अनुवर्तन्ते न अन्यस्य? इति उच्यते – What is the reason for the rule that the competence for rites and duties according to societal-classes, stages of life, etc. obtains only in the human world, but not in the other worlds? Or:– It has been said, ‘Human beings, having such divisions as societal-classes, stages of life, etc., follow My path in every way.’ For what reason, again, do they as a rule follow Your path alone, but not of others? This is being answered:
मया गुण-कर्म-विभागशः चातुर्-वर्ण्यं सृष्टम्। तस्य कर्तारम् अपि, माम् अ-व्ययम् अ-कर्तारं विद्धि॥ 🔗 I manifested the four-fold varṇa (grouping within society – educators, administrators, entrepreneurs, and laborers) according to the divisions of guṇa (mental disposition) and karma (duty). Though its author, know Me to be changeless and not a doer.
चत्वार एव वर्णाः चातुर्-वर्ण्यं मया ईश्वरेण सृष्टम् उत्पादितम्, ‘ब्राह्मणोऽस्य मुखम् आसीत्’ (RgV.10.8.91) इत्य्-आदि-श्रुतेः। गुण-कर्म-विभागशः गुण-विभागशः कर्म-विभागशश् च। Cātur-varṇyam – meaning the same as catvāraḥ varṇāḥ, the four societal-classes; sṛṣṭam, have been created; mayā, by Me who am God, which accords with such Veda texts as, ‘The Brāhmaṇas were His face...' (Rg. 10.90.12); guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ, through a classification of the guṇas and duties. [•A.G. writes: guṇa-vibhāgena karma-vibhāgaḥ, classification of the duties, determined by the classification of the guṇas.-Tr•] By the guṇas are meant sattva, rajas and tamas.
गुणाः सत्त्व-रजस्-तमांसि। तत्र सात्त्विकस्य सत्त्व-प्रधानस्य ब्राह्मणस्य ‘शमो दमस् तपः’ (BhG.18.42) इत्य्-आदीनि कर्माणि, सत्त्वोपसर्जन-रजः-प्रधानस्य क्षत्रियस्य शौर्य-तेजः-प्रभृतीनि कर्माणि, तम-उपसर्जन-रजः-प्रधानस्य वैश्यस्य कृष्य्-आदीनि कर्माणि, रज-उपसर्जन-तमः-प्रधानस्य शूद्रस्य शुश्रूषा एव कर्म इत्य् एवं गुण-कर्म-विभागशः चातुर्-वर्ण्यं मया सृष्टम् इत्यर्थः। तच् च इदं चातुर्-वर्ण्यं न अन्येषु लोकेषु, अतः ‘मानुषे लोके’ (BhG.4.12) इति विशेषणम्। As to that, the control of the mind and body, austerity, etc. are the duties of the Brāhmaṇas, who are sāttvika, i.e. have a predominance of the quality of sattva (purity, goodness, etc.). Courage, valour, etc. are the duties of the Kṣatriyas, in whom sattva becomes secondary and rajas (passion, attachment, etc.) preponderates. Agriculture etc. are the duties of the Vaiśya, in whom tamas (indolence, ignorance, etc.) is secondary and rajas is predominant. Service is the only duty of the Śudra, in whom rajas is secondary and tamas predominates (see chapters 14, 16, 17 and 18). In this way, the four societal-classes have been created by Me through a classification of the guṇas and duties. This is the idea. And these four societal-classes do not prevail in the other worlds. Hence the specification, ‘in the human world’.
हन्त तर्हि चातुर्-वर्ण्यस्य सर्गादेः कर्मणः कर्तृत्वात् तत्-फलेन युज्यसे, अतः न त्वं नित्य-मुक्तः नित्येश्वरश् च इति उच्यते – यद्य्-अपि माया-संव्यवहारेण तस्य कर्मणः कर्तारम् अपि सन्तं मां परमार्थतः विद्धि अ-कर्तारम्। अत एव अ-व्ययम् अ-संसारिणं च मां विद्धि॥ ‘Well, in that case, by virtues of Your being the agent of the acts of creation of the four societal-classes,etc. You become subject to the consequence of those actions? Therefore you are not eternally free and the eternal Lord!’ This is being answered: Api, even though; I am kartāram, the agent; tasya, of that act, from the empirical standpoint of māyā; still, from the highest standpoint, viddhi, know; mām, Me; to be a-kartāram, a non-agent; and therefore, also know Me to be a-vyāyam, changeless, not subject to the cycle of births and deaths.
येषां तु कर्मणां कर्तारं मां मन्यसे, परमार्थतः तेषाम् अ-कर्ता एव अहम्, यतः – ‘In reality, however, I am not the agent of those actions of which you think I am the agent.’ Because-
कर्माणि मां न लिम्पन्ति, मे न कर्म-फले स्पृहा। इति यः माम् अभिजानाति, सः कर्मभिः न बध्यते॥ 🔗 Actions do not affect Me, nor do I have longing toward the result of action. The one who knows Me thus, that one is not bound by actions.
न मां तानि कर्माणि लिम्पन्ति देहाद्य्-आरम्भकत्वेन, अहङ्काराभावात्। न च [कर्म-फले] तेषां कर्मणां फलेषु मे मम स्पृहा तृष्णा। येषां तु संसारिणाम् ‘अहं कर्ता’ इत्य्-अभिमानः कर्मसु, स्पृहा तत्-फलेषु च, तान् कर्माणि लिम्पन्ति इति युक्तम्, तद्-अभावान् ‘न मां कर्माणि लिम्पन्ति’। Because of the absence of egoism, those karmāṇi, actions; na limpanti, do not taint; mām, Me, by becoming the originators of body etc. And me, for Me; na spṛhā, there is no hankering for the results of those actions. But in the case of transmigrating beings, who have self-identification in the form, ‘I am the agent’, and thirst for actions as also for their results, it is reasonable that actions should taint them. Owing to the absence of these, actions do not taint Me.इति एवं यः अन्योऽपि माम् आत्मत्वेन अभिजानाति ‘न अहं कर्ता न मे कर्म-फले स्पृहा’ इति सः कर्मभिः न बध्यते, तस्य अपि न देहाद्य्-आरम्भकाणि कर्माणि भवन्ति इत्यर्थः॥ Anyone else, too, yaḥ, who; abhijānāti, knows; mām, Me; iti, thus, as his own Self, and (knows), ‘I am not an agent; I have no hankering for the results of actions’; saḥ, he; na badhyate, does not become bound; karmabhiḥ, by actions. In his case also actions cease to be the originators of body etc. This is the import.
‘न अहं कर्ता न मे कर्म-फले स्पृहा’ इति – ‘I am not the doer; I have no desire for the fruit of karma’:
एवं ज्ञात्वा पूर्वैः मुमुक्षुभिः अपि कर्म कृतम्। तस्मात् त्वं पूर्वैः पूर्वतरं कृतं [एवं] कर्म एव कुरु॥ 🔗 Knowing (Me) in this way, even previous desirers of complete freedom performed their duty. Therefore, you also perform your duty, as the previous ones did before.
एवं ज्ञात्वा कृतं कर्म पूर्वैः अपि अतिक्रान्तैः मुमुक्षुभिः। कुरु तेन कर्म एव त्वम्, न तूष्णीम् आसनं न अपि सन्न्यासः कर्तव्यः, तस्मात् त्वं पूर्वैर् अपि अनुष्ठितत्वात् – यदि अन्-आत्म-ज्ञः त्वं तदा आत्म-शुद्ध्य्-अर्थम्, तत्त्व-विच् चेल् लोक-सङ्ग्रहार्थं – पूर्वैः जनकादिभिः पूर्वतरं कृतं न अधुना-तनं कृतं निर्वर्तितम्॥ Jñātvā, having known; evam, thus, that ‘I am not an agent; I have no desire for the results of actions’; karma, duties; kṛtam, were undertaken; api, even; pūrvaiḥ, by the ancient; mumukṣubhiḥ, seekers of Liberation. Tasmāt, therefore; tvam, you; kuru, undertake; karma, action; eva, itself. You ought not to sit quietly, or even renounce. Therefore, you (undertake actions) because they were performed by the ancients as well – if you have no Self-knowledge, then (undertake actions) for self-purification; or, if you have Self-knowledge, then (undertake actions) in order to prevent people from going astray –, as were kṛtam, performed; pūrvataram, earlier; pūrvaiḥ, by the ancient ones, Janaka and others; not actions as are undertaken in the present day. [•This last portion of the sentence is translated by some as follows: You should not undertake actions which are done in the present manner (i.e. do not perform actions in the manner undertaken by people nowadays, which neither purifies the mind nor helps people)•].
तत्र कर्म चेत् कर्तव्यं ‘त्वद्-वचनाद् एव करोम्य् अहम्, किं विशेषितेन पूर्वैः पूर्वतरं कृतम्’? इत्य् उच्यते, यस्मान् महद् वैषम्यं कर्मणि। कथम्? ‘If action has to be undertaken here, then I shall do so following Your instruction itself. What is the use of specifying that it was done earlier by the ancient ones?’ ‘The answer is: Because there is a great difficult as regards actions.’ How?
किं कर्म? किम् अ-कर्म? इति अत्र कवयः अपि मोहिताः। तद् (=अतः) ते कर्म प्रवक्ष्यामि, यद् ज्ञात्वा अ-शुभात् मोक्ष्यसे॥ 🔗 What is action? What is inaction? Regarding this, even the (so-called) wise are confused. Thus, I will teach you about action, knowing which you will be free from the unpleasant (life of unbecoming becoming, from saṃsāra).
किं कर्म किं च अ-कर्म इति कवयः मेधाविनः अपि अत्र अस्मिन् कर्मादि-विषये मोहिताः मोहं गताः। तद् अतः ते तुभ्यम् अहं कर्म अ-कर्म च प्रवक्ष्यामि, यज् ज्ञात्वा विदित्वा कर्मादि मोक्ष्यसे अ-शुभात् संसारात्॥ Kavayaḥ api, even the intelligent; mohitāḥ, are confounded in this subject of action etc.; iti atra, as to; kim karma, what is action; and kim a-karma, what is inaction. Therefore, pravakṣyāmi, I shall tell; te, you; of karma, action; a-karma ca, as also of inaction; jñātvā, by knowing; yat, which – action etc.; mokṣyase, you will become free: a-śubhāt, from evil, from transmigration.
न च एतत् त्वया मन्तव्यम् – ‘कर्म नाम देहादि-चेष्टा लोक-प्रसिद्धम्, अ-कर्म नाम तद्-अ-क्रिया तूष्णीम् आसनम्, किं तत्र बोद्धव्यम्?’ इति। कस्माद्? उच्यते – ‘And you should not think thus: What is called karma is the movement of the body etc. as are well-known in the world; and a-karma, inaction, is not doing those, (i.e.) sitting quietly. What is there to understand (further) in that regard?’ ‘Why?’ The answer is:
कर्मणः [तत्त्वं] हि (=यस्मात्) अपि बोद्धव्यं, वि-कर्मणः च बोद्धव्यम्, अ-कर्मणः च बोद्धव्यं। गहना कर्मणः गतिः॥ 🔗 Because what is to be known is also about (enjoined) action, about prohibited action, and about inaction. The nature of action is difficult to know.
कर्मणः शास्त्र-विहितस्य हि यस्माद् अपि अस्ति बोद्धव्यम्, बोद्धव्यं च अस्त्य् एव वि-कर्मणः प्रतिषिद्धस्य, तथा अ-कर्मणश् च तूष्णीम्-भावस्य बोद्धव्यम्। ‘अस्ति [इह अधुना]’ इति त्रिष्व् अप्य् अध्याहारः कर्तव्यः। यस्माद् गहना विषमा दुर्-ज्ञेया – ‘कर्मणः’ इति उपलक्षणार्थं कर्मादीनाम् – कर्माकर्म-वि-कर्मणां गतिः याथात्म्यं तत्त्वम् इत्यर्थः॥ Hi, for; there is something boddhavyam, to be known; api, even; karmaṇaḥ, about action enjoined by the scriptures; and there is certainly something to be known vi-karmaṇaḥ, about prohibited action; so, also, there is something to be known a-karmaṇaḥ, about inaction, about sitting quietly. (The words ‘there is’ are to be supplied in all the three cases.) Because gatiḥ, the true nature, i.e. the essential nature; karmaṇaḥ, of action – implying karma etc., viz action, prohibited action and inaction; is gahanā, inscrutable, hard to understand.
किं पुनस् तत्त्वं कर्मादेः यद् ‘बोद्धव्यं वक्ष्यामि’ (BhG.4.17) इति प्रतिज्ञातम्? उच्यते – ‘What, again, is the essential nature of action etc. which has to be understood, and about which it was promised, “I shall tell you....” (BhG.4.16)?’ This is being stated:
यः कर्मणि अ-कर्म (=कर्म-अ-भावं नित्यं) [परमार्थतः] पश्येत्, यः च अ-कर्मणि (=प्रवृत्ति-निर्वृत्तौ) कर्म [व्यवहारतः पश्येत्], सः मनुष्येषु बुद्धिमान्। सः युक्तः कृत्स्न-कर्म-कृत् [च]॥ 🔗 The one who can see inaction (actionlessness) in action, and (withdrawal) action in inaction (in not doing one’s duty) – that one is wise among people. That one is a yogī and has accomplished everything that is (essential) to be done.
कर्मणि, क्रियते इति कर्म व्यापारमात्रम्, तस्मिन् कर्मणि अ-कर्म कर्माभावं यः पश्येत्, अ-कर्मणि च कर्माभावे कर्तृ-तन्त्रत्वात् प्रवृत्ति-निवृत्त्योः – वस्तु अ-प्राप्य एव हि सर्व एव क्रिया-कारकादि-व्यवहारः अ-विद्या-भूमौ एव – कर्म यः पश्येत् पश्यति, सः बुद्धिमान् मनुष्येषु, सः युक्तः योगी, कृत्स्न-कर्म-कृत् समस्त-कर्म-कृच् च सः, इति स्तूयते कर्माकर्मणोर् इतरेतर-दर्शी। Since engagement and non-engagement (in action) depend on an agent, therefore, yaḥ, he who; pasyet, i.e. pasyati, finds; a-karma, inaction, absence of action; karmaṇi, in action – karma means whatever is done, action in general; in that action–; and yaḥ, who; finds karma, action; a-karmaṇi, in inaction, in the absence of action; saḥ, he; is buddhimān, a wise one; manuṣyeṣu, among men. All dealings involving an act, accessories, etc. exist certainly on the plane of ignorance, [•Both engagement and non-engagement presuppose agentship and an act of some kind. This, however, holds good on the plane of ignorance, but not on that of Self-realization.•] only so long as one has not attained to the Reality. He is a yogi, yuktaḥ, engaged in yoga; and a kṛtsna-karma-kṛt, performer of all actions. One who discriminates between action and actions. One who discriminates between action and inaction is praised thus.
ननु किम् इदं विरुद्धम् उच्यते ‘कर्मणि अ-कर्म यः पश्येत्’ इति ‘अ-कर्मणि च कर्म’ इति? न हि कर्म अ-कर्म स्यात्, अ-कर्म वा कर्म। तत्र विरुद्धं कथं पश्येत् द्रष्टा? Objection: Well, what is meant by this contradictory statement, ‘He who finds inaction in action’, and ‘action in inaction’? For action cannot become inaction, nor inaction action. That being so, how can a witness have (such) an incongruous perception?न (ननु), अ-कर्म एव परमार्थतः सत् कर्मवद् अवभासते मूढ-दृष्टेः लोकस्य, तथा कर्म एव अ-कर्मवत्। तत्र यथा-भूत-दर्शनार्थम् आह भगवान् – ‘कर्मण्य् अ-कर्म यः पश्येद्’ इत्यादि, अतो न विरुद्धम्। बुद्धिमत्त्वाद्य्-उपपत्तेश् च। ‘बोद्धव्यम्’ (BhG.4.17) इति च यथा-भूत-दर्शनम् उच्यते। न च विपरीत-ज्ञानाद् अ-शुभाद् मोक्षणं स्याद्, ‘यद् ज्ञात्वा मोक्ष्यसेऽशुभाद्’ (BhG.4.16) इति च उक्तम्। तस्मात् कर्माकर्मणी विपर्ययेण गृहीते प्राणिभिः, तद्-विपर्यय-ग्रहण-निवृत्त्य्-अर्थं भगवतो वचनम् ‘कर्मण्य् अ-कर्म यः’ इत्यादि। Vedāntin: Is it not that [•Ast. reads na in place of nanu.-Tr.•] to an ordinary foolish observer, that which in reality is inaction appears as action, and similarly, action itself as inaction? That being so, in order to show things as they are the Lord says, ‘He who finds inaction in action’, etc. Therefore there is no incongruity. Besides, the qualifications such as ‘intelligent’ etc. (thus) become logical. And by saying, ‘there is something to be known’, is implied the perception of things as they are. Moreover, freedom from evil cannot follow from an erroneous perception; whereas it has been said, ‘by knowing which you will become free from evil’. Therefore, on account of action and inaction being perceived contrarily by the creatures, the Lord’s utterance, ‘he who finds inaction in action,’ etc. is for dispelling their contrary perception.
न च अत्र कर्माधिकरणम् अ-कर्म अस्ति, कुण्डे बदराणि इव। न अपि अ-कर्माधिकरणं कर्म अस्ति, कर्माभावत्वाद् अ-कर्मणः। अतः विपरीत-गृहीते एव कर्माकर्मणी लौकिकैः, यथा मृग-तृष्णिकायाम् उदकं शुक्तिकायां वा रजतम्। Not that in the empirical plane inaction has action as its receptacle, like a plum in a bowl! Nor even has action inaction as its receptacle, because inaction is a negation of action. Therefore, action and inaction are actually perceived contrarily by the ordinary persons – like seeing water in a mirage, or silver in nacre.
ननु कर्म कर्म एव सर्वेषां, न क्वचिद् व्यभिचरति – Objection: Is it not that to everyone action is action itself? Never is there an exception to this.
तन् न, नौ-स्थस्य नावि गच्छन्त्यां तट-स्थेषु अ-गतिषु न-गेषु प्रतिकूल-गति-दर्शनाद्, दूरेषु चक्षुषा अ-संनिकृष्टेषु गच्छत्सु गत्य्-अभाव-दर्शनाद्, एवम् इह अपि अ-कर्मणि ‘अहं करोमि’ इति कर्म-दर्शनम् , कर्मणि च अ-कर्म-दर्शनं विपरीत-दर्शनं, येन तन्-निराकरणार्थम् उच्यते ‘कर्मण्य् अ-कर्म यः पश्येद्’ इत्यादि। Vedāntin: That is not so, because when a boat is moving, motionless trees on the bank appear to move in the opposite direction to a man on the boat; an absence of motion is noticed in distant moving things which are not near one’s eyes. Similarly, here also occurs the contrary perceptions, viz seeing action in inaction under the idea, ‘I am doing’, [•Ast. omits ‘aham karomi iti, under the idea, “I am doing”’.-Tr.•] and seeing, inaction in action, – because of which it is said, ‘He who finds inaction in action,’ etc. in order to eliminate them. As such, although this answer has been given more than once, still a man becomes repeatedly deluded under the influence of a totally opposite perception. And forgetting the truth that has been heard again and again, he repeatedly raises false issues and questions! And therefore, observing that the subject is difficult to understand, the Lord gives His answer again and again.
तद् एतद् उक्त-प्रतिवचनम् अपि अ-सकृद् अत्यन्त-विपरीत-दर्शन-भाविततया मोमुह्यमानो लोकः, श्रुतम् अपि अ-सकृत् तत्त्वं विस्मृत्य विस्मृत्य मिथ्या-प्रसङ्गम् अवतार्य अवतार्य चोदयति, इति पुनः पुनः उत्तरम् आह भगवान्, दुर्-विज्ञेयत्वं च आलक्ष्य वस्तुनः। ‘अ-व्यक्तोऽयम् अ-चिन्त्योऽयम्’ (BhG.2.25) ‘न जायते म्रियते’ (BhG.2.20) इत्यादिना आत्मनि कर्माभावः श्रुति-स्मृति-न्याय-प्रसिद्धः उक्तः वक्ष्यमाणश् च। तस्मिन् आत्मनि कर्माभावे अ-कर्मणि कर्म-विपरीत-दर्शनम् अत्यन्त-निरूढम्, यतः ‘किं कर्म किम् अ-कर्म इति कवयोऽप्य् अत्र मोहिताः’ (BhG.4.16)। देहाद्य्-आश्रयं कर्म आत्मन्य् अध्यारोप्य ‘अहं कर्ता, मम एतत् कर्म, मया अस्य कर्मणः फलं भोक्तव्यम्’ इति च, तथा ‘अहं तूष्णीं भवामि, येन अहं निर्-आयासः अ-कर्मा सुखी स्याम्’ इति कार्य-करणाश्रयं व्यापारोपरमं तत्-कृतं च सुखित्वम् आत्मनि अध्यारोप्य ‘न करोमि किञ्चित्, तूष्णीं सुखम् आसम्’ इति अभिमन्यते लोकः। तत्र इदं लोकस्य विपररीत-दर्शनापनयाय आह भगवान् – ‘कर्मण्य् अ-कर्म यः पश्येद्’ इत्य-आदि। The absence of action in the Self – well-known from the Vedas, Smṛtis and logic, as stated in, ‘(It is said that) This is unmanifest; This is inconceivable’ (BhG.2.25), ‘Never is this One born, and never does It die’ (BhG.2.20; KathU.1.2.18), etc. – has been and will be spoken of. The contrary perception of action in that actionless Self, i.e. in inaction, is very deep-rooted, owing to which ‘even the intelligent are confounded as to what is action and what is inaction.’ And as a consequence of the superimposition of action pertaining to the body etc. on the Self, there arises such ideas as, ‘I am an agent; this is my action; its result is to be enjoyed by me.’ Similarly, with the idea, ‘I shall remain quiet, whereby I shall be free from exertion, free from activity, and happy’, and superimposing on the Self the cessation of activities pertaining to the body and organs and the resulting happiness, a man imagines, ‘I shall not do anything; I shall sit quietly and happily.’
अत्र च कर्म ‘कर्म एव’ सत्, कार्य-करणाश्रयं कर्म-रहिते अ-विक्रिये आत्मनि सर्वैः अध्यस्तम्, यतः पण्डितोऽपि ‘अहं करोमि’ इति मन्यते। That being so, the Lord says, ‘he who finds inaction in action,’ etc. with a view to removing this contrary understanding of man. And here in this world, though action belonging to the body and organs continues to be action, still it is superimposed by everyone on the actionless, unchanging Self, as a result of which even a learned person thinks, ‘I act.’
अतः आत्म-समवेततया सर्व-लोक-प्रसिद्धे ‘कर्मणि’ नदी-कूल-स्थेष्व् इव वृक्षेषु गतिः प्रातिलोम्येन ‘अ-कर्म’ कर्माभावं यथा-भूतं गत्य्-अभावम् इव वृक्षेषु ‘यः पश्येद्’, अ-कर्मणि च कार्य-करण-व्यापारोपरमे कर्मवद् आत्मनि अध्यारोपिते, ‘तूष्णीं अ-कुर्वन् सुखं आसे’ इत्य्-अहङ्काराभिसन्धि-हेतुत्वात्, तस्मिन् ‘अ-कर्मणि च कर्म यः पश्येद्’, यः एवं कर्माकर्म-विभाग-ज्ञः ‘सः बुद्धिमान्’ पण्डितः ‘मनुष्येषु, सः युक्तः’ योगी ‘कृत्स्न-कर्म-कृच्’ च सः अ-शुभाद् मोक्षितः कृत-कृत्यः भवति इत्यर्थः। Therefore, in action (karmaṇi), which is universally considered by all people to be inherent in the Self, like the perception of motion in the (stationary) trees on the bank of a river – (in that action) he who contrariwise finds the fact of inaction, like perceiving absence of motion in those trees–. And, in inaction (a-karmaṇi) in the cessation of the activities pertaining to the body and organs and ascribed to the Self in the same way that actions are ascribed–, in that action, he who sees action because of egoism being implicit in the idea, ‘I am happily seated quietly, without doing anything’–; he who knows thus the distinction between action and inaction, is wise, is learned among men; he is engaged in yoga, he is a yogi, and a performer of all actions. And he, freed from evil, attains fulfilment. This is the meaning.
अयं श्लोकः अन्यथा व्याख्यातः कैश्चित्। कथम्? नित्यानां किल कर्मणाम् ईश्वरार्थे अनुष्ठीयमानानां तत्-फलाभावाद् ‘अ-कर्माणि’ तानि उच्यन्ते गौण्या वृत्त्या। तेषां च अ-करणम् अ-कर्म, तच् च प्रत्यवाय-फलत्वात् ‘कर्म’ उच्यते गौण्या एव वृत्त्या। तत्र नित्ये ‘कर्मणि अ-कर्म यः पश्येत्’ फलाभावात्, यथा धेनुर् अपि गौः ‘अ-गौः’ इत्य् उच्यते क्षीराख्यं फलं न प्रयच्छति इति, तद्वत्। तथा नित्याकरणे तु ‘अ-कर्मणि कर्म यः पश्येन्’ नरकादि-प्रत्यवाय-फलं प्रयच्छति इति। This verse is interpreted by some in another way. How? (Thus:) ‘Since the daily obligatory duties (nitya-karmas) certainly have no results when performed as a dedication to God, therefore, in a secondary sense, they are said to be inaction. Again, the non-performance of these (nitya-karmas) is inaction; since this produces an evil result, therefore it is called action, verily in a figurative sense. That being so, he who sees inaction in the daily obligatory duties (nitya-karmas) owing to the absence of their results – in the same way as a cow that does not yield milk is said to be not a cow, though in reality it is so – so also, in the non-performance of the daily obligatory duties, i.e. in inaction, he who sees action since that yields results such as hell etc....’
न एतद् युक्तं व्याख्यानम्। एवं ज्ञानाद्, अ-शुभाद् मोक्षानुपपत्तेः, ‘यज् ज्ञात्वा मोक्ष्यसेऽशुभाद्’ (BhG.4.16) इति भगवता उक्तं वचनं बाध्येत। कथम्? नित्यानाम् अनुष्ठानाद्, अ-शुभात् स्यान् नाम मोक्षणं, न तु तेषां फलाभाव-ज्ञानात्। न हि नित्यानां फलाभाव-ज्ञानम् अ-शुभ-मुक्ति-फलत्वेन चोदितम्, नित्य-कर्म-ज्ञानं वा। न च भगवता एव इह उक्तम्। This explanation is not logical, because freedom from evil as a result of such knowledge is unreasonable, and the utterance of the Lord in the sentence, ‘....by knowing which you will become freed from evil’, will be contradicted. How? Even if it be that liberation from evil follows from the performance of nitya-karmas, it cannot, however, follow from the knowledge of the absence of their results. For it has not been enjoined (anywhere) that knowledge of the nitya-karmas (themselves), leads to the result of freedom from evil. Nor has this been stated here by the Lord Himself.
एतेन अ-कर्मणि कर्म-दर्शनं प्रत्युक्तम्। न हि अ-कर्मणि ‘कर्म’ इति दर्शनं कर्तव्यतया इह चोद्यते, नित्यस्य तु कर्तव्यतामात्रम्। न च ‘अ-करणाद् नित्यस्य प्रत्यवायो भवति’ इति विज्ञानात् किञ्चित् फलं स्यात्। न अपि नित्याकरणं ज्ञेयत्वेन चोदितम्। न अपि ‘कर्म अ-कर्म’ इति मिथ्या-दर्शनाद् अ-शुभाद् मोक्षणं बुद्धिमत्त्वं युक्तता कृत्स्न-कर्म-कृत्त्वादि च फलम् उपपद्यते, स्तुतिर् वा। मिथ्या-ज्ञानम् एव हि साक्षाद् अ-शुभ-रूपम्। कुतः अन्यस्माद् अ-शुभाद् मोक्षणम्? न हि तमः तमसो निवर्तकं भवति। Hereby is refuted the ‘seeing of action in inaction’ [•As explained by others.-Tr.•], for (according to the opponent) ‘seeing of action in inaction’ has not been enjoined here [•Here, in the present verse.•] as a duty, but (what has been enjoined is) merely that performance of the nitya-karmas is obligatory. Moreover, no result can accrue from the knowledge that evil arises from non-performance of nitya-karmas. Nor even has non-performance of nitya-karmas. been enjoined as something that should be known. Besides, such results as freedom from evil, wisdom, engagement in yoga, and being a performer of all actions cannot reasonably follow from a false perception of action as inaction. Nor is this a eulogy of false perception. [•The stated results accrue from correct knowledge, not from false perception; and correct knowledge alone is praise-worthy.•] Indeed, false perception is itself an obvious form of evil! How can it bring about liberation from another evil? Surely, darkness does not become the remover of darkness!
ननु कर्मणि यद् अ-कर्म-दर्शनम् अ-कर्मणि वा कर्म-दर्शनं न तद् मिथ्या-ज्ञानम्, किं तर्हि? गौणं फल-भावाभाव-निमित्तम् – Opponent: Well, the seeing of inaction in action, or the seeing of action in inaction – that is not a false perception. Vedāntin: What then? Opponent: It is a figurative statement based on the existence or the non-existence of results.
न, कर्माकर्म-विज्ञानाद् अपि गौणात् फलस्य अ-श्रवणात्। न अपि श्रुत-हान्य्-अश्रुत-परिकल्पनायां कश्चिद् विशेषो लभ्यते। स्व-शब्देन अपि शक्यं वक्तुम् ‘नित्य-कर्मणां फलं न अस्ति, अ-करणाच् च तेषां नरक-पातः स्याद्’ इति, तत्र व्याजेन पर-व्यामोह-रूपेण ‘कर्मण्य् अ-कर्म यः पश्येद्’ इत्य्-आदिना किम्? Vedāntin: Not so, because there is no such scriptural statement that something results from knowing action as inaction and inaction as action, even in a figurative sense. Besides, nothing particular is gained by rejecting what is heard of (in the scriptures) and imagining something that is not. Further, it was possible (for the Lord) to express in His own words that there is no result from the nitya-karmas, and that by their non-performance one would have to go to hell. Under such circumstances, what was the need of the ambiguous statement, ‘He who sees inaction in action,’ etc., which is misleading to others?
तत्र एवं व्याचक्षाणेन ‘भगवता उक्तं वाक्यं लोक-व्यामोहार्थम्’ इति व्यक्तं कल्पितं स्यात्। न च एतच् छद्म-रूपेण वाक्येन रक्षणीयं वस्तु, न अपि शब्दान्तरेण पुनः पुनः उच्यमानं सु-बोधं स्याद् इत्य्-एवं वक्तुं युक्तम्। ‘कर्मण्य् एवाधिकारस् ते’ (BhG.2.47) इत्य् अत्र हि स्फुटतर उक्तः अर्थः, न पुनः वक्तव्यो भवति। सर्वत्र च प्रशस्तं बोद्धव्यं च कर्तव्यम् एव। न निष्-प्रयोजनं बोद्धव्यम् इत्य् उच्यते। न च मिथ्या-ज्ञानं बोद्धव्यं भवति, तत्-प्रत्युपस्थापितं वा वस्त्व्-आभासम्। This being the case, such an explanation by anyone will be clearly tantamount to imagining that statement of the Lord as meant for deluding people. Moreover, this subject-matter (performance of nitya-karmas) is not something to be protected with mystifying words. It is not even logical to say that the subject-matter will become easy for comprehension if it is stated again and again through different words. For, the subject-matter that was stated more clearly in, ‘Your right is for action alone’ (BhG.2.47), does not need any repetition. And everywhere it is said that whatever is good and ought to be practised deserves to be understood; anything purposeless does not deserve to be known. Besides, neither is false knowledge worth acquiring nor is the semblance of an object presented by it worth knowing.
न अपि नित्यानाम् अ-करणाद् अ-भावात् प्रत्यवाय-भावोत्पत्तिः, ‘न अ-सतो विद्यते भावः’ (BhG.2.16) इति वचनात्, ‘कथम् अ-सतः सज् जायेत’ (ChanU.6.2.2) इति (च दर्शितम्) अ-सतः सज्-जन्म-प्रतिषेधात्। अ-सतः सद्-उत्पत्तिं ब्रुवता ‘अ-सद् एव सद् भवेत्, सच् च अ-सद् भवेद्’ इत्य् उक्तं स्यात्। तच् च अ-युक्तम्, सर्व-प्रमाण-विरोधात्। Nor even can any evil, which is an entity, arise from the non-performance of nitya-karmas, which is a non-entity, for there is the statement, ‘Of the unreal there is no being’ (BhG.2.16), and (in the Upaniṣad) it has been pointed out, ‘How can existence originate from nonexistence?’ (BhG.2.16) इति वचनात्, ‘कथम् अ-सतः सज् जायेत’ (ChanU.6.2.2). Since emergence of the existent from the nonexistent has been denied, therefore anyone’s assertion that the existent originates from the nonexistent will amount to saying that a non-entity becomes an entity, and an entity becomes a non-entity! And that is not rational because it runs counter to all the means of valid knowledge.
न च निष्-फलं विदध्यात् कर्म शास्त्रं दुःख-रूपत्वाद्, दुःखस्य च बुद्धि-पूर्वकतया कार्यत्वानुपपत्तेः। तद्-अ-करणे च नरक-पाताभ्युपगमेऽन्-अर्थाय एव उभयथा अपि करणे च अ-करणे च शास्त्रं निष्-फलं कल्पितं स्यात्। स्वाभ्युपगम-विरोधश् च ‘नित्यं निष्-फलं कर्म’ इति अभ्युपगम्य ‘मोक्ष-फलाय’ इति ब्रुवतः। Further, the scriptures cannot enjoin fruitless actions, they being naturally painful; and it is illogical that what is painful should be done intentionally. Also, if it is admitted that falling into hell results from their non-performance (i.e. of the nitya-karmas), then that too is surely a source of evil. In either case, whether one undertakes them or not, the scriptures will be imagined to be useless. And there will be a contradiction with your own standpoint when, after holding that the nitya-karmas are fruitless, you assert that they lead to Liberation.
तस्माद् यथा-श्रुत एव अर्थः ‘कर्मण्य् अ-कर्म यः’ इत्य्-आदेः, तथा च व्याख्यातः अस्माभिः श्लोकः॥ Therefore, the meaning of ‘He who finds inaction in action,’ etc. is just what stands out literally. And the verse has been explained by us accordingly.
तद् एतत् कर्मणि अ-कर्मादि-दर्शनं स्तूयते – The aforesaid perception of ‘inaction in action,’ etc. is being praised:
यस्य सर्वे समारम्भाः काम-सङ्कल्प-वर्जिताः, तं ज्ञान-अग्नि-दग्ध-कर्माणं बुधाः ‘पण्डितम्’ आहुः॥ 🔗 Whose every activity is free from kāma (requiring and anticipating) and (its cause) saṅkalpa (self-purpose), that one – whose (accumulated) karmas are burned up by the fire that is knowledge – the sages call wise.
यस्य यथोक्त-दर्शिनः सर्वे यावन्तः समारम्भाः सर्वाणि कर्माणि, समारभ्यन्ते इति समारम्भाः, काम-सङ्कल्प-वर्जिताः कामैः तत्-कारणैश् च सङ्कल्पैः वर्जिताः मुधा एव चेष्टामात्रा अनुष्ठीयन्ते, प्रवृत्तेन चेल् लोक-सङ्ग्रहार्थं, निवृत्तेन चेज् जीवनमात्रार्थम्। तं ज्ञानाग्नि-दग्ध-कर्माणं कर्मादौ अ-कर्मादि-दर्शनं ज्ञानं तद् एव अग्निः तेन ज्ञानाग्निना दग्धानि शुभाशुभ-लक्षणानि कर्माणि यस्य तम् आहुः परमार्थतः ‘पण्डितं’ बुधाः ब्रह्म-विदः॥ Budhāḥ, the wise, the knowers of Brahman; āhuḥ, call; tam, him; paṇḍitam, learned, in the real sense; yasya, whose, of the one who perceives as stated above; samārambhāḥ, actions – whatever are undertaken; are sarve, all; kāma-saṅkalpa-varjitāḥ, devoid of desires and the thoughts which are their (desires’) causes (see BhG.2.62) – i.e., (those actions) are performed as mere movements, without any selfish purpose: if they are performed by one (already) engaged in actions, then they are for preventing people from going astray, and if they are done by one who has withdrawn from actions, then they are merely for the maintenance of the body–; and jñānāgni-dagdha-karmāṇam, whose actions have been burnt away by the fire of wisdom. Finding inaction etc. in action etc. is jñāna, wisdom; that itself is agniḥ, fire. He whose actions, karma, described as good and bad, have been dagdhāni, burnt away by that fire of wisdom, is jñāna-agni-dagdha-karma.
यस् तु अ-कर्मादि-दर्शी, सः अ-कर्मादि-दर्शनाद् एव निष्-कर्मा सन्न्यासी जीवनमात्रार्थ-चेष्टः सन् कर्मणि न प्रवर्तते, यद्य्-अपि प्राक् विवेकतः प्रवृत्तः। However, one who is a perceiver of ‘inaction’ etc. [•Perceiver of inaction etc.: He who knows the truth about action and inaction as explained before.-Tr.•] is free from actions owing to the very fact of his seeing ‘inaction’ etc. He is a monk, who acts merely for the purpose of maintaining the body. Being so, he does not engage in actions although he might have done so before the dawn of discrimination.
यस्य तु प्रारब्ध-कर्मा सन् उत्तर-कालम् उत्पन्नात्म-सम्यग्-दर्शनः स्यात्, सः कर्मणि प्रयोजनम् अ-पश्यन् स-साधनं कर्म परित्यजत्य् एव। He again who, having been engaged in actions under the influence of past tendencies, later on becomes endowed with the fullest Self-knowledge, he surely renounces (all) [•Ast. adds this word ‘sarva, all’.-Tr.•] actions along with their accessories as he does not find any purpose in activity.
सः कुतश्चिद् निमित्तात् कर्म-परित्यागासम्भवे सति कर्मणि तत्-फले च सङ्ग-रहिततया स्वप्रयोजनाभावाल् लोक-सङ्ग्रहार्थं पूर्ववत् कर्मणि प्रवृत्तोऽपि न एव किञ्चित् करोति, ज्ञानाग्नि-दग्ध-कर्मत्वात् तदीयं कर्म अ-कर्म एव सम्पद्यते इत्य् एतम् अर्थं दर्शयिष्यन् आह – For some reason, if it becomes impossible to renounce actions and he, for the sake of preventing people from going astray, even remains engaged as before in actions – without attachment to those actions and their results because of the absence of any selfish purpose–, still he surely does nothing at all! His actions verily become ‘inaction’ because of having been burnt away by the fire of wisdom. By way of pointing out this idea, the Lord says:
कर्म-फल-आसङ्गं त्यक्त्वा, नित्य-तृप्तः, निर्-आश्रयः, सः कर्मणि अभिप्रवृत्तः अपि किञ्-चिद् एव न करोति॥ 🔗 Giving up identification with actions and attachment to results, always contented, without dependence (on anything), that one – though fully engaged in action – does not (in reality) do anything (is truly actionless).
त्यक्त्वा [कर्म-फलासङ्गं•] कर्मसु अभिमानं फलासङ्गं च यथोक्तेन ज्ञानेन नित्य-तृप्तः निर्-आकाङ्क्षो विषयेषु इत्यर्थः। निर्-आश्रयः आश्रय-रहितः, आश्रयो नाम यद् आश्रित्य पुरुषार्थं सिसाधयिषति, दृष्टादृष्टेष्ट-फल-साधनाश्रय-रहित इत्यर्थः। With the help of the above-mentioned wisdom, tyaktvā, having given up the idea of agentship; and phala-asaṅgam, attachment to the results of action; he who is nitya-tṛptaḥ, ever-tṛptaḥ, ever-contented, i.e. has no hankering for objects; and nirāśrayaḥ, dependent on nothing–. Āśraya means that on which a person leans, desiring to achieve some human goal. The idea is that he is dependent of any support which may be a means of attaining some coveted seen or unseen result.
विदुषा क्रियमाणं कर्म परमार्थतोऽकर्म एव, तस्य निष्-क्रियात्म-दर्शन-सम्पन्नत्वात्। तेन एवं-भूतेन स्वप्रयोजनाभावात् स-साधनं कर्म परित्यक्तव्यम् एव इति प्राप्ते, ततः निर्-गमासम्भवाल् लोक-सङ्ग्रह-चिकीर्षया शिष्ट-विगर्हणा-परिजिहीर्षया वा पूर्ववत् कर्मणि अभिप्रवृत्तोऽपि निष्-क्रियात्म-दर्शन-सम्पन्नत्वाद् न एव किञ्चित् करोति सः॥ In reality, actions done by a man of Knowledge are certainly inactions, since he is endowed with the realization of the actionless Self. Actions together with their accessories must be relinquished by one who has become thus, because they have no end to serve. This being so, api, even though; he remains abhi-pravṛttaḥ, engaged as before; karmaṇi, in actions – getting out of those (actions) being impossible–, either with the intention of preventing people from going astray or with a view to avoiding the censure of the wise people; saḥ, he; eva, really; na karoti, does not do; kiñcit, anything, because he is endued with the realization of the actionless Self. [•From the subjective standpoint of the enlightened there are no actions, but ordinary people mistakenly think them to be actions, which in reality are a mere semblance of it.•]
यः पुनः पूर्वोक्त-विपरीतः प्राग् एव कर्मारम्भाद् ब्रह्मणि सर्वान्तरे प्रत्यग्-आत्मनि निष्-क्रिये सञ्जातात्म-दर्शनः, स दृष्टादृष्टेष्ट-विषयाशीर्-विवर्जिततया दृष्टादृष्टार्थे कर्मणि प्रयोजनम् अ-पश्यन् स-साधनं कर्म संन्यस्य शरीर-यात्रामात्र-चेष्टः यतिः ज्ञान-निष्ठो मुच्यते इत्य् एतम् अर्थं दर्शयितुम् आह – On the other hand, one who is the opposite of the above-mentioned one, (and) in whom, even before undertaking works, has dawned the realization of his identity with Brahman, the all-pervasive, inmost, actionless Self; who, being bereft of solicitation for desirable objects seen or unseen, has renounced actions along with their accessories, by virtue of seeing no purpose to be served by undertaking actions meant to secure some seen or unseen result, and makes effort only for the maintenance of the body, he, the monk steadfast in Knowledge, becomes free. Hence, in order to express this idea the Lord says:
निर्-आशीः, यत-चित-आत्मा, त्यक्त-सर्व-परिग्रहः, शारीरं [शरीर-स्थिति-मात्र-अर्थं] केवलं कर्म कुर्वन्, [सः] किल्बिषं न आप्नोति॥ 🔗 Free from fancies (of the future), by whom the body and mind are mastered, who has disowned every possession, doing action only for sustaining the body, that one (a renunciate, sannyāsī) incurs no fault (no binding karma merit or demerit).
निर्-आशीः निर्-गताः आशिषः यस्मात् सः निर्-आशीः, यत-चित्तात्मा चित्तम् अन्तःकरणम् आत्मा बाह्यः कार्य-करण-सङ्घातः तौ उभाव् अपि यतौ संयतौ येन सः यत-चित्तात्मा, त्यक्त-सर्व-परिग्रहः त्यक्तः सर्वः परिग्रहः येन सः त्यक्त-सर्व-परिग्रहः, शारीरं शरीर-स्थितिमात्र-प्रयोजनम्, केवलं तत्र अपि अभिमान-वर्जितम्, कर्म कुर्वन् न आप्नोति न प्राप्नोति किल्बिषम् अन्-इष्ट-रूपं पापं, धर्मं च। धर्मोऽपि मुमुक्षोः अन्-इष्ठ-रूपात् किल्बिषम् एव बन्धापादकत्वात्। तस्मात् ताभ्यां मुक्तः भवति, संसार-मुक्तो भवति इत्यर्थः। Nir-āśīḥ, one who is without solicitation – one from whom āśiṣaḥ [•Āśiḥ is a kind of desire that can be classed under prayer. (Some translate it as desire, hope.-Tr.)•], solicitations, have departed; yata-citta-ātmā, who has the mind and organs under control – one by whom have been controlled (yatau) both the internal organ (citta) and the external aggregate of body and organs (ātmā); (and) is tyakta-sarva-parigrahaḥ, [•Parigraha: receiving, accepting, possessions, belongings.-V.S.A•] totally without possessions – one by whom have been renounced (tyaktaḥ) all (sarvaḥ) possessions (parigrahaḥ); na āpnoti, he does not incur; kilbiṣam, sin, in the form of evil as also righteousness – to one aspiring for Liberation, even righteousness is surely an evil because it brings bondage–; [•Here Ast. (as above) adds ‘tasmāt tābhyam mukto bhavati saṃsarāt mukto bhavati ity arthaḥ, therefore, he becomes free from both of them, i.e. he becomes liberated from transmigration’.-Tr.•] kurvan, by performing; karma, actions; kevalam, merely; śārīram, for the purpose of maintaining the body – without the idea of agentship even with regard to these (actions).
किं च ‘शारीरं केवलं कर्म’ इत्य् अत्र किं शरीर-निर्वर्त्यं शारीरं कर्म अभिप्रेतम्, आहोस्वित् शरीर-स्थितिमात्र-प्रयोजनं शारीरं कर्म इति? किं च अतः यदि शरीर-निर्वर्त्यं शारीरं कर्म यदि वा शरीर-स्थितिमात्र-प्रयोजनं शारीरम् इति? Further, in the expression, ‘kevalam śārīram karma’, do the words śārīram karma mean ‘actions done by the body’ or ‘actions merely for the purpose of maintaining the body’? Again, what does it matter if by (the words) śārīram karma is meant ‘actions done by the body’ or ‘actions merely for the purpose of maintaining the body’?
उच्यते – यदा शरीर-निर्वर्त्यं कर्म शारीरम् अभिप्रेतं स्यात्, तदा ‘दृष्टादृष्ट-प्रयोजनं कर्म प्रतिषिद्धम् अपि शरीरेण कुर्वन् न आप्नोति किल्बिषम्’ इति ब्रुवतो विरुद्धाभिधानं प्रसज्येत। ‘शास्त्रीयं च कर्म दृष्टादृष्ट-प्रयोजनं शरीरेण कुर्वन् न आप्नोति किल्बिषम्’ इत्य् अपि ब्रुवतः अ-प्राप्त-प्रतिषेध-प्रसङ्गः। The answer is: If by śārīram karma is meant actions done by the body, then it will amount to a contradiction [•Contradiction of the scriptures.•] when the Lord says, ‘one does not incur sin by doing with his body any action meant for seen or unseen purposes, even though it be prohibited.’ Even if the Lord were to say that ‘one does not incur sin by doing with his body some scripturally sanctioned action intended to secure a seen or an unseen end’, then there arises the contingency of His denying something (some evil) that has not come into being!
‘शारीरं कर्म कुर्वन्’ इति विशेषणात् ‘केवल’-शब्द-प्रयोगाच् च ‘वाङ्-मनस-निर्वर्त्यं कर्म विधि-प्रतिषेध-विषयं धर्माधर्म-शब्द-वाच्यं कुर्वन् प्राप्नोति किल्बिषम्’ इत्य् उक्तं स्यात्। तत्र अपि वाङ्-मनसाभ्यां विहितानुष्ठान-पक्षे किल्बिष-प्राप्ति-वचनं विरुद्धम् आपद्येत। प्रतिषिद्ध-सेवा-पक्षेऽपि भूतार्थानुवादमात्रम् अन्-अर्थकं स्यात्। (Further,) from the specification, śārīram karma kurvan (by doing actions with the body), and from the use of the word kevala (only), it will amount to saying that one incurs sin by performing actions, called righteous and unrighteous, which can be accomplished with the mind and speech and which come within the purview of injunction and prohibition. Even there, the statement that one incurs sin by performing enjoined actions through the mind and speech will involve a contradiction; even in the case of doing what is prohibited, it will amount to a mere purposeless restatement of a known fact.
यदा तु शरीर-स्थितिमात्र-प्रयोजनं ‘शारीरं कर्म’ अभिप्रेतं भवेत्, तदा दृष्टादृष्ट-प्रयोजनं कर्म विधि-प्रतिषेध-गम्यं शरीर-वाङ्-मनस-निर्वर्त्यम् अन्यद् अ-कुर्वन्, तैर् एव शरीरादिभिः शरीर-स्थितिमात्र-प्रयोजनं ‘केवल’-शब्द-प्रयोगाद् ‘अहं करोमि’ इत्य्-अभिमान-वर्जितः शरीरादि-चेष्टामात्रं लोक-दृष्ट्या कुर्वन् न आप्नोति किल्बिषं। On the other hand, when the sense conveyed by śārīram karma is taken as actions merely for the purpose of maintaining the body, then the implication will be that he does not do any other work as can be accomplished physically, orally, or mentally, which are known from injunctions and prohibitions (of the scriptures) and which have in view seen or unseen results; while he appears to people to be working with those very body, (speech) etc. merely for the purpose of maintaining the body, yet he does not incur sin by merely making movements of the body etc., because from the use of the word kevala, (merely) it follows that he is devoid of the sense of agentship implicit in the idea, 'I do.'
एवं-भूतस्य ‘पाप’-शब्द-वाच्य-किल्बिष-प्राप्त्य्-असम्भवात्, किल्बिषं संसारं न आप्नोति। ज्ञानाग्नि-दग्ध-सर्व-कर्मत्वाद् अ-प्रतिबन्धेन मुच्यत एव इति पूर्वोक्त-सम्यग्-दर्शन-फलानुवाद (BhG.4.18) एव एषः। एवं ‘शारीरं केवलं कर्म’ इत्य् अस्य अर्थस्य परिग्रहे निर्-अ-वद्यं भवति॥ Since there is no possibility of a person who has reached such a state incurring evil as suggested by the word ‘sin’, therefore he does not become subject to the evil of transmigration. That is to say, he certainly becomes free without any obstacle since he has all his actions burnt away by the fire of wisdom. This verse is only a reiteration of the result of full illumination stated earlier. It becomes faultless by accepting the interpretation of śārīram karma thus.
त्यक्त-सर्व-परिग्रहस्य यतेः अन्नादेः शरीर-स्थिति-हेतोः परिग्रहस्य अ-भावाद्, याचनादिना शरीर-स्थितौ कर्तव्यतायां प्राप्तायाम् ‘अ-याचितम् अ-सङ्कॢप्तम् उपपन्नं यद्-ऋच्छया’ (MBhAsv.46.19) इत्य्-आदिना वचनेन अनुज्ञातं यतेः शरीर-स्थिति-हेतोः अन्नादेः प्राप्ति-द्वारम् आविष्-कुर्वन् आह – In the case of the monk who has renounced all possessions, since owning food etc. meant for the bare sustenance of the body is absent, therefore it becomes imperative to beg for alms etc. for the upkeep of the body. Under this circumstance, by way of pointing out the means of obtaining food etc. for the maintenance of the body of a monk as permitted by the text, ‘What comes unasked for, without forethought and spontaneously.....’ [•Unasked for: what comes before the monk gets ready for going out for alms; without forethought: alms that are not given with abuses, and have not fallen on the ground, but collected from five or seven houses without any plan; spontaneously: alms brought to one spontaneously by devoted people.•] (Bo. Sm. 21. 8. 12) etc., the Lord says:
यद्-ऋच्छा-लाभ-सन्तुष्टः, द्वन्-द्व-अतीतः, वि-मत्सरः, सिद्धौ अ-सिद्धौ च समः, [सः] कृत्वा अपि न निबध्यते॥ 🔗 Satisfied with whatever happens (unasked), (whose mind is) unaffected by the natural pairs of opposites, free of jealousy (on account of another’s virtue or prosperity), and equanimous in success or failure, that one – though engaged in action – is not bound.
यद्-ऋच्छा-लाभ-सन्तुष्टः अ-प्रार्थितोपनतो लाभो यद्-ऋच्छा-लाभः तेन सन्तुष्टः सञ्जातालं-प्रत्ययः। द्वन्द्वातीतः द्वन्द्वैः शीतोष्णादिभिः हन्यमानोऽपि अ-विषण्ण-चित्तः द्वन्द्वातीतः उच्यते। वि-मत्सरः विगत-मत्सरः निर्-वैर-बुद्धिः समः तुल्यः यद्-ऋच्छा-लाभस्य सिद्धौ अ-सिद्धौ च। Yad-ṛcchā-lābha-santuṣṭaḥ, remaining satisfied with what comes unasked for – yad-ṛcchā-lābha means coming to possess something without having prayed for it; feeling contented with that–. Dvandva-atītaḥ, having transcended the dualities – one is said to be beyond dualities when his mind is not distressed even when afflicted by such opposites as heat and cold, etc.–. Vi-matsaraḥ, being free from spite, from the idea of enmity; and samaḥ, equipoised; siddhau ca a-siddhau, in success and failure, with regard to things that come unasked for.
यः एवं-भूतो यतिः अन्नादेः शरीर-स्थिति-हेतोः लाभालाभयोः समः हर्ष-विषाद-वर्जितः कर्मादौ अ-कर्मादि-दर्शी यथा-भूतात्म-दर्शन-निष्ठः सन् शरीर-स्थितिमात्र-प्रयोजने भिक्षाटनादि-कर्मणि शरीरादि-निर्वर्त्ये ‘न एव किञ्चित् करोम्य् अहम्’ (BhG.5.8), ‘गुणा गुणेषु वर्तन्ते’ (BhG.3.28) इत्य्-एवं सदा सम्परिचक्षाणः आत्मनः कर्तृत्वाभावं पश्यन् नैव किञ्चित् भिक्षाटनादिकं कर्म करोति। The monk who is such, who is equipoised, not delighted or sorrowful in getting or not getting food etc. for the sustenance of the body, who sees inaction etc. in action etc., who is ever poised in the realization of the Self as It is, who, with regard to the activities accomplished by the body etc. in the course of going about for alms etc. for the bare maintenance of the body, is ever clearly conscious of the fact, ‘I certainly do not anything; the organs act on the objects of the organs’ (see BhG.5.8; BhG.3.28), he, realizing the absence of agentship in the Self, certainly does not do any actions like going about for alms etc.
लोक-व्यवहार-सामान्य-दर्शनेन तु लौकिकैः आरोपित-कर्तृत्वे भिक्षाटनादौ कर्मणि कर्ता भवति, स्वानुभवेन तु शास्त्र-प्रमाणादि-जनितेन अ-कर्ता एव। But when, observing similarly with common human behaviour, agentship is attributed to him by ordinary people, then he (apparently) becomes an agent with regard to such actions as moving about for alms etc. However, from the standpoint of his own realization which has arisen from the valid means of knowledge presented in the scriptures, he is surely not an agent.
स एवं पराध्यारोपित-कर्तृत्वः शरीर-स्थितिमात्र-प्रयोजनं भिक्षाटनादिकं कर्म कृत्वा अपि न निबध्यते बन्ध-हेतोः कर्मणः स-हेतुकस्य ज्ञानाग्निना दग्धत्वाद् इति उक्तानुवाद एव एषः॥ He, to whom is thus ascribed agentship by others, na nibadhyate, is not bound; api, even; kṛtva, by performing such actions as moving about for alms merely for the maintenance of the body, because action which is a source of bondage has been burnt away along with its cause by the fire of wisdom. Thus, this is only a restatement of what has been said earlier.
‘त्यक्त्वा कर्म-फलासङ्गम्’ (BhG.4.20) इत्य् अनेन श्लोकेन यः प्रारब्ध-कर्मा सन् यदा निष्-क्रिय-ब्रह्मात्म-दर्शन-सम्पन्नः स्यात् तदा तस्य आत्मनः कर्तृ-कर्म-प्रयोजनाभाव-दर्शिनः कर्म-परित्यागे प्राप्ते कुतश्चिन् निमित्तात् तद्-असम्भवे सति पूर्ववत् तस्मिन् कर्मणि अभिप्रवृत्तः अपि ‘न एव किञ्चित् करोति सः’ (BhG.4.20) इति कर्माभावः प्रदर्शितः। यस्य एवं कर्माभावो दर्शितः तस्य एव – When a person who has already started works becomes endowed with the realization of the identity of the Self with the actionless Brahman, then it follows that in the case of that man, who has experienced the absence of agentship, actions and purposes in the Self, actions become relinquished. But if this becomes impossible for some reason and he continues to be engaged in those actions as before, still he certainly does not do anything. This absence of action has been shown in the verse, ‘Having given up attachment to the results of action....’ (BhG.4.20). Of that very person with regard to whom has been shown the absence of action:
गत-सङ्गस्य मुक्तस्य ज्ञान-अवस्थित-चेतसः यज्ञाय आचरतः समग्रं कर्म प्रविलीयते॥ 🔗 For the one who is without attachment, who is free, whose mind is rooted in (self-)knowledge, and who acts for the sake of a sacred act (yajña), all karma (along with its pending results) dissolves.
गत-सङ्गस्य सर्वतो-निवृत्तासक्तेः, मुक्तस्य निवृत्त-धर्माधर्मादि-बन्धनस्य, ज्ञानावस्थित-चेतसः ज्ञाने एव अवस्थितं चेतः यस्य सोऽयं ज्ञानावस्थित-चेताः तस्य, यज्ञाय यज्ञ-निर्वृत्त्य्-अर्थम् आचरतः निर्वर्तयतः कर्म समग्रं सह अग्रेण फलेन वर्तते इति समग्रं कर्म तत् समग्रं प्रविलीयते विनश्यति इत्यर्थः॥ Muktasya, of the liberated person who has become relieved of such bondages as righteousness and unrighteousness, etc.; gata-saṅgasya, who has got rid of attachment, who has become detached from everything; jñāna-avasthita-cetasaḥ, whose mind is fixed in Knowledge only; his karma, actions; ācarataḥ, undertaken; yajñāya, for a sacrifice, to accomplish a sacrifice [•A.G. takes yajña to mean Viṣṇu. So, yajñāya will mean ‘for Viṣṇu’. Saṅkarācarya also interprets this word similarly in 3.9.-Tr.•]; pravilīyate, gets destroyed; samagram, totally – saha (together) agreṇa (with its consequence, result). This is the meaning.
कस्मात् पुनः कारणात् क्रियमाणं कर्म स्व-कार्यारम्भम् अ-कुर्वत् समग्रं प्रविलीयते इत्य् उच्यते यतः – For what reason, again, does an action that is underway get destroyed totally without producing its result? This is being answered:
अर्पणं ब्रह्म। हविः ब्रह्म, ब्रह्म-अग्नौ ब्रह्मणा हुतं। तेन ब्रह्म-कर्म-समाधिना ब्रह्म एव गन्तव्यम्॥ 🔗 The instrument for offering is brahman (reality, the limitless self). The oblation is brahman, offered by brahman into the fire that is brahman. Brahman indeed is to be attained by the one whose vision of identity (samādhi) is that (every aspect of) action is brahman.
ब्रह्म अर्पणं ‘येन करणेन ब्रह्म-विद् हविः अग्नौ अर्पयति तद् ब्रह्म एव’ इति पश्यति, तस्य आत्म-व्यतिरेकेण अ-भावं पश्यति, यथा शुक्तिकायां रजताभावं पश्यति, तद् (तथा) उच्यते ब्रह्म एव अर्पणम् इति, यथा यद् रजतं तत् शुक्तिका एव इति। ‘ब्रह्म अर्पणम्’ इति अ-समस्ते पदे। यद् अर्पण-बुद्ध्या गृह्यते लोके तद् अस्य ब्रह्म-विदः ब्रह्म एव इत्यर्थः। Brahma-arpanam, the ladle is Brahman: The knower of Brahman perceives the instrument with which he offers oblation in the fire as Brahman Itself. He perceives it as not existing separately from the Self, as one sees the non-existence of silver in nacre. In this sense it is that Brahman Itself is the ladle – just as what appears as silver is only nacre. (The two words brahma and arpanam are not parts of a compound word, samāsa.) The meaning is that, to a knower of Brahman, what is perceived in the world as ladle is Brahman Itself.ब्रह्म हविः तथा यद् हविर्-बुद्ध्या गृह्यमाणं तद् ब्रह्म एव अस्य। Similarly, brahma-havih, the oblations is Brahman: To him, what is seen as oblations is nothing but Brahman.
तथा ‘ब्रह्माग्नौ’ इति समस्तं पदम्। अग्निर् अपि ब्रह्म एव यत्र हूयते। ब्रह्मणा कर्त्रा, ब्रह्म एव कर्ता इत्यर्थः। यत् तेन हुतं हवन-क्रिया तद् ब्रह्म एव। यत् तेन गन्तव्यं फलं तद् अपि ब्रह्म एव। In the same way, brahma-agnau, (–this is a compound word–) in the fire of Brahman: The fire into which oblation is hutam, poured; brahmaṇā, by Brahman, by the agent, is Brahman Itself. The meaning is that Brahman Itself is the agent (of the offering). That he makes the offering – the act of offering–, that is also Brahman. And the result that is gantavyam, to be reached by him; that also is brahma eva, surely Brahman.ब्रह्म-कर्म-समाधिना ब्रह्म एव कर्म ब्रह्म-कर्म तस्मिन् समाधिः यस्य सः ब्रह्म-कर्म-समाधिः तेन ब्रह्म-कर्म-समाधिना ब्रह्म एव गन्तव्यम्। Brahma-karma-samādhinā, by him who has concentration on Brahman as the objective: Brahman Itself is the objective (karma); he who has concentration (samādhi) on That is brahma-karma-samāhiḥ. The goal to be reached by him is Brahman alone.
एवं लोक-सङ्ग्रहं चिकीर्षुणा अपि क्रियमाणं कर्म परमार्थतः अ-कर्म, ब्रह्म-बुद्ध्य्-उपमृदितत्वात्। एवं सति निवृत्त-कर्मणोऽपि सर्व-कर्म-सन्न्यासिनः सम्यग्-दर्शन-स्तुत्य्-अर्थं यज्ञत्व-सम्पादनं ज्ञानस्य सुतराम् उपपद्यते, यद् अर्पणादि अधि-यज्ञे प्रसिद्धं तद् अस्य अध्यात्मं ब्रह्म एव परमार्थ-दर्शिन इति। अन्यथा सर्वस्य ब्रह्मत्वे अर्पणादीनाम् एव विशेषतो ब्रह्मत्वाभिधानम् अन्-अर्थकं स्यात्। तस्माद् ब्रह्म एव इदं सर्वम् इति अभिजानतः विदुषः सर्व-कर्माभावः। Thus, even the action undertaken by one who desires to prevent mankind from going astray is in reality inaction, for it has been sublated by the realization of Brahman. This being so, in the case of the monk from whom action has dropped off, who has renounced all activity, viewing his Knowledge as a (kind of) sacrifice, too, becomes all the more justifiable from the point of view of praising full realization. That is, whatever is well known as ladle etc. in the context of a sacrifice, all that, in the context of the Self, is Brahman Itself to one who has realized the supreme Truth. If not so, then, since all is Brahman, it would have been useless to specifically mention ladle etc. as Brahman. Therefore, all actions cease to exist for the man of realization who knows that Brahman Itself is all this.
कारक-बुद्ध्य्-अभावाच् च। न हि कारक-बुद्धि-रहितं यज्ञाख्यं कर्म दृष्टम्। सर्वम् एव अग्नि-होत्रादिकं कर्म शब्द-समर्पित-देवता-विशेष-सम्प्रदानादि-कारक-बुद्धिमत् कर्त्रभिमान-फलाभिसन्धिमच् च दृष्टम्, न उपमृदित-क्रिया-कारक-फल-भेद-बुद्धिमत् कर्तृत्वाभिमान-फलाभिसन्धि-रहितं वा। इदं तु ब्रह्म-बुद्ध्य्-उपमृदितार्पणादि-कारक-क्रिया-फल-भेद-बुद्धि कर्म। अतः अ-कर्म एव तत्। And this follows also from the absence (in him) of the idea of accessories. For the act called ‘sacrifice’ is not seen to exist without being in association with the idea of accessories. All such acts as Agni-hotra etc. are associated with the ideas of such accessories as making an offering etc. to the particular gods who are revealed in the scriptures, and with the idea of agentship as also desire for results. But they are not found bereft of the ideas of such distinctions as exist among action, accessories and results, or unassociated with the ideas of agentship hankering for results. This (apparent) (activity of the man of Knowledge), however, stands dissociated from the ideas of differences among the accessories like ladle etc., actions and results, which get destroyed by the Knowledge of Brahman. Hence, it is inaction to be sure.
तथा च दर्शितम् ‘कर्मण्य् अ-कर्म यः पश्येत्’ (BhG.4.18) ‘कर्मण्य् अभिप्रवृत्तोऽपि न एव किञ्चित् करोति सः’ (BhG.4.20) ‘गुणा गुणेषु वर्तन्ते’ (BhG.3.28) ‘न एव किञ्चित् करोमि इति युक्तो मन्येत तत्त्व-विद्’ (BhG.5.8) इत्य्-आदिभिः। तथा च दर्शयन् तत्र तत्र क्रिया-कारक-फल-भेद-बुद्ध्य्-उपमर्दं करोति। दृष्टा च काम्याग्नि-होत्रादौ कामोपमर्देन काम्याग्नि-होत्रादि-हानिः। तथा मति-पूर्वकामति-पूर्वकादीनां कर्मणां कार्य-विशेषस्य आरम्भकत्वं दृष्टम्। तथा इह अपि ब्रह्म-बुद्ध्य्-उपमृदितार्पणादि-कारक-क्रिया-फल-भेद-बुद्धेः बाह्य-चेष्टामात्रेण कर्म अपि विदुषः अ-कर्म सम्पद्यते। अतः उक्तम् ‘समग्रं प्रविलीयते’ (BhG.4.23) इति। And thus has it been shown in, ‘He who finds inaction in action’ (BhG.4.18), ‘he really does not do anything even though engaged in action’ (BhG.4.20), ‘the organs act on the objects of the organs’ (BhG.3.28), ‘Remaining absorbed in the Self, the knower of Reality should think, “I certainly do not do anything”’ (5.8), etc. While pointing out thus, the Lord demolishes in various places the ideas of differences among actions, accessories and results. And it is also seen in the case of rites such as Agni-hotra undertaken for results (kāmya), that the Agni-hotra etc. cease to be (kāmya) rites undertaken for selfish motives when the desire for their results is destroyed. Similarly, it is seen that actions done intentionally and unintentionally yield different results. So, here as well, in the case of one who has his ideas of distinctions among accessories like ladle etc., actions and results eliminated by the knowledge of Brahman, even activities which are merely external movements amount to inaction. Hence it was said, ‘gets totally destroyed’ (BhG.4.23).
अत्र केचिद् आहुः – यद् ब्रह्म तद्-अर्पणादीनि, ब्रह्म एव किल अर्पणादिना पञ्च-विधेन कारकात्मना व्यवस्थितं सत् तद् एव कर्म करोति। तत्र न अर्पणादि-बुद्धिः निवर्त्यते, किं तु अर्पणादिषु ब्रह्म-बुद्धिः आधीयते, यथा प्रतिमादौ विष्ण्व्-आदि-बुद्धिः, यथा वा नामादौ ब्रह्म-बुद्धिर् (ChanU.7.1.5) इति। Here some say: That which is Brahman is the ladle etc. It is surely Brahman Itself which exists in the five forms [•Accessories that can be indicated by the five grammatical case-ending, viz Nominative, Objective, Instrumental, Dative and Locative. (As for instance, the sacrificer, oblation, ladle, sacrificial fire, and Brahman.-Tr.) of accessories such as the ladle etc. and it is Itself which undertakes actions. There the ideas of ladle etc. are not eradicated, but the idea of Brahman is attributed to the ladle etc. as one does the ideas of Viṣṇu etc. to images etc., or as one does the idea of Brahman to name etc.
सत्यम्, एवम् अपि स्याद् यदि ज्ञान-यज्ञ-स्तुत्य्-अर्थं प्रकरणं न स्यात्। अत्र तु सम्यग्-दर्शनं ज्ञान-यज्ञ-शब्दितम् अन्-एकान् यज्ञ-शब्दितान् क्रिया-विशेषान् उपन्यस्य ‘श्रेयान् द्रव्यमयाद् यज्ञाद् ज्ञान-यज्ञः’ (BhG.4.33) इति ज्ञानं स्तौति। अत्र च समर्थम् इदं वचनम् ‘ब्रह्मार्पणम्’ इत्य्-आदि ज्ञानस्य यज्ञत्व-सम्पादने, अन्यथा सर्वस्य ब्रह्मत्वे अर्पणादीनाम् एव विशेषतो ब्रह्मत्वाभिधानम् अन्-अर्थकं स्यात्। ये तु अर्पणादिषु प्रतिमायां विष्णु-दृष्टिवद् ब्रह्म-दृष्टिः क्षिप्यते नामादिष्व् इव च इति ब्रुवते न तेषां ब्रह्म-विद्या उक्ता इह विवक्षिता स्याद्, अर्पणादि-विषयत्वाद् ज्ञानस्य। Reply: True, this could have been so as well if the context were not meant for the praise of jñāna-yajña (Knowledge considered as a sacrifice). Here, however, after presenting full realization as expressed by the word jñāna-yajña, and the varieties of rites as referred to by the word yajña (sacrifice), Knowledge has been praised by the Lord in, ‘Jñāna-yajña (Knowledge considered as a sacrifice) is greater than sacrifices requiring materials’ (BhG.4.33). And in the present context, this statement, ‘the ladle is Brahman’ etc., is capable of presenting Knowledge as a sacrifice; otherwise, since Brahman is everything, it will be purposeless to speak specially only of ladle etc. as Brahman. But those who maintain that one has to superimpose the idea of Brahman on the ladle etc., like superimposing the idea of Viṣṇu and others on images etc. and of Brahman on name etc., for them the knowledge of Brahma stated (in the verse) cannot be the intended subject-matter dealt with here, because according to them ladle etc. are the (primary) objects of knowledge (in the context of the present verse).
न च दृष्टि-सम्पादन-ज्ञानेन मोक्ष-फलं प्राप्यते। ‘ब्रह्म एव तेन गन्तव्यम्’ इति चोच्यते। विरुद्धं च सम्यग्-दर्शनम् अन्तरेण मोक्ष-फलं प्राप्यते इति। प्रकृत-विरोधश् च, सम्यग्-दर्शनम् च प्रकृतम् ‘कर्मण्य् अ-कर्म यः पश्येद्’ (BhG.4.18) इत्य् अत्र, अन्ते च सम्यग्-दर्शनम्, तस्य एव उपसंहारात्। ‘श्रेयान् द्रव्यमयाद् यज्ञाद् ज्ञान-यज्ञः’ (BhG.4.33), ‘ज्ञानं लब्ध्वा परां शान्तिम्’ (BhG.4.39) इत्य्-आदिना सम्यग्-दर्शन-स्तुतिम् एव कुर्वन् उपक्षीणः अध्यायः। तत्र अ-कस्माद् अर्पणादौ ब्रह्म-दृष्टिः अ-प्रकरणे प्रतिमायाम् इव विष्णु-दृष्टिः उच्यते इति अन्-उपपन्नम्, तस्माद् यथाव्याख्यातार्थ एव अयं श्लोकः॥ Besides, knowledge in the form of superimposition of an idea cannot lead to Liberation as its result; and what is said here is, ‘Brahman alone is to be realized by him’. Also, it is inconsistent to maintain that the result of Liberation can be achieved without full realization. And it goes against the context – the context being of full realization. This is supported by the fact that (the subject of) full realization is introduced in the verse, ‘He who finds inaction in action,’ (BhG.4.18) and at the end (of this chapter) the conclusion pertains to that very subject-matter. The chapter comes to a close by eulogizing full realization itself in, ‘Jñāna-yajña (Knowledge considered as a sacrifice) is greater than sacrifices requiring materials’, (BhG.4.33) ‘Achieving Knowledge, one...attains supreme Peace,’ (BhG.4.39) etc. That being so, it is unjustifiable to suddenly say out of context that one has to superimpose the idea of Brahman on the ladle etc. like the superimposition of the idea of Viṣṇu on images. Therefore this verse bears the meaning just as it has been already explained.
तत्र अधुना सम्यग्-दर्शनस्य यज्ञत्वं सम्पाद्य तत्-स्तुत्य्-अर्थम् अन्येऽपि यज्ञा उपक्षिप्यन्ते – As to that, after having presented Knowledge as a sacrifice, other sacrifices also are being mentioned now in, the verses beginning with, ‘(Other yogīs undertake) sacrifice to gods alone,’ etc., for eulogizing that Knowledge:
अपरे योगिनः दैवम् एव यज्ञं पर्युपासते। अपरे ब्रह्म-अग्नौ यज्ञं [ब्रह्म-आत्मानं] यज्ञेन [ब्रह्म-आत्मना] एव उपजुह्वति॥ 🔗 Some (karma-)yogīs perform yajña only for invoking (the Lord in the form of) a deity. Others (who are sannyāsīs, who have given up entitlement to ritual) offer yajña (as themselves) by yajña (as themselves) into the fire (the knowledge) that is brahman.
दैवम् एव देवा इज्यन्ते येन यज्ञेन असौ दैवो यज्ञः तम् एव अपरे यज्ञं योगिनः कर्मिणः पर्युपासते कुर्वन्ति इत्यर्थः। Apare, other; yoginaḥ, yogīs, ritualists; pari-upāsate, undertake; yajñam, sacrifice; daivam, to gods; eva, alone. A sacrifice by which the gods are adored is daiva-yajña; they perform only that. This is the meaning. ब्रह्माग्नौ ‘सत्यं ज्ञानम् अन्-अन्तं ब्रह्म’ (TaitU.2.1.1) ‘विज्ञानम् आनन्दं ब्रह्म’ (BrhUEng.3.9.28) ‘यत् साक्षाद् अ-परोक्षाद् ब्रह्म य आत्मा सर्वान्तरः’ (BrhUEng.3.4.1) इत्य्-आदि-वचनोक्तम् अशनायादि-सर्व-संसार-धर्म-वर्जितम् ‘न इति न इति’ (BrhUEng.4.4.22) इति निरस्ताशेष-विशेषं ब्रह्म-शब्देन उच्यते। ब्रह्म च तद् अग्निश् च सः होमाधिकरणत्व-विवक्षया ब्रह्माग्निः। Brahma-agnau, in the fire of Brahman: By the word brahman is meant That which is referred to in such sentences as, ‘Brahman is Truth, knowledge and infinite’ (TaitU.2.1.1), ‘Knowledge, Bliss, Brahman’ (BrhUEng.3.9.28), ‘the Brahman that is immediate and direct – the self that is within all’ (BrhUEng.3.4.1), which is devoid of all worldly characteristics like hunger etc. and which is beyond all particular qualifications – as stated in, ‘Not this, not this’ (BrhUEng.4.4.22). That which is Brahman is the fire. [•Brahman is called fire because, as reflected in wisdom, It burns away everything, i.e. ignorance, or because everything merges into It during dissolution (pralaya).•] And it is spoken of as Brahmāgni with a view to referring to It as that into which the offering is made.
तस्मिन् ब्रह्माग्नौ अपरे अन्ये ब्रह्म-विदः यज्ञम् – यज्ञ-शब्द-वाच्य आत्मा, आत्म-नामसु यज्ञ-शब्दस्य पाठात् – तम् आत्मानं यज्ञं परमार्थतः परम् एव ब्रह्म सन्तं बुद्ध्य्-आद्य्-उपाधि-संयुक्तम् अध्यस्त-सर्वोपाधि-धर्मकम् आहुति-रूपं यज्ञेन एव आत्मना एव उक्त-लक्षणेन उपजुह्वति प्रक्षिपन्ति, सोपाधिकस्य आत्मनः निर्-उपाधिकेन पर-ब्रह्म-स्वरूपेण एव यद् दर्शनं स तस्मिन् होमः तं कुर्वन्ति ब्रह्मात्मैकत्व-दर्शन-निष्ठाः सन्न्यासिनः इत्यर्थः॥ In that fire of Brahman, apare, others, other knowers of Brahman; upa-juhvati, offer; yajñam, the Self, which is referred to by the word yajna (sacrifice), it, having, been presented as a synonym of the Self;– that Self, which is a sacrifice, which is reality is verily the supreme Brahman, which is associated with such limiting adjuncts as the intellect etc., which is associated with all the qualities of the limiting adjuncts superimposed on it, and which is the oblation, (they offer) yajñena, by the Self itself as described above. The offering (of the Self) in that (Brahman) is nothing but the realization of that Self which is associated with the limiting adjuncts to be the supreme Brahman which is free from adjuncts. The monks, steadfast in the realization of the identity of Brahman and the Self, make that offering. This is the meaning.
सोऽयं सम्यग्-दर्शन-लक्षणः यज्ञः दैव-यज्ञादिषु यज्ञेषु उपक्षिप्यते ‘ब्रह्मार्पणम्’ इत्य्-आदि-श्लोकैः प्रस्तुतः ‘श्रेयान् द्रव्यमयाद् यज्ञाद् ज्ञान-यज्ञः परन्-तप’ (BhG.4.33) इत्य्-आदिना स्तुत्य्-अर्थम् – Beginning with, ‘The ladle is Brahman’ etc., this sacrifice characterized as full realization is being included among such sacrifices as daiva-yajña etc. with a view to eulogizing it in the verses beginning with, ‘O destroyer of enemies, jñāna-yajña is greater than the sacrifices involving (sacrificial) materials’ (BhG.4.33).
अन्ये संयम-अग्निषु श्रोत्र-आदीनि इन्द्रियाणि जुह्वति। अन्ये इन्द्रिय-अग्निषु शब्द-आदीन् विषयान् जुह्वति॥ 🔗 Others offer their sense organs – such as hearing, etcetera – into the fires that are the mastery (over each of the senses). Others (deliberately) offer sense objects – such as (only proper) sound, etcetera – into the fires that are the senses (themselves).
श्रोत्रादीनि इन्द्रियाण्य् अन्ये योगिनः संयमाग्निषु। प्रतीन्द्रियं संयमो भिद्यते इति बहु-वचनम्। संयमा एवम् अग्नयः तेषु जुह्वति इद्रिय-संयमम् एव कुर्वन्ति इत्यर्थः। शब्दादीन् विषयान् अन्ये इन्द्रियाग्निषु इन्द्रियाण्य् एव अग्नयः तेषु इन्द्रियाग्निषु जुह्वति श्रोत्रादिभिर् अ-विरुद्ध-विषय-ग्रहणं होमं मन्यन्ते॥ Anye, others, other yogīs; juhvati, offer; indriyāṇi, the organs; viz śrotrādīni, ear (hearing) etc.; saṃyama-agniṣu, in the fires of self-control. The plural (in fires) is used because self-control is possible in respect of each of the organs. Self-control itself is the fire. In that they make the offering, i.e. they practise control of the organs. Anye, others; juhvati, offer; viṣayān, the objects; śabdādīn, viz sound etc.; indriya-agniṣu, in the fires of the organs. The organs themselves are the fires. They make offerings in those fires with the organs of hearing etc. They consider the perception of objects not prohibited by the scriptures to be a sacrifice.
अपरे सर्वाणि इन्द्रिय-कर्माणि प्राण-कर्माणि च ज्ञान-दीपिते आत्म-संयम-योग-अग्नौ जुह्वति॥ 🔗 Others offer all activities of the organs and activities of the vital energies into the fire, lit by knowledge, that is the discipline of contemplation on the self (‘sva-artha-saṃyama’ YS.3.35).
सर्वाणि इन्द्रिय-कर्माणि इन्द्रियाणां कर्माणि इन्द्रिय-कर्माणि, तथा प्राण-कर्माणि प्राणो वायुः आध्यात्मिकः तत्-कर्माणि आकुञ्चन-प्रसारणादीनि तानि च अपरे आत्म-संयम-योगाग्नौ आत्मनि संयमः आत्म-संयमः स एव योगाग्निः तस्मिन् आत्म-संयम-योगाग्नौ जुह्वति प्रक्षिपन्ति ज्ञान-दीपिते स्नेहेन एव प्रदीपे विवेक-विज्ञानेन उज्ज्वल-भावम् आपादिते प्रविलापयन्ति इत्यर्थः॥ Further, apare, others; juhvati, offer, i.e. merge; sarvāṇi, all; indriya-karmāṇi, the activities of the organs; and also the prāṇa-karmāṇi, activities of the vital force – prāṇa means the air in the body; they offer its activities such as contraction, expansion, etc.; ātma-saṃyama-yoga-agnau, into the fire of the yoga of self-control – withdrawal (saṃyama) [•Saṃyama consists of concentration, meditation, and Self-absorption. The idea conveyed by the verse is that by stopping all activities, they concentrate the mind on the Self.•] into the Self (ātmā) is self-control (ātma-saṃyama); that itself is the fire of yoga (yoga-agni); (they offer) into that fire; jñāna-dīpite, which has been lighted by Knowledge, made to blaze up by discriminating knowledge, as if lighted up by oil.
तथा अपरे संशित-व्रताः यतयः द्रव्य-यज्ञाः, तपो-यज्ञाः, योग-यज्ञाः, स्व-अध्याय-ज्ञान-यज्ञाः च॥ 🔗 So too others of firm vows and efforts are those whose (distribution of) wealth is the yajña, those for whom prayerful discipline is the yajña, those whose very yoga practices are the yajña, and those who recite their Veda as a yajña and those who (later) study the meaning of their Veda as a yajña.
द्रव्य-यज्ञाः तीर्थेषु द्रव्य-विनियोगं यज्ञ-बुद्ध्या कुर्वन्ति ये ते द्रव्य-यज्ञाः। तपो-यज्ञाः तपः यज्ञः येषां तपस्विनां ते तपो-यज्ञाः। योग-यज्ञाः प्राणायाम-प्रत्याहारादि-लक्षणो योगो यज्ञो येषां ते योग-यज्ञाः। तथा अपरे स्वाध्याय-ज्ञान-यज्ञाश् च स्वाध्यायः यथा-विधि ऋगाद्य्-अभ्यासः यज्ञः येषां ते स्वाध्याय-यज्ञाः, ज्ञान-यज्ञाः ज्ञानं शास्त्रार्थ-परिज्ञानं यज्ञः येषां ते ज्ञान-यज्ञाश् च। Tathā, similarly; apare, others; are dravya-yajñāḥ, performers of sacrifices through wealth – those sacrificers who spend wealth (dravya) in holy places under the idea of performing sacrifices; tapo-yajñāḥ, performers of sacrifices through austerity, men of austerity, to whom austerity is a sacrifice; [•This is according to Ast.-Tr.•] yoga-yajñāḥ, performers of sacrifice through yoga – those to whom the yoga consisting in the control of the vital forces, withdrawal of the organs, etc., is a sacrifice; and svādhyāya-jñāna-yajñāḥ, performers of sacrifices through study and knowledge. Sacrificers through study (svādhyāya-yajñāḥ) are those to whom the study of Ṛg-veda etc. according to rules is a sacrifice. And sacrificers through knowledge (jñāna-yajñāḥ) are those to whom proper understanding of the meaning of the scriptures is a sacrifice.यतयः यतन-शीलाः संशित-व्रताः सम्यक् शितानि तनू-कृतानि तीक्ष्णी-कृतानि व्रतानि येषां ते संशित-व्रताः॥ Others are yatayaḥ, ascetics, who are diligent; saṃśita-vratāḥ, in following severe vows. Those whose vows (vratāḥ) have been fully sharpened (saṃśita), made very rigid, are saṃśita-vratāḥ. [•Six kinds of sacrifices have been enumerated in this verse.•]
तथा अपरे प्राण-आयाम-परायणाः अपाने प्राणं, प्राणे अपानं जुह्वति, प्राण-अपान-गती रुद्ध्वा [च]॥ 🔗 So too, others whose ultimate end is the practice of breath control – they offer (as a discipline) the outgoing breath into the ingoing breath, the ingoing breath into the outgoing breath, and (offer by) stopping the flow of both exhalation and inhalation.
अपाने अपान-वृत्तौ जुह्वति प्रक्षिपन्ति प्राणं प्राण-वृत्तिम्, पूरकाख्यं प्राणायामं कुर्वन्ति इत्यर्थः। प्राणे अपानं तथा अपरे जुह्वति, रेचकाख्यं च प्राणायामं कुर्वन्ति इत्य् एतत्। प्राणापान-गती मुख-नासिकाभ्यां वायोः निर्गमनं प्राणस्य गतिः, तद्-विपर्ययेण अधो-गमनम् अपानस्य गतिः, ते प्राणापान-गती एते रुद्ध्वा निरुध्य प्राणायाम-परायणाः प्राणायाम-तत्-पराः, कुम्भकाख्यं प्राणायामं कुर्वन्ति इत्यर्थः॥ Prāṇāyāma-parāyaṇāḥ, constantly practising control of the vital forces – i.e. they practise a form of prāṇāyāma called Kumbhaka (stopping the breath either inside or outside) [•‘Three sorts of motion of Prāṇāyāma (control of the vital forces) are, one by which we draw the breath in, another by which we throw it out, and the third action is when the breath is held in the lungs or stopped from entering the lungs.’-C.W., Vol.I, 1962, p. 267. Thus, there are two kinds of Kumbhaka – internal and external.•]; prāṇa-apāna-gatī ruddhvā, by stopping the (two) movements of the outgoing and the incoming breaths – the outgoing of breath (exhalation) through the mouth and the nostrils is the movement of the Prāṇa; as opposed to that, the movement of Apāna is the going down (of breath) (inhalation); these constitute the prāṇa-apāna-gatī, movements of Prāṇa and Apāna; by stopping these; some juhvati, offer as a sacrifice; prāṇam, the outgoing breath, which is the function of Prāṇa; apāne, in the incoming breath, which is the function of Apāna – i.e. they practised a form of prāṇāyāma called Pūraka (‘filling in’); while tathā apare, still others; offer apānam, the incoming breath; prāṇe, in the outgoing breath, i.e. they practise a form of prāṇāyāma called Recaka (‘emptying out’). [•Constantly practising control of the vital, forces, they perform Kumbhaka after Recaka and Pūraka.•]
अपरे नियत-आहाराः [नियत-] प्राणेषु [अ-नियत-] प्राणान् जुह्वति। सर्वे अपि एते यज्ञ-विदः यज्ञ-क्षपित-कल्मषाः [सन्ति]॥ 🔗 Others whose food (consumption) is regulated offer (submit for discipline) their (undisciplined) prāṇas into their (disciplined) prāṇas (such as a well-kindled digestive fire). All of those (preceding) who have an attitude of worship (during their activities) have (to that extent) their impurities (that obstruct self-knowledge) destroyed by yajña.
अपरे नियताहाराः नियतः परिमितः आहारः येषां ते नियताहाराः सन्तः प्राणान् वायु-भेदान् प्राणेषु एव जुह्वति यस्य यस्य वायोः जयः क्रियते इतरान् वायु-भेदान् तस्मिन् तस्मिन् जुह्वति, ते तत्र प्रविष्टा इव भवन्ति। सर्वेऽपि एते यज्ञ-विदः यज्ञ-क्षपित-कल्मषाः यज्ञैः यथोक्तैः क्षपितः नाशितः कल्मषो येषां ते यज्ञ-क्षपित-कल्मषाः॥ Besides, apare, others; niyata-āhārāḥ, having their food regulated; juhvati, offer; prāṇān, the vital forces, the different kinds of vital forces; prāṇeṣu, in the vital forces themselves. Whichever function of the vital forces is brought under control, in it they offer the other functions. These latter become, as it were, merged in the former. Sarve api, all; of etc., them; yajña-vidaḥ, are knowers of the sacrifice; and yajña-kṣapita-kamaṣāḥ, have their sins destroyed by the sacrifices as mentioned above.
एवं यथोक्तान् यज्ञान् निर्वर्त्य – After accomplishing the above-mentioned sacrifices:
यज्ञ-शिष्ट-अ-मृत-भुजः सना-तनं ब्रह्म यान्ति। अ-यज्ञस्य अयं लोकः न अस्ति, अन्यः [लोकः] कुतः, कुरु-सत्तम॥ 🔗 Those who (seek brahman and) partake of the offering (made) immortal after yajña proceed to gaining (in knowledge) the ever existent brahman (reality). This human world is not there for (the benefit of) one without yajña, much less another world (where effort is not available), O Arjuna.
यज्ञ-शिष्टामृत-भुजः यज्ञानां शिष्टं यज्ञ-शिष्टं, यज्ञ-शिष्टं च तद् अ-मृतं च यज्ञ-शिष्टामृतं तद् भुञ्जते इति यज्ञ-शिष्टामृत-भुजः। यथोक्तान् यज्ञान् कृत्वा तच्-छिष्टेन कालेन यथा-विधि-चोदितम् अन्नम् अ-मृताख्यं भुञ्जते इति यज्ञ-शिष्टामृत-भुजः यान्ति गच्छन्ति ब्रह्म सना-तनं चिरन्-तनं, मुमुक्षवश् चेत् कालातिक्रमापेक्षया इति सामर्थ्याद् गम्यते। Yajña-śiṣṭa-amṛta-bhujaḥ, those who partake of the nectar left over after a sacrifice, i.e. those who, after performing the sacrifices described above, eat, during the leisure after the sacrifice, the food called nectar, as prescribed by the injunctions; yānti, reach; sanā-tanam brahma, the eternal Brahman. For the sake of consistency (with the Upaniṣads) it is understood that if they (the sacrificers) are seekers of liberation, (then they reach Brahman) in due course of time. [•The Upaniṣads describe the different stages through which those who do good deeds and practise meditation have to pass before reaching the qualified Brahman after death. For liberation there is need also of purification of the heart, Thus, they reach Brahman by stages, and not immediately after death. (See Ch. 8.5 and subsequent portion; also, Br. 4.3.35 to 4.4.25, etc.)•] न अयं लोकः सर्व-प्राणि-साधारणोऽपि अस्ति यथोक्तानां यज्ञानां एकोऽपि यज्ञः यस्य न अस्ति सः अ-यज्ञः तस्य [अ-यज्ञस्य]। कुतः अन्यो विशिष्ट-साधन-साध्यः कुरु-सत्तम॥ Even ayam lokaḥ, this world, common to all beings; na asti, ceases to exist; a-yajñasya, for one who does not perform sacrifices, for him who does not have to his credit even a single one of the above sacrifices. Kutaḥ anyaḥ, what to speak of the other world which can be achieved through special disciplines; kuru-sattama, O best among the Kurus!
एवं ब्रह्मणः मुखे [वेद-शब्दे] बहु-विधाः यज्ञाः वितताः। तान् सर्वान् कर्म-जान् विद्धि। एवं ज्ञात्वा विमोक्ष्यसे॥ 🔗 In this manner, there are many and various yajñas elaborated in the words of the Veda. Know all of them to be produced by (traiguṇya-)karma (by the action of nature, not by ātmā, oneself). With this understanding, you will be freed (from their otherwise binding nature).
एवं यथोक्ताः बहु-विधाः बहु-प्रकाराः यज्ञाः वितताः विस्तीर्णाः ब्रह्मणो वेदस्य मुखे द्वारे वेद-द्वारेण अवगम्यमानाः ब्रह्मणो मुखे वितता उच्यन्ते, तद् यथा ‘वाचि हि प्राणं जुहुमः’ (AitAr.3.2.6) इत्य्-आदयः। Evam, thus; bahu-vidhāḥ yajñāḥ, various kinds of sacrifices as described; vitatāḥ, lie spread; mukhe, at the mouth, at the door; brahmaṇaḥ, of the Vedas. Those which are known through the Vedas – as for instance, ‘We offer the vital force into speech’, etc. – are said to be vitatāḥ, spread, elaborated; mukhe, at the mouth; brahmaṇaḥ, of the Vedas. कर्म-जान् कायिक-वाचिक-मानस-कर्मोद्भावान् विद्धि तान् सर्वान् अन्-आत्म-जान्, निर्-व्यापारो हि आत्मा। अत एवं ज्ञात्वा विमोक्ष्यसे अ-शुभात्। ‘न मद्-व्यापारा इमे, निर्-व्यापारोऽहम् उदासीन’ इत्य् एवं ज्ञात्वा अस्मात् सम्यग्-दर्शनाद् अ-शुभाद् मोक्ष्यसे संसार-बन्धनाद् इत्यर्थः॥ Viddhi, know; tān, them; sarvān, all; to be karma-jān, born of action, accomplished through the activities of body, speech and mind, but not born of the Self. For the Self is actionless. Hence, jñātvā, knowing; evam, thus; vimokṣyase, you will become liberated from evil. By knowing thus – ‘These are not my actions; I am actionless and detached’ – You will be freed from worldly bondage as a result of this full enlightenment. This is the purport.
‘ब्रह्म अर्पणम्’ (BhG.4.24) इत्य्-आदि-श्लोकेन सम्यग्-दर्शनस्य यज्ञत्वं सम्पादितम्, यज्ञाश् च अन्-एके उपदिष्टाः। तैः सिद्ध-पुरुषार्थ-प्रयोजनैः ज्ञानं स्तूयते। कथम्? – Through the verse beginning with, ‘The ladle is Brahman’ etc., complete Illumination has been represented as a sacrifice. And sacrifices of various kinds have been taught. With the help of [•Some translate this as: ‘As compared with....’-Tr.•] those (sacrifices) that are meant for accomplishing desirable human ends, Knowledge (considered as a sacrifice) is being extolled:
द्रव्यमयाद् यज्ञाद् ज्ञान-यज्ञः श्रेयान्, परन्-तप। पार्थ, सर्वम् अ-खिलं कर्म ज्ञाने परिसमाप्यते॥ 🔗 Yajña consisting of knowledge is superior to yajña consisting of materials (and action), O Arjuna. O Arjuna, all action in its entirety is culminated in knowledge.
श्रेयान् द्रव्यमयाद् द्रव्य-साधन-साध्याद् यज्ञाद् ज्ञान-यज्ञः हे परन्-तप। द्रव्यमयो हि यज्ञः फलस्य आरम्भकः, ज्ञान-यज्ञः न फलारम्भकः, अतः श्रेयान् प्रशस्यतरः। O destroyer of enemies, jñāna-yajñaḥ, Knowledge considered as a sacrifice; is śreyān, greater; dravyamayāt yajñāt, than sacrifices requiring materials [•Including study of the Vedas, etc. also.•] For, a sacrifice performed with materials is an originator of results, [•Worldly prosperity, attaining heaven, etc.•], but Knowledge considered as a sacrifice is not productive of results. [•It only reveals the state of Liberation that is an achieved fact. (According to A-dvaita, Liberation consists in the removal of ignorance by Illumination. Nothing new is produced thereby.-Tr.)•]. Hence it is greater, more praiseworthy.
कथम्? यतः सर्वं कर्म समस्तम् अ-खिलम् अ-प्रतिबद्धं पार्थ ज्ञाने मोक्ष-साधने सर्वतः-सम्प्लुतोदक-स्थानीये परिसमाप्यते अन्तर्-भवति इत्यर्थः ‘यथा कृताय विजिताय अधरेऽयाः संयन्त्य् एवम् एनं सर्वं तद् अभिसमेति यत्किञ्चि प्रजाः साधु कुर्वन्ति, यस् तद् वेद यत् स वेद’ (ChanU.4.1.4) इति श्रुतेः॥ How? Because, sarvam, all; karma a-khilam, actions in their totality, without exception; O son of Pṛthā, parisamāpyate, culminate, get merged (attain their consummation); jñāne, in Knowledge, which is a means to Liberation and is comparable to ‘a flood all around’ (cf.BhG.2.46). This is the idea, which accords with the Upaniṣad text, ‘As when the (face of a die) bearing the number 4, called Kṛta, wins, the other inferior (numbers on the die-faces) get included in it, so whatever good actions are performed by beings, all that gets merged in this one (Raikva). (So it happens) to anyone who knows what he (Raikva) knew' (ChanU.4.1.4).
तद् एतद् विशिष्टं ज्ञानं, तर्हि केन प्राप्यते? इत्य् उच्यते – In that case, by what means is this highly estimable Knowledge acquired? The answer is being given:
तद् [ज्ञानं] विद्धि। प्रणिपातेन परिप्रश्नेन सेवया ज्ञानिनः तत्त्व-दर्शिनः ते ज्ञानम् उपदेक्ष्यन्ति॥ 🔗 Understand that (knowledge). By surrender (to the feet of the teacher, that is, with an attitude of acceptance of the teacher as a source of knowledge), by inquiry, and by service (to the teacher – as traditionally no tuition is charged during the study) the wise – who have the vision of the truth – will teach you this knowledge.
तद् विद्धि विजानीहि, येन विधिना प्राप्यते इति। आचार्यान् अभिगम्य, प्रणिपातेन प्रकर्षेण नीचैः पतनं प्रणिपातः दीर्घ-नमस्कारः तेन, ‘कथं बन्धः? कथं मोक्षः? का विद्या? का च अ-विद्या?’ इति परिप्रश्नेन, सेवया गुरु-शुश्रूषया एवम्-आदिना, प्रश्रयेण आवर्जिता आचार्या उपदेक्ष्यन्ति कथयिष्यन्ति ते ज्ञानं यथोक्त-विशेषणं ज्ञानिनः, ज्ञानवन्तोऽपि केचिद् यथावत् तत्त्व-दर्शन-शीलाः, अपरे न, अतो विशिनष्टि तत्त्व-दर्शिनः इति। Viddhi, know; tat, that, the process by which It is acquired; by approaching teachers praṇipātena, through prostration, by lying fully stretched on the ground with face downward, with prolonged salutation; paripraśnena, through inquiry, as to how bondage and Liberation come, and what are Knowledge and ignorance; and sevayā, through the service of the guru. (Know it) through these and other (disciplines) [•Other disciplines such as control of the mind, body, etc. Saṅkarācarya's own words in the Commentary are evam-ādinā, after which Ast. puts a full stop, and agreeing with this, A.G. says that the word viddhi (know) is to be connected with evam-ādinā. Hence this translation. Alternatively, those words have to be taken with praśrayeṇa (humility). Then the meaning will be, ‘Being pleased with such and other forms of humility....’-Tr.•]. Being pleased with humility, jñāninaḥ, the wise ones, the teachers; tattva-darśinaḥ, who have realized the Truth; upadekṣyanti, will impart, will tell; te, you; jñānam, the Knowledge as described above. Although people may be wise, some of them are apt to know Truth just as it is, while others may not be so. Hence the qualification, ‘who have realized the Truth’.
ये सम्यग्-दर्शिनः तैः उपदिष्टं ज्ञानं कार्य-क्षमं भवति, न इतरद् इति भगवतो मतम्॥ The considered view of the Lord is that Knowledge imparted by those who have full enlightenment becomes effective, not any other.
तथा च सति, इदम् अपि समर्थं वचनम् – That being so, the next verse also becomes appropriate:
यद् ज्ञात्वा न पुनः एवं मोहं यास्यसि, पाण्डव। येन, अ-शेषेण भूतानि मयि अथ-उ आत्मनि द्रक्ष्यसि॥ 🔗 Understanding this (knowledge), you will not again in this way become deluded, O Arjuna. By this (knowledge) you will see all beings in Me and even in yourself.
यद् ज्ञात्वा यद् ज्ञानं तैः उपदिष्टं अधिगम्य प्राप्य (न) पुनः भूयः मोहम् एवं यथा इदानीं मोहं गतोऽसि पुनः एवं न यास्यसि हे पाण्डव। किञ्च येन ज्ञानेन भूतानि अ-शेषेण ब्रह्मादीनि स्तम्ब-पर्यन्तानि द्रक्ष्यसि साक्षाद् आत्मनि प्रत्यग्-आत्मनि ‘मत्-संस्थानि इमानि भूतानि’ इति अथो अपि मयि वासु-देवे ‘परमेश्वरे च इमानि’ इत