Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 18 - Shloka (Verse) 13

पञ्चैतानि महाबाहो कारणानि -- हे महाबाहो जिसमें सम्पूर्ण कर्मोंका अन्त हो जाता है? ऐसे सांख्यसिद्धान्तमें सम्पूर्ण विहित और निषिद्ध कर्मोंके होनेमें पाँच हेतु बताये गये हैं। स्वयं (स्वरूप) उन कर्मोंमें हेतु नहीं है।निबोध मे -- इस अध्यायमें भगवान्ने जहाँ सांख्यसिद्धान्तका वर्णन आरम्भ किया है? वहाँ निबोध क्रियाका प्रयोग किया है (18। 13? 50)? जब कि दूसरी जगह श्रृणु क्रियाका प्रयोग किया है (18। 4? 19? 29? 36? 45? 64)। तात्पर्य यह है कि सांख्यसिद्धान्तमें तो निबोध पदसे अच्छी तरह समझनेकी बात कही है और दूसरी जगह श्रृणु पदसे सुननेकी बात कही है। अतः सांख्यसिद्धान्तको गहरी रीतिसे समझना चाहिये। अगर उसे अपनेआप (स्वयं) से गहरी रीतिसे समझा जाय? तो तत्काल तत्त्वका अनुभव हो जाता है।सांख्ये कृतान्ते प्रोक्तानि सिद्धये सर्वकर्मणाम् -- कर्म चाहे शास्त्रविहित हों? चाहे शास्त्रनिषिद्ध हों? चाहे शारीरिक हों? चाहे मानसिक हों? चाहे वाचिक हों? चाहे स्थूल हों और चाहे सूक्ष्म हों -- इन सम्पूर्ण कर्मोंकी सिद्धिके लिये पाँच हेतु कहे गये हैं। जब पुरुषका इन कर्मोंमें कर्तृत्व रहता है? तब कर्मसिद्धि और कर्मसंग्रह दोनों होते हैं? और जब पुरुषका इन कर्मोंके होनेमें कर्तृत्व नहीं रहता? तब कर्मसिद्धि तो होती है? पर कर्मसंग्रह नहीं होता? प्रत्युत क्रियामात्र होती है। जैसे? संसारमात्रमें परिवर्तन होता है अर्थात् नदियाँ बहती हैं? वायु चलती है? वृक्ष बढ़ते हैं? आदिआदि क्रियाएँ होती रहती है? परन्तु इन क्रियाओँसे कर्मसंग्रह नहीं होता अर्थात् ये क्रियाएँ पापपुण्यजनक अथवा बन्धनकारक नहीं होतीं। तात्पर्य यह हुआ कि कर्तृत्वाभिमानसे ही कर्मसिद्धि और कर्मसंग्रह होता है। कर्तृत्वाभिमान मिटनेपर क्रियामात्रमें अधिष्ठान? करण? चेष्टा और दैव -- ये चार हेतु ही होते हैं (गीता 18। 14)।यहाँ सांख्यसिद्धान्तका वर्णन हो रहा है। सांख्यसिद्धान्तमें विवेकविचारकी प्रधानता होती है? फिर भगवान्ने सर्वकर्मणां सिद्धये वाली कर्मोंकी बात यहाँ क्यों छेड़ी कारण कि अर्जुनके सामने युद्धका प्रसङ्ग है। क्षत्रिय होनेके नाते युद्ध उनका कर्तव्यकर्म है। इसलिये कर्मयोगसे अथवा सांख्ययोगसे ऐसे कर्म करने चाहिये? जिससे कर्म करते हुए भी कर्मोंसे सर्वथा निर्लिप्त रहे -- यह बात भगवान्को कहनी है। अर्जुनने सांख्यका तत्त्व पूछा है? इसलिये भगवान् सांख्यसिद्धान्तसे कर्म करनेकी बात कहना आरम्भ करते हैं।अर्जुन स्वरूपसे कर्मोंका त्याग करना चाहते थे अतः उनको यह समझाना था कि कर्मोंका ग्रहण और त्याग -- दोनों ही कल्याणमें हेतु नहीं हैं। कल्याणमें हेतु तो परिवर्तनशील नाशवान् प्रकृतिसे अपरिवर्तनशील अविनाशी अपने स्वरूपका सम्बन्धविच्छेद ही है। उस सम्बन्धविच्छेदकी दो प्रक्रियाएँ हैं -- कर्मयोग और सांख्ययोग। कर्मयोगमें तो फलका अर्थात् ममताका त्याग मुख्य है और सांख्ययोगमें अहंताका त्याग मुख्य है। परन्तु ममताके त्यागसे अहंताका और अहंताके त्यागसे ममताका त्याग स्वतः हो जाता है। कारण कि अहंतामें भी ममता होती है जैसे -- मेरी बात रहे? मेरी बात कट न जाय -- यह मैंपनके साथ भी मेरापन है। इसलिये ममता(मेरापन)को छोड़नेसे अहंता(मैंपन) छूट जाती है (टिप्पणी प0 895)। ऐसे ही पहले अहंता होती है? तब ममता होती है अर्थात् पहले मैं होता है? तब मेरापन होता है। परन्तु जहाँ अहंता(मैंपन)का ही त्याग कर दिया जायगा? वहाँ ममता (मेरापन) कैसे रहेगी वह भी छूट ही जायगी। सम्बन्ध -- सम्पूर्ण कर्मोंकी सिद्धिमें पाँच हेतु कौनसे हैं अब यह बताते हैं।

इसलिये क्रिया? कारक और फल आदि आत्मामें अविद्यासे आरोपित होनेके कारण परमार्थदर्शी,( आत्मज्ञानी ) ही सम्पूर्ण कर्मोंका अशेषतः त्यागी हो सकता है। कर्म करनेवाले अधिष्ठान ( शरीर ) कर्ताक्रिया आदि कारकोंको? आत्मभावसे देखनेवाला अज्ञानी? सम्पूर्ण कर्मोंका अशेषतः त्याग नहीं कर सकता। यह बात अगले श्लोकसे दिखलाते हैं -- हे महाबाहो इनआगे कहे जानेवाले पाँच कारणोंको अर्थात् कर्मके साधनोंको? तू मुझसे जान। अगले उपदेशमें अर्जुनके चित्तको लगानेके लिये और अधिष्ठानादिके ज्ञानकी कठिनता दिखानेके लिये? उन पाँचों कारणोंको जाननेयोग्य बतलाकर? उनकी स्तुति करते हैं। जिस शास्त्रमें जाननेयोग्य पदार्थोंकी संख्या ( गणना ) की जाय उसका नाम सांख्य अर्थात् वेदान्त है। कृतान्त भी उसीका विशेषण है। कृत कर्मको कहते हैं ? जहाँ उसका अन्त अर्थात् जहाँ कर्मोंकी समाप्ति हो जाती है वह कृतान्त है -- यानी कर्मोंका अन्त है। यावानर्थ उदपाने सर्व कर्माखिलं पार्थ ज्ञाने,परिसमाप्यते इत्यादि वचन भी आत्मज्ञान उत्पन्न होनेपर समस्त कर्मोंकी निवृत्ति दिखलाते हैं। इसलिये ( कहते हैं कि ) उस आत्मज्ञानप्रद कृतान्त -- सांख्यमें यानी वेदान्तशास्त्रमें समस्त कर्मोंकी सिद्धिके लिये कहे हुए ( उन पाँच कारणोंको तू मुझसे सुन )।,

In expectation of 'What is the specific purpose of primary Sannyasa compared to secondary Sannyasa?', He says — 'Aniṣṭam' characterized by hell, animals etc.; 'iṣṭam' characterized by gods etc.; 'miśram' mixed with desirable and undesirable, characterized by humans; and thus 'trividham' — threefold — fruit of action — characterized by Dharma and Adharma; being accomplished by external manifold instruments and operations, it is manifold; being created by ignorance, it is false, like magic and illusion, causing great delusion; approaching the inner Self as if, due to insignificance it goes to dissolution and non-perception — from this derivation of the word 'phala'. That thus threefold fruit occurs for the non-renouncers — ignorant performers of action, non-supreme Sannyasis — 'pretya' — after the fall of the body. Because for those devoid of desire for fruit, the fruit of actions corresponding to the sequence of accumulated (Sanchita) etc. is inevitable after the fall of the body, this is the idea. But for Sannyasis — supreme Sannyasis, Paramahamsa ascetics, established in knowledge alone, with the seed of Samsara like ignorance uprooted — in any place or time the stated fruit does not occur.

Therefore, only for the knower of supreme truth, seeing action, instruments and fruits as superimposed on Self by ignorance, is the state of renunciation of all actions possible; not for the ignorant seeing the locus etc. agents of action and instruments as Self is the state of renunciation of all actions possible, this is the idea.

As for what 'Apare' (others) describe — 'He states the fruit of such abandonment of fruit of action. The threefold fruit like undesirable etc. occurs for non-renouncers — those with desire only — after death in the other world. Because threefold action is possible for them. But not for Sannyasis anywhere. By the word "Sannyasi" here, the contextual renouncers of fruit of action are grasped due to similarity of abandonment of fruit. Because of seeing the usage of the word Sannyasi for fruit-renouncers in "He who performs duty without depending on fruit of action, he is Sannyasi and Yogi" [6.1] etc. also.

Since sin is impossible for those Sattvic ones, and merit fruit is abandoned by offering to God, the threefold fruit of action also does not occur, this is the meaning; that is not acceptable.

Because the word 'Sannyasi' is primary for the supreme Sannyasi renouncing all actions; and in the performer of action it is secondary due to similarity of abandonment of fruit; and since the primary meaning is not obstructed here, and its grasping by the word Sannyasi is possible, grasping the secondary — is displayed by ignorance of the word-rule 'In secondary and primary, the understanding of effect lies in the primary';

and because it is rooted in ignorance of the meaning-rule 'When causal collection exists, effect is produced'; and even for one whose fruit of action is abandoned by offering to God, while performing Nitya actions for purification of Sattva, if he dies in the interval, the production of effect in the form of threefold body by the causal collection of previously earned actions is indeed inevitable — this is the direction.

Thus, having stated the absence of the threefold fruit of action for the supreme renouncers, to teach the necessity of the knowledge of non-doership in the Self, which is the cause of eligibility for supreme renunciation, He speaks — with 'Pancaitani' (These five), etc.

'Etani' (These) causes, which are about to be described, are 'Nirvartakani' (accomplishers); 'Nibodha' (Know) — know from My word. And having known, abandon the pride of doership in the action of war which is physical and achievable by mighty arms; implying this, He addresses — 'Mahabaho' (O Mighty-armed).

To make known that they must necessarily be known, He praises them — with 'Sankhye'. 'Sankhya' is that Vedanta scripture in which the meaning of the word 'Tvam' (Self), the meaning of the word 'Tat' (Brahman), the knowledge of their unity, and the knowable entities useful for that like Shama (control of mind), Dama (control of senses) etc., are 'Sankhyayante' — fully expounded. He qualifies Sankhya — with 'Kritante'. Where there is 'Anta' — termination — of 'Krita' — the action performed; since the cessation of all actions is shown when Self-knowledge arises, Sankhya, which has Self-knowledge as its purpose, also has the quality of being 'Kritanta' (end of action). 'Tasmin proktani' (Stated in that) — meaning stated for the 'Siddhaye' — accomplishment — of all actions.

'Sankhya is liberating knowledge; in that which is related to it, its generator, Sankhye; Akritante — Akrita is Veda because of being non-human (Apaurusheya), in the Anta (end) of that, i.e., Vedanta' — this meaning was not shown by the Acharyas (Shankara) intending that the meaning is possible even without (such complex) word-joining. But as for what others describe: 'Sankhya is that in which Tattvas (principles) are counted; Kritanta is that in which the Anta (conclusion/decision) is made; thus referring to the Sankhya Shastra (of Kapila) only' in that — that is not acceptable.

Because Adhisthana (Seat) etc. are not stated as causes in the Sankhya Shastra. And because it is inappropriate to present the Sankhya Shastra — which propounds that 'Experiencing Selves are distinct/many' — as an authority for His own statement which contradicts His own doctrine that 'The Self is One alone, devoid of doership and enjoyership'.

To expound upon renunciation again, He states the causes of action through [the verse beginning with] "five", etc.

"In the Sankhya" [means] in the Kritanta, [i.e.,] in the doctrine of knowledge (Jnana-siddhanta).

(Objection—) Regarding the contemplation of non-doership, which is the cause of the Self's non-tainting by action, is it artificial (superimposed) like the vision of fire in a woman? Or is it indeed real, but covered by doership superimposed by ignorance, so that by the scriptural vision, through the disappearance of doership, non-doership alone is to be contemplated? Having raised this doubt—since just as the power to burn is not seen in a woman viewed as fire, so too real non-tainting by action is impossible through an imagined non-doership—rejecting the first [view] and intending to establish the second, He constructs the foundation—

'Five' (pancha), etc. O Mighty-armed! For the accomplishment of all actions, 'nibodha' i.e., understand from 'me', i.e., from My words, these five causes (accomplishers) which are going to be described.

To generate faith in His own words, He states that the causes have a root [in scripture]—'declared in the Sankhya which is the Kritanta'. That in which the principles (Tattvas)—in the form of the Self and non-Self objects—are 'khyayante', i.e., revealed after being properly distinguished, is 'Sankhya', i.e., the Vedanta scripture. He qualifies that very same [scripture]: 'In the Kritanta'—in which there is the 'anta', i.e., the complete culmination, of the 'krita', i.e., action. 'All action in its entirety, O Partha, culminates in knowledge' (Gita 4.33)—since the termination of all actions is seen when there is Self-knowledge, [these causes are] declared in that Sankhya which is the Kritanta.

'Sankhya' is the intellect. 'In the Sankhya which is the Kritanta'—(meaning) in the conclusion reached by the Vedic intellect which has as its object the reality as it is; for the accomplishment—for the origination—of all actions; 'nibodha'—understand (reflect upon)—these five declared causes from 'Me'—from My presence.

For the Vedic intellect ascertains the Supreme Self alone as the agent, having the body, senses, vital airs (pranas), and the individual soul (Jivatma) as instruments.

"He who dwelling in the self, is within the self, whom the self does not know, whose body is the self, who controls the self from within, He is your Self, the Inner Controller, the Immortal" (Shatapatha Brahmana 14.5.30); "Entered within, the Ruler of beings, the Self of all" (Taittiriya Aranyaka 3.11.3)—in these and similar texts.

He states this very thing—

(Objection—) Having raised the doubt "How can there be no fruit of action for one performing action?", and to establish that for one who is a renouncer of attachment and free from egoism there is no tainting by the fruit of action, He speaks [in the verses beginning with] "Pancha etani" (these five), in five verses.

For the "siddhi"—i.e., accomplishment—of all actions, "nibodha"—i.e., know—from My words these five causes which are going to be described. To remove the identification of the Self with doership, these must necessarily be known; thus, for the purpose of praising them, He says "Sankhye" (in the Sankhya), etc.

That by which the Supreme Self is properly revealed, i.e., known, is "Sankhya", i.e., knowledge of Reality; the "anta" i.e., culmination of "krita" i.e., action, is in this, thus it is "Kritanta"; in that, i.e., in the doctrine of Vedanta—this is the meaning.

Or else, that in which the principles (Tattvas) are "sankhyayante", i.e., enumerated, is "Sankhya"; that in which the "anta", i.e., conclusion/decision is "krita" (made), is "Kritanta"—i.e., the Sankhya scripture itself; they are declared in that. Therefore, understand them well—this is the meaning.

After 'Undesired, desired' [18.12] etc., what is the relevance of stating the five causes? To this he says — 'Idanim' (Now...). Meaning, after the direct subject of the question has been answered. By 'In the Lord, the Supreme Person' (Bhagavati Purushottame), through the manner described before, His being the Inner Ruler of all, His pervading them, and the absence of defects caused by that are proclaimed. By 'He states the mode', it is shown that the investigation of non-doership commenced from the third chapter is here itself purified in its true nature along with reasons.

The connection is that while three types of renunciation were introduced, this is the purification of the mode of one of them. While Sattvic renunciation was introduced among the three, why is the mode of renunciation of doership alone being explained? To this he says — 'Tata eva' (Because of that very reason...). The word 'Iti' here is in the sense of cause.

Even when priests etc. have doership, the sacrificer etc. is seen to have attachment ('mineness') in the action and fruit; similarly why should it not be for this one also? Therefore, how can the notion of 'mineness' in action and fruit cease merely by renunciation of doership? To this he says — 'Paramapurusho hi' (For the Supreme Person...). 'Hi' indicates it is well-known in valid sources. 'You sport with living beings bound by the threads of Karma, descending and ascending, O Hari, like a child with play-balls' [Mahabharata 3.12.54, 3.30.37], 'For the sake of Krishna indeed is this universe created, moving and unmoving' [Mahabharata 2.38.23] — stating such well-known facts, he says — 'Svakiyena' (By His own...), etc. For the Supreme Person is heard as the Ruler of the rulers of senses; therefore, even in the state of senses being subsidiary to the Jiva, like a king regarding the ornaments of elephants and horses etc., the Mastership (Sheshitvam) of the Supreme Person does not cease; with this intention he says — 'Svakiyaishca karanakalevarapranaih' (And by His own instruments, body, and vital forces). Due to the absence of any restrictor, even the bestowal of seen and unseen fruits etc. is His sport (Lila); he says — 'Svalilaprayojanaya' (For the purpose of His own sport). This has been discussed in 'But like in the world, mere sport' [Brahma Sutra 2.1.33] etc.; this is the idea. In the reading 'Liladiprayojanaya' (For the purpose of sport etc.), by the word 'Adi', protection of devotees rooted in compassion etc. is included.

Objection: Since scriptural action is ordained only as worship of the Supreme Person, its belonging to Him (Tadiyata) up to the fruit is logical; but worldly action is not thus instructed? Nor is it thus perceived? Since the fruit like appeasement of hunger etc. is experienced as going to the Jiva alone? Therefore, if worldly fruits are subsidiary to the Jiva, the action which is the means to that is also logically for his sake; therefore, by 'For the accomplishment of all actions' etc., it is impossible to explain the renunciation of attachment to all objects etc.? To this he says — 'Atah' (Therefore...). 'Paramapurushasyaiva' (Of the Supreme Person alone...) — the genitive case rests in the specific relationship called 'Owner-Owned'. Just as the nourishment etc. of a caged bird and its happiness etc. are subsidiary to the emperor? So it is here too; this is the idea.

In 'Sankhye kritante', the Sankhya doctrine (of Kapila) is not intended; because the Lord is not accepted there; and by not accepting doership for anyone other than the instruments (Prakriti), the statement of division of doer and instrument as 'The doer and the instrument are of distinct kinds' would be impossible; if it contradicts the Veda, it cannot be presented for teaching the Truth; even if not contradictory, since its basis in Veda must be accepted, it rests in Veda alone; and for the propriety of meaning, abandoning convention (rudhi) and resorting to etymological meaning (yaugika) is accepted by all; therefore, the portion in the Vedas engaged in determining the Truth as it is, is intended by the word 'Sankhya-kritanta'; with this intention he defines — 'Sankhya buddhih' (Sankhya is intellect). He qualifies the intellect according to the context — 'Yathavasthita' (As it really is...). As for what has been said by Shankara here — 'That scripture in which categories are counted (Sankhyayante) is Sankhya, the Vedanta; that itself is Kritanta; in this is the end (anta) of the action performed (krita)' — that is incorrect; because the connection of action is established even in Vedanta; and when abandoning convention is inevitable, it is proper to accept the most appropriate etymological meaning. The word 'Anta' is read by lexicographers in the sense of 'decision/ascertainment'; that very (decision), being accomplished preceded by intellect, is qualified by the word 'Krita'; with this intention it is said 'Anusamhite nirnaye' (In the decision investigated/concluded). Or, the word 'Nirnaya' (decision) here refers to the 'object decided'; because the word 'Kritanta', being a synonym for 'Siddhanta' (doctrine), is conventional for the meanings accepted by respective schools. For that very reason indeed — it is qualified as 'Anusamhita'. For the decision itself need not be investigated. Or the idea is that the decision of the ancients is investigated by others. Or the word 'Nirnaya' here refers to the 'deciding word'. Then the coordination is with 'Proktani' (Stated).

By the word 'Siddhi', the culmination in fruit etc. is not intended here; because 'Whatever action one begins... these five are its causes' [18.15] is stated immediately after regarding the accomplishment of the nature of action itself; with this intention he says — 'Utpattaye' (For the origination...). Since 'My causes' is impossible, if said 'Causes belonging to Me', there would be no connection due to the absence of 'own-ness' of the Self designated by the word 'Daiva' here; so he states the appropriate connection — 'Mama sakashat anusandhatsva' (Investigate/Learn from Me...). Regarding the distinct causal nature of the five to be described, as observed, this is for the purpose of ordaining concentration of mind; this is the idea.

For those who do not accept the twenty-sixth (Principle, i.e., God), and who propound the twenty-fifth (Purusha) as the locus of mere superimposition of doership, this context is contradictory; with this intention he explains the purport as the etymological meaning — 'Vaidiki hi' (Vedic indeed...). That which has body, senses, Prana, and Jivatma as instruments is the Bahuvrihi compound. 'Upakarana' (Instrument) is the equipment/paraphernalia taken for the purpose of the intended action.

त्रिविध त्याग के सन्दर्भ में भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण ने निरहंकार और निसंग भाव से कर्म करने वाले पुरुष को सात्विक त्यागी कहा था। अत स्वाभाविक ही है कि अर्जुन के मन में कर्म के स्वरूप को जानने की जिज्ञासा उत्पन्न होती है। इसलिए भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण प्रस्तुत खण्ड में? कर्म के स्थूल रूप तथा प्रेरणा? उद्देश्य आदि सूक्ष्म स्वरूप का भी वर्णन करते हैं।किसी भी लौकिक अथवा आध्यात्मिक कर्म को सम्पादित करने के लिए पाँच कारणों की अपेक्षा होती है। ये मानों कर्म के अंग हैं? जिनके बिना कर्म की सिद्धि नहीं हो सकती। यदि मनुष्य अपने कर्मों को अनुशासित और सुनियोजित कर आन्तरिक सांस्कृतिक विकास को सम्पादित करना चाहता हो? तो उसे अत्याधिक साहस? प्रयोजन का सातत्य? आत्मविश्वास तथा बौद्धिक क्षमता की आवश्यकता होती है। इसलिए भगवान् यहाँ अर्जुन को महाबाहो के नाम से सम्बोधित कर उसकी शूरवीरता का आह्वान करते हैं।कर्मसम्पादन के लिए आवश्यक पाँच कारणों का वर्णन सांख्य दर्शन में किया गया है। यहाँ सांख्य शब्द से तात्पर्य वेदान्त से है कपिल मुनि जी के सांख्य दर्शन से नहीं? क्योंकि उसमें इनका वर्णन नहीं किया गया है। इस श्लोक में प्रयुक्त कृतान्त शब्द सांख्य का विशेषण है। कृतान्त का अर्थ है कर्मों का अन्त। वेदान्त में उपदिष्ट आत्म ज्ञान के होने पर अहंकार का अन्त हो जाता है और उसी के साथ उसके कर्मों की समाप्ति हो जाती है।इसलिए? वेदान्त का विशेषण कृतान्त कहा गया हैं। अगले श्लोक में उन पाँच कारणों को बताते हैं

Now, even in the state of worldly transaction, although five causes of action stand [exist], forcibly indeed these men, blinded by ignorance, superimpose the weight of the entire state of doership upon their own Self alone. Therefore, they bind themselves by their own intellect alone; but by the nature of things (reality), there is no bondage for this [Self]—this is taught [in the verses] beginning with "five" (pancha) etc. ending with "is not bound" (na nibadhyate).

"Krita" [means] action; "anta" [means] conclusion/decision; that in which [these exist] is "Kritanta"; [meaning] Siddhanta (Doctrine). "Adhisthanam" [means] the object. "Daivam" [means] previously acquired good and evil. These five, Adhisthanam etc., having attained the form of an aggregate, are the causes in all actions.

Others, however, [say]: "All action is presided over by this"—thus "Adhisthanam" is that which resides in the intellect, whose function is obtained from Rajas, which transforms into the pentad of forms: fortitude (dhriti), faith (shraddha), pleasure (sukha), desire to know (vividisha), and [lack of?] desire to know (avividisha), and which is denoted by the word Karma Yoga; it is sometimes spoken of by the word "Prayatna" (effort). "Karta" (doer) [means] the synthesizer characterized by the intellect. "Karanam" (instrument) [means] mind, eye, etc.; and also external [ones] like sword etc. "Chesta" (effort) [means] Prana, Apana, etc. By the word "Daiva", merit and demerit [are meant], and by them all states residing in the intellect are implied [thus]. Others, however, consider "Adhisthanam" to be Ishvara (God).

"Akritabuddhitvat" (due to uncultivated intellect) [means] due to uncertain wisdom. But he who performs actions with the firmness of separation from egoism—which has been purified by hundreds of reasonings previously stated—he is not a partaker of bondage (Variant: not a partaker of connection); because of "Kritabuddhitva" (having a cultivated intellect)—this is the intention.

Since the connection of [the verse beginning with] "five" etc. with the context is not apparent, he states that [connection] with "Again" etc. "Renunciation (Sannyasa) is not merely the abandonment of desire-prompted actions, but also the abandonment of the identification with doership"—to thus expound again on the Sannyasa described earlier; [and addressing the doubt:] "If non-doership belongs to the Self, there arises the contingency of non-accomplishment of action; [but if] doership is accepted [to ensure action], how is the abandonment of the identification with that proper?"—for the purpose of removing this doubt, He speaks of the causes of action as being indeed distinct from the Self; this is the meaning.

The word 'Sankhya' is conventional in the Kapila-Tantra (system of Kapila). " 'Krita' is action, its 'anta' is cessation, where this is spoken of"—thus someone has interpreted the word 'Kritanta' in the context of the Upanishads; to refute both of these [views], he says—"In the Sankhya" etc. The doctrine (Siddhanta) for the purpose of knowledge is 'Jnana-siddhanta'; by 'Siddhanta', scripture is implied; because the Kapila-Tantra is censured, and because the abandonment of action is not propounded even in the Upanishads.

There, the cause for the transmigratory state of one devoid of Self-knowledge -- the impossibility of renunciation of action -- was stated as 'For indeed, actions cannot be abandoned entirely by the body-bearer'. There, what is the cause for the impossibility of renunciation of action for the ignorant? The pride of identity (tadatmyabhimana) with the pentad of 'Adhisthana' (Seat) etc. which are the causes of action; this meaning He elaborates in four verses.

There, by the first, He states that the five 'Adhisthana' etc. rooted in the proof of Vedanta are necessarily to be known for the purpose of rejection (heyatva) — with 'Pancaitani' (These five), etc. These five, which will be described, are causes, 'Nirvartaka' (accomplishers), for the 'Siddhaye' — accomplishment — of all actions; O Mahabaho, 'Me' (My) — of the Omniscient who is higher than the highest — from the word, 'Nibodha' — be attentive to know.

For these, being extremely difficult to know, cannot be known by one with an inattentive mind; thus He praises them by ordaining concentration of mind. And by 'Mahabaho' (Mighty-armed), He implies that only a noble person is capable of knowing them, for the sake of praise alone.

Are these to be known from Your word alone, being without other proof? No, He says — 'Sankhye kritante proktani' (Stated in the Sankhya Kritanta...). They are to be known for the attainment of the unsurpassed human goal and for the cessation of all evil. 'Sankhya' is the Vedanta Shastra wherein the Jiva, Brahman, their unity, and the entities useful for that realization like Hearing (Shravana) etc. are 'Sankhyayante' — fully expounded; in that (Shastra) which propounds only the Reality of the Self, why are the five causes of action which are non-Self, unreal, and established in the world being propounded? Therefore, the qualification of the Shastra is 'Kritante'. By 'Krita', action is meant; its 'Anta' — termination — where it happens by the rise of knowledge of Truth; in that 'Kritanta' Shastra they are 'Proktani' (stated); things indeed well-known in the world, being verily non-Self, accepted as the Self through the superimposition of false knowledge, are stated as 'rejectable' (heya) for the accomplishment of their sublation (badha) by the knowledge of the Reality of the Self.

For when it is said that action, which is the attribute of another, is superimposed on the Self by Avidya; then by the knowledge of the Pure Self, due to its sublation, the 'End' (Anta) of action is 'Made' (Krita). Therefore, to propound the non-connection of the Self with action, the five causes of action, which are indeed non-Self, have been imagined and restated by Me in the Vedanta Shastra; therefore, there is no loss of the purport being 'Non-dual Self alone'; because the statement of the 'other' is only as a limb to that; and here too, knowledge is propounded as the 'end of all actions' — 'All action in its entirety, O Partha, culminates in Knowledge'. Therefore, the quality of 'Karmanta' (ending action) of the Scripture of Knowledge is established.

(Objection—) Even with the complete abandonment of attachment and fruit, the fruit is indeed possible for the doer of action, is it not? Like satisfaction from food, [or] like intoxication born from an intoxicating substance eaten for the purpose of medicine? Therefore, how can there be no fruit? Having raised this doubt, He speaks—with "Pancha etani" (these five) etc., through five verses.

O Mighty-armed one—capable of performing the act of renouncing fruit! For the accomplishment of all actions—[i.e.] for the attainment of the fruit; in the Sankhya—which determines renunciation and non-renunciation; in the Kritanta—where there is the 'anta', the culmination, of the 'krita', the action, that Kritanta is Vedanta—in that [they are] declared.

Understand—[i.e.] know—from Me these five causes which are being spoken of ahead.

"Five these" (pancha etani)—which are going to be described, O Mighty-armed, "causes" (karanani) i.e., accomplishers, "learn" (nibodha) from "Me" (me), i.e., from Me. [This exhortation is] for the purpose of fixing the mind on what follows, and for the purpose of showing the distinction of the reality (the Self versus the aggregate of action).

And He praises those causes as being worthy to be known—"In the Sankhya" (sankhye): That scripture in which the things to be known are "sankhyayante" (enumerated/expounded)—that is "Sankhya", i.e., Vedanta. "In the Kritanta" (kritante)—this is an adjective of that very same [Sankhya]. "Krita" refers to action; its "anta" i.e., culmination, is wherein—that is "Kritanta"; meaning "the end of action". [Citing] "As much utility as there is in a well..." (Gita 2.46) and "All action in its entirety, O Partha, culminates in knowledge" (Gita 4.33)—He shows the cessation of all actions when Self-knowledge has arisen. Therefore, in that "Sankhya"—which is for the sake of Self-knowledge, which is "Kritanta", i.e., in Vedanta—they are "declared" (proktani), i.e., stated, "for the accomplishment" (siddhaye), i.e., for the bringing about, of all actions.

What are they? It is stated—

Now, the abandonment of the contemplation of one's own doership, preceded by the contemplation of the Lord's doership, is stated. ||1|| He who considers doership to be his own while there are five existing doers, he is censured by Krishna through scripture just as [one is censured] in the world. ||2||

When one sees the causality of the Gunas, or of Destiny (Daiva), or of Hari, only then does the abandonment of 'mine-ness' (Mamata) regarding fruit and action occur here. ||3||

There, doership resides primarily in the Inner Ruler (Antaryami Purusha) [(acting) with His own instruments]. [(He) initiates actions through the individual soul for the sake of His own play, therefore]. Due to independence (of the Lord), in the dependent (soul), only secondary (doership) is accepted. ||4||

Therefore, the doership etc. belonging to Brahman is in the Jiva due to it being a part of Him. All fruit of action [is also of the Supreme Person]. That (appropriation) by the person elsewhere is theft. Thus, the truth is spoken finally by the Lord as a commentary (Bhashya). ||5||

पञ्च five? एतानि these? महाबाहो O mightyarmed? कारणानि causes? निबोध learn? मे from Me? सांख्ये in the Sankhya? कृतान्ते which is the end of all actions? प्रोक्तानि as declared? सिद्धये for the accomplishment? सर्वकर्मणाम् of all actions.Commentary The Self has no connection whatevr with activity. Nature does everything. The Self is the silent witness. He remains indifferent. The whole superstructure of human activity is the result of the five welldefined causes which are enumerated in the following verse.Etani These Which are going to be mentioned.Sankhya Vedanta Knowledge of the Self as taught in the Vedanta (the Upanishads) puts an end to all actions. This is the reason why the term Kritante (the end of actions) is used here. When the knowledge of the Self arises? all actions terminate. This is taught in chapter II? verse 46 To the Brahman who has known the Self al the Vedas are of so much use as is a reservoir of water in a place where there is a flood everywhere. Again? in verse 33 of chapter IV? it is said All actions in their entirety? O Arjuna? culminate in knowledge. Vedanta? therefore? which imparts knowledge of the Self? is the end of action. A liberated sage who has attained the knowledge of the Self in accordance with the instructions laid down in the Vedanta becomes a Kritakritya (one who has done everything and has nothing more to do).

O mighty-armed one, nibodha, learn; me, from Me; imani, these; panca, five; karanani, factors, accessories, which are going to be stated-for drawing the attention of his (Arjuna's) mind and for showing the difference among these categories [Categories: locus (body) etc], the Lord praises those accessories in the succeeding verses as fit for being known-; siddhaye, for the accomplishment; sarva-karmanam, of all actions; proktani, which have been spoken of; sankhye, in Vedanta-sankhya is that scripture where the subject-matters [In the sentence, 'Thou art That', the word Thou means the individual Self, and That means Brahman. The comprehension of their unity, and also 'hearing, reflection and meditation' are referred to as the subject-matters.] to be known are fully (samyak) stated (khyayante)-; krtante, in which actions terminate. Krtante alifies that very word (Vedanta).
Krtam mean action. That in which occurs the culmination (anta) of that krtam is krtantam, i.e. the termination of actions. In the texts, '৷৷.as much utility as a man has in a well' (2.46), and 'O son of Prtha, all actions in their totality culminate in Knowledge' (4.33), the Lord shows the cessation of all actions when the knowledge of the Self dawns. Hence (it is said): '৷৷.which have been spoken of in that Vedanta where actions culminate and which is meant for the knowledge of the Self.'
Which are they? This is being answered:

'Sankhya' means Buddhi (reasoning). 'Sankhya-krtanta' means that which is determined after due deliberations by the Buddhi in accordance with the Vedas on the nature of the things as they are. Learn them from Me. There are five causes for the accomplishment of all actions. But the understanding according to the Vedas (Vaidiki-buddhi) is that the Supreme Self alone is the agent working through body, senses, Pranas and the individual self, as asserted in the following Srutis: 'He who, dwelling in the self, who rules the self from within your self, the Inner Ruler, immortal' (Br. U. Madh., 3.7.22), and 'He who has penetrated the interior, is the Ruler of all creatures and the Self of all' (Tai. A., 3.11.3).
Sri Krsna nows sets forth the five causes: