Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 17 - Shloka (Verse) 1

व्याख्या -- ये शास्त्रविधिमुत्सृज्य ৷৷. सत्त्वमाहो रजस्तमः -- श्रीमद्भगवद्गीतामें भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण और अर्जुनका संवाद सम्पूर्ण जीवोंके कल्याणके लिये है। उन दोनोंके सामने कलियुगकी जनता थी क्योंकि द्वापरयुग समाप्त हो रहा था। आगे आनेवाले कलियुगी जीवोंकी तरफ दृष्टि रहनेसे अर्जुन पूछते हैं कि महाराज जिन मनुष्योंका भाव बड़ा अच्छा है? श्रद्धाभक्ति भी है? पर शास्त्रविधिको जानते नहीं (टिप्पणी प0 833.3)। यदि वे जान जायँ? तो पालन करने लग जायँ? पर उनको पता नहीं। अतः उनकी क्या स्थिति होती हैआगे आनेवाली जनतामें शास्त्रका ज्ञान बहुत कम रहेगा। उन्हें अच्छा सत्सङ्ग मिलना भी कठिन होगा क्योंकि अच्छे सन्तमहात्मा पहले युगोंमें भी कम हुए हैं? फिर कलियुगमें तो और भी कम होंगे। कम होनेपर भी यदि भीतर चाहना हो तो उन्हें सत्संग मिल सकता है। परन्तु मुश्किल यह है कि कलियुगमें दम्भ? पाखण्ड ज्यादा होनेसे कई दम्भी और पाखण्डी पुरुष सन्त बन जाते हैं। अतः सच्चे सन्त पहचानमें आने मुश्किल हैं। इस प्रकार पहले तो सन्तमहात्मा मिलने कठिन हैं और मिल भी जायँ तो उनमेंसे कौनसे संत कैसे हैं -- इस बातकी पहचान प्रायः नहीं होती और पहचान हुए बिना उनका संग करके विशेष लाभ ले लें -- ऐसी बात भी नहीं है। अतः जो शास्त्रविधिको भी नहीं जानते और असली सन्तोंका सङ्ग भी नहीं मिलता? परन्तु जो कुछ यजनपूजन करते हैं? श्रद्धासे करते हैं -- ऐसे मनुष्योंकी निष्ठा कौनसी होती है सात्त्विकी अथवा राजसीतामसीसत्त्वमाहो रजस्तमः पदोंमें सत्त्वगुणको दैवीसम्पत्तिमें और रजोगुण तथा तमोगुणको आसुरीसम्पत्तिमें ले लिया गया है। रजोगुणको आसुरीसम्पत्तिमें लेनेका कारण यह है कि रजोगुण तमोगुणके बहुत निकट है (टिप्पणी प0 834.1)। गीतामें कई जगह ऐसी बात आयी है जैसे -- दूसरे अध्यायके बासठवेंतिरसठवें श्लोकोंमें काम अर्थात् रजोगुणसे क्रोध और क्रोधसे मोहरूप तमोगुणका उत्पन्न होना बताया गया है (टिप्पणी प0 834.2)। ऐसे ही अठारहवें अध्यायके सत्ताईसवें श्लोकमें हिंसात्मक और शोकान्वितको रजोगुणी कर्ताका लक्षण बताया गया है और अठारहवें अध्यायके ही पचीसवें श्लोकमें हिंसा को तामस कर्मका लक्षण और पैंतीसवें श्लोकमें शोक को तामस धृतिका लक्षण बताया गया है। इस प्रकार रजोगुण और तमोगुणके बहुतसे लक्षण आपसमें मिलते हैं।सात्त्विक भाव? आचरण और विचार दैवीसम्पत्तिके होते हैं और राजसीतामसी भाव? आचरण और विचार आसुरीसम्पत्तिके होते हैं। सम्पत्तिके अनुसार ही निष्ठा होती है अर्थात् मनुष्यके जैसे भाव? आचरण और विचार होते हैं? उन्हींके अनुसार उसकी स्थिति (निष्ठा) होती है। स्थितिके अनुसार ही आगे गति होती है। आप कहते हैं कि शास्त्रविधिका त्याग करके मनमाने ढंगसे आचरण करनेपर सिद्धि? सुख और परमगति नहीं मिलती? तो जब उनकी निष्ठाका ही पता नहीं? फिर उनकी गतिका क्या पता लगे इसलिये आप उनकी निष्ठा बताइये? जिससे पता लग जाय कि वे सात्त्विकी गतिमें जाननेवाले हैं या राजसीतामसी गतिमें।कृष्ण का अर्थ है -- खींचनेवाला। यहाँ कृष्ण सम्बोधनका तात्पर्य यह मालूम देता है कि आप ऐसे मनुष्योंको अन्तिम समयमें किस ओर खींचेगे उनको किस गतिकी तरफ ले जायँगे छठे अध्यायके सैंतीसवें श्लोकमें भी अर्जुनने गतिविषयक प्रश्नमें कृष्ण सम्बोधन दिया है -- कां गतिं कृष्ण गच्छति। यहाँ भी अर्जुनका निष्ठा पूछनेका तात्पर्य गतिमें ही है।मनुष्यको भगवान् खींचते हैं या वह कर्मोंके अनुसार स्वयं खींचा जाता है वस्तुतः कर्मोंके अनुसार ही फल मिलता है? पर कर्मफलके विधायक होनेसे भगवान्का खींचना सम्पूर्ण फलोंमें होता है। तामसी कर्मोंका फल,नरक होगा? तो भगवान् नरकोंकी तरफ खींचेंगे। वास्तवमें नरकोंके द्वारा पापोंका नाश करके प्रकारान्तरसे भगवान् अपनी तरफ ही खींचते हैं। उनका किसीसे भी वैर या द्वेष नहीं है। तभी तो आसुरी योनियोंमें जानेवालोंके लिये भगवान् कहते हैं कि वे मेरेको प्राप्त न होकर अधोगतिमें चले गये (16। 20)। कारण कि उनका अधोगतिमें जाना भगवान्को सुहाता नहीं है। इसलिये सात्त्विक मनुष्य हो? राजस मनुष्य हो या तामस मनुष्य हो? भगवान् सबको अपनी तरफ ही खींचते हैं। इसी भावसे यहाँ कृष्ण सम्बोधन आया है। सम्बन्ध -- शास्त्रविधिको न जाननेपर भी मनुष्यमात्रमें किसीनकिसी प्रकारकी स्वभावजा श्रद्धा तो रहती ही है। उस श्रद्धाके भेद आगेके श्लोकमें बताते हैं।

तस्मात् शास्त्रं प्रमाणं ते इस भगवद्वाक्यसे जिसको प्रश्नका बीज मिला है वह अर्जुन बोला --, जो कोई साधारण मनुष्य? शास्त्रविधिको -- शास्त्रकी आज्ञाको अर्थात् श्रुतिस्मृति आदि शास्त्रोंके विधानको छोड़कर श्रद्धासे अर्थात् आस्तिकबुद्धिसे युक्त यानी सम्पन्न होकर देवादिका पूजन करते हैं। यहाँ ये शास्त्रविधिमुत्सृज्य यजन्ते श्रद्धयान्विताः इस कथनसे श्रुतिरूप या स्मृतिरूप किसी भी शास्त्रके विधानको न जानकर? केवल वृद्ध व्यवहारको आदर्श मानकर? जो श्रद्धापूर्वक देवादिका पूजन करते हैं? वे ही मनुष्य ग्रहण किये गये हैं। किंतु जो मनुष्य कुछ शास्त्रविधिको जानते हुए भी? उसको छोड़कर अविधिपूर्वक देवादिका पूजन करते हैं? वे ये शास्त्रविधिमुत्सृज्य यजन्ते इस कथनसे ग्रहण नहीं किये जा सकते। पू0 -- किसलिये ( ग्रहण नहीं किये जा सकते ) उ0 -- श्रद्धासे युक्त हुए ( पूजन करते हैं ) ऐसा विशेषण दिया गया है इसलिये। क्योंकि देवादिके पूजाविषयक किसी भी शास्त्रको जानते हुए ही उसे अश्रद्धापूर्वक छोड़कर? उस शास्त्रद्वारा विधान की हुई देवादिकी पूजामें श्रद्धासे युक्त हुए बर्तते हैं? ऐसी कल्पना नहीं की जा सकती। अतः पहले बतलाये हुए मनुष्य ही ये शास्त्रविधिमुत्सृज्य यजन्ते श्रद्धयान्विताः इस कथनसे ग्रहण किये जाते हैं। हे कृष्ण इस प्रकारके उन मनुष्योंकी निष्ठा कौनसी है सात्त्विक है राजस है अथवा तामस है यानी उनकी स्थिति सात्त्विकी है या राजसी या तामसी है कहनेका अभिप्राय यह है कि उनकी जो देवादिविषयक पूजा है? वह सात्त्विकी है राजसी है अथवा तामसी है।

The goal of theists and atheists — who have Shastra as their sole eye — has been stated; now, with a desire to know the goal of those who are indeed theists but ignorant of Shastra, he asks; he says this — 'Tasmat' (Therefore...). 'Yajante' (They sacrifice) — the mention of sacrifice here is an implied indication for charity etc. If, not seeing the Vedic injunction, they abandon it, then how do they perform sacrifices etc. with faith? For without authority/proof, it is not possible to perform sacrifices etc. with faith; doubting this, he says — 'Shruti' (Shruti/Tradition...).

Objection: Even while seeing the scriptural injunction, some are seen neglecting it and performing sacrifices etc. by their own fancy; will they be included here in 'Ye shastravidhim utsrijya' (Those who, casting aside scriptural injunction...)? No, he says — 'Ye punah' (But those who...). Stating the reason for their non-inclusion here preceded by a question — 'Kasmat' (Why/From what...). Doubting that the adjective ('endowed with faith') is not contradictory even if those who have knowledge of Shastra but neglect it are included; he says 'not so' because of contradiction — 'Devadin' (Gods etc...). Having abandoned it due to lack of faith — is the connection.

Since it has been established in the immediately preceding chapter that those who, even while knowing the scriptural injunction, disregard it and engage in worship of gods etc. by their own will are included among the Asuras; therefore, there is no occasion for them in the context of theists; he concludes this — 'Yasmat' (Since...).

The aforementioned are ignorant of Shastra. Meaning, they are followers of the conduct of elders. Where does the action performed by them with faith culminate? He asks this — 'Tesham' (Their...). He explains 'what is the condition/status' — 'Sattvam' (Sattva...). Resorting to the designation of effects by their causes, he states the purport — 'Etad' (This...).

'I bow to the two Supreme Gods, Sri Krishna and Shankara, who are the Self of each other, the redeemers of the world through the light of the Gita Bhashya.' From the Lord's statements 'He who casting aside scriptural injunction...' and 'Therefore Shastra is your authority'; knowing that those who abandon scriptural injunction and act out of impulse of desire are atheistic Asuras; and those who follow scriptural injunction and act with faith for the performance of the enjoined and abandonment of the prohibited are theistic Suras (Gods); desiring to know the status of those who have faith but are ignorant of scriptures, Arjuna said.

Those 'Ye' (who) — some who are not characterized by the (explicit) attributes of Asuras or Devas; 'utsrijya' (casting aside) the 'shastravidhim' (scriptural injunction) — the ordinance of Shruti, Smriti etc. — not seeing it due to laziness etc., but merely by the conduct of elders; being 'shraddhayanvitah' (endowed with faith) — conjoined with theistic intelligence — 'yajante' (sacrifice to/worship) the gods etc. But those who, even while knowing the scriptural injunction to some extent, abandon it out of lack of faith and worship gods etc. against the rules, they are not included here. Because of the adjective 'endowed with faith'.

'Tesham' (Of those) — of such people — 'nishtha tu ka' (what indeed is the status)? Is the state 'Sattvam' (Sattva)? Because faith is Sattvic. 'Aho' (Or) Rajas? Or Tamas? Because not seeing the Shastra due to the notion of trouble (klesha) and due to laziness is Rajasic and Tamasic. This is what is meant — Is their worship concerning gods etc. Sattvic, or Rajasic, or Tamasic?

'Krishi is the word denoting existence (earth/being) and Nash is the word denoting bliss; the union of the two is the Supreme Brahman called Krishna' — intending this etymology; indicating that nothing whatsoever is unknown to You, the Supreme Self situated everywhere as Existence and Manifestation etc., he addresses — 'Krishna'. Or the meaning of the address is 'O attractor/remover of my doubt'.

Salutations to the One who is full of all attributes. Sri. Through this chapter, He elaborates on the distinctions of the Gunas. The phrase "setting aside the ordinances of the scriptures" implies doing so "merely out of ignorance."

The injunction [Manu 2.165] states: "The entire Veda, along with the secrets (Upanishads), must be studied by the twice-born."

Regarding those who have abandoned this rule, the Madhucchandasa Shruti states: "Know those who neither study the Veda nor know its meaning, who are abandoners of the Veda, to be of flawed intellect (sa-anuna-buddhi)."

Otherwise, they would simply be designated as Tamasic, and there would be no classification.

If they were Sattvic, they would not have abandoned the scriptures. Indeed, there is no Dharma contrary to the Vedas.

The Smriti [Manu 2.6] states: "The entire Veda is the root of Dharma, as is the conduct of those who know it."

The Bhagavata [6.1.40] also confirms: "Dharma is that which is prescribed by the Veda; its opposite is Adharma."

Obtaining the seed of the question 'Therefore Shastra is your authority', Arjuna said — 'Ye' (Those who...). 'Ye' (Those) men who, regarding 'Shastravidhim' (scriptural injunction) — by the word Shastra here Shruti, good conduct (Sadachara), and family customs (Kulachara) are grasped; for all of them are authorities in Dharma;

whatever rule or duty is understood there, 'utsrijya' (casting aside) that, abandoning it completely; 'yajante' (sacrifice/worship) — worship the father's well etc. 'This well made by my father is greater even than a hundred Gangas; by service to this alone in the form of bathing, drinking, immersing, attending, circumambulating, I will surely attain the desired fruit' — thus being 'anvitah' (endowed) with very firm faith there; 'tesham' (their) 'nishtha' (status) — what is this, of what kind is it?

Is it 'Sattvam' — Sattvic? Because of the observation of excessive faith in the ancestral well. Is it 'Rajah' — Rajasic? Because their status is of the nature of acting by will (kamakara) by transgressing the Shastra. 'Aho' — is in the sense of question. Is that status 'Tamah' — Tamasic? Because of the observation of the nature of error, like the idea of silver in tin, attributing greatness to a non-scriptural petty thing.

And as for what is said in the Bhashya (Shankara's commentary) — 'worship gods etc. with faith merely by observing the conduct of elders'; even there, only the 'unblamed' (avigita/virtuous) conduct of elders is to be accepted. Because in the unblamed (conduct), the doubt of Tamasic nature etc. is inappropriate.

Arjuna said — Those who, casting aside the injunctions of the scriptures, perform sacrifice endowed with faith; what is their 'Nishtha' (condition/status)? Is it Sattva? Or is it Rajas? Or Tamas?

'Nishtha' means state/condition; that in which one stands is 'sthiti'; Sattva etc. alone are called 'Nishtha'; is their state in Sattva? Or in Rajas? Or in Tamas? This is the meaning.

Being asked thus, the Lord, keeping in mind the fruitlessness of faith not enjoined by scripture and of the sacrifice etc. preceded by that, and in order to propound the threefold nature based on Gunas of only the scriptural sacrifice etc., first speaks of the threefold nature of scriptural faith —

'Among the stated causes of eligibility, faith is indeed the primary Sattvic one; thus in the seventeenth, the secondary distinction of faith is stated as threefold. ||1||'

At the end of the previous chapter, by 'He who casting aside the scriptural injunction acts out of impulse of desire; he does not attain success', it was stated that one acting out of desire by casting aside the scriptural injunction has no eligibility for knowledge. There, regarding those who cast aside scriptural injunction but act with faith without impulse of desire — do they have eligibility or not? With a desire to know this, Arjuna said — 'Ye' (Those who...).

Here, by 'sacrificing casting aside scriptural injunction', if those who know the scriptural meaning and transgress it are included? Their sacrificing with faith would be untenable. For faith is the intelligence of belief in existence (of God/Scripture). And that is not possible in a matter contrary to scripture for those who have scriptural knowledge. And because the subsequent answers like 'Faith is of three kinds', 'Sattvic people worship gods' etc., referring to them, would be inappropriate. Therefore, transgressors of scripture are not included here; but rather those who, due to the notion of trouble or due to laziness, not making effort in the knowledge of scriptural meaning, engage in the worship of some deity etc. with faith merely by the force of tradition of conduct, are included.

Therefore, this is the meaning — those who, casting aside scriptural injunction, disregarding it due to the notion of pain or laziness, being endowed with faith merely on the authority of conduct, perform sacrifice; what indeed is their 'Nishtha', what state, what refuge? He asks that very thing specifically — Is it Sattva? Or is it Rajas? Or Tamas? Meaning, is their such tendency of worshipping gods etc. based on Sattva, based on Rajas, or based on Tamas? Because faith is Sattvic, and disregard of scripture due to notion of trouble and laziness is Rajasic and Tamasic, there is a threefold doubt. If they are based on the Sattvic nature, then due to their being Sattvic, there would be eligibility for the self-knowledge as described, otherwise not; this is the purport of the question.

To introduce the seventeenth (chapter) as a supplement to the stated (sixteenth chapter), he takes up what was stated — with 'Devasura' (Divine and Demoniac...). Stating the connection as being an elaboration of the subject in hand through a different opening, he says — 'Idanim' (Now...). Meaning, immediately after the statement that Shastra is the sole root of the arrangement of what is rejectable and acceptable.

'The non-scriptural is entirely Asuric; the scriptural is distinct according to Gunas; the characteristic of what is established by Shastra is stated as threefold in the seventeenth' [Gita Sangraha 21] — he explains this summary verse — with 'Ashastravihitasya' (Of the non-scriptural...), etc. Here, the division of the scriptural meaning generally and specifically is the continued purport of the chapter. 'Saptadashoditam' (Stated in the seventeenth) — this should be construed with each of the three sentences of the summary verse. Or the construction is by summarizing everything as 'All this is stated in the seventeenth'.

After 'Knowing what is stated in the scriptural ordinance' [16.24], how is the question 'Those who casting aside scriptural injunction...' consistent? Regarding this, he says — 'Tatra' (There...). 'Not knowing the fruitlessness of the non-scriptural' — thus.

This is the intention — Wise people have a desire to know the goal or the means to it inherently; therefore, there is a desire to know the distinction of status like Sattva etc. culminating in the specific fruits rooted therein; and there is no desire to know specific fruits when fruitlessness is known; and moreover, even popularly established agriculture, medicine etc., which are objects of activity for wise people, are seen to be fruitful indeed; otherwise, even the Shastra would be liable to be baseless. Even in supra-mundane matters, how many Dharmas are established by custom; and they cannot be without some fruit? For there would be the contingency of wise people not engaging in them. Nor is the absence of fruit possible in an action performed with faith due to defect in auxiliaries. Nor is there any explanation for actions devoid of seen purposes, performed by infinite wise people with great expenditure of wealth and effort etc., without culminating in unseen results (Adrishta). Therefore, if any difference from the scripturally enjoined is to be stated? Then it would be only a gradation of fruit caused by the difference of Gunas like Sattva etc. Therefore, 'He who casting aside scriptural injunction acts out of impulse of desire; he does not attain success, nor happiness, nor the supreme goal' [16.23] — even this previously stated (verse) is probably intending the absence of 'excellent' happiness; or the qualification 'out of impulse of desire' is to exclude those endowed with faith; thus, in what is imagined merely by bad advice, external scriptures, one's own fancy, or conduct of elders, due to the connection with the intention of Dharma and faith etc., the cessation of fruitlessness is logical — this is Arjuna's intention — thus.

To make the specific (action with faith) the ground for the doubt of fruitfulness, the adjective of the agent is interpreted as an adverb of the action. 'Sacrifice' here is for the implied indication of charity etc.; or because of the non-difference in being worship of gods, it is included. Here by the word 'Krishna' — 'Krishi is the word denoting existence and Nash is the word denoting bliss' [Mahabharata 5.70.5] — he intends the etymology useful for the success desired by all. By the word 'Tu' (But), the exclusion from the scriptural status and from the impulse of desire is intended. Intending the repetition of the transformed word 'Kim' (What) or the word 'Aho' here, he says — 'Kim sattvam' (Is it Sattva...). To exclude meanings like destruction etc., and for coordinate predication with Sattva etc., to introduce the derivation in the locative sense, he manifests the nature by a synonym — 'Nishtha sthitih' (Nishtha means state/condition). What was asked as 'Tesham nishtha tu ka' (What indeed is their status) is being qualified by 'Sattvam' (Sattva) etc.; with this intention, he states the resultant meaning — 'Tesham' (Their...).

पूर्वाध्याय के अन्त में भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण ने शास्त्रों के प्रामाण्य एवं अध्ययन पर विशेष बल दिया था। उसी बिन्दु से विचार को आगे बढ़ाते हुए अर्जुन यहाँ प्रश्न पूछ रहा है। वह चाहता है कि भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण विस्तृतरूप से इसका विवेचन करें कि किस प्रकार हम प्रभावशाली और लाभदायक आध्यात्मिक जीवन को अपना सकते हैं। इसके साथ ही अध्यात्मविषयक भ्रान्त धारणाओं का भी वे निराकरण करें।शास्त्रविधि को त्यागकर प्राय धर्मशास्त्रों से अनभिज्ञ होने के कारण सामान्य जनों को शास्त्रीय विधिविधान उपलब्ध नहीं होते हैं। यदि शास्त्रों को उपलब्ध कराया भी जाये? तो बहुत कम लोग ऐसे होते हैं? जिनमें तत्प्रतिपादित ज्ञान को समझने की बौद्धित क्षमता होती है। सांसारिक जीवन में कर्मों की उत्तेजनाओं तथा मानसिक चिन्ताओं और व्याकुलता के कारण शास्त्रनिर्दिष्ट मार्ग के अनुसार अपना जीवन सुनियोजित करने की पात्रता हम में नहीं होती। परन्तु? इन सबका अभाव होते हुए भी एक लगनशील साधक को श्रेष्ठतर जीवन पद्धति तथा धर्म के आदर्श में दृढ़ श्रद्धा और भक्ति हो सकती है। इसलिए अर्जुन के प्रश्न का औचित्य सिद्ध होता है।यहाँ प्रयुक्त यज्ञ शब्द से वैदिक पद्धति के होमहवन आदि ही समझना आवश्यक नहीं हैं। गीता सम्पूर्ण शास्त्र है और उसमें उन शब्दों की अपनी परिभाषाएं भी दी गयी है। यज्ञ शब्द की परिभाषा में वे समस्त कर्म समाविष्ट हैं? जिन्हें समाज के लोग अपनी लौकिक और आध्यात्मिक उन्नति के लिए निस्वार्थ भाव से करते हैं। अर्जुन की जिज्ञासा यह है कि जगत् के पारमार्थिक अधिष्ठान को जाने बिना भी यदि मनुष्य यज्ञभावना से कर्म करता है? तो क्या वह परम शान्ति को प्राप्त कर सकता है उसकी स्थिति क्या कही जायेगी अपने प्रश्न को और अधिक स्पष्ट करते हुए वह पूछता है कि ऐसे श्रद्धावान् साधक की निष्ठा कौनसी श्रेणी में आयेगी सात्त्विक ?राजसिक या त्ाामसिक

'Ye shastra' (Those who... scripture).

Those who, not resorting to the scriptural injunction, practice conduct [with faith]; what is their goal, this is the question.

He states the purpose of the chapter with "Guna". The differences in faith (Shraddha) and other qualities are caused by the Gunas. Since it was stated [in 14.19] "He sees no doer other than the Gunas," He now elaborates on this. The implication is to show that the practices of the Sattvic are to be followed because they are the means to the supreme goal, while others are to be rejected as they are not such means.

Regarding "setting aside scriptural injunctions," to prevent the interpretation that one abandons Veda perceiving it as invalid, he explains: Here, "abandoning" means merely ignorance, not rejection due to a belief in invalidity.

...

He provides scriptural concurrence: Those who do not study the Veda despite having an intellect capable of comprehending the Veda and its meaning are of flawed intellect.

If asked about the status of those like Buddhists who oppose the Veda, the answer would be that they are simply Tamasic.

Can they be Sattvic? No, because being Sattvic and being opposed to the Veda cannot coexist. As stated [Bhagavata 11.13.2], "From Sattva arises Dharma." Thus, one cannot be opposed to the Veda and also be a practitioner of Dharma.

There are two kinds of performers of action. Some, even after knowing the scriptural injunction, abandon it out of lack of faith and perform whatever they like merely out of impulse of desire; they are 'Asuras' because they are unfit for all human goals. But some, knowing the scriptural injunction, being endowed with faith, following that alone, avoiding the prohibited and performing the enjoined; they are 'Devas' because they are fit for all human goals; this was established at the end of the previous chapter.

But those who, disregarding the scriptural injunction due to laziness etc., being endowed with faith indeed, merely by the conduct of elders, avoiding the prohibited and performing the enjoined; they are endowed with Asuric similarity characterized by disregard of scriptural injunction, and Divine similarity characterized by performance with faith; are they included among Asuras or among Devas? Thus, seeing characteristics of both and not seeing a determinant for one category, doubting, Arjuna said.

'Ye' (Those who) -- those not determined in the previous chapter, distinct from both categories; they are not followers of scripture like Devas; but 'shastravidhim' (scriptural injunction) -- the urging of Shruti and Smriti -- 'utsrijya' (casting aside), disregarding due to laziness etc.; nor are they devoid of faith like Asuras; but according to the conduct of elders 'shraddhayanvitah' (endowed with faith) 'yajante' -- perform worship of gods etc.

'Tesham tu' (But of them) -- of those distinct from the previously determined Devas and Asuras due to disregard of scriptural injunction and (presence of) faith -- 'nishtha ka' (what is the status/condition)? Of what kind is their (state which is) disregardful of scriptural injunction and (yet) accompanied with faith? That establishment in actions like sacrifice etc., O Krishna -- remover of devotees' sins? 'Kim sattviki' (Is it Sattvic)? In that case, being Sattvic, they are Devas. 'Aho' -- this is for the alternative. Is it 'Rajastamah' (Rajas and Tamas) -- Rajasic and Tamasic? In that case, being Rajasic and Tamasic, they are Asuras. 'Sattvam' is one category, 'Rajastamah' is the other category; to indicate this division, the word 'Aho' is used.

'Faith devoid of scriptural injunction is considered supreme only when devoid of Gunas (Nirguna)' -- to show this, faith is described here as threefold. ||1||

In the previous chapter, it was stated that for one acting in actions out of impulse of desire devoid of scriptural injunction, there is no fruit; there, in the absence of impulse of desire, for those devoid of scriptural injunction but acting with faith, is there any good fruit like knowledge etc. later by resorting to Sattvic nature etc. or not? Desiring to know this, Arjuna asks -- 'Ye shastra' (Those who... scripture).

'Ye' (Those who) -- casting aside the scriptural injunction of exclusive devotion through total renunciation etc. because of it being difficult to perform; engaged in worship etc. proceeding from the stream of traditional conduct, being endowed with 'shraddha' (faith), i.e., reverence; 'yajante' -- perform worship of gods etc.; O Krishna, what is their 'nishtha', what is their refuge/basis? Sattva, 'aho' (or) Rajas, or Tamas?

This is the idea -- If the refuge is Sattva beforehand, then from that itself knowledge arises; if it is Rajas beforehand, then by acting thus, later there will be Sattvic nature; if it is Tamas beforehand, then later Rajasic nature, then by acting thus later Sattvic nature, then rise of knowledge, then attainment of You through the state of being beyond Gunas (Nirguna).

By addressing with the name (Krishna) which is of the nature of the Fruit, the idea is suggested that -- in the absence of fruit, its cause is indeed useless; the authority of that conduct etc. is purposeless; therefore the nature of their refuge must be stated.

Those 'Ye' (who) -- some unspecified persons -- 'shastravidhim' (scriptural injunction) -- the ordinance of scripture, the urging of Shruti and Smriti scriptures -- 'utsrijya' (casting aside), abandoning; 'yajante' -- worship gods etc.; being 'shraddhayanvitah' -- 'anvitah' (endowed), conjoined with 'shraddha' (faith), i.e., the intelligence of belief in existence; -- meaning, those who, not seeing any scriptural injunction characterized by Shruti or Smriti, worship gods etc. with faith merely by observing the conduct of elders; they are here included as 'those who casting aside scriptural injunction sacrifice endowed with faith'.

But those who, even while perceiving some scriptural injunction, abandon it and worship gods etc. against the rules; they are not included here as 'those who casting aside scriptural injunction sacrifice'. Why? Because of the qualification 'endowed with faith'.

For it is not possible to imagine that those who, even while seeing some scripture regarding the rule of worship of gods etc., abandon it and act without faith, engage in the worship of gods etc. enjoined therein being endowed with faith; therefore, only the aforementioned (ignorant ones) are grasped here in 'those who casting aside scriptural injunction sacrifice endowed with faith'.

'Tesham' (Of those) -- of such people -- 'nishtha tu ka' (what indeed is the status), O Krishna? 'Sattvam aho rajah tamah' -- Is 'Sattva' the 'Nishtha' (standing/state)? Or 'Rajas'? Or 'Tamas'? This is what is meant -- Is their worship concerning gods etc. Sattvic? Or Rajasic? Or Tamasic?

This question is general in subject; it does not deserve an answer without dividing (the subject); thinking thus, the Blessed Lord said -- The Blessed Lord said --

At the end of the previous chapter, by 'He who casting aside scriptural injunction acts out of impulse of desire; he does not attain success, nor happiness, nor the supreme goal' [16.23], it was stated that for one acting out of spontaneous/willful faith by casting aside scriptural injunction, there is no success in the form of attainment of knowledge of the Truth to be attained, through the statement of Divine and Demoniac division;

there Arjuna asks -- Arjuna said -- 'Ye shastravidhim utsrijya' (Those who casting aside scriptural injunction...), etc.

Abandoning it, they act endowed with faith designated by the word 'kamakara' (impulse of desire); what is their 'Nishtha' (status), O Karshaka (Krishna)? Is it Sattva, 'Aho' (or) Rajas, Tamas? Meaning, is that 'Nishtha' of theirs related to Sattva, or related to Rajas and Tamas; this is the purport of the question.

ये who? शास्त्रविधिम् the ordinances of the scriptures? उत्सृज्य setting aside? यजन्ते perform sacrifice? श्रद्धया with faith? अन्विताः endowed? तेषाम् their? निष्ठा condition? तु verily? का what? कृष्ण O Krishna? सत्त्वम् Sattva? आहो or? रजः Rajas? तमः Tamas.Commentary This chapter deals with the three kinds of people who are endowed with three kinds of faith. Each of them follows a path in accordance with his inherent nature -- either Sattvic? Rajasic or Tamasic.Arjuna says to Krishna It is very difficult to grasp the meaning of the scriptures. It is still more difficult to get a spiritual preceptor who can teach the scriptures. The vast majority of persons are not endowed with a pure? subtle? sharp and onepointed intellect. The span of life is short. The scriptures are endless. The obstacles on the spiritual path are many. Facilities for learning are not always available.There are conflicting statements in the scriptures which have to be reconciled. Thou hast said that liberation is not possible without a knowledge of the scriptures. An ordinary man? though ignorant of or unable to follow this teaching? does charity? performs rituals? worships the Lord with faith? tries to follow the footsteps of sages and saints just as a child copies letters that have been written out for him as a model? or as a blind man makes hiw way by the aid of another who possesses sight. What faith is his How should the state of such a man be described -- Sattvic? Rajasic or Tamasic What is the fate of the believers who have no knowledge of the scriptures

Tu, but; of Krsna, ka, what; is the nistha, state; tesam, of those-whosoever they may be; ye, who; being anvitah, endued; sraddhaya, with faith, with the idea that there is something hereafter; yajante, adore gods and others; utsriya, by ignoring, setting aside; sastra-vidhim, the unjunctions of the scriptures, the injunctions of the Vedas and the Smrtis? Is the state of those who are such sattvam, sattva; aho, or; rajah, rajas; or tamah, tamas? This is what is meant: Does the adoration of gods and others that they undertake come under the category of sattva or rajas or tamas?
By 'those who, endued with faith, adore by ignoring the injunctions of the scriptures' are here meant those who, not finding any injunction which can be characterized as 'enjoined by the Vedas' 'or enjoined by the Smrtis', worship gods and others by merely observing the conduct of their elders. But, on the other hand, those who, though aware of some scriptural injunction, discard them and worship the gods and others in ways contrary to the injunctions, are not meant here by 'those who, ignoring scriptural injunctions, adore৷৷.'
Why?
Because of the alifying phrase, 'being endued with faith'. For, it cannot be imagined that even when they are aware of some scriptural injunction about worship of gods and others, they discard this out of their faithlessness, and yet they engage in the worship of gods and others enjoined by those scriptures by becoming imbued with faith! Therefore, by 'those who, endued with faith, adore by ignoring the injunctions of the scriptures' are here meant those very ones mentioned earlier.
An answer to this estion relating to a general topic cannot be given without splitting it up. Hence,-

Arjuna said Those who, 'filled with faith but laying aside the injunctions of the Sastras,' engage themselves in sacrifices etc., what is their 'position or basis'? It is Sattva, Rajas or Tamas? Nistha means Sthiti. What is called Sthiti is that state in which one abides, has one's position or basis. Do they abide in Sattva, in Rajas or in Tamas? Such is the meaning of the estion.
Thus estioned, the Lord, for affirming the futility of faith and of sacrifices not enjoined in the Sastras, and in order to show that the triple division in accordance with the Gunas refers only to sacrifices etc., enjoined in the Sastras - expounds here the threefold nature of faith enjoined in the Sastras: