Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 18 - Shloka (Verse) 10

न द्वेष्ट्यकुशलं कर्म -- जो शास्त्रविहित शुभकर्म फलकी कामनासे किये जाते हैं और परिणाममें जिनसे पुनर्जन्म होता है (गीता 2। 42 -- 44 9। 20 -- 21) तथा जो शास्त्रनिषिद्ध पापकर्म हैं और परिणाममें जिनसे नीच योनियों तथा नरकोंमें जाना पड़ता है (गीता 16। 7 -- 20)? वे सबकेसब कर्म अकुशल कहलाते हैं। साधक ऐसे अकुशल कर्मोंका त्याग तो करता है? पर द्वेषपूर्वक नहीं। कारण कि द्वेषपूर्वक त्याग करनेसे कर्मोंसे तो सम्बन्ध छूट जाता है? पर द्वेषके साथ सम्बन्ध जुड़ जाता है? जो शास्त्रविहित काम्यकर्मोंसे तथा शास्त्रनिषिद्ध पापकर्मोंसे भी भयंकर है।कुशले नानुषज्जते -- शास्त्रविहित कर्मोंमें भी जो वर्ण? आश्रम? परिस्थिति आदिके अनुसार नियत हैं और जो आसक्ति तथा फलेच्छाका त्याग करके किये जाते हैं तथा परिणाममें जिनसे मुक्ति होती है? ऐसे सभी कर्म कुशल कहलाते हैं। साधक ऐसे कुशल कर्मोंको करते हुए भी उनमें आसक्त नहीं होता।त्यागी -- कुशल कर्मोंके करनेमें जिसका राग नहीं होता और अकुशल कर्मोंके त्यागमें जिसका द्वेष नहीं होता? वही असली त्यागी है (टिप्पणी प0 878)। परन्तु वह त्याग पूर्णतया तब सिद्ध होता है? जब कर्मोंको करने अथवा न करनेसे अपनेमें कोई फरक न पड़े अर्थात् निरन्तर निर्लिप्तता बनी रहे (गीता 3। 18 4। 18)। ऐसा होनेपर साधक योगारूढ़ हो जाता है (गीता 6। 4)।मेधावी -- जिसके सम्पूर्ण कार्य साङ्गोपाङ्ग होते हैं और संकल्प तथा कामनासे रहित होते हैं तथा ज्ञानरूप अग्निसे जिसने सम्पूर्ण कर्मोंको भस्म कर दिया है? उसे पण्डित भी पण्डित (मेधावी अथवा बुद्धिमान्) कहते हैं (गीता 4। 19)। कारण कि कर्मोंको करते हुए भी कर्मोंसे लिपायमान न होना बड़ी बुद्धिमत्ता है।इसी मेधावीको चौथे अध्यायके अठारहवें श्लोकमें स बुद्धिमान्मनुष्येषु पदोंसे सम्पूर्ण मनुष्योंमें बुद्धिमान् बताया गया है।छिन्नसंशयः -- उस त्यागी पुरुषमें कोई सन्देह नहीं रहता। तत्त्वमें अभिन्नभावसे स्थित रहनेके कारण उसमें किसी तरहका संदेह रहनेकी सम्भावना ही नहीं रहती। सन्देह तो वहीं रहता है? जहाँ अधूरा ज्ञान होता है अर्थात् कुछ जानते हैं और कुछ नहीं जानते।सत्त्वसमाविष्टः -- आसक्ति आदिका त्याग होनेसे उसकी अपने स्वरूपमें? चिन्मयतामें स्वतः स्थिति हो जाती है। इसलिये उसे सत्त्वसमाविष्टः कहा गया है। इसीको पाँचवें अध्यायके उन्नीसवें श्लोकमें तस्माद्ब्रह्मणि ते,स्थिताः पदोंसे परमात्मामें स्थित बताया गया है। सम्बन्ध -- कर्मोंको करनेमें राग न हो और छोड़नेमें द्वेष न हो -- इतनी झंझट क्यों की जाय कर्मोंका सर्वथा ही त्याग क्यों न कर दिया जाय -- इस शङ्काको दूर करनेके लिये आगेका श्लोक कहते हैं।

विशुद्ध और प्रसन्न अन्तःकरण ही आध्यात्मिक विषयकी आलोचनामें समर्थ होता है। अतः इस प्रकार नित्यकर्मोंके अनुष्ठानसे जिसका अन्तःकरण विशुद्ध हो गया है एवं जो आत्मज्ञानके अभिमुख है? उसकी उस आत्मज्ञानमें जिस प्रकार क्रमसे स्थिति होती है? वह कहनी है? इसलिये कहते हैं --, अकुशल -- काम्यकर्मोंसे ( वह ) द्वेष नहीं करता अर्थात् काम्यकर्म पुनर्जन्म देनेवाले होनेके कारण संसारके कारण हैं? इनसे मुझे क्या प्रयोजन है? इस प्रकार उससे द्वेष नहीं करता। कुशलशुभनित्यकर्मोंमें आसक्त नहीं होता। अर्थात् अन्तःकरणकी शुद्धि? ज्ञानकी उत्पत्ति और उसमें स्थितिके हेतु होनेसे नित्यकर्म मोक्षके कारण हैं? इस प्रकार उनमें आसक्त नहीं होता। यानी उनमें भी अपना कोई प्रयोजन न देखकर प्रीति नहीं करता। वह कौन है त्यागी? जो कि पूर्वोक्त आसक्ति और फलके त्यागसे सम्पन्न है अर्थात् कर्मोंमें आसक्ति और उनका फल छोड़कर नित्यकर्मोंका अनुष्ठान करनेवाला है? ऐसा त्यागी। ऐसा पुरुष किस अवस्थामें? काम्यकर्मोंसे द्वेष नहीं करता और नित्यकर्मोंमें आसक्त नहीं होता सो कहते हैं -- जब कि वह सात्त्विक भावसे युक्त होता है। अर्थात् आत्मअनात्मविषयक विवेकज्ञानके हेतुस्वरूप सत्त्वगुणसे भरपूर -- भली प्रकार व्याप्त होता है। इसीलिये वह मेधावी है अर्थात् आत्मज्ञानरूप बुद्धिसे युक्त है। मेधावी होनेके कारण ही छिन्नसंशय है -- अविद्याजनित संशयसे रहित है। अर्थात् आत्मस्वरूपमें स्थित हो जाना ही परम कल्याणका साधन है? और कुछ नहीं? इस निश्चयके कारण संशयरहित हो चुका है। जो अधिकारी पुरुष? पूर्वोंक्त प्रकारसे कर्मयोगके अनुष्ठानद्वारा क्रमसे विशुद्धान्तःकरण होकर? जन्मादि विकारोंसे रहित और क्रियारहित आत्माको भली प्रकार अपना स्वरूप समझ गया है? वह समस्त कर्मोंको मनसे त्यागकर न कुछ करता और न कराता हुआ रहनेवाला ( आत्मज्ञानी ) निष्कर्मतारूप ज्ञाननिष्ठाको भोगता है। इस प्रकार इस श्लोकद्वारा यह पूर्वोक्त कर्मयोगका फल बतलाया गया है।

Thus having refuted the contradiction between earlier and later, he states the purport of the subsequent verse — 'Yastu'. By words like 'desire for fruit etc.', attachment to the nature of action is grasped. The word break is 'antaḥkaraṇam akaluṣīkriyamāṇam' (mind being made unpolluted). Doubting what happens in a pure mind, he says — 'Viśuddham'. Being devoid of dirt is purity; being purified is clarity — this is the difference.

'Gradually' — means through repetition of hearing (Shravana) etc. 'Tanniṣṭhā' — establishment in Self-knowledge is stated.

Regarding Kamya action, because it is to be abandoned, he acts out aversion — 'Kimiti'. He does not harbor aversion and affection in both — thus having stated the agent generally, he specifies him preceded by a question — 'Kaḥ punaḥ'. He reveals the 'Tyagi' mentioned as 'Tyagi' — 'Pūrvoktena'. Means by abandonment of attachment in action and its fruit. He explains the very mentioned Tyagi — 'Yaḥ karmaṇi'. The connection is 'abandoning its fruit'. He does not hate Kamya and prohibited action thinking 'it is cause of bondage'; and does not delight in Nitya and Naimittika thinking 'it is cause of liberation'.

There he asks the specific time — 'Kadā'. Of one whose sins are destroyed by Nitya etc. actions devoid of desire for fruit, the Sattva — capacity to grasp reality — is awakened; by that, in the state of absorption, the absence of said affection and aversion occurs, he says — 'Ucyate'. 'Ataeva' — because of being absorbed in the awakened capacity to grasp reality, this is the meaning. He clarifies the state of doubts being cut — 'Ātmā'. The supreme good and its means is right knowledge alone — this is the construction.

He briefly restates the meaning said by the verse 'Na dveṣṭi' etc. — 'Yo'dhikṛtaḥ'. 'Pūrvoktaprakāreṇa' — means by abandonment of attachment in action and its fruit. Having become purified-self by performance of Karma-Yoga, gradually through performance of hearing etc., the immutable Brahman is 'saṃbuddhaḥ' (realized) as the inner Self — this is the connection.

He states the reason for actionlessness of the Supreme — 'Janmādi'. He shows the partaking of liberation by the one possessing said knowledge through renunciation of all actions — 'Sa sarva'.

Thus having stated Sattvic abandonment, he who is qualified and performs action abandoning attachment and desire for fruit, becoming purified-self by performance of such action, being well-awakened to the Self as actionless due to being devoid of modifications like birth etc., renouncing all actions mentally, neither acting nor causing to act, seated, attains establishment in knowledge characterized by actionlessness — He states this purpose of the previously mentioned Karma Yoga — 'Na dveṣṭi'.

The 'Tyāgī' — possessing aforementioned abandonment of attachment and fruit, performer of Nitya action — when he is 'sattvasamāviṣṭaḥ'; mind being unpolluted by attachment and fruit through performance of action abandoning attachment and desire for fruit, and being purified by Nitya actions, pure, with Sattva awakened, possessed of discriminative knowledge of Self and non-Self — here 'Sattva' is to be grasped; 'samāviṣṭaḥ' — fully pervaded, united with that — is the meaning. Therefore 'medhāvī' — Medha is wisdom characterized by knowledge of Brahman and Self, he who has that is Medhāvī. Being Medhāvī, therefore 'Establishment in nature of Brahman-Self alone is the supreme means to highest good, not anything else' — by this determination his doubt created by ignorance is cut, he is 'chinnasaṃśayaḥ'; 'Knowing Him alone one goes beyond death, there is no other path for going', 'The knot of heart is broken, all doubts are cut, and his actions perish when He, the higher and lower, is seen' — from this Shruti.

He then does not hate 'akuśalam' — un-auspicious, Kamya and prohibited action — 'n dveṣṭi'. Thinking 'Kamya etc. actions are cause of Samsara through beginning of body etc., so what use with this' — thus he does not harbor aversion. In 'kuśale' — in auspicious Nitya action which is cause of liberation through purification of mind etc. — 'na anuṣajjate'. Thinking 'It is cause of liberation through purification of Sattva, rise of knowledge and establishment in that, so by this my purpose will be achieved' — he does not harbor 'anuṣaṅga' — attachment, affection, this is the meaning.

He states the characteristic of one established in such Sattvic abandonment — 'Sattvasamāviṣṭaḥ' Sattvic Tyagi does not hate 'akuśalam' — painful action like morning bath in winter etc.; and in 'kuśale' — pleasurable action like midday bath in summer etc. — 'na anuṣajjate' — does not harbor affection. The reason there is — 'medhāvī' — steady intellect. Where even great pain like insult by others etc. is endured and happiness like heaven etc. is abandoned, there how much is this temporary happiness and pain — possessing such contemplation, this is the meaning. Therefore 'chinnasaṃśayaḥ' — false knowledge, characterized by desire to take and desire to abandon bodily pleasure and pain, is cut, whose — he, thus 'Apare' (others) say.

'Itare' (others) however — He is 'Tyāgī' — performer of Sattvic abandonment. The word 'tu' indicates distinction from performer of Tamasic and Rajasic abandonment. 'Akuśalam' — the undiscriminating, ignorant of talks of liberation, proud of body; therefore intolerant of performance of action for the purpose of mind purification, saying 'why do you do this action' or 'do you abandon action supporting son and wife' — such a prattler — 'na dveṣṭi' — 'fie on you, go away' — such aversion in form of gesture he does not do, this is the meaning. And in 'karmakuśale' — skilled in performance of Nitya and Naimittika action, possessing abandonment of fruit attached only to that, equal to himself — 'na anuṣajjate' — 'gives, takes, tells secret, asks, eats, feeds — sixfold sign of love' — said attachment he does not do.

Objection: Due to seeing both signs in him, why not doubt only? Therefore said 'chinnasaṃśayaḥ' — free from doubt. There itself states reason — 'medhāvī'. Possessing retention of determination of acceptance. Whence this determination of his? To this said 'asamāviṣṭaḥ' (samāviṣṭaḥ?). In 'asame' — in fruit of nature of unsurpassed bliss unequal to other perishable fruits — 'āviṣṭaḥ' — desirous; therefore possessing such characteristic, pervaded Tyagi, primary Sattvic Tyagi, Sannyasi, this is the meaning.

Thus having stated secondary Sattvic abandonment, He states the primary — 'Na dveṣṭi', fully pervaded by Sattva, Tyagi, primary Sattvic Tyagi, Sannyasi, this is the meaning. 'Akuśalam' — unhappy action in form of effort like three-time bath, fourfold cleanliness, begging alms etc. — does not hate. In 'kuśale' — in eating sweet food etc. — 'na anuṣajjate' — does not harbor affection. Or in 'karmakuśale' — in disciple etc. skilled in service etc. — does not attach; there 'akuśalam' or him [disciple] does not hate. By this his voidness of attachment and aversion is shown. That too whence? In this expectation He says — 'medhāvī'. Wise in discrimination of eternal and non-eternal objects etc. due to skill in reasoning. By this, distinction from Tamasic abandonment stated as 'Abandonment of that from delusion' [is shown]. Because of being Medhavi, 'chinnasaṃśayaḥ' — free from doubt whether actions alone are means to liberation or Sannyasa alone. By this, distinction from secondary Sattvic abandonment stated as 'It is duty indeed' is shown. By 'Tyāgī', distinction from non-abandonment stated as 'Sacrifice charity'; by first half, distinction from Rajasic abandonment stated as 'Body' (bodily trouble) — thus 'Anye' (others) say. Compared to the explanation given by the Acharya (Shankara?), the greater naturalness in the three cited explanations is to be considered.

Thus having stated primary Sattvic abandonment, He states the secondary one — 'Na dveṣṭi'. Fully pervaded by Sattva, Tyagi, primary Sattvic Tyagi, Sannyasi, this is the meaning. 'Akuśalam' — unhappy action in form of effort like three-time bath, fourfold cleanliness, begging alms etc. — does not hate. In 'kuśale' — in eating sweet food etc. — 'na anuṣajjate' — does not harbor affection. Or in 'karmakuśale' — in disciple etc. skilled in service etc. — does not attach; there 'akuśalam' or him [disciple] does not hate. By this his voidness of attachment and aversion is shown.

That too whence? In this expectation He says — 'medhāvī'. Wise in discrimination of eternal and non-eternal objects etc. due to skill in reasoning. Therefore 'chinnasaṃśayaḥ' — free from doubt whether actions alone are means to liberation or Sannyasa alone.

And thus by 'Tyāgī', distinction from non-abandonment stated as 'Sacrifice, charity, austerity action not to be abandoned' [is shown]. By 'medhāvī', distinction from Tamasic abandonment stated as 'Abandonment of that from delusion' [is shown]. By first half stating absence of attachment and aversion, distinction from Rajasic abandonment stated as 'Abandons out of fear of bodily trouble' [is shown]. By 'chinnasaṃśayaḥ', distinction from secondary Sattvic abandonment stated as 'Whatever action is duty indeed' [is shown].

For he (secondary Tyagi) does not know the trivality of actions and the great fortune of Sannyasa in truth. If he knew, he would not stay in actions even for a moment. For one seeking relief from burning, knowing the great pool of Jahnavi (Ganga) standing nearby, would not delight even for a moment in a puddle with water heated by summer heat. The reason for cutting of doubt is also 'sattvasamāviṣṭaḥ'. Because the agent is fully pervaded by Sattva only, not that he has resorted to Sattva — this is a great difference.

Thus pervaded by Sattva, Medhavi, possessing knowledge of reality as it is, therefore free from doubt, abandoner of attachment, fruit and agency in action, 'na dveṣṭi akuśalaṃ karma' (does not hate inauspicious action) and 'kuśale ca karmaṇi na anuṣajjate' (does not get attached in auspicious action).

'Akuśala' action is of undesirable fruit; and 'kuśala' action is of desirable fruit like heaven, son, cattle, food etc.; being devoid of mineness in all action, having abandoned all fruits other than Brahman, and having abandoned agency, when those two are being performed, he does not harbor affection and aversion.

Sinful action of undesirable fruit is intended here as 'accidental' (prāmādikam); 'Not one not desisted from bad conduct, not unpeaceful, not uncomposed. Nor one with unpeaceful mind can obtain Him by wisdom' [Katha Up. 1.2.24] — because non-desistance from bad conduct is heard to be opposed to the rise of knowledge.

Therefore, abandonment of agency, attachment, and fruits in action is the Scriptural abandonment, not abandonment of the nature of action. He states that —

He states the characteristic of one established in such Sattvic abandonment — 'Na dveṣṭi'.

'Sattvasamāviṣṭaḥ' — fully pervaded by Sattva; the Sattvic Tyagi does not hate 'akuśalam' — painful action like morning bath in winter etc.; and in 'kuśale' — pleasurable action like midday bath in summer etc. — 'na anuṣajjate' — does not harbor affection.

The reason there is: 'medhāvī' — steady intellect. Where even great pain like insult by others etc. is endured and happiness like heaven etc. is abandoned, there how much is this temporary happiness and pain — possessing such contemplation, this is the meaning.

Therefore 'chinnasaṃśayaḥ' — false knowledge, characterized by desire to take and desire to abandon bodily pleasure and pain, is cut, whose — he.

Of one endowed with Scriptural abandonment rooted in Sattva etc. — 'Sattvic mood prevails so one should disregard', 'Then seated like one indifferent' [14.23] etc. well-known characteristic of absence of modification is stated — by the verse 'Na dveṣṭi'. By that, the being rooted in Sattva of the abandonment of said characteristic is also established. There, interpreting in a different order due to propriety of cause-and-effect sequence — 'Sattvasamāviṣṭa' etc.

'Dhi (intellect) capable of retention is Medha' [Amara 1.5.2] — thus say lexicographers. And Shruti — 'May Medha and Manisha enter me properly for obtaining past and future' [Aranya 5.42]. Therefore, from non-deviation and non-mixture regarding meanings taught by teachers, he states the resultant — 'Yathāvasthitatattvajñāna' (Knowledge of reality as it is).

Here by words Kushala and Akushala synonymous with auspicious and inauspicious, there is restatement of the cause of aversion and attachment being prohibited, with this intention is the statement of 'undesirable fruit' etc.

He explains the causeness of the abandonment mentioned as 'Tyāgī' — by 'Sarvasmin' etc. Just as regarding another's action performed by another, due to lack of one's connection, by certainty of absence of obstructors etc. there is absence of aversion etc.; so here also — this is the intention. Because in the state of non-performance there is no occasion for joy and aversion, it is said 'kriyamāṇayoḥ' (while being performed).

Objection: 'Does not get attached to Kushala' is proper; by mere detachment from heaven etc. even in performance of Kamya, due to scripture of non-connection with fruit. But 'Does not hate Akushala action' is contradictory? Because connection with fruit of prohibited [actions] exists only when there is absence of attachment to fruit? Otherwise there would be contingency of absence of sin anywhere. For hell etc. would not be desirable for anyone. Thus even in causes of seen sin, non-aversion is not proper — here the refutation is stated by being subject of 'accidental' (prāmādika).

Objection: In a specific qualified person, why should there not be non-taint by sinful actions even if done willfully? To this he says — 'Na avirata' (Not desisted).

Connecting the meaning of this verse as the cause in context, he concludes the supreme subject — 'Ataḥ'.

पूर्व श्लोक में भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण ने यह कहा था कि सात्त्विक पुरुष अपने नियत कर्मों को? केवल कर्तव्य समझकर फलासक्ति को त्यागकर? करता है। प्रथम दृष्टि में? सामान्य पुरुष को त्याग का यह सिद्धांत असंभव ही प्रतीत होगा। संभवत अर्जुन के मुख पर कुछ इसी प्रकार के आश्चर्य भाव को देखकर? भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण इस श्लोक में सात्त्विक पुरुष का और अधिक स्पष्ट चित्रण करते हैं।सामान्य अज्ञानी जन अतिरेकी स्वभाव के होते हैं। वे जगत् को यथार्थ रूप में कभी नहीं देखते। जगत् की वस्तुओं को वे अपने राग द्वेष से रंजित दृष्टि से देखते हैं। तत्पश्चात्? वे अपनी प्रिय वस्तु को पाने का प्रयत्न करते हैं और अप्रिय को त्यागने के लिए परिश्रम करते हैं। इसके लिए वे शुभाशुभ कर्मों की चिन्ता नहीं करते। प्रिय वस्तु को प्राप्त कराने वाले कर्म में उनकी आसक्ति हो जाती है और अन्य कर्म से द्वेष। इसके परिणामस्वरूप? इष्ट की प्राप्ति पर उन्हें हर्षातिरेक होता है और अनिष्ट की प्राप्ति में वे विषाद के गर्त में गिर जाते हैं। ऐसे लोगों के अन्तकरण में काम? क्रोध? ईर्ष्या आदि अवगुणों का स्थायी निवास होता है। यदाकदा इनमें से कोई व्यक्ति धर्माचरण में प्रवृत्त भी होता है? तो अपने अतिरेकी स्वभाव के कारण धार्मिक कार्य में आसक्त हो जाता है और अन्य लोगों को पतित समझकर उन्हें हेय दृष्टि से देखता है परन्तु? सत्त्वगुणी पुरुष उपर्युक्त समस्त अवगुणों से मुक्त होता है। इसका कारण उसकी विकसित विवेक शक्ति है। आत्मानात्माविवेक के द्वारा वह यह भलीभांति जानता है कि शरीर? इन्द्रियाँ? मन और बुद्धि ये सब अनात्मा हैं तथा जन्ममरण? क्षुधातृषा और शोकमोह ये सब इनके ही धर्म हैं? न कि इन सब को प्रकाशित करने वाले साक्षी आत्मा के? इस ज्ञान के कारण वह अनात्म उपाधियों से तादात्म्य नहीं करता। इसी को यहाँ इस प्रकार कहा गया है कि वह अशुभ से द्वेष और शुभ से राग नहीं करता है। ऐसा पुरुष ही वास्तव में सुशिक्षित एवं सुसंस्कृत कहा जाता है। अन्य अविवेकी लोग तो शुष्क पर्ण के समान वायु की गति और दिशा के साथ इतस्तत भटकते रहते हैं। विवेकी पुरुष अपने मन का साक्षी बनकर रहता है? जबकि अविवेकी लोग? त्याग के अभाव में? अपने मन की वृत्तियों के साथ तादात्म्य करके दुख भोगते रहते हैं।किसी भी वस्तु के यथार्थ स्वरूप को समझने तथा मिथ्या का त्याग करने के लिए अपने नित्य और पूर्ण स्वरूप का बोध आवश्यक है। वस्तुओं को समझने तथा युक्तियुक्त विचार करने की बुद्धि की इस क्षमता को मेधा शक्ति कहते हैं। केवल इतना ही नहीं? वरन् प्राप्त ज्ञान को धारण एवं आवश्यकतानुसार स्मरण करने की क्षमता भी मेधा ही है। इस शक्ति से सम्पन्न पुरुष मेधावी कहा जाता है। ऐसे मेधावी पुरुष क ो निम्नलिखित तत्त्वों का स्पष्टत ज्ञान होता है (1) अपना कर्मक्षेत्र? (2) वे उपाधियां जिनके द्वारा वह जगत् से सम्पर्क करता है? (3) अपना शुद्ध आनन्द स्वरूप? और (4) जगत् से अपना संबंध। यह मेधावी पुरुष संशय रहित (छिन्न संशय) होता है? क्योंकि वस्तु के अपूर्ण ज्ञान से ही संशय उत्पन्न हो सकता है? अन्यथा नहीं।इसमें कोई सन्देह नहीं कि ऐसे सात्त्विक त्यागी पुरुष जगत् में विरले ही होते हैं। बहुसंख्यक लोग तो अपनी देहादि उपाधियों के साथ तादात्म्य स्थापित करके स्वयं को कर्म का कर्ता मानते हैं और तब उन्हें कर्मफल भोगने के लिए बाध्य होना ही पड़ता है।जो अज्ञानी पुरुष कर्तृत्व के अभिमान तथा देहासक्ति को त्याग नहीं पाता है? उसको कम से कम कर्म फल त्याग करना चाहिए। भगवान् कहते हैं

So right here, to decide the specific [truth], He presents the views — 'Tyājyam' etc. 'Doshavat' — possessing sin due to having violence etc. 'Tat' action is to be abandoned; not all [action] which has good fruit — thus some think there is a distinction in Tyaga, like those holding Sankhya views.

Others, entered into the garb of Mimamsakas... 'For the purpose of sacrifice [violence] is understood from scripture'. And by the logic 'Therefore that which is Vedic violence...' etc., violence which is part of the procedure is not violence at all. Because the general scripture 'Do not kill' is annulled there, Syena etc. only is violence. 'And the affix of the bhāvanā is compliant in the part of the fruit'. Therefore one should not abandon others even if connected with violence etc. Those who take refuge solely in scripture for division of what is to be done and not done think they are 'Pandits'.

But there, this is the determination — due to the variety of nature of Gunas defined before, of Tyaga itself being done by mental modification made of Sattva, Rajas, Tamas, appearing with that specific nature... in reality, Tyaga is the performance of actions by knowers of Supreme Brahman with equanimity in success and failure etc., by avoiding attachment and aversion, by lack of desire for fruit.

Therefore He says — having done Rajasic and Tamasic Tyaga, there is no connection with fruit [of Tyaga]. But from Sattvic Tyaga, the fruit is the protection of the meaning of scripture. Again, for the sage who has abandoned the grasp of the collection of Gunas, the statement of 'Tyaga' in truth is reasonable.

At first, He states the fruit of Sattvic abandonment as establishment in knowledge through purification of mind — 'Na dveṣṭi'. The 'Tyāgī' — endowed with Sattvic abandonment, performing enjoined actions for the purification of mind by abandoning attachment to agency and desire for fruit in the aforementioned manner; when he is 'sattvasamāviṣṭaḥ'

fully pervaded by Sattva which is the cause of discriminative knowledge of Self and non-Self, residing in the mind in excess, devoid of dirt of Rajas and Tamas which obstruct right knowledge, and entirely unfailing in result; meaning when his mind becomes purified by the impression characterized by removal of dirt of sin through performance of Nitya action offered to the Lord and characterized by instilling quality of merit constituting fitness for rise of knowledge; then 'medhāvī'

'Medhā' is indeed the knowledge of unity of Brahman and Self such as 'I am Brahman', having no object other than Consciousness, devoid of all doubts of invalidity, produced by the instrument of great Vedantic sentences, accomplished through inquiry into Vedanta sentences named 'Shravana' endowed with inherent auxiliaries like Shama, Dama, cessation of all actions, approaching Guru etc., and endowed with fruit-conferring auxiliaries named Manana and Nididhyasana; endowed constantly with that (Medha), he is 'Medhāvī' — one of steady wisdom;

then 'chinnasaṃśayaḥ' — upon the destruction of its nescience by the Medha in the form of knowledge 'I am Brahman', he becomes devoid of its effects, doubt and error; then due to actions being exhausted, he does not hate 'akuśalam karma' — un-auspicious, Kamya or prohibited action — does not regard it as unfavorable? In 'kuśale' — auspicious, Nitya action, he does not attach — does not harbor affection? Because of being one who has accomplished his purpose due to being devoid of pride of agency etc.

And so the Shruti: 'The knot of the heart is broken, all doubts are cut off. And his actions perish when He, the higher and lower, is seen'. Since such is the fruit of Sattvic abandonment, therefore even with great effort that alone is to be accepted, this is the meaning.

Objection: Abandoning attachment and fruit, whatever action one performs, how is its nature as abandonment and Sattvic quality accomplished? Doubting thus, He says — 'Na dveṣṭi'.

'Akuśalam' — by nature productive of trouble etc. and subsequently of the nature of obtaining pain — such (action) he does not hate? But because it is in the form of the Lord's command, by doing it again at that time, therefore it happens. 'Kuśale' — even being happy from the collection of performed actions — by knowledge of its excellence being distinct from My command, 'sattvasamāviṣṭaḥ' — possessing patience of the nature of Sattva — 'na anuṣajjate' — does not become attached, this is the meaning.

The reason therein is — 'medhāvī' — intelligent? 'Chinnasandeha' — he who is devoid of aversion and attachment in actions due to knowledge of pleasure and pain etc. by My will alone, he is to be known as Tyagi, this is the meaning.

'Na dveṣṭi' — Akuśalam — inauspicious Kamya action; cause of Samsara through beginning of body; 'what use with this' — thus [he does not hate]. In 'kuśale' — in auspicious Nitya action; 'this is cause of liberation due to being cause of purity of Sattva, rise of knowledge, and establishment in That' — thus 'na anuṣajjate' — does not harbor attachment — affection; this is [the meaning].

Who then is this Tyagi? Possessing the aforementioned abandonment of attachment and fruit is Tyagi? He who abandoning attachment in action and its fruit performs Nitya action, he is Tyagi. When then does he not hate inauspicious action? And does not get attached to auspicious? It is said —

'Sattvasamāviṣṭaḥ' — when by 'Sattva' — by the cause of discriminative knowledge of Self and non-Self — he is 'samāviṣṭaḥ' — fully pervaded; united — this is [the meaning]. Therefore also 'medhāvī' — united with Medha — with wisdom characterized by Self-knowledge; possessor of that is Medhavi. Due to being Medhavi alone 'chinnasaṃśayaḥ' — whose doubt created by ignorance is cut; standing in the nature of Self alone is the supreme means to highest good, not anything else — by such determination is he free from doubt.

The qualified person who, becoming purified-self gradually by performance of Karma Yoga in the aforementioned manner, having fully realized the actionless Self as the Self due to being devoid of modifications like birth etc., he renouncing all actions mentally [5.13], neither acting nor causing to act, seated, attains establishment in knowledge characterized by actionlessness — this purpose of previously mentioned Karma Yoga is stated by this very verse.

But he who being qualified, due to having pride of body as Self is 'Dehabhṛt' — ignorant, having uncontradicted knowledge of agency of Self is of determined intellect 'I am the doer', for him since abandonment of all actions is impossible, his qualification is only in performance of enjoined action by abandoning fruit of action, not in its abandonment — to show this meaning He says —

He states the characteristic of such a person — 'Na dveṣṭi'. The Sattva-pervaded Tyagi, intelligent, regarding 'akuśalam' — action of undesirable fruit; and in 'kuśale' — action of desirable fruit like heaven etc. — 'na anuṣajjate' (does not get attached); because of having fruit other than the abandoned Self-happiness; and because of having abandoned agency.

Here 'akuśala' action is stated intending the inadvertent one. 'Not one not desisted from bad conduct, not unpeaceful, not uncomposed. Nor one with unpeaceful mind can obtain Him by wisdom' [Katho. 2.24; Na. Pa. 9.19; Maho. 4.69] — thus because of hearing of non-attainment of Self-happiness even by knowledge for the inadvertent one not desisted from bad conduct. Therefore, abandonment of agency, attachment, and fruits in action is Scriptural? But not abandonment by nature — thus.

He states that — 'Na hi'. 'Na hi' — by one bearing a body, actions can be abandoned entirely — in this sense 'śakyam' is an indeclinable. Because actions like eating, drinking etc. for sustaining the body and those connected with it are unavoidable; and for that sake great sacrifices etc. action is also unavoidable indeed.

There, he who is abandoner of fruit in those actions like sacrifice etc. — 'fruit' is an indicator of agency and mineness also — he alone is called 'Tyāgī' in 'By Tyaga alone some attained immortality' [Mahana. 8.14; Kaiva. 2].

न not? द्वेष्टि hates? अकुशलम् disagreeable? कर्म action? कुशले to an agreeable one? न not? अनुषज्जते is attached? त्यागी the abandoner? सत्त्वसमाविष्टः pervaded by purity? मेधावी intelligent? छिन्नसंशयः with his doubts cut asunder.Commentary All actions are eally welcome to the man of renunciation. He is not affected by either pleasure or pain. He is not elated at performing pleasant actions nor does he find unpleasantness when he does disagreeable actions. He does not hate the latter? nor is he attached to the former. Neither has he aversion to painful actions nor attraction to pleasant ones. As he has no attachment to any action or its rewards? he will do any action for the welfare of all beings.Akusalam Karma Disagreeable work or work done with expectation of reward? which becomes the cause of bondage to Samsara? by producing a body. He does not hate an unpleasnt action? thinking? Of what use is itKusale To good ones which include obligatory daily duties. He has no attachment to them even with the notion that they lead to salvation by purifying the heart and conseently giving rise to the dawn of knowledge and devotion to it.When one abandons attachment to action and desire for its reward and performs actions vigorously? his heart is filled with Sattva or purity which produces discrimination between the Real and the unreal? the Eternal and the transient. Then he attains knowledge of the Self which dispels all the doubts caused by ignorance. He now realises that the only means of attaining the spureme bliss or eternal peace or immortality is knowledge of the Self. This rends asunder all his doubts. What is the nature of doubt Does Brahman exist or not Do the Upanishads deal with Saguna Brahman or Nirguna Brahman Is the individual soul identical with the Supreme Being or not Will I be able to realise the Self or not Will any of the Karmas (Prarabdha? Sanchita and Agami) affect me Does this Samsara whose nature is the feelings I do this and I enjoy this belong to the Self or to the mind and intellect What are the means for liberation -- Yoga? devotion? Karma or knowledge of the Self What is Moksha Is it Selfrealisation or the attainment of the Salokya? Samipya? Sarupya and Sayujya states (dwelling in the kingdom of God? proximity to Him? assuming the same form as the Lord and merging in Him)When a man practises Karma Yoga he gets purity of heart and through purity of heart knows himself to be the immutable actionless Self Who is destitute of birth? or remains without acting or causing others to act (Cf.V.13). He attains devotion to the knowledge of the Self and freedom from all actions. The purpose of the Karma Yoga described above has been taught in this verse.Medhavi He who is endowed or united with wisdom. He is a Sthitaprajna. What is Medha? then It is the immediate knowledge of the identity of the individual soul and the Supreme Being by meditation on the right significance of the great sentence (I am Brahman or That thou art)? which,is free from the three kinds of doubts? viz.? Samsaya Bhavana (doubt)? Asambhavana (improbability) and Viparitabhavana (perversion)? and by the practice of the four means and service of the Guru (who is versed in the scriptures and established in Brahman) and hearing the truths from him.Such a Medhavi will not think that prohibited actions which bind an ignorant man will be unfavourable to him. He will never think that they will bind him if he has to perform them? because he is above good and evil? virtue and vice? right and wrong. He has no idea of agency (Kartritva Abhimana) he feels that he is a Kritakritya? one who has accomplished all actions.This does not mean that he will do wrong actions. As his will is one with the cosmic will? whatever action he performs will be in accordance with the scriptures. He will never deviate even a fraction of an inch from the rules of the scriptures. The Lord alone works through his mind and senses as he has no individual will.RagaDvesha (likes and dislikes) are the motives that induce a worldly man to actions. As they are absent in a sage or a Medhavi? he can renounce the fruits of all actions and actions as well.As the ocean remains calm amidst stormy waves? even so a Sattvic man remains calm amidst adverse or stormy conditions of life. He recognises that the happenings of life are inevitable. He acts in a variety of ways but is not disturbed as he has a balanced and disciplined mind.There must be no hatred for unpleasant or disagreeable action that brings physical suffering? danger or unlucky results or untoward conseences? when it is the work that should be done. You will have to accept such work also with a willing heart and work with hear and soul. You must have a profound and comprehensive understanding of its need and meaning also. Arjuna failed to understand in the beginning the deep significance and need of the work given by the Lord. He brought in his own foolish philosophy. He failed to do his bounden duty because? due to ignorance? he thought it was an unpleasant or disagreeable action to kill people but in the end when his eyes were opened by the valuable teachings of the Lord? he understood the need and the meaning of the work although it appeared to him as disagreeable and unpleasant in the beginning? and said My illusion is destroyed. I have gained knowledge through Thy grace? O Krishna. I am firm? my doubts are gone. I will act according to Thy instructions.

Na devesti, he does not hate; akusalam, unbefitting; karma, action, rites and duties meant for desired results-with the idea, 'What is the usefulness of this which is a cause of transmigration through fresh embodiment?' Na anusajjate, he does not become attached to; kusale, befitting activity, daily obligatory duties, by thinking that this is the cause of Liberation by virtue of its being the cause of purification of the mind, rise of Knowledge and steadfastness in it. That is to say, he does not entertain any liking even for it, because he finds no purpose in it.
Who, again, is he? Tyagi, the man of renunciation, who has become so by having given up attachment and rewards of action in the manner stated above. He is a tyagi who performs nityakarmas by relinishing attachment to those acts and (their) results.
Again, it is being stated as to when that person does not hate an unbefitting act and does not become attached to a befitting activity: When he has become sattva-samavistah, imbued with sattva, i.e., when he is filled with, possessed of, sattva, which is the means to the knowledge that discriminates between the Self and the not-Self; and hence medhavi, wise-endowed with intelligence (medha), intuitive experience, characterized as knowledge of the Self; one possessed of that is medhavai (wise)-; and owing to the very fact of being wise, chinnasamsayah, freed from doubts-one whose doubts created by ignorance have been sundered, one who is freed from doubts by his firm conviction that nothing but abiding in the ture nature of the Self is the supreme means to the highest Good.
The person competent (for rites and duties) who, having gradually become purified in mind through the practice of Karma-yoga in the way described above, has realized as his own Self the actionless Self, which is devoid of modifications like birth etc., he, '৷৷.having given up all actions mentally, remaining at without doing or causing (others) to do anything at all' (cf. 5.13), attains steadfastness in Knowledge, which is characterized as 'actionless-ness'. In this way, the purpose of the aforesaid Karma-yoga has been stated through the present verse.
On the other hand, since, for the unenlightened person-who, while being alified (for rites and duties), holds on to the body owing to the erroneous conception that the body is the Self, and who has the firm conviction, 'I am the agent,' because of the persistence of his idea that the Self is the agent-it is not possible to renounce actions totally, therefore he has competence only for performing enjoined duties by giving up fruits of actions. But he is not to renounce them (actions). In order to point out this idea the Lord says:

Thus, 'filled with Sattva,' endowed with right knowledge, i.e., with the knowledge of the reality as it is, and as a conseence of it 'having all doubts shattered' - he alone becomes a renouncer of attachment to work and the fruits of work. He 'neither hates works productive of harmful effects,' nor 'loves others productive of worldly prosperity.' Disagreeable acts are fraught with undesirable fruits; and agreeable acts bring about desirable results such as heaven, sons, cows, food etc. On account of his renouncing all results other than the Brahman and on account of his renouncing the sense of agency, he shows neither love nor hatred for above-mentioned types of works. Here 'sinful acts having undesirable fruits' are only such acts as are inadvertently performed. For it has been taught in the Srutis that nor turning away from bad conduct is antagonistic to the production of knowledge. 'But one who has not ceased from bad conduct, who is not tranil, is not composed, is not of peaceful mind, cannot obtain Him by knowledge' (Ka. U., 1.2.24). Thus, 'the abandonment' according to the Sastras is renunciation of the sense of agency, attachment and fruits of actions, and not total relinishment of actions as such.
He explains this further: