Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 18 - Shloka (Verse) 16

तत्रैवं सति ৷৷. पश्यति दुर्मतिः -- जितने भी कर्म होते हैं? वे सब अधिष्ठान? कर्ता? करण? चेष्टा और दैव -- इन पाँच हेतुओंसे ही होते हैं? अपने स्वरूपसे नहीं। परन्तु ऐसा होनेपर भी जो पुरुष अपने स्वरूपको कर्ता मान लेता है? उसकी बुद्धि शुद्ध नहीं है -- अकृतबुद्धित्वात् अर्थात् उसने विवेकविचारको महत्त्व नहीं दिया है। जड और चेतनका? प्रकृति और पुरुषका जो वास्तविक विवेक है? अलगाव है? उसकी तरफ उसने ध्यान नहीं दिया है। इसलिये उसकी बुद्धिमें दोष आ गया है। उस दोषके कारण वह अपनेको कर्ता मान लेता है।यहाँ आये अकृतबुद्धित्वात् और दुर्मतिःपदोंका समान अर्थ दीखते हुए भी इनमें थोड़ा फरक है। अकृतबुद्धित्वात् पद हेतुके रूपमें आया है और दुर्मतिः पद कर्ताके विशेषणके रूपमें आया है अर्थात् कर्ताके दुर्मति होनेमें अकृतबुद्धि ही हेतु है। तात्पर्य है कि बुद्धिको शुद्ध न करनेसे अर्थात् बुद्धिमें विवेक जाग्रत् न करनेसे ही वह दुर्मति है। अगर वह विवेकको जाग्रत् करता? तो वह दुर्मति नहीं रहता।केवल (शुद्ध) आत्मा कुछ नहीं करता -- न करोति न लिप्यते (गीता 13। 31) परन्तु तादात्म्यके कारण मैं नहीं करता हूँ -- ऐसा बोध नहीं होता। बोध न होनेमें अकृतबुद्धि ही कारण है अर्थात् जिसने बुद्धिको शुद्ध नहीं किया है? वह दुर्मति ही अपनेको कर्ता मान लेता है जब कि शुद्ध आत्मामें कर्तृत्व नहीं है।केवलम् पद कर्मयोग और सांख्ययोग -- दोनोंमें ही आया है। प्रकृति और पुरुषके विवेकको लेकर कर्मयोग और सांख्ययोग चलते हैं। कर्मयोगमें सब क्रियाएँ शरीर? मन? बुद्धि और इन्द्रियोंके द्वारा ही होती हैं? पर उनके साथ सम्बन्ध नहीं जुड़ता अर्थात् उनमें ममता नहीं होती। ममता न होनेसे शरीर? मन आदिकी संसारके साथ जो एकता है? वह एकता अनुभवमें आ जाती है। एकताका अनुभव होते ही स्वरूपमें स्वतःसिद्ध स्थितिका अनुभव हो जाता है। इसलिये कर्मयोगमें केवलैः पद शरीर? मन? बुद्धि और इन्द्रियोंके साथ दिया गया है -- कायेन मनसा बुद्ध्या केवलैरिन्द्रियैरपि (गीता 5। 11)।सांख्ययोगमें विवेकविचारकी प्रधानता है। जितने भी कर्म होते हैं? वे सब पाँच हेतुओंसे ही होते हैं? अपने स्वरूपसे नहीं। परन्तु अहंकारसे मोहित अन्तःकरणवाला अपनेको कर्ता मान लेता है। विवेकसे मोह मिट जाता है। मोह मिटनेसे वह अपनेको कर्ता कैसे मान सकता है अर्थात् उसे अपने शुद्ध स्वरूपका अनुभव हो जाता है। इसलिये सांख्ययोगमें केवलम् पद स्वरूपके साथ दिया गया है -- केवलम् आत्मानम्।अब इसमें एक बात विशेष ध्यान देनेकी है कि कर्मयोगमें केवल शब्द शरीर? मन आदिके साथ रहनेसे शरीर? मन? बुद्धि आदिके साथ अहम् भी संसारकी सेवामें लग जायगा तथा स्वरूप ज्योंकात्यों रह जायगा और सांख्ययोगमें स्वरूपके साथ केवल रहनेसे मैं निर्लेप हूँ? मैं शुद्धबुद्धमुक्त हूँ इस प्रकार सूक्ष्मरीतिसे अहम् की गंध रह जायगी। मैं निर्लेप रहूँ मेरेमें कर्तृत्व नहीं है -- ऐसी स्थिति बहुत कालतक रहनेसे यह अहम् भी अपनेआप गल जायगा अर्थात् अपने कारण प्रकृतिमें लीन हो जायगा। सम्बन्ध -- पूर्वश्लोकमें यह बताया कि शुद्ध स्वरूपको कर्ता देखनेवाला दुर्मति ठीक नहीं देखता। तो ठीक देखनेवाला कौन है -- इसका वर्णन आगेके श्लोकमें करते हैं।

तत्र शब्द प्रकरणसे सम्बन्ध जोड़ता है। ऐसा होनेसे? यानी पहले बतलाये हुए पाँच कारणोंद्वारा ही समस्त कर्म सिद्ध होते हैं? इसलिये? जो अज्ञानी पुरुष? वेदान्त और आचार्यके उपदेशद्वारा तथा तर्कद्वारा संस्कृतबुद्धि न होनेके कारण? उन अधिष्ठानादि पाँचों कारणोंके साथ अविद्यासे आत्माकी एकता मानकर? उनके द्वारा किये हुए कर्मोंका मैं ही कर्ता हूं इस प्रकार केवलशुद्ध आत्माको ( उन कर्मोंका ) कर्ता समझता है? ( वह वास्तवमें कुछ भी नहीं समझता )। तथा आत्माको शरीरादिसे अलग माननेवाला भी? जो शरीरादिसे अलग केवल आत्माको ही कर्ता समझता है? वह भी अकृतबुद्धि ही है। अतः असंस्कृतबुद्धि होनेके कारण वह भी वास्तवमें आत्माका या कर्मका तत्त्व नहीं समझता? यह अभिप्राय है। इसलिये वह दुर्बुद्धि है। जिसकी बुद्धि कुत्सित? विपरीत? दुष्ट और बारम्बार जन्ममरण देनेमें कारणरूप हो उसे दुर्बुद्धि कहते हैं ऐसा मनुष्य देखता हुआ भी वास्तवमें नहीं देखता। जैसे तिमिररोगवाला अनेक चन्द्र देखता है? या जैसे बालक दौड़ते हुए बादलोंमें चन्द्रमाको दौड़ता हुआ देखता है? अथवा जैसे ( पालकी आदि ) किसी सवारीपर चढ़ा हुआ मनुष्य दूसरोंके चलनेमें अपना चलना समझता है ( वैसे ही उसका समझना है )।

Having obtained the agency of action for Adhishtana etc., he restates the ignorant one's view of Self in them — 'Tatra' etc. Taking the symbol of the contextual 'all action' worthy of reference by the word 'tatra', he states the literal meaning along with the previous — 'Evam'. While agency belongs to Adhishtana etc. in the stated manner, since he sees agency belonging to others as superimposed on the Self, therefore he is 'durmati' (wicked-minded), thus seeing agency in the Self he says — 'Tatraivam'.

He explains 'Kartāram' etc. — by 'Tatra' etc. In those Adhishtana etc., by the notions of Self superimposed by those Adhishtana etc. — this is the meaning. To the question why he sees the non-doer Self as doer, he states the reason — 'Kasmāt'.

Objection: Only he whose intellect is purified by scripture, the advocate of Self as distinct [from body], approves its agency; even seeing agency in the Self, he does not become one of uncultivated intellect? To that he says — 'Yo'pi'. For him also, due to intellect not being placed [in truth] by instruction of teacher preceded by scripture and by logic following that, the state of uncultivated intellect is established, this is the meaning.

'Kauṭasthya' is the truth (reality) of Self; and the truth of action also — being untouched by Self due to being performed by Adhishtana etc. created by ignorance — the absence of seeing the truth of Self and action is the meaning of the word 'ataḥ'. To clarify the wickedness, he explains 'durmatitva' — 'Janana' etc.

Even for one having vision of Self as 'I am doer', the ignorant one, there is no vision of That (Truth) — here he gives an example — 'Yathā'. Just as one with eye afflicted by Timira disease, even while seeing many moons, does not see it in reality; so the ignorant one, even while seeing the Self as doer, does not see It in reality, this is the meaning.

He gives an example for the superimposition of action belonging to Adhishtana etc. on one's own Self, which is connected by ignorance — 'Yathā vā'. Just as while other carrier men are the runners, the one seated in the vehicle, out of non-discrimination, prides himself as the runner; so thinking one's own Self as the agent in the agents of action like Adhishtana etc. is 'durmati', this is the meaning.

Thus having stated the causeness of Adhishtana etc. in all action, He restates the ignorant one's view of agency in the non-doer Self — 'Tatraivaṃ sati'.

Thus, while all action is being performed by the mentioned five causes, the 'Kevalam' — pure, unconnected, non-doer — Self; regarding action being done by Adhishtana etc. imagined as non-different from the Self, 'I alone am the doer' — thus he who sees the 'Kartā' — 'akṛtabuddhitvāt' — due to intellect uncultivated by Vedanta, teacher's instruction and logic — sees; 'therefore he is wicked-minded' — he does not see at all. Even the Logician etc. who advocates Self as distinct from body, who sees the pure non-doer Self as doer, he too due to uncultivated intellect does not see — the truth of Self or action.

Therefore 'durmatiḥ' — whose intellect is despicable, contrary, wicked, cause of constant attainment of birth and death.

Even seeing, he does not see. Just as one with eye disease [sees] many moons, or just as while others are running, one seated on his seat sees himself running; so in the agents of action like Adhishtana etc., he sees his own non-doer Self as [doer] belonging to that, he is wicked-minded, this is the meaning.

'Kevalam' — actionless.

For they call this Kevala Self as actionless — so it is there (in Shruti).

The fruit of this exposition — establishing agency as superimposed and non-agency as natural — He shows by two verses — 'Tatra'.

'Tatra' — in that action. 'Evam' — being performed by the five in the stated manner. 'Kevalam tu' — the Self, though non-doer — conscious, from the Shruti 'Witness, conscious, alone, and attributeless' [Shvetashvatara 6.11] — seer of the movement of the pentad Adhishtana etc., though indifferent — who sees as 'Kartāram' — the locus of agency — he is 'durmatiḥ' — of intellect overcome by sin — does not see. He is blind indeed.

The reason for not seeing — 'Akṛtabuddhitvāt'. Whose intellect is refined by scripture, teacher's instruction, Shama, Dama etc. is Kritabuddhi; opposite to that is Akrutabuddhi; its state, due to that.

Just as one seeing his own face in contact with a water-vessel superimposes the wavering of water on it (face); so seeing the Self associated with intellect, one superimposes the property of intellect, agency etc., on the Self — this is the idea.

Thus, while in reality the agency of the Jivatma is preceded by the permission of the Supreme Self, there in action, 'kevalam' — the Self alone — he who sees as the agent?

He is 'durmati' — of perverse mind;

'akṛtabuddhitvāt' — due to not having intellect that has accomplished the reality of things as they are; 'na paśyati' — does not see the agent as it is situated.

What then? Therefore He says — 'Tatra'.

'Tatra' — these five are causes in all action — this being so; 'kevalam' — attributeless, unattached — Self 'tu' (however) who sees as agent;

due to intellect unrefined by neglecting scripture and teacher's instruction, that 'durmati' does not see correctly.

If thus, even with the causeness of the five, the Self alone is the doer? Then contemplation of non-agency would indeed be of the nature of delusion; for the protection of injunctions, prohibitions etc., agency is hard to give up; nor can it be said that agency independent of auxiliaries is prohibited, because there is no occasion for it, so prohibition is inapplicable. For no one thinks 'I do independent of body, senses, stick, wheel etc.' — in this doubt, the prevention of the delusion of natural agency independent of another Controller, and of the pride of exclusive dependence in action dependent on many for those having delusion of body as Self, is called 'contemplation of non-agency' — by the verse 'Tatraivam'.

By 'preceded by permission of Supreme Self', the all-managing principal cause is grasped. 'Ātmānam' — means one's own Self. Therefore indeed the word 'Kartṛ' here is not the presenter of the property-holder (Dharmi) as before, otherwise there would be contingency of supplying 'cause of starting action', with this intention he says — 'Kevalam ātmānam eva kartāram' (The Self alone as the agent). The word 'tu' is explained here in the sense of emphasis. Even as remover of doubt, or to express what is stated by the word 'kevala', is the word 'eva'.

Objection: Here by the word 'kevala' there would be merely restatement of natural agency — if you say? Answer: No, when doing together with four is introduced, in the censure of disregarding that, the naturalness of the meaning of excluding that, and because of its requirement. There what others said — 'Since the Self is of immutable nature, association with Adhishtana etc. is impossible; for association is of the mutable with others, or agency by association; but there is no association of the immutable Self with anything, so joint-agency is not justified' — that is false; of the Self devoid of modifications like origin of nature — 'Just as fire in wood, oil in sesame, so the Person also. Situated in Pradhana, all-pervading conscious Self, knower of Self' — by such scriptures, establishment of association with other substances, and of joint-agency with auxiliaries by being the locus of knowledge, desire to do etc. Otherwise here also 'These five are its causes' [18.15] — the counting of the agent also as a cause would be broken.

'Sa durmatiḥ' is the restatement of what was said, otherwise redundancy, with this intention he says — 'Viparītamatīḥ' (Perverse mind). 'Akṛtabuddhi' here is intellect not accomplished by spiritual scriptures, he says that — 'Aniṣpanna' (Unaccomplished).

'He who sees? He does not see' — due to this contradiction, even existing vision is censured as being incorrect and unresolved, with this intention he says — 'Na yathāvasthitam' (Not as situated). Since seeing as situated is possible in external things, he restricts to the subject in question — 'Kartāram'. One should not engage in what is other than obtained by nature and economics and scripture; in necessary duties obtained by nature etc. also, the bondage of action would operate for him in himself and Adhishtana etc. according to share — this is the heart (essence).

पूर्व श्लोक में हमने देखा कि आत्मा की उपस्थिति में शरीरादि जड़ उपाधियाँ कार्य करती हैं? परन्तु आत्मा अकर्ता ही रहता है। आत्मा और अनात्मा के इस विवेक के अभाव में अज्ञानी जन स्वयं को कर्ता और भोक्ता रूप जीव ही समझते हैं। जीव दशा में रागद्वेष? प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्ति? लाभहानि और सुखदुख अवश्यंभावी हैं। जिस क्षण कोई पुरुष आत्मा और अनात्मा के भेद को तथा अविद्या से उत्पन्न मिथ्या अहंकार को समझ लेता है? उसी क्षण इस मिथ्या जीव का अस्तित्व दिवा स्वप्न के भूत के समान समाप्त हो जाता है।तत्रैवं सति सभी प्रकार के उचित और अनुचित कर्म शरीर? कर्ता? दशेन्द्रियाँ तथा दैव की सहायता से ही होते हैं? परन्तु इन्हें चेतनता प्रदान करने वाला आत्मा नित्य शुद्ध और अकर्ता ही रहता है। अज्ञानी जन इस आत्मा को ही कर्ता समझ लेते हैं।इस प्रकार के विपरीत ज्ञान के कारणों का निर्देश? यहाँ अकृतबुद्धि और दुर्मति इन दो शब्दों से किया गया है। अकृतबुद्धि का अर्थ है वह पुरुष जिसने अपनी बुद्धि को शास्त्र? आचार्योपदेश तथा न्याय (तर्क) के द्वारा सुसंस्कृत नहीं किया है तथा दुर्मति का अर्थ है दुष्टरागद्वेषादि युक्त बुद्धि का पुरुष। इस कथन का अभिप्राय यह हुआ कि जो पुरुष अपने चित्त को शुद्ध कर आत्मविचार करता है? वह अपने में ही यह साक्षात् अनुभव करता है? कि शरीरादि जड़ उपाधियाँ ही कार्य करके थकान का अनुभव करती हैं? अकर्ता आत्मा नहीं।विपरीत ज्ञान का वर्णन करने के पश्चात् अब यथार्थ ज्ञान का वर्णन करते हैं

Now, even in the state of transaction, although the five causes of action exist, by force indeed these men blinded by ignorance superimpose the burden of the state of entire doership on their own Self only. Therefore, by their own intellect they bind the Self; but in reality there is no bondage for it — this is taught — from 'Pañca' etc. up to 'Na nibadhyate'.

Wherein 'anta' — decision — is made, that is 'Kṛtānta' — doctrine. 'Adhiṣṭhāna' — object. 'Daiva' — previously earned good and bad [karma]. These five, Adhishtana etc., attaining the state of a collection of means, are causes in all actions.

Others, however [hold that] — 'By this all action is presided over' — thus the Adhishtana residing in intellect, having modification obtained from Rajas, transforming into the pentad of fortitude, faith, pleasure, desire to know, and absence of desire to know, denoted by the word Karma-Yoga, is sometimes spoken of by the word 'Prayatna' (effort). 'Kartā' — the contemplator, characterized by intellect. 'Karaṇa' — mind, eye etc.; and also external sword etc. 'Ceṣṭā' — Prana, Apana etc. By the word 'Daiva', Dharma and Adharma, and by them all states residing in intellect are implied.

Others consider 'Adhiṣṭhāna' as God. 'Akṛtabuddhitvāt' — due to un-ascertained wisdom. But he who performs actions with firmness of separation from ego, purified by hundreds of reasonings stated before, he is not a partaker of bondage — due to being of cultivated intellect, this is the intention.

If the Jiva is not included in the causes of action, interpreting thus, in the subsequent sentence 'tatraivaṃ sati' (that being so), 'kevalam' (alone/pure) would not be proper? Because by censuring one who considers the solitary Self as the cause, the causality of one assisted by it appears? To this he says — 'Kevalam'.

Here the word 'Kevala' does not mean 'solitary'? But it denotes actionlessness, and its statement is for establishing the censure, this is the idea.

Whence does the word 'Kevala' have the meaning of actionless? To this he says — 'Enam'. It is said right there in the Ayasya Shruti itself.

Now, since the doership of action belongs to these (Adhishthana etc.) alone, the Self has no doership; he states the fruit of describing Adhishthana etc. thus — 'Tatraivam' (There, thus being the case), etc. 'Tatra' (There) — in all the aforementioned action; 'Evam sati' (Thus being the case) — being caused by the five factors Adhishthana etc., being accomplished by them; regarding the Self — which is the illuminator of the entire inert world-appearance, of the nature of Existence and Manifestation, self-luminous Supreme Bliss, unsublatable, 'Kevala' (Absolute/Non-dual), unattached, indifferent, non-doer, immutable, non-dual indeed (tu), verily; in absolute reality; but through Avidya, regarding the Self reflected in Adhishthana etc. — like the sun in water — having imagined the illuminator of that (Adhishthana) as non-different; just like 'the sun moves when water moves'; thinking 'I alone am the doer of the action of Adhishthana etc.'; he who sees the Self, which is essentially a Witness, as the doer, the locus of action; he imagines through Avidya, like a snake in a rope;

he, even though seeing thus, does not see the Self in reality; because superimposition is caused by ignorance of the true nature, he sees only the opposite through delusion, not as it really is; what is the cause here? Therefore He says — 'Akritabuddhitvat' (Due to having an unrefined intellect). Because of possessing a discriminative intellect not generated by the instruction of Shastra and Teacher and by reasoning. For indeed, in the absence of direct realization of the truth of the rope, nothing negates the illusion of the snake; similarly, when the realization — 'I am Truth, Knowledge, Infinite, Non-doer, Non-enjoyer, Supreme Bliss, State-less, Non-dual Brahman' — which is well-established by the instruction of Shastra and Teacher and by reasoning, has not arisen, how can there be the awareness (or sublation) of false knowledge and its effects?

Why does he not generate such realization by approaching a Guru and inquiring into Vedanta sentences? To this He says — 'Durmatih' (The man of perverted intelligence). One whose intelligence is 'Dushta' (corrupted), soiled by sin which obstructs discrimination. Therefore, due to impure intellect, due to being void of discrimination between eternal and non-eternal objects etc., due to being unfit for knowledge of Truth; imagining the Self as doer though non-doer, as associated though absolute, through Avidya; the transmigrator, eligible for action, the bearer of the body, the one of unrefined intellect; unable to abandon action due to the pride of identity with action and agent; always experiences the undesirable, desirable, and mixed fruit of action through the continuity of birth and death.

By this, the Logician (Tarkika) who sees the Self distinct from body etc. as indeed the doer, but (sees it as) 'Kevala' (in isolation/distinct), he is also explained as being of 'unrefined intellect'.

But another says — The Self alone is not the doer, but being combined (samhata) with Adhishthana etc., is in reality the doer indeed; he who sees the doer Self as 'Kevala' (alone/isolated) is 'Durmati' — based on the use of the word 'Kevala'. That is not correct. Because for the Self which is in reality void of all actions and unattached, being combined with Adhishthana etc. is impossible/illogical; and like the sun in water etc., since the 'being combined' is a product of Avidya, the doership is also of that nature alone; and because Adhishthana etc. are also products of Avidya. The word 'Kevala' (Absolute) merely translates the nature of the Self established by its own being as unattached and non-dual, as the reason for the 'perverted intelligence' of the one seeing doership; therefore there is no fault.

What then if it is so, therefore He says — 'Tatra'.

'Tatra' — in all actions there are five causes impelled by Me, this being so; he who sees the 'kevalam' — one Self, the Jiva; by the word 'tu' (however), the non-doer; who due to 'akṛtabuddhitvāt' — lack of discrimination obtained from Guru's instruction — is 'durmatiḥ' — of wicked intellect — sees by his own delusion; he does not see — the Self and Me, this is the idea.

Thus he who performs action, for him that (action) bears fruit, this is the idea.

'Tatra' relates to the context. 'Evaṃ sati' — this being so, when action is being performed by the five mentioned causes. 'Tatraivaṃ sati' relates as the cause for being wicked-minded.

'Tatra' — there (in those actions) — regarding action being performed by causes imagined by ignorance as non-different from the Self, 'I alone am the doer' — thus he who sees the agent Self as 'kevalam' — pure — 'tu' (however), the ignorant one. Why (does he see)? Due to 'akṛtabuddhitvāt' — due to intellect uncultivated by Vedanta, teacher's instruction and logic — due to unrefined intellect. Even he who advocates Self as distinct from body etc., who sees the Self alone as the absolute agent?

He too is of uncultivated intellect; therefore due to uncultivated intellect he does not see — the truth of Self or of action, this is the meaning. Therefore 'durmatiḥ'? Despicable, contrary, wicked intellect which is the cause of constant attainment of birth and death belongs to whom, he is Durmati.

Even seeing he does not see? Like one with eye disease seeing many moons? Or like seeing the moon running when clouds are running? Or like one seated in a vehicle seeing himself running when others are running.

Who then is the Sumati (good-minded) who sees correctly? It is stated —

'Tatraivaṃ sati' — action having five causes being so; in reality, while the agency of Jivatma is preceded by the permission of the Supreme Self who is the impeller of Prakriti and Purusha;

there in action, he who sees 'kevalam ātmānam' — himself alone — as the agent, he is extremely perverse minded; because due to uncultivated intellect he does not see the agent as situated in reality.

तत्र there (the case)? एवम् thus? सति being? कर्तारम् as the agent? आत्मानम् the Self? केवलम् alone? तु verily? यः who? पश्यति sees? अकृतबुद्धित्वात् owing to untrained understanding? न not? सः he? पश्यति sees? दुर्मतिः of perverted intelligence.Commentary The Self is always actionless. He is unattached like ether. He is always the silent witness. He is the spectator of activity. The egoistic man of little understanding only thinks that he is the real agent? and so he is bound by actions. He takes birth again and again to reap the fruits of his actions. For him who considers the body as consciousness? God or the Self? it naturally follows that the Self is the agent or the doer. He who identifies himself with the body? who has taken the body as the pure Self? has cast a net over himself? and he leads a deluded life of utter ignorance. He is bound by the fetters or bonds of Karma. He is ever shut up in the prisonhouse of this body.He who has not united himself with the Buddhi? who has got an impure or untrained understanding? who regards the Self as the actor or the agent is certainly a man of perverted intelligence. He is deluded. He is really a blind man. He sees not though he has eyes. He does not behold the essence of things. He has no idea of the supreme Principle (the Self) Which is Itself actionless? Which ever stands as a silent witness of the activities of all minds and all organs of all beings? Which moves the minds? organs and the lifeforce and the bodies to action? just as the magnet makes the iron pieces move. He does not behold the truth about the Self and action.Durmati Evilminded person A man of perverted intellect or undeveloped reason. He thinks that he alone is the doer or agent. He does not understand anything. He has no knowledge of the,actionless? pure? selfluminous Self.The ignorant man of untrained understanding identifies himself with the five causes and regards the pure actionless Self as the agent or doer of the actions which are really done by these five causes. What is the reason for this Why does he regard them so Because he is not endowed with a pure and subtle intellect his understanding (Buddhi) has not been trained in the practice of Vedanta he is not eipped with the four means of salvation his intellect has not been trained by the teachings of the preceptor or the spiritual teacher in the methods of logical reasoning.He who considers that the pure actionless Self is the agent or the doer is certainly a man of untrained understanding. He has no knowledge of the actionless Self and action. Therefore? he is a man of perverted intelligence. His intellect works or moves in the wrong direction. His intellect moves in the sensual grooves or avenues. It runs like the vicious horse and leads to birth and death. The technie of Buddhi Yoga taught in the Gita enables one effectively to prevent this.He does not perceive or cognise the Truth though he has eyes. Though he sees? he sees the external? gross? illusory? everchanging? perishable objects only. He does not behold the one immortal? unchanging? allblissful essence? which is the basis or substratum of everything. He is like the man with jaundiced eyes? who sees all objects tinged with yellow colur? or like the man suffering from diplopia who beholds many moons? or like the man who thinks that the moon moves when the clouds move? or like the man who? seated in a train? imagines that the trees are moving when it is the train that is really moving. (Cf.V.15XIII.30)

Tatra is used for connecting with the topic under discussion. Tatra evam sati, this being the case, when actions are thus accomplished by the five causes mentioned above;-this portion has to be connected with 'perverted intellect' by way of causality [Actions are done by the body etc., but since a person thinks that the Self is the agent, therefore he is said to have a perverted intellect.]-yah, tu, anyone, an unenlightened person, who; pasyati, perceives; kevalam, the absolute, pure; atmanam, Self; as the kartaram, agent-thinking, 'I myself am the agent of the actions being done by them', as a conseence of imagining the Self as identified with them; why?-akrta-buddhitvat, owing to the imperfection of his intellect, owing to his intellect not having been refined by the instructions of Vedanta and the teachers, and by reasoning-.
Even the person who, believing in the Self as distinct from the body etc., looks upon the distinct [Ast. omits anyam (distinct).-Tr.], absolute Self as the agent, he, too, is surely of imperfect intellect.
Hence, owing to his having an imperfect intellect, sah, that man; na, does not; pasyati, perceive (properly) either the truth about the Self or about actions. This is the meaning. Therefore he is a durmatih, man of perverted intellect, in the sense that his intellect is contemptible, perverse, corrupted, and the cause of repeatedly undergoing births and deaths. He does not perceive even while seeing-like the man suffering from Timira seeing many moons, or like one thinking the moon to be moving when (actually) the clouds are moving, or like the one seated on some conveyance (e.g. palanin), thinking oneself to be moving when others (the bearers) are moving.
Who, again, is the man of right intellect who perceives correctly? This is being answered:

In fact, the agency of the individual self is subject to the consent of Supreme Self; such being the case, if the 'individual self regards Itself as the agent,' It is of wicked or perverse mind. For, It does not perceive the agent as It really is, since It possesses an 'uncultivated understanding,' namely, an understanding which does not reveal the real state of affairs.