Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 18 - Shloka (Verse) 22

यत्तु (टिप्पणी प0 904.2) कृत्स्नवदेकस्मिन्कार्ये सक्तम् -- तामस मनुष्य एक ही शरीरमें सम्पूर्णकी तरह आसक्त रहता है अर्थात् उत्पन्न और नष्ट होनेवाले इस पाञ्चभौतिक शरीरको ही अपना स्वरूप मानता है। वह मानता है कि मैं ही छोटा बच्चा था? मैं ही जवान हूँ और मैं ही बूढ़ा हो जाऊँगा मैं भोगी? बलवान् और सुखी हूँ मैं धनी और बड़े कुटुम्बवाला हूँ मेरे समान दूसरा कौन है इत्यादि। ऐसी मान्यता मूढ़ताके कारण ही होती है -- इत्यज्ञानविमोहिताः (16। 15)।अहैतुकम् -- तामस मनुष्यकी मान्यता युक्ति और शास्त्रप्रमाणसे विरुद्ध होती है। यह शरीर हरदम बदल रहा है? शरीरादि वस्तुमात्र अभावमें परिवर्तित हो रही है? दृश्यमात्र अदृश्य हो रहा है और इनमें तू सदा ज्योंकात्यों रहता है अतः यह शरीर और तू एक कैसे हो सकते हैं -- इस प्रकारकी युक्तियोंको वह स्वीकार नहीं करता।अतत्त्वार्थवदल्पं च -- यह शरीर और मैं दोनों अलगअलग हैं -- इस वास्तविक ज्ञान(विवेक) से वह रहित है। उसकी समझ अत्यन्त तुच्छ है अर्थात् तुच्छताकी प्राप्ति करानेवाली है। इसलिये इसको ज्ञान कहनेमें भगवान्को संकोच हुआ है। कारण कि तामस पुरुषमें मूढ़ताकी प्रधानता होती है। मूढ़ता और ज्ञानका आपसमें विरोध है. अतः भगवान्ने ज्ञान पद न देकर यत् और तत् पदसे ही काम चलाया है।तत्तामसमुदाहृतम् -- युक्तिरहित? अल्प और अत्यन्त तुच्छ समझको ही महत्त्व देना तामस कहा गया है।जब तामस समझ ज्ञान है ही नहीं और भगवान्को भी इसको ज्ञान कहनेमें संकोच हुआ है? तो फिर इसका वर्णन ही क्यों किया गया कारण कि भगवान्ने उन्नीसवें श्लोकमें ज्ञानके त्रिविध भेद कहनेका उपक्रम किया है? इसलिये सात्त्विक और राजसज्ञानका वर्णन करनेके बाद तामस समझको भी कहनेकी आवश्यकता थी। सम्बन्ध -- अब भगवान् सात्त्विक कर्मका वर्णन करते हैं।

जो ज्ञान? किसी एक कार्यमें? शरीरमें या शरीरसे बाहर प्रतिमादिमें? सर्ववस्तुविषयक सम्पूर्ण ज्ञानकी भाँति आसक्त है? अर्थात् ( यह समझता है कि ) यह आत्मा या ईश्वर इतना ही है इससे परे और कुछ भी नहीं है? जैसे दिगम्बर जैनियोंका ( माना हुआ ) आत्मा शरीरमें रहनेवाला और शरीरके बराबर है और पत्थर या काष्ठ ( की प्रतिमा ) मात्र ही ईश्वर है? इसी प्रकार जो ज्ञान किसी एक कार्यमें ही आसक्त है। तता जो हेतुरहित -- युक्तिरहित और तत्त्वार्थसे भी रहित है। यथार्थ अर्थका नाम तत्त्वार्थ है? ऐसा तत्त्वार्थ जिस ज्ञानका ज्ञेय हो? वह ज्ञान तत्त्वार्थयुक्त होता है और जो तत्त्वार्थयुक्त न हो वह अतत्त्वार्थवत् अर्थात् तत्त्वार्थसे रहित होता है। एवं जो हेतुरहित होनेके कारण ही अल्प है अथवा अल्पविषयक होनेसे या अल्प फलवाला होनेसे अल्प है? वह ज्ञान तामस कहा गया है क्योंकि अविवेकी तामसी प्राणियोंमें ही ऐसा ज्ञान देखा जाता है।।

He manifests the attachment itself — 'Etāvān'. He establishes the very attachment of knowledge in one effect by an example — by 'Yathā' etc.

That which is lack of logic, that very thing is the cause for knowledge being an appearance (fallacious), he says — 'Ahaitukatvāt'. Is it fallacious by nature and object or by fruit, he says — 'Alpam'.

Tamasic knowledge has the stated characteristics, here he cites experience as proof — 'Tāmasānāṃ hi'.

Having illustrated Rajasic knowledge, he states the Tamasic — 'Yattu'. The word 'tu' is to indicate distinction from Rajasic.

That knowledge which is attached to one effect — in the body or outside in an image etc. — 'kṛtsnavat' — like the whole, like the complete, 'this much alone is the Self or God, there is nothing beyond this', as Charvakas etc. [say] 'Jiva is commensurate with the body following the body' or 'God is merely stone, wood etc.' — thus endowed with adherence;

because 'ahaitukam' — devoid of reason; due to being devoid of reason, 'atattvat' — having object which is not real truth; the object as it is is Tattvartha (real object), that is its knowable object, so Tattvarthavat; not Tattvarthavat is Atattvarthavat.

Therefore indeed 'alpaṃ ca' — due to having small object or due to having small fruit; that such knowledge seen in Tamasic beings — the undiscriminating ones — is rejectable; that is declared Tamasic.

But that knowledge which is attached to one effect — in the body or image etc. — 'kṛtsnavat' — like the complete — 'this much alone is Self or God' — endowed with adherence.

'Ahaitukam' — devoid of reason.

'Atattvārthavat' — devoid of support of supreme reality.

'Alpam' — due to having trivial object and small fruit.

Whatever is such knowledge, that is declared Tamasic.

But that knowledge which is attached to one effect — in one duty to be done, which is of the form of worship of Pretas, Bhutas, Ganas etc. having very little fruit — 'kṛtsnaphalavat' (as if having total fruit); 'ahaitukam' — in reality due to having incomplete fruit, it is devoid of reason for such attachment; 'atattvārthavat' — just as before, having false object due to being endowed with separateness etc. in the Self; 'atyalpaphalaṃ ca' — and of very little fruit, because its object is worship of Pretas, Bhutas etc., and trivial; that knowledge is declared Tamasic.

Thus having stated the threefold nature of knowledge regarding duty to be done according to Gunas from the part of the qualified person at the time of qualification, He states the threefold nature of action to be performed according to Gunas —

He states Tamasic knowledge — 'Yattu'.

Attached to one effect — in body or image etc. — 'kṛtsnavat' — like the complete — 'this much alone is Self or God' — endowed with such adherence; 'ahaitukam' — devoid of reason; 'atattvārthavat' — devoid of support of supreme reality; therefore 'alpam' — trivial, due to having small object and small fruit.

Whatever is such knowledge, that is declared Tamasic.

The word 'Kārya' here does not refer to mere production? Because it concerns one's own duty; and the word 'Eka' refers to being limited by fruit to show unfitness for attachment; the cause of that too is worship of those with limited powers mentioned before, with this intention he says — 'In one duty, action of the form of worship of Pretas, Bhutas, Ganas etc. having very little fruit'.

Even mere action-nature-effect lacks fitness for attachment, even there intending the fruit he says — 'Kṛtsnaphalavat' — like in action which is the cause of total fruit, this is the meaning.

Since prohibition of mere cause of knowledge or attachment which is an effect is inappropriate, the cause of attachment of a wise person is prohibited here, he says — 'Vastutaḥ'. Even in the reading 'Ahaitukam', this very meaning is to be grasped by intending difference from 'Haituka' (reasonable).

'Pūrvavadeva' — like Rajasic, this is the meaning.

By 'Attached to one effect, causeless' itself, small fruitfulness is established; like the light of a firefly, smallness by very nature is naturally intended by the word 'Alpa', so there is no redundancy, with this intention — 'And very little fruit, and small because its object is worship of Pretas, Bhutas etc.' — is said.

'From Sattva arises knowledge' [14.17] — this stated before is with the intention of Rajasic and Tamasic knowledge being ignorance. It is said — 'This is called knowledge, ignorance is what is other than this' [13.11].

तमोगुण के आधिक्य से अभिभूत बुद्धि किसी एक परिच्छिन्न कार्य में इस प्रकार आसक्त होती है मानो वह कार्य ही सम्पूर्ण सत्य हो। वह कभी कारण का विचार ही नहीं करती। तामसिक लोगों का यह ज्ञान अत्यन्त निम्नस्तरीय है। प्राय ऐसे लोग कट्टरवादी तथा अपने धर्म? भक्ति? जीवन के दृष्टिकोण और मूल्यों के विषय में अत्यन्त हठवादी होते हैं। वे जगत् का तथा अन्य घटनाओं के कारण का कभी अन्वेषण नहीं करते हैं। श्री शंकराचार्य कहते हैं कि इनका ज्ञान निर्युक्तिक होता है अर्थात् किसी प्रामाणिक युक्ति पर आश्रित नहीं होता।ऐसी भ्रमित कट्टरवादी और पूर्वाग्रहों से युक्त बुद्धि के द्वारा अवलोकन करते हुए तामसी लोग जगत् को कभी यथार्थ रूप में नहीं देख पाते। इतना ही नहीं? वरन् वे अपनी कल्पनाओं को जगत् पर थोपकर उसे सर्वथा विपरीत रूप में भी देखते हैं। वास्तव में? तमोगुणी लोग जगत् को मात्र अपने भोग का विषय ही मानते हैं। वे विश्व के अधिष्ठान परमात्मा की सर्वथा उपेक्षा करते हैं। मान और दम्भ के कारण उनका ज्ञान संकुचित होता है।सारांशत? द्वैतप्रपंच को देखते हुए उसके अद्वैत स्वरूप को पहचानना सात्त्विक ज्ञान है नामरूपमय सृष्टि के भेदों को ही देखना और उन्हें सत्य मानना राजस ज्ञान है और अपूर्ण को ही पूर्ण मानना तामस ज्ञान है।हमें इसका विस्मरण नहीं होना चाहिए कि पूर्वोक्त तथा आगे भी कथनीय त्रिविध वर्गीकरण का प्रयोजन अन्य लोगों के विश्लेषण के लिए न होकर? आत्मनिरीक्षण के लिए हैं। साधक को समयसमय पर स्वयं का मूल्यांकन करते रहना चाहिए।अब? कर्म की त्रिविधता का वर्णन करते हैं

There, by the three verses 'Sarvabhūteṣu' etc. (Verses 20-22), the three forms of the instrument of knowledge are stated. Therefore 'yena' (by which) is in instrumental case. By this much the nature of the general instrument of knowledge (or capacity) is stated. By the three verses 'Niyatam' etc. (Verses 23-25), the two (three?) kinds of Action — of the form of knowable effect; by the three verses 'Muktasaṅgaḥ' etc. (Verses 26-28), the nature of the two (three?) forms of Agent briefly; to explain the difference in nature of specific instruments, by the three verses 'Pravṛttim' etc. (30-32), the threefold nature of Intellect is described (implied). Through that, the threefold nature of other instruments is also implied.

Since the instrument requires procedure (Itikartavyata), and procedure consists of the pentad like fortitude etc., but since Faith (Shraddha) was stated before, and since desire to know and lack of desire to know are implied by fortitude and pleasure, their threefold nature is stated by 'Dhṛtyā yayā' [three verses (33-35)] and by 'Sukhaṃ tvidānīm' [three verses (36-39)].

He states that — from 'Sarvabhūteṣu' etc. up to 'Samudāhṛtam'. 'Vibhakteṣu' — as gods, men etc. 'Pṛthaktvena' — by the intellect 'here is my love, here is my hatred' etc. 'Ahetukam' — without considering the cause, merely by force of absorption in adherence, the grasping of anger, attachment etc., that is named Tamasic.

'Yattu'. The word 'tu' distinguishes it from Rajasic. While many effects of elements exist, in one effect — modification, elemental body or image etc. — 'ahaitukam' — devoid of reason or logic —

devoid of the inquiry 'when other effects of elements lack Self-hood, how does one such have Self-hood'; 'kṛtsnavat' — like the complete — attached — 'this much alone is Self or God, there is nothing beyond this' — adhering with such insistence;

like Digambaras' 'Self is with parts commensurate with body', like Charvakas' 'Body alone is Self', thus 'God is merely stone, wood etc.'; attached to one effect; because of being causeless indeed 'atattvārthavat' — not supported by real truth; 'alpaṃ ca' — and small — due to insisting on eternality and all-pervasiveness [in the transient/limited];

such knowledge of Charvakas etc. which is of the form of pride of Self in the transient limited body etc., distinct from the logician's knowledge grasping the eternal all-pervasive Self distinct from body and God distinct from that, that is declared Tamasic — by seers of such knowledge of Tamasic ordinary people.

He states Tamasic knowledge — 'Yattu'.

That which is in one effect — in a devotee or in a form of Lila — 'kṛtsnavat' — like the whole;

but not attached as the form of the Lord, the bliss of experience of the Lord manifested qualified by all Lila materials etc.; unattached; 'ahaitukam' — devoid of the reasoning of experience of bliss reminding of Him through the form of the Lord; 'atattvārthavat' — devoid of the manifestation of the Lord;

'alpam' — limited, by nature and by fruit; that knowledge is declared Tamasic — fruitless or of contrary fruit.

But that knowledge which is attached to one 'karya' (effect) -- the body or an external image etc. -- as if it were 'kritsnavat' (like the whole), as if it comprehended everything; thinking 'this much alone is the Self' or 'the Lord, there is nothing beyond this'; just as the naked Kshapanakas etc. hold that 'the Jiva is residing within the body and is of the size of the body'; or 'the Lord is merely stone, wood etc.'; thus attached to one effect.

'Ahaitukam' -- devoid of reason, illogical. 'Atattvarthavat' -- having a meaning that is not in accordance with reality (ayathabhuta); the meaning as it really is, is 'Tattvartha'; that (Tattvartha) constitutes its object of knowledge -- in this way it would be 'Tattvarthavat'; (but this is) not Tattvarthavat, hence 'Atattvarthavat'. And because of being illogical alone, it is 'Alpam ca' (trivial/small also); because of having a small object or because of yielding small fruit.

That is 'Tamasam udahritam' (said to be Tamasic). For indeed, such knowledge is seen in Tamasic creatures who are non-discriminating. Now, the threefold nature of action is stated --

'Yattu'. In one effect — duty to be done — which is of very little fruit in the form of worship of Pretas, Bhutas, Ganas etc., purposeless, attached as if having total fruit — that is Tamasic.

यत् which? तु but? कृत्स्नवत् as if it were the whole? एकस्मिन् one single? कार्ये to effect? सक्तम् attached? अहैतुकम् without reason? अतत्त्वार्थवत् without foundation in Truth? अल्पम् trivial? च and? तत् that?,तामसम् Tamasic (dark)? उदाहृतम् is declared.Commentary The knowledge which regards that each and every object or being exists by itself and is perfect by itself? is Tamasic.One single effect Such as the body? thinking it to be the Self? or an idol? taking it for God? and thinking that there is nothing higher than that.The naked Jains consider that the soul which dwells in the body is of the same size as that of the body. Some regard that Isvara is a mere piece of stone or wood. Such knowledge is really not based on reason. It does not see things in their true light. It is narrow (Alpam) as it is not founded on reason. It produces very small results too. It extends over a limited area and is not allcomprehensive. This knowledge is said to be Tamasic? as it is found in Tamasic persons who are devoid of the power of discrimination.

But tat, that knowledge; is udahrtam, said to be; tamasam, born of tamas; yat, which is; saktam, confined; ekasmin, to one; karye, from, to one body or to an external image etc., krtsnavat, as though it were all, as though it comprehended everything, thinking, 'The Self, or God, is only this much; there is nothing beyond it,'-as the naked Jainas hold that the soul conforms to and has the size of the body, or (as others hold) that God is merely a stone or wood-, remaining confined thus to one form; ahaitukam, which is irrational, bereft of logic; a-tattvarthavat, not concerned with truth-tattvartha, truth, means some-thing just as it is; that (knowledge) which has this (truth) as its object of comprehension is tattvarthavat; that without this is ; a-tattvarthavat-; and which, on account of the very fact of its being irrational, is alpam, trivial, because it is concerned with trifles or is productive of little result. This kind of knowledge is indeed found in non-discriminating creatures in whom tamas predominates.
Now is being stated the threehold division of action:

But that knowledge which clings to a 'single type of act' as what ought to be done, viz., act in the form of the worship of ghosts or evil spirits yielding very small fruits, as if it yielded all fruits; that work 'not founded on any reason for having attachment,' because it is not a source of all fruits; 'untrue' because it is based on a false view of things such as seeing differentiation in the nature of the Atman; 'insignificant', because the worship of ghosts and evil spirits yields poor results - for such reasons knowledge of this kind is declared to be Tamasika.
After having thus classified the threefold division of knowledge relating to work according to Gunas in respect of a person who is alified for work, Sri Krsna explains the triple division of the acts that ought to be done, according to Gunas.